Planned Parenthood, the Lies, the Excuses Exposed

Editor’s Note – Since John Boehner announced his resignation effective October 31st, the idea that Planned Parenthood would lose its funding this year is remote at best. But that does not mean the flames are diminishing since Boehner announced the formation of a Select Committee to investigate the organization.

Boehner vowed Sunday that there will be no government shutdown at the end of the month — adding that he will impanel a select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood after “undercover” videos renewed outrage among conservatives about government funding for the women’s health provider. (See moire at WaPo.)

The heat will certainly rise more as supporters’ arguments decrying the infamous videos are being debunked. Today was a good indicator of that heat as the investigation began with Cecile Richards testifying and in a short time her testimony was proven wrong.

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, listens to an opening statement by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington, Sept. 29, 2015. The House and Senate will try to pass a temporary spending measure that would avert a shutdown of the federal government later this week that saves the bigger political feuds for the weeks ahead. The bill does not include language cutting off federal financing for Planned Parenthood, which some Republicans badly wanted. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, listens to an opening statement by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) during a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington, Sept. 29, 2015. The House and Senate will try to pass a temporary spending measure that would avert a shutdown of the federal government later this week that saves the bigger political feuds for the weeks ahead. The bill does not include language cutting off federal financing for Planned Parenthood, which some Republicans badly wanted. (Stephen Crowley/The New York Times)

She called the videos heavily edited and retouched, but a Daily Signal article shows that to be wrong. Kate Scanlon wrote and filed her story as Forensic Analysis: Planned Parenthood Videos Are ‘Authentic’:

A forensic analysis of undercover videos about Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices are “authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing,” according to a report released Tuesday by Alliance Defending Freedom.

The analysis was completed by Coalfire, a digital security and forensics firm that has worked on civil and criminal investigations. The firm had access to all audio and video investigative footage recorded by the Center for Medical Progress.

“The Coalfire forensic analysis removes any doubt that the full length undercover videos released by Center for Medical Progress are authentic and have not been manipulated,” said Casey Mattox, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. “Analysts scrutinized every second of video recorded during the investigation and released by CMP to date and found only bathroom breaks and other non-pertinent footage had been removed.”

According to the report, the videos only omit footage irrelevant to the allegations such as bathroom breaks.

“Planned Parenthood can no longer hide behind a smokescreen of false accusations,” Mattox said, “and should now answer for what appear to be the very real crimes revealed by the CMP investigation.”

The Oath! The Lies, the excuses.
The Oath! The Lies, the excuses.

“American taxpayer money should be redirected to fund local community health centers and not subsidize a scandal-ridden, billion-dollar abortion business,” Kerri Kupec, legal communications director for Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement.

“Planned Parenthood is an organization that cares about one thing: making a profit at the expense of women’s health,” she added. “The investigative videos, whose authenticity was confirmed by the report, show that Planned Parenthood is an abortion-machine whose top executives and doctors haggle and joke about the harvesting and selling of baby body parts. Women deserve far better.”

Spokespersons for Planned Parenthood have denied illegal conduct. Last month, the organization commissioned their own analysis of the videos which claimed that the “edited” videos “have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries.”

The Daily Signal previously reported that the firm hired by Planned Parenthood, Fusion GPS, has ties to the Democratic Party, including an effort to expose a group of eight private citizens who donated to a super PAC supporting former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.

It gets worse though, her claims in testimony on the issue of mammograms was also less than truthful.

This was first reported in August of 2015 in National Review where a “map pinpoints the 665 Planned Parenthood locations and health-care clinics in the United States, compared side-by-side with the 13,540 clinics clustered across the country that are currently offering comprehensive women’s health care, according to the two groups’ data.”

PP.Map.Mammo

Read on and watch these videos from Shoshanna Weisman at the Weekly Standard:

Today, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Cecile Richards, testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on PPFA’s use of taxpayer funding. During testimony, she falsely asserted that, “we’ve never stated that we did” provide mammograms.

“An affiliate isn’t a health center. I think I spoke earlier, we do not have mammogram machines at our health centers. And we’ve never stated that we did. As was mentioned earlier, for women who who go for a breast exam, if you need a mammogram, your referred to a radiological clinic.”

%CODE%

However, in 2011, Richards said on CNN that if federal funding is cut off to her organization “millions of women are going to lose access, not to abortion services, to basic family planning, you know, mammograms….”

%CODE2%

Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan grilled Cecile Richards and is a must see video as well:

%CODE3%

Left Now Calls For Hillary to Come Clean or Get Out

Editor’s Note – Last night we heard that the FBI was able to recover emails from Hillary Clinton’s server and now some on the left are calling for her head and noted columnist and talking head Ron Fournier lists the reason below.

In addition, even the State Department is challenging Hillary’s many excuses, most notably on the chain of events leading to her turning over the so-called non-private ones. Her story is so frought with lies and distractions it makes the head spin:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has described her decision last year to turn over thousands of work-related e-mails as a response to a routine-sounding records request.

“When we were asked to help the State Department make sure they had everything from other secretaries of state, not just me, I’m the one who said, ‘Okay, great, I will go through them again,’ ” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And we provided all of them.”

But State Department officials provided new information Tuesday that undercuts Clinton’s characterization. They said the request was not simply about general rec­ord-keeping but was prompted entirely by the discovery that Clinton had exclusively used a private e-mail system. They also said they first contacted her in the summer of 2014, at least three months before the agency asked Clinton and three of her predecessors to provide their e-mails.

It’s not just why and when they were turned over, it is also how. Remember, she had them printed out, thus hiding the meta-data and slowing down the search process. In any other criminal case, that is clearly obstruction of justice – 30,000 times. But we want to take Ron Fournier’s article one step further, like prison further.

Please read on as the left is learning and be sure to check on Ron’s 19 question for Hillary from September 9th, and then read here:

Hillary Clinton: Come Clean or Get Out

The email scandal is a distraction from the important work of the Democratic Party.

By Ron Fournier – National Journal

If the Demo­crat­ic Party cares to sal­vage a sliv­er of mor­al au­thor­ity, its lead­ers and early state voters need to send Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton an ur­gent mes­sage: Come clean or get out. Stop ly­ing and de­flect­ing about how and why you stashed State De­part­ment email on a secret serv­er—or stop run­ning.email-scandal-ron-fournier-has-19-questions-for-hillary_1

Tell her: We can’t have an­oth­er day like this:

Story 1: The State De­part­ment con­firmed that Clin­ton turned over her email only after Con­gress dis­covered that she had ex­clus­ively used a private email sys­tem. Ac­cord­ing to The Wash­ing­ton Post, the de­part­ment first con­tac­ted her in the sum­mer of 2014, at least three months be­fore the agency asked Clin­ton and three of her pre­de­cessors to provide their emails.

The story un­der­cuts Clin­ton’s claim that her de­cision to turn over self-se­lec­ted email was a re­sponse to a routine-sound­ing re­cords re­quest. She hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 2: A fed­er­al court has helped un­cov­er more emails re­lated to the Benghazi raid that were with­held from con­gres­sion­al in­vest­ig­at­ors. Clin­ton has in­sisted she turned over all her work-re­lated email and com­plied with con­gres­sion­al sub­poen­as.

Again, she hasn’t been telling the truth.

Story 3: The FBI has re­covered per­son­al and work-re­lated e-mails from her private serv­er, rais­ing the pos­sib­il­ity that the de­leted in­form­a­tion be­comes pub­lic. “The FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing how and why clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion ended up on Clin­ton’s serv­er,” Bloomberg re­por­ted.

While the Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner still in­sists there was no clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion on the un­se­cured serv­er, the FBI has moved bey­ond wheth­er U.S. secrets were in­volved to how and why. In the lan­guage of law en­force­ment, the FBI is in­vest­ig­at­ing her motive.

ron-fournier-360x220On Sunday, Clin­ton told Face the Na­tion host John Dick­er­son: “What I did was al­lowed. It was fully above board,” and “I tried to be fully trans­par­ent.” Both claims are ob­ject­ively and in­dis­put­ably false.

From the mo­ment this story broke in March, seni­or Demo­crats told me they were wor­ried about where the ques­tions would lead. Sev­er­al said they feared what the emails might show about the in­ter­sec­tion of Clin­ton’s work at the State De­part­ment and the fam­ily’s private found­a­tion.

One Clin­ton loy­al­ist, a cred­ible source who I’ve known for years, told me, “The emails are a re­lated but sec­ond­ary scan­dal. Fol­low the found­a­tion money.”

That is still spec­u­la­tion. But months of dis­hon­esty and de­cep­tion took their toll: A ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans don’t trust her, and the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion fight has shif­ted from a coron­a­tion to a com­pet­i­tion. A poll re­leased today by Bloomberg shows Clin­ton barely lead­ing so­cial­ist Bernie Sanders and Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden, who’s not even in the race.

For Demo­crats, this is an op­por­tun­ity wasted. A crowded GOP field has been taken host­age by a celebrity bil­lion­aire with a his­tory of bank­ruptcies, sex­ist be­ha­vi­or, and ra­cially of­fens­ive state­ments. Lack­ing a firm grip on policy or the truth, Don­ald Trump is the GOP front-run­ner.

His closest com­pet­i­tion, Dr. Ben Car­son, said Sunday he didn’t think a Muslim should be pres­id­ent, and his ef­forts to clean up the con­tro­versy have been as ham-handed as they are dis­hon­est.

Which brings me back to Clin­ton. Loy­al­ists ar­gue that her policy agenda speaks to Amer­ica’s new demo­graphy and ad­dresses 21st-cen­tury chal­lenges. Even if they’re right, the Clin­ton team has un­der­es­tim­ated the value that voters place on a can­did­ate’s char­ac­ter. One top Clin­ton ad­viser told me in the spring, “Trust doesn’t mat­ter.”

Hillary.Fournier

 

Oft-burned Amer­ic­ans un­der­stand that a policy agenda is a col­lec­tion of prom­ises. If they can’t count on Clin­ton to be hon­est, they can’t count on her to keep her word about in­come in­equal­ity, jobs, health care, and the en­vir­on­ment.

She an­nounced a plan Tues­day to re­duce pre­scrip­tion-drug costs, prom­ising to cap monthly out-of-pock­et ex­penses at $250 without curb­ing profits that fund re­search in­to life-sav­ing drugs. Can you be­lieve her?

Over­shad­ow­ing that news was her long-awaited de­cision on the Key­stone pipeline: Clin­ton now op­poses a pro­ject she was once in­clined to sup­port at the State De­part­ment, a flip-flop that she jus­ti­fied with a rhet­or­ic­al wave of the hand. “I think it is im­per­at­ive that we look at the Key­stone pipeline as what I be­lieve it is—a dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work we have to do to com­bat cli­mate change.”

A dis­trac­tion from the im­port­ant work. That could be her cam­paign slo­gan.

Obama's Religion, Muslims, and Trump

Editor’s Note – Was the now infamous man in New Hampshire who told Trump that “we have a Muslim problem and that Obama is a Muslim,” a plant? Some say it was an attempt to tear Trump down, but that is speculation. What is not speculation is the damage Obama has done to this once great nation.

Below, Larry Sellin gets to these roots and raises the question of whether or not it matters if Obama is or was a Muslim or any denomination of any religion. However, what is also not speculation is the very real topic Dr. Ben Carson brought up, that a Muslim could not be a President because of conflicting fealty – Shariah Law, the basis of Islam is completely at odds with our Constitution.

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson says Islam is antithetical to the Constitution, and he doesn’t believe that a Muslim should be elected president. Carson, a devout Christian, says a president’s faith should matter to voters if it runs counter to the values and principles of America. NHMuslimMan

Responding to a question during an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” he described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.” (Read the rest at My Way News.)

If there was a plant to trip up Trump, it certainly opened a can of worms but it appears it was more than worms emerging on this old, unsettled subject. Every Presidential candidate is now being asked about what they think of how Trump acted and sure enough, folks like Carson, a very learned man who by his statement demonstrates that he knows Islam and the Constitution gave his opinion. Why is no one asking Obama himself?

Like in the days of JFK, our first Catholic President, people asked back then if his allegiance would be to the Pope over the Constitution, as we know it was not, but it was so important he gave a speech about it to quell the issue. He faced it straight on, something Obama has never done. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find when Obama stopped being a Muslim and became a Black Liberation Theology adherent.

TrumpNHMuslimGuyIn almost seven years in office, the Obama’s never chose a church in the DC area and rarely entered any church, even for Christmas while on vacation.

Make no mistake about it, Obama’s father was a Muslim and under Shariah Law, that meant that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was automatically a Muslim by birthright, something Obama has never faced, nor explained to America as JFK did.

Whether he was also Muslim because of his step-father and the unsettled “adoption” issue and the Indonesian school registration, does not matter either, just that his beliefs and actions have been and continue to be in stark contrast to the Constitution and American values and exceptionalism.

Gallup even ran a poll in 2012 to see what Americans knew about Obama’s religion, and apparently many still do not know as the poll showed back then. In the whole history of the USA, only four Presidents’ religions were not known, or easy to identify, but only one was a Catholic, but will we ever know for sure about Obama?

Maybe Rev. Wright knows. One thing we do know, its not Mr. Trump’s or any other American’s responsibility to prove a negative or defend Mr. Obama, that is his job.

Is Obama a Muslim?

by LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD Family Security Matters

20120212_SellinI do not believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, nor do I think he is a Christian, nor do I think it matters, because he is not motivated by any religious belief, but by a secular ideology.

All of his convictions and actions can be explained by a single supposition.

Obama is dedicated to the subversion of Western, in particular White European, Judeo-Christian-based democracy.

In the world today, the two strongest forces opposing Western, Judeo-Christian democracy are radical Islam and Marxism in its current manifestations.

The proponents of radical Islam and Marxism have a shared hatred of the United States as the embodiment of evil and the main impediment to the subjugation of the individual by either Sharia or the state.

In that respect, Obama’s modus operandi can be considered Islamo-Marxist by embracing their methods that, he thinks, can effectively undermine American culture and weaken the ability to transmit to future generations the principles upon which the United States was founded, in order to pave the way for a new political order, his so-called fundamental transformation.

The uncontrolled immigrant invasion; the constant promotion of Islam; the fostering of homosexual and transsexual lifestyles; the rejection of Constitutional processes; the nurturing of domestic extremist political movements like Black Lives Matter; the growth of government and unsustainable debt; the pursuit of a dangerous foreign policy; the Stalinist-style political correctness; and other insults to American values and traditions are not meant to solve any problem or redress any grievance, but are all specifically designed to weaken the national soul, compromise national security and relegate patriotism to little more than an underground resistance movement.

It is most likely that Obama is amoral, believes only in his own narcissism and is driven by contempt for everything the United States represents.

The real American calamity, however, is not Obama, but the corrupt political-media establishment that allowed him to occupy the Oval Office for eight destructive years.

It was the far-left Democrat Party and the fawning, biased media that facilitated his rise to power and uncritically and shamelessly protected him in office. It was the Republican eunuchs who disgracefully refused to vet Obama or oppose any of his policies.

It is an unfortunate fact that American politicians, collectively, both Democrat and Republican, do not trust representative government and care nothing about the Constitution or the rule of law. They believe only in the pursuit of personal power and profit via a warped legislative process, executive overreach and a constant stream of guaranteed taxpayer revenues. Both parties use campaign deception, practice political expediency, engage in crony capitalism and, when necessary, promote voter fraud to sustain the corrupt status quo.ObamaWright

Instead of acting as the people’s “watchdog,” the media support the permanent political elite by preserving the illusion of democracy and enabling tyranny by misinforming Americans and manipulating public opinion.

Realizing that they no longer have representative government nor can they rely on the media, the voters are flocking to Donald Trump because there is no one else to whom to flock.

Make no mistake, the political-media establishment fears Trump, not because they fear for the well-being of the country, but because, if he wins, Trump might investigate and prosecute the corruption in Washington DC.

In such a situation, most members of the political-media establishment would lose their jobs and some would go to jail, complicit in perpetuating the greatest fraud and Constitutional crisis in US history.

I don’t care about Obama’s religion or his sexual orientation, if he plays with dolls or if his favorite sport is croquet.

I only know that he is bad for America. And that’s enough for me. Although Obama will be gone soon, the national wounds he inflicted will take generations to mend.

That healing cannot occur, however, while the disease that made a President Barack Obama possible persists.

The hopelessly corrupt political-media establishment must be swept away.


Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Restoring the Republic: Arguments for a Second American Revolution “. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

O’Keefe Exposing Possible Clinton Election Fraud in NV

Editor’s Note – James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team were in Bigfork, Montana speaking at MG Vallely’s Glacier Forum series, a Stand Up America US project on Thursday, September 10th and brought the house down revealing his latest undercover work released earlier.

Staying at the General’s home, O’Keefe explained how Project Veritas succeeded in exposing what looks to be fraud in the Hillary Clinton campaign in Nevada.

James O'Keefe and James "Sarge" Olsen visit the grave of Paul Vallely's son Scott. The Major General is in the middle, with James on the left and "Sarge" on the right.
James O’Keefe and James “Sarge” Oleen visit the grave of Paul Vallely’s son Scott. The Major General is in the middle, with James on the left and “Sarge” on the right.

O’Keefe gave an exclusive interview to Breibart  today from the Vallely home and confirmed that Christina Gupana is already being investigated by the state of Nevada.

Top election officials in the state of Nevada are investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign official who was snared in the latest James O’Keefe video, Breitbart News has exclusively learned.

Nevada attorney Christina Gupana, who is managing voter-registration efforts for the Clinton campaign in the key state of Nevada, was the unwitting star of O’Keefe’s undercover sting video this week. Gupana was caught on film apparently conspiring to violate election laws. (Read the rest at Breibart)

Jim Wheeler, a Republican Nevada Assemblyman told SUA that “It seems like some people in the Democratic Party will do whatever it takes to win. Even break the law. This should tell you something about their motives.”

Nevada is a crucial State because it is one of the earlier caucus/primary states, with its Closed Democratic Caucus scheduled for February 20, 2016; only 19 days after the Semi-Open Iowa Caucus, and less than two weeks after the New Hampshire Semi- Open Primary.

It is also only a week before the South Carolina Open Primary. 39 Democrat Party delegates are at stake in Nevada.

With the Clinton Campaign fast approaching a must-win situation with poll numbers dropping for Hillary, it seems Assemblyman Wheeler is spot on.

OKeefeVeritasLogo

O’Keefe Strikes Again: Undercover Video Purports to Show Hillary Clinton Campaign Violating Election Law

By John Nolte, Breitbart News

An undercover video published Thursday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas purports to show Nevada-based Hillary Clinton campaign staffers and volunteers ignoring and knowingly violating Nevada’s voter registration laws. 

Moreover, the video appears to show that this conduct is being condoned and encouraged by a local attorney who works for the Clinton campaign.

According to the video, it is a felony in the state of Nevada for anyone involved in the voter registration process to “solicit a vote for or against a particular question or candidate; speak to a voter on the subject of marking his or her ballot for or against a particular question or candidate.”  

Christina-GupanaThe video appears to show that numerous Hillary Clinton campaign staffers are well aware of the law.

Nevertheless, the video shows them laughing at the law and repeatedly bragging about violating it by promoting Hillary Clinton verbally and with campaign literature as they attempt to register potential voters

The Project Veritas video further appears to show that the Clinton campaign staff solicits voter registration in close proximity to state offices, which may also violate Nevada law

According to the video, when the attorney in question, identified as Christina Gupana, was told about this alleged lawbreaking, she advised the staffers to, “Do whatever you can. Whatever you can get away with, just do it, until you get kicked out like totally.”

More than one staffer says that the campaign’s motto towards these laws is “Ask for forgiveness, not for permission.” 

%CODE%

And You Think Trump Is Going To Destroy The Republican Party?

Editor’s Note – It’s a bizarre thing existing in a Netherworld where you neither support nor despise Republican frontrunner Donald Trump.

The benefits of this new media world of ours, this awe-inspiring world of social media and instant online publishing, far outweigh the negatives.

One obvious negative is that our politics are becoming a bit more shrill, sometimes to the point where if you haven’t yet taken a side, one will be assigned to you.

An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump

By Sundance – The Last Refuge

A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.  Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.

goldberg-headshot

While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.

The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.

I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.

On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.

The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies.

It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber.

I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.

Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation.

Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.

Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred.  Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”.

Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.

Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years.  The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed.

Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.

Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1.  It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.

From your own writing:

[…]  If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent.  (link)

With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto?  Simply, NO.

Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.

If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people.  Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option.  While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.

Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?

We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue.  We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.

Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people.   This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.

We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so.  Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?

Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind.

Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage.  A profound difference.

Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable.  Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent.

Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities.  I digress.

Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?  A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?

Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?

Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?

Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?

Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads?  Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel.  The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.

Perhaps you forget.  We do not.

Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.

You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test?

Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.

Principle?  You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration.  Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?

Remember Virginia 2012, 2013?  When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”.  Remember that?  We do.

What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign.   To teach us a lesson?  Well it worked, we learned that lesson.

Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.

You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals.

Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?

That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)

What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say.  The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.

But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.

evil obama

The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.

The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.

This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners)  with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs.

Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.

Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?

As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?   All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”.

Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers?  This is a conservative position now?  A need to “tax the poor”?  Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.

This is a winning strategy?  This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.

Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:

• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.

• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP

• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP

• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP

• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP

• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

mcconnell-and-boehner

 

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?

Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:

“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”

Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.

The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!

That’s a strategy?

That’s the GOP strategy?  Essentially:  Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?

THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?

Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.

And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year.  Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?

….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?

Seriously?