Poll: Trump Fares Worst in the General Election

Donald Trump may be surging in GOP polls, but according to a new Quinnipiac poll, he is the worst performing Republican in the general election. He even loses to one of the weaker Democratic candidates: the socialist, Bernie Sanders.

The new poll shows Trump losing to Hillary Clinton, the probable Democratic nominee, 48 to 36. That's a 12-point loss to a woman the American people do not trust. We knew from prior polling data that Americans don't trust Hillary — but interestingly, this new poll shows that Trump's trust levels are just as low as hers. Fifty-eight percent of Americans distrust Donald Trump, while 57 percent distrust Hillary.

Trump also loses to Bernie Sanders 45 to 37 — an eight-point differential. He also loses to Joe Biden (who hasn't declared a candidacy) by 12 points — 49 to 37. Trump may be surging in GOP quarters, but he would clearly be a dead loss in a general election. He doesn't beat a single Democrat in this poll.

Let's also mention that Trump lost to Sanders by 21 points in another recent national poll.

Trump's low numbers against Democrats are highly telling in part because other Republicans do quite well by comparison. Scott Walker beats Bernie Sanders by five points, ties Joe Biden, and trails Hillary by one point. Jeb Bush also beats Sanders by five points, trails Joe Biden by one, and beats Hillary by one.

These results, along with the extensive swing-state polls from last week, put both Scott Walker and Jeb Bush in strong positions going forward. Walker led Clinton by nine points in Colorado, three points in Virginia, and eight points in Iowa. He's also in second place among GOP voters, and he looks poised to win the Iowa caucus as the current front-runner in that state. Trump's surge has certainly challenged Walker in Iowa, but Trump still trails him by two. If Trump's support has maxed out at this point (and it likely has), Walker's lead will likely only improve in Iowa.

Bush has shored up much of the moderate GOP vote, though that support is now being contested by John Kasich, the newest of the GOP candidates. Kasich claimed five percent of the GOP vote in the recent nationwide poll, and Bush — who last week received 15 percent support — has now fallen to 10 percent.

The Trump surge has largely skewed our understanding of how conservatives see the other Republican candidates. His rise has caused support for the other prominent conservatives to dry up — particularly for Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio. Trump is likely also stealing support from the still-prominent Scott Walker. The numbers are still very much in flux, and we'll have to wait until the debate season (which starts August 6) to see how they begin to shake out. If Trump declines, we'll get a better picture of what conservatives actually think about the other candidates. They are arguably the best Republican field since 1980, and this is an election that Republicans can win.

If there's any candidate who can become the anti-Trump, it will probably have to be a governor — and it is likely Scott Walker. It will have to be a governor because the senators in this race are all in some way tainted by Washington, and Trump is drawing most of his support from anti-Washington frustration. Walker possesses all the characteristics of a true reformer: he's foreign to Washington, has a stellar track record in Wisconsin (a potential swing state), and brings youthful energy. There are, of course, others who can fill those shoes: Rick Perry, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal — successful governors each in their own right. We'll just have wait and see what the debates hold.

Democrats Are Finding It A Bit Harder To Defend Planned Parenthood

The videos released by the Center for Medical Progress allegedly showing Planned Parenthood illegally engaging in the selling and procuring of body parts from aborted babies has reignited the abortion wars, especially late-term abortions. Pretty much everyone is against late term abortion, and 60 percent of American women are for abortion bans after 20 weeks into a pregnancy. This isn’t a controversial position, the undercover investigation by the Center for Medical Progress is forcing Democratic presidential candidates to respond to the grisly procedure they’ve captured on video, and it’s got them a bit tongue-tied, according to Dave Weigel of the Washington Post. For starters, this isn’t your typical “war on women/women’s health” narrative. This is about the illegal harvesting of baby’s body parts:

Clinton's "disturbing" comment, made in an interview with New Hampshire's Union Leader, landed poorly. It did not matter that Planned Parenthood's CEO Cecile Richards had apologized for the conversations in the video sting. The Democratic frontrunner, seemingly, had been forced into a defensive crouch. "She needs to clarify what her [point of view] is, and articulate it strongly and without apology," former Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt told MSNBC's Irin Carmon. "I just think that when candidates get to the firing line of a campaign they get thrown off balance and waffle."

Clinton's closest competitor, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (R-Vt.), fared no better -- at first. On July 17, when the videos broke, he cited Richards's statement and averred that "the tone was terribly wrong" in the fetal tissue conversation. "He has not gone out of his way to defend the group," wrote Mother Jones reporter Molly Redden in an article shared nearly 3000 times on Facebook.

Only today [July 29] -- before the Senate GOP press conference -- did Sanders release a new statement about the coming vote to defund Planned Parenthood. "The current attempt to discredit Planned Parenthood is part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies," said Sanders. "Let’s be clear: Federal funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. The vast majority of government funding that Planned Parenthood receives is through Medicaid reimbursements."

Yet, that didn’t seem to cut it with the pro-abortion zealots. Weigel quoted feminist writer Katha Pollitt who wasn’t all too happy about Sanders’ later statement since he didn’t outright defend abortion.

“It's a little mealy-mouthed, no? … As I read it, he doesn't defend abortion specifically. He says Planned Parenthood provides gyno care for millions of poor women."

Granted, this is one of many fronts in the cultural battle over abortion. Pro-abortion activists claim we’re a pro-choice nation, but that’s hardly accurate. Over the years, the pendulum has swung in either direction; it’s a highly volatile subject regarding polling. Yet, pro-life activists are probably somewhat frustrated given that the majority of Americans support the Roe v. Wade decision, but also support restrictions on the act. The rates of approval drop like a rock when you discuss late-term, or third trimester, abortions. Now, we have the macabre dynamics of possible illegal body parts sales that are occurring under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood. Either way, it’s a public relations nightmare­–or it should be–for this organization. Nevertheless, their allies in the media have done a good job in omitting coverage of the investigation, opting to discuss how some dumb lion was killed by a Minnesota dentist with a bow and arrow*.

According to Katie Yoder at the Media Research Center, the Big Three–CBS, NBC, and ABC–have devoted 30 minutes covering poor, dead Cecil the Lion, while giving the Planned Parenthood videos a meager 11 minutes and 13 seconds of airtime over the course of two days.

Guy wrote yesterday that PP has hired a crisis PR firm that’s circulating memos to members of the media begging them to not report on the videos.

Exit Question: Who got Cecil’s skin? James Earl Jones looked really good wearing lion back in 1988.

Last note: there’s the tired talking point that the Center for Medical Progress videos are heavily edited. The full videos are listed on their YouTube channel as well.

UPDATE: It seems Hillary had a "come to Jesus" moment.

*That’s awesome!

RINO Alert: Romney Says Cruz's Comments On the Iran Deal 'Hurt the Cause'

Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized current GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz on Twitter Thursday morning for his comments on the Iran deal.

The comments Cruz made were:

“If this deal is consummated, it will make the Obama administration the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism,” Cruz said during a round table Tuesday. “Billions of dollars under control of this administration will flow into the hands of jihadists who will use that money to murder Americans, to murder Israelis, to murder Europeans.”

This led to this tweet from Romney:

And this hurts the cause how, exactly? Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Obama administration is giving Iran $150 billion in sanctions relief in this deal. Why wouldn't Iran spend that money to embolden Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of their jihadist allies? 

Susan Rice- the same Susan Rice who said that deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" and went on the Sunday talk shows spreading the lie that a video caused the Benghazi terror attacks- even admitted that this is a likely scenario:

"We should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we've seen in the region up until now," Rice said.

According to Susan Rice, calling for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and firing rockets into Israel is just "bad behavior."

So given that Iran could spend as many as $150 billion from the Obama administration on its terror proxies, Cruz's statement is completely factual. That does not hurt the cause of trying to bring down the Iran deal.

Twitter seems to agree, as The Right Scoop has collected a series of tweets excoriating Romney for this tweet. This tweet really puts it all in perspective:

Romney is really not in a position to be lecturing current GOP presidential candidates about what hurts or helps "the cause" given that he lost to Obama in 2012, who was a fairly weak candidate given the terrible state of the economy and since Islamic terrorism was on the rise.

Romney feels the need to attack Cruz because Romney is not a conservative. It would make sense then that Romney would want a more moderate candidate to win the GOP nomination than Cruz, probably somebody like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

Some Republican Senators Actually Oppose Defunding Planned Parenthood

It’s truly astonishing how anyone can watch the now four videos that have come out in recent weeks exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal sale of fetal body parts—not to mention today’s game changer that they harvest the organs of babies born alive—and still put politics before doing what’s right: ending taxpayer funding of the abortion giant.

Unfortunately Republican Sen. Mark Kirk seems to be doing just that. On Wednesday he said he’d oppose a Republican-backed bill to strip taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood.

“In other states tissue donation programs should be investigated but in Illinois there is no similar program,” Kirk told The Hill in a statement. “I do not plan to cut access to basic health care and contraception for women, the majority of whom have no other resources.”

Kirk, it should be noted, is up for re-election next year and is a top target for Democrats.

He’s not the only Republican who opposes such a measure, however. Sen. Susan Collins told reporters on Wednesday that she’s “still looking at the bill.”

“If it is an amendment defunding Planned Parenthood before we have more facts in, then I would likely oppose the amendment,” she said.

But supporters of the bill explicitly point out that it is crafted in a way that doesn’t take funding away from women’s health. Just take a look at this provision, which Guy pointed out yesterday (from the AP, emphasis his):

GOP senators unveiled a bill Tuesday evening prohibiting federal aid to Planned Parenthood and directing that the money instead be directed to "other eligible entities to provide women's health care services." Aides said an initial vote on the measure, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, was likely early next week. The bill cites state and local health departments, federally backed community health centers and other providers of health services to women who might get the money. Republicans were hoping that might encourage Democrats to pull funds away from Planned Parenthood, which even some abortion-rights Democrats have avoided defending since the videos were released.

“We introduced legislation last night that would ensure taxpayer dollars for women’s health are spent on women’s health, not a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday.

“It’s a simple choice,” he added. “Senators can either vote to protect women’s health, or they can vote to protect subsidies for a political group mired in scandal.”

Call Me, Russ: Feingold Instructs Wisconsin Democrats To Omit His 10+ Years in Washington

In the spring, former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold decided to toss his hat in the ring for a rematch against Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who beat him in the 2010 elections. Feingold, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, is a formidable challenger to Johnson–and he has to win if there’s any hope for the Democrats in retaking the upper chamber of Congress. In May, Democrats were still viewing Feingold’s loss in 2010 as a “fluke” (via National Journal):

Without a Feingold victory, the party has very little chance of winning control of the Senate. A Feingold loss would likely indicate a very strong year for Republicans nationally. And in such a case, it's difficult to imagine how Democrats could knock off enough better-entrenched incumbents in redder states to overcome such a setback in Wisconsin.

Democrats need to win at least a net of five Senate seats next year to guarantee a majority. (The number shrinks to four if they win the presidency.) But even on a map laden with Republican incumbents defending blue-state seats, Democrats have few better opportunities than Wisconsin, where Johnson is widely considered, even by Republican operatives, to be the GOP's most vulnerable incumbent. (Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk also is in the running.)

[…]

Six years later, even with Johnson as the incumbent, GOP strategists think they can still frame the race as one between a political outsider and a career politician. Helping their cause, they say, is the belief that Feingold, a crusader for campaign finance reform, will green-light the help of political committees and super PACs—the kind of outside spending he once made a career out of opposing and eschewed in 2010.

"After decades in politics, Feingold's ego still can't grasp that he was soundly defeated by Oshkosh job creator Ron Johnson in 2010," said Andrea Bozek, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "Wisconsin families rejected Feingold's broken promises and his liberal record once and they are going to do it again. Wisconsin voters know a desperate career politician when they see one and that is why they will re-elect their independent leader, Ron Johnson."

In June, Feingold banked $2 million for his 2016 war chest, and was reportedly trying to solicit advice from Wisconsin Democratic operatives who hadn’t spoken with the former senator throughout his entire career. Yet, it seems to be an effort to learn from his 2010 mistakes ... regarding messaging; Russ isn’t backing away from his progressive roots.

That tweak on the messaging front was showcased this weekend, where the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Martha Laning, said to supporters that they should call Feingold “Russ” because they don’t want to highlight the fact that he’s been in Washington for over a decade (via Free Beacon):

They want us to say ‘Russ,’” Laning said, “because the last campaign was all about ‘16 years, 16 years, 16 years, he’s there too long,’ and so they want to say ‘he’s just one of us. We want to go back to Russ being Russ.’”

The informal salutation “seems very disrespectful,” she said, but the campaign has insisted on the personal touch as a way of downplaying Feingold’s political career, which spanned nearly three decades.

“The second one is we never want to say ‘go back to the Senate,’ we just want to say ‘electing him to the Senate.’ They want to totally get away from all that,” Laning added.

Yeah, do these people think that Google somehow doesn’t exist? Oh, and Feingold’s team really isn’t happy about the video:

An insider close to Feingold made it clear that the ex-senator's team is none too pleased with the video or Laning, who was elected to the top Dem post in June.

"This is no time for on-the-job training," said the source, who asked not to be named because he's not authorized to speak for the campaign. "I'm pretty certain they don't want Martha Laning to use the words 'Russ Feingold' ever again."

[…]

In a statement, Laning accused the Republicans of using her remarks to attack Feingold personally. She said Feingold has always been "Russ" in her mind.

The newly elected Democratic Party boss did admit one mistake.

"Unfortunately, I mischaracterized what Russ says both publicly and privately, to even his closest Democratic supporters," Laning said. "This Senate seat is not his or Ron Johnson's because it belongs to the people of Wisconsin."

But she is not the first prominent Democrat to make such an error.

In a May email to party members, former Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate encouraged people to attend a fundraising reception "to ensure we have the resources we need to retake Russ Feingold's U.S. Senate seat."

Still, even with these trip ups, Johnson and the Republicans will have to seriously hold the line in Wisconsin, which hasn’t gone Republican in a national election since the 1984.

(H/T Free Beacon/ Lachlan Markay)

Will The Koch Rejection Hurt Or Benefit Trump?

Billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch have given a rather explicit “no thanks” concerning giving Donald Trump an audience to their vast network of donors and access to their voter databases. It’s not personal, it's just business seems to be the overarching theme here. Both Trump and David Koch have a close relationship, with their respective mansions near one another in Palm Beach, Florida (via Politico):

The Koch brothers are freezing out Donald Trump from their influential political operation — denying him access to their state-of-the-art data and refusing to let him speak to their gatherings of grass-roots activists or major donors.

Despite a long and cordial relationship between the real estate showman and David Koch, as well as a raft of former Koch operatives who are now running Trump’s presidential campaign, the Koch political operation appears to have concluded that Trump is the wrong standard-bearer for the GOP. And the network of Koch-backed policy and political outfits is using behind-the-scenes influence to challenge Trump more forcefully than the Republican Party establishment — by limiting his access to the support and data that would help him translate his lead in the polls into a sustainable White House campaign.

The Koch operation has spurned entreaties from the Trump campaign to purchase state-of-the-art data and analytics services from a Koch-backed political tech firm called i360, and also turned down a request to allow Trump to speak at an annual grass-roots summit next month in Columbus, Ohio, sponsored by the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity, POLITICO has learned

[…]

The Koch network — a coalition of individual donors and independent groups and companies — intends to spend a whopping $889 million in the run-up to 2016, and is not obliged to stay neutral. While it appears increasingly unlikely that it will officially endorse a GOP primary candidate, it has nonetheless shaped the process by determining which candidates are granted access to i360’s data and the grass-roots activists convened regularly by groups including AFP and Concerned Veterans for America.

Yet, the publication also noted that this “snub” isn’t so bad for the Trump crew; a) the Donald is a billionaire himself and could inject his own cash into his campaign, rendering the donor access moot b) because the Donald can inject hard money the Koch super PACs could have given regarding some positive attention is also rendered moot.

Koch money is soft money, which is not to say that it’s ineffective. The Koch’s political activities are doing great work spreading the principles of economic freedom. But they cannot bring the message home in the way hard money donations a la Trump campaign donations (and the RNC) can do regarding the ground game. Also, it's hard to say if the attention Trump is getting would have been better-or at equal levels–if the Kochs had opened the door to him. Moreover, some of Trump’s top campaign operatives are former Americans for Prosperity staffers.

So, while the Kochs' 2016 war chest is expected to be near $900 million, it’s highly appealing to the other candidates in the field. Trump, not so much. He can go far. He’s here to stay, but we don’t know how much of his own wealth he’s willing to invest in this 2016 venture. His fundraising goals are shoddy, but his bank accounts (again) can surely make those weak totals irrelevant. If he’s willing to dole out the cash, Mr. Trump can go a lot further than most are giving him credit for as 2016 ramps up:

While others like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush have raised tens of millions from early donors and Super PACs, Trump has brought in only a little more than $92,000 from people sending him cash. If that trend continues, we may see if he’s really willing to put his personal fortune where his mouth is.

“The non-politician so far has been the best politician,” says Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer. “We need to take this seriously but I think the Republicans will do everything in their power to prevent him from ultimately being the candidate.”

Despite others out-fundraising him, “the free media that he’s managed to get tallies way more than anyone has actually spent in real dollars,” says Yahoo Finance Senior Columnist Michael Santoli. That has allowed Trump to spend relatively little of his own money -- he has loaned the campaign $1.8 million so far.

Trump has a long way to go, however, before voters can officially make their voices heard. Will he flame out in a few weeks like Herman Cain did in the 2012 cycle? Trump may have the cash to prevent that, but Santoli believes it all comes down to “his willingness to bankroll himself over time and whether the act grows tired or whether he reaches the limit of people who are receptive to him.”

If things flame out, it’s obviously not over for the Donald. He said he would “ride into the sunset,” investing in other ventures in order to make America great again.

Ohio Dem Introduces Bill to Strip Planned Parenthood of State Funding

It turns out that halting the immoral and illegal practice of selling fetal body parts for profit is a bipartisan issue. The Planned Parenthood videos that have revealed top doctors negotiating the selling of aborted babies’ organs have shaken Americans to their core. The response has gone beyond outraged rhetoric; activists and legislators alike have taken action to defund the organization – efforts which are not just coming from Republicans. At a pro-life rally in front of the Ohio state courthouse Thursday, Rep. Bill Patmon (D-Cleveland) introduced a bill, along with Representative Margaret Conditt (R-Liberty Township), that would stop any state funding to Planned Parenthood.

Patmon, a father of four and grandfather of six, is a good friend of Ohio Right to Life. At the rally, he ditched his written remarks to speak from the heart about why he has dedicated his life to defending the unborn. He made it personal, describing how his mother, pregnant with only an eighth grade education, would have been a “prime candidate” for Planned Parenthood. Yet, she “didn’t get rid of this one,” he said, as attendees applauded, knowing that if his mother would’ve caved to pressure, they would not be looking at the man standing in front of them.

Patmon also suggested that Planned Parenthood is racist in nature, and that those #BlackLivesMatter protests spreading throughout the country would be best served by setting up camp in front of the organization's myriad abortion clinics.

“Five thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine abortions are in Cuyahoga County, which I happen to represent,” Patmon said in a speech Tuesday. “And 63 percent of them are black women, 63 percent of them are of a certain hue in their skin.”

“You hear a lot of demonstrations across the country now, about black lives matter,” Patmon added. “Well, they skipped one place. They should be in front of Planned Parenthood.”

In case you missed it, the Center for Medical Progress released their fourth damning video of Planned Parenthood Thursday, a bold move considering a California court just ordered them to cease and desist.

As the Defund Planned Parenthood bill is taken up for a vote in Congress, 13 representatives have joined Patmon's efforts in Ohio. 

I'll leave you with Patmon's most powerful message at the courthouse, which was also perhaps his simplest.

“They are Americans," he said. "And they are human beings.”

Editor's note: The video of Rep. Patmon's remarks has been added.

Federal Judge: I Will Haul The IRS Commissioner Into Court and Personally Hold Him in Contempt Over Lerner Emails

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has been stonewalling Congress and the courts for more than a year over Lois Lerner's "missing" emails. He's also ignored court orders to produce documentation and now, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has had enough. 

During a hearing yesterday surrounding a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, Sullivan said he "will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt" after the IRS failed to turn over ordered documentation to the Court. The information ordered included status reports and recovered emails belonging to former IRS official Lois Lerner. Sullivan also noted Department of Justice of attorneys are in the same position for failing to turn over ordered documentation. More details about the hearing from JW

During the a status hearing today, Sullivan warned that the failure to follow his order was serious and the IRS and Justice Department’s excuses for not following his July 1 order were “indefensible, ridiculous, and absurd.” He asked the IRS’ Justice Department lawyer Geoffrey Klimas, “Why didn’t the IRS comply” with his court order and “why shouldn’t the Court hold the Commissioner of the IRS in contempt.” Judge Sullivan referenced his contempt findings against Justice Department prosecutors in the prosecution of late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and reminded the Justice Department attorney he had the ability to detain him for contempt. Warning he would tolerate no further disregard of his orders, Judge Sullivan said, “I will haul into court the IRS Commissioner to hold him personally into contempt.”

On July 1 Sullivan ordered the IRS to turn over 1800 emails by releasing them in batches each week. The IRS didn't produce any emails until July 15, despite the court order. Those emails show Lerner worked with former IRS Commissioner Steven Miller to scrutinize conservative groups. 

The new documents show that Lerner and other top officials in the IRS, including soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steve Miller, closely monitored and approved the controversial handling of tax-exempt applications by Tea Party organizations. The documents also show that at least one group received an inquiry from the IRS in order to buy time and keep the organization from contacting Congress.

“In a dramatic court hearing today, Judge Sullivan made it clear he would personally hold accountable the IRS Commissioner Koskinen and Justice Department attorneys for any further contempt of his court orders in Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The missing and-then-not missing Lois Lerner saga is a stark example of the Obama administration’s contempt for a federal court and the rule of law. That Obama administration officials would risk jail rather than disclose these Lerner documents shows that the IRS scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse.” 

Earlier this week, the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to President Obama demanding Koskinen be fired for obstruction of justice. Chairman Jason Chaffetz said if Koskinen isn't fired, the House may move to impeach him.

BREAKING: New Undercover Video Reveals Planned Parenthood Willing to Sell Organs From Delivered Babies

The Center For Medical Progress has released a fourth undercover video showing Planned Parenthood Vice President of the Rocky Mountains and Medical Director Dr. Savita Ginde discussing how babies that are "delivered before procedure," aka born alive, are used to harvest "intact" organs. 

"Sometimes, if we get, if someone delivers before we are able to see them for a procedure the we are intact," Ginde is shown saying. 

The video also shows abortionists pointing out "another boy!" has been extracted and celebrating intact baby parts as "five stars!"

"I just want to see one leg and one foot," an abortionist in a lab is seen saying. "It's a baby...here's the heart...do people want to do stuff with eyeballs?"

 Warning, this video is graphic: 

Babies born alive are protected by the Infant Born Alive Act. From CMP: 

Since PPRM does not use digoxin or other feticide in its 2nd trimester procedures, any intact deliveries before an abortion are potentially born-alive infants under federal law (1 USC 8).

“We’d have to do a little bit of training with the providers or something to make sure that they don’t crush” fetal organs during 2nd trimester abortions, says Ginde, brainstorming ways to ensure the abortion doctors at PPRM provide usable fetal organs.

Further, the video reveals Planned Parenthood officials want to be contact with each other at different abortion clinics throughout the country in order to coverup organ harvesting and to make sure everyone is "on the same page" should anything come under scrutiny. Ginde also talks multiple times about how to evade the law and says they have a good attorney to deal with any legal issues. 

"I feel like if you're talking to other Planned Parenthoods, we sort of all have to be on the same page," Almost to the point where we have to disclose to each other that we're all doing this so if anyone who gets called out or runs with it, that we're all like, 'Oh, I didn't know you were doing this, oh I'm doing this too.' I think we have to be coordinate with each other [to keep the stories straight]. Well and to make sure that we're all saying the same thing. And that the CEOs are all saying the same thing." 

"If we all decide that we're going to do it outside of research, then we do it outside a research. But if we all decide to do it under research, then we have a different path, that we know we're all registering and doing the same thing," Ginde continued. "If you have someone in a really anti-[abortion] state that's going to be doing this for you they're probably going to get caught."

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards was on ABC's This Week on Sunday arguing the abortion giant doesn't sell baby parts for profit and that the organization is simply reimbursed for the cost of transferring fetal tissue. However, multiple videos have show Planned Parenthood abortionists haggling over the price of baby parts "per specimen" and trying to get the most money out of each piece. One woman is seen saying she "wants a Lamborghini" while negotiating prices for baby parts. 

On a separate note, it is incredible how the abortionists in the video are seen calling specimines a "baby" and a "boy," which goes entirely against the pro-abortion movement's argument that fetuses are not human beings, but instead just a clump of cells.

You can watch the previous three undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress here, here and here.

2016 Debate Watch: John Kasich Cracks Top 10

The needle hasn’t move all that much since our last post two weeks ago. After a bevy of polling, Donald Trump is still ascendant and most of the candidates expected to qualify for the rapidly approaching, primetime Fox News debate almost certainly will. (Perhaps it’s hard to believe, but the debate is only about a week away). And yet, there‘s been one key change-up in the debate-qualifying race. Gov. John Kasich (R-OH), after recently announcing his candidacy, has finally cracked the top ten for the first time. This puts him on the debate stage, of course, and therefore bumps Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) off:


Trump: 19.8
Walker: 13.6
Bush: 12.6
Rubio: 7.2
Carson: 6.4
Huckabee: 6.2
Paul: 6.0
Cruz: 4.8
Kasich: 3.2
Christie: 3.2


Fox News has not clarified which pollsters they will use to calculate their rankings — although they have stipulated that they will average the “five most recent national polls.” Fortunately for Rick Perry and others, then, this is good news.

It means there’s still time to qualify.

Editor's note: The most recent national polls used to calculate these averages can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

UPDATE: Interesting thought.

We'll see.

Brutal: Tom Cotton Grills Kerry on Iran Deal


A tough, focused, relentless cross-examination of the Secretary of State by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton -- an Iraq war veteran and a graduate of Harvard Law School.  Watch the whole thing:


Cotton makes the most of his frustratingly limited time, zeroing in on a handful of key points:

(1) Cotton makes clear that the Corker/Cardin legislation, which was signed into law by President Obama, requires that Congress receive every single word of the finalized Iran deal. Having discovered and confirmed the existence of secret side agreements within the overall accord, Cotton wonders whether or how the administration will adhere to that provision of the law. Kerry responds that such matters must be classified in order to respect the privacy of the IAEA.  Cotton's framing is outstanding: "The Ayatollahs will know what they agreed to, but not the American people."  Brutal.

(2)
The Arkansas Senator drills down on reports that Iran may be permitted to provide its own soil samples as part of an important nuclear "inspection," likening this alleged concession to allowing an athlete to submit a urine sample for a drug test without supervision. Kerry says that the US government is "satisfied" that this arrangement -- which he'll neither confirm nor deny -- will "provide the answers we need." The Associated Press quoted a nuclear expert casting doubt on that claim yesterday, arguing that the process in question may not prevent Iran from tampering with the sample they turn over.

(3) With Gen. Dempsey's help, Cotton demonstrates that Iran is chiefly responsible for providing specialized IEDs to terrorist insurgents in Iraq, who have used the deadly devices to kill hundreds of American soldiers.  Cotton's point is obvious: This is a regime with a great deal of American blood on its hands and whose leaders still chant "death to America." This deal rewards those very people with a huge cash injection that can and will be used to promulgate terrorism.  The agreement does not require Iran to cease or even diminish its terrorist activities, regional meddling, and human rights abuses.  Kerry serves up a word salad about pressuring Iran on these other fronts in the future, and notes that American sanctions won't be lifted against certain American-murdering criminals within the regime.  But other Western sanctions are lifted against those individuals as part of the deal, to which the Obama administration has agreed.  Kerry's distinction is meaningless.

The ground Cotton powerfully covers over his seven minutes merely scratches the surface of the Iran deal's irreparable flaws.  The accord is opposed by a majority of Americans.


Editor's note: A version of this item is cross-posted at HotAir.com

Poll: Plurality of American Jews Oppose Iran Deal

A new poll shows that a plurality of American Jews are now opposed to the Iran deal, with 45 percent disapproving and 40 percent approving.

Breitbart breaks down the details of the poll:

The survey, conducted by Olive Tree Strategies for The Israel Project, was conducted July 22-26 among 1,034 Jewish Americans, and has a margin of error of 3%. The findings contradict those of an earlier poll, which found that a large plurality of American Jews support the Iran deal–though critics have called the questions in that poll flawed and its results inconclusive.

“On June 5th, this deal was at +13… today, it is underwater, at 40% approve, 45% disapprove,” said pollster Nathan Klein in a press call with reporters on Wednesday. Like the earlier poll, the new survey shows that Democrats strongly approve of the deal and Republicans strongly disapprove of the deal. It also shows strong approval for President Barack Obama in the American Jewish community. However, it shows disapproval of the president on the specific issues of foreign policy (-5), cybersecurity (-9), and nuclear negotiations with Iran (-10).

After asking respondents, in online interviews, about their views of the Iran deal and the president, the poll then presented arguments from both sides of the debate. It found that only one third of American Jews agree with the arguments of the Iran deal’s supporters. After hearing the arguments of both sides, moreover, opposition to the deal grew to a majority, 51% against to 35% in favor. After a further set of questions to respondents focusing on “concerns” over the Iran deal, opposition grows even more, rising to 58% against the deal to 30% in favor of it.

This is significant given that a majority of Jews vote Democrat, despite the Democrat Party's anti-Israel bent.

For one thing, the results of the poll show that the more the respondents learned about the deal, the less they liked it. Maybe that's because they realized the deal further emboldens Iran to getting a nuclear bomb and hence puts Israel in danger.

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini's latest anti-Semitic tweets probably aren't reassuring to critics of the deal:

The "dangerous and deadly Zionist growth" is obviously referring to Israel and saying that Jews are not welcome in the region. After all, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism really are the same thing:

Anti-Zionists are ready to deny to the Jews the same rights of self-determination and self-defense that every other people planet is granted without controversy. As such, they are practicing a form of prejudice. Since the term of art for prejudice against Jews is called anti-Semitism, there is no doubt that those who agitate against Israel’s existence are anti-Semites.

Ayatollah Khomeini himself is a raging anti-Semite. Take a look at this tweet from November 9:

The fact that it's a tweet outlining steps to eliminate Israel is bad enough, but look specifically at #3, which says that in a referendum against Israel, "Jewish immigrants who have been persuaded into emigration to Palestine do not have the right to take part in this referendum." That is very blatant anti-Semitism.

Despite Ayatollah Khomeini's reassurances that the destruction of Israel doesn't mean the destruction of Jews, keep in mind the timing of the Ayatollah's tweet. November 9 was the 76th anniversary of Kristallnacht, also known as Night of Broken Glass. This was the night where the Third Reich launched a pogrom against the Jews:

On the nights of November 9 and 10, rampaging mobs throughout Germany and the newly acquired territories of Austria and Sudetenland freely attacked Jews in the street, in their homes and at their places of work and worship. At least 96 Jews were killed and hundreds more injured, more than 1,000 synagogues were burned (and possibly as many as 2,000), almost 7,500 Jewish businesses were destroyed, cemeteries and schools were vandalized, and 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps.

Hitler and the Nazis proceeded to blame Kristallnacht on the Jews, and thus began the Holocaust.

It simply cannot be an accident that Ayatollah Khomeini tweeted out a nine-step proposal on how to destroy Israel on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. It is a clear example of anti-Semitism.

In addition, Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are anti-Semitic terrorist groups. Hamas's charter calls for the murder of Jews of worldwide, and Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said, "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Ayatollah Khomeini's regime would not be funding these terror groups unless he too shared their anti-Semitic bigotry.

Given Iran's blatant anti-Semitism and their calls for the destruction of Israel, it should be no surprise that more American Jews are rejecting this deal, as all it does is embolden an anti-Semitic, terrorist regime.

Of Course: Court Orders Pro-Life Group To Stop Releasing Videos That Make Planned Parenthood Look Bad

A California court has ordered the pro-life Center for Medical Progress, the group behind a series of videos exposing Planned Parenthood for haggling over the price of aborted baby parts, to desist from released any new footage exposing the practice.

According to a report by Fox News, officials from a company that purchases baby parts from Planned Parenthood were granted a restraining order against CMP, restricting them from releasing new undercover video. At this point, CMP has released three videos showing a series of conversations about how much money Planned Parenthood receives for certain parts of a baby's aborted body. CMP reportedly has a dozen videos showing something similar. More (bolding is mine): 

A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously released three covertly shot videos of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.

The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.

In the first video released by the Center for Medical Progress, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, describes techniques for obtaining fetal body parts for researchers to activists posing as potential buyers from a human biologics company over lunch. When asked about partnering with Planned Parenthood directly rather than through its affiliates, Nucatola mentioned StemExpress as one company that had approached them.

In another previously released video, a woman identified as a former StemExpress phlebotomist describes drawing blood and dissecting dead fetuses.

"I thought I was going to be just drawing blood, not procuring tissue from aborted fetuses," the employee, Holly O'Donnell, said.

According to attorney and law school professor Hugh Hewitt, this doesn't happen often: 

"StemExpress, a for-profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a “financial benefit” to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover-up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public," CMP said in a statement in response to the lawsuit and restraining order. "They are not succeeding—their initial petition was rejected by the court, and their second petition was eviscerated to a narrow and contingent order about an alleged recording pending CMP’s opportunity to respond. The Center for Medical Progress follows all applicable laws in the course of our investigative journalism work and will contest all attempts from Planned Parenthood and their allies to silence our First Amendment rights and suppress investigative journalism."

Yesterday as Guy wrote, Planned Parenthood is desperately pleaded with the media to stop covering its baby parts scandal as lawmakers on Capitol Hill get read to vote on defunding the abortion giant. They've also allocated a significant amount of resources for damage control. 

Besieged by negative headlines and a horrified public, Planned Parenthood has hired a crisis PR firm, which is attempting to mitigate the damage via the application of heavy pressure on media outlets (many of which are dominated by abortion supporters) to to ignore or soft-pedal the story.

CMP may be delayed for now on the release of new videos, but they have nearly a dozen of them which will eventually be produced for public viewing. Planned Parenthood and the companies who pay them for aborted body parts won't be able to hide behind lawsuits forever. Not to mention, even Hillary Clinton finds the videos "disturbing," which means at least some of her pro-choice, Democrat supporters do too.

Open Thread: Trump As The Frontrunner

Trump is ahead in the polls. He’s doing well. We all know this. He’s also getting some help from the media, some of whom say that it’s time to cover the billionaire business magnate as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, instead of a source of mockery (via Inside Sources):

Dave Price of Iowa’s WHO-TV; Ben Hoover, who has spent a decade covering politics in South Carolina; and Erin McPike, formerly of CNN — appeared on a “Race to 2016panel hosted by InsideSources and America’s Power. Each pushed back against the narrative advanced by much of the national press that Trump’s bombastic behavior and incendiary remarks make him an unserious candidate.

“The national media has had this all wrong,” McPike said, referencing recent polls showing the business mogul leading the race nationally as well as in early primary states. “I think they need to cover him as the frontrunner and take him seriously.”

McPike also argued that media mockery of Trump likely accrues to his benefit, and Hoover said he agreed.

“The more he’s beat up by the national press, the better he’s looking in South Carolina,” the Palmetto State reporter said. “South Carolina loves an underdog — especially an underdog getting beat up by the liberal, left-wing national press.”

So, just as our colleagues do every now and then on our sister site–Hot Air–let’s have an open thread about Mr. Trump.

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver admitted that Trump is a political story, as well as entertainment. At the same time, he described the billionaire as a “the world’s greatest troll.” It really doesn’t matter if this is an underhanded compliment. Trump is dominating the news, thus don’t be shocked if you see more stories about him from various news sites. Yet, this is also how trolls prosper in the media cycle, which is why Silver says we shouldn’t feed them:

In the long run — as our experience with past trolls shows — Trump’s support will probably fade. Or at least, given his high unfavorable ratings, it will plateau, and other candidates will surpass him as the rest of the field consolidates.

It’s much harder to say what will happen to Trump’s polling in the near term, however. That’s in part because it’s hard to say exactly what was driving his support in the first place. Trump wasn’t doing especially well with tea party voters or with any other identifiable group of Republicans. My guess is that his support reflected a combination of (i) low-information voters who recognized his name and (ii) voters who share Trump’s disdain for the trappings of the political establishment and (iii) voters who were treating him as an inside joke or a protest vote, making him vaguely like an American equivalent of Beppe Grillo. None of them will necessarily be deterred from declaring their support for him because of his comments about McCain. Some of them might even be encouraged.

But what if you want Trump to go away now?

[…]

After 12 years of writing on the Internet, I’ve learned that the old adage is true. Don’t feed the troll. The only way to kill a troll like Trump is to deprive him of attention.

Over at The New York Times, Nate Cohn, noted that Trumpmentum in the press is all part of the vetting process. Cohn mentioned how Herman Cain wasn’t really considered news until he was one of the top contenders in the GOP field by the fall of 2011. Then, his 9-9-9 economic plan was criticized and the sexual harassment allegations surfaced. By November, his support was cut in half. Yet, he mentioned how polls showed that very few Republican voters were not turned off by the sexual harassment allegations. So, the good news is that Trump won’t take a dive. It’s too early for that.

Some commenters thought that Trump’s remarks about McCain would have ended them, and then new polls were released shortly thereafter showing the Donald’s unabated rise. Cohn reminded us that these polls were taken before the McCain remarks. He then circles back to Cain:

For good measure, it is not at all clear that we should expect Mr. Trump to suffer discernible losses in the near future. Take Herman Cain, who faced reports that he was accused of sexual harassment in late October 2011. These reports were surely more problematic for his candidacy than Mr. Trump’s comments about Mr. McCain, and yet the early polls conducted after the allegations did not show much evidence that they had any effect on his standing. One month later, Mr. Cain was out of the race.

If sexual harassment allegations didn’t immediately bring Mr. Cain down, there’s not much reason to think Mr. Trump’s ratings should crash either. It will take time for the effects of the scrutiny brought by Mr. Trump’s comments to take their toll. Maybe even a long time. What’s important is that the process of scrutiny, from party leaders and journalists, is now underway.

So, in all three instances, the polling shows that Trump has a longer shelf life than many are assuming, his story is political (as well as entertaining), and because of that he should be covered in the media as the frontrunner.

Hoover’s point about the media loving an underdog in South Carolina is exemplified in Newt Gingrich’s 2012 primary win, where he slammed moderator John King of CNN for bringing up allegations that he wanted an “open marriage” with his first wife. Oh, and he did pretty well in the debate too.

You already know my opinions of Mr. Trump. I’m not fond of him as a candidate, but I admit he’s entertaining. And he’s tapped into an angry electorate who are just sick of Washington and the absence of the rule of law that’s been exhibited by the Obama administration. I’ve said my piece on the matter.

Now, feel free to debate amongst yourselves. Does the Donald deserve to be treated as the frontrunner by the media, or is his surge really about the impact less educated Americans have on politics, as the Washington Post  pointed out, which probably means the press still won't take him seriously? At the same time, how does one feel about a GOP frontrunner who used to be opposed to the most basic tenets of conservatism in his past?  Should he be given a chance like Mitt Romney, or thrown into the pit? 

Either way, Trump is here to stay.

Rep. Chaka Fattah Indicted on Racketeering Charges

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) was indicted on racketeering charges earlier today. He was charged with 29 charges. He is accused of, among other things, illegally using campaign contributions, bribery, and stealing charitable funds.

From CNN:

The Philadelphia Democrat, who was first elected to Congress in 1994 and served on the influential House Appropriations Committee, faces 29 charges, many stemming from his 2007 campaign for mayor.

The 85-page indictment accuses Fattah and four associates of devising a series of schemes to conceal how money was borrowed and repaid, falsifying documents in the process.

"As charged in the indictment, Congressman Fattah and his associates embarked on a wide-ranging conspiracy involving bribery, concealment of unlawful campaign contributions and theft of charitable and federal funds to advance their own personal interests," Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell said in a statement.

Fattah has served in the House of Representatives since 1995. He ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Philadelphia in 2007. Fattah has consistently been re-elected with large majorities.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that in light of the indictment, Fattah will be resigning from his position as Ranking Member on the House CJS Appropriations Subcommittee.

Fmr. Planned Parenthood Director: Biz Is Making $100 to $200 Off Each Fetal Body Part

Working at Planned Parenthood for eight years was more than enough for Abby Johnson, who once served as a director of the Texas Planned Parenthood clinic, to drastically change her views on abortion. She has since left the organization and become one of the most well-known and outspoken anti-abortion activists in America.

Johnson told The Christian Post that Planned Parenthood, the nation’s top abortion provider, sometimes charges between $100 to $200 a day for each fetal body part.

"Shipping only costs a clinic $4 to $10 but they are sometimes charging $100 to $200 for each baby," Johnson told The Christian Post when asked if there's a profit to be made from the harvesting of aborted baby parts. "They are charging additional fees, but in reality there are no additional fees except for minimal shipping costs," Johnson asserted. "There is definitely money to be made and that's an issue with the current law." Speaking about the legality of the practice, Johnson explained, "If there's a loophole, Planned Parenthood will blow through it."

The recent videos showing Planned Parenthood doctors negotiating fetal organ sales has caused a great stir for pro-life activists. If the selling of fetal organs is not enough to open some eyes, then this new revelation about fetal prices is enough to show Planned Parenthood only cares about revenue and not at all about the lives of women.

For Johnson, she knew she couldn’t stand the murder, and immoral sales negotiations anymore.

“The defining moment for me leaving was assisting and witnessing a live ultrasound abortion procedure and seeing a 13-week old child struggle for his life inside his mother’s womb,” Johnson recalled. “It was really shocking for me to witness that mainly because I had been told by Planned Parenthood that the fetus didn’t have any sensory development until [later].” The pro-life advocate claims she was “in a state of shock” and that she instantaneously felt betrayed. At the same time, she remembers feeling like a liar, as she, too, had told thousands of women that fetuses wouldn��t feel pain or struggle.

As Johnson understood this truth, she left and made her mission to find a solution for women.

“I looked at myself and said, ‘I’m part of the problem’ — and I had been a part of the problem for eight years,” she said.

Throwing Israel a Bone? U.S. to Release Convicted Spy

Jonathan Pollard, a man arrested in 1985 for spying on the U.S. for Israel, will be released on parole in November after 30 years in prison. Pollard had been scheduled for mandatory parole, but the U.S. government could easily have kept him in prison for longer if the Justice Department objected to his release.

This news comes only a couple of weeks after President Obama struck a deal with Iran over its nuclear program, a deal that has received near-universal criticism in Israel and is undergoing tough scrutiny on Capitol Hill this week. The timing of Pollard's release on parole has sparked some questions as to whether President Obama is trying to placate Israel, having just dealt it a serious loss in the Iran nuclear deal.

The Justice Department has denied any political motives for allowing Pollard to be released:

Mr. Pollard's status will be determined by the United States Parole Commission according to standard procedures," Alister Baskey, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, said last week. "There is absolutely zero linkage between Mr. Pollard's status and foreign policy considerations."

No linkage. Of course, we wouldn't hear about it if there was. President Obama has proven extremely adept at running his Justice Department exactly how he wants, so presidential direction here wouldn't be surprising. But of course, we can't know.

Israeli citizens have protested Pollard's imprisonment for decades, and Israel leaders have regularly lobbied U.S. presidents for his release. U.S. presidents have never budged on the matter, despite their otherwise warm relationships with Israel. But Obama's presidency has been a presidency of firsts, and that's proving to be the case once again.

Pollard, who was an officer in the Naval Intelligence Command prior to his conviction, was arrested in 1985 for committing espionage against the United States. He was caught sharing intelligence files with the Israeli government.

Israel granted Pollard Israeli citizenship in 1995.

Senate Democrats Asking Gun Dealers For Help In Expanding Background Checks

Senate Democrats eager to expand background checks are reaching out directly to those vendors since their bills that chip away at Second Amendment rights was rightfully blocked in 2013. Gun dealers with a federal firearms license must conduct background checks for all gun purchases; the law requires it. Yet, Everytown and their allies in the Senate, are pushing vendors, like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops, to voluntarily withhold transferring firearms if a background check is incomplete, which is a rare occurrence (via the Hill):

Senate Democrats are appealing directly to gun retailers in a renewed push to expand background checks in lieu of congressional action on the divisive issue.

Gun safety advocates in Congress have long called for lawmakers to close background check loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns online and at gun shows, but to little avail.

Now, they’re turning their attention to gun retailers such as Cabelas and Bass Pro Shops in hopes of convincing them to tighten their policies. They’re asking these stores to voluntarily refrain from selling guns to people who have not passed background checks.

“That’s a voluntary decision by the gun dealers,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters Tuesday. “It’s a voluntary decision to enable a killer; it’s a voluntary choice to empower a murder.”

[…]

At issue are existing regulations that allow people to purchase guns at retail stores without completing a background check.

These stores must submit information about prospective gun buyers to the FBI so it can run background checks on them before the sale is made. In many cases, the background checks are instant and the sale is made on the spot. But sometimes it takes longer to complete.

[...]

This marks a change in strategy for gun safety advocates. They have long pressed for lawmakers to strengthen background checks, but amid a gridlocked Congress they are now turning their pleas to industry.

According to the FBI, this is called a delayed response, where a would-be purchaser’s information matches that of someone with a similar name and description that has a criminal record which prohibits ownership of a firearm. This is a rare occurrence. Even Everytown’s petition to Cabela's mentions it. The FBI has three days to procure additional information to either deny or approve the transaction. Yet, after three days, if no additional information is found, the transfer could legally go through with incomplete information, though the dealer isn’t required to do so. In cases where the background check is completed ending with the buyer being denied, the personnel at the National Instant Background Check System [NICS] inform the dealer. If the firearm was transferred, the ATF takes over, handling the matter as a “firearm retrieval referral.”

So, this isn’t exactly a loophole. Government seems to be asking businesses that deal in firearms to abide by a law that they … already follow. If gun dealers want to do this, that's fine, but it should be their decision. It should not be because pro-gun control groups who are finding their base of support–in government and society at large– dwindling (for now) pressure them to do so.
 

Moreover, in general, there's no statistical evidence that waiting periods reduce gun violence. 

Democrats, Please Stop Using Emoticons on the Senate Floor

One would hope, and I dare say expect, that members of Congress conduct themselves in a manner of utmost professionalism, especially when on the Senate floor. After all, they were elected by a great number of their constituents to represent them in the capital of the world’s most powerful nation. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

In denouncing Republicans for their lack of a plan regarding climate change, Democrats took to the Senate floor with a sign that had Internet emoticons on them.

This reporting is from The Hill, not The Onion (emphasis mine):

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) spoke from the Senate floor with a sign that read "#WhatsTheGOPsClimatePlan ¯\_(?)_/¯”

Sen. Ed Markey also spoke from the Senate floor with a sign that included a sad-faced shruggie. The Massachusetts Democrat suggested that Republicans didn't have a plan to combat climate change, adding that "shruggie says 'I'm not happy. I'm sad.' "

It's not the first time Democrats have used the internet emoticon to help them sum up their critiques of Republican policies. Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) used the symbol during a speech suggesting that Republicans didn't have a plan if the Supreme Court struck down subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.

Democrats can disagree, debate, and slam Republicans all they want—on anything. But can we please move past the childish antics and debate serious issues like grownups? Or is that asking too much?

Planned Parenthood Begs Media: Stop Covering Our Scandal


Planned Parenthood is in real trouble. Three shocking videos released over recent days -- with more on the way, apparently -- have shown officials at the abortion giant haggling over the price of aborted baby organs. It's ghastly, gruesome stuff, replete with one representative describing how she alters her late term abortion procedures to "crush" the baby in specific areas as to preserve sought-after and lucrative body parts.  Another laughs that higher prices could help her buy "a Lamborghini." The abortion lobby argues that fetuses are not human beings worthy of legal protection, while selling the intact human organs of the "non-people" they kill. Besieged by negative headlines and a horrified public, Planned Parenthood has hired a crisis PR firm, which is attempting to mitigate the damage via the application of heavy pressure on media outlets (many of which are dominated by abortion supporters) to to ignore or soft-pedal the story:

How bad is the baby organ trafficking story for Planned Parenthood? So bad that the nation’s largest abortion provider has hired a pricey PR firm to bully media outlets into not covering the scandal. According to Politico, Planned Parenthood hired Democratic megafirm SKDKnickerbocker to handle its public relations effort surrounding the widening organ trafficking scandal. In a series of undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress, multiple top Planned Parenthood executives are captured haggling over the prices of aborted baby body parts and discussing ways to maximize money earned through the harvesting and sale of human organs. Unsurprisingly, preventing coverage of the videos is apparently key to Planned Parenthood’s survival strategy: "The group circulated a memo to reporters and producers late Monday that discouraged them from airing the undercover videos, arguing that they were obtained under false identification and violated patient privacy."

Whose privacy are they protecting, exactly? Not the women who underwent abortions, who aren't identified at all in the videos. Surely they're not referring to the late-term fetuses they dismember and sell as "patients," are they?  Senate Republicans have fast-tracked a bill that would defund Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars.  Such a development is long overdue, though President Obama is sure to veto any measure that would harm his radical allies and donors.  Nevertheless, this legislation is necessary, and having a female Senator -- Joni Ernst -- as the lead sponsor of the bill is a savvy move.  So is this provision:

GOP senators unveiled a bill Tuesday evening prohibiting federal aid to Planned Parenthood and directing that the money instead be directed to "other eligible entities to provide women's health care services." Aides said an initial vote on the measure, sponsored by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, was likely early next week. The bill cites state and local health departments, federally backed community health centers and other providers of health services to women who might get the money. Republicans were hoping that might encourage Democrats to pull funds away from Planned Parenthood, which even some abortion-rights Democrats have avoided defending since the videos were released. Citing the "horrendous videos," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a co-sponsor, said, "This legislation would ensure taxpayer dollars for women's health are actually spent on women's health — not a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant."

So the legislation would not cut one cent from women's health funding. It would redirect taxpayer dollars away from what McConnell aptly terms "a scandal-plagued political lobbying giant."  Senate Democrats are predictably lining up to oppose the bill, led by the contemptible Harry Reid, who has cast himself as "pro-life" in the past:

"Good luck," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of the uphill Republican drive to garner the 60 of 100 Senate votes they will need to cut off Planned Parenthood's money. "We're dealing with the health of American women, and they're dealing with some right-wing crazy."

Stripping federal funding from a late-term abortion racket that sells body parts for cash is "right-wing crazy," according to the Democratic leader.  Another "pro-life" Democrat, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, has said he'd oppose Republicans' defunding effort, repeating the abortion lobby's talking points conflating abortion with women's health services.  Nevertheless, a number of Democrats are distancing themselves from Planned Parenthood.  West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin signed a letter along with 49 Republican Senators expressing concerns over the "deeply disturbing" practices depicted in the undercover videos.  Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine called the videos' contents "extremely troubling," and Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly has come out in support of an investigation into Planned Parenthood, calling the videos "disgraceful and disturbing."  Even Hillary Clinton, casting about for ways to defend the embattled abortion titan, suggested that all abortion clinics' practices regarding the selling of fetal body parts ought to be investigated.  For its part, Planned Parenthood is refusing to participate in an investigatory hearing held in the Texas legislature, instead deploying its spinning-like-a-top president all over the press to insist that they've done nothing illegal.  Will she repeat her assertions under oath? What ugliness or contradictory evidence may lurk in the yet-unreleased videos?

Latest: Infamous Lion-Killer Gave Mitt Romney Money

Slow news week?

A cursory glance at the responses to that tweet shows just how annoyed people are that an established, beltway newspaper is making mountains out of molehills. Honestly, who the hell cares? Not only is the story silly on its face for obvious reasons, but the fact is Mitt Romney is retired. There is zero chance he’s running for president in 2016. And even if he was, the story would still be equally as irrelevant.

It’s an interesting fact, I guess, that a lion killer also happens to be a Romney supporter. But what is the actual point of the story? Is it to provide information about the most hated man in the media right now -- or to take an indirect swipe at recently-retired and out-of-the-limelight Republican pol? I just don't get it.

By the way...yikes.

Hillary Admits the Planned Parenthood Videos are 'Disturbing'

It's taken three damning and graphic videos for the leading Democratic presidential contender to admit that Planned Parenthood may not be as innocent as they want Americans to believe.

Hillary Clinton is a pro-abortion politician who just last year was honored with Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger Award for her "commitment to women's health care." Because of her cozy relationship with the organization, she defended it in the initial wake of the Center for Medical Progress' undercover investigation that revealed top doctors were negotiating the sale of fetal body parts. The footage was so unnerving that Congress has even introduced bills to defund Planned Parenthood. Despite the first shocking videos, however, Clinton said the pro-life group behind the investigation was waging a "concerted attack" on Planned Parenthood and defended their other "important services."

Here's a quick recap of the CMP's investigation and Clinton's reactions: The first released video showed an abortionist bragging about the possible sale of fetal body parts during lunch - silence from Clinton. The second showed a Planned Parenthood doctor joking about using money from the sale of fetal body parts to buy a Lamborghini - Clinton tries to defend the organization. The third was much more graphic in nature, including actual footage of abortionists sifting through aborted babies' limbs after an abortion. 

That proved too much even for Hillary to defend. In an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader Tuesday, she admitted the videos contained some stomach-turning footage.

“I have seen pictures from them and obviously find them disturbing."

Was it sincere? Hard to tell. Perhaps she has realized that, as more of these videos surface, fewer and fewer Americans, especially women, are willing to stand with the pro-abortion organization. Across the country Tuesday, pro-life rallies were largely comprised of young women and mothers tired of being tricked into believing Planned Parenthood stands for women's health.

The RNC, for one, is not impressed with Clinton's delayed concern:

"It should not have taken a third video showcasing Planned Parenthood’s barbaric side business of selling fetal body parts for Hillary Clinton to change her tune. Instead of condemning these horrific revelations, Hillary Clinton has stood by Planned Parenthood despite weeks of unsettling headlines. Rather than lead, Hillary Clinton has once again shown herself to be someone who will do or say anything to get elected. Perhaps that’s also why she has yet to spell out what limits, if any, she supports on abortion."

As for female Republican candidate Carly Fiorina, she couldn't be clearer as to what she thinks about Planned Parenthood.

Do Conservatives Need a “Heart”? (Author Interview: Arthur Brooks, AEI President)

CBC sat down with Dr. Arthur Brooks, author of The Conservative Heart: How to Build a Fairer, Happier, and More Prosperous America. He is currently President of the esteemed, conservative American Enterprise Institute, former professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs – the US News & World Report’s top-ranked public affairs school in the country, and a former professional french horn player!

Congratulations Dr. Brooks on your new book,The Conservative Heart! Can you give us an overview of your book, and what was your inspiration in writing it?

The guiding inspiration for The Conservative Heart was my own personal story of how I became a conservative. I was raised in a liberal family in Seattle, and only became a conservative later in life for one reason: I care deeply about poverty and want to help people escape it.

In my late twenties, when I was finally finishing up my B.A., I fell in love with economics. And in particular, I was captivated by the fact that traditionally “conservative” values like free enterprise, globalization, free trade, and American leadership overseas had helped billions of people around the world pull themselves out of poverty. That’s why I’m a conservative today.

But here at home, there’s a bit of a political paradox at work. Even though we conservatives are in possession of the best solutions for poverty and the best ideas for expanding access to meaningful work, we are the least trusted by citizens to fight for poor and vulnerable people. We’ve failed at communicating what is really written on our hearts. That has to change. That’s why I wrote this book.

What three takeaways would you like readers to leave with after reading your book?

First, conservatives need to stop “fighting against things” and start fighting for people. Our cause has come to be defined by the bad policies we oppose. We fight against Obamacare, we fight against tax increases, we fight against runaway spending. But merely opposing bad ideas will never be enough to transform our protest movement into a social movement and reclaim the moral high ground. We need to get beyond the specifics of particular policy fights and remember—and remind the American people—that conservatives are fighting to help them pursue their own happiness.

Second, our society and our policies must treat every single person as an asset to develop, not a liability to manage. Often, our political rhetoric tragically reduces struggling people to mere liabilities to be managed at minimal cost. On the left, this manifests itself in a view that the poor should be left to the dependence of the welfare state; on the right, it sometimes appears in claims that the poor are simply “lazy” or refuse to work. The conservative heart at its core believes that people have equal, God-given worth and dignity—and should be cultivated like the invaluable assets they are.

Third, true leaders stand up for the people who need them, not just the people who support them. You’ll sometimes hear some conservatives ask: “Why should we work hard to support the poor? They’ll never vote for us anyways!” I respond with two points. First, history’s real patriots fight for everyone who needs them, not just those who agree with them. But secondarily, doing the right thing has a political payoff. Americans want leaders who embody compassion and empathy in addition to strong, moral leadership.

I assume your idea for the title of your book was loosely taken from Russell Kirk’s seminal The Conservative Mindan early leader of conservative Traditionalism. Do you believe there is an untenable divide between the economic and social conservatives, or do you believe there is an opportunity to reinvigorate conservative fusion in the upcoming 2016 election?

Fusionism is successful when all three pillars of the mainstream conservative agenda—free enterprise, traditional moral values, and American strength around the world—are all motivated by one core ethical principle: fighting for people with less power than us.

Fiscal conservatism will fall short if it is perceived as an outgrowth of greed. Social conservatism can’t succeed if traditional values are perceived as a tool used for excluding others. And a conservative foreign policy won’t succeed if it is rooted in fear. But when all three pillars are based in aspiration, in real hope for what human beings can accomplish when they are safe from tyranny, held to high moral standards, and free to earn their own success in a prosperous economy—that’s how conservative fusionism wins.

In your previous life, you were a public administration professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs before becoming President of the American Enterprise Institute. From your experience, what is your assessment of university education, in regards to its utility and the current politically correct nature on campuses?

The United States has the best universities in the world. But the single greatest weakness of American higher-ed is its lack of genuine intellectual diversity. So many campuses are effectively ideological monocultures, and “political diversity” means that some professors support President Obama and others think he isn’t liberal enough.

The answer is not for conservatives to withdraw and rail against academia from outside it, but to re-engage. We need more smart conservatives to become college professors, and we need conservative students to dive into campus life, both in political groups and through acts of charity, pairing real brotherly love with the courage of their convictions.

Tell us a little more about yourself!

Favorite Movie:

Impossible to pick just one. One recent favorite is the George Clooney film Up in the Air.

Favorite TV Show:

NFL football. Specifically the Seattle Seahawks.

Favorite Food:

My favorite real food is probably Spanish lentils. But I have a huge sweet tooth, so I’ll eat almost any sweets that are put in front of me. (My dentist loves me.)

Favorite Drink:

Black coffee.

Favorite Band:

I’m a huge classical music junkie, being a former professional French horn player. Two of my favorite composers are J.S. Bach and Anton Bruckner. Both made beautiful music based on a deep sense of moral purpose.

Where do you get your news from primarily?

I keep it simple: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and “AEI Today,” our daily newsletter on policy and politics.

If you could meet any person, dead or alive, who would it be?

St. Thomas Aquinas.

What do you do for fun?

Family activities are the best. I love hunting, fishing, riding horses, and going to concerts with my kids, and watching their gymnastics meets and bike races.

What books, authors, or conservative-themed books, influenced your political philosophy and outlook on life?

Thinking about political philosophy, I’d say The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek, and The Moral Sense by my mentor James Q. Wilson.

In a broader sense, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis are among the books that’ve had a tremendous influence on my life.

- See more at: http://www.conservativebookclub.com/12197/author-interviews/do-conservatives-need-a-heart-author-interview-arthur-brooks-aei-president - sthash.qfBvZskv.dpuf

Israel: U.S. Officials Are Withholding Major Parts And Details Of Iran Deal From Us

As the Obama administration desperately tries to sell the Iran deal to a skeptical Senate, including Democrats, U.S. officials are being accused of withholding details of the deal from Israel. More from Israeli newspaper Haaretz (bolding is mine): 

Israel is missing entire parts of the nuclear agreement, which makes assessing its consequences impossible, National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen tells Knesset panel.

The United States and other world powers haven't provided Israel with the details of the Iran nuclear deal, and especially the secret addendums concerning the agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, a top Israeli security official told lawmakers on Tuesday.

"Israel has yet to receive the addendums to Iran's agreement with the powers, despite promises," National Security Adviser Yossi Cohen told MKs at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

Cohen stated that Israel is missing entire parts of the nuclear agreement, which makes assessing its consequences impossible. "We don't have the whole picture," Cohen said, according to two sources that were in attendance.

Cohen noted that Israel was still actively trying to thwart the agreement or at least trying to have some critical changes made to it.

The information Israel is being denied has to do with Iran's agreement with the IAEA concerning possible military aspects of Teheran's nuclear program. This agreement has to do with IAEA inspections in the suspicious military base in Parchin, where Iran is said to have been trying components of a nuclear bomb.

Based on the information above, it seems information is being withheld from the Israelies in order to prevent them from bombing Iranian nuclear sites. Considering Iranian officials have openly stated they want to annihilate all of the Jews, which they claim will be easy to do (with a nuclear weapon) because the majority are located in Israel, the Israeli's are more than entitled to know about every detail of the (a deal considered by most as a very bad one). 

Israel, of course, has been against negotiations with the Iranian regime since talks with the White House began last year. When a deal was announced by President Obama earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a "stunning, historic mistake." When Netanyahu visited the U.S. in March, he said Israel will stand, even if it is alone, during an address to a joint session of Congress.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry and other Obama administration officials have been on Capitol Hill this week trying to sell the deal to Congress. Vice President Joe Biden was there doing the same two weeks go.

Hillary On Keystone Pipeline: I’ll Let You Know My Position When I Become President

It’s that time again! Where does Mrs. Clinton stand on the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline? That’s what one voter wanted to know at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, where the former first lady said she did lay the groundwork for “that process,” and added that she doesn’t want to “second guess” President Obama since this is his decision. She ended her non-answer by telling the voter, “if it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.”

I guess I can understand why Hillary is prevaricating on this issue. She doesn't want to rock the boat, especially since her numbers with the Obama coalition aren't that good.  First, her base isn’t too thrilled by the pipeline, and the environmental left want a definite answer sooner rather than later. Nevertheless, Politico reported in April, that major environmental groups were prepared to go soft on her on Keystone since they’re looking at the totality of her environmental record. That’s not really flying with the tree huggers in the grassroots, which is something Team Hillary should keep in mind since there’s some history here. 

The article also mentioned how Al Gore refused to comment on an airport project in the Everglades back in 2000 until the Clinton administration finished its review. They eventually rejected the idea, but the refusal to give a “yes” or “no” answer infuriated foot soldiers of mother Earth, who flocked to Ralph Nader. Nader got 90,000 of their votes, and Bush won Florida*.

Yet, for now, Clinton continues to play to dodge, dip, duck, dive, and … dodge with Keystone.

*If Gore didn't go so heavy on gun control in 2000, he could have won Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia and the presidency. Even with bush winning Florida, Gore would have won. Oh, and Hillary is (shocker) also on the wrong side of gun control, but you already knew that.