(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."
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.
In his August 17 monologue, Rush Limbaugh discussed Trump's spot-on immigration plan extensively, a plan that incorporates all three of the main points I summarized in my August 5 article, “Hard Truth for the GOP from its Base.” I can’t and don’t claim Trump got his plan from me -- any marginally thoughtful political observer not paralyzed by total dependence on corporate money can see America’s desperate need to halt illegal immigration and cauterize the risk of its recurrence. Not only did Rush praise the Trump plan, but -- at least as important -- pointed out, citing serious polling evidence, that Trump’s immigration proposal resonates loud and clear with the overwhelming majority of the US electorate (not just with Republicans and conservatives), and that any major Republican candidate who had timely addressed immigration as Trump has would be leading the field now by a wide margin.
Check out Rush’s monologue. It should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in the future well being of America. And forgive my pointing out that the same message can be found in my now two week old article.
The next major issue/opportunity that the mainstream Republican field is preparing to fumble through pusillanimous silence and lack of vision is the "black lives matter" fraud.
Expect the Democrat perpetrators of the Left’s latest despicable falsehood -- that America and its police are racist -- to soon start interrupting Republican candidates, as they already have Bernie Sanders. And to demand that the Republicans grovel and apologize too, as Sanders has. Recalling the debate, Scott Walker, ill-advised and politically tone deaf, has already shown how not to handle this issue: Asked what he would say to those who claim blacks are victims of racist police, Walker mumbled something PC about the need for thorough training and imposing consequences on bad cops. Thus, giving credence to the lie. I doubt that the cops of America and their families thank Walker for those remarks.
What Walker should have said, and what any Republican interested in winning the presidency should say to the thugs themselves, or to anyone who brings up their libels, is something like this:
"I've got news for you buddy/Ma’am: This is the least racist nation in history and so are its police. America is the best place on the planet to be a black person or to be any minority. The overwhelming majority of Americans, and their police, have been struggling for decades to treat everyone fairly and justly. To call this nation, its people or its police racists is a damned lie."
These sentences, if any Republican had the vision and courage to utter them, would be remembered to great good consequence. The vast majority of Americans feel in their gut they are not only true, but the heart of the matter. About 80% of the electorate would breathe a collective sigh of relief to hear someone at last stand up for the truth.
Once that core message had been delivered, the candidate could add whatever he/she wants about how the problem facing American blacks is not racism, which is a politically motivated lie, but that the problem includes the destruction of the black family, children growing up without fathers, and low wages and no jobs for black youth, at least in part because of out-of-control illegal immigration, all deliberately engineered by the Democratic Party to create dependency and buy black votes.
Bernie Sanders is leading in New Hampshire. That cheers me — though not because he's my ideal candidate, and certainly not because I think he could win in the general election. I'm convinced he would almost certainly lose against all but the loopiest or scariest Republican opponent.
Then why am I — someone almost certain to vote for a Democrat, and hoping to vote for a woman, in 2016 — so pleased by Sanders' ascent? Because it helps to puncture the aura of inevitability around Hillary Clinton. Yes, she continues to lead in every national poll by a large margin, which is why few formidable opponents have shown an interest in challenging her for the Democratic nomination. That has always been foolish, given the mountain of baggage she and her husband carry around with them everywhere they go. But now it's become downright irresponsible.
The Democrats desperately need more serious, viable candidates in the race, or at least poised to jump in at a moment's notice. (And it sure would be great if they were more appealing than Al Gore.) The point wouldn't be to catch up to her in a mad dash. The point would be to serve as a strong back-up for when the nearly inevitable happens.
What's the nearly inevitable? The scandal that, sooner or later, is bound to sink Hillary Clinton's campaign.
This isn't paranoia, right-wing spin, or baseless panic. It's a sober assessment of the situation.
At the moment, the ongoing email imbroglio is the time bomb that seems to pose the greatest risk to the campaign. It's hard to know which is most alarming: the way the candidate and her team have handled the scandal since it broke in March; the latest swirl of half-truths, denials, reversals, and revelations; or what new explosive information might come to light a month, six months, or a year from now
For the past five months, those of us old enough to have lived through the 1990s have been enduring a deeply unpleasant bout of déjà vu-inspired dread. First the news breaks, inspiring the unavoidable thought, "How could [insert member of the Clinton family here] possibly have failed to realize that this would be a problem?" Then the barrage of counter-attacks from the Clinton machine against the story, poking holes, impugning motives, kicking up just enough dust to convince fair-minded observers that maybe, just maybe, there's less to the story than it originally seemed. And finally, because journalists make mistakes and actually care about being able to stand behind the truth of what they publish, even those who ran the original story begin to backtrack, express uncertainties, and airself-doubts.
And then: Ka-Blam! The story is back and bigger than ever. Oh, that server we wouldn't give to you? You can have it now, cleaned up all nice and tidy. There certainly weren't any classified documents on there. Oh, there were? Oops, well, only those two — oh, I mean four — and don't worry about how that's just a "limited sample" of 40 emails out of tens of thousands; the inspector general of the Justice Department just got lucky. And hey, we deleted them, so who cares? (Freedom of information is for suckers.) Yes, of course, my "shadow" had access to that server and those classified emails, too. Why is that a problem? What, are you a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is expected to announce tomorrow that he opposes the nuclear accord President Obama negotiated with the Ayatollah’s regime in Iran. Schumer, as the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, wields heavy influence over his caucus, whose representatives have been split over the deal thus far.
The New York Democratic Senator was often brought up in a recent New York City rally where over 12,000 people came to protest the Iran deal.
Schumer said in a statement regarding the Iran deal:
Advocates on both sides have strong cases for their point of view that cannot simply be dismissed. This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.
“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way. While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion,” he added.
The New York Times reports that Schumer retreated to his Brooklyn apartment on the Sunday that the deal was announced and had continuously studied the accord until making his decision this week. He ultimately determined that the deal was not one he could support.
Opponents of the Iran deal have said that the agreement allows for Iran to secure $150 billion dollars in unfrozen assets, which it could use to empower the terrorist regimes it supports as the world’s leading state-sponsor of jihadist terror groups. The deal also gives Iran at least 24-days notice before international inspectors are allowed to investigate whether the regime is cheating the deal, and if the Mullahs have decided to make a push towards developing nuclear weapons.
Things got very awkward today when Chris Matthews asked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz what the difference was between the modern Democratic Party and Socialism.
Because we all know there is no difference between today’s Democrat Party and the radical Socialists in Venezuela or Argentina.
THIS MAY BE THE MOST REVEALING VIDEO YOU WATCH THIS YEAR—
Chris Matthews: Will Sanders speak at the Democrat convention, win or lose? Do you want to have him up there as a Socialist representing the Democratic Party?… You want him up there? You want him on the floor of the convention?
Debbie Wasserman Schulz: Bernie Sanders has been a good Democrat. He caucuses with the Democrats.
Matthews: Should he speak? Speak at prime-time?
Wasserman Schultz: Of course he should speak.
Matthews: In prime-time with everybody watching? (laughing)
Wasserman Schultz: Of course Bernie Sanders should speak…
Matthews: What’s the difference between the Democratic Party and Socialist?
Wasserman Schultz: (Speechless) (Laugh)
Matthews:I used to think there’s a big difference. What do you think it is?
Wasserman Schultz: Wuh… The difference between…
Matthews:Like Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Bernie Sanders?… Well what’s the big difference between the Democrat Party and Socialist. You’re chairman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a Socialist?…
Wasserman Schultz: (She won’t answer) The relevant debate we will be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
Wow! Even the DNC Chair knows there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Democratic Party and Socialism.
You just can’t make this shit up if you tried. Corrupt Democrat Chaka Fattah who has been indicted on racketeering charged. The corrupt Philadelphia Democrat has been replaced by Democrats as their leader on the Appropriations Committee. So who did Democrats select to become their leader on the House Appropriations Committee? None other than California Democrat Mike Honda who is currently under ethics investigation. This your 21st century Democrat party. Replace one crook with another.
Democrats replace Fattah Appropriations Committee with Mike Honda (under ethics probe)
Investigators with the Office of Congressional Ethics are looking into allegations against Rep. Michael M. Honda, the Democrat who has represented California’s South Bay since 2000.
The probe follows a September 2014 report by San Jose Inside that exposed internal emails between Honda’s longtime chief of staff, Jennifer Van der Heide, and his then-campaign manager about the invite list for an upcoming State Department roundtable. The February 2013 emails, given to the newspaper by an ex-Honda staffer, appeared to violate House rules regarding campaign activity by discussing contributors and fundraising efforts related to an official event.
Two days later, supporters of Ro Khanna, the Democrat vying against Honda for his seat in 2014, filed a complaint. Although only one of the 20 people who attended the State Department roundtable had ever contributed to Honda, Khanna and his supporters accused the congressman of a “pay-to-play arrangement,” in addition to pressuring staffers to assist the re-election campaign.
Honda’s office did not comment on the allegations in the letter to OCE, but acknowledged the investigation.
“The congressman and his staff continue to cooperate fully with the OCE’s review of the matter,” Honda spokeswoman Lauren Smith said in an email to CQ Roll Call. “Out of respect for the process, we cannot confirm specifics or discuss any details at this time.”
Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) has been indicted on dozens of federal charges surrounding his unsuccessful run for Philadelphia mayor in 2007, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Wednesday.
The 11-term Democrat, along with four associates, was indicted on 29 federal counts, including bribery, money laundering, falsification of records and multiple counts of bank fraud, among other charges.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell said Fattah and the others "embarked on a wide-ranging conspiracy involving bribery, concealment of unlawful campaign contributions and theft of charitable and federal funds to advance their own personal interests.”
“When elected officials betray the trust and confidence placed in them by the public, the department will do everything we can to ensure that they are held accountable," Caldwell said in a statement. "Public corruption takes a particularly heavy toll on our democracy because it undermines people’s basic belief that our elected leaders are committed to serving the public interest, not to lining their own pockets.”
The DOJ identified the other four facing charges as Herbert Vederman, 69, a lobbyist based in Palm Beach, Fla.; Bonnie Bowser, 59, Fattah’s Philadelphia-based district director; Robert Brand, 69, of Philadelphia; and Karen Nicholas, 57, of Williamstown, N.J.
The DOJ alleges that Fattah borrowed $1 million from a wealthy donor during his 2007 mayoral bid, returning $400,000 in unused funds and devising a scheme to repay the remaining $600,000 using charitable and federal grants filtered through a non-profit — the Educational Advancement Alliance — created and headed by Fattah.
The DOJ also alleges that Fattah used funds from both his mayoral and congressional campaigns to pay down his son's student loan debts. The repayments, totaling roughly $23,000, were paid by a political consulting company that had received the money directly from the campaign, the DOJ alleged.
Fattah's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday morning.
The Pennsylvania Democrat, a senior appropriator who's ranking member of the committee's Commerce and Justice departments subpanel, stepped down from that position within hours of the announcement Wednesday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a brief statement praising Fattah's commitment to the middle class and characterizing the charges as "deeply saddening." "Congressman Fattah has been a tireless and effective advocate for America’s hard-working families across more than 20 years of distinguished service in the House," Pelosi said.
“Congressman Fattah has rightly stepped down from his position as Ranking Member on the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee pending the resolution of this matter.”
A bold and controversial new bill, introduced by Senate President Pro Tempore and leading Democrat Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, advanced through the Assembly on the strength of Gov. Jerry Brown’s vociferous rhetoric on climate change.
As CBS Los Angeles reported, Brown tied his support for the legislation to his broader climate agenda, which has seen him praise Pope Francis’ recent encyclical on environmental matters and earn a trip to Vatican City to push for global change.
“‘We’ve got a serious problem here,’ he told KCAL9 Political Reporter Dave Bryan via satellite. ‘Burning oil and gas and coal and diesel is a big part of the problem. We’ve got to find new bio-fuels. We have to be more efficient. We’ve got a lot to do. And by the way, if we do nothing, the cost is unimaginable.’”
Brown has done his best to use his final term in office to amplify that message whenever possible. His trip to the Vatican, Sci-Tech Today noted, will be just “the latest of several international trips the governor has taken to urge others to do more to curb global warming. He’s also been rallying states and provinces to sign an agreement to match California’s target for reducing emissions by 2050.”
Stricter standards
While Brown has pushed the message, Democrat allies in Sacramento have crafted the content of regulations to match. De Leon’s bill, SB350, “imposes three significant clean-energy goals by 2030,” U-T San Diego’s Steven Greenhut observed: “Reducing the use of petroleum products in automobiles by 50 percent; increasing to 50 percent (from a current 33-percent goal) the amount of energy that uses renewable sources such as solar and wind power; and doubling energy-efficiency in current buildings.”
In fact, the legislation was crafted around achieving the outsized goals Brown set for ratcheting down California’s statewide emissions levels. As an interim step, the governor has proposed that the state “cut emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. It’s an ambitious target that members of his administration insist is achievable,” according to Sci-Tech Today.
De Leon himself has not shied away from using aggressive language to characterize the bill’s sweep and ostensible urgency, as Greenhut noted. “We need to break the stranglehold the profit-driven oil companies have on our economy and give consumers better options to power their homes and cars in cleaner, healthier and more sustainable ways,” de Leon said in remarks posted to his website.
Brown, for his part, has openly acknowledged the level of industry outrage the bill guarantees. “Well, of course, the people who are gonna sell 50 percent less petroleum are not only gonna have questions, they’re gonna have a fierce, unrelenting opposition,” he told KCAL-9.
But the coming regulatory shakeup has made for some strange industry bedfellows. “One of the issues both utilities and solar installers have raised,” according to GreenTech Solar, “is that distributed solar should not be treated any differently than utility-scale solar as the state crafts the rules around meeting the new 50 percent target.
At the annual NetRoots Nation gathering, two leading progressive candidates for the Democrat nomination were booed and heckled by protesters. The event could easily be remembered as a water-shed moment that confines the Democrat Party, at least in the near-term, to a weak national party that is only competitive in certain regions of the country.
NetRoots Nation is a conference of the Democrat Party’s most progressive and left-wing activists and bloggers. As part of its meeting, NetRoots hosted a “Presidential Town Hall” featuring socialist Vermont
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
and progressive former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
Few national political figures have embraced the full kaleidoscope of leftist policy proposals as eagerly as Sanders and O’Malley. The panel was even moderated by a celebrated leftist journalist who is also famously an illegal immigrant. Only a drum-circle and piped-in scents of patchouli were missing from what ought to have been a leftist dream-team of Presidential politics.
For the NetRoots activist crowd, though, it wasn’t enough. The event was loudly interrupted by a throng of activist from #BlackLivesMatter who challenged the panels’ commitment to progressive change. Both O’Malley and Sanders were flummoxed, with Sanders, at one point, asking the illegal immigrant moderator if he had “control” of the event.
O’Malley tried to address the activists by assuring them that, of course, “black lives matter.” He went on to make the equally true statement that “all lives matter.” For this “gaffe,” he had to make an awkward apology tour.
In the aftermath of the debacle, both the Sanders and O’Malley campaigns sought one-on-one meetings with the organizers of the #BlackLivesMatter protest group.
The entire episode could have been a farce out of a Tom Wolfe novel, but is, in fact, a sad reality facing today’s Democrat Party.
After more than a decade of cynically manipulating class and race rhetoric for short-term political gain, the Democrat Party faces a growing cadre of activists who bought into the rhetoric. For them, only the most extreme leftist or progressive policies will satisfy their political blood-lust.
In this brave new world, all lives matter, but some matter more than others.
For the past six years, the media have been obsessed with concern-trolling over whether a resurgent conservative movement would push the Republican Party “too far to the right.” The Establishment Republican class, fueled by its donors at the US Chamber and other corporate groups, have bought into this narrative.
While this silly debate has played out in the salons of 6th Avenue, K Street and Capital Hill, a far more dramatic political story has unfolded.
Since Obama won the Presidency, the Democrat party has been eliminated from large swathes of the country. When Obama was sworn in in 2009, Democrats controlled over 30 Governors’ mansions. After the 2014 elections, they hold just 18. They have been wiped out in the South and most of the Midwest.
The current political make-up of Congressional and state legislative seats is even more dramatic. Outside of the coasts and urban areas, the Democrat party is simply not competitive in most of the country.
“The national Democratic Party’s brand makes it challenging for Democrats in red states oftentimes and I hope that going forward, the leaders at the national level will be mindful of that and they will understand that they can’t govern the country without Democrats being able to win races in red states,” Paul Davis, who lost a close race against Kansas GOP Gov. Sam Brownback last year, told Politico.
Obama won office largely on the strength of historic levels of voter turnout by minorities and very young voters. Even with those high levels of turnout, he would have lost if the GOP hadn’t failed to motivate working class white voters to support its candidates.
The GOP presently has at least a decent chance of nominating a candidate conservative enough to attract working class voters. If it does, the Democrats will again need historic turnouts from minorities and college-age voters to be competitive nationally. It is not at all clear that any candidate other than Obama has that electoral power.
It isn’t even clear that Obama himself still has that draw. Obama’s last-minute campaign push for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in his political home base wasn’t enough to save Rahm from an historic run-off. Rahm was crushed in the very same minority precincts where Obama campaigned.
Rahm ultimately survived his run-off with a deluge of campaign spending and strong support from Republican voters, but, for Democrats, it was a clear warning shot that their activist and minority base wants far more change than the party is willing to deliver. Even attempting to deliver than change will further alienate the party from a large majority of the voting public.
Vincent Sheehan, who lost the South Carolina Governor’s race to Republican Nikki Haley, worries that recent party rhetoric reflects an “antagonism toward or a hostility toward the moderate elements of the Democratic Party.”
If self-described socialist, former activist organizer, Bernie Sanders is deemed to passive or even moderate for this new breed of progressive activists, then the long-nightmare of the Democrat Party is just beginning.
“End of discussion!” is what those on the political left yell in your face when they know they are losing an argument. It is also the name of a compelling new book by Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson with the revealing subtitle of “How the Left’s Outrage Industry Shuts Down Debate, Manipulates Voters, and Makes America Less Free (and Fun).”
While it is true that attempts to marginalize political opponents isn’t the exclusive domain of progressives, in the last couple of decades it is the political left which has perfected these tactics to an art form. Perhaps it is because these latest efforts reflect a full manifestation of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. An important strategy from this famous anarchist is to avoid at all costs an honest debate over whether socialist policies actually work.
And it’s not just conservatives who are sounding the alarm. Bill Maher, the left of center host of his own show on HBO has said that liberals are too easily offended and that an overly politically correct society actually breeds more hostility between the parties. Jerry Seinfeld, lifelong Democratic and famous comic, has said that he doesn’t play college campuses anymore because students have been brainwashed into being offended at almost anything.
While political correctness is a national problem, it is much worse in California. Indeed, for all the alleged “openness” of the California lifestyle, here are the three things about which you cannot possibly have a rational discussion with a liberal: Global warming, immigration and traditional marriage.
Let’s just look at global warming. How many times have you heard Al Gore, President Obama, Jerry Brown or Tom Steyer say “the debate is over?” As I have advised college students on both the right and left numerous times, when someone says “the debate is over” that usually means the debate is just beginning. While there is substantial evidence (mostly based on computer modeling) that man’s activities might have an impact on the earth’s climate, there are simply too many ancillary questions and unknowns for anyone to say the “debate is over.” Shockingly, even noted environmentalists including a co-founder of Greenpeace and Bjorn Lomberg, former head of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, have been savaged by the global warming alarmists for suggesting that the hype might be overstated.
On immigration, if one dares to raise the very legitimate issues of the costs to taxpayers that flow from unregulated immigration you are immediately branded as a racist. Despite being far more open to legal immigration than others in America, I have personally felt the wrath of this unfounded accusation.
The progressives are not interested in hearing anything that deviates one iota from their rigid orthodoxy. And they don’t want others to hear any contrary message either. Somalian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was disinvited to speak at Brandies University because she dared speak out against Islamic extremism. These are prime examples of the “heckler’s veto” even before a speech begins. Other luminaries “disinvited” from commencement speeches due to left leaning pressure include International Monetary Fund Director Christine LaGarge and Condoleezza Rice.
And our final California example of shutting off debate is an embarrassing incident in the California Capitol when Rodger Hernandez, Chairman of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee would not even allow the Republican Vice Chair, Matthew Harper speak on one of the most contentious and dangerous bills emanating from the California Legislature – Senate Bill 3, a huge increase in the state’s minimum wage. Hernandez even went so far as to order the Sergeant at Arms to take away Harpers’ microphone. Talk about “end of discussion!”
So how should we respond to this wave of political correctness run amok and efforts to limit debate? First, realize it won’t be easy as the main stream media is rarely on our side. Second, it is entirely fair to call out these tactics for what they are and challenge our adversaries to debate the issues honestly. Third, appeal to the desire for truth. Scripture tells us veritas vos liberabit — the truth will set you free. Or, as Andrew Breitbart said, “The truth isn’t mean. The truth is the truth.”
Jon Coupal is president of the HowardJarvisTaxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-rootstaxpayerorganization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights. Originally posted on HJTA.
