How Jeb and the GOP Got Trumped

The establishment wanted a sweet ’16, not a 17-candidate pileup. Here’s what happened.

Jeb Bush, the man who would be frontrunner, was as surprised as anybody when Donald Trump jumped into the 2016 presidential race in June. His instinctive first reaction was to hold his tongue, and his advisers agreed the best option was to keep his distance from an interloper who wanted to drag him into a reality-show shouting match.

Bush stayed strategically silent even when Trump delivered his infamous crack that some Mexican immigrants were “rapists.” It wasn’t easy, considering Bush speaks nearly flawless Spanish, backs comprehensive immigration reform and is married to the former Columba Garnica de Gallo of Leon, Mexico.

Like everyone else, Bush soon found Trump impossible to ignore. When Trump reposted a nasty tweet a couple of weeks after his contentious announcement speech— “Bush has to like Mexican illegals because of his wife”—the former Florida governor was forced to respond. “You can love your Mexican-American wife,” he told one interviewer before telling another that Trump was “preying on people’s fears.”

The half-dozen conservative senators and governors who had planned to run before Bush brought out his shock-and-awe fundraising campaign, had to laugh: They viewed Bush himself as an intruder, a political semi-retiree who sat on the sidelines for eight years while they fought Barack Obama. Now it was Bush’s turn to rage at an outsider.

“Seriously, what’s this guy’s problem?” he asked one party donor he ran into recently according to accounts provided by several sources close to Bush—and he went on to describe the publicity seeking real estate developer now surging in public polls far ahead of Bush and all the 15 others in the Republican field as “a buffoon,” “clown” and “asshole.”

***

Whatever Bush wants to call Trump, the most accurate appellation heading into Thursday night’s first big Republican debate of the chaotic 2016 contest in Cleveland is the label that should have been Bush’s: “frontrunner.”

Bush may yet emerge as the party’s nominee, the third member of his family to claim the mantle, and his aides now claim Trump’s bloviating presence in a record-shattering field of 17 could be a blessing, allowing Bush to fly under the radar. But Trump’s rise has coincided Bush’s awkward return to the national stage, and he has proven to be gaffe-prone on the trail (Just this week he had to quickly walk back a statement that he wanted to de-fund “women’s health” programs, when he meant to say abortion services). The party’s conservative primary voters remain lukewarm and as importantly, he hasn’t scared rivals out of the race despite a massive $100 million-plus fundraising haul during his first few months in the race.

As much as anything, this is the story of 2016 so far. The proliferation of 17 candidates—a mob so big it needed to be subdivided into two separate debates—is a symptom of a deeper dynamic—the absence of a true frontrunner capable of uniting the party.

“The plan isn’t working,” conservative writer James Tobin wrote in Commentary magazine of Bush’s de facto entrance into the race in January. “[O]ther Republicans appear to be insufficiently shocked and awed.”

Trump is besting Bush so far, but it’s hardly a lock that this is anything more than summer fling. So far, The Donald has been immune from the backlash that typically kills mouth-driven campaigns—which is a good thing given his flip-flopping, amateur-hour staffing decisions, and relentless you’re-a-loser negativity, and the bad hair hidden under worse hats. But he shares a characteristic with all those lesser-known candidates who have also flooded into the 2016 race: He sees a vacuum at the top.

“You know, I thought about running in the past,” former New York Gov. George Pataki, the 8th candidate to announce his intention to run, told us. “I came close in 2012, but to be perfectly honest, Mitt Romney had been running for 6 years … it was pretty obvious that he had, if not a lock, a very, very strong hold on the Republican nomination.” 

Via: Politico

Continue Reading....

Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

From Obama’s pitch for his Iran deal today: Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those . . . 

(APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

Directly accusing your opponents of allying with wannabe-genocidal, anti-Semitic, authoritarian nutjobs. Very presidential, that’s the way to win ’em over.

Obama and Iran’s “Hardliners”

I’d like to add a few observations to Patrick’s astute post on President Obama’s insulting and troublingly detached-from-reality speech today on his indefensible Iran deal.

 In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran. 

The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing. (See also Mona’s column on this subject.) Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations. 

At the same time, Iran’s very “moderate” foreign minister Javad Zarif, who not only supports the deal but negotiated it, assured Iranians that the regime would “continue the arms supply policy” under which it supports Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli jihadists. The only difference is that, now, thanks to Obama’s deal, they will have an additional $100 billion-plus with which to materially support terrorism.

 So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans. 

The people who oppose this deal are the ones who effectively oppose Iran’s hardliners (rather than pretending to oppose while aiding and abetting them). The people who oppose this deal recognize that it will strengthen the hand of the tyrannical jihadist regime, enabling it to solidify its hold on power and continue persecuting the Iranian people who despise the regime. 

On that score, it is worth recalling that in 2009, when Iranian democracy activists rose up in protest and appeared poised to attempt overthrowing the hardliner regime, it was Obama – not Americans who oppose Obama’s Iran deal – who turned a deaf ear to them, even as the regime shot them dead in the streets. The president had his choice between cajoling Iranian hardliners and championing Iranians who yearn for a better relationship with the West … and he made it.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Voting Rights Act Used to Strike Down Texas Voter ID Law

Veasey celebrated the ruling as a victory for all Texas voters. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

On the eve of its 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates Section 2 of landmark civil rights legislation.

Texas Rep. Marc Veasey, the lead plaintiff in the original suit brought against the photo ID law, heralded the ruling as a victory for Lone Star minority voters.

“As a champion for voting rights, I am proud that with this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has taken the first steps towards ensuring that all Texans have unfettered access to the ballot box,” he said in a statement. 

Veasey, joined by the U.S. Justice Department and minority rights groups, had argued that the voter ID law first passed by the state’s GOP legislature in 2011 was intended to discriminate against minority voters. As such, the plaintiffs argued, it amounted to a poll tax.

The appeals court agreed with the district court that the law has had a “discriminatory effect,” which violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it disagreed with the lower court’s ruling that it was crafted with discriminatory intent and remanded it back to the lower court for further consideration.

It’s unclear what the fallout of the ruling will be at Texas polling places because the court did not suggest a remedy for its ruling. It remanded that question, too.

Because of its narrow ruling, the unanimous decision can’t be called a complete victory for the plaintiffs, University of California Irvine professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

“This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs. (Perhaps that was the price of a unanimous opinion?),” he wrote.

Despite its limited scope, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa cast the ruling as a win for Democrats. “Once again, the rule of law agrees with Democrats. The Republican voter ID law is discriminatory. Republicans made it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to cast their vote at the ballot box.”

Hinojosa is optimistic that further court consideration of the matter will end in Democrats’ favor.

“We remain confident that the courts will find justice for Texas voters and ultimately strike down this racist and discriminatory law.”

But Texas Republicans insist that a voter ID law is still necessary.

“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama’s Assploding Chutzpah Attack On His Critics: “They Have No Compunction About Being Repeatedly Wrong”…

Wait, isn’t he always wrong?

(Click image above for video)

“We can get a better deal. I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears. To magnify threats. To compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich. But none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002 and 2003. They shouldn’t now. (Applause)  The same mindset in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mindset out of step with the traditions of American foreign-policy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war, and debate matters of war and pieces in the cold light of truth.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

[VIDEO] Clinton’s Dark Money Hypocrisy

CLINTON BASHES DARK, UNACCOUNTABLE MONEY ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

Clinton: "[W]e've Got To Get All This Dark, Unaccountable Money Out Of Our Political System." CLINTON: "And we've got to get all this dark, unaccountable money out of our political system. This is really a problem with the Supreme Court because they've made two very bad decisions-The Buckley decision and The Citizens United Decision, so people say, what can you do about it? Well, first of all, we have to see everything we can possibly get done by law, we have to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will begin to reverse the pernicious effects of these decisions and, if necessary, we have to have a constitutional amendment because if we let this go too long, the corruption will be worse than the Robber Barons. Because, as it is right now, we have no enforcement of our election-our finance laws in Washington because the Federal Elections Commission is divided 3 Republicans 3 Democrats and so they can't make a decision. The Republicans are pushing up against the line, if not going over the line. Basically using their so-called Super PACs to be part of their campaign. And then you've got these phony non-profits, that are advocating for candidates and they don't even have to tell you where the money's from." (Hillary Clinton, Speech At House Party, Ottumwa, IA, 7/7/15)

Click Here To Watch

However, Clinton's Super PAC Accepted A "Seven-Figure Check" From A "Pair Of Dark Money Groups"

A Super PAC, "Financed By A Pair Of Dark Money Groups Wrote A Seven-Figure Check To Hillary Clinton's Super PAC In June, Infusing A Key Pro-Clinton Outfit With Money Whose Sources Are Virtually Untraceable." "A Democrat-aligned super PAC financed by a pair of dark money groups wrote a seven-figure check to Hillary Clinton's super PAC in June, infusing a key pro-Clinton outfit with money whose sources are virtually untraceable." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

• The Washington Free Beacon Headline: "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC"(Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

The Democratic Super PAC, "Fair Share Action (FSA) Donated $1 Million To Pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA Action In Late June…" "Fair Share Action (FSA) donated $1 million to pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action in late June, one of eight million-dollar contributions the pro-Clinton group has received so far this year from various sources." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC,"The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

• "FSA Also Gave $5,000 To Another Pro-Clinton Super PAC In April." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

"The Source Of FSA's Money Is Nearly Impossible To Trace." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

FSA Has Only Received Two Contributions This Year, Both From Dark Money Groups, Including Fair Share, Inc. And Environment America. "It's received just two contributions this year: $300,000 from Fair Share Inc., its 501(c)(4) dark money affiliate, and $800,000 from another dark money group called Environment America." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

• "Neither Environment America Nor Fair Share Disclose Their Individual Donors, Making It Difficult To Know Who Exactly Is Bankrolling Their Large Contributions To Priorities." (Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)
• "Neither Organization Returned A Request For Information On Their Finances."(Lachlan Markay, "Dark Money Floods Into Hillary Super PAC," The Washington Free Beacon, 8/4/15)

Via: Republican National Committee

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Donald Trump: ‘I Pay as Little as Possible’ Because ‘I Hate the Way Our Government Spends Our Taxes’

(CNSNews.com) - GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he tries to pay as little taxes as possible, not just because he’s a businessman, but because he doesn’t like what the U.S. does with the taxpayers’ money.

“I have said this many times, so it is not exactly breaking news. I pay as little as possible. I fight like hell to pay as little as possible, for two reasons. Number one, I am a businessman, and that's the way you are supposed to do it, and you put the money back in your company and employees and all of that, but the other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes,” said Trump when asked what percentage of income he pays in taxes.

 

“I hate the way they waste our money, trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse, and I hate it,” said Trump.

According to Trump’s campaign, his personal fortune is set at $10 billion, and his annual income is estimated to be $362 million.

“I will be probably the first candidate in the history of politics within this country to say, I try and -- like every -- by the way, like every single taxpayer out there, I try to pay as little tax as possible, and, again, one of the big reasons is, I hate what our country does with the money that we pay,” he added.

Trump told “Face the Nation” host John Dickerson that he might release his tax returns around the time that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton releases her e-mails.

“I may tie it to a release of Hillary's e-mails. I may very well do that,” Trump said. “Now, I have a very big company. They all said I wouldn't release my financials, and then I released them, and they were far bigger than anybody thought. They said I wouldn't release them because his company may be or his success may be -- isn't as big.

“Well, it turned out that it is far bigger, and I released them, and we will see what I am going to do with tax returns. I have no major problem with it, but I may tie them to a release of Hillary's e- mails,” he added.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Chuck Todd Lectures Ben Carson Over ‘Black Lives Matter’ Movement

In an interview with Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, host Chuck Todd demanded to know why the GOP contender had been critical of the left-wing “Black Lives Matter” movement: “...you were also, in an earlier interview this week, asked about the Black Lives Matter movement. And you called it ‘silly.’ Why did you call it silly?”

 Carson explained how Todd had taken his words completely out of context: “I don't recall calling it ‘silly,’ but what I called silly is political correctness going amuck. That's what's silly....I guess it was Martin O'Malley who said, you know, ‘black lives matter, white lives matter,’ he got in trouble for that and had to apologize. That's what – that's what I'm talking about is silly. Of course all lives matter.” - 

Carson added: “You know, for a young black man, the most likely cause of death is homicide. That is a huge problem that we need to address in a very serious way.”

Todd proceeded to parrot the liberal movement’s talking points:

Well, and that is what the Black Lives Matter movement is doing and why they criticize politicians for saying all lives matter because their point is, until – that there is inequality here. That particularly – you brought up African-American men and that overall stat – but think about the issue of police custody, that an African-American is more likely to die in police custody than any other race or ethnicity.

Carson pushed back: “Yeah, but, again, I think we need to look at the whole picture. One of the things that I always like to point out to people is, how about we just remove the police for 24 hours? Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue?...We need to be a little more mature...”

Wrapping up the interview minutes later, Todd plucked out a question from social media: “Alright, I'm going to close here with a question from a Facebook poster. And this one came from Victor Roush. Simple question, ‘Does the Bible have authority over the Constitution?’”

Carson replied: “He said that's a simple question? That is not a simple question by any stretch of the imagination.”

Todd rephrased: “A simply worded question, how's that?”

Carson observed: “I think probably what you have to do is ask a very specific question about a specific passage of the Bible and a specific portion of the Constitution. I don't think you can answer that question other than out of very specific context.”

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

Charles Koch calls for an end to 'corporate welfare'

The Koch conspiracy theorists are having a field day this weekend, as the bi-annual confab of Koch brothers donors got underway on Saturday. 

In addition to about 450 contributores, no less than 5 GOP presidential candidates will make an appearance through Sunday.Saturday featured "auditions" by two prominent White House hopefuls Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina. Jeb Bush will address the gathering today.

In his opening remarks, Charles Koch called for an end to "corporate welfare," specifically targetiing the big banks.

Wall Street Journal:

The press-shy 79-year-old chief executive of Koch Industries took the nation’s biggest banks to task for accepting “massive bailouts” and cheap loans from the Federal Reserve in return for the federal government wielding increased influence over how they run their businesses.

The comments came at a cocktail reception kicking off the latest gathering of wealthy conservatives assembled by Mr. Koch and his brother David. In brief remarks welcoming donors to the event at the St. Regis Monarch Beach resort, Charles Koch challenged the assembled business leaders to encourage other corporate chieftains to “start opposing rather than promoting corporate welfare.” 

[...]

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of the Republican White House contenders invited to appear, presented himself as the only candidate in the GOP field with a record of both fighting for conservative principles and winning those battles. He questioned why Republican majorities in Congress couldn’t repeal the 2010 health law or the Dodd-Frank financial-market reforms, a not-so-veiled shot at the senators in the race. 

But on other occasions, Mr. Walker sidestepped opportunities to take direct shots at two top rivals, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and real-estate developer Donald Trump.“You’re not going to hear me belittle any other Republicans,” he said, before restating his criticism of Mr. Trump for questioning the war record of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who spent more than five years in a Vietnamese prison camp.l 

Former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, the other 2016 contender to appear at the event Saturday, was much more assertive in her critique of Mr. Bush, questioning whether the son and brother of former presidents is the best candidate in the field to reform Washington. “Why do you think you’re the Bush who can change that?” she said, when asked what question she would pose to the former Florida governor, who will make an appearance on Sunday. 

The big banks give generously to both parties, in order to ensure they can keep their perks and advantages. But change is in the wind. The Republican who emerges as the nominee will almost certainly souind a more populist note when it comes to Wall Street and the big banks. Market friendly reforms could become an issue in the campaign as Democrats will seek to demonize Wall Street (while grasping for as much campaign cash as they can"). 

But Fiorina highlights the big question that should concern GOP primary voters; how can Jeb Bush be a credible candidate for "change"? He may end up raising more money than anyone else, but his policies reek of the Washington establishment and, in many cases, are in direct opposition to what the conservative mainstream believes. Right now, his poll numbers reflect his name recognition. But it should be interesting to see where he stands after the first debate when every other candidate attacks him for some of his more problematic proposals.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] Republicans are embracing many versions of Reaganism

The Republican Party has a bigger problem than Donald Trump: It hasn’t figured out what it wants to be.

GOP candidates still worship the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and cast themselves as Reagan’s heirs; there’s hardly a GOP stump speech in Iowa or New Hampshire that doesn’t invoke the 40th president’s name. “Every Republican likes to think he or she is the next Ronald Reagan,” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul noted last year.

But there’s little consensus among conservatives about what Reaganism means in 2015 beyond the basic principles of small government and lower taxes.

When Reagan arrived in the White House 34 years ago, the top federal tax rate was 70 percent and the economy was crippled by inflation and recession. Now the top tax rate is below 40 percent and the main economic problem is stagnant middle class incomes.

What Would Ronnie Do? The candidates can’t agree.

“The core of the Republican debate is over what Reaganism means today,” said Henry Olsen, a conservative scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. “And the major candidates are giving quite different answers.”

Confusingly, each of the leading candidates can claim to represent at least one facet of their favorite modern president.

Jeb Bush is campaigning as Reagan the conciliator, an optimistic conservative who reached out to nonbelievers. But his measured tone — and his last name — have reduced his appeal to the right-wing base.

“There’s an element of anger among many conservatives that wasn’t present 15 years ago, but Bush seems to find it incomprehensible,” Olsen said.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is campaigning as Reagan the innovator; he’s done more than any other candidate to roll out new proposals, including a tax reform plan (co-written with Sen. Mike Lee of Utah) that would lower taxes for families with children. But that’s landed him in trouble with those who think the Gipper would have wanted to cut tax rates deeply instead; the Wall Street Journal editorial page condemned Rubio’s idea as “redistribution.”

Wisconsin’s Scott Walker is campaigning as Reagan the combative governor, an outsider who made his state government smaller. He’s likened his fight with public employee unions to Reagan’s decision to break the federal air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981.

And Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is campaigning as Reagan the ideologue, a conservative who — unlike the real Reagan — disdains the idea of compromise even in his own party. (He’s proposed a flat tax, which would lower rates on the affluent but raise them on lower-income taxpayers.) “Nobody quotes Reagan more and understands him less,” Olsen jibed.

There are more candidates — from the relatively moderate Ohio Gov. John Kasich to the libertarian Paul to the social conservative Rick Santorum — who also consider themselves Reaganites. And they might all be right. Reagan’s White House included conservatives of many different stripes, from the pugnacious Patrick J. Buchanan to the pragmatic James A. Baker III.

So when Republicans vote in primaries and caucuses next year, they’ll be choosing one version of Reaganism over another, but that may not be the most important choice they make.

Equally important will be the temperament of the candidate they pick, especially his or her ability to reknit a fractious party back together.

There’s nothing wrong with vigorous intra-party debate, of course. But today’s GOP is fragmented into at least five factions: libertarians, social conservatives, tea party conservatives, establishment conservatives and moderate conservatives. And that could make the process of unifying the party around a nominee longer and more difficult than it has been in the past.

When Reagan ran in 1980, there were only seven candidates in the race; this year there are 16. And many of them have access to seemingly endless supplies of money, which means they won’t feel much pressure to drop out even if they fare badly.

If Republicans are lucky, the winner will be a candidate who not only updates Reagan’s message, but also shares his ability to unify his party and broaden its appeal. That, too — not just the ability to communicate a conservative ideology — was Reagan’s political genius.

Editorial by The Los Angeles Times

Via: Hays Daily News

Continue Reading....

Guess Who? 42 Celebrities Who Support Planned Parenthood

It’s not surprising that the majority of actors and actresses in Hollywood are liberals. But the number of celebrities who go out of their way to support abortion rights and, in particular, Planned Parenthood, through PSAs, speaking engagements and financial donations is shocking. Here are 42 celebrities who have publicly supported the abortion giant.

Celebrities Know What's Good for Women -- Just Let Them Tell You

Many celebrities have starred in sanctimonious public service announcements for the abortion giant.

Actress Scarlett Johansson starred in this 2011 PSA, where she called a bill to defund Planned Parenthood “disastrous.”

Before the 2012 election, actors Kevin Bacon, Kyra Sedgwick, Audra McDonald, Lisa Kudrow, Meryl Streep, Tea Leoni and Billy Crudup appeared in a video series for “reproductive rights” attacking the GOP. It was heavily promoted by Planned Parenthood.

On its website, Planned Parenthood lists Johansson, Rachel Bilson, Gabrielle Union, Julianne Moore, Dana Delany, Amber Tamblyn, David Eigenberg, Alan Cummings and Jason Alexander as “just a few” of the celebrities who support Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood’s Marketing Team?

Actress Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights, Nashville) made headlines in 2013 for partnering with Planned Parenthood to create T-shirts in support of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights in Texas.

Lena Dunham did the same in 2014, when she designed a shirt with Planned Parenthood to promote both the group and her new book. She shared images of her famous friends wearing the shirt, including Jemima Kirke (Girls), Rashida Jones (Parks and Recreation), Retta (Parks and Recreation), America Ferrera, Janet Mock, singer Sara Bareilles, and Ellen Page.  

Scarlett Johansson also designed a shirt for Planned Parenthood in 2014.

Actress Kate Walsh (Private Practice, Grey’s Anatomy) also sits on the board of Planned Parenthood, according to their site. She bribed her fans to send money to Planned Parenthood in exchange for an autographed DVD set.

A self-described life-long supporter of Planned Parenthood, actress Maggie Gyllenhaal promoted the group through a letter she wrote for Glamour magazine in 2012. She wrote that it was “chilling to think of this resource [Planned Parenthood] being taken away.”

Social Justice Warriors

But that’s not the only way celebrities propagandized the public. Some stars used their social media platforms to advocate for abortion and bully pro-lifers.

One of those people is Lucas Neff, star of Fox’s Raising Hope, who is particularly nasty to pro-lifers on his Twitter account.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

Time for the GOP to Crap or Get Off the Pot

 Anyone who has known me for longer than about 30 minutes knows that I am a Boston Red Sox fan. After the collapse in the 1986 World Series, that experience was, for about 15 years, an unmitigated experience of misery and the addition of reasons for Red Sox fans to nurse their massive inferiority complex with respect to the New York Yankees. However, beginning in the late 90s, Sox ownership began once again to make an earnest effort to field a winning team, and Sox fans were once again treated to meaningful baseball in September – even if we still inevitably finished behind the Yankees and then were (usually) eliminated by them in the playoffs.

2003 was the first year Sox fans had reasons to believe that things might be different. Position for position, it was the first year since the mid-80s that the Sox had fielded a team that stacked up more or less equally with the Hated Yankees. During this season, the Sox were managed by an affable fellow named Grady Little. Grady was well liked (maybe even loved) by his players, who credited him with creating a loose atmosphere in the clubhouse and making Boston a place where good players wanted to play. During the two years Grady managed the team, the Sox won a nearly unprecedented (in recent history) 188 games.

That year, of course, the Sox and the Hated Yankees met in the American League Championship Series, an epic affair that came down to a decisive Game 7 with Pedro Martinez on the mound for the Sox. The Sox had a 2-run lead going into the 7th inning, but a truly epic series of strategic blunders by Grady Little (I won’t recount them here) frittered the lead away and the Yankees once again emerged victorious. It is one of the few times in modern history that a manager has decisively cost his team an important game.

In the offseason, the “smart set” sports commentators opined that it would be crazy for the Sox to fire Grady Little even after his ignominious performance in the most significant game in recent Sox history. They wrote, quite reasonably, that Grady had brought the Sox to heights unheard of since the heady days of 1986 and that ownership should just show patience and expect the fans to be thankful that the margin between the Sox and Yankees was smaller than it had been in recent memory.

Thankfully, Sox ownership ignored all this eminently sensible advice and Grady was not invited for a return for the 2004 season. By doing so, a clear message was sent to applicants for the job of Sox manager: there comes a point, and the point is now, that giving it the old college try and coming in a close second is not enough. After having spent millions of dollars and countless effort building a team that had the promise and ability to beat the Yankees, they expected this team to actually, you know, beat the Yankees. The rest, of course, is history, as the last 11 years have arguably been the most successful in Sox history (the disastrous current season notwithstanding), including a victory in 2004 over the Hated Yankees in the ALCS and their first World Series title in decades.

So, this little baseball historical aside, let’s talk politics for a minute.

Every two years, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I bring myself to take a couple hours off of work, brave traffic going in the wrong direction, stand in long lines, and vote. With the exception of a single vote cast for Marion Berry (the pro-life former Democrat Congressman from Arkansas, not the crack smoking former mayor of DC) back in 2002 or so, I have voted every single time for every Republican on the ticket.

Like most Republican voters, I’ve had mounting frustrations with failed promises on the part of the GOP since the much ballyhooed Gingrich revolution in 1994. However, my pragmatism has always gotten the better of my frustration and I have always reasoned with myself that, however feckless and impotent the Republicans were, they were better than the Democrats. At least the Republicans did not have legalized infanticide up until the date of delivery enshrined in their party platform, I always reasoned with myself.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

New Bill Would Guarantee Secret Ballot For Workers

Republicans are pushing for legislation that could fundamentally shift American labor law away from hereditary and coercive unionism.

On Monday, GOP lawmakers in the house and Senate introduced the Employee Rights Act, a bill that would guarantee secret ballot union elections. It also allows workers to hold regular re-certification to see whether unions still enjoy support from members, a stark change from the status quo in which unions inherit members unless employees successfully follow onerous decertification procedures.

Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) introduced the legislation in Congress with the hope that it will return the focus of labor law to individual workers, rather than businesses and unions.

“Whether it be the right to secret ballots on union elections, an opt-in requirement for union dues be used for political donations, or protection of union coercion or threats – this bill puts the power back to the individual to allow them to use their own conscience in workplace decisions,” Price said at a Monday press conference.

Workers are not always given the opportunity to take an up-or-down vote on unionization. Karen Cox, an employee at Americold Logistics in Rochelle, Ill., has been fighting to decertify the Retailers Union since it used card check procedure to unionize her and about 100 co-workers. She has since petitioned the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union elections, with about 40 other colleagues for a secret ballot election. The agency denied two of those efforts before granting an election. A union appeal led local NLRB officials to throw out the ballots before releasing the result, according to Cox.

“We all thought we were going to have an election, make an informed decision for or against, but they snuck their way in and bypassed a secret ballot election,” she said.  “I totally believe they [the NLRB] were working in the union’s interest over workers.”

Cox said politicians should understand that the status quo of labor relations has drifted away from the worker.

“I think it’s important for [lawmakers] to know that I’m just exercising my rights, and I still face an uphill battle with the NLRB,” she said.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

EXCLUSIVE: CONSERVATIVE TALK RADIO HOSTS WEIGH IN ON GOP DEBATE CRITERIA

Breitbart News reached out to leading conservative talk radio hosts to find out what exactly their listeners are saying about the upcoming GOP primary presidential debate, which will feature the top 10 candidates on the debate stage while the other six candidates will have a secondary event.

Fox News and Facebook are hosting the first GOP primary presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on August 6th, but in order to accommodate the 16 official GOP candidates, Fox News set out debate criteria in order for the candidates to make the debate stage that evening. One of the requirements is that the GOP candidates who make the top ten out of an average of five national polls will make the debate stage where Fox News will moderate and air the event. The others will participate in a secondary forum.

Conservative radio host Bill Bennett spoke exclusively to Breitbart News about how his listeners are responding to the debate criteria where, as it stands now, the only Indian-American Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and the only GOP female candidate Carly Fiorina are on the cusp of making the cut.

“I would say that most of my audience would prefer to have all the GOP candidates on one stage, at least for the first debate. They don’t think we should be excluding certain candidates this early in the primary. I agree with them,” Bennett told Breitbart News. “At least for the first debate or two, we should give all the candidates a chance to make their case before a national audience. If we do, I think the debate should be at least two hours long.”

Bennett highlighted the time constraint issue.

“Lincoln and Douglas went for more than three hours and there were only two of them. I do applaud the RNC though for shortening the total number of debates. We can’t have an extended primary debate season like we had in 2012 where we start to bleed our candidates dry,” Bennett added.

Radio host Howie Carr also spoke to Breitbart News about the debate criteria.

Carr, host of the “Howie Carr Show,” is broadcasted on at least seven New Hampshire stations and is also aired on roughly 25 stations across the northeast, so he has a wide range of listeners who have weighed in on the debate requirements.

“Awhile back, I anticipated that as crunch time arrived for the Fox debate, the candidates who didn’t seem to be making the cut would start complaining,” Carr told Breitbart News. “So for a couple of months now, I’ve been asking the candidates on the fringe how they felt about maybe not making the cut.”

Carr stated that both Fiorina and Jindal have said they plan to abide by the rules.

“I believe Carly actually said the last time we had her on was that she had learned a long time ago to worry about things you can change, not events you can’t change,” Carr recalled. “She also said she was confident everything would work out.”

“My listeners, as far as I can tell, like both of them a lot. About Jindal, I’ve heard more than once, ‘He’s so smart and articulate, it’s too bad he doesn’t have a chance,’” Carr stated. “I think my listeners, like me, are sorry they’re not making the cut but… 10 is too many for a debate. Hell, in 2012, six were too many.”

Carr added that too many candidates during a time-limited debate would take away from the top contenders.

“I’ll tell you who didn’t get a good response last week: Rick Santorum, when he called for two debates, drawing straws for placement, odds-evens, etc. People were texting in, ‘Go home Rick’ and ‘Can’t this guy get a job?’ and ‘This guy hurt Romney more at the end than Obama did.’ It sounds like sour grapes to complain about being excluded,” Carr recalled.

On the issue of the only GOP female candidate and only GOP Indian-American candidate possibly not making the stage, he added, “I don’t think ‘diversity’ is a big issue here. Carson’s in, so are the two ‘Hispanic’ senators.”

He said all the candidates have been to New Hampshire numerous times, concluding, “To the victor belongs the spoils.”

Conservative talk radio host Lars Larson of the “Lars Larson Show” agreed with Carr on the issue of time.

“I would love to see all of them in there, the only problem is—the reaction I get from my audience and my reaction personally—is… if the total length of the debate is only say 90 minutes, then you’re down to four to five minutes per candidate,” Larson explained to Breitbart News.

He added that in those four to five minutes, there must also be time for asking questions, which leads to “everybody gets a tiny little taste that’s only a little bit longer than a campaign commercial to hear each candidate on each subject.”

Because of the issue of time, Larson understands the criteria cut off, adding it shouldn’t be changed to accommodate race or gender of particular candidates.

“I understand why they have to put the limits on,” Larson concluded.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....