Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 27, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 729)

US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS-DEBATE

Republican presidential candidates arrive on stage for the Republican presidential debate on August 6, 2015 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. From left are: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; real estate magnate Donald Trump; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; Texas Sen. Ted Cruz; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. AFP PHOTO / MANDEL NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

The mainstream media–including Bushites at Fox News–once again declared the beginning of the end of Donald Trump’s campaign following the second GOP debate. However, according to the first nationwide poll conducted since the CNN Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., The Donald has continued to widen his lead over his rivals.

The Morning Consult survey, which polled 504 registered voters who said they watched the debate, found Trump’s support inched up from 33% to 36% and 24% said he won round two. A plurality 29% said former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina won, while 7% said the night belonged to retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio both were chosen as the winner by 6% of the respondents in the poll.

READ ALSO — Post Republican Debate Poll: Pundits Proven Wrong (Again) on Who Won

Still, Trump maintains a dominating 24-point lead over his closest rival Dr. Ben Carson–36% to 12%–though Fiorina did jump 7 points to 10%, up from just 3% in the previous Morning Consult Poll conducted just before the debate on Sept. 13. Rubio took fourth place with 9%, followed by 7% for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and 6% for both Gov. Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Meanwhile, Dr. Carson still has the highest favorability numbers out of all the Republican candidates among primary voters, with more than three quarters (76%) who watched the debate saying they view him favorably. Sixty-seven (67%) see Trump favorably and 60% say the same about Rubio. Fiorina’s favorable ratings gained among self-identified Republican voters, with 56% saying they had a favorable opinion of Fiorina, up from 37 percent. In the previous survey, 36% said they didn’t know enough about Fiorina to form an opinion, but after the debate, just 16% said they had no opinion.

READ ALSO — Latest National Republican Nomination Polls

Interestingly, the results both contradict and mirror the results of other snap and focus group survey results following the debate in their own respect, including our own PPD Post Republican Debate Poll. PPD found 58.5% thought the frontrunner and billionaire real estate mogul won round two, which is more in line with surveys from Drudge and Time Magazine. For instance, despite Fiorina’s overall positive night, panelists also said she exposed a not-so likable side of herself in some of the exchanges that didn’t sit too well with them. Yet, Gov. Christie tied with Rubio and Sen. Cruz for third place with 6% of voters saying each candidate won, similar to the Morning Consult Poll data.

In the Morning Consult Poll, Christie bumped up from 2% to 6%, while PPD found the Garden State governor exhibited the most positive change as it relates to voters’ before-and-after views of the candidates. Thirty-seven percent (37%) said they now hold a more favorable view of Gov. Christie than they did prior to and because of his performance. Further, 58% said Christie was “Genuine,” putting him only behind Trump (64%), Cruz (61%) and Dr. Ben Carson(60%).

Read Full & Final PPD Post Republican Debate Survey Results

In the first nationwide poll conducted since

House-Majority-Leader-Kevin-McCarthy

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy speaks on the floor of the House of Representatives before a vote to defund Planned Parenthood on Sept. 18, 2015. (Photo: People’s Pundit Daily)

The Republican-controlled House on Friday voted 241-187 to approve a bill to defund Planned Parenthood in response to videos exposing their trafficking of aborted baby body parts. The vote comes just hours after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., urged the Senate GOP leaders to go nuclear to pass the bill and stop the deeply unpopular Iran nuclear agreement.

“I want every member to ask themselves a simple question,” McCarthy said on the floor of the House. “In the face of these videos and with all the alternatives women have for health, why would you want to force your constituents to pay for something so evil?”

The vote comes as the tenth and latest video was released by the pro-life group Center for Medical Progress, which featured a top PPFA executive expressing concern that their activities could “destroy” the nation’s largest abortion provider if the public became aware. The Senate has not yet to act on the issue, citing not only the opposition from Senate Democrats but veto threat from the White House. “Pounding on the table doesn’t turn 54 into 60 in the Senate,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., referring to the number of GOP senators and the number it would take to end Democratic filibusters.

But McCarthy, who is number two behind the embattled Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and more conservative member of the House say the Senate doesn’t need 60 seats or votes. “We have to be able to end Democrats’ filibuster, the Senate has to function again,” McCarthy said in an interview Friday before the vote. He noted how Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to ram through core issues, even when they were unpopular, but yet Senate GOP leadership won’t invoke it to defund baby body part traffickers or to keep Israel and the U.S. safe from a nuclear Iran.

Planned Parenthood gets around $450 million yearly in federal payments and conducts roughly a third of the nearly 1 million abortions that take place in the U.S. each year, or approximately 330,000. The Born Alive Survivors Protection Act, which would impose criminal penalties on doctors who don’t attempt to provide life-saving treatment to babies born alive during abortions, cleared the House by a wider 248-177 vote.

The House on Friday voted 241-187 to

Planned-Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Federation of America HQ.

Maybe it’s my snarky sense of humor, but I greatly enjoy when statists accidentally promote free markets and small government. It seems to happens quite a bit at the New York Times. A New York Times columnist, for instance, pushed for a tax-hiking fiscal agreement back in 2011 based on a chart showing that the only successful budget deal was the one that cut taxes.

The following year, another New York Times columnist accidentally demonstrated that politicians are trying to curtail tax competition because they want to increase overall tax burdens. In a major story on the pension system in the Netherlands this year, the New York Times inadvertently acknowledged that genuine private savings is the best route to obtain a secure retirement.

But it’s not just people who write for the New York Times.

The International Monetary Fund accidentally confirmed that the value-added tax is a revenue machine to finance bigger government and heavier tax burdens. A statist in Illinois tried to argue that higher taxes don’t enable higher spending, but his argument was based on the fact that politicians raised taxes so they wouldn’t have to cut spending. And a journalist at Mother Jones accidentally showed that lower levels of government spending are correlated with greater job creation.

Now, we have something else to add to the list. Some advocates of federally subsidized abortion inadvertently and unwittingly have endorsed the notion that there shouldn’t be any taxpayer handouts to the nation’s largest abortion provider. I don’t know if either Planned Parenthood or Rep. Amerish Babulal “Ami” Bera, D-Calif., are oblivious, entitled, or mendacious, but this retweeted quote really deserves some sort of prize. They obviously want to promote the status quo of federal subsidies for the organization, but the call to “take gov’t out of the exam room” accidentally makes the libertarian case that government money shouldn’t be involved.

https://twitter.com/PPact/status/644875715435974656

What makes this especially amusing is that Congressman Bera is a doctrinaire statist, receiving an “F” on his spending record from the National Taxpayers Union. Needless to say, both the congressman and Planned Parenthood obviously do want the handouts. They simply don’t want any oversight or attention on how the money is spent. But it’s nice that they both inadvertently endorsed the right approach.

P.S. Let’s shift gears and look at another example of “gov’t” in action. I’ve previously written about the fiasco at the Veterans Administration. Not only did the bureaucracy maintain secret waiting lists, but they awarded themselves bonuses.

Well, we now have some data on the horrific consequences of the bureaucracy’s disgusting behavior.

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of Inspector General on Wednesday confirmed that more than one-third of the people thought to be seeking eligibility for VA benefits are deceased, and said many of them have been dead for more than four years. …The OIG’s report…said 307,000 names on the VA’s list of pending enrollees were deceased. That’s 35 percent of the 867,000 people on the list as of last year.

Wow, many segments of the population that have been disadvantaged by ObamaCare, including ones that deserve sympathy, such as children, low-income workers, and retirees, as well as those that don’t deserve much sympathy, such as congressional staff, IRS bureaucrats, and Harvard professors. But I think we can safely say that America’s veterans clearly have suffered the most because of government-run healthcare.

Planned Parenthood or Rep. "Ami" Bera, D-Calif.,

Women-in-Combat-Marines

Then-Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford, Jr., testifies during his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing to become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 9, 2015. (Photo: AP/Cliff Owen)

The U.S. Marine Corps will seek a waiver barring women from serving in various front-line combat roles, resisting what has otherwise been a successful PC movement.

The Associated Press, citing U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter publicly, reported Friday that the Corps’ decision has put pressure on and tension between Navy and Marine leaders. Now, many members of the military’s top brass, as well as a U.S. congressman, are questioning whether Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has the authority to veto the Corps’ proposals to prohibit women from serving in certain infantry and reconnaissance positions.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter is reportedly aware of the dispute and will review the Marine Corp plan, but the AP report comes just nine days after the Marines released a study that found that all-male infantry units performed at a higher-level than units with women in them. Worth noting, both the study and the AP report confirm some of the accusations made by military sources to PPD on the issue of women in combat. The study found that the all-male units are more mobile (quicker), are more lethal largely because they fire their weapons more accurately, could carry significantly more weight and suffered fewer injuries than co-op or “gender-integrated” units.

The injuries suffered by female Marines, none of which were able to pass basic infantry training at Parris Island without significantly reducing the physical standards expected of male Marines, included stress fractures that were likely the result of carrying heavy loads (such as weaponry and rucksacks). However, the report did acknowledge that “female Marines have performed superbly in the combat environments of Iraq and Afghanistan and are fully part of the fabric of a combat-hardened Marine Corps after the longest period of continuous combat operations in the Corps’ history.”

Critics point to a 25-year-old report cited in the study, and have argued the data is outdated. Proponents of the prohibition, however, argue the data is more reliable because it was gathered in an era absent of PC influence.

“Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment.” the report states. “It is morally wrong.”

The debate puts Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford, who is gearing up to take over as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a precarious situation. As chairman, Gen. Dunford submitted the waiver request, and now will have to review and pass judgment on it. Further, his branch of service is the only one pushing back on the socially- and politically-motivated movement.

The Army, Navy and Air Force are expected to allow women to serve in all combat jobs and will not ask Carter for any exceptions. They say that Special Operations Command is also likely to allow women to try out for elite units–including the Navy SEALs, Green Berets and Army Rangers–though they say it may be years before women even try to enter those fields.

But Secretary Mabus is also under fire given comments he has made both in the past and Monday. Speaking at the City Club of Cleveland, Mabus said Monday that the Marine Corp study relied on averages, such as the average woman can’t carry as much or perform as quickly as a man.

“The other way to look at it is we’re not looking for average,” said Mabus. “There were women that met this standard, and a lot of the things there that women fell a little short in can be remedied by two things: training and leadership.”

However, critics say that has been the military standard for years, and for good reason. The Navy secretary also failed to provide an alternative, let alone argue why targeting the performance of individuals would serve to make a better decision.

“I’m not going to ask for an exemption for the Marines, and it’s not going to make them any less fighting effective,” Mabus said. “I think they will be a stronger force because a more diverse force is a stronger force. And it will not make them any less lethal.”

Mabus’ comments, which critics argue is simply not backed by decades of data, angered Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Carter urging him to demand Mabus’ resignation. Hunter wrote he “openly disrespected the Marine Corps as an institution, and he insulted the competency of Marines by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership.”

Rep. Hunter, who served as a Marine in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Mabus’ comments more than suggest he cannot be objective or trusted to lead the Marine Corps. He said Mabus should have no role in any decisions about women in the Marine Corps.

In January 2013, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey signed an order dismantling restrictions on a quarter-million jobs that have for generations been considered inappropriate for women. However, the former Obama administration officials did so before conducting reviews of the physical requirements for these and other combat jobs, which the military now has until January 2016 to complete.

The Marine Corps will seek a waiver

[brid video=”15768″ player=”1929″ title=”N.H. Voter Asked Donald Trump About Obama Being Muslim”]

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump was asked at a town hall event Thursday in Rochester, N.H. what he would do about the “Muslim” problem in America. The man, who was the very first called upon to ask a question, also said President Obama is a Muslim.

“We have a problem in this country, it’s called Muslims. Our current President is one. We know he’s not even an American,” the audience member said. “We have training camps growing where they want to kill us. That’s my question, when can we get rid of them?”

Trump, who is currently polling way ahead of his GOP rivals in the first-in-the-nation Granite State primary, responded after joking about it being the very first question.

“A lot of people are saying that and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there,” Trump responded. “We’re going to be looking at that and a lot of different things.”

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump was asked

Borgata-Cocktail-Waitresses

FILE – In this Feb. 17, 2005 file photo, Borgata cocktail servers Megan Mercado, left, and Sara Jamison fill orders for customers at the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa in Atlantic City, N.J. (Photo: AP)

A New Jersey appeals court upheld the personal appearance standards of the Borgata Babes outlined in the employment and the casino’s right to enforce them. However, the judges, who largely overturned the Superior Court ruling handed down in 2013, allowed 11 of the cocktail waitresses to continue their suit over how the management enforced those rules. Overall, Borgata said it’s pleased the policy was upheld, noting it was disclosed and agreed to by all female and male “costumed beverage servers” when they were hired as “Borgata Babes.”

“This is a significant victory for Borgata,” said Joe Corbo, vice president and legal counsel for the casino. “We have long held that Borgata’s personal appearance policy is fair and reasonable. We are pleased that the three appellate court judges agreed with prior rulings that our policy is lawful and non-discriminatory to women.”

The state appeals court said the Borgata casino’s personal appearance standards are lawful, and the 21 plaintiffs in the original were fully aware and agreed to the Borgata Babe standards. “They’re beautiful. They’re charming. And they’re bringing drinks,” the 57-page decision actually quoted from part of the casino’s advertisement for hiring workers. The court also noted that the casino made it explicitly clear that anyone called a “Borgata Babe” must take in appearance as a major part of their job, the Press reports.

The Press of Atlantic City reports that in the judges’ ruling, 11 plaintiffs who fought the casino’s standard could legally challenge Borgata’s “application of the weight standard resulting in harassment because of their gender.”

The Borgata Babes are a central aspect to the casino’s brand, marketing and overall business operations. The servers wear tight fitting corsets, high heels and stockings and casino releases a Borgata Babes calendar that is one of its top-selling items each year.

“Sexual objectification has been institutionalized and is being allowed to stand,” said attorney Deborah Mains. “It’s difficult to separate the harassment claims that the court is recognizing from the overall theory that the working environment is hostile because of the personal appearance standards.”

Mains said the servers have been subjected to comments from supervisors asking whether they’re pregnant or getting fat, and other co-workers snorting at them like pigs.

The casino says it has fired two Borgata Babes over the years for violating the policy, which prohibits servers from gaining or losing more than 7 percent of their body weight. One was fired for gaining too much weight; one was let go for losing too much. Neither of those servers was part of the recent lawsuit.

A New Jersey appeals court upheld the

Trump-USS-Iowa

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks on the USS Iowa in San Pedro, Los Angeles, California, United States September 15, 2015. LUCY NICHOLSON / Reuters

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revoked the nonprofit status of the veterans benefit organization that hosted and sold tickets to a foreign policy speech by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump aboard the U.S.S Iowa battleship, PPD has confirmed. While the decision was immediately characterized as suspect by some, the IRS issued its decision to revoke the state for Veterans for a Strong America on Aug. 10, citing the group’s failure to file any tax returns for three consecutive years, according to IRS records.

“We disagree with the IRS determination letter,” said the group’s chariman Joel Arends, who appeared alongside Trump on Tuesday night on the ship.

Arends of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, said the organization was appealing the IRS decision, though the AP claims he would not provide them with copies of any tax returns.. By law, such records are supposed to be available to the general public for inspection.

Further, the group’s endorsement of Trump, who is currently the Republican frontrunner, could pose more legal questions in the future, though it is unclear what more the IRS can do with the Department of Justice. Regardless of its legal status as a nonprofit, corporations are restricted to donating $2,700 either in cash or in-kind contributions to a campaign. But the event, which Veterans for a Strong America paid for, involved 850 attendees, putting the cost at roughly $11,000.

U.S. law also generally prohibits candidates from coordinating their campaign activities with outside groups, and prohibits corporations from spending more than a minimal amount announcing their endorsements.

“You can do what you want so long as you’re independent. But if the FEC finds coordination, a whole lot of rules kick in,” Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission attorney who now works for Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom LLP in Washington told the AP.

The event was advertised differently than Trump’s regular campaign events. His campaign didn’t distribute the usual media advisory with details, but did include it in his upcoming campaign schedule. Reporters were instructed to contact the veterans group to obtain credentials to attend, and Trump’s campaign separately urged supporters in a mass email how to obtain tickets to the event.

The group had told ticket buyers that all proceeds would be used to pay for the event “and helping out Vets for a Strong America carry out its mission of helping America’s vets.” However, Arends and Trump’s campaign outwardly dismissed questions about whether the event was legal.

“The FEC has ruled that a candidate may attend, speak at, and be a featured guest at such events,” the Trump campaign said in a statement to the AP.

“We’ve got top national election law attorneys that advise and consult with us,” Arends said. He said the media and IRS’ take on the restrictions on nonprofits’ endorsements of political candidates, as it relates to the group’s specific situation, are not being accurately represented following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the campaign finance case known as Citizens United.

In the “About US” section of their website, the groups states “Veterans for a Strong America is a grassroots action organization committed to ensuring that America remains a strong nation by advancing liberty, safeguarding freedom and opposing tyranny.”

The IRS revoked the nonprofit status of

Donald-Trump-Jeb-Bush-CNN-GOP-Debate-AP

Republican presidential candidates, businessman Donald Trump, left, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush talk together before the start of the CNN Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2015, in Simi Valley, Calif. (PHOTO: AP/Chris Carlson)

I wish the presidential debates could focus on what’s wrong with the status quo and solutions rather than on what one candidate thinks about another’s silly remarks.

I don’t want to hear Jeb Bush cajoling Donald Trump to apologize to his wife in front of millions of people. I don’t want moderators to force a food fight between Trump and other candidates about whether he should have his finger on the nuclear button. I don’t want them provoking a conflict between Chris Christie and Ben Carson over politicians’ expediency. And I sure don’t want to hear a candidate commenting on his rivals’ physical appearance. This stuff is embarrassing, is unproductive and trivializes vital issues facing the nation.

Such distractions may drive ratings or serve to diminish the conservative brand — to the delight of those stirring the pot — but they don’t advance the vital national discussion about the problems we’re facing. People serious enough to watch these debates want to hear the candidates’ positions on the issues.

There were many valuable moments Wednesday night — candidate after candidate eloquently expounded conservative principles — but there would have been many more had the goal been a substantive debate.

The overarching question in every presidential election is America’s future — which of the competing visions will prevail — but the stakes are higher today. With the advance of Obamaism — the fundamental transformation of America — we must decide whether we’ll have the America President Obama envisions or the one grounded in the American idea. We are no longer witnessing the slow, incremental march of socialism; we’re seeing statism piloting a jet plane.

The left is pushing its vision full-bore. But will the right respond with equal vigor? To do that, we will have to come to terms with our stark choices.

Do we want:

–A handful of blindfolded central planners flailing dizzily at 300 million pinatas or the market’s omniscient invisible hand, which dispassionately picks winners and losers for the good of the whole?
–Utopians punishing achievers and forcing equality of outcomes or constitutionalists promoting equality of opportunity?
–Politicians creating endless classes of victims or statesmen who will forgo demagoguery and lift everyone up?
–A Balkanized America whose ruling class dehumanizes people through identity politics and soft bigotry or an America that aspires to color- and gender-blindness?
–To leave our borders unprotected and vulnerable to invasion or to control our immigration process and encourage assimilation?
–A nation where political correctness selectively smothers free speech and religion or one that fosters our essential civil liberties?
–An America crippled by false promises of cradle-to-grave security or one grounded in liberty for all — one paralyzed by taxes and regulations or one poised for robust growth, which only freedom can bring?
–Socialized medicine, with its soaring costs and plummeting quality and choices, or free market solutions to reverse these problems?
–To bankrupt our country or to take the difficult steps to ensure its solvency?
–To surrender our sovereignty to global entities that actively oppose the American idea or to preserve our independence and remain a unique force for good throughout the world?
–An America in perpetual decline and conducting from the caboose or one that maintains peace through strength for our allies and ourselves?

There is a breathtaking contrast between the two visions, and we must ultimately unite around a candidate who recognizes the gravity of our circumstances and the urgency of implementing corrective measures. You can be sure the left fully understands the chasm that separates these visions.

I once asked whether Obama would finally change the nation enough that he would begin to like it. Apparently, we’re approaching that point.

After slamming America to everyone who would listen for seven years and using and abusing every tool at his disposal to radically remold it, he’s now telling us how wonderful it is.

He said: “I’m here to say that there’s nothing particularly patriotic or American about talking down America, especially when we stand as one of the few sources of economic strength in the world. … America’s winning right now. America’s great right now.”

But no matter how much destruction he’s wrought, a leftist’s work is never done. He is touting his progress, all right, but he also knows he’s got more mischief to make. He admitted as much when he announced he will resume community organizing when he leaves office. In this new role, he could be more of a societal menace than Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton combined.

Our work is cut out for us. Just winning the election won’t be enough. That’s why we have to pay close attention and choose the person most capable and willing to fight for America’s salvation. From now on, a serious discussion of the issues is nonnegotiable.

I wish the presidential debates could focus

[brid video=”15718″ player=”1929″ title=”Fiorina in GOP Debate If We Will Force Obama To Veto Planned Parenthood Shame On Us”]

Former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina addressed both Iran and Planned Parenthood in one soundbite during the CNN GOP debate Wednesday night. Fiorina, who is being heralded as the consensus winner by the political class, though she came in second in PPD’s Sunshine State Post GOP Debate Poll, said the issues spoke to the security and character of the nation.

“As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” Fiorina said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

While PPD has extensively covered the undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of baby body parts, including the latest and tenth video featuring a top executive expressing concern their activities would “destroy” PPFA, PoliFact caught on to what left me scratching my head, as well.

“Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says ‘we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain,'” PoliFact wrote. “There isn’t.”

We don’t believe that is an accurate description, either. However, Fiorina either didn’t watch the videos or grossly overstated the footage. In fact, there are images and clips alluding to doctors poking through baby eyeballs and various other body parts, but the actual dismembering process is not on the videos. Various undercover interviews with PPFA executives and former employees expose their activities, but a viewer of the videos are not going to explicitly see them as Fiorina suggested.

“We rate her statement Mostly False,” PoliFact concluded. And we at PPD agree. The footage is absolutely grotesque, Planned Parenthood apologists are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves. Nevertheless, the footage also speaks for itself, and did not need to be Hollywood-ed up for the purpose of Fiorina getting a bump in the polls.

TRANSCRIPT

I would like to link these two issues, both of which are incredibly important, Iran and Planned Parenthood. One has something to do with the defense of the security of this nation. The other has something to do with the defense of the character of this nation.

You have not heard a plan about Iran from any politician up here, here is my plan. On day one in the Oval Office, I will make two phone calls, the first to my good friend to Bibi Netanyahu to reassure him we will stand with the state of Israel.

The second, to the Supreme Leader, to tell him that unless and until he opens every military and every nuclear facility to real anytime, anywhere inspections by our people, not his, we, the United States of America, will make it as difficult as possible and move money around the global financial system.

We can do that, we don’t need anyone’s cooperation to do it. And every ally and every adversary we have in this world will know that the United States in America is back in the leadership business, which is how we must stand with our allies.

As regards Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes. Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, it’s heart beating, it’s legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.

This is about the character of our nation, and if we will not stand up in and force President Obama to veto this bill, shame on us.

Former Hewlitt-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina addressed both

[brid video=”15716″ player=”1929″ title=”FULL Republican Debate CNN Presidential Debate From Reagan Library (91615)”]

Full 2016 CNN Republican debate featuring the top eleven Republican candidates for president at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, CA. September 16, 2015.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina faced off with moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash from CNN and conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Full 2016 CNN Republican debate featuring the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial