CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Pro-life Women Leaders Urge Iowans To Support Anyone But Trump

Pro-life women leaders from Iowa urge Republican caucus-goers and voters to support anyone but Donald Trump. In a letter being  sent out to pro-life Iowans today, they say that based upon his own words, Trump cannot be trusted on abortion: 

On the issue of defending unborn children and protecting women from the violence of abortion, Mr. Trump cannot be trusted and there is, thankfully, an abundance of alternative candidates with proven records of pro-life leadership whom pro-life voters can support.  We have come to this conclusion after having listened patiently to numerous debates and news reports, but most importantly to Donald Trump’s own words.

These women also take Trump to task for his denigration of women:

Moreover, as women, we are disgusted by Mr. Trump’s treatment of individuals, women, in particular.  He has impugned the dignity of women, most notably Megyn Kelly, he mocked and bullied Carly Fiorina, and has through the years made disparaging public comments to and about many women. Further, Mr. Trump has profited from the exploitation of women in his Atlantic City casino hotel which boasted of the first strip club casino in the country.

Remember Trump said he would would not even ban partial birth abortion. He said it in his now infamous interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:

Russert: Would President Trump ban partial birth abortion?

Trump: I'm very pro choice. And again it may be a little bit of a New York background because there is some different having attitude in different parts of the country and you know I was raised in New York, grew up and work and everything else in New York City.

Russert: But you would not ban partial-birth abortion?

Trump: No.

Never forget what a horrific procedure partial-birth abortion is. Generally performed in the second or third trimester, during which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and its skull is punctured or crushed. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, defines partial birth abortion:

Sec. 1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited 1.(b) As used in this section-- (1) the term `partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion-- (A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and (B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Congress provided that this ban would not apply to a situation in which the mother would be put at risk.

The Cruz Campaign keeps hitting Trump's New York values. The Campaign announced a new TV ad, "New York Values," on Tuesday showing Trump’s assertion that New York "views" and "attitudes" are different than views and attitudes in Iowa. Trump explained New York Values in his own words and how they shaped his views on gay marriage and abortion. He then admited that if he were president he would not even ban partial-birth abortions. The new ad will run statewide in Iowa beginning January 26. You can watch it in the accompanying video.

Here's the script of the ad:

Trump: I mean, hey I lived in New York City and Manhattan all my life, so my views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.

Voiceover: They are different, like on Abortion.

Russert: Would President Trump ban partial birth abortion?

Trump: Look, I am pro-choice in every respect.

Voiceover: What does Trump think about Iowa?

Trump: How stupid are the people of Iowa?

Voiceover: Donald Trump, New York values, not ours.

Trump: My views are a little bit different than if I lived in Iowa.

Cruz: I’m Ted Cruz and I approve this message.

Some of this article was cross posted from RedState.

Cruz Winning Iowa Evangelicals

The new Quinnipiac University Iowa poll released Tuesday finds that Cruz has doubled his lead over Trump among the critical Evangelical voters. Cruz now leads Trump among Iowa Evangelicals by 12 points — 39 percent to 27 percent. The Iowa Republican Caucus is a two-man race with Trump at 31 percent and Cruz at 29 percent among likely Republican Caucus participants. Marco Rubio is at 13 percent. No other candidate is above 7 percent.

Cruz leads Trump:

• 50 - 34 percent among self-professed Tea Party members;
• 49 - 29 percent among voters describing themselves as "very conservative."

Trump leads Cruz:

• 29 - 21 percent among self-identified "somewhat conservative" voters;
• 37 - 6 percent among voters claiming to be "moderate" or "liberal."

The new poll is virtually unchanged from the January 11 Quinnipiac poll which found Trump at 31 percent, with 29 percent for Cruz and 15 percent for Rubio.

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll, "Despite Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump and Gov. Terry Branstad's criticism of Sen. Ted Cruz, and despite - or because of - Sen. Cruz' 'New York values' comments, the Iowa Republican Caucus remains too close to call. Other interesting findings from the new Iowa poll include:

• Two percent are undecided and 39 percent of those who name a candidate say they might change their mind.
• Among Iowa Republican Caucus-goers, 24 percent say they "would definitely not support" Trump, with 24 percent who would not support former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Only 12 percent say 'no way' to Cruz.

The Quinnipiac poll stands in stark contrast to national polls. The big takeaway from the new NBC Survey Monkey poll is that Evangelicals, at least according to Politico, are flocking to Trump. The latest NBC News/Survey Monkey weekly online tracking poll,also released on Tuesday, finds that Donald Trump now leads Sen. Ted Cruz  among white evangelical Republican voters by 17 points — 37 percent to 20 percent. That's nine point drop for Cruz from last week among this demographic. Carson and Rubio are nearly tied in this group — 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

Otherwise the tracking poll shows that the race remains fairly stable. Trump still leads the Republican field, with 39 percent support among Republican and Republican-leaning voters. Cruz has 17 percent support, dropping four points from last week. Rubio has 10 percent support, while Carson and Bush hold unchanged from last week with 8 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Last  week the poll found Trump at 38 percent among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, Ted Cruz at 21 percent, Marco Rubio at 11 percent and Ben Carson at 8 percent — all essentially unchanged from the previous week.

Another national poll, the new CNN/ORC poll, also finds the race stable with Trump leading by a two-to-one margin. Trump leads the CNN poll with 41 percent. Cruz is at 19 percent and no other candidate hit double-digits. According to CNN, the race remains fairly stable compared with where it was in the most recent CNN/ORC poll in late December. In that poll, Trump led with 39percent, with Cruz at 18 percent and Rubio at 10 percent.

Is Trump Now Establishment?

Last week, Bob Dole tried to explain why the establishment should prefer Donald Trump to Sen. Ted Cruz. Dole claimed Trump is someone with whom the Establishment can make a deal. Cruz responded by saying, "So if as a voter you think what we need is more Republicans in Washington to cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, then I guess Donald Trump’s your guy." Cruz went on to say, "The Establishment is abandoning Sen. Marco Rubio — I think they’ve made the determination that Marco can’t win, and they’re rushing to support Donald Trump. The Cruz response continues the effort to define himself as the principled Conservative and Trump as an enabler of compromise.

The Cruz theme might be working. CNN reports that during an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Trump insisted hat the Republican Establishment is against him, but conceded it is warming to his candidacy:

I think the establishment actually is against me, but really coming on line because they see me as opposed to Cruz who is a nasty guy who can't get along with anybody.

Sahil Kapur reports that while some Establishment Republicans do prefer Trump to Cruz, others see the billionaire as the more dangerous candidate. Strategists preferring Cruz view are urging the Establishment not to aid Trump ahead of next week's Iowa caucuses. According to Kapur, there is no Establishment consensus as to whether Trump or Cruz represents the greater threat. Numerous GOP strategists with establishment connections who spoke with Kapur on condition of anonymity, say Trump's upside is that he's a businessman who they believe may be more pragmatic than ideological when push comes to shove, while Cruz' upside is that he's a longtime devotee to Conservative causes (unlike Trump, who has famously voiced liberal views in the past) and more predictable.

For now it remains Cruz the principled Conservative versus Trump as an enabler of compromise Does that make Trump Establishment?

Cross posted from RedState.

Is Trump really the genius self-made billionaire he plays on TV

No, Donald Trump is not that genius self-made businessman billionaire he plays on TV and the presidential campaign trail. Trump was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, given an Ivy League education only a favored few are blessed with and made his money the old-fashioned way -- he inherited it. As President Barack Obama would say, the Donald didn't build that real estate and entertainment corporation without a lot of help from governmental laws and regulations that some call corporate welfare.

As Ross Douthat explains, with the help of the government and banks, Trump used eminent domain, taking homes and property from ordinary people to further expand his corporate wealth. Sen. Ted Cruz has an ad out that highlights the widow whose boarding house Trump wanted to take with eminent domain and demolish to make room for a limo parking lot for one of casinos.

Trump was able to further expand his corporate wealth with bailouts from banks and with governmental approval such as the 1990 bailout "deal." In that bailout with scores of banks, Trump's corporate empire, with the blessing of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, was given a "yuge" $65 million line of credit, a $20 million bridge loan, and a five-year deferral on interest and principal payments on about $850 million of Trump's nearly $2 billion in bank debt. And even after that bailout, Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection for the third time in February 2009.

Then there are Trump's other failed ventures, such as  Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka or Trump Mortgage. What about all the people that lost their jobs or livelihoods with those failures even as Trump corporate wealth continued to grow. Or the people who ponied up for sham degrees from Trump University.

And how much of Trump's so-called success is attributable to his alleged dealings with the Mafia?

As Douthat stated in his article, "Trump is a salesman: That’s been a big part of his campaign’s success." He is such a good salesman in an earlier time he might have made a fortune selling snake oil. If you want to stop Trump these are the lines of attack to use. You flip a salesman like Trump's brand by showing and persuading people that he’s a con artist, and they are his marks.

Cross posted from RedState.

Rick Perry endorses Ted Cruz

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry Endorses Sen. Ted Cruz in the Republican presidential primary.

I'm here to stress to you how important it is for Conservatives to rally together and support a consistent conservative candidate who will take on Washington who will defeat the Democrat nominee.

That's why I support Ted Cruz for president.

[. . .]

He has proven that he is ready to serve as our commander and chief on day one.

He has also proved a willingness to take on the Washington cartel and restore power and opportunity back to the people.

He has proven he will do what is necessary to secure our borders, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism and to ensure that our brave veterans receive the care they have earned. 

Ted is the leader we need to reignite the promise of America. That's why I'm supporting Ted Cruz and asking Iowa Republicans to caucus for Cruz next Monday, February the first.

Perry told Politico that he found Cruz to be a good listener who respects the Tenth Amendment, is  a "man of principle," and is more conservative than Trump:

Of those individuals who have a chance to win the Republican primary, at this juncture, from my perspective, Ted Cruz is by far the most consistent conservative in that crowd. And that appears to be down to two people.

According to Perry, Cruz will be able to get things done as president, despite his current reputation among fellow senators for being a bomb-thrower:

You’ll have with Ted Cruz that same result of, senators and others in the Washington establishment that are mad at him, find him to be hard to work with, they will find a way to work with him because they know he means what he says he means.

I’d rather see folks come together, work together to find solutions, but from time to time, you’ve got to lay the marker down. There’s that old adage, ‘You gotta hit the mule upside the head to get its attention from time to time.’ I’d suggest that’s exactly what the senator was doing.

Perry said he is confident that Cruz would be Prepared to be President:

He knows he’s going to surround himself with people who do have that experience, and I’m very satisfied that on Day 1, he will be ready to be commander-in-chief. Partly because of the time he’s going to spend in learning what he doesn’t know, but he’s also surrounding himself with people who are extraordinarily capable and wise.

After meeting with him last month last month, Perry found Cruz to be "a very different person" than what he had been led to believe through the caricature driven by the  "media narrative" Perry had seen through the political lens.

Perry, will campaign with Cruz Tuesday across Iowa, and will join Iowa GOP Rep. Steve King to stump for Cruz again Wednesday. Perry and King will both join Cruz at a Des Moines rally Wednesday night.

Cross posted from RedState.

Trump Wins If The Anti-Gun Nanny Stater Bloomberg Runs

Trump wins. That's the big takeaway from a new Morning Consult poll which finds that in a three-way race with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump gets 37 percent of voters, Democrat leader Hillary Clinton gets 36 percent and Bloomberg, an independent, gets 13 percent.

You remember Bloomberg, another billionaire with New York values who keeps thinking about running for president. And like that other billionaire running, Bloomberg has a history of supporting abortion and not being sure which political party he wants to belong, not to mention his infamous efforts to suppress our Constitutional right to Keep and bear arms. And don't forget Bloomberg is the definition of an American nanny state politician. Bloomberg was a Democrat before 2001, had to become a Republican to be elected mayor in 2001, and then had to become an Independent to get reelected for his third term.

Morning Consult correctly notes that Bloomberg's low name recognition may hurt him, 43 percent say they have not heard of him or have no opinion about him. But that could change if he spends $1 billion on the campaign as both he and Trump say they are willing to do. Bloomberg can easily outspend Trump. Bloomberg is worth $41 billion, more than four times as rich as Trump.

Another interesting findings from the new poll is that a Bloomberg candidacy would likely hurt Hillary more than the Donald:

In a two-way race, Clinton edges out Trump by a 44 to 42 percent margin, with 14 percent of voters saying they are undecided. In a match-up including Bloomberg, however, Clinton’s support declines by eight points, to 36 percent, and Trump’s support declines by five points, to 37 percent. With Bloomberg in the race, Clinton’s support would decline the most among independents (36 to 24 percent) and adults under 30 years old (52 to 41 percent).

According to the poll Hillary manages to beat Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio:

She gets 38 percent support in a potential match up with Ted Cruz, who gets 34 percent, while Bloomberg pulls 11 percent of voters. The former Secretary of State also leads with 38 percent in a potential contest with Marco Rubio, who gets 33 percent, and Bloomberg, who gets 10 percent.

The poll was conducted from January 14-17, 2016, among registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percent.

Cross posted at RedState.

People Still Have to Buy ObamaCare Despite UnitedHealth’s Best Efforts

Democrats constantly push their narrative that more people are covered by health insurance now than before ObamaCare was implemented. There are, of course, a plethora of problems with this argument. ObamaCare is unequivocally bad for the healthcare system and for patients. Once again, we are reminded just how bad.

UnitedHealth, is now forecasting that it will lose $500 million this year on its so-called Affordable Care Act plans. That's up from $475 million loss in 2015. The nation’s largest insurer is also dropping products and hiking premiums in an effort to discourage individuals from buying its health plans. "But despite its best efforts," Politico said, "executives still project that 200,000 additional customers will sign up for UnitedHeath plans during the current open enrollment."

This is worth reiterating – UnitedHealth is making its health insurance coverage worse AND more expensive, yet consumers are still buying. Why? Because they have to. If they don’t, the full weight of the Democrat-politicized IRS will weigh down on them.

Don't feel bad for UnitedHealth, they can pull out of the exchange at any time – and are even considering doing so in 2017 if losses continue to mount. The individual American, though, will be forced to participate in exchanges that will continue to grow even more expensive.

That will lead more individuals into financial hardships, and ultimately into a growing government crutch.

Earlier this month, a study by The New York Times and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 20 percent of people under 65 with health insurance still struggled with paying their medical bills – the result of high premiums and gaps in coverage:

In recent years, health plans have come with growing deductibles and narrowing networks of providers, provisions devised to lower the cost of premiums. Those features have made health insurance accessible to a larger share of the population, but may also be leaving more insured Americans vulnerable.

This translates to real challenges for the average American, according to the survey:

We found that medical bills don’t just keep people from filling prescriptions and scheduling doctors’ visits. They can also prompt deep financial and personal sacrifices, affecting their housing, employment, credit and daily lives.

And that scathing critique is from The New York Times.

Cross posted From RedState.

Why Did Palin Endorse Trump

We know why Donald Trump endorsed New York Mayor Bill di Blasio. But why did Sarah Palin endorse Donald Trump? It's sad to admit but after yesterday's endorsement, cynics wondered what why it happened and what was in it for Palin. Yes, some of us have become that cynical, especially when it comes to some politicians.

After poking around, doing research, it became apparent that Palin's endorsement should have been old news. Palin made it very clear on at least three occasions that she was a big Trump fan. It was there for all to see last August when she interviewed Trump on One America News Network and in a separate interview on Fox News. Then there was another interview on CBN in January. But being a Trump fan isn't necessarily the reason Palin made the endorsement. D.C. McAllister says there may have been some old fashioned horse trading involved. Maybe Palin was offered the vice presidential spot or a cabinet position.

Doug Ross notes there was a quid pro quo for Palin’s endorsement:

On August 14th of last year, Kit O'Connell reported that Palin had endorsed Trump "[after he] recently promised to give ... Palin a Cabinet-level position in his administration."

So there you have it. That's consistent with what Trump is now saying, "Sarah Palin could 'play a position' in my administration:"

"I haven't discussed anything with her about what she'd do, but she's somebody I really like and I respect, and certainly she could play a position if she wanted to," Trump said of the former Alaska governor, who threw her backing behind the real estate mogul on Tuesday.

While Trump insisted he hasn't considered vice presidential candidates yet, he said he doubts Palin would be interested because "she's been through that," referring to her role as the 2008 running mate of Sen. John McCain.

At least Palin's rational for endorsing Trump, is much more understandable than the Donald's reason for backing di Blasio.

Cross posted from RedState.

 

Senate Democrats Block Bipartisan Law Requiring Enhanced Background Checks For Syrian Refugees

Senate Democrats continued pandering to Muslims and blocked the American SAFE Act. The 55-43 vote largely split down party lines and fell short of the 60 votes needed for the bill to advance. The bill passed the House in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks with a bipartisan "veto-proof" vote of 289 to 137, which included 47 Democrats. The bill would require the Obama administration to certify that any Syrian or Iraqi refugee admitted to the United States is not a national security threat. Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- all returned to Washington, D.C. from the campaign trail to cast their votes in favor of advancing the bill.

Cruz said  the Democrats, "obstructionism is especially egregious given that earlier this month, two terrorists, who came to the United States as Iraqi refugees, were apprehended in Sacramento and Houston." Cruz went on to criticize the Obama administration and the ObamaCrats:

The Obama administration continues to allow thousands of insufficiently vetted refugees to flood our borders. Their plans to import refugees from war-torn Islamic nations not only make our country less secure, but also endanger American lives.  Unfortunately, due to the obstruction of Sen. Harry Reid, Democrats appear to have a greater allegiance to President Obama than to the safety and security of the American people.  

According the Washington Post’s Karoun Demirjian, many Republicans see the House bill as a reasonable middle ground between Barack Obama’s plans to expand Syrian refugee resettlement, and Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from the U.S. I saw it as a common sense approach to defend America from Paris-like attacks, more San Bernardino-like attacks and to prevent sexual attacks like those being conducted by migrants invading Europe. It was an attempt at real immigration reform.

Cross posted from RedState.

Pandering to American Muslims Democrats Plot To Kill Bipartisan Bill To Toughen Background Checks On Syrian Refugees

Today Senate Democrats plan to try and kill the bipartisan legislation to enhance background checks on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. In November a bill that would require FBI and other federal security certification of each new incoming refugee from the two countries easily passed the House on a veto-proof vote of 289 to 137.  Republicans were joined by 47 Democrats who voted for the more thorough background checks in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris, which were carried out in part by Syrian passport holders posing as refugees.

According the Washington Post's Karoun Demirjian, many Republicans see the House bill as a reasonable middle ground between Barack Obama’s plans to expand Syrian refugee resettlement, and Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from the U.S.:

Trump sparked a firestorm following the ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino when he called for a “total” ban on Muslims entering the United States, at least for a while. Other Republican leaders raced to disavow his comments and distance themselves from Trump on the issue.

I see it as a common sense approach to defend America from Paris-like attacks, more San Bernardino-like attacks and to prevent sexual attacks like those being conducted by migrants invading Europe. That is real immigration reform.

Nevertheless, Democrats' pandering began immediately as soon as the bill passed the House. Allegedly in response to bellyaching from pro-immigrant, refugee, and Muslim groups, Democrats promised to block the bill with a filibuster and President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. But that was just the start of the pandering.

Shortly after the House passage of the common sense bipartisan immigration reform, it was revealed by the Orlando Sentinel that the American Muslim Democratic Caucus of Florida became the newest officially recognized caucus of the Florida Democratic Party. The purpose of this new arm of the Florida Democrats is to get Muslim-Americans registered to vote — as Democrats. Why, when Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the state's population, according to the Pew Research Center? According to the Sentinel, "even relatively small constituencies can have a big impact on elections. Florida is an evenly divided state in presidential election, and small number of votes can determine who wins the state's 29 electoral votes — more than 10 percent of the total needed to win the presidency."

The Democrats didn't stop the pandering there. During a Democratic National Committee (DNC) Executive Committee meeting the DNC made the pandering official policy of the Democrats' national party by adopting a resolution condemning the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign. If you care to you can read the pandering resolution here.

Nor did the Democrats' pandering start after the passage of the House bill. In October Hillary Clinton Tweeted a campaign video containing this shot of Hillary wearing a hijab. And don't forget Muslims played a critical role in Democrat James Webb ousting then incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen.

Cross posted from RedState.