24 September 2016

When you compare the same Romney and Trump CNN polls the result is stunning

In order to win the White House, Donald Trump must perform better than Mitt Romney.  In fact, Trump specifically claimed he would do better than Romney among groups like women and the poor.

So what does comparing the same CNN poll from the same point in the 2012 and 2016 campaigns show?

Trump is doing worse than Romney among virtually every demographic group. The only group among which Trump outperforms Romney? Liberals.

Comparing CNN polls, Romney and Trump
[8/31-9/3, 2012 (735 LV) vs. 9/1-9/4, 2016 (786 LV)]

55% - Romney
54% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 1%

42% - Romney
38% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 4%

57% - Romney
55% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 2%

Income under $50K
42% - Romney
38% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 4%

Income over $50K
52% - Romney
48% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 4%

5% - Romney
3% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 2%

52% - Romney
49% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 3%

92% - Romney
90% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 2%

5% - Romney
6% - Trump
Trump outperforming Romney 1%

38% - Romney
30% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 8%

78% - Romney
75% - Trump
Trump underperforming Romney 3%

23 September 2016

Is Trump outperforming Romney? The numbers don't lie.

In order to win the White House, Republicans have to expand upon the votes they won in 2012. Trump won the primary by promising to expand the GOP brand and win the votes of women, minorities and independents. So how is he doing? Not well. Let's compare Romney's CNN exit polls with Trump's latest CNN poll.
Men: 52% - Romney 54% - Trump Trump +2%

Women: 44% - Romney 38% - Trump Trump -6%

Whites: 59% - Romney 55% - Trump Trump -4%

Over 65 Years Old: 56% - Romney 55% - Trump Trump -1%

College Graduates: 51% - Romney 30% - Trump Trump -21%
 Not College Graduates: 47% - Romney 53% - Trump Trump +6%
 Income Under $50K: 38% - Romney 38% - Trump Trump tied
 Income Over $50K: 53% - Romney 48% - Trump Trump -5%
 Liberals: 11% - Romney 6% - Trump Trump -5%

Moderates: 41% - Romney 30% - Trump Trump -11%

Conservatives: 82% - Romney 75% - Trump Trump -7%

Democrats: 7% - Romney 3% - Trump Trump -4%

Independents: 50% - Romney 49% - Trump Trump -1%

Republicans: 93% - Romney 89% - Trump Trump -4%

07 September 2016

Why was Obama’s Homeland Security chief speaking to a terrorist front group?

As Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson’s job is to identify and shut down terrorist groups.

Instead, he’s honoring them with speeches.

Johnson was the featured speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

The ISNA is all too familiar to Homeland Security officials.

That’s because it was named by the Justice Department as an “unindicted co=conspirator” in the largest terrorist financing prosecution in U.S. history – helping funnel millions of dollars to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to carry out jihad against the United States.

WorldNetDaily reports:

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood, the super-umbrella network of Islamist ideology from which terror groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas arose, listed ISNA as one of its main fronts. Declassified FBI memos said ISNA is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood, which sees its “work in America as a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

In 2007, the U.S. government labeled ISNA a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial involving the Holy Land Foundation funneling money to Hamas. The label was upheld in 2009 because of “ample” evidence linking ISNA to Hamas. Several years ago, ISNA’s Canadian affiliate lost its status as a charity because of its accounting discrepancies and links to Pakistani terrorists...

...ISNA also was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document, “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America,” as one of the Brotherhood’s likeminded “organizations of our friends” who shared the common goal of destroying America and turning it into a Muslim nation, according to Discover the Networks.

Rather than condemn the group, Johnson encouraged them to fight even harder.

“Tonight I will not look at this large group of Muslims before me in this room through a homeland security lens. Tonight I will not talk about counterterrorism. Tonight I will simply address you as who you are, ‘my fellow Americans,’” said Johnson.

“Your story is the quintessential American story. Your story is an American story, told over and over again, generation after generation, of waves of people who struggle for, seek, and will eventually win your share of the American dream,” Johnson told the ISNA, which has denied Osama bin Laden’s role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and routinely raises money to fight the deportation of convicted terrorists.

06 September 2016

This state just made it illegal to collect evidence against Planned Parenthood

At the request of Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion California legislators have passed an anti-speech law so draconian even liberal stalwarts like the ACLU and Los Angeles Times are concerned.

Hoping to shut down efforts by pro-life activists to publicize their illegal sale of baby body parts, the California state legislature passed legislation making it a crime to record “health care providers,” even if it the recordings reveal criminal activity.

People who record illegal activity by Planned Parenthood face a $10,000.00 fine and a year in prison.

Assembly Bill 1671 was a direct response to undercover tapes released by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood officials and employees illegally harvesting organs from dead babies and selling them at profit.

It was sponsored by Assembly Jimmy Gomez, who has taken $13,500.00 in campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood still can't own up to the fact that their senior leadership was caught on camera talking about which places on a late-term baby to crush or not crush in order to harvest the most valuable body parts for sale," CMP president David Daleiden told LifeSiteNews.

"So, instead, Planned Parenthood is trying to make it a crime to see the evidence," Daleiden said.

But he’s not the only one disturbed by the pro-abortion bill.

Even liberals are disgusted by politicians’ brazen attempt to protect the abortion industry by arresting whistleblowers.

The California Newspaper Publishers Association warns the bill “potentially criminalizes speech.”

“We've been trying to help them find a way to accomplish their goals while not infringing on the First Amendment or creating liabilities for media,” said CNPA legal counsel Nikki Moore.

"The same rationale for punishing communications of some preferred professions or industries could as easily be applied to other communications [such as] law enforcement, animal testing labs, gun makers, lethal injection drug producers, the petroleum industry and religious sects," the ACLU of California warns in a letter to Gomez.

Even the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board called out their friends in Planned Parenthood for their fascist bill.

“Why a healthcare provider merits special protection even when discussing things that don’t involve patient privacy is mystifying...this measure would heap more criminal and civil penalties on making a secret recording — an act that’s already prohibited by state law, even when done in the public interest — simply to satisfy an interest group popular among Sacramento Democrats...The potential for unanticipated and unwelcome consequences is huge,” the Times writes.

Will other states follow suit?

And with liberals pushing anti-speech legislation and regulations on all fronts, will it soon become virtually illegal to be conservative?

19 December 2015

ABC News shuts down its email after Stop Hillary PAC supporters demand they ask Hillary about Benghazi

WASHINGTON - Ahead of the network’s hosting of a Democratic presidential debate, ABC News has shut down the email accounts of its debate moderators after supporters of Stop Hillary PAC demanded they ask Hillary Clinton about her handling of a terrorist attack on Americans in Benghazi.

Newly released emails show that not only did Clinton refuse to deploy a rescue mission organized by General Martin Dempsey, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but American forces may have had an additional two hours to launch a rescue.

“Emails show Hillary Clinton ordered the military to stand down in Benghazi, even though General Dempsey had mobilized forces,” said Dan Backer, SHP’s general counsel. “Holding Hillary accountable means holding the media accountable for being her campaign spokespeople.”

“ABC News would rather be Hillary Clinton’s campaign advisers than a news network,” said Backer. “Rather than ask a candidate a question about her record, they are shutting down email accounts and refusing to do their job.”


14 July 2015

Here's why the Planned Parenthood baby body parts scandal could be a federal crime

Here's what federal law says about selling fetal tissue
42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue
(a) Purchase of tissue: It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce. 
(e)(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

Here's what California law says about selling fetal tissue
125320.  (a) A person may not knowingly, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell embryonic or cadaveric fetal tissue for research purposes pursuant to this chapter.
   (b) For purposes of this section, "valuable consideration" does
not include reasonable payment for the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transplantation, or
implantation of a part.

In other words, clinics can legally sell aborted fetal tissue at a legally-controlled rate.  The idea is to encourage tissue research without creating a profit incentive.

But it's a state crime to sell it for a price above what it costs a clinic to store, keep and ship it.

And it's a federal crime to do that when the tissue is sold across state line or "affects interstate commerce."

Here's what Planned Parenthood said.

On how Planned Parenthood clinics charge researchers for tissue:
Planned Parenthood: "And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that....Every penny they save is a just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get."
Buyer: "Because of the losses in that area."
PP:  "Exactly."
On sourcing fetal issue across state lines:
PP: "So, I don’t know your, what you’re thinking as far as range. If you’re thinking about just California, if you’re thinking about just the West Coast, if you’re thinking about bigger regions...."
Buyer: "...for example, StemExpress, they cater to researchers across the country but they’re sourcing material from just Northern California."
Planned Parenthood: "Exactly."
Here's why Planned Parenthood should call their criminal defense attorney 

If Planned Parenthood is charging "beyond break even," to use their own words, that may be a state crime.

And if Planned Parenthood sells  "beyond break even," to use their own words, across "the West Coast," to use their own words, that may be a federal crime.

08 July 2015

Time's up

Probe uncovers widespread illegal activity by Obama EPA

"Republican lawmakers are demanding a former top Environmental Protection Agency official’s texts and emails that could point to collusion with environmental activist group," The Daily Caller reports.

"Documents show that in 2011, then-EPA Associate Administrator for Policy Michael Goo seemingly used his private e-mail account to routinely communicate with outside groups attempting to influence agency policy," House Science Committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

"News reports have shown Goo, who now works for the Department of Energy, has close ties with environmental activists. He communicated with activists using a private email account and set up meetings outside EPA property to prevent them from being public record," The Daily Caller reports.

The messages would indicate the nation's wealthiest environmentalist groups are illegally colluding with Obama officials.

"Another e-mail sent from the Sierra Club to Mr. Goo’s private e-mail account states, ‘[a]ttached is a memo I didn’t want to send in public,'" Smith writes. "Mr. Goo was complicit in the lack of transparency by complying with the Sierra Club’s request because he failed to disclose the e-mail for two years"

This major environmentalist claim is a total lie

Everyone from Barack Obama to that patchloui-drenched hippie at Whole Foods loves to claim "97 percent of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real."

One problem.

It's a total lie.

Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, explains the scam:

The most highly-cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52 per cent said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 per cent either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53 per cent agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97 per cent consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

So that "97 percent"  "consensus" is actually a 50/50 split.  

And with the government spending millions researching the conspiract theory, many of the scientists who think man-made climate change wouldn't have a job if they said otherwise.

There are also other scientific questions in play.

* Are global temperatures rising, falling, or staying the same?
* If global temperatures are rising, how much of that is due to the fact we're still emerging from an Ice Age?
* Considering current global temperatures are lower than the average seen over 4 billion years, what is the Earth's "correct temperature," and are we below it?
* If temperatures are rising, is human activity contributing anything whatsoever to it considering the Earth itself produces exponentally more CO2 than humans ever could?
* Would dimishing U.S. CO2 outputs have any effect whatsoever?

The science is anything but settled.

New Obama rule bans most outdoor grills

Under orders from the president, the EPA has decided to wage war against summer staples such as backyard cookouts and Fourth of July fireworks shows," writes Drew Johnson in The Washington Times.

"Absurdly low ground-level ozone standards are the latest – and likely the most expensive and oppressive – regulations the EPA has proposed adding to its already mountainous list of rules and directives suffocating the American economy.

"Because the proposed ozone standards are set so low, things as harmless as several barbeque grills cooking at the same time in the same area, or even a festive fireworks being launched during an Independence Day celebration, could tip an area already on the brink of surpassing federal ozone thresholds over the edge and into “nonattainment.”

"In an attempt to steer clear of punishment, local lawmakers are likely to respond to the new EPA rules by enacting municipal grilling bans and cancelling fireworks shows from coast-to-coast."

Environmentalists sue to stop Independence Day

When a small band of environmentalists sued to stop a major California city from celebrating Independence Day, the increasingly radical environmentalist movement managed to perfectly crystallize its agenda.

In 2010, 2011 and 2014, a California environmentalist group sued San Diego and two community charities, demanding fireworks be banned from Independence Day celebrations.  The suits claim 20 minutes of aerial fireworks will destroy La Jolla Cove and all life in it.

Even stupider, this tactic successfully shut down San Diego’s 2010 New Year’s Day fireworks celebration.  Of the four lawsuits, environmentalists successfully banned fireworks in three. 

That’s right. No spleen-splitters. No honkey lighters. No hoosker doos. No hoosker don’ts. No cherry bombs. No nipsy daisers (with or without the scooter stick). Not one single whistlin’ kitty chaser.

Just snakes and sparklers.

If they’re feeling generous.

The environmentalists also walked away with $250,000.00 in cash.

Yes, environmentalists actually believe a small fireworks shows can destroy the planet, and they will sue you and take your money if you express disagreement.

But the real issue here is bigger than a small fireworks show.

You see, environmentalists don’t hate fireworks.

What they despise with a poisonous rage is the concept they celebrate – that government’s power is limited and may be exercised only with the consent of the governed.

While they sue to stop a celebration of the Declaration of Independence, their comrades in Washington are battling to eradicate the concept of government that the Declaration of Independence so eloquently defends.

Stymied on Capitol Hill by popular opposition to boondoggles like last year’s cap-and-tax bill, the Obama administration is increasingly using the unchecked power of regulatory agencies to write and enforce federal dictates, going around Congress to impose the most radical, expensive and job-killing of environmentalist schemes.

Obama is in open defiance of a core tenet of the Declaration of Independence — its statement that government must derive its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

And Americans have good reason to refuse to give their consent to Obama’s destructive environmentalist agenda.

In all, job creators spent $1.75 trillion to comply with federal regulations in 2008. That’s $15,000 per family just to follow rules that are often written by career political activists in Washington. Since businesses earn revenue from consumers, that $1.75 trillion comes directly from the pocket of cash-strapped consumers.

The costly onslaught of radical rule by regulatory declaration is coming down even harder under Barack Obama’s aggressive environmentalist agenda, as many utility customers, for example, are now finding out.

“Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations,” The Hill reported yesterday. “The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA’s efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions …

“The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form … The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.”

That’s a 35 percent higher utility bill, essentially a massive federal energy tax, invented and levied on consumers with no vote or even consideration by Congress.

Fully aware that the rule was so fanatical that Congress would reject it, the Obama administration ordered its EPA bureaucrats to impose it instead.

This begs a serious constitutional question: Why are laws no longer made by lawmakers?

That’s what Sen. Rand Paul is asking. His REINS Act (S. 226) requires any proposed federal regulation with an economic impact greater than $100 million to be considered and approved by both chambers of Congress as a resolution and then signed by the president before it can take effect.

In other words, America’s government must derive it powers from the consent of the governed.

Environmentalists may sue to outlaws fireworks, but the thought of letting Americans have a say in laws and regulations affecting them is sending greens into orbit.

That’s why BetterEconomy.org, a grassroots-supported citizens’ group advocating rational energy and environmental policy, is making a recorded vote of the Senate and House on the REINS Act a top legislative priority.

Citizens have a right to have a say in the passage of laws and regulations through their accountable lawmakers, as well as to know whether their elected representative is one of those environmentalist lawmakers opposing that founding principle.

So, who is fighting to block a recorded vote on the REINS Act and deny Americans something as fundamentally proper as their right to have a voice in their government?

The same sorts of people who are suing to shut down celebrations of the document that states that government must draw its “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Backed by the Obama administration, Public Citizen (which opposed the Senate’s cap-and-tax bill because it didn’t make family electric bills high enough to stop the use of electricity) is one of the leftist special interest groups now on the warpath against Sen. Paul’s REINS Act and groups like BetterEconomy.org.

The group says that allowing lawmakers to make laws, rather than unelected D.C bureaucrats, “would replace a process based on expertise, rationality and openness with one characterized by political maneuvering, economic clout and secrecy.”

No word on whether the members of the group warmed up and stretched before engaging in the logical backflips it takes to describe the closed-door meetings of unelected bureaucrats as “openness” while claiming the public debate and vote of accountable lawmakers before C-SPAN cameras is “secrecy.”

America’s founding belief that the only proper form of government is one that serves with the consent of the governed is a threat to environmentalists’ unpopular and far-out agenda. Not only are they suing to stop our celebration of that declaration, they are waging an aggressive war to expand the power of regulatory agencies and relegate representative government to the history books.

Don’t let them snuff out our freedoms, or our celebration of them. As environmentalism continues to impose heavy costs on the pocketbooks and freedoms of Americans, Sen. Paul’s REINS Act is a simple and common sense move to restore our founding principles.

Donny Ferguson is President of BetterEconomy.org, the nation's most effective grassroots-powered opponent of the radical environmentalist lobby.  This column originally appeared in The Daily Caller on July 1, 2011.  It has been updated to reflect recent developments.