COULD TED CRUZ END UP AS THE ESTABLISHMENT CANDIDATE?

Have you looked inside the latest CNN poll? You’ll find a very interesting number — namely, that Jeb Bush’s approval-disapproval numbers sit at a devastating 35-57.

That doesn’t look like the inevitability we’ve been sold by his surrogates, does it?

What seems quite apparent so far is the GOP establishment, and the Chamber of Commerce crowd who forced Mitt Romney down the throats of an unenthusiastic Republican electorate four years ago, cannot produce a nominee in this cycle. Each poll which gives a majority of the vote to candidates of some stripe of insurgency — Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul — makes that clear.

And while the establishment is in poor enough odor, its problems are magnified by the awful performance of candidates acceptable to it. Bush has made one inexplicable gaffe after another amid a campaign seemingly designed to alienate Republican voters in hopes of attracting Democrats and independents. Scott Walker has managed to couple a stellar record of governance with a stunningly vacant message; his campaign advisors are guilty of pronounced malpractice. John Kasich coupled religious sanctimony on Medicaid expansion with #BlackLivesMatter pandering on the way to five percent in the polls, and this has been characterized as success. Chris Christie appears destined to be out of the race by Labor Day. And Marco Rubio, despite a terrific performance at the debate in Cleveland, simply has not been able to generate any traction.

In a 17-person field, what’s most important is survival. One must demonstrate the ability to stay relevant from one news cycle to the next regardless of what the latest poll says, and one must be able to do so without running out of money. In a field so diffuse, generating lasting momentum is nearly impossible — particularly amid the phenomenon of Trump’s stealing the oxygen from the room.

Who has the funds for real staying power? Obviously Trump does — he’s able to self-finance a campaign and as the front-runner, his fundraising will come easy. And certainly Bush has ample resources for a war of attrition, though his donor base so far is relatively small and mostly limited to the same people who bankrolled his father and brother. But beyond Trump and Bush, the most well-heeled candidate in the race is Ted Cruz — with a wide donor base and a sizable war chest for the long haul.

Here’s a theory to ponder: after the first round of dropouts, in which Rick Perry’s impending demise is joined by several others — Christie, George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, perhaps Bobby Jindal — the likely beneficiary will be the candidate best suited to pull their voters.

And for many, that could be Cruz. Cruz has regional strength in Texas and Louisiana, which could translate into his picking up Perry and Jindal supporters. Despite his clashes with Graham in the Senate, Cruz’ calls for a muscular foreign policy could appeal to the several dozen supporters the South Carolinian has amassed. Those of Christie’s supporters who came to him for his combative style might look to Cruz rather than Trump.

And then after the second round of dropouts, Cruz could gain even more support. Particularly should Paul leave the race; if he isn’t gaining ground, at some point he’s going to have to consider whether his smartest play won’t be to return to Kentucky to defend his Senate seat, and Cruz is a friend and partner in many cases (though for Paul so is Mitch McConnell, which makes for an interesting conflict). Should Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum drop out, none of the others has put in more work to attract the social conservatives they represent than Cruz.

By this point, we might be close to the March 1 “Super Tuesday” primaries, most of which will take place in Deep South states where Cruz has trained his focus toward developing strength. He’s been outshone by Trump in most of them to date, but Cruz is building more organization in those states than any other candidate.

We could see a situation where Trump is ahead on the strength of his performance in the early states and still leads in the polls, though he might have commenced fading in the face of the various challenges befalling a presidential candidate and the terror gripping the party of having to nominate a bull-in-a-China-shop like the real estate magnate has not subsided. But while the establishment might believe Trump is beatable, they could be without candidates to beat him.

And at that juncture, the unthinkable might become inevitable; namely, that the RINO/Chamber of Commerce GOP establishment might well see Ted Cruz as their only hope to stop Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination.

Rubio and Walker were supposed to be the “fusion” candidates in the race. They were supposed to be the campaigns capable of bridging the gap between the establishment and the Tea Party. Cruz was supposed to be an impossibility because he’s too conservative. But as the race has developed, the GOP electorate is even more anti-establishment and hard-core conservative than anyone expected, and that’s why non-politicians who are unafraid to use what the mainstream media calls “divisive” rhetoric have prospered. It turns out that a little “divisive” rhetoric is actually interesting to the voters. Cruz has been happy to let fly with pointed discussions of serious issues all along, and he’s putting himself in position to be more than acceptable to Trump’s and Carson’s voters should they fail to secure the nomination.

The continued self-destruction of Hillary Clinton, and the inability of the Democrats to find a plausible alternative amid a devastated bench, only makes the moderate/establishment narrative less compelling. The weaker Clinton and the Democrats look, the more tempting it will be to nominate the most conservative candidate possible. The opportunity could be that good to undo the damage of the Obama years.

I’m not making the case that Cruz is the man to unite the Republican Party’s warring clans…yet. What I am saying is, as Al Hunt noticed earlier this week, Cruz is positioning himself very strategically. And if the anti-establishment sentiment among the voters on the GOP side continues alongside sluggish performances by Bush and the other moderates, it’s not impossible that he could have the RINO crowd begging him to save them from Trump.

Via: The American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

Uber's cheapest service significantly lowers drunken driving deaths in California, study finds

Ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft have new ammunition in their fight to operate in cities around the world -- a study that concludes they could save thousands of lives.

The upstart services have battled the organized taxi lobby and politicians for entry into new markets around the world, but have made their case based on claims that they create jobs and provide competition that benefits consumers. Now, Temple University researchers have released a study that shows the entry of Uber into markets in California between 2009 and 2014 tracks a drop of as high as 5.6 percent in drunken-driving deaths. 

"We looked at the entire state of California from 2009 to 2014," Sunil Wattal, who co-authored the study with fellow researcher Brad Greenwood, told FoxNews.com. "We wanted to demonstrate in a quantitative and robust manner the impact Uber has on drunk driving.

"We found that UberX actually reduced drunk-driving related fatalities," Wattal added.

"We found that UberX actually reduced drunk-driving related fatalities."

- Sunil Wattal, Temple University

Using data from the California Highway Commission, the researchers found that UberX, the company's least expensive service, significantly reduced the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle deaths throughout the state -- with the greatest impact in the larger cities.

He noted, however, that no such link was found with Uber Black, the company's highest priced service, consisting of commercially registered and insured livery vehicles -- typically a black SUV or luxury sedan with a significant markup over traditional taxicabs.

The researchers theorized that the Uber Black's higher cost and lower accessibility might explain why it does not provide the same benefit as the no-frills version of Uber.

"Economically, results indicate that the entrance of Uber X results in a 3.6 percent to 5.6 percent decrease in the rate of motor vehicle homicides per quarter in the state of California," the two concluded. "With more than 1,000 deaths occurring in California due to alcohol-related car crashes every year, this represents a substantial opportunity to improve public welfare and save lives."

Matt McKenna, an Uber spokesman, said the Temple University study only bolsters similar data previously collected by Uber and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the nation’s largest nonprofit working to protect people from drunken driving and underage drinking.

"The results of this study complement research we released earlier this year with MADD that showed that the introduction of reliable and affordable transportation options like Uber are having a meaningful impact on the rates of drunk driving crashes in California," McKenna told FoxNews.com Tuesday.

Uber and MADD studied the service's impact in several major U.S. cities. Their report found that in Miami, for instance, Uber ridership peaks at the same time as historical drunken-driving related crashes. In Seattle, Uber's entry into the market was associated with a 10 percent decrease in DUI arrests, according to the report, and in Pittsburgh, the demand for Uber spikes right around the times bars close. The report also looked at traditional taxi services, claiming that taxi supply in Austin decreases when people most want rides, and when DUI arrests are most common.

Taxi cab associations, however, take issue with the study that is being used to bolster support for Uber -- claiming traditional taxi services have long helped to reduce drunken driving, while also adhering to important safety procedures.

"UberX is absolutely their most controversial product," said Dave Sutton of the group, "Who's Driving You?" -- a public safety campaign formed on behalf of the Taxi, Limousine & Paratransit Association (TLPA).

"It’s been roundly criticized for its lack of insurance and lack of rigorous criminal background checks on drivers," Sutton said of UberX.

"It should be obvious to all involved that Uber is a taxi service, and taxi service is an extension of public transportation," he told FoxNews.com. "If you have passengers relying on this service to avoid dangerous activity, such as drunk driving, then the service itself should be adhering to the best safety practices and UberX is not."

To use Uber, passengers must first create an account with the service through the app on their iPhone or Android device -- which includes the customer's name, mobile number, email, language and billing information. After logging in with a username and password, the passenger selects his or her vehicle preference -- for instance, a black car, which can seat up to four people, or an SUV, which can seat up to six. The customer then marks the pick-up location on a map with a pin and the driver uses the phone holder's coordinates to arrive at the location. The cost of the ride depends on the time and distance. During certain peak times -- like New Year's Eve -- Uber enacts what it calls "surge pricing."

"The ease of Uber is just amazing," said Colleen Sheehey-Church, president of MADD, who praised the technology of the ride-sharing service and said the Temple University study "backs up everything we have already said."

"The study does show that easier and cheaper options will have an impact," Sheehey-Church told FoxNews.com. "We’re looking to change behavior and when a person has thought about it in advance, if they have easy access with a smartphone to do one click, it's the best thing for them to do to get home safely."

Sheehey-Church, whose teenage son was killed at the hands of a drunk and drugged driver, said she also advocates traditional taxi services as well as public transportation. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

Four Big Problems with the Obama Administration’s Climate Change Regulations

A few years ago, cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions failed to reach President Barack Obama’s desk because constituents gave their Members an earful that cap and trade would amount to a massive energy tax. When the bill died in Congress, President Obama said that there was more than “one way of skinning a cat,” and here it is.[1]

The Obama Administration has finalized its climate regulations known as the Clean Power Plan. There are plenty of details to uncover in the 1,560-page regulation,[2] the 755-page federal implementation plan,[3] and the 343-page regulatory impact analysis.[4] To summarize, unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are poised to do what America’s elected representatives refused: impose higher energy costs on American families and businesses for meaningless climate benefits.

The following are four early observations that should cause Members of Congress, state politicians, and the general public concern.

1. Higher Energy Prices, Lost Jobs, Weaker Economy

When running for office in 2008, President Obama famously remarked, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”[5] Although that plan ultimately failed to become law, the White House tasked the EPA with creating the regulatory equivalent, placing strict greenhouse gas emissions limits on new power plants and drastic cuts on existing plants. The plan includes greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for each state except for Vermont, Alaska, and Hawaii in hopes of reducing overall power plant emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

The regulations will drastically shift the energy economy away from coal, which provides approximately 40 percent of America’s electricity.[6] Restricting the use of that affordable, reliable energy supply will raise electricity rates, and those higher prices will reverberate through the economy. Businesses will pass higher costs onto consumers, but if a company must absorb the higher costs, it will invest less and expand less. The combination of reduced production and consumption will result in fewer jobs and a weaker economy.[7]

Despite candidate Barack Obama’s admission that cap and trade will raise prices, the Administration is attempting to spin the regulations as a win for the economy. Proponents of the Clean Power Plan argue that as energy prices increase, families and businesses will invest in more energy-efficient products and innovative technologies that will save them money in the long run. Arguing that increasing energy prices with regulations will save money by forcing energy-efficient product purchases is equivalent to cutting employees’ salaries and telling them that they will save money by shopping at Target. Just as the option to save money at Target existed before the pay cut, families and businesses already have an incentive to purchase energy-efficient products. When the government mandates efficiency, it removes that choice and makes consumers worse off.

2. No Climate Benefit, Exaggerated Environmental Benefits

The climate impact of the Clean Power Plan will be meaningless. According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger, “Even if we implement the Clean Power Plan to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 C. This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant.”[8] Climatologist James Hansen, who wants the Administration to do much more to combat climate change, has stated that “the actions are practically worthless.”[9]

The monetized climate benefits the Administration is touting are equally worthless. The EPA says the rule will provide $34 billion to $54 billion in annual environmental benefits after 2030. Yet these numbers are misleading for two reasons.

Social Cost of Carbon. First, the Administration uses “the social cost of carbon” to calculate the climate benefit. The EPA is using three statistical models, known as integrated assessment models, to estimate the value of the social cost of carbon, which is defined as the economic damage that one ton of carbon dioxide emitted today will cause over the next 300 years. The EPA uses the average of the three models to estimate the social cost imposed by climate change—$40 in 2015 and $56 in 2030. However, the models arbitrarily derive a value for the social cost of carbon.[10] Subjecting the models to reasonable inputs for climate sensitivity and discount rates dramatically lowers the figure for the social cost of carbon.

People generally prefer benefits earlier instead of later and costs later instead of earlier. Hence, it is necessary to normalize costs and benefits to a common time. For example, if a 7 percent discount rate makes people indifferent to a benefit now versus a benefit later (e.g., $100 today versus $107 a year from now), then 7 percent is the appropriate discount rate to use. The Administration’s own analysis shows how sensitive the social cost of carbon is to the discount rate.[11] When changed from a 3 percent discount rate to a 5 percent discount rate, the EPA’s $20 billion in projected climate benefits decreases to $6.4 billion—less than the EPA’s egregiously low projection of $8.4 billion in compliance costs.

Co-benefits. The second problem is the EPA’s use of co-benefits in inflating the benefits. The EPA exaggerates the environmental benefits by including the estimated benefits from reducing particulates (co-benefits) that are already covered by existing regulations and federal health requirements. Of those benefits, $20 billion come from direct climate benefits, and $14 billion to $34 billion are air quality co-benefits. Co-benefits sound positive. Who would not want additional health and environmental benefits from regulations?

The problem is that these benefits are double-counted over and over again with each regulation the federal government imposes. In some instances the co-benefits have accounted for more than 99 percent of the EPA’s estimated environmental benefits. The agency even overestimates the co-benefits by using questionable assumptions about causality and simplistic methods to calculate the benefits.[12]

3. Overly Prescriptive EPA Picks Winners and Losers

The EPA has been arguing that the plan will provide the states with plenty of flexibility and options in meeting its goal. It proposed that states use a combination of “building blocks” to achieve emissions reductions, including improving the efficiency of existing coal-fired power plants, switching from coal-fired power plants to natural gas–fired power plants, and using less carbon-intensive generating power, such as renewable energy or nuclear power. The proposed plan contained a fourth building block, demand-side energy-efficiency measures, but the EPA excluded that building block in calculating the state emission reduction targets. However, states can still implement energy-efficiency measures as a compliance option. The EPA would also allow states to impose a carbon tax or participate in regional cap-and-trade programs.[13]

All of these options present a Sophie’s choice of economic pain, reduced choice, and regulatory engineering of America’s energy economy. Although the EPA does not explicitly direct the states which path to take, the federal government is clearly nudging them to choose expanded renewables and energy efficiency. If a state chooses to produce more renewable power or implement more stringent energy-efficient mandates for homes and businesses, it will receive extra credits toward meeting its emissions targets.

Coal is an obvious loser, but the final regulation also changed language that would have been beneficial for nuclear and natural gas. In the draft proposal, states would have received credit for prolonging the life of an existing nuclear reactor that was at risk of closing. In the final regulation, that is no longer the case. The White House also ignored the importance and increased use of natural gas, a reversal from highlighting the importance of natural gas in shifting away from coal.[14]

Rather than simply setting reduction targets, the Administration continues to favor its preferred energy sources while driving other sources out of production.

4. Federally Imposed Cap-and-Trade

States will have one year to develop and submit their compliance plans or to develop regional plans with other states, although the EPA will grant extension waivers as long as two years. If states choose not to submit a plan, as several state legislators, attorneys general, and governors have suggested, the EPA would impose its federal implementation plan. The 755-page proposed plan is cap and trade, and the EPA is considering two options.[15]

The EPA could set a cap on power plant emissions in a state and allow utilities to trade emissions permits with one another.[16] Alternatively, the EPA could implement a cap-and-trade plan that requires an average emissions rate for the state’s power sector. Environment & Energy Publishing explains,

A rate-based standard with trading could technically allow emissions to grow, as long as generators only emit a certain amount of carbon per megawatt-hour of power produced. A state with a rate around the same level as a natural gas plant could theoretically keep building more and more natural gas plants and stay in compliance.[17]

The EPA will decide on a final plan in the summer of 2016.

Congress and States Need to Take the Power Back

The threat of a federally imposed cap-and-trade plan should not scare states into concocting their own plans. Instead, Members of Congress and state governments should fight the regulation, rather than settling for a slightly more palatable version that will cause significant economic harm while producing no discernable climate or environmental benefits.

—Nicolas D. Loris is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

Via: Heritage Foundation

Continue Reading.....

Massachusetts: 'Black Lives Matter' Banner Now Hangs from Somerville City Hall

Photo Credit: City of Somerville

A banner that reads “Black Lives Matter” now hangs from the front porch of Somerville City Hall.

The decision to hang the banner comes after the many police-involved shooting deaths of unarmed black men across different parts of the country.

Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone told The Boston Globe that he worked with members of the Cambridge-based Black Lives Matter organization to create the banner in support of their cause.

“We see this as an important opportunity for an important national conversation,” Curtatone said in regards to racial issues.

Curtatone is not exactly sure when the banner will come down. It may hang for a long time while Somerville works to further build trust between local agencies and residents throughout the community.

“If any one group feels that our public institutions are not treating them fairly, or our policies drive a certain structural racial overtone, I have a responsibility to lead that change,” Curtatone added in his statements to The Boston Globe.

The Mayor said the banner is in no way representative of the work carried out by his city’s police department. The Somerville police stand by the message conveyed through the banner.

Curtatone only wants his community to be upstanding and united as one.

Via: Somerville Patch

Continue Reading....

People have had it with Immigration Excuses by Thomas Sewell

One of the most lame excuses for doing nothing is that we can't do everything. Such excuses have been repeated endlessly, even by some conservatives, when it comes to illegal immigration.

We can't deport millions of illegal immigrants already living in the country, some say, so the wise thing is to just learn to live with them, according to the supposedly sophisticated crowd.

This completely sidesteps the plain, obvious and galling fact that we are not deporting those illegal immigrants who are arrested by the police for violating other laws -- and are then turned loose back into American society. In so-called "sanctuary cities" across the country, local police are under orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities.

Nobody has a right to obstruct justice when it comes to federal laws -- not even the President of the United States, as Richard Nixon discovered when he had to resign after Democrats threatened him with impeachment and Republican Senators told him that they would not defend him.

Today, any mayor of any city of any size across the country can publicly announce that he is going to obstruct federal laws against illegal immigrants -- and then bask in a glow of self-satisfaction and the prospect of winning votes.

Even people who are gung-ho to punish employers who do not take on the role of immigration police, for which they have neither training nor authority, are often ready to overlook elected officials who do have both the duty and the authority to uphold the laws, but openly refuse to do so.

The federal government itself, under the Obama administration, has refused to enforce immigration laws, and has ordered its own agents to back off when it comes to enforcing some laws that President Obama happens not to like.

Then there is also what might be called the pretense of enforcement -- when people who have been caught illegally entering the country are turned loose inside the country and told to report back to a court later on. How surprised should we be when they don't?

One of the most widely known abuses of the immigration laws is the creation of "anchor babies" to get automatic citizenship when a pregnant woman simply crosses the U.S. border to have her child born on American soil. This is not limited to people who cross the Mexican border. Some are flown in from Asia to waiting posh facilities.

Not only do their children get automatic American citizenship without having to meet any requirements, this also increases the opportunities for other family members to gain admission later on, in the name of "family reunification."

This is such an obvious racket, and so widely known, for so long, that you might think our "responsible" leaders would agree that it should be stopped. But, here again, there are excuses rather than action. One distinguished conservative commentator even said recently that this is such a small problem that it is not worth bothering with.

The anger of Americans who feel betrayed by their own elected officials is not a small thing. It goes to the heart of what self-government by "we the people" is supposed to mean.

To say that it is a small thing is even worse than saying that we can't do anything about it. We certainly can't do anything about it if we won't lift a finger to try.

Some legal authorities say that the 14th Amendment confers automatic citizenship on anyone born on American soil. But the very authors of that Amendment said otherwise. And some distinguished legal scholars today, including Professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School, say otherwise.

Even if it were necessary to revise the 14th Amendment, it is sheer Progressive era dogma that Constitutional Amendments are nearly impossible to revise, repeal or create. There were four new Constitutional Amendments added in just eight years, during the height of the Progressive era in the early 20th century.

But it is indeed impossible if you are just looking for excuses for not trying. Republicans who are worried about Donald Trump should be. But their own repeated betrayals of their supporters set the stage for his emergence. This goes all the way back to "Read my lips, no new taxes." 

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading.....

Trump’s Friday Rally Moved to FOOTBALL STADIUM – Tens of Thousands Expected

The Donald Trump rally in Alabama was moved to the Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Alabama. Tens of thousands of conservative supporters are expected at the rally.

Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile, Alabama has a seating capacity of 33,471.

With his next campaign stop being in Alabama, it’s only fitting that presidential candidate Donald Trump is going to rally up supporters in a jam-packed football stadium.

City officials have confirmed to News 5 the location for Donald Trump’s pep rally in Mobile on Friday night has been moved to Ladd-Peebles Stadium. It’s the same venue used for the Senior Bowl and University of South Alabama home games.

“It’s due to an overwhelming response,” said Kayla Farnon, spokeswoman for the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office. “More than 30,000 people have been confirmed to attend. “

Via: Gateway Pundit

Continue Reading....

Union Official Charged With Illegal Clinton Donations Indicted for Mail Fraud

Former Broward Teachers Union president allegedly steered illegal contributions to Clinton’s 2008 campaign

Federal authorities indicted the former president of a Florida teachers’ union on fraud charges on Thursday, even as he faces additional charges in his home state over allegedly illegal campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton.

The Justice Department charged former Broward Teachers Union (BTU) president Patrick Santeramo with two counts of mail fraud for his alleged role in embezzling more than $35,000 in payments from a local school district.

“It is alleged that after the BTU received the $80,000 payment from the School Board of Broward County, Santeramo authorized payments from the [union’s] Accountability Program account for himself and at least one other employee of the BTU to which they were not entitled,” DOJ said in apress release announcing the indictment.

Those funds were supposed to go toward training programs and leave time for teachers working on “accountability projects,” DOJ said. Instead, Santeramo pocketed tens of thousands of dollars in payments from Broward schools.

As he faces those charges, Santeramo is also awaiting trial in Broward County on 20 criminal counts, including racketeering, grand theft, fraud, money laundering, and charges involving illegal campaign contributions.

The latter involves alleged schemes to illegally direct tens of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, among other political efforts.

According to Florida authorities, Santeramo approached BTU colleagues beginning in 2007 asking them and their family members to contribute to Clinton’s campaign and that of then-Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink.

“Fraudulent reimbursements were used to conceal and launder these contributions by disguising them in the BTU books and records using false account classification designations such as: ‘miscellaneous expense, building expense, organizing, staff training, new education program, office supplies, lobbying, communications, negotiation and bargaining, other committees, steward training and special events,’” according to the criminal complaint against Santeramo.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....

More Companies That Have Donated to Planned Parenthood

The Daily Signal obtained the 2013-2014 annual report for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England—an affiliate of the national organization that operates in Connecticut and Rhode Island—which lists companies who have contributed to the organization.

Planned Parenthood is in the midst of a controversy following the release of seven videos by the Center for Medical Progress showing senior executives of the organization discussing the sale of fetal organs at affiliates of the nation’s largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood has denied any wrongdoing.

Profiting from the sale of fetal organs is a federal felony in the United States.

Planned Parenthood of Southern New England lists the following corporations as having donated to them in fiscal year 2014:

PACESETTER ($10,000 – 24,999)

Goldman Sachs Gives

Pfizer Foundation

GROUNDBREAKER ($5,000 – 9,999)

General Electric United Way Giving Campaign

HMSDesign

Pfizer Foundation

Pfizer United Way Campaign

LEADER ($2,500 – 4,999)

Aetna Foundation

Agniel Commodities, LLC

Brenner, Saltzman & Wallman, LLP

Chace Ruttenberg & Freedman, LLP

GE Foundation

Goodcopy Printing & Graphics

McKesson Medical Surgical

Don and Helene Hirschfeld Truist, Inc.

General Electric Co.

UPS

Johnson&Johnson

Cigna

Women’s Health USA

Working Assets

ADVOCATE ($1,000 – 2,499)

Bank of America United Way Campaign

Bristol-Myers Squibb Employee Giving Program

Coach Matching Gift Program

The Daily Signal reached out to each company to ask about the donation. The Tug Hollow Corporation and High End Landscape LLC could not be reached for comment.

A representative for UPS said an “internal review” didn’t show Planned Parenthood as an organization that had received a grant from them.

A spokeswoman for Chace Ruttenberg & Freedman, LLP denied that the firm had donated to Planned Parenthood.

According to a representative for Agniel Commodities, LLC, “the ownership” of the company holds a “favorable” view of the work of Planned Parenthood.

A spokesman for Goodcopy told The Daily Signal that the company contributes to all the non-profits that they have as clients and that Planned Parenthood “does a good service” to the community.

Asked if he would continue his relationship with Planned Parenthood, he said, “I don’t get involved in politics.”

Working Assets and HMSDesign did not return The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but both highlight their donations to Planned Parenthood on their websites.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Sen. Blumenthal (D-CONN) Defend Planned Parenthood, Make It Federal Crime to Maim Animals

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)--who vigorously defended Planned Parenthood on the Senate floor in July--now wants the federal government to make it a federal felony to maim animals.

Blumenthal is co-sponsor of a bill that describes what is called animal "crushing"--the "actual conduct in which one or more non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled or otherwise subjected to bodily injury."

WFSB-TV reported the Connecticut Democrat discussed the proposed Prevent Animal Cruelty and Torture Act at an animal care center in South Windsor on Monday.

Blumenthal said, “This bipartisan bill--the first to outlaw animal cruelty at the federal level--states emphatically that these heinous acts are inhumane, illegal and intolerable in a civilized society.”

"My proposal would make it a felony punishable by seven years in prison to engage in acts of maiming and torturing animals," Blumenthal continued.

"Very simply, anyone who does those practices, as well as making videos of them, ought to be punished criminally under federal law."

Blumenthal has previously stated that he “will continue to stand” with Planned Parenthood. The Senator fought against recent efforts by lawmakers to end Planned Parenthood's federal funding after the release of a series of videos showing the organization’s role in harvesting the organs of babies by The Center for Medical Progress.

"I am proud to join with my colleauge from Washington State...and others such as she who are championing this cause of defending Planned Parenthood," Blumenthal said in a July 29 speech on the Senate floor.

“Planned Parenthood is under attack," he said. "It is under siege from a sensationalistic and disingenuous kind of publicity that are based on undercover videos. People are offended by them, and Planned Parenthood has in fact spoken to the merits of them. I encourage Planned Parenthood to continue speaking to those videos."

“Planned Parenthood needs no defense from us because the American people support it," he said.

"I am proud to stand and urge my colleagues to reject this attack from the most extreme members of the anti-choice movement, which seeks to undermine critical access to healh care through Planned Parenthood," he said.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Hillary Clinton: prison cell, not Oval Office

As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016

Delusional, morally bankrupt, self-obsessed Hillary Clinton—a metaphorical modern day power-obsessed Lady Macbeth (with the same self-destructive [political] behavior) is the poster child of the dictionary definition of treason: a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state and the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. (Indeed, staffers should have known something was amiss when the Clinton’s movers snatched everything not nailed down when the Clintons left the White House—the people’s house—the first time.) Yes, people of Hillary’s ilk live by a single axiom: numero uno first, last, and always.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton exists in the rarefied air of ruling class elitists: millionaires and billionaires, and former and future U.S. Presidents. Therefore, the rule of law (and not the fickle dictates of distant kings and emperors for which the American Revolution was fought) is not for her. It is something only to penalize the rest of us—the “little people” laboring in the hamster wheels of part-time jobs (sans health insurance due to Obamacare regulations)—to pay the 18 trillion dollar tab (and counting) of their largesse. We should be grateful for she who would stoop to rule us.     

               

Under Congressional questioning, recall her petulant knee-jerk response to four murdered Americans (including one U.S. Ambassador) in Benghazi when she raged “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Therefore, her callous, blasé attitude (and her recent smarmy joke about using the Snapchat app and automatically deleting emails) is just par for the course. Mrs. Clinton sent and received top secret material (of the 20% currently sampled, 305 are classified) across a non-governmental, unsecured, private server (in clear violation of law) that has likely exposed the nation’s vulnerabilities to our enemies. That obliviousness—and the intentional lies of cover-up—are treasonous.                                                                                                                                       

Of this, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said: “Follow the trail here. There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.” Lesser politicians not abetted by a minimizing hard-left MSM would be doomed.  

In any case, ignorance of the law is no defense. A far less dire example; former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus who shared classified material with his biographer mistress (who incidentally had a security clearance) got prosecuted for his lack of good judgment. As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading......