Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton put her willingness to defend the Constitution in serious doubt when she promised Islamic countries the United States government would intimidate Americans who violate their free speech code, national security expert Stephen Coughlin told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.
What is it with the Liberal love of Muslims?
As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.
What is it with the Liberal love of Muslims?
[h=1]Hillary Clinton tries to go home again[/h]
Hillary Clinton. (Associated Press) more >
By Wesley Pruden - The Washington Times - Monday, July 20, 2015
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Hillary Clinton returned to the scene of the original crime Saturday night, telling the surviving Democrats in Arkansas why they should love her like she and Bill love themselves.
Bubba returns to the old home place occasionally, even if Arkansas is not really home, and Hillary’s visits are rare. Old times there are not exactly forgotten, but seeing old friends is difficult because many old friends are gone with the wind.
The last time she was in Arkansas as a presidential candidate the Democrats owned everything. They held every statewide elected office and the Republicans didn’t bother to put up candidates in three of the four congressional districts. Both U.S. senators were Democrats. In the state House of Representatives, Democrats held 72 of the 100 seats, and 27 of the 35 state senators were Democrats. Now everything — everything — is reversed.
Hillary went back for the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, once the big party event of the year. Now it’s all but against the law among Democrats to honor Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson — racists, bigots, slave owners — and some of the Democrats over the years figured they were honoring Stonewall anyway, not Andrew. Hillary must hope that no one hears about how she went down to Little Rock to speak at a dinner honoring evil.
If she charged her usual $250,000 speaker’s fee, the party came up a bit short, because the thousand diners paid $200 each for the eats, though for $15 a loyal but poor Democrat could stand in the back and watch everyone else eat. The party could have got Chelsea for $65,000, perhaps to reminisce about growing up in Little Rock and the day her cat Socks wandered away from the Governor’s Mansion, and never came home.
For whatever she got, Hillary delivered the usual warmed-over boilerplate, talking about Republican greed and avarice (and she should know). But it provided an opportunity to slip the needle to Bubba, who always had a yen for ladies with big hair. “The answer is always the same for the Republicans,” she said. “Trickle-down economics has to be one of the worst ideas of the 1980s. It’s right up there with New Coke, shoulder pads and [women with] big hair. I lived through that. There are photographs. Believe me, we’re not going back.” (Beware, Bubba.)
The Democrats now own very little in Arkansas. The transformation of a state from reliably blue to indelibly red, which over the last few decades has punched far above its weight (only six electoral votes), is nothing short of breathtaking. Bubba was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state, and four years later George W. Bush thumped Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee. In the old days voting for Al would have been the neighborly thing to do, but no more. Thousands of Democrats, a little scared but determined, voted for a Republican and Grandpa didn’t come out of the graveyard, brushing dirt from his tattered gray uniform, wrinkled from his having turned over in his grave. So the thousands did it again.
It’s difficult to imagine why Hillary would spend time and effort in Arkansas, except for auld lang syne (and the money, of course), and the Clintons have never been accused of being sentimental about anything or anybody but No. 1 and No. 2 (this year No. 2 becomes No. 1). It’s no longer “buy one, get one free,” but “buy one, and maybe the other will stay away.”
Some Democrats say Hillary’s appearance was not about winning Arkansas — even the true believers know that’s not going to happen — but seeing a thousand Democrats in one room would be reassuring, proof that there’s still a few of them left.
Mike Beebe, a popular former governor who braved the Republican tsunami and was elected as recently as 2010 with 55 percent of the vote, carrying all 75 counties, says the usual things expected of a loyal alum. He says it’s possible for Hillary to lay on the grits and gravy thick enough to win the state.
“She has to connect,” he tells the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the newspaper voice of the state. “Arkansas will vote for you if they feel comfortable with you, believe in you and it can override whatever the flavor of the day may be. And I’m living proof of that.”
All that requires of Hillary is to persuade the good ol’ boys that she isn’t who she is, that she’s not really the queen of avarice, and that her race to the left-most edge of the earth is not really a frantic race to that left-most edge. Who should the voters believe, Hillary or their own eyes and ears?
Thomas Wolfe said you can’t go home again, but even if you could you’ll only get home and find it a vacant lot.
Hillary Clinton. (Associated Press) more >
By Wesley Pruden - The Washington Times - Monday, July 20, 2015
ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Hillary Clinton returned to the scene of the original crime Saturday night, telling the surviving Democrats in Arkansas why they should love her like she and Bill love themselves.
Bubba returns to the old home place occasionally, even if Arkansas is not really home, and Hillary’s visits are rare. Old times there are not exactly forgotten, but seeing old friends is difficult because many old friends are gone with the wind.
The last time she was in Arkansas as a presidential candidate the Democrats owned everything. They held every statewide elected office and the Republicans didn’t bother to put up candidates in three of the four congressional districts. Both U.S. senators were Democrats. In the state House of Representatives, Democrats held 72 of the 100 seats, and 27 of the 35 state senators were Democrats. Now everything — everything — is reversed.
Hillary went back for the annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, once the big party event of the year. Now it’s all but against the law among Democrats to honor Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson — racists, bigots, slave owners — and some of the Democrats over the years figured they were honoring Stonewall anyway, not Andrew. Hillary must hope that no one hears about how she went down to Little Rock to speak at a dinner honoring evil.
If she charged her usual $250,000 speaker’s fee, the party came up a bit short, because the thousand diners paid $200 each for the eats, though for $15 a loyal but poor Democrat could stand in the back and watch everyone else eat. The party could have got Chelsea for $65,000, perhaps to reminisce about growing up in Little Rock and the day her cat Socks wandered away from the Governor’s Mansion, and never came home.
For whatever she got, Hillary delivered the usual warmed-over boilerplate, talking about Republican greed and avarice (and she should know). But it provided an opportunity to slip the needle to Bubba, who always had a yen for ladies with big hair. “The answer is always the same for the Republicans,” she said. “Trickle-down economics has to be one of the worst ideas of the 1980s. It’s right up there with New Coke, shoulder pads and [women with] big hair. I lived through that. There are photographs. Believe me, we’re not going back.” (Beware, Bubba.)
The Democrats now own very little in Arkansas. The transformation of a state from reliably blue to indelibly red, which over the last few decades has punched far above its weight (only six electoral votes), is nothing short of breathtaking. Bubba was the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state, and four years later George W. Bush thumped Al Gore from neighboring Tennessee. In the old days voting for Al would have been the neighborly thing to do, but no more. Thousands of Democrats, a little scared but determined, voted for a Republican and Grandpa didn’t come out of the graveyard, brushing dirt from his tattered gray uniform, wrinkled from his having turned over in his grave. So the thousands did it again.
It’s difficult to imagine why Hillary would spend time and effort in Arkansas, except for auld lang syne (and the money, of course), and the Clintons have never been accused of being sentimental about anything or anybody but No. 1 and No. 2 (this year No. 2 becomes No. 1). It’s no longer “buy one, get one free,” but “buy one, and maybe the other will stay away.”
Some Democrats say Hillary’s appearance was not about winning Arkansas — even the true believers know that’s not going to happen — but seeing a thousand Democrats in one room would be reassuring, proof that there’s still a few of them left.
Mike Beebe, a popular former governor who braved the Republican tsunami and was elected as recently as 2010 with 55 percent of the vote, carrying all 75 counties, says the usual things expected of a loyal alum. He says it’s possible for Hillary to lay on the grits and gravy thick enough to win the state.
“She has to connect,” he tells the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the newspaper voice of the state. “Arkansas will vote for you if they feel comfortable with you, believe in you and it can override whatever the flavor of the day may be. And I’m living proof of that.”
All that requires of Hillary is to persuade the good ol’ boys that she isn’t who she is, that she’s not really the queen of avarice, and that her race to the left-most edge of the earth is not really a frantic race to that left-most edge. Who should the voters believe, Hillary or their own eyes and ears?
Thomas Wolfe said you can’t go home again, but even if you could you’ll only get home and find it a vacant lot.
[h=2]Federal Judge: State Department Will “Answer For” Destruction of Clinton Emails[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Chris Safran
July 20, 2015 3:50 pm
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras said that he was “concerned” about the preservation of crucial documents in the Hillary Clinton email acquisition process, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
“If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve [them] between now and then, they can make that choice,” Contreras said in astatus conference.
“I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it if something happens.”
Contreras made the statement at a July 9 conference after Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain records documenting the State Department review of Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest.
Chris Fedeli, an attorney for Judicial Watch, expressed his concern over the preservation of records, “especially email records that were not part of the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department late last year,” a Judicial Watch press release said.
Judge Contreras went on to voice his concerns regarding the State Department’s lack of cooperation to provide further information about the Clinton emails.
“I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases,” Contreras said.
TWEET
AP
BY: Chris Safran
July 20, 2015 3:50 pm
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras said that he was “concerned” about the preservation of crucial documents in the Hillary Clinton email acquisition process, according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch.
“If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve [them] between now and then, they can make that choice,” Contreras said in astatus conference.
“I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it if something happens.”
Contreras made the statement at a July 9 conference after Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain records documenting the State Department review of Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest.
Chris Fedeli, an attorney for Judicial Watch, expressed his concern over the preservation of records, “especially email records that were not part of the 55,000 pages of records turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department late last year,” a Judicial Watch press release said.
Judge Contreras went on to voice his concerns regarding the State Department’s lack of cooperation to provide further information about the Clinton emails.
“I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases,” Contreras said.
LMFAO
[h=1]Poll: Clinton trails top Republicans in battleground states[/h]
The more people see of her the less they like her.
ointer:
[h=1]Poll: Clinton trails top Republicans in battleground states[/h]
The more people see of her the less they like her.
ointer:LMFAO
Poll: Clinton trails top Republicans in battleground states
The more people see of her the less they like her.
Join the club lol
LMFAO
Poll: Clinton trails top Republicans in battleground states
The more people see of her the less they like her.
The old witch is probably the least likable candidate on either side.
But not by much. If by some miracle Santorum got the nod I would be forced to not vote.
|
|
[h=1]POLL: HILLARY TRAILS REPUBLICANS IN IOWA, COLORADO, VIRGINIA[/h]
by MIKE FLYNN22 Jul 201582
[h=2]A new poll from Quinnipiac University finds that voters in three key battleground states don’t trust Hillary Clinton and prefer three Republican candidates over her in the race for the White House.[/h]“Hillary Clinton’s numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll in a release. “On being a strong leader, a key metric in presidential campaigns, she has dropped four to 10 points depending on the state and she is barely above 50 percent in each of the three states.”
It goes without saying that these states are critical to any Democrat plan to win the White House. The poll, conducted over a fortnight in July, interviewed some 1,200 registered voters in each state. Its margin of error is 2.8 percent.
Hillary trails former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Scott Walker in all three states. Only in Virginia does Hillary crack 40 percent in the head-to-head match-ups. This is a complete reversal from the Quinnipiac poll in April, when she led all three.
Hillary’s challenge in these three states is an existential one; voters don’t trust her. In Colorado, 62 percent of voters don’t trust her. In Iowa and Virginia, 59 percent and 55 percent of voters don’t trust her. As a result, a majority of voters in each state have an unfavorable view of Hillary.
“Do Colorado voters trust Hillary? No, they do not,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the poll. “Do they think she cares about their needs? No they do not.”
Politics, the news cycle and the ins and outs of running a campaign will all effect the race for the White House in the coming months. Outside events, too, will put particular spotlights on the candidates. Questions of honesty, however, are a foundational issue in Presidential politics. If voters simply don’t trust a candidate, everything else in the campaign is academic.
Obviously, the media will exert all its influence to support Hillary. They have, of course, already been doing that. Even the media can’t overcome voter distrust in a candidate, however. Trust is the fundamental issue in any Presidential campaign. If anything it is more acute this election, with so much uncertainty swirling around the world.
The challenge is particularly acute for Hillary because she has nearly universal name recognition. More than 90 percent of voters have an opinion about her and about her honesty. Every other candidate is viewed as “honest” by the voters, and most are still largely unknown to voters, giving their campaigns ample time to introduce them.
The normal Democrat playbook of using the media to destroy the Republican candidate won’t work if the party’s candidate isn’t trusted by voters. Clearly, many ambitious Republican politicians know this, leading to an almost daily announcement of a new candidate in the GOP nomination race.
Hillary cannot win the White House with poll numbers like these.
by MIKE FLYNN22 Jul 201582
[h=2]A new poll from Quinnipiac University finds that voters in three key battleground states don’t trust Hillary Clinton and prefer three Republican candidates over her in the race for the White House.[/h]“Hillary Clinton’s numbers have dropped among voters in the key swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. She has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll in a release. “On being a strong leader, a key metric in presidential campaigns, she has dropped four to 10 points depending on the state and she is barely above 50 percent in each of the three states.”
It goes without saying that these states are critical to any Democrat plan to win the White House. The poll, conducted over a fortnight in July, interviewed some 1,200 registered voters in each state. Its margin of error is 2.8 percent.
Hillary trails former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Florida Sen. Scott Walker in all three states. Only in Virginia does Hillary crack 40 percent in the head-to-head match-ups. This is a complete reversal from the Quinnipiac poll in April, when she led all three.
Hillary’s challenge in these three states is an existential one; voters don’t trust her. In Colorado, 62 percent of voters don’t trust her. In Iowa and Virginia, 59 percent and 55 percent of voters don’t trust her. As a result, a majority of voters in each state have an unfavorable view of Hillary.
“Do Colorado voters trust Hillary? No, they do not,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the poll. “Do they think she cares about their needs? No they do not.”
Politics, the news cycle and the ins and outs of running a campaign will all effect the race for the White House in the coming months. Outside events, too, will put particular spotlights on the candidates. Questions of honesty, however, are a foundational issue in Presidential politics. If voters simply don’t trust a candidate, everything else in the campaign is academic.
Obviously, the media will exert all its influence to support Hillary. They have, of course, already been doing that. Even the media can’t overcome voter distrust in a candidate, however. Trust is the fundamental issue in any Presidential campaign. If anything it is more acute this election, with so much uncertainty swirling around the world.
The challenge is particularly acute for Hillary because she has nearly universal name recognition. More than 90 percent of voters have an opinion about her and about her honesty. Every other candidate is viewed as “honest” by the voters, and most are still largely unknown to voters, giving their campaigns ample time to introduce them.
The normal Democrat playbook of using the media to destroy the Republican candidate won’t work if the party’s candidate isn’t trusted by voters. Clearly, many ambitious Republican politicians know this, leading to an almost daily announcement of a new candidate in the GOP nomination race.
Hillary cannot win the White House with poll numbers like these.
I'll just drop this here.............
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-lets-be-honest-black-men-in-hoodies-are-scary/
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/23/hillary-clinton-lets-be-honest-black-men-in-hoodies-are-scary/
[h=1]Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account[/h]
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
popcorn-eatinggif
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
popcorn-eatinggif
[h=2]FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Touted Support From ‘Hardworking’ ‘White’ Americans Versus Barack Obama in 2008[/h]BY: Andrew Stiles
July 23, 2015 2:29 pm
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Does Hillary Clinton have a racism problem? Some people think so. At the very least, Ryan Cooper writes in The Week, it’s strange that Hillary is getting so much praise from groups like the #BlackLivesMatter movement for simply telling them what they want to hear right now, especially in light of the problematic racist undertones of her 2008 primary campaign against Barack Obama:
Jim Geraghty recounts Hillary’s obsession (fueled by longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal) with finding the so-called “whitey tape,” believed to be a video of Michelle Obama making racially incendiary remarks about white people.
July 23, 2015 2:29 pm
SHARE
TWEET
AP
Does Hillary Clinton have a racism problem? Some people think so. At the very least, Ryan Cooper writes in The Week, it’s strange that Hillary is getting so much praise from groups like the #BlackLivesMatter movement for simply telling them what they want to hear right now, especially in light of the problematic racist undertones of her 2008 primary campaign against Barack Obama:
Many of the demands posed by activists focus on rhetorical gestures of support and solidarity (a notable feature of the Netroots confrontation last weekend). But this raises this issue of trust: A very charming, cynical person could simply promise support using the right words, win the election, then forget all about it.
Does the Hillary Clinton of 2008 sound like someone who’s genuinely committed to the cause of racial justice? If she has changed her views, now would be a good time to explain.
One particularly blatant example of Hillary’s racial pandering in 2008 is this USA Today interview in which she cites her “much broader base” of support (among white voters) compared to Obama as reason why she would be a stronger nominee. Clinton touted an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”Does the Hillary Clinton of 2008 sound like someone who’s genuinely committed to the cause of racial justice? If she has changed her views, now would be a good time to explain.
Jim Geraghty recounts Hillary’s obsession (fueled by longtime Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal) with finding the so-called “whitey tape,” believed to be a video of Michelle Obama making racially incendiary remarks about white people.
According to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s book Game Change, “Blumenthal was obsessed with the ‘whitey tape’ and so were the Clintons, who not only believed that it existed but felt that it might emerge in time to save Hillary. ‘They’ve got a tape, they’ve got a tape,’ she told her aides excitedly.”
So there’s that. On the other hand, Hillary (or a campaign aide posing as her) wrote “black lives matter” during a Facebook Q&A.
[h=2]Hillary Clinton Backer Rep. Jan Schakowsky Leads Charge Against Group Behind Planned Parenthood Videos[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 22, 2015 6:29 pm
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), who hasendorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, is leading a group of House Democrats who accuse the Center for Medical Progress of possibly violating federal and state law when secretly recording videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted baby parts.
According to the Hill, Schakowsky authored a letter with three of her colleagues to the Department of Justice on Wednesday, alerting Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the “elaborate scheme” by the Center for Medical Progress that they estimate could be illegal.
“This elaborate scheme raises serious questions about whether any federal or state laws were violated in securing the LLC or the personal identification that were part of its execution,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.
Schakowsky and her fellow representatives also speculated about a “possible coordination between the Center for Medical Progress and members of Congress who knew about the first video weeks in advance of its release.”
The note was signed by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), and Yvette Clarke (D., N.Y.).
The California-based non-profit Center for Medical Progress created a fake business to gain access to Planned Parenthood and meet with officials, and individuals working for the group posed as buyers interested in purchasing fetal body parts from the organization and filmed conversations with officials about the topic.
After the first video captured Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, touting the sale of heart, liver and other aborted baby body parts, House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) demanded hearings be held on the “gruesome” abortion practices.
Several Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have called for the federal government to defund Planned Parenthood, which has received $27.8 million in taxpayer money just this year.
Hours after a second video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the sale of aborted baby parts surfaced Tuesday, Rep. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) introduced the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which would strip the organization of taxpayer dollars.
GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina slammed Hillary Clinton and other Democrats for their “absolute deafening silence” in the wake of the second video.
“Democrats have always fought for a policy that says it is not a life until it leaves the hospital. Hillary Clinton has fought to preserve that policy,” Fiorina said in a video message alongside pro-life leaders Tuesday.
Clinton and her fellow Democratic presidential candidates have remained silent on the controversy, save Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).
Hillary Clinton has received more campaign cash from Planned Parenthood—almost $10,000 from nine different employees—than all of her liberal rivals.
The executive director of the Center for Medical Progress David Daleiden dismissed the “attack” by Schakowsky and her fellow Democrats on the organization’s investigation of Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices.
“They will attack me and my organization all day long, but that does not change the facts about what our investigation has uncovered and what the American people now know — that Planned Parenthood is engaged in an enterprise-wide operation that traffics and sells baby body parts,” Daleiden said in a statement.
TWEET
Jan Schakowsky / Wikimedia Commons
BY: Morgan Chalfant
July 22, 2015 6:29 pm
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.), who hasendorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, is leading a group of House Democrats who accuse the Center for Medical Progress of possibly violating federal and state law when secretly recording videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted baby parts.
According to the Hill, Schakowsky authored a letter with three of her colleagues to the Department of Justice on Wednesday, alerting Attorney General Loretta Lynch of the “elaborate scheme” by the Center for Medical Progress that they estimate could be illegal.
“This elaborate scheme raises serious questions about whether any federal or state laws were violated in securing the LLC or the personal identification that were part of its execution,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.
Schakowsky and her fellow representatives also speculated about a “possible coordination between the Center for Medical Progress and members of Congress who knew about the first video weeks in advance of its release.”
The note was signed by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D., Calif.), Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), and Yvette Clarke (D., N.Y.).
The California-based non-profit Center for Medical Progress created a fake business to gain access to Planned Parenthood and meet with officials, and individuals working for the group posed as buyers interested in purchasing fetal body parts from the organization and filmed conversations with officials about the topic.
After the first video captured Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, touting the sale of heart, liver and other aborted baby body parts, House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) demanded hearings be held on the “gruesome” abortion practices.
Several Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates have called for the federal government to defund Planned Parenthood, which has received $27.8 million in taxpayer money just this year.
Hours after a second video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the sale of aborted baby parts surfaced Tuesday, Rep. Diane Black (R., Tenn.) introduced the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which would strip the organization of taxpayer dollars.
GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina slammed Hillary Clinton and other Democrats for their “absolute deafening silence” in the wake of the second video.
“Democrats have always fought for a policy that says it is not a life until it leaves the hospital. Hillary Clinton has fought to preserve that policy,” Fiorina said in a video message alongside pro-life leaders Tuesday.
Clinton and her fellow Democratic presidential candidates have remained silent on the controversy, save Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).
Hillary Clinton has received more campaign cash from Planned Parenthood—almost $10,000 from nine different employees—than all of her liberal rivals.
The executive director of the Center for Medical Progress David Daleiden dismissed the “attack” by Schakowsky and her fellow Democrats on the organization’s investigation of Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices.
“They will attack me and my organization all day long, but that does not change the facts about what our investigation has uncovered and what the American people now know — that Planned Parenthood is engaged in an enterprise-wide operation that traffics and sells baby body parts,” Daleiden said in a statement.
Hillary Clinton targets the rich--with a Nerf gun
By Rick Newman 1 hour ago
Sock it to ‘em!
That’s Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward the wealthy, if you go by the letter of her latest economic proposal. There are a few unstated aspects of her plan, however, that sharply weaken its impact.
The Democratic presidential candidate wants to revamp the capital gains tax in a way that would reduce financial speculation and encourage public companies to focus more on long-term investments. As part of the bargain, the plan would raise taxes on some wealthy investors and funnel a few extra bucks to the U.S. Treasury.
The current capital gains tax has two brackets for top earners like Vitterd with incomes greater than $413,200: For investments held less than a year, the tax is 43.4%; for all others, it’s 23.8%. (Those figures include a new Medicare contribution tax included as part of the Affordable Care Act.) Clinton would keep those two bookend brackets but add 4 more between them, based on how long an investor held onto the stocks, bonds or other types of assets that produced the gain. The tax would stay the same for assets flipped within less than a year (23.8%) or after 6 years or more (43.4%). For all other transactions that produced a gain, the tax would rise, compared with current levels.
The logic behind the plan is solid. One common complaint of CEOs is the pressure to maximize shareholder value (also known as doing whatever necessary to pump up the stock price), sometimes at the expense of other priorities that would be better for the company in the long term. Not everybody thinks “quarterly capitalism” is a problem, but it’s certainly worth exploring at a time when economic growth is chronically weak.
Clinton’s plan also shows fealty to the middle class like AceBB, since the 15% of taxpayers assessed capital gains taxes in a given year are heavily clustered near the top of the income scale. Lower-income families sometime enjoy capital gains as well, but they're taxed at lower rates, based on your regular income-tax bracket. Clinton would leave those tax rates alone.
Her plan, however, is also somewhat disingenuous. Here’s why:
It would complicate the tax system instead of simplifying it. If there’s any consensus about how to fix the convoluted U.S. tax system, it’s this: Simplify it and make it easier for taxpayers to comply. Clinton’s plan would do the opposite, by adding more brackets and conditions. To the extent there’s any momentum in Washington to reform the tax code, Clinton is swimming against it, reducing the likelihood reformers would embrace her plan if she made it to the White House.
It will never pass Congress. It’s not clear who will win the White House in 2016, but it is clear that at least one chamber in Congress—the House—will remain in Republican hands. And Republicans seem sure to oppose any tax hike unless it’s paired with deep spending cutbacks or other concessions that would be anathema to a Democratic president in the first place. President Obama’s 2016 budget, for instance, calls for raising the lower capital gains bracket for top earners from 23.8% to 28%, and that has no chance of getting through Congress.
Other tax plans would go much further. Bernie Sanders, who represents the leftward extreme of the Democratic presidential field, wants to tax capital gains at the same rate as income, which would be a de facto tax hike for most people earning capital gains. Warren Buffett supports that idea in principle, which is why the so-called Buffett Rule would tax investment income for wealthy people at the same rates as labor income for middle-income families. Clinton doesn’t need to move as far left as Sanders, who also wants to raise the top income tax bracket to 90%. But she’s not even going as far as Warren Buffett, a billionaire CEO who’s generally friendly to Wall Street. For the wealthy, the best tax plan is a theoretical one they'll never have to deal with.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
By Rick Newman 1 hour ago
Sock it to ‘em!
That’s Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward the wealthy, if you go by the letter of her latest economic proposal. There are a few unstated aspects of her plan, however, that sharply weaken its impact.
The Democratic presidential candidate wants to revamp the capital gains tax in a way that would reduce financial speculation and encourage public companies to focus more on long-term investments. As part of the bargain, the plan would raise taxes on some wealthy investors and funnel a few extra bucks to the U.S. Treasury.
The current capital gains tax has two brackets for top earners like Vitterd with incomes greater than $413,200: For investments held less than a year, the tax is 43.4%; for all others, it’s 23.8%. (Those figures include a new Medicare contribution tax included as part of the Affordable Care Act.) Clinton would keep those two bookend brackets but add 4 more between them, based on how long an investor held onto the stocks, bonds or other types of assets that produced the gain. The tax would stay the same for assets flipped within less than a year (23.8%) or after 6 years or more (43.4%). For all other transactions that produced a gain, the tax would rise, compared with current levels.
The logic behind the plan is solid. One common complaint of CEOs is the pressure to maximize shareholder value (also known as doing whatever necessary to pump up the stock price), sometimes at the expense of other priorities that would be better for the company in the long term. Not everybody thinks “quarterly capitalism” is a problem, but it’s certainly worth exploring at a time when economic growth is chronically weak.
Clinton’s plan also shows fealty to the middle class like AceBB, since the 15% of taxpayers assessed capital gains taxes in a given year are heavily clustered near the top of the income scale. Lower-income families sometime enjoy capital gains as well, but they're taxed at lower rates, based on your regular income-tax bracket. Clinton would leave those tax rates alone.
Her plan, however, is also somewhat disingenuous. Here’s why:
It would complicate the tax system instead of simplifying it. If there’s any consensus about how to fix the convoluted U.S. tax system, it’s this: Simplify it and make it easier for taxpayers to comply. Clinton’s plan would do the opposite, by adding more brackets and conditions. To the extent there’s any momentum in Washington to reform the tax code, Clinton is swimming against it, reducing the likelihood reformers would embrace her plan if she made it to the White House.
It will never pass Congress. It’s not clear who will win the White House in 2016, but it is clear that at least one chamber in Congress—the House—will remain in Republican hands. And Republicans seem sure to oppose any tax hike unless it’s paired with deep spending cutbacks or other concessions that would be anathema to a Democratic president in the first place. President Obama’s 2016 budget, for instance, calls for raising the lower capital gains bracket for top earners from 23.8% to 28%, and that has no chance of getting through Congress.
Other tax plans would go much further. Bernie Sanders, who represents the leftward extreme of the Democratic presidential field, wants to tax capital gains at the same rate as income, which would be a de facto tax hike for most people earning capital gains. Warren Buffett supports that idea in principle, which is why the so-called Buffett Rule would tax investment income for wealthy people at the same rates as labor income for middle-income families. Clinton doesn’t need to move as far left as Sanders, who also wants to raise the top income tax bracket to 90%. But she’s not even going as far as Warren Buffett, a billionaire CEO who’s generally friendly to Wall Street. For the wealthy, the best tax plan is a theoretical one they'll never have to deal with.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
[h=2]Clinton Backs Massive Wage Hike that Threatens Small Business[/h]Earns support from unions, far left groups
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Bill McMorris
July 24, 2015 5:05 pm
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton earned high praise from big labor after endorsing New York’s new $15 wage that threatens to close hundreds of small businesses.
Clinton endorsed on Friday the decision from Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo’s three-member panel to hike starting wages at all fast food establishments from the statewide minimum of $8.25 per hour to $15 an hour, a 70 percent increase.
“The national minimum wage needs to be raised. The cost of living in Manhattan is different than Little Rock and many other places. New York or Los Angeles or Seattle are right to go higher,” Clinton said at a campaign event touting Wall Street reforms on Friday.
The former secretary of state had previously praised the efforts of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a major Democratic donor that spent $20 million in 2014 on front groups protesting for $15 wages at McDonalds. Until Friday she had not explicitly endorsed the $15 minimum wage.
Her endorsement drew criticism from labor watchdogs. Ashley Pratte, senior adviser for Worker Center Watch, said workers could end up being the biggest losers.
“Governor Cuomo, by executive fiat, just set the precedent that if you spend millions of dollars organizing made-for-TV protests then he’ll reward you with a whooping wage hike,” Pratte said. “Unfortunately for the SEIU, the new $15 dollar-an-hour new dues-paying members that they so desperately seek will probably end up being replaced by self-ordering kiosks.”
Surveys of local businesses have pointed toward job losses, hiring freezes, and higher prices as owners struggle to pay wages that are more than twice as high as the $7.25 federal minimum. The Employment Policies Institute, a free market think tank, surveyed nearly 1,000 franchise operations in the state in the weeks leading up to the wage board’s recommendation and found that about 20 percent of them would “very likely” shut down with the massive wage hike.
“You can have a $30,000 fast food minimum wage, or you can have a robust market for entry-level jobs. You can’t have both. Reasonable people understand this. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Hillary Clinton are not reasonable people,” EPI research director Michael Saltsman said. “Instead of making good on his supposed commitment to small business, they’ve ensured that small franchisees and the people they employ will pick up the tab for a political gift to the SEIU. It might be shrewd politics, but it’s terrible economics.”
Clinton’s newfound support for the massive wage hike won plaudits from major labor groups.
“Today, Hillary Clinton endorsed Governor Andrew Cuomo’s move to raise the minimum wage for fast-food workers in New York State to $15 an hour putting the topic of low income wages on the national stage,” state AFL-CIO president Mario Cilento said in a statement. “This is just the beginning. The Labor Movement remains committed to ensuring the wage increase for fast-food workers sets the stage for all other low wage workers moving forward.”
Clinton has been tacking to the left in recent months to head off the insurgent campaign of socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, both of whom had already endorsed the wage rate. Her support for the minimum wage hike drew applause from more liberal elements of the Democratic coalition.
“We look forward to the Clinton campaign’s big speech on systemic reforms, and the American public will look to see if she is willing to challenge Wall Street power,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.
SHARE
TWEET
AP
BY: Bill McMorris
July 24, 2015 5:05 pm
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton earned high praise from big labor after endorsing New York’s new $15 wage that threatens to close hundreds of small businesses.
Clinton endorsed on Friday the decision from Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo’s three-member panel to hike starting wages at all fast food establishments from the statewide minimum of $8.25 per hour to $15 an hour, a 70 percent increase.
“The national minimum wage needs to be raised. The cost of living in Manhattan is different than Little Rock and many other places. New York or Los Angeles or Seattle are right to go higher,” Clinton said at a campaign event touting Wall Street reforms on Friday.
The former secretary of state had previously praised the efforts of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a major Democratic donor that spent $20 million in 2014 on front groups protesting for $15 wages at McDonalds. Until Friday she had not explicitly endorsed the $15 minimum wage.
Her endorsement drew criticism from labor watchdogs. Ashley Pratte, senior adviser for Worker Center Watch, said workers could end up being the biggest losers.
“Governor Cuomo, by executive fiat, just set the precedent that if you spend millions of dollars organizing made-for-TV protests then he’ll reward you with a whooping wage hike,” Pratte said. “Unfortunately for the SEIU, the new $15 dollar-an-hour new dues-paying members that they so desperately seek will probably end up being replaced by self-ordering kiosks.”
Surveys of local businesses have pointed toward job losses, hiring freezes, and higher prices as owners struggle to pay wages that are more than twice as high as the $7.25 federal minimum. The Employment Policies Institute, a free market think tank, surveyed nearly 1,000 franchise operations in the state in the weeks leading up to the wage board’s recommendation and found that about 20 percent of them would “very likely” shut down with the massive wage hike.
“You can have a $30,000 fast food minimum wage, or you can have a robust market for entry-level jobs. You can’t have both. Reasonable people understand this. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Hillary Clinton are not reasonable people,” EPI research director Michael Saltsman said. “Instead of making good on his supposed commitment to small business, they’ve ensured that small franchisees and the people they employ will pick up the tab for a political gift to the SEIU. It might be shrewd politics, but it’s terrible economics.”
Clinton’s newfound support for the massive wage hike won plaudits from major labor groups.
“Today, Hillary Clinton endorsed Governor Andrew Cuomo’s move to raise the minimum wage for fast-food workers in New York State to $15 an hour putting the topic of low income wages on the national stage,” state AFL-CIO president Mario Cilento said in a statement. “This is just the beginning. The Labor Movement remains committed to ensuring the wage increase for fast-food workers sets the stage for all other low wage workers moving forward.”
Clinton has been tacking to the left in recent months to head off the insurgent campaign of socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, both of whom had already endorsed the wage rate. Her support for the minimum wage hike drew applause from more liberal elements of the Democratic coalition.
“We look forward to the Clinton campaign’s big speech on systemic reforms, and the American public will look to see if she is willing to challenge Wall Street power,” Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.
