Daily Digest

Aug. 5, 2015
Print Email Bigger Smaller


“The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism.” —George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796


Stopping the Clean Power Plan Will Save $2.5 Trillion

After more than a year of waiting, Barack Obama this week unveiled the final iteration of the Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s biggest environmental regulation issued to date. According to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the estimated annual cost by 2030 will be $8.4 billion. But as with all government estimates, that number largely omits a comprehensive examination of the economic toll. When it comes to Obama’s agenda, we’re usually talking figures in the trillions of dollars, and this particular regulation is no different. A Heritage Foundation study published last month found that, by 2030, the Clean Power Plan will result in “[a] loss of more than $2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted) in aggregate gross domestic product (GDP).” On the one hand, you have McCarthy advertising $8.4 billion in annual costs — a relatively minor expense all things considered — while on the other hand, an independent study puts that figure at $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years. The disparity is huge, and it can’t be blamed on a rounding error. Nor is it right-wing think-tank conspiracy. Take ObamaCare, for instance. What was originally calculated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost American taxpayers less than $1 trillion over a decade ballooned to more than $2 trillion, according to new CBO figures. You’ll discover a familiar trend with any government program. That’s why the most important thing Republicans can do is put a stop to the Clean Power Plan before it truly gets started.

Comment | Share

Vacation Shows Obama Cocky in Iran Deal

The clock is winding down until Congress will vote in September to either approve or reject the nuclear deal the Obama administration struck with Iran. But despite nearly everyone in Washington taking vacation a month before the vote, the horse race must go on, and the speculation on how each lawmaker will vote is running rampant. House Republicans say they have enough votes to defeat the deal. Meanwhile, the Senate may be a handful of votes away from having a veto-proof consensus against the deal. The decision may come down to the heir to Democrat Senate leadership and supporter of Israel Chuck Schumer. As for Barack Obama, he’s confident that his foreign policy legacy is in the bag — at least for now. He will read a speech from a teleprompter at American University later today advocating the deal — echoing a speech John F. Kennedy made in 1963 — and then jet off to Martha’s Vineyard for a two-week vacation. In doing so, Obama is overestimating his oratorical chops and underestimating the opposition to the deal. Obama wants everyone to believe that if Congress rejects the deal war will come — illustrated by the fact that those who supported the Iraq war want this “peace” deal squashed. But Obama sits thousands of miles away from the situation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran would return to the negotiation table if this deal is rejected “because they need this deal.”

Comment | Share

Hate Group Calls for Racial Violence — Where’s Obama?

The Nation of Islam was founded in 1930, and is now a wealthy and well-known black organization. But just how far out in left field is the group? They’re drunk and in the bleachers. Even the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, which specializes in identifying so-called hate groups — most of which just happen to be conservative, or at least neo-Nazi so they can pin it on conservatives — lists the Nation of Islam as a hate group. SPLC says, “[I]ts bizarre theology of innate black superiority over whites — a belief system vehemently and consistently rejected by mainstream Muslims — and the deeply racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders, including top minister Louis Farrakhan, have earned the NOI a prominent position in the ranks of organized hate.”

In the latest quote for the file, Farrakhan recently told a crowd at Miami’s Mt. Zion Baptist Church, “I’m looking for 10,000 in the midst of a million. Ten thousand fearless men who say death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny. Death is sweeter than continuing to live and bury our children while the white folks give our killers hamburgers. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400-year-old enemy. Death is sweeter. The Quran teaches persecution is worse than slaughter. Then it says retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. So if the federal government won’t intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!”

He’s talking about the deaths of a few black men at the hands of white police officers. And it sure sounds like he’s inciting violence. Will the Justice Department of Barack Obama, himself a disciple of hate, look into this?

Comment | Share


CMP Continues to Turn Up the Heat on Planned Parenthood

By Nate Jackson

While Planned Parenthood’s $500 million in annual taxpayer funding survived a Senate vote Monday, there was a silver lining. In 2007, eight Republicans supported funding PP; Monday, just one did — Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois. And there are still seven unreleased videos from the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) to turn up the political pressure. The fifth one dropped Tuesday.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, who raised $230,000 for Barack Obama, extended a temporary restraining order against the release of some video material until the end of the month. National Abortion Federation and its members claim they will suffer harassment and possibly violence due to their part in the videos, and a hearing will take place Aug. 27 on a possible permanent injunction.

According to The Hill, “A lawyer representing The Center for Medical Progress said it would abide by Orrick’s order, noting the materials barred from release in the ruling represented ‘a small percentage’ of its overall collection.” The delay also happens to ensure the videos stay in the news even longer.

In related news, federal Judge B. Lynn Winmill threw out an Idaho law prohibiting undercover video of agricultural facilities by animal-rights activists on the grounds that “food and worker safety are matters of public concern.” Is that any less true of the hundreds of thousands of babies aborted each year by an organization hauling in half a billion in taxpayer dollars?

And, so, the fifth video (GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING).

It begins with PP President Cecile Richards insisting, “Planned Parenthood makes zero profit on any fetal tissue donations.”

But Melissa Farrell, director of research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, explains that harvesting provides a good “revenue stream” for PP, which “contributes so much to our bottom line.” She notes, “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are ‘this,’ and splitting the specimens into different shipments is ‘this.’ It’s all just a matter of line items.”

In fact, she admitted, “[W]e deviate from our standard in order to” obtain intact specimens. Furthermore, “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”

Doesn’t sound like mere expense reimbursement, does it?

According to CMP, “The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).”

It certainly seems clear from the video evidence that Planned Parenthood and other companies are engaged in illegal harvesting. Democrats in Congress will continue to look the other way and insist this is all about “women’s health,” but the truth is plain to see.

Finally, the video turns to the lab, where the undercover reporters ask for “fresh specimens” to determine their quality. A lab worker laughs, and says, “We had a really long day, and they’re all mixed up together in a bag.” She does manage to produce one of a set of 20-week-old twins (pulled from the freezer), and the technicians sort through lungs, intestines and limbs, while talking about how “organs come out really, really well — almost intact.”

If you aren’t appalled, you aren’t paying attention.

Project Lead David Daleiden elaborates on the significance: “This is now the fifth member of Planned Parenthood leadership discussing payments for aborted baby parts without any connection to actual costs of so-called tissue ‘donation.’ Planned Parenthood’s system-wide conspiracy to evade the law and make money off of aborted fetal tissue is now undeniable.” Daleiden continues, “Anyone who watches these videos knows that Planned Parenthood is engaged in barbaric practices and human rights abuses that must end. There is no reason for an organization that uses illegal abortion methods to sell baby parts and commit such atrocities against humanity to still receive over $500 million each year from taxpayers.”

Indeed, the videos reveal the banality of evil in a visceral way that the Left’s euphemisms deliberately attempt to obscure. It’s obvious that the Planned Parenthood workers know they’re dealing with something that’s at a minimum uncomfortable, because each videoed subject is at great pains to choose words carefully. And yet the technicians are calloused souls, who can laugh about body parts in a bag. There are seven more videos to go, and, if the pattern holds, they might be even worse.

Comment | Share




For more, visit Right Opinion.



Walter Williams: “The uninformed assumption made by judges, lawyers and academics is that but for the fact of racial and sex discrimination, we all would be distributed across occupations, educational backgrounds and other socio-economic characteristics according to our percentages in the population. Such a vision is absolute nonsense. … According to a recent study conducted by Bond University in Australia, sharks are nine times likelier to attack and kill men than they are women. Such a disproportionality leads to only one conclusion: Sharks are sexist. Another disturbing sex disparity is that despite the fact that men are 50 percent of the population and so are women, men are struck by lightning six times as often as women. Of those killed by lightning, 82 percent are men. I wonder what whoever is in charge of lightning has against men. Differences are seen by many as signs of inequality. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman put it best: ‘A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.’ Equality in conjunction with the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty.”

Comment | Share


Insight: “Most Americans aren’t the sort of citizens the Founding Fathers expected; they are contented serfs. Far from being active critics of government, they assume that its might makes it right.” —columnist Joseph Sobran (1946-2010)

Desperate to reframe the debate: “It’s a war on women’s health, it’s not about abortion. Planned Parenthood spends 97% of its dollars on non-abortion related services. … They serve 2.7 million people in America every year, 500,000 of those happen to be Hispanic. It is a very important health care organization, and this attack started from the day Planned Parenthood was founded in 1916, when the founder of Planned Parenthood was arrested for trying to distribute birth control to poor women. So it’s a constant battle here. I can’t believe in this century we are still battling against women’s health.” —Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist — hardly someone to look up to.)

Alpha Jackass: “It’s our responsibility in the Senate to assure that American women have access to care. It’s our obligation to protect our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters — protect them from the absurd policies of a Republican Party that’s lost its moral compass.” —Harry Reid on the GOP effort to defund Planned Parenthood

Demo-gogues: “I will defend Planned Parenthood. I think a lot of this attack, to be honest with you, comes from people who simply do not believe that a woman should have a right to control her own body. That’s the motive.” —Bernie Sanders, who added, “I have not seen the videos.” (The videos don’t exactly show a “woman’s body” being dissected in a petri dish and sold for spare parts, do they?)

And last… “Joe Biden was reported Friday seriously considering entering the race for the Democratic Party nomination for president. He doesn’t really need the job. After his term of office as vice president is over Joe Biden has a standing offer in Hollywood to play the villain in all the pepper spray commercials.” —Argus Hamilton

Comment | Share

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Views: 19


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center



Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service