4 Charts That Prove DC Elites Are Ignoring Planned Parenthood Debate Raging in the Nation

A series of videos that show Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs has sparked a nationwide debate on Twitter about the organization’s practices.

A new analysis of trends on the social media site shows that those located within the Beltway took longer to join the conversation and are talking less about it than most of the country.

According to data provided by Echelon Insights, an opinion research firm, abortion has been one of the most talked about issues on Twitter among all users and those identified as part of the conservative base.

The firm analyzed how frequently abortion was discussed on Twitter over the last eight months and found that conversation surrounding the issue surged in conjunction with the release of videos from the Center for Medical Progress.

The Center for Medical Progress released its first video involving Planned Parenthood less than one month ago and yesterday published its fifth, with more expected. In the weeks that have followed, there have been increased calls for Congress to strip Planned Parenthood of its federal funding. Lawmakers plan to conduct hearings on the organization’s practices when they return from the month-long August recess.

According to Echelon Insights’ analysis, discussion surrounding abortion has been frequent among all Twitter users and conservatives. However, that isn’t the case among “Beltway Elites,” or Washington, D.C., insiders and liberals.

Total volume of conversation surrounding abortion across all Twitter

audiences from January to August. (Chart: Echelon Insights)

Total volume of conversations surrounding abortion across all Twitter audiences from July 2014 to August 2015.  (Chart: Echelon Insights)

Volume of conversation surrounding abortion among Beltway Elites, liberals and conservatives on Twitter from July 2014 to August 2015. (Chart: Echelon Insights)

>>>Did Your Senator Vote to Defund Planned Parenthood? See Here.

After the first video was released July 14, there was a surge in the number of mentions of abortion on Twitter.

However, the surge was not just among “Beltway Elites.” Instead, including everyone on the social media site, abortion was mentioned more than 90,000 times on July 14.

Additionally, on that same day, abortion was the second most discussed issue among all Twitter users. For conservatives, it was also the second most discussed issue.

However, the release of the first Planned Parenthood video didn’t resonate with Beltway Elites and liberals. Among those demographics, abortion was the fifth and ninth most discussed topic, respectively.

In examining conversations surrounding abortion, Echelon Insights found that most people on Twitter discussing the first Planned Parenthood video were located outside Washington, D.C.

The firm calculates an “Insider Score,” which measures how much Beltway Elites are discussing a topic compared to all Twitter users. Scores below 0 indicate more of a conversation outside the nation’s capital.

Last month, the Insider Score of conversation surrounding abortion indicated that Twitter users outside Washington, D.C., were discussing the issue more than those in the Beltway.

Demographic breakdown and Insider Score of discussion surrounding abortion (Chart: Echelon Insights)

The Center for Medical Progress released a second video involving another Planned Parenthood executive on July 21. The video showed a doctor allegedly negotiating the sale of aborted fetal tissue, and after the group published the video, Twitter saw its second highest peak in conversation surrounding abortion, with more than 50,000 mentions among all users.

However, that didn’t last long.

Among everyone on the social media site and conservatives, it was the most discussed issue on July 22. But for Beltway Elites and liberals, abortion ranked fourth and sixth among discussed topics, respectively.

One week later, on July 30, the Center for Medical Progress released another video showing Planned Parenthood allegedly discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs. This video stirred up conversations once again among all Twitter users—and conservatives, specifically.

According to Echelon Insights, the topic surpassed the level of discussion on July 22, and abortion had the second most mentions on Twitter, topping 77,000. Additionally, the issue became the most-discussed across all Twitter users and among conservatives.

Keeping up with previous trends, abortion was the second and fourth most discussed topic among liberals and Beltway Elites, respectively.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Schumer Pleads With GOP On Global Warming: Just Listen To “Totally Impartial And Non-Political Scientists”…

You know, like this guy:

Via: Weasel Zippers

NEW YORK CITY: De Blasio is crafting his own downfall

Years ago, in a chat with then-Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, I asked how the Dinkins administration set its agenda. Did it have daily staff meetings, consult with outsiders, poll public opinion?

Lynch, a respected, genial political operative who has since passed away, looked at me with surprise. “I wish we knew who set the agenda,” he said with a straight face.

At that moment, I realized the impression that the Dinkins mayoralty was being driven by events beyond its control was accurate. Whatever the problem, City Hall didn’t just seem to be caught off guard — it was caught off guard.

Something similar is now happening to Bill de Blasio. Mayor Putz is getting whacked like a ­piñata, and he always seems surprised.

One day, it’s murder mayhem, then an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease, then a cheating scandal in the schools. Some days, like yesterday, it’s an avalanche.

The comparison with the Dinkins years is apt, but breaks down in one key way. Dinkins’ sins were mostly those of omission; de Blasio is the architect of his dis­asters.

His main campaign promise was to change the direction of the city, and, unfortunately, he kept that promise. He is taking New York backwards.

Although murder is up by 10 percent, reports show most major crimes continue to fall. Yet it doesn’t feel that way.

Many, if not most, New Yorkers believe the city is sliding downhill, and that each day brings us one step closer to the bad old days of terrifying lawlessness and public disorder.

The fear is fueled by enough anecdotes to make it rational — gunfire sprays, with children caught in the crossfire, increased muggings in Central Park, and disheveled maniacs, some violent, taking over sidewalks and subways.

In large measure, these are the fruits of de Blasio’s policies. He wanted a kinder, gentler police force, made Al Sharpton an adviser — and the result is a more violent, bloodier city.

He said he wanted more humane policies on welfare and homelessness, and hired as commissioner Steven Banks, the former head of the Legal Aid Society who spent 30 years suing the city agency he now runs.

As Heather Mac Donald wrote in the City Journal, Banks “helped create, through lawsuit, New York’s unique obligation to provide housing on demand to families claiming homelessness.”

Given his disdain for efforts to get people off welfare and into jobs, it is fair to assume that Banks is at least partially responsible for the surge of people living in parks, shelters and on the streets.

Then there’s Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña, lured out of retirement by de Blasio because no other established educator would adopt his policies. Intent on turning back the clock on mainstream reforms, he and Fariña embraced the teachers-union cartel and are thwarting accountability measures considered standard best practices. In their warped vision, rigorous teacher evaluations and charter schools are enemies, while the union parties like it’s 1970.

The outrageous cheating scandal The Post exposed is a prime example of de Blasio’s folly. The union puts the protection of jobs ahead of everything else, so handing out unearned diplomas is a no-brainer when the aim is to shield the adults from the consequences of student failure.

As one teacher told The Post, “The state, the city, the mayor, the chancellor all look good with an inflated passing rate.”

So true — until that passing rate is exposed as a sham. That’s where we are now, and it’s a perfect metaphor for de Blasio’s tenure.

Less than halfway through his term, he needs a shakeup at City Hall. Problems are multiplying, the quality of life is declining and he is isolated inside his bubble with like-minded lefties.

On the outside, he has squandered public goodwill by showing indifference to the daily travails of city life. Among government leaders, his high-handed lectures have earned him a cold shoulder and ill wishes.

If he has a reset button, now would be the time to use it. Before he runs out of time.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama invokes Iraq war debate in push for Iran deal, amid Dem defections

President Obama vigorously defended Wednesday his nuclear agreement with Iran as one "the world unanimously supports," reaching back to blame America's invasion of Iraq -- and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- for emboldening Iran, while labeling Republican opposition as "knee-jerk partisanship," and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's criticism as "wrong." 

Speaking at American University in Washington, Obama described the congressional debate over the Iran deal as the "most consequential" since the Iraq invasion. The president called the agreement a "very good deal" that -- despite critics' claims to the contrary -- forbids Iran from building a nuclear weapon. 

In anticipation of a barrage of advertising against the deal, Obama likened those arguments to the case for war in Iraq more than a decade ago. 

"Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal," Obama said. 

The stark comparison dovetails with the president's central claim that the alternative to an Iran deal may be war -- "maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon," he said Wednesday. And his appeal to lawmakers comes as he tries to stem defections from his own party. 

He spoke after Democratic Rep. Steve Israel, of New York, told Newsday he will oppose the Iran plan. Spokeswoman Caitlin Girouard confirmed his opposition to Fox News. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

CNN's Tapper Shames Earnest For Not Watching Undercover Abortion Videos

CNN's Jake Tapper went after Josh Earnest on Monday's The Lead, after the White House press secretary admitted that he hadn't seen any of the undercover Planned Parenthood videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, and was "relying on news reports that I've seen" about the controversy. Tapper pointed out that "the whole video is put up on the website of this anti-abortion group that put them out." When Earnest blasted the pro-life group for their "ideological games," the anchor retorted that "somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full."

Tapper raised the issue in the middle of his interview of Earnest. He also ran clips from the first four videos that the Center for Medical Progress released. The journalist first noted that "the Senate...is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that." He then asked the press secretary, "Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?" -

Earnest replied that "these videos...were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them." He continued with one of Planned Parenthood's talking points – that "people...have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood." 

The CNN anchor followed with his point about the whole videos being available on the pro-life organization's website. The White House official responded with more liberal talking points about the administration wanting to "make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

" The transcript of the relevant portion of Jake Tapper's interview of Josh Earnest from Monday's The Lead on CNN:

JAKE TAPPER: Josh, I want to ask you about a couple other issues, as long as I have – the Senate, as you know, is going ahead with a vote to try and defund Planned Parenthood. The White House has threatened to veto any measure like that-

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: That's right-

TAPPER: Is it your contention that there's nothing in these secretly-recorded videotapes of Planned Parenthood officials discussing what sounds like profiting from fetal tissue and organ sales – there's nothing in these tapes that bothers you and anyone in the White House?

EARNEST: Well, Jake, I got to tell you – you know, these videos are – were released because of their shock value, and there's no doubt that's what depicted on these videos is shocking. I know that based on the news reports that I've read about the videos – I haven't actually looked at them. But people who have looked at them have raised significant questions about whether or not these videos are credible – about whether or not they've been selectively edited in a way to grossly distort the position and the policies of Planned Parenthood. And if you consider the source-

TAPPER: The whole – the video – the whole video is put up on – on the website of this anti-abortion group that – that put them out. I mean, you can – you don't have to watch just the edited version. You can watch the whole version.

EARNEST: Yeah. Well, listen, I'm relying on – on news reports that I've seen of people who have taken a look at this and raised questions about the videos themselves. And there's no doubt that this is an organization that has targeted Planned Parenthood for some time. So, they clearly have an ideological axe to grind.

What we know to be true is that Planned Parenthood provides regular health care for millions of Americans across the country, and Planned Parenthood is not able to use federal funds to perform abortions. That is written into the rules. That is a rule that this administration has not just followed, but actually supported.

So it's clear that there are some ideological games that are being played here, and what this administration and this president has long fought for is protecting access for women to health care. And that's exactly why we want to make sure that there is not an ideological effort to wholesale defund Planned Parenthood that provides those important health care services to women all across the country.

TAPPER: Well, somebody at the White House should maybe watch the videos in full.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading...

Obama Plots to Thwart Justice for US Victims of Palestinian Terrorism

On February 23, 2015, a federal jury in New York sided with 10 American families, finding the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) liable for six terrorist attacks occurring in Israel over a decade ago. The families were awarded $218.5 million for a series of terrorist acts attributed to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas, perpetrated between 2002 and 2004 during the Second Intifada. On Monday, the Obama administration indicated it might intervene in the case‚ possibly on behalf of the Palestinian terrorists.

That’s because the stakes are huge for these two cash-strapped entities. The Antiterrorism Act of 1992 authorizes “any U.S. national injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism to bring a civil action in U.S. district court and recover treble damages and the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees,” the act states. Thus, the award of $218.5 million could triple to $655.5 million. When interest is included, calculated to be $165 million, which would also be tripled, the total potential liability runs to $1.15 billion. That sum is equal to nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual budget of operations.

Both groups intend to appeal the verdict, insisting they are not responsible “for the actions of individuals” involved in the carnage. “The Palestinian Liberation Organization [sic] and the Palestinian National Authority are deeply disappointed by the adverse decision issued today in a New York court,” said Mahmoud Khalifa, PA deputy minister of information, after the verdict was announced. “The charges that were made against us are baseless ... we will appeal this decision.”

In the meantime, Kent Yalowitz, the families’ attorney, requested that the two organizations place $30 million per month in escrow while the process proceeds. U.S. District Judge George Daniels indicated he was inclined to require Palestinians to post some sort of bond, as a means of showing “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

On Bullet Train, Voters Finally May Get to Apply the Brakes

Pencils have erasers. Computers have the undo command and the escape key.

If you had it to do over again, would you vote for the bullet train?

It was called the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act” on the 2008 ballot, and it authorized $9 billion in bonds — borrowed money — to “partially fund” a high-speed train system in California.

The ballot measure required that there would be “private and public matching funds,” “accountability and oversight” and a focus on completing “Phase I” from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Anaheim. Bond funds could not be spent on the other corridors, like Fresno to Bakersfield, unless there was “no negative impact on the construction of Phase I.”

Today the estimated cost is over $68 billion, private and federal funds are not in sight, and accountability has been cut back — instead of two spending reports to the Legislature every year, only one report every two years will be required. And “Phase I” broke ground in Fresno.

Place your finger on the escape key and stand by. State Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Fresno, has introduced a bill, co-authored by Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, to put the bullet train before the voters again. If Senate Bill 3 (SBX1-3) can muster a two-thirds vote in the state Senate and Assembly, it will be on the June 2016 ballot.

The measure would freeze spending on the bullet train and direct unspent funds to the Department of Transportation to be used for roads, which would come in handy because California needs $59 billion just to maintain the freeways for the next 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown has called a special session of the Legislature to look for revenue to fill the state’s transportation budget pothole after signing a “balanced” budget that left that item out.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office offered some suggestions that illustrate the difference between what tax increases can raise and what the bullet train costs.

• Raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline brings in $150 million per 1 cent increase.

• Raising the tax on a gallon of diesel fuel collects $30 million per 1 cent increase.

• Raising the vehicle registration fee nets $33 million per $1 increase.

• Doubling the vehicle weight fees raises about $1 billion.

• Raising the vehicle license fee hauls in roughly $3 billion per 1 percent increase.

There are other options. The LAO says lawmakers could prioritize the budget to use money from the general fund to maintain and construct roads. Billions in cap-and-trade revenue, collected from fees now levied on gasoline and diesel fuel, could be used for highway projects that reduce traffic and improve mileage.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

Hard Truth for the GOP from its Base

The failure of the Republican presidential field (with one notable exception) to stand with its own voters on the burning issue of our time -- mass uncontrolled and unresisted illegal immigration to America -- is one of the most infuriating examples of electoral incompetence in living memory. Not only is this issue central to the concerns of an overwhelming majority of regular Republican and conservative voters, but it is the issue most likely to carve off substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters.  In short, vigorously opposing the ongoing, unprecedented, presidentially invited and abetted invasion of America across its southern border is not only obviously the right policy for the country on its merits, but very possibly the only issue with the potential to carry the Republican nominee not merely to victory but to decisive victory.

In America as in Europe, electoral necessity has placed the Left on the wrong side of illegal immigration for a perilously significant number of its own voters. In America many of those voters are there for the taking -- in Iowa, in Ohio, in Virginia, in Colorado, in Florida, to name but a few not insignificant places -- but the question, as always since Reagan, is whether the Republican Party wants to win the presidency or to lose politely.

In unmistakably blunt language, all the Republican candidates should be declaring the following:

1. That our border to the south must be secured, whatever it takes, as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to discussing how to deal with the tens of millions who are already here illegally.  The idea that real border security is unachievable is facially absurd to the American people, as is the morally spurious argument that any nation needs to apologize for defending its own borders or establishing its own immigration criteria.
2. That, after election, the new Republican president will not, under any circumstances, grant any form of blanket amnesty to those who have entered the country in violation of our laws, and that he will work to achieve a complete reversal of the illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty already granted by President Obama (which Hillary Clinton promises to uphold and enforce).
3. That our immigration laws do indeed need comprehensive reform, but not the kind of “reform” the Democrats want, where millions of impoverished uneducated future government dependents are taken in and distributed among key states until the country becomes a dependable one party nation -- the 1965 Immigration Act has indeed done its work. We need a new immigration law that will favor assimilable immigrants, possessing skills and education that improve the competitiveness of the American economy and meet real needs.

None of the foregoing should be even remotely controversial in a well run, first world republic that wants to continue being one. None of it would be controversial to about 75% of the electorate.  All of it would be music to the ears, not only of virtually the entire voter base of the Republican Party but to substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters, both of whom see the connection between mass low skilled illegal immigration, on the one hand, and low wages, declining schools and neighborhoods, and increased crime on the other.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Enough with the Softball Questions; It's Time We Start Really Questioning Cecile Richards

After watching Andrea Mitchell’s softball interview with Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, I was hoping Andrea Mitchell, or anyone, would ask her the following questions:

With more than 300,000 abortions per year and only about 1,800 adoption referrals per year, does Planned Parenthood provide equal counseling regarding both options for women?  Which option provides more revenue and donations for Planned Parenthood?  Is this what Cecile Richards means when she says “the facts are on our side”?

Many couples endure long waiting lists to adopt an adopted child and will assist birth mothers.  How is this addressed with pregnant women at Planned Parenthood?  Does this fulfill Cecile Richards’ statement that Planned Parenthood “helps women plan their family”?

Does harvesting fetal tissue or organs make the abortion less safe or create more discomfort by virtue of possibly increased time in doing the harvesting procedure or different harvesting techniques?

When fetal tissue or organs are harvested with consent, can the consent be given by minors without parental, guardian or judge approval?  Can a minor alone agree to a potentially riskier abortion procedure that involves harvesting organs?

Do the companies purchasing the fetal tissue and organs from Planned Parenthood make financial donations to Planned Parenthood?

Senator Claire McCaskill stated on the “Morning Joe” show that they “have already cleared Planned Parenthood in an investigation in Indiana.”  Were they cleared on all the issues I have raised here?

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

#GOPDEBATE: 27 Questions For The First GOP Presidential Debate

• 
  On Thursday, 10 of the 17 Republican presidential contenders will take the stage in Cleveland for the first GOP debate, hosted by Fox News. What follows are 27 questions for the debate: Seven general question for all the candidates and two specific queries for each of 10 participants.
  General Questions For Everyone
  • Name a figure outside of politics who you would consider nominating to your Cabinet. What would you nominate them for and why?
  • President Barack Obama is often criticized for playing too much golf. What is appropriate amount of leisure time for an American president?
  • Who is the smartest liberal writer you read?
  • Libertarian tech billionaire Peter Thiel says he always asks potential hires, “What is one thing you believe to be true that most do not?” How would you respond?
  • What policy does another country get right that we would be well served to adopt in our country?
  • Do you believe President Obama is a bad person, or just politically misguided?
  • What three books most influenced your political worldview?
  Questions For Donald Trump
  
  
  Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/05/27-questions-for-the-first-gop-presidential-debate/#ixzz3hxiot9gEYou’ve explained that you donated campaign funds to liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi in order to get them to do business-related favors for you. As you put it recently, “when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” What, specifically, did Clinton and Pelosi do for you in exchange for your donations?

• Your plan for defeating ISIS consists mainly of “bomb[ing] the hell” out of the oil fields the terror group controls. Considering you have no military experience, what military experts or former military officers did you consult on your plan? What did they say?

Questions For Jeb Bush

• Some conservatives criticize you for being MIA during the major political battles of the Obama years. Why were you so silent? Why didn’t you, for instance, forcefully speak out against Obamacare at the time it was being debated?

• Some Republican foreign policy thinkers have criticized you for your association with former Secretary of State James Baker. What is the best piece of foreign policy advice he has given you? Is there any advice he has given you that you profoundly disagree with?

Questions For Scott Walker

• Governor, you have been all over the board on immigration. At one point you favored a pathway to citizenship for America’s illegal immigrant population, then this year you came out against it, then we hear you may have told donors that you still support it, which your campaign then denied. Let’s try to get some clarity: Could you ever imagine supporting a pathway to citizenship for any portion of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in this country? If not a pathway to citizenship, what about any type of pathway to legalization that would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country, albeit without the possibility of obtaining citizenship?

• How do you distinguish yourself on foreign policy from some of your rivals, particularly Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio?

Questions For Marco Rubio

• One criticism of you is that while you are an impressive orator, you really haven’t accomplished all that much besides getting elected to various political offices at a young age. What are your top three professional accomplishments?

• Do you regret supporting the intervention in Libya? If you think America’s intervention in Libya was merely a failure of implementation, what exactly would you have done differently to ensure that Libya became a flourishing liberal democracy instead of a failed state and a terrorist safe haven?

Questions For Rand Paul

• People are still uncertain whether you are all that different from your father on foreign policy. Since World War II, do you believe American actions abroad, on balance, have ultimately been a force for good or a force for ill?

• In 2013, you told Breitbart News that if you were president, “any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.” I imagine that struck some of your more libertarian supporters as a strange position for you to take, to put it nicely. So explain to them why an attack on Israel should be considered an attack on the United States.

Questions For Ted Cruz

• On July 25, 2013, you — not a staff member, you — appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and said that those who didn’t support your Defund Obamacare strategy were part of the Republican “surrender caucus.” Do you really consider someone like former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn an enabler of Obamacare because he opposed your strategy, which he and many others viewed as quixotic, on efficacy grounds?

• If reports are to be believed, you are not very well liked by most of your Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. While you might say this is a good thing — i.e. you are standing up to the Washington establishment — how could you possibly get anything accomplished as president if you are unable to work effectively with Congress?

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

IndieGoGo Hosts Fundraiser for Accused Memphis Cop Killer and Family

Supporters of Tremain Wilbourn, the Memphis ex-con accused of shooting Officer Sean Bolton when he interrupted a drug deal on Saturday night, have started an IndieGoGo campaign to funnel money to him and his family.

Wilbourn turned himself in after a two-day manhunt. “I want you to know that one, I’m not a cold-blooded killer and two, I am not a coward,” he reportedly told Memphis Police Director Toney Armstrong. The campaign repeats his claims and says that cops are waging “terrorism” on black communities, and so they have to support ex-cons who kill.

The description of the campaign reads in full:

This year, police have killed 558 people. 68% of those people were black. Most of them were unarmed. Police brutality and terrorism on the black community remains largely unchecked and less than 1% of those police officers who murder black people without cause are charged with murder or manslaughter.

Tremaine Wilbourn turned himself in to police on Monday, August 3rd for fatally shooting a police officer during a traffic stop and he wanted to make clear two things: one- he is not a cold-blooded killer, and two- he is not a coward. While the murderers of Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, 12 year old Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland and countless others are free to enjoy their families and lives, these men are no longer among the living.

These barbaric, unjustified murders of black men, women, and children are supported under the rule of law. We have to step up and support our people like the murderers of these men, women, and children have been supported. Please donate anything you can to support Tremaine’s children and his family during this difficult time for them.

So far, the campaign has raised $116 with 12 funders out of its stated $61,000 goal.

“We have to support our people,” the campaign’s founder, “PK EI” wrote as a comment. “If Darren Wilson can raise enough to put his children through college twice, we should be able to put together this change for Tremaine’s family.”

“We Should Always Support Our Own People, Especially When The Situation Is Grime And Questionable, Or When We Are Completely Within Our Rights. Because We Are All We have To Support Us,” reads another from user “thinkanotherway.”

The campaign declares that Wilbourn did in fact, shoot Bolton to death. If nothing else, its adherence to IndieGoGo’s community guidelines is questionable: “Indiegogo is not a place for hatred, abuse, discrimination, disrespect, profanity, meanness, harassment, or spam,” the community guidelines read. “Do no [u]se the Services to promote violence, degradation, subjugation, discrimination or hatred against individuals or groups based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

IndieGoGo did kill an April campaign helping a cop accused of murder: South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, charged for shooting fleeing suspect Walter Scott to death. 

“Our Trust & Safety team regularly conducts verifications and checks and this campaign did not meet their standards,” the company said at the time.

Email Katie at kmchugh@breitbart.com. Follow her on Twitter: @k_mcq.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

[VIDEO] Hillary Clinton Put on Southern Accent for South Carolina Democratic Chairman

Hillary Clinton recently sat down for a "Chair Chat" with the chairman of the South Carolina Democratic party, Jaime Harrison. During the interview, as in many of her speeches to people who live in the South, she put on a Southern accent that is absent from her speeches to Northerners.

We made a mashup of some of the most painfully pandering moments, and ranked the intensity of her accent with cowboy boots (1 = lowest, 5 = strongest).

Via: Weekly Standard

Continue Reading...

Gov't watchdogs urge Congress to reverse Obama administration IG crackdown

WASHINGTON –  Nearly six-dozen watchdog agencies are asking Congress to step in after the Obama administration clamped down on access to government records they say are vital for their investigations into waste, fraud and abuse. 

The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency sent an Aug. 3 letter to congressional leaders ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday where they will ask lawmakers to pass legislation reversing a controversial decision made July 20 by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. The OLC is now requiring investigators to get permission to review sensitive documents from the very agencies they are monitoring.

This decision, the letter said, "represents a serious threat to the independent authority" of all inspectors general. 

IGs are assigned to audit and conduct internal reviews of federal agencies, and recently have been responsible for investigating the IRS targeting scandal, TSA security gaps, personal email use at the State Department and other issues. 

The council represents about 70 IG offices across the government, including for the Federal Communications Commission, the National Security Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. While the July 20 ruling applies to the DOJ, some are worried it will prompt other departments to set similar restrictions.

DOJ spokeswoman Emily Pierce countered the claims, saying the ruling still allows investigators to get sensitive information.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

We Are No Longer A Democracy

Recently, in an interview with Thom Hartmann, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said regarding 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, “It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.”  Huffington Post goes on to explain that the decisions were rendered by “five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

According to liberal left commentators, experts, political minds, and the Huffington Post, the two rulings “enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns.”

The Huff Post article then goes on to explain that in politics, there are only two choices.  Either, we are an aristocracy (oligarchy) where the richest citizen’s desires are reflected in governmental actions, or we are a democracy where the leaders represent the public at large.

Upon hearing such a thing being perpetrated by the liberal left Democrats, the political minds that reside right-of-center react, attacking what Carter, or Huff Post, had to say, without fully understanding that the premise is wrong in the first place.  While fighting on the liberal left’s terms, the “right-wingers” make fools of themselves trying defend plutocratic activities and damning what the Democrats consider to be the “will of the people.”

Via Canada Free Press

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Fox News announces candidate line-up for prime-time debate

Fox News has announced the line-up for the prime-time Republican presidential debate this Thursday, and here's who qualified: 

Real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. 

The roster of 10 candidates was determined based on an average of the five most recent national polls. Trump as expected made the cut, securing the top slot. Right behind him were Bush and Walker, who each have posted strong numbers in recent surveys. 

The drama, rather, was at the edge of the top 10. Christie and Kasich, who were hovering by that edge in recent polling, were able to qualify. 

Kasich, who leads the state where the debate is being held, said in a statement, "As governor, I am glad to welcome my fellow debate participants to our great state and I look forward to discussing the issues facing our country with them on Thursday." 

But former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and several others will not be on the prime-time, 9 p.m. ET stage. The seven who did not make the top 10 will be invited to a separate 5 p.m. ET debate. Aside from Perry and Santorum, this includes Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; former HP head Carly Fiorina; South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham; former New York Gov. George Pataki; and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. 

Via Fox News

Continue Reading....