February 8-17, 2016
Feb 08 21:30 Experience vs. constitutional conservatism Feb 09 12:08 Trump's frightening BS Feb 10 03:22 Repulicans flip Lenczewski seat Feb 10 14:20 Trump: all headlines, no solutions Feb 15 19:55 The battle for the Supreme Court Feb 16 04:38 Code Pink praises Trump; what's next? Feb 16 17:28 Sen. Schumer's revealing response Feb 17 15:51 Cruz's counsel crushes Trump's attorney
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Experience vs. constitutional conservatism
After Saturday night's GOP debate, everyone is harping on the need to elect experienced leaders who have a steady hand in times of crisis. That's essentially the pitch being made by the Establishment candidates. Earlier tonight, I wrote this article to highlight how insignificant experience is if you don't share the right principles. Why would a constitutional conservative think about voting for Jeb Bush hours after he told CNN's Dana Bash that he'd like to undo the Citizens United v. the FEC ruling?
The simple answer is they wouldn't. That's enough to disqualify Jeb from becoming the GOP nominee. That isn't the only boneheaded thing he's done lately, though. Rather than running the joyous campaign he promised when he got in, instead, he attacked almost everyone in the race. The only candidate he didn't disparage is Gov. Christie.
Gov. Bush asked "We have the front-running candidate, it's all about him,' Mr. Bush said. 'And the two other gifted candidates, they've never had a chance to lead. Maybe they can do it, but why would we risk it?" The answer is simple. I don't put much value on experienced people who think the Bill of Rights is antiquated. Freedom of speech isn't granted by the government, Gov. Bush. It's a right given to us by "Nature's God." In short, get your grubby progressive mitts off my right to criticize politicians.
Apparently, Gov. Bush didn't learn that constitutional republics are messy things. They're that way intentionally. The Founding Fathers didn't want 'efficient government'. Dictatorships are efficient but they don't exactly listen to the people. Mob rule democracies aren't significantly better. Mobs have a habit of not listening to thoughtful people in the minority. For examples of this, check out Pelosi's iron-fisted rule of the House in 2009-2010 when shoving Obamacare down our throats.
One of the reasons why Constitution-loving conservatives have rejected the Establishment candidates is because the Establishment candidates don't properly respect the Constitution. Jeb Bush just reminded us that he doesn't respect the Constitution.
Let's hope our friends in South Carolina give him the beating he deserves for abandoning the Constitution.
Posted Monday, February 8, 2016 9:30 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-Feb-16 08:41 AM
Gary, humans are "people." Legal fictions, corporations, LLCs, are not. As long as fees are paid, corporations can last "in perpetuity." People cannot.
Roberts is a hack. Bush was right. It must have been a real dimbulb who appointed Roberts, right?
Also, what "two other gifted candidates"? I've missed them during any/all "debates."
Also, who are the "Establishment candidates"? Kasich? The two senators?
What's more establishment than being a career politician Republican senator? One with a wife doing Goldman Sachs wealth account management? Other than Trump and Carson, there's nothing but Establishment candidates. Get real.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-16 11:19 AM
Corporations aren't buildings or paperwork. They're groups of people. Further, where in the First Amendment does it say it only applies to individuals? That's right. It doesn't.
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 09-Feb-16 05:22 PM
Are we safe to assume Eric Z also includes unions in his Legal fictions, corporations, and LLC category of non-people?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-16 11:19 PM
With Eric, it's never safe to assume anything, though it's likely.
Comment 4 by eric z at 10-Feb-16 04:25 PM
Kasich, not Marco. I had the "debate" on TV, the last one before New Hampshire, Kasich talking, and my brother-in-law comes by and says, "Oh my, is he for real." I had to inform him, "Paul, he's one of the better ones." New Hampshire GOP voters saw through Rubio's repeated canned presentation, likely even without Christie's help, proving that in the land of the blind the one eyed man can place second with half the votes Trump got.
Trump's frightening BS
Steve Hayes' tweet about Donald Trump's interview is frightening. According to Hayes, Trump told Fox's Martha Maccallum that "he'll get Russia to takeover much of the campaign against ISIS b/c of better relations w/Putin." Trump's ego is frightening. He actually thinks that Putin cares about ISIS. That's delusional. Why would anyone be stupid enough to trust our national security to Putin? And yes, stupid is the right word.
Putin's interest in that part of the world is to protect its satellites, Iran and Syria. ISIS isn't something that the Russians worry about. The next commander-in-chief needs to be able to analyze situations in the Middle East. Trump hasn't shown anything remotely resembling that type of ability.
Trump's organization is confused at best. Trump's analysis of the Middle East is delusional. That's worthy of a vote for him? I don't think so.
Posted Tuesday, February 9, 2016 12:08 PM
No comments.
Repulicans flip Lenczewski seat
Republicans are rejoicing at the fact that they flipped the House seat that Ann Lenczewski held the past 16 years. She's leaving the legislature to be a lobbyist in Washington, DC.
According to Rachel Stassen-Berger, "Republican Chad Anderson will take the Minnesota House seat long held by DFL Rep. Ann Lenczewski. With all the precincts tallied in the special election to replace Lenczewski, Anderson netted 51 percent to DFL Bloomington City Council member Andrew Carlson's 49 percent. The win gives Republicans, who are already in the House majority, an extra legislative vote this year and a key boost of confidence before November's election, when the entire Legislature is up for election."
Lenczewski never met a tax increase she didn't like. As chair of the House Taxes Committee, Rep. Lenczewski even tried eliminating the charitable giving and home mortgage interest deductions in 2009. Those proposals were part of her attempt at "tax reform."
Lenczewski said she wants to clean up the state's tax code. "Which is to sweep the tax code clean of all of the preferential treatment and subsidies and things we can't afford anymore and instead bring a fairer, more progressive income tax to Minnesotans based on the ability to pay," she said.
Good riddance. Anyone that thinks eliminating the home mortgage interest and charitable giving deductions are "preferential treatment that we can't anymore" isn't listening to her constituents. Thankfully, the constituents of HD-50B will now have someone that listens to them.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2016 3:22 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 10-Feb-16 02:09 PM
Since Ann was elected time and time again by liberals and since it is a fact that conservatives are far more giving and charitable than liberals and that liberals love to live in cramped apartments without a mortgage, she really was listening to her constituents. Too bad she wasn't listening to the rest of MN. I would bet now that she's a big time, high dollar lobbyist, she'll take advantage of those deductions to lower her tax bill.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Feb-16 04:52 PM
Same day, Abeler, after dispatching Aplikowski in a January primary contest, won SD35. The district is heavily GOP, crazies and semi-sane. Abeler was the lesser evil in the GOP primary, and because of demographics he won the balance of the seat Branden Petersen abandoned. I bet Aplikowski runs again when the seat's up in November, if the SD35 Republicans give him an intervening fundraiser. He ended up spending a lot of time and cash in his special election effort, and outside agitators from Freedom Club helped derail him by not understanding district moods. I think the people who jollied Andy along in this owe him another break-even fund raiser, even in defeat. He was hung out to dry, as if leading a charge to free the Bastille, and finding he had no following mob.
Trump: all headlines, no solutions
When Donald Trump gets behind the microphone, he's all headlines. In case his supporters haven't noticed, and apparently they haven't, Trump briefly touches on that day's headlines, then starts talking about how fabulous he is, followed by a recitation of how well he's doing in the polls. After that, he'll rip into one of his opponents.
Those aren't qualifications to be the next president. Admittedly, they're what seems to be working in the minds of his mindless supporters. Still, the American people shouldn't settle for Trump's schtick. To steal an oft-repeated line from Gov. Christie (may he rest in peace), touching on that day's headlines, ripping a political opponent and telling the world how great you are won't solve the problems that the United States faces.
It won't grow the economy. It won't defeat ISIS. It won't get Putin to back down. Trump's 'solution' to everything seems to be 'I'm fabulous. Trust me. I'll get back to you with the details after the election.'
Why would a thinking person trust someone with that apparent lack of qualifications? That's before talking about Mr. Trump's penchant for lawlessness, which I've written about here , here and here . It seems as though Trump loves bribing veterans organizations with contributions from his foundation to appear at his political rallies. This is illegal because his foundation is a 501(c)(3). The veterans organizations are 501(c)(3)s too. They're prohibited from participating in any sort of political activities.
The next commander-in-chief needs to be a man of character. Trump fails that test almost as badly as Hillary Clinton. It's time for the voters to get serious. To steal another of Gov. Christie's lines, we aren't electing a high school class president. We're electing the president of the United States.
Posted Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:20 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Feb-16 04:38 PM
Gary and readers, did you by any chance watch Trump's victory speech in New Hampshire? He referred to having just watched Bernie's, etc.
Not mentioning Clinton. Bernie. Trump's feeling the Bern.
Any thoughts, Gary or readers, Bloomberg? Will he be asked out to the prom, or just go without a date, like a builder of a McMansion on spec?
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Feb-16 04:43 PM
Trump is the new Reagan. More gip than the Gipper. And like the Gipper, he's running against a Bush. And as you point out, like the Gipper, he's unqualified.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Feb-16 05:56 PM
Eric, I've tolerated some really boneheaded things that you've said but saying that Reagan was unqualified is utterly foolish. Please explain how an unqualified president put in place economic policies that led to the strongest economic recovery in the last 50 years while putting in place policies that brought down the former Soviet Union? I recall Ted Kennedy, John Kerry & Joe Biden telling the American people that we might as well accept the Soviet "reality."
Reagan, oft referred to as the Amiable Dunce, ignored Biden, Kennedy & Kerry & brought down the Soviet Union. The idiot currently in office, along with the idiot running for office, aka Trump, think that Putin will be a force for good. That policy is a failure. Putin is protecting Iran & Syria. Why would anyone think that Putin wants to do the US's bidding in the Middle East?
Obama wants to turn the US into a Europe, something that we don't want to be. That's why he's had to attempt so many executive actions. We've rejected that. Socialism, Sen. Sanders' solution, is nothing more than forcing people to do what they don't want to do. When in history has that ever worked?
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 11-Feb-16 07:18 PM
Trump is the white Obama - A no experience rabble rouser who wants the job for fame, power and glory. Obama has already proven he isn't and never was up to the task of leading and only wants to blame others for his failures. Sadly the people are going to elect another person cut from the same cloth, the only question is will it be Trump or Clinton.
Comment 4 by eric z at 13-Feb-16 07:09 AM
Chad Q - I think a fair question. We both have problems with Obama, but his second term ends soon.
Who do you see as having better ideas and approaches than Obama, and why?
My view, Hillary Clinton is the white Obama, who was the black Clinton, black Bush I, and black Bush II, go back to Nixon even and leave the chain unbroken.
It's been same old, same old. What breaks the mold?
I see Sanders and Trump each a challenge to the two party oligarchy, but while each party can adjust, will either? If you could pick any individual, Chad, excluding yourself which is too easy a choice, who?
It could be Paul Ryan, or Tim Pawlenty, but who? Based on today and only a guess about tomorrow?
Who, and if you care to expand, on what single key policy worry do you base a choice? Or if not policy, electability, polling; any criterion, but pick one. As being of key importance beyond others.
Would you want JEB!
Comment 5 by eric z at 14-Feb-16 08:18 PM
He was like Yeltsen. Selling the seed corn for pennies on the dollar. Check out his deficit spending.
The battle for the Supreme Court
Since news broke that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died Saturday, people have buzzed about whether President Obama would nominate a replacement (he will) and whether the Senate will confirm a nominee (they won't.) While this will sound a little dramatic, the truth is that this pick has the potential of changing the shape of the nation.
The truth is that past liberal courts haven't cared about the text of the Constitution. Whether you agree or disagree with Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to decide that lawsuit. It wasn't a federal issue. State legislators and governors should have been given time to figure out how their state wanted to deal (or not deal) with the issue. There was nothing in the Constitution that said the federal government had the right to get involved. If the federal government wanted to get involved, Congress, not the Supreme Court, should have dealt or not dealt with the issue.
Since the right to an abortion isn't found anywhere in the Constitution, that means it's a political issue. It isn't a judicial issue until legislation is written and a bill is signed into law. The fact is that the Warren Court didn't respect the principle of federalism because that court didn't respect the states. Too frequently, the Warren Court saw the federal government as the sole authority on issues.
That belief stands in total contrast with the Founding Fathers' beliefs. The Founding Fathers believed that states, local units of government and individuals should make the vast majority of decisions. That's the underlying principle behind federalism.
In the past, liberal courts haven't seen fit to rule that the Second Amendment didn't apply to individuals. They've argued that it applied exclusively to militias. Then liberal lawyers argued that the Second Amendment is essentially void because we aren't protected by militias anymore.
The next justice will either decide that the people who wrote the Constitution thought things through, debated the pros and cons of each provision in the Constitution, then voted on whether each provision was worthy of being included in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers didn't deal with trendy things. They wrote the Constitution to stand the test of time. They wanted to make it impossible for a dictator to control the nation. That's why they insisted on including checks and balances into everything they put into the Constitution. They understood the value of deliberation and negotiation. They understood the importance of placing limits on government, too.
The Warren Court and, to a lesser extent, the Rehnquist Court issued rulings that allowed government to overrule the wishes of the governed. The last thing freedom-loving people should want is a nation ruled by the judiciary. Far too often, the Supreme Court created rulings from their imagination. Such is the case with Wickard v. Filburn .
At issue in Wickard v. Filburn was whether Congress could "regulate the production of wheat intended for personal use and not placed in interstate commerce" and whether "Congress could regulate trivial local intrastate activities that have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce via the commerce power." The Supreme Court ruled that Congress could regulate farm production even if those products never crossed from one state to another. In fact, that court ruled that the federal government had the right to regulate crop production even though the crops never left the farmer's land.
There's no justification for the federal courts to get involved because this was a local issue. Prior to this ruling, the federal government only used the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate commerce that left one state and went to another state. Wickard v. Filburn opened the floodgates that provided the precedent for other federal intrusions into matters that were supposed to be dealt with at the state level.
Posted Monday, February 15, 2016 7:55 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Feb-16 08:05 AM
Citizens United. Gore v. Bush. Hobby Lobby.
The man will be missed.
By some.
In any event, Gary, federalism vs states rights has to be viewed in light of who won the Civil War.
In that sense, is Cruz and "natural born citizen" a federal question? Born on Canadian soil, a natural born Canadian, that's hard to dispute, so from there . . .
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-16 03:11 PM
Federalism doesn't have to be viewed through who won the Civil War. It must be viewed through the lens of the Ninth & Tenth Amendments. The things that aren't expressly the authority of the federal government are reserved to "the states respectively or to the people."
I get it that collectivists want centralized power so they can easily implement one-size-fits-all policies rather than letting the states, which have forever been known as the "laboratories of democracy." The outcome of the Civil War is incidental in determining whether the principles attached to federalism are legitimate.
As for the Civil War and the argument that the determination of whether slaves were a matter of states rights is faulty because there was an overriding federal issue. That overarching federal issue was whether slaves had the same inalienable rights, granted by "Nature's God", as the Founding Fathers had.
Comment 2 by Mr. D at 18-Feb-16 05:47 AM
Thank you for mentioning Wickard, the worst Supreme Court decision most people haven't heard of.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Feb-16 10:58 AM
Mr. D, that's why they pay me the big bucks. (I WISH.)
Code Pink praises Trump; what's next?
It isn't surprising that Donald Trump is an unhinged anti-war liberal with a passion for conspiracy theories. That's been obvious for months. Saturday night, however, Trump the 9/11 Truther, made his first appearance on a debate stage. As a result of what Mr. Trump said, Medea Benjamin praised Mr. Trump , saying "It felt surreal to hear Donald Trump, the leading Republican contender for President, saying what we at CODEPINK have been shouting to the winds for 14 years now: that Bush and his cronies lied about WMDs, that the Iraq war was catastrophic, and that Bush never 'kept us safe' because 9/11 happened on his watch.'
This is a time for choosing for the so-called Republicans who support Trump. These Republicans can't pretend that they're patriots. They can't pretend that they care about protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. They can't tell us that they support Mr. Trump because they hate political correctness. They can't even hide behind the fallacy that they support Mr. Trump because "he gets things done."
The indisputable truth is that the thing bigger than Mr. Trump's ego is the paranoia that fuels his truther beliefs. Here's something Mr. Trump said that isn't getting talked about enough:
TRUMP: How did he keep us safe when the World Trade Center -- the World -- excuse me. I lost hundreds of friends. The World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush. He kept us safe? That is not safe. That is not safe, Marco. That is not safe.
RUBIO: The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him. (APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And George Bush-- by the way, George Bush had the chance, also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA .
Mr. Trump couldn't know that President Bush got information from the CIA on bin Laden, much less know whether President Bush refused to act on that intelligence. We know that it's impossible for Mr. Trump to know this because that's the type of intelligence that would get an SAP classification. We know that because of Hillary Clinton's emails.
Trump's supporters need to ask themselves whether they're supporting him because they thought he was a patriot who would change this nation's direction or did they support Mr. Trump because they thought he was a liberal anti-war activist that's praised by far left organizations like Code Pink? Five minutes into this video, Carl Higbie, a former Navy Seal, insists that ISIS will be gone within 2 years:
HIGBIE: I think we see ISIS gone within 2 years. We put 250,000 boots on the ground. I know people that that's not a popular comment but we do what's necessary. We set the threshold. We say 'if you do this, we'll do this'. You follow through.
Apparently, Mr. Higbie isn't well-informed. All he has to do is watch this video to be better informed:
Mr. Higbie can forget about a Trump administration that will put 250,000 boots on the ground to defeat ISIS. Trump has repeatedly said that he'd farm US national security out to Putin. Trump said repeatedly that he wants Putin to take out ISIS. Though you can't trust anything Mr. Trump says from one day to the next, there's no question that he's repeatedly said that he wants Putin to do our dirty work with regards to ISIS.
Anyone that supports a presidential candidate that sounds like an anti-war CODE PINK activist one minute, then says he'd get Vladimir Putin to take out ISIS isn't thinking straight.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Feb-16 07:57 AM
Unpatriotic if supporting Trump?
This is the Madeline Albright statement of patriotism.
Agree with me or hands off my flag, mine to wave, go away?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-16 03:17 PM
I knew someone would play that card. It's predictable but inapplicable. Madeline Albright's statement was a statement that supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy. It wasn't tethered to longstanding principles that the Democratic Party has stood for.
My statement was about whether the Republican Party would continue to stand for a strong national defense, whether a Republican president should farm out US national security to other nations and whether we wanted to sound like a fringe liberal anti-war organization. In short, I spoke about core principles of the GOP.
Ms. Albright wasn't speaking about core principles of the Democratic Party. That's the major difference.
Comment 2 by JerryE9 at 16-Feb-16 10:20 AM
Wait a minute... Donald Trump "lost hundreds of friends"? How many does he have left??
Comment 3 by eric z at 17-Feb-16 01:33 PM
Gary, don't be cavalier bandying about the word "patriotism" when you disagree with a stance.
There is no cause for that extremism in civil discourse.
Question judgment, not basic loyalty. Come on, Gary.
NEXT: Which GOP candidate, Gary, I may have missed it, is saying "Put 250,000 pairs of boots on the ground?" If having to guess one, Rubio, yes, no?
Or is this some stuff from a FOX talking head, and only that. Lots of body bags, you do that. The body bag manufacturers might support it, but the people?
I'd bet not.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Feb-16 03:11 PM
A high-level Trump supporter thinks Trump will send in 250,000 ground troops. I know Trump won't. That's my point. Trump's supporters are believing all kinds of things about him because they're blinded by Trump's cult of personality.
Here's the point that Trump doesn't dare utter: Had Obama successfully negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq, ISIS couldn't have grabbed the cities it grabbed. Instead, Obama put a higher priority on ending the war than he put on preventing terrorist attacks. Trump is blaming Bush for Obama's stupidity. It's that simple.
Sen. Schumer's revealing response
Earlier this week, a video highlighted Sen. Schumer's statements on judicial nominees that directly contradict his statements today. Because he got caught accidentally telling the truth, Sen. Schumer wrote this statement . Sen. Schumer's statement highlights his judicial philosophy, which is captured when he said "During President Bush's term, Democrats had voted for Justice Roberts and allowed Justice Alito to go through? - ?both of whom said they would, as Justice Roberts said, be umpires calling balls and strikes. Once they got on the court they immediately started moving the court in an ideological direction, and they have continued to do so. Decisions that dramatically deviated from precedent and pulled America in a strongly rightward direction, handed down with a 5-4 majority, became the hallmark of this court."
Schumer continued, saying "Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has deviated from strongly held precedents on campaign finance issues, voting rights, choice, unions, environmental regulations, and many others." Notice that Sen. Schumer didn't accuse the Roberts Court of deviating from the text of the Constitution. Sen. Schumer's biggest concern was that Justice Roberts didn't follow precedents, which might or might not align with the text of the Constitution.
Frankly, precedents might not be worth much. If they're grounded in the Constitution, then they might be helpful. If they aren't grounded in the Constitution, precedents should be rejected and/or scrapped immediately. The gospel according to Justice Scalia says that text of the Constitution and the text of the statute being litigated determine the ruling. They're the principles behind originalism and textualism.
It's worth noting that liberals love precedents and stare decisis when it leads to their preferred political outcome but they rejoiced when the Supreme Court threw out the precedent that led to their ruling on gay marriage. Democrats like Schumer don't care about precedents as much as they love getting the verdicts that fit with their agenda.
Putting things in biblical terms, the difference between basing rulings on the text of the Constitution and basing rulings on precedents is striking. Precedent-based rulings are flimsy like quicksand. Text-based rulings are as sturdy as the firm foundation that they're built on.
Shouldn't we want to build a judiciary that makes its rulings based on something foundational, not on something flimsy?
This statement is BS:
But whether Republicans agree or not with my evaluation of whichever candidate the president puts forward, they have a constitutional obligation to hold hearings, conduct a full confirmation process, and vote on the nominee based on his or her merits.
Sen. Schumer isn't telling the truth. There's nothing in the Constitution, in either Article I, which deals with congressional responsibilities, or Article III, which deals with the judicial branch, that requires Congress to act on a president's judicial nominees. Further, Sen. Schumer voted 26 times during President Bush's first term to continue filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees. How is filibustering judicial nominees voting "on the nominee based on his or her merits"?
I'd like to thank Sen. Schumer for issuing this statement. It exposes the flimsiness of the liberals' judicial philosophy.
Posted Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:28 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Feb-16 01:24 PM
Get real.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Feb-16 03:05 PM
That's real & it's accurate. Deal with it.
Cruz's counsel crushes Trump's attorney
Donald Trump hasn't hidden the fact that he's an extremely litigious person. Trump's attorneys seem to file a lawsuit anytime that another candidate runs a negative ad against Mr. Trump. It isn't surprising that Mr. Trump's attorneys have fired off a letter demanding that Sen. Cruz cease and desist from running an ad portraying Mr. Trump as pro-choice. Here is that letter:
Frankly, Trump's letter comes across as whiney and as being prepared by law school students, not high-priced attorneys. Compare Trump's threatening letter with the professional-sounding letter sent by Sen. Cruz's counsel:
This part of the Cruz letter utterly demolishes, legally, the letter sent by Trump's campaign:
As recently as Saturday, February 13, 2016 - four days ago at the Republican Debate sponsored by CBS - Mr. Trump said Planned Parenthood 'does do wonderful things.' Planned Parenthood is the leading abortion provider in the country. Being pro?life and supporting Planned Parenthood are incompatible. Moreover, Mr. Trump has recently donated political contributions to many pro?choice candidates and officeholders, including Chuck Schumer, Andrew Cuomo, Anthony Weiner, and Rahm Emanuel. Do you, on behalf of your client, deny that these contributions were used to help elect pro?choice candidates to office? Indeed, before the 2008 election cycle, Mr. Trump donated $303,600 to Democrats, many of whom are pro?abortion. Mr. Trump also donated to the New York State Democratic Party, whose platform is pro?choice, and he has donated to pro?choice candidates as recently as 2014. Suffice it to say, there is ample evidence casting grave doubt about the truthfulness of Mr. Trump's campaign claims that he is truly pro?life.
I wrote this article to highlight the Trump campaign's commitment to Planned Parenthood. Katrina Pierson, Trump's campaign spokesperson, insisted that women couldn't get important cancer screenings without Planned Parenthood clinics. That's utterly dishonest. As of 2013, there were 669 Planned Parenthood clinics spread across the United States. By comparison, there are 9,059 Federally Qualified Health Clinics, aka FQHCs, spread across the United States. Each of these FQHCs is required by law to provide care to patients regardless of ability to pay.
Mr. Trump can insist that he's pro-life all he wants. The First Amendment, believe it or not, protects deceitful speech. What it doesn't protect against is the ridicule that comes from telling whoppers.
Posted Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:51 PM
No comments.
