Donald Trump’s Style May Hurt Him in the End

It’s about 14 months before the 2016 election and Donald Trump is leading the Republican primary race. He’s well ahead of just about everyone. He’s tracking at 30+%. The next closest candidate is Ben Carson. Everyone else is single digits. We are about to hit the 2nd Primary debate.

Let me say up front, I’m not a Trump supporter. If the election comes down to Trump vs Clinton, then I may consider moving out of the country. But regardless of my feelings about Trump, I don’t remember another candidate like him.

Trump’s candidacy has been characterized by seemingly apolitical behavior. On the positive, he doesn’t play political games. He says what he thinks. And people respond to his passion and candor.

On the negative, he’s an obnoxious jerk. I heard someone describe another politician as unfiltered. I think that same description could apply to Trump. He doesn’t pull punches, and he often says things that get him in trouble. More than one controversy has has caught fire over a comment he made during his campaign.

His competitive edge has served him well in business, but it may not in politics. It’s true that he has dominated the early political field for this election. But as he keeps insulting his rivals, he widens the divide between himself and the rest of the Republican party. I’ve heard others talking about this as well.

It’s true that Trump’s style and persona appeal to many people. That’s why he is ahead in the polls. But many of the things that his supporters like about him drive other’s away. As Trump continues to be adversarial and other Republican candidates fall out of the race, what reason do they have to throw their support to him?

30% seems like a lot when there are 10 people in the race. But if trump can’t pick up supporters as people fall out, well, right now almost 70% of Republicans don’t support him.

The more insulting and obnoxious he is, the less likely Republicans who don’t already support him will shift over if their preferred candidate drops out of the race. Trump could find himself with only 30% support next year. And that’s not enough for the nomination.

New Planned Parenthood Video

The 10th undercover video about Planned Parenthood’s practice of selling fetal tissue.

This one is called Human Capital: Episode 4 Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Criminal Enterprise.

What to watch for.

  • Right off the bat you see several PP staff saying they think it’s OK to sell tissue, and make a fair income.
  • 2:10- Dr. Westhoff, Senior Medical Advisor for PPFA, says they are concerned about Public Relations issues with this practice.
  • 2:25- Dr Cullins, VP for External Medical Affairs, says this sort of thing could destroy PPFA and the “buyer’s company, if the ydon’t “time these conversations correctly.”
  • 2:45-  Deb VanDerhei, Senior Director of CAPS. 1st question, what kinds of tissues are you looking for. 2nd question, let’s talk money. Notice how she asks the question. In all of these videos, there is this negotiation that happens between clinics and these companies. But if the money changing hands is simply to cover the costs of preserving and shipping the tissues, why not just say, you have to cover these costs. Why this negotiation?
  • 4:05- “The headlines would be a disaster.” Followed by obvious concern for what happens when clinics engage in getting paid for the tissue. “New York Times Headline”
  • 5:00- Dr. Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services, says there are no guidelines and there will never be guidelines for tissue procurement. Why not? If this is such a big issue, if clinics who break the law scare you, make your company afraid of big headlines, why not set down guidelines and protect everyone?
  • 6:43- VanDerhei again. She says that independent clinics generate a fair amount of income doing this. She goes on to say that they are not comfortable talking about this through email.
  • Multiple times Nuctols and VanDehei say that they don’t have policies, this could be big news stories, and generally don’t want to get involved on a national level, while also saying that it seems fair to gain income, and they do talk with their local clinics about how to handle this stuff. But they have made the choice to have no national policies.
  • Around 9:00- Vanessa Russo, Compliance Program Admin for PP Keystone, is talking to Vanderlei. It’s obvious she thinks these laws are “ridiculous”. And that people giving money for tissue is a “valid exchange.”
  • 9:55- VanDerhei talks about a hearing in Congress years ago on this subject, where the claims about changing abortion procedures for tissue sale were found to be false. Then we see Nucatola herself talking about changing abortion procedures to end up with better tissue samples for sale.

If what they are doing isn’t illegal, why not have a national policy on how to handle it? Why are they afraid of headlines?

If PPFA clinics and doctors never change their abortion procedures to aid in collecting tissue samples for “remuneration” why do some many talk about doing exactly that?

Kim Davis, the Rule of Law, and Freedom

Yesterday Kim Davis, the now famous clerk from Kentucky, was thrown in jail. Her crime? She refused to allow marriage licenses to go to same sex couples with her name on them. She says that goes against her religious beliefs. After being criticized, publicly shamed, and harrassed by those who disagree with her, she was locked up.

She was arrested because she refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, after a judge said she had to. She was held in contempt of court by U.S. District Judge David Bunning.

And why not? We are a nation of laws. She was elected to serve the people. There are people in her county that now have the legal right to get married, and she refused to let them. (It should be noted, that the same couples can go to many other county clerks to get their licenses.)

Some say that law she refused to follow is unjust. It is a ruling made by the Supreme Court, which cannot, in fact, create law.

This AFA article on the subject quotes the KY Constitution:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized. “

When Davis took office, she promised to follow that law. And she still is.

But the Supeme Court’s ruling says laws like that are unconstitutional. Obergefell v. Hodges said that states must recognize marriages of same sex couples from other states. But then went further (and this is where they created law, rather than judged it) They appealed to the 14th amendment and said that everyone should be able to marry the same sex if they chose to. After that interpretation of the Constitution, Wikipedia explains what happened next:

“The Court examined the nature of fundamental rights guaranteed to all by the Constitution, the harm done to individuals by delaying the implementation of such rights while the democratic process plays out, and the evolving understanding of discrimination and inequality that has developed greatly since Baker.” (emphasis added)

Once they had decided that every state must recognize the marriages, the next step was to short circuit the democratic process, so their ruling decreed that it should be legal in all 50 states and American territories for same sex couples to get married.

So now we have states with legally passed constitutional amendments and the 5 judges who sit on the Supreme Court at odds with each other. And one clerk who promised to follow the law, before the law changed. (There are actually more clerks in the country like this, but Davis is the one in the news)

That’s her job. She follows the law of Kentucky in regard to her duties as County Clerk. Part of that is issuing marriage licenses. Her position is elected, and she cannot be fired. She could be impeached and removed from office. This news article explains how:

“The Supreme Court of Kentucky has a constitutional authority where they can remove a circuit clerk, but not a county clerk. And so that really is an executive branch function. The governor would have to be in charge of that. There may have to be a special session called to deal with it, or refer to the department of local government,” said Professor Connelly.

A vacancy in the office of the county clerk is filled by the county judge executive or by the mayor until a successor is elected. Even if Davis is criminally charged, she still won’t be removed from office immediately.”

And before we get on our high horse about the Rule of Law in America, let’s remember that she is not the first elected official to refuse to follow a law because it went against their conscience. That article from The Daily Signal lists 10 people in government positions who refused to follow the law about marriage. None of them ended up in jail. And all of those people took their stand for same sex marriage.

Her only crime is standing on her 1st amendment rights. She is not in jail because she won’t issue marriage certificates to same sex couples. She is in jail because she refused an order from a judge. That order was for her to act against her conscience, and against her religious beliefs. She is being held for contempt, not for breaking a law.

Should she be removed from office? Sure, she can no longer perform her duties. I’m not sure why she won’t resign. But that doesn’t make her a criminal. She should not be in jail, held in contempt, because she is exercising her rights. By holding her in contempt for refusing to follow a court order to execute a law that goes against her religious beliefs, the judge is denying her 1st amendment rights.

In her place, I would have resigned the moment I found that I could no longer do what I was being asked to do. But she didn’t. And that brings consequences.

But jail time should not be one of them. She is being held in contempt of court because she refuses to violate her religious beliefs. Remove her from office because she won’t do what the law now says she must, but do not jail a woman because she won’t betray her religion.

Impeach her, remove her from office. But jailing someone for exercising a right that is is promised to each one of us in the US Constitution threatens the freedom of every American citizen. 

Public Shaming and Kim Davis

Here’s the thing about Kim Davis, the KY Clerk not giving out any marriage licenses because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage. In her position, I’d probably resign my job. She is not resigning… Her choice. And she may face some real consequences for that decision.

But I am really tired of the public shaming that immediately happens to anyone who get’s caught in the left-leaning media’s sights. She’s national news. OK. But if you are going to try to contrast her current views about marriage (which are religiously held) with her past actions (3 divorces, etc…) could you at least get the sequence of events correct? 

She holds a deep religious belief based on her Christian faith. She became a Christian about 4 years ago, according to this article. She was divorced before she was a Christian. (The article goes on to list multiple news reports about her previous marriages and more.)

See the order of events there? Not a Christian and didn’t necessarily have religious conviction about marriage, had marriage issues, divorces, etc… Became a Christian, now has deeply held religious beliefs about marriage. That’s kind of relevant.

‪#‎journalismisdead‬

9th Planned Parenthood Undercover Video from CMP

Things to notice:

  1. Listen to Stem Express CEO talk about how they compete with non-profits, by paying the clinics to get the tissue.
  2. Perrin Larton from ABR describes abortions where the fetus is already in the vaginal canal, and drops out when the feet go in the stirrups. Se also talks about not using the poison many abortionists use to kill the baby inside the women. If the baby is practically born and falls out intact, if they don’t use poison… Just how many live births happen in these clinics?
  3. Stem express CEO accuses ABR of “hiring” staff at Planned Parenthood clinics, the ones which provide tissue to them. Oddly, I’m not sure this is illegal, though the ethics are suspect. Of course, we are parsing hairs when kids are dying.
  4. The thrust of this video seems to be the competition between the procurement businesses. if there is competition, then there is a prime climate for clinics to cash in, going with the highest bidder.

From the video description:

In an August 27 letter to Congress, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards referenced a California Planned Parenthood affiliate that currently receives $60 “per tissue specimen” from a tissue procurement organization. The Center for Medical Progress, the group producing the videos, identified Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest and ABR as the affiliate and TPO referred to in Richards’ letter, based on process of elimination.

“We now know from Cecile Richards’ letter that $60 per collected tissue specimen is what will ‘get a toe in’ to harvest baby parts at Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest,” wrote CMP Project Lead David Daleiden. As multiple tissue specimens often come from a single fetus, $60/specimen can quickly add up to hundreds of extra dollars in revenue per abortion. 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).