In 2013, more than 200,000 people on net fled states with Democrat governors for ones run by Republicans, according to an analysis of newly released IRS data by Americans for Tax Reform.
“People move away from high tax states to low tax states. Every tax refugee is sending a powerful message to politicians,” said ATR President Grover Norquist. “They are voting with their feet. Leaders in Texas and Florida are listening. New York and California are not.”
That year, Democrat-run states lost a net 226,763 taxpayers, bringing with them nearly $15.7 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI). That same year, states with Republican governors gained nearly 220,000 new taxpayers, who brought more than $14.1 billion in AGI with them.
Only one-third of states with Democrat governors gained taxpayers, compared to three-fifths of states with Republican governors.
Top 5 loser states for Democrat governors in 2013:
· Illinois (68,943 people with $3.8 billion in AGI)
· California (47,458 people with 3.8 billion in AGI)
· Connecticut (14,453 people with $1.8 billion in AGI)
· Massachusetts (11,915 people with $1 billion in AGI)
Top 5 winner states for Republican governors in 2013:
· Texas (152,912 people with $6 billion in AGI)
· South Carolina (29,176 people with 1.6 billion in AGI)
· North Carolina (26,207 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
· Arizona (16,549 people with $1.5 billion in AGI)
The single largest net migration from one state to another took place between New York and Florida (17,355 people).
Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis made international headlines this week for her continued refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite a US supreme court order mandating otherwise.
But she’s not the only defecting clerk in Kentucky. Two other clerks, Casey Davis of Casey County and Kay Schwartz of Whitley County, are also still refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
Davis began a 440-mile trip across the state on bicycle last Thursday, with the intention of riding from Pikeville, located in eastern Kentucky, to the city of Paducah.
“I’m actually [biking] across the state to show support to [Kim Davis] and to raise awareness of what’s going on with this woman,” Casey Davis, who has no relation to Kim Davis, said in a phone interview.
As a hearing on Thursday approaches to consider whether Kim Davis should be held in contempt of court, Casey Davis dismissed the prospect of possible jail time for the clerk, saying “she’s not done anything wrong; she’s upheld her oath”.
“She’s standing for God like she think she should and I think she should,” Casey, 43, told the Guardian. “I don’t think a person should be threatened to be fined or threatened to go to jail because they’re Christian.”
The vocal persistence of the clerks on Tuesday attracted the attention of Kentucky governor Steve Beshear, who again declined to call a special session to address the conflict – a prickly issue for Davis’s supporters.
“Regardless of whatever their personal feelings might be, 117 of our 120 county clerks are following the law and carrying out their duty to issue marriage licenses regardless of gender,” Beshear, a Democrat, said in a statement.
He added: “The General Assembly will convene in four months and can make any statutory changes it deems necessary at that time. I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money calling a special session… when 117 of 120 clerks are doing their jobs.”
Casey said he doesn’t see the need to wait for the legislative change, which he called a “simple idea”. The proposed bill would allow clerks to not play a role in officiating a marriage; it would only require they keep the records on hold. And he said a bipartisan coalition of legislators is ready to back him up.
At Davis’s office on Wednesday, a familiar scene played out: her supporters coalesced on one side of the entrance, occasionally praying and singing as someone held a tall American flag. Across the entrance, her vocal, noticeably younger, critics held signs that said: “You are being used by a hate group, Liberty Counsel”, a jab at the clerk’s attorneys from the Christian non-profit.
It was a noticeable divide that reflects Kentucky’s sharp split on gay marriage: ever since the state’s marriage ban was struck down this summer, a July poll showed 50% of registered voters oppose same-sex marriage, with 37% in support – however, the opposition has slowly whittled away throughout the year.
Around 10.30am on Wednesday, a couple from Ohio joined hands and walked into the courthouse to obtain a marriage license.
The pair woke up early and gathered their birth certificates, social security cards and passports before making the roughly three-hour commute. After a 25-minute altercation, Davis turned them away.
“I saw something that was reminiscent of a KKK rally,” said Robbie Blankenship, 45, who has been together with Jesse Cruz, 42, for 20 years.
Davis and the two other clerks haven’t issued marriage licenses since the supreme court’s 26 June decision to legalize same-sex marriage. Schwartz, who didn’t return requests for comment by the Guardian, said her opponents have transformed into bullies ever since.
“There’s a law against bullying and that’s what this has turned into,” she told the State Journal of Frankfort, Kentucky. “I’ve had a couple calls and when I’ve looked those people up, they didn’t even live in my county.”
In July, the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and the Louisville-based Fairness Campaign, a civil rights group, “cast a net” in counties across the state that denied licenses, said Chris Hartman, director of the campaign. “But the only counties where plaintiffs responded to the request were in Rowan County,” Hartman said.
“Any of these county clerks could have become Kim Davis,” he said. “It just so happened Kim Davis became Kim Davis.”
Casey offered a similar explanation: “Well, Kim’s been sued; Kay nor I have been.”
Their supporters echoed the clerk’s call for change outside Davis’s office on Wednesday.
“The way to settle it is to not have the county clerk sign the form,” said Don Bair, a Davis supporter who turned out in support of the embattled clerk.
David Hamm, also a Morehead resident, chimed in: “All I got to say is it’s the governor’s fault.”
The saga of Davis – a longtime bureaucrat and native of Morehead, attracted increasing attention last month, when a federal judge ordered her to abide by the supreme court’s June decision. Governor Beshear has also ordered county clerks across the state to fall in line with the ruling.
Tension heightened last week after Davis continued to refuse licenses to couples; on Friday, she filed a request to the supreme court to stay the lower court’s decision. Late Monday, the high court denied her request in a one-sentence ruling. A hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11am in US district judge David Bunning’s courtroom on a contempt motion in one of several cases involving Davis, which asks the court to impose a financial penalty – not incarceration. Davis and her staff were ordered by Bunning to appear in court to explain why the clerk wouldn’t be jailed for contempt.
But attorneys for Davis filed an emergency motion on Wednesday afternoon, in what appears to be a last-ditch effort to obtain the right to reject same-sex marriage licenses. Bunning last month declined to hear the motion.
The request for an injunction asks Bunning to block Beshear’s order. It’s unclear what, if any, impact it could have on the contempt hearing; attorneys for Davis didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Davis could face a charge of official misconduct, a misdemeanor that could bring up to a year in jail. A request for a special prosecutor to review the allegations is pending before Kentucky attorney general Jack Conway, a Democrat. Conway’s office declined additional comment on Tuesday.
Republican presidential candidates also jumped into the fray on Wednesday. Rand Paul appeared to side with Bevin, the Republican nominee for the Kentucky gubernatorial race, and said in a radio interview that Davis’s protest is “part of the American way”.
“There never should have been any limitations on people of the same sex having contracts, but I do object to the state putting its imprimatur to the specialness of marriage on something that’s different from what most people have defined as marriage for most of history,” Paul told Boston Herald radio.
“So one way is just getting the state out completely and I think that’s what we’re headed towards, actually.”
Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas and TV personality, said he spoke with Davis on Wednesday and praised her actions.
“She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington,” Huckabee said in a statement to the Associated Press.
By not calling a special session, several of Davis’s supporters said those are characteristics Governor Beshear clearly doesn’t embody.
“If the governor would simply do his job, then [same-sex couples] could go to Rowan county and they could get their license,” said clerk Casey. “And [Davis] wouldn’t have to be violated while she was getting them.”
But Blankenship, who fought back tears moments after being turned away by Davis’s office on Wednesday, said he wants Kentucky – a state he has a long history with and where several family members live – to simply accept everyone.
“I want Kentucky to recognize our love,” he said. “Whoever is refusing our love needs to stop.”
Ben Carson and Donald Trump are tied at the top of the Republican field in a new survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers with 23 percent each, according to the results of a Monmouth University poll released Monday.
The good news continues for the retired neurosurgeon with his favorability ratings, as 81 percent said they view him favorably, compared to just 6 percent who do not. And Trump’s favorability went up as well, at 52 percent to 33 percent, up from 47 percent and 35 percent last month.
Carson has steadily gained support over the summer despite keeping a relatively low profile, especially compared to Trump. But Carson, who has never held political office, has similarly tapped into a strong anti-Washington sentiment among voters.
In the poll released Monday, the two non-establishment candidates are followed by another, former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina with 10 percent. Following Fiorina are Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 9 percent, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 7 percent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 5 percent, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 4 percent, and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul at 3 percent. No other candidates registered more than 2 percent, including the last two winners of the caucus – former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (both at 2 percent).
The latest survey showed Carson making inroads on key voting blocs that Trump has been winning in recent polls. Women preferred Carson at 30 percent to 19 percent, while Trump did better with men voters, at 27 percent to 17 percent.
Among those identifying with the tea party, 27 percent pledged their support for Trump, compared to 22 percent for Carson, with Cruz behind with 16 percent. But Carson leads among non-tea-party-affiliated Republicans, taking 25 percent to Trump’s 19 percent.
Voters who described themselves as very or somewhat conservative were split between the top two, while moderate and liberals went for Trump at 26 percent, Fiorina at 18 percent and Carson at 17 percent.
Carson leads among Evangelical voters, earning 29 percent to Trump’s 23 percent, while non-Evangelicals backed Trump with 24 percent, followed by Carson at 18 percent and Fiorina at 13 percent.
Nearly a third of likely caucusgoers – 66 percent – said that the next president needs to be someone who can bring experience from outside of Washington, compared to 23 percent who indicated a preference toward candidates with government experience.
The survey was conducted Aug. 27-30, polling 405 likely caucus participants with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has emerged as a leading Republican presidential candidate in Iowa and is closing in on frontrunner Donald Trump in the state that hosts the first 2016 nomination balloting contest.
The latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll shows billionaire Trump with the support of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus participants, followed by Carson at 18 percent. When first and second choices are combined, Carson is tied with Trump.
Trump finds himself in a vastly better position than when the previous Iowa Poll was taken. He has become a credible presidential candidate to many likely Republican caucus-goers. The real estate mogul is rated favorably by 61 percent and unfavorably by 35 percent, an almost complete reversal since the Iowa Poll in May. He finds his highest ratings among those planning to attend the caucuses for the first time (69 percent) and limited-government Tea Party activists (73 percent). Just 29 percent say they could never vote for him, a number cut in half since May.
Although he isn’t generating the headlines enjoyed by Trump, Carson has quietly built a dedicated network of supporters in Iowa. During the past month, he also aired more ads than any other presidential candidate in Iowa. Carson has the highest favorability rating among Republican candidates, with 79 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers seeing him positively.
Those glowing views of Carson, who has a compelling life story and is seeking to become the nation’s second black president, could make it hard for Trump or other rivals to attack him as the campaign heats up this fall. Christian conservatives, who represent nearly 40 percent of likely caucus participants in the poll, may be starting to coalesce around the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins.
The poll displays the political benefit, at least for now, of not being part of the Republican establishment. When their totals are combined, Trump and Carson – two men without any elected experience – are backed by more than 4 in 10 likely caucus participants. Add in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who also has never held elective office, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is running an explicitly anti-establishment campaign, and the total reaches 54 percent of the likely electorate.
“Trump and Carson, one bombastic and the other sometimes soft-spoken, could hardly be more different in their outward presentations,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. “Yet they’re both finding traction because they don’t seem like politicians and there’s a strong demand for that right now.”
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the previous Iowa frontrunner, has been hurt the most by the Trump and Carson summer surges and is now backed by just 8 percent of likely caucus-goers, less than half what he recorded in the last Iowa Poll in late May. Cruz, who will need to cut into Carson’s support among social conservatives if he’s to advance in Iowa, is tied with Walker at 8 percent.
Jeb Bush, who continues to face major headwinds in Iowa, scored below Walker and Cruz. The former Florida governor is backed by just 6 percent, has one of the highest unfavorable ratings among the 17 Republican candidates tested, and has the support of just 16 percent of those who consider themselves business-oriented establishment Republicans, the group most central to his brand.
Bush’s fellow Floridian, Senator Marco Rubio, is also backed by 6 percent. He’s closely followed by Fiorina, who is supported by 5 percent after her strong showing in the Aug. 6 debate.
In the 2008 and 2012 Republican caucuses, Christian conservatives broke late in the race and helped determine the outcome in Iowa. While some of their leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential to unify behind one candidate in such a crowded race, there’s an opening for that. More than three-quarters of Christian conservatives in the poll say they could be convinced to back someone other than their first or second choice, if they could be assured that another Christian conservative would win.
At the moment, Carson is leading with voters in that bloc at 23 percent, followed by Trump at 16 percent and Cruz and Walker tied at third. If his competitors can successfully raise questions about Trump’s credentials as a Christian conservative, they could potentially peel off some of the front-runner’s support.
One major unknown for the caucuses is the size of the electorate, which has been around 120,000 on the Republican side for the past two Iowa caucuses. One of Trump’s campaign goals is to get thousands of new people to vote, a move that helped Barack Obama score an upset on the Democratic side in 2008.
First-time caucus-goers are clearly an important part of Trump’s Iowa base. Among those who say they’ll be attending for the first time, Trump is ahead of Carson, 28 percent to 20 percent.
For now, the poll suggests about a fifth of those attending the Feb. 1 precinct meetings will be doing so for the first time. That’s comparable to four years ago, when 24 percent said that on the Republican side in an October 2011 Iowa Poll.
Trump’s supporters in Iowa a have a higher level of trust in their candidate than others in the field to make the right decisions, if he makes it to the White House. Among all Republicans likely to attend the caucuses, 41 percent want their candidate to be clear about the specific policies they would address if elected, while 57 percent trust their candidate to figure it out once elected.
For Trump, nearly two-thirds of his supporters trust him to figure out the right decisions once in office. That’s in keeping with a claim he made to reporters Aug. 15, shortly after landing by helicopter outside the Iowa State Fair, saying it’s mostly the media that cares about policy papers and positions.
Among most of the subgroups measured in the poll, Trump has the advantage, although Carson beats him or comes close with several. Carson has an 11-percentage-point advantage over Trump among seniors and 7-percentage-point edge among Christian conservatives.
“I’m sick and tired of the political class,” said Lisa Pilch, 54, a middle school physical education teacher leaning toward Carson who lives in Springville, Iowa. “I just like his tone and think he’s someone who could pull us together, rather than the polarization we have right now. He has a lot of wisdom, even if he doesn’t have political savviness.”
While Carson is doing slightly better than Trump among women, the billionaire has the advantage among men, 28 percent to 17 percent.
“He’s got a no-nonsense approach,” said Patrick Messmore, 32, a construction equipment sales manager who lives near Grundy Center and plans to back Trump. “His history as a businessman is potentially a good change for our country, so that we don’t just have another life-time politician taking over as president.”
In some ways, Messmore sees Trump as an antidote to Bush. “I’m not OK with another Bush presidency,” he said. “We’ve had two of them now and I don’t see that there will be enough of a different approach than his dad or brother had. It’s just not something I’m interested in.”
The poll shows Walker and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, especially, aren’t performing anywhere close to earlier expectations.
Paul, who was backed by just 4 percent, was perceived a year ago to have an advantage in Iowa, given the third-place finish in the 2012 caucuses recorded by his father, former Representative Ron Paul of Texas. In October, his favorable rating outweighed his unfavorable by nearly 3-to-1.
“Whatever advantage he had has eroded,” Selzer said. “Now, more Iowa caucus-goers have negative than positive feelings about him.”
For Walker, who has been in a slump since his lackluster debate performance, the poll is certain to further reduce expectations around his performance in Iowa, which had grown to the point where anything short of a win would have been viewed as a loss. One upside for him in the poll: Besides Carson, he’s the only candidate to exceed 70 percent in favorability.
Iowa Republicans are showing little interest in re-runs. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who won the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses, is at 4 percent. He’s followed at 2 percent by candidates who are governors, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and John Kasich of Ohio.
Former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who narrowly beat eventual nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 caucuses, is backed by just 1 percent, the same level of support recorded by former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is also struggling in his second White House bid even amid heavy spending in Iowa on the part of a super political action committee backing him.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former New York Governor George Pataki and former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore all recorded support of less than 1 percent.
The survey, taken Aug. 23-26, included 400 likely Republican caucus participants. On the full sample, it has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Besides the nearly the nearly 40 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers who say Christian conservative is the best way to identify them, “business-oriented establishment Republicans” and Tea Party activists are roughly tied as the next largest groups, at 22 percent and 21 percent. Those who feel they are most closely aligned with the “liberty movement,” a bloc associated with Paul, represent only about 8 percent.
To offer another assessment of candidate strength – something difficult to divine in such a crowded field – Selzer created an index built on multiple measures in the poll. The index takes into account first and second choices, as well as a question that was asked on whether respondents could ever – or would never – support each candidate they didn’t name as their first or second pick. First choices were given double weight, while “ever support” was given a half weighting.
Using that system, Carson is narrowly ahead of Trump, 75 to 73. Walker comes next at 55, followed by Cruz at 53 and Rubio at 50. The index and never/ever question also show some of the candidates could struggle to expand their support. Nearly half of likely Republican caucus participants, 48 percent, say they could never support Christie. For Paul, it’s 43 percent and for Bush it’s 39 percent.
Modern day Democrat politicians are socialists, which really isn’t breaking news. Heck, that particular socio-political philosophy was adopted by the DNC during the Great Depression. What is news, however, is that they’ve also become psychopathic, exhibiting the personality traits of your average serial killer just before he decides to start butchering prostitutes for the first time.
For a while there – say, 70 years or so – they seemed to be merely delusional, but since the turn of the 21st century, they’ve proven themselves to be devoid of any genuine feelings of empathy, compassion or remorse with respect to other human beings – at least the ones who don’t appear on their respective campaign contributors lists.
While not insane in the purely legal sense of the word, they are, nonetheless, stark-staring lunatics who are capable of the worst atrocities imaginable. In other words, they are scheming, soulless humanoids with a knack for appearing normal most of the time, despite their utter lack of humanity.
They’re also control freaks of the highest order, which is why they spend practically every waking moment thinking up ways to interfere with other people’s lives instead of doing anything substantive with their own. They become politicians because that is the one profession wherein you can make a name for yourself – not to mention oodles of money – without actually being a productive member of society.
Sadly, their minions in the entertainment industry, academia, and the press are still stuck in the aforementioned delusional phase of the socialist experiment, and have no idea that pols like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are complete monsters. Then again, I suppose it’s better that they’ve remained merely psychoneurotic rather than having mutated into full-blown, dead-eyed maniacs themselves. After all, psychosis (a distorted sense of reality) can be treated and even cured over time, but psychopathy is forever.
Anyway, enough with those demented bastards, let’s move on to the psychology of today’s Republican politicians and the sad sacks who help elect them, shall we?
— In the interest of full disclosure, there was a time when I too was a card-carrying member of the Republican party, but that ended soon after John Boehner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. You see, Mr. Boehner is what we in the rusted bucket of political punditry call an “assclown”, and one day while I was having a shave, I looked into the bathroom mirror and asked myself this question: can you really continue to claim membership in an organization that would appoint the likes of ‘Tammy Faye Boehner’ to such a position of power in Congress? My reflection answered with a resounding: NOPE! And the rest, as they say, is history. —
Now onto the subject at hand…
The GOP of the 21st century – thus far – is about as useful as shoe laces on a pair of sandals, and its leadership seems to be comprised of more cowards than a battalion of Iraqi soldiers.
But why is that, you ask?
Well, have you ever heard the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? It’s a psychological phenomenon in which hostages come to identify with – and even feel sympathy for – their captors. If you ask me, that’s the basic underpinning of the whole right-wing malfunction at the federal level in recent times, and if there’s a better explanation than this one for the behavioral patterns exhibited by the GOP’s most powerful leaders, I’d like to hear it. Really, I would.
The only viable alternative hypothesis I can come up with is that they’re just plain suicidal, and they want to take us all down with them. The problem with that supposition is that people who commit suicide are generally compulsive in nature. They don’t plan their demise years in advance, and they almost never intentionally take a stranger to his grave in the process.
As for the psychology of Republicans who are prominent in the fields of academia, entertainment and journalism, these people appear to be largely normal, with some notable exceptions. That’s why they and most other right-wingers in the private sector feel so disconnected from their elected representatives these days – especially the ones in positions of party leadership. After all, rational people have a hard time accepting irrational behavior, even from people they like.
So if you’ve been wondering why so many Republicans – even a good number of staunch conservatives – on TV, the internet, and talk radio are defending the likes of Donald Trump this election cycle, despite the fact that he’s wandered all over the political spectrum in terms of policy positions over the years, please allow me to explain their reasoning as best I understand it.
You see, it’s not who Trump is – per se – or even what he may believe about many issues that’s of primary importance to a lot of folks on the right these days. No, it’s what he represents that has them fired up, and what he represents is a man who just might actually get something positive done for a change in Washington DC, simply because he’s not a career politician with a long track record of fucking up absolutely EVERYTHING he touches!
Many people are just plain tired of the same platitudes and empty promises they’ve heard over and over again for the past quarter of a century from nearly every polished, right-leaning, professional politico who’s come down the pike. They all say pretty much the same things, yet little if anything actually changes once they take office, and in the meantime, the party elites keep growing more and more hostile toward the very people who elected them.
In essence, a growing number of Republicans are willing to roll the dice with an unknown quantity like The Donald on the off chance that he may be able to do what nobody since Ronald Reagan has managed to pull off, which is stem the tide of leftist incompetence and corruption that has permeated our federal government for decades. And what’s more, it really doesn’t seem to matter to them that he may entertain certain left-leaning sympathies with which they disagree.
Perhaps if there is a psychological malady that can be applied to some non-elected Republicans, it is ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’, a condition brought about by persistent abuse at the hands of someone whom the victim initially trusted and even professed to love. Of course, people who suffer from this complex for an extended period of time often snap and turn on their abusers with unfettered ferocity. (see Battered Woman’s Defense – U.S. criminal law)
So, is that what this whole Trump phenomenon is about? Is he merely a weapon of convenience being leveled at an habitually abusive political class by its long-suffering voter base? Is he like the butcher knife on the counter that the bruised and bloodied wife of a bully finally picks up one day and plunges into her tormenter’s filthy neck?
Your guess is as good as mine, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there’s some merit to that theory.
Edward L. Daley
Thousands of protestors showed up outside over 300 Planned Parenthood clinics Saturday morning.
Protestors tweeted photos of the crowds and their mostly hand-made signs, causing their hashtag, #ProtestPP, to trend on Twitter. At several protests, people carried a large pink sign that read “Planned Parenthood sells baby parts,” referring to a series of undercover videos that revealed the abortion giant sells aborted fetal organs and tissue to biomedical companies.
Really strong showing in Louisville to #ProtestPP
9:54 AM – 22 Aug 2015
1:10 PM – 22 Aug 2015
Approx. 200 are gathered for peaceful prayer and taking stand for life in OKC today. #ProtestPP
10:21 AM – 22 Aug 2015
11:02 AM – 22 Aug 2015
11:43 AM – 22 Aug 2015
#protestpp trending Morristown NJ
11:59 AM – 22 Aug 2015
The boys joined me and 300+ others at the Nashville #ProtestPP gathering. Thankful for those who stand for life.
11:59 AM – 22 Aug 2015
1:10 PM – 22 Aug 2015
Despite the massive turnout, several people said there was little to no media presence at the events.
Several activist groups across the country came together with pastors and prominent faith leaders to organize the protests, including the Family Research Council, the Susan B. Anthony List, and Americans United for Life.
Eric Scheidler, director of the Pro-Life Action League, told the Washington Examiner Friday that he was “fully confident” at least 10,000 people would show up to protest but thinks it’s possible as many as 100,000 will participate.
One organizer told the Examiner that this is the largest protest he has seen in his 20 years working in the pro-fe movement.
What’s fueling the interest, organizers say, is how the footage shows Planned Parenthood workers discussing fetal tissue. In one video, an official appears to be haggling over the compensation for a fetus with undercover actors posing as human tissue buyers. In another, a medical director talks about “crushing” some parts of the fetus while keeping desirable organs intact.
“People are absolutely horrified by what they’re seeing,” said Scheidler, who organized the protest with Created Equal President Mark Harrington and Monica Miller, president of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society. “These videos show Planned Parenthood in such a cold blooded, negative, callous light.”
#ProtestPP 300 strong in boston praying for the unborn and the hearts of our nation to protect life
1:25 PM – 22 Aug 2015
9:15 AM – 22 Aug 2015
1:19 PM – 22 Aug 2015
11:33 AM – 22 Aug 2015
Planned Parenthood has gone as far as to cut up and sell “the body parts of babies they abort, even going as far as cutting out the brains of children with hearts still beating,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, at a rally today in St. Paul. “This is the turning point in the history of abortion in our nation and our time to speak out, to have our pro-life message of hope and love for both woman and child heard by the media.”
“Women have been betrayed and Planned Parenthood has sold them and their preborn babies out, all for profit,” said Hawkins. “What’s worse, we the taxpayers are footing the bill, giving over half a billion dollars a year to the abortion giant. It’s time to defund Planned Parenthood.”
11:20 AM – 22 Aug 2015
11:04 AM – 22 Aug 2015
10:50 AM – 22 Aug 2015
200+ strong in Annapolis standing against Planned Parenthood @CWforA representing!
10:39 AM – 22 Aug 2015
Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens told The Hill that she is confident the group will continue to receive Federal funding. Previous efforts to remove the abortion giant’s half a billion dollar Federal subsidy failed in Congress in July.
“I certainly believe that [we’ll be funded], because I believe the American people are speaking – and our patients, the one-in-five women who rely on Planned Parenthood over their lifetime – are [speaking to lawmakers],” she said.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” – Senator Jacob M. Howard, author of the Section 1. citizenship clause
I think that pretty much settles the anchor babies issue right there.
Bobby Jindal is showing once more he’s making the biggest play of any 2016 candidate for the pro-life vote.
This afternoon, while abortion supporters protested outside the Governor’s mansion in Baton Rouge, Jindal set up a huge movie screen and speakers and played on a continuous loop all of the videos released in recent weeks showing the brutality of Planned Parenthood’s baby-parts business.
One of the problems faced by the Center for Medical Progress is that many people are refusing the watch the grisly undercover videos where Planned Parenthood personnel discuss dissecting aborted babies in order to sell their eyes, lungs, livers, hearts, and even brains.
Among the handful of states that have either started investigations or defunded Planned Parenthood altogether is Jindal’s Louisiana. Supporters of Planned Parenthood are protesting Jindal’s moves against Planned Parenthood funding. Earlier this month, Jindal ended the state’s Medicaid contract with Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood’s Louisiana state director Melissa Flournoy said today, “Governor Jindal isn’t even in Louisiana today, but he’s made sure to prove that he’s always ready to put politics before Louisianan’s health.” She called his screening of the videos “a stunt”, which is certainly is, and certainly one to get under the skin of the protesters.
Flournoy said Planned Parenthood serves 5,000 women a year. What she did not say is that Planned Parenthood has only two clinics in the entire state and that the state has 67 Title X clinics who do much more for women’s health than Planned Parenthood except perhaps sell the body parts of aborted babies.
“Planned Parenthood has a right to protest today, but Governor Jindal’s office will ensure that anyone who shows up will have to witness first-hand the offensive actions of the organization they are supporting,” the Governor’s office said this morning.
The most recent video, released yesterday, shows a whistleblower describing how a Planned Parenthood medical technician laughingly restarted the heart of a nearly fully developed baby boy and then proceeded to cut through his face with scissors to retrieve his intact brain, which was then sold to StemExpress for medical experimentation.
Jindal is working hard to appeal to the social conservative base of the GOP. Earlier this year, in the wake of corporations forcing Indiana Governor Mike Pence to overturn religious freedom protections for businesses objecting to gay marriage, Jindal dared the corporations to mess with him and Louisiana.
Roger, with due respect,
1. It does not seem hard at all to read the text of the Constitution as not requiring birthright citizenship unless one is construing the word “jurisdiction” to mean something plainly different from what the term meant when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.
As the Lino Graglia law review article Rich excerpted demonstrates, the term meant being subject to jurisdiction in the sense of the complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, not in the sense of merely being subject to American laws. Regarding the latter, every person present in the United States – citizen or not, legally present or not – is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the narrow sense of being expected to follow our laws. (Even diplomats, though they have an immunity defense against prosecution for criminal law violations, are expected to follow our laws and subject to expulsion for failing to do so.)
Yet, every person present in the United States is not presumed to have fealty to the United States, which is what “jurisdiction” means in the Fourteenth Amendment. And it is clearly not the case that every person born in the United States is automatically a citizen pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: U.S.-born children of foreign diplomats are not; nor are the U.S.-born children of American Indians (they were granted citizenship by an act of Congress in 1924). Given that it is not true that every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to read the Constitution to not require something it does not require?
2. I don’t know that it’s necessary to “make war” on birthright citizenship, but there is nothing odd about opposition to it. In fact, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that confers citizenship on illegal aliens based on nothing other than the happenstance of their birth within national borders. I am not suggesting that the laws of other countries shed light on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment; just that birthright citizenship is rightly seen as bad policy in most of the world. (Somehow, I suspect that the Supreme Court’s progressives, who believe in consulting foreign law when “interpreting” the U.S. Constitution, would resist that impulse when it comes to birthright citizenship.)
There are many people who believe in robust legal immigration and are open to the notion of some qualified amnesty for some categories of illegal aliens but who nevertheless think it is a terrible idea to grant citizenship automatically to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens – a policy that can only encourage more illegal immigration. I am not a fan of “comprehensive immigration reform”; but if reform is to be comprehensive, and we are trying to discourage illegal immigration, why would we not address every policy that incentivizes illegal immigration?
If denying birthright citizenship seems like an offensive proposition to some, it can only be because we’ve lost our sense of what citizenship should be – the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. If a couple who are nationals of Egypt enter our country and have a baby while they are here, why is it sensible to presume that child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than Egypt? If the baby of an American couple happened to be born while they were touring Egypt, would we not presume that the child’s allegiance was to the United States?