wnd--2020-08-13--Demonizing Trump supporters only strengthens their resolve

A recent seemingly insignificant news story disturbingly reveals the intensity of the American left 's intolerance and authoritarianism .
Coupled with the left 's ongoing mission to destroy our cities , this is an ominous sign of what America will look like if the Democratic ticket wins the presidency .
The story was under the headline `` Brett Favre Faced Social Media Backlash Thanks to Donald Trump . ''
After detailing Favre 's NFL quarterback accomplishments , the writer gets to the point : `` Favre may have faced criticism for how he handled his few final seasons with Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his reputation as one of the all-time greats .
However , he may have just made a choice that will alter how many perceive him off the field away from football . ''
Favre 's reputation `` may have taken a significant hit with what he did by playing golf with President Donald Trump . ''
Favre faced serious hate and backlash on social media , according to the writer .
`` There are reasons for people to pile on that choice as some believe Trump is the representation of disappointing flaws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency , '' he says .
`` Regardless of what Favre does moving forward , he will forever be associated with the president .
It may have only been a picture , but a picture in many ways can say a thousand words . ''
Notice that this was n't even about Favre making a controversial political statement , such as those celebrities make at their self-idolatrous award events .
He just played golf with Trump , which triggered enormous social media backlash from the left – similar to the blowback NFL quarterback @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photo with the president – to say nothing of how Brees was condemned for speaking out against kneeling for the national anthem , until he groveled , apologized three thousand times and reversed himself .
This should be no surprise to anyone .
Cancel culture is a creature of the left .
Leftists are the ones who comb the recesses of internet archives for any morsel of damning evidence they can use to destroy people 's careers over a politically incorrect opinion uttered even many years ago .
Leftists are the ones who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restaurants .
How many people do you know who would be afraid to put a Joe Biden bumper sticker on their car or a Biden sign in their yard ?
Ask around and you 'll find tons of people afraid to publicly support Trump .
But this is about more than destroying people 's careers for refusing to own the latest leftist cultural fad or identity politics command .
This is not simply the targeting of a public figure for , say , denying that there are 70 genders .
It 's about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's population – the half that supports President Trump .
Observe how glibly the writer just assumes that it is a given Trump supporters are tainted by their support .
Notice how he does n't even question the moral legitimacy of the backlash Favre received .
Instead , he affirms it .
He does n't just say Favre 's sin was playing golf with Trump but `` what he did by playing golf with … Trump , '' as if to double emphasize the innocuous act .
Can these people not hear themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little to do with Favre , who serves merely as a convenient prop – as representative of all Trump supporters .
Conservatives are not allowed to express their opinions in America 's dominant media culture .
They are not allowed to like President Trump .
Their entire character will be called into question if they do .
The irony is that the left created Trump politically .
It is the very type of intolerance the left now displays toward Trump supporters that birthed the environment in which Trump emerged .
Most Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to save America from the nihilistic , unforgiving , despotic and violent left .
The left desperately pushes the narrative that if you support Trump , you are a heartless , racist , sexist homophobe , relying on its slanderous caricature of Trump as all those things .
Memo to leftists : We reject your depiction of Trump as a racist .
We reject that he 's dangerous for America ; the opposite is the case .
And we fervently reject your word about much of anything , as you 're still shamelessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Russian agent .
The left has now come fully out of the closet and shown its unquenchable contempt for America and how far it is willing to go to overthrow our constitutional republic .
Given the radical leftists ' abominable behavior , do they really think they can shame us for supporting the main human being standing in the way of their revolutionary aims ?
No , we wo n't apologize for supporting President Trump .
And the more extreme the left shows itself to be , the stronger will be our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enablers want to compare notes , we 'll be happy to do so .
The left 's support of Joe Biden is a vote for anarchy , for the disintegration of law and order , for economic paralysis , for stunning intolerance and for the forfeiture of America as we know it , to the incalculable detriment of Americans , especially the younger generations who may not realize the full import of this would-be voluntary abolition of our liberty .
Unlike the left , we wo n't personally condemn Biden supporters , many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do scratch our heads over how so many decent people can be utterly clueless about America 's fate under the iron rule of a Democratic Party , which has sold itself to leftist extremists .

A recent seemingly insignificant news story disturbingly reveals the intensity of the American left's intolerance and authoritarianism. Coupled with the left's ongoing mission to destroy our cities, this is an ominous sign of what America will look like if the Democratic ticket wins the presidency.
The story was under the headline "Brett Favre Faced Social Media Backlash Thanks to Donald Trump." After detailing Favre's NFL quarterback accomplishments, the writer gets to the point: "Favre may have faced criticism for how he handled his few final seasons with Green Bay, but it hadn't damaged his reputation as one of the all-time greats. However, he may have just made a choice that will alter how many perceive him off the field away from football." Favre's reputation "may have taken a significant hit with what he did by playing golf with President Donald Trump."
Favre faced serious hate and backlash on social media, according to the writer. "There are reasons for people to pile on that choice as some believe Trump is the representation of disappointing flaws, both morally and ethically, during his presidency," he says. "Regardless of what Favre does moving forward, he will forever be associated with the president. It may have only been a picture, but a picture in many ways can say a thousand words."
Notice that this wasn't even about Favre making a controversial political statement, such as those celebrities make at their self-idolatrous award events. He just played golf with Trump, which triggered enormous social media backlash from the left – similar to the blowback NFL quarterback Drew Brees received for having a family photo with the president – to say nothing of how Brees was condemned for speaking out against kneeling for the national anthem, until he groveled, apologized three thousand times and reversed himself.
This should be no surprise to anyone. Cancel culture is a creature of the left. Leftists are the ones who comb the recesses of internet archives for any morsel of damning evidence they can use to destroy people's careers over a politically incorrect opinion uttered even many years ago. Leftists are the ones who feel free to drive conservatives out of restaurants.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
How many people do you know who would be afraid to put a Joe Biden bumper sticker on their car or a Biden sign in their yard? Ask around and you'll find tons of people afraid to publicly support Trump.
But this is about more than destroying people's careers for refusing to own the latest leftist cultural fad or identity politics command. This is not simply the targeting of a public figure for, say, denying that there are 70 genders. It's about the wholesale demonization of half of America's population – the half that supports President Trump. Observe how glibly the writer just assumes that it is a given Trump supporters are tainted by their support. Notice how he doesn't even question the moral legitimacy of the backlash Favre received. Instead, he affirms it. He doesn't just say Favre's sin was playing golf with Trump but "what he did by playing golf with … Trump," as if to double emphasize the innocuous act. Can these people not hear themselves?
The takeaway from this story has little to do with Favre, who serves merely as a convenient prop – as representative of all Trump supporters.
Conservatives are not allowed to express their opinions in America's dominant media culture. They are not allowed to like President Trump. Their entire character will be called into question if they do.
The irony is that the left created Trump politically. It is the very type of intolerance the left now displays toward Trump supporters that birthed the environment in which Trump emerged. Most Trump supporters see him as the last best hope to save America from the nihilistic, unforgiving, despotic and violent left.
The left desperately pushes the narrative that if you support Trump, you are a heartless, racist, sexist homophobe, relying on its slanderous caricature of Trump as all those things.
Memo to leftists: We reject your depiction of Trump as a racist. We reject that he's dangerous for America; the opposite is the case. And we fervently reject your word about much of anything, as you're still shamelessly spreading the ludicrous lie that he's a Russian agent.
The left has now come fully out of the closet and shown its unquenchable contempt for America and how far it is willing to go to overthrow our constitutional republic. Given the radical leftists' abominable behavior, do they really think they can shame us for supporting the main human being standing in the way of their revolutionary aims?
No, we won't apologize for supporting President Trump. And the more extreme the left shows itself to be, the stronger will be our resolve.
If the left and its enablers want to compare notes, we'll be happy to do so. A vote for Biden is a vote for anarchy, for the disintegration of law and order, for economic paralysis, for stunning intolerance and for the forfeiture of America as we know it, to the incalculable detriment of Americans, especially the younger generations who may not realize the full import of this would-be voluntary abolition of our liberty.
Unlike the left, we won't personally condemn Biden supporters, many of whom are our friends. But we do scratch our heads over how so many decent people can be utterly clueless about America's fate under the iron rule of a Democratic Party, which has sold itself to leftist extremists.


wnd--2020-08-13--Foundation lawsuit alleges Brock organizations broke FEC rules

[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]
David Brock , the onetime anti-Clinton journalist turned Hillary Clinton ally and aggressive promoter of Democratic media narratives in recent decades , faces legal actions and disclosures portraying his organizations as working so closely with the Clinton campaign in 2016 that they broke the law .
The conservative Patriots Foundation alleges in a lawsuit being filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that an improperly porous relationship among four Brock-founded organizations amounted to illegal coordination with the Clinton campaign in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The best known of the four groups is Media Matters for America , which highlights what it calls media bias from the right .
The other three are the American Bridge 21st Century PAC ; the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation ; and the Correct the Record PAC .
“ American Bridge 21st Century PAC claimed that it was independent of the Clinton campaign so that it could make independent expenditures , '' the Patriots Foundation said in a statement provided to RealClearInvestigations .
`` American Bridge is run by the same people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Record , however , which we know coordinated with the Clinton campaign .
“ They all work from the same offices , '' the statement continued , `` Brock was paid by all of them , American Bridge and Correct the Record shared at least 6 employees , and Correct the Record made in-kind contributions to American Bridge PAC .
American Bridge ’ s supposedly independent activity was just as coordinated as Media Matters ’ and Correct the Record ’ s activity – meaning that American Bridge ’ s [ expenditures ] were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton ’ s campaign.
” Representatives for the organizations did not respond to requests for comment ( Correct the Record is now inactive ) .
Nor did Brock himself or the Clinton campaign .
This past April , the Patriots Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Brock ’ s organizations .
Since the agency has n't acted on it within a requisite 120 days , the Patriots Foundation is now suing the FEC as allowed under campaign finance laws .
The Patriots Foundation also filed complaints with the IRS last spring regarding Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but there is no legal remedy to force the IRS ’ s hand in court as with the FEC .
The tactics of Media Matters are generally acknowledged as politically aggressive in a way many see at odds with the organization ’ s 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) nonprofit tax status , which stipulates nonpartisanship .
In 2008 , The New York Times described Media Matters as a “ nonprofit , highly partisan research organization.
” The Patriots Foundation alleges that in 2016 Media Matters ceased merely appearing to be partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Hillary Clinton campaign .
A December 2016 report in the liberal-leaning magazine the New Republic , highlighted by the group , substantiates this assessment : The organization [ Media Matters ] had long ceased to be a mere watchdog , having positioned itself at the center of a group of public relations and advocacy outfits whose mission was to help put Clinton in the White House .
… In our numerous conversations with past Media Matters staff , there was a consensus that in the lead-up to Clinton ’ s announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization ’ s priority shifted away from the mission stated on its website — “ comprehensively monitoring , analyzing , and correcting conservative misinformation ” — and towards running defense for Clinton .
The former staffers we spoke to largely felt that this damaged Media Matters ’ credibility and hurt the work it did in other areas .
“ The closer we got to the 2016 election the less it became about actually debunking conservative misinformation and more it became about just defending Hillary Clinton from every blogger in their mother ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
This was , moreover , a repeat of what Media Matters did in 2008 , when there was a rift between staffers and management over the favoring of Clinton in her race against then-Senator Barack Obama .
Media Matters staffers recounted internal fights over the group 's devotion to Clinton .
Employees were ordered to critique NPR ’ s Terry Gross for asking Clinton some questions about why it took her so long to support same-sex marriage .
But the staff reportedly felt Gross ’ questions were fair , and according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone we spoke to who worked there at the time felt that a similar article would not have been written about a different politician.
” Media Matters ’ research director , Jeremy Holden ended up writing the story because other staffers were unwilling to put their name on it .
Holden did not respond to a request for comment .
Media Matters employees were also reportedly frustrated by the organization ’ s obsession with defending Clinton at the expense of other liberal causes .
“ Former staffers pointed out several stories that fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been better covered .
… On the site , there are 1,468 posts tagged with ‘ Hillary Clinton ’ as opposed to just 26 tagged ‘ Bernie Sanders , ’ ” according to the New Republic .
In addition to media reports , internal communications at the Clinton campaign further reveal that it was treating Media Matters as a campaign surrogate and coordinating with the group .
A campaign strategy memo released by WikiLeaks notes that the Clinton campaign reported using the Brock group to “ muddy the waters ” when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ working with MMFA to highlight examples of when the press won ’ t cover the same issues with Republicans.
” Another email released by WikiLeaks has Clinton ’ s press secretary , Nick Merrill , planning to push back on a Vanity Fair story about Clinton campaign vice chair Huma Abedin , which hadn ’ t been published yet , saying , “ We have MMFA , CtR , and core surrogates lined up , which we can expand on tomorrow.
” Media Matters published a piece criticizing the Vanity Fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in Merrill ’ s email refers to the Correct the Record PAC .
The PAC has been dormant since the 2016 election cycle , but “ coordinat [ ed ] directly with Clinton ’ s campaign , ” Politico reported .
The CTR PAC even took money directly from the Clinton campaign – during the 2016 election cycle CTR took in $ 8.5 million in donations , including a donation of $ 275,615 in 2015 from Hillary for America .
From its inception , the PAC skirted rules that prevent such entities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by claiming all its activities were covered by an FEC exemption regarding public communications .
“ Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free , such as blogs , is off limits from regulation , ” notes a 2015 Washington Post report .
“ The ‘ Internet exemption ’ said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures , allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongly disputes that the operations of the CTR PAC were defensible under this interpretation , noting that the PAC spent money on polling and other activities that don ’ t constitute communications .
Organizationally , there also appears to have been not much separation between CTR and Brock ’ s other PAC , American Bridge .
“ During the 2016 election , Brock claimed that AB PAC remained independent of both the Clinton campaign and CTR PAC so that it could make independent expenditures in support of Clinton , ” notes the Patriots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he continued to collect a salary from both PACs , and disclosure reports show that the committees shared at least seven overlapping staff members at various times during 2016 .
Moreover , AB PAC reported making in-kind disbursements to CTR PAC in 2016.
” ( In addition to getting paid by both PACs , Brock drew a salary of $ 278,566 from Media Matters as well , 2017 tax records show .
Overall , the American Bridge Foundation was the largest donor to the AB PAC in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 nonprofit , the AB Foundation is not required to disclose its own donors .
Other notable donors to the AB PAC include George Soros , who gave AB PAC $ 2 million between 2015 and 2016 .
Some of America 's biggest unions – the SEIU , AFL-CIO , NEA , AFT , and AFSCME – all made six-figure donations in the 2016 election cycle .
And Win McCormack , the owner and publisher of the New Republic , gave $ 100,000 to the AB PAC five months before his publication ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not the First Time The Patriots Foundation alleges that the legally required separation between the groups did not exist .
The two organizations shared staff , office space , and equipment , but the AB Foundation stated in IRS filings the “ two entities have entered into a cost-sharing agreement to allocate shared overhead costs so that neither entity is financially supporting the activities of the other.
” But other audited financial statements from the AB Foundation note they did “ not have a formal agreement relating to the allocation of expenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allocations were made based on management and budget estimates.
” Those estimates varied wildly .
The AB Foundation gave the PAC some $ 2.9 million “ for salary , rent , and expenses ” in 2015 ; $ 720,000 in 2016 ; $ 4.5 million in 2017 ; and $ 3.3 million in 2018 .
In many of those years , the AB Foundation also claimed to owe AB PAC more than it paid , also by varying amounts .
This is not the first time one of Brock ’ s organizations has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulations .
Last year , the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint regarding the Correct the Record PAC ’ s claim that it could coordinate with the Clinton campaign under the public Internet communications exemption .
FEC attorneys agreed with the Campaign Legal Center but the FEC , which has been understaffed during the Trump administration , only had four of six members on the commission .
The complaint was dismissed when the two GOP commissioners sided with the CTR PAC , leaving the commission deadlocked .
The Campaign Legal Center is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaint is different in that it addresses the coordination across all of the Brock organizations , as well as the allegations American Bridge PAC inaccurately reported the operational costs it shares with the American Bridge Foundation .
The Patriots Foundation told RealClearInvestigations it is not seeking remedies from the FEC beyond what was outlined in its original complaint .
That complaint asks the FEC to `` elicit admission of the violations from each of the respondents , conduct a robust investigation to determine the scope of the alleged violations , bar respondents from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalties in amounts commensurate with the gravity of these serious ongoing violations.
” The IRS action filed by the Patriots Foundation seeks to revoke the tax-exempt status of Media Matters and the AB PAC , and calls for both to be compelled to pay applicable taxes while improperly operating as tax exempt , plus applicable financial penalties , while referring both to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution .
[ Editor 's note : This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations . ]

[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]
By Mark Hemingway
Real Clear Investigations
David Brock, the onetime anti-Clinton journalist turned Hillary Clinton ally and aggressive promoter of Democratic media narratives in recent decades, faces legal actions and disclosures portraying his organizations as working so closely with the Clinton campaign in 2016 that they broke the law.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The conservative Patriots Foundation alleges in a lawsuit being filed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that an improperly porous relationship among four Brock-founded organizations amounted to illegal coordination with the Clinton campaign in violation of Federal Election Commission regulations. The best known of the four groups is Media Matters for America, which highlights what it calls media bias from the right. The other three are the American Bridge 21st Century PAC; the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation; and the Correct the Record PAC.
“American Bridge 21st Century PAC claimed that it was independent of the Clinton campaign so that it could make independent expenditures," the Patriots Foundation said in a statement provided to RealClearInvestigations. "American Bridge is run by the same people who run Media Matters and Correct the Record, however, which we know coordinated with the Clinton campaign.
“They all work from the same offices," the statement continued, "Brock was paid by all of them, American Bridge and Correct the Record shared at least 6 employees, and Correct the Record made in-kind contributions to American Bridge PAC. American Bridge’s supposedly independent activity was just as coordinated as Media Matters’ and Correct the Record’s activity – meaning that American Bridge’s [expenditures] were really excessive and illegal contributions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.”
Representatives for the organizations did not respond to requests for comment (Correct the Record is now inactive). Nor did Brock himself or the Clinton campaign.
This past April, the Patriots Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Brock’s organizations. Since the agency hasn't acted on it within a requisite 120 days, the Patriots Foundation is now suing the FEC as allowed under campaign finance laws. The Patriots Foundation also filed complaints with the IRS last spring regarding Media Matters and the American Bridge Foundation, but there is no legal remedy to force the IRS’s hand in court as with the FEC.
The tactics of Media Matters are generally acknowledged as politically aggressive in a way many see at odds with the organization’s 501(c)(3) nonprofit tax status, which stipulates nonpartisanship. In 2008, The New York Times described Media Matters as a “nonprofit, highly partisan research organization.” The Patriots Foundation alleges that in 2016 Media Matters ceased merely appearing to be partisan -- it acted openly as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign. A December 2016 report in the liberal-leaning magazine the New Republic, highlighted by the group, substantiates this assessment:
The organization [Media Matters] had long ceased to be a mere watchdog, having positioned itself at the center of a group of public relations and advocacy outfits whose mission was to help put Clinton in the White House. … In our numerous conversations with past Media Matters staff, there was a consensus that in the lead-up to Clinton’s announcement of her candidacy in 2015, the organization’s priority shifted away from the mission stated on its website — “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation” — and towards running defense for Clinton. The former staffers we spoke to largely felt that this damaged Media Matters’ credibility and hurt the work it did in other areas. “The closer we got to the 2016 election the less it became about actually debunking conservative misinformation and more it became about just defending Hillary Clinton from every blogger in their mother’s basement,” one former staffer told us. This was, moreover, a repeat of what Media Matters did in 2008, when there was a rift between staffers and management over the favoring of Clinton in her race against then-Senator Barack Obama.
Media Matters staffers recounted internal fights over the group's devotion to Clinton. Employees were ordered to critique NPR’s Terry Gross for asking Clinton some questions about why it took her so long to support same-sex marriage.
But the staff reportedly felt Gross’ questions were fair, and according to the New Republic, “nearly everyone we spoke to who worked there at the time felt that a similar article would not have been written about a different politician.” Media Matters’ research director, Jeremy Holden ended up writing the story because other staffers were unwilling to put their name on it. Holden did not respond to a request for comment.
Media Matters employees were also reportedly frustrated by the organization’s obsession with defending Clinton at the expense of other liberal causes. “Former staffers pointed out several stories that fell within Media Matters’ ambit that should have been better covered. … On the site, there are 1,468 posts tagged with ‘Hillary Clinton’ as opposed to just 26 tagged ‘Bernie Sanders,’” according to the New Republic.
In addition to media reports, internal communications at the Clinton campaign further reveal that it was treating Media Matters as a campaign surrogate and coordinating with the group.
A campaign strategy memo released by WikiLeaks notes that the Clinton campaign reported using the Brock group to “muddy the waters” when it came to issues where Clinton was vulnerable by “working with MMFA to highlight examples of when the press won’t cover the same issues with Republicans.” Another email released by WikiLeaks has Clinton’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, planning to push back on a Vanity Fair story about Clinton campaign vice chair Huma Abedin, which hadn’t been published yet, saying, “We have MMFA, CtR, and core surrogates lined up, which we can expand on tomorrow.” Media Matters published a piece criticizing the Vanity Fair story the following day.
“CtR” in Merrill’s email refers to the Correct the Record PAC. The PAC has been dormant since the 2016 election cycle, but “coordinat[ed] directly with Clinton’s campaign,” Politico reported. The CTR PAC even took money directly from the Clinton campaign – during the 2016 election cycle CTR took in $8.5 million in donations, including a donation of $275,615 in 2015 from Hillary for America. From its inception, the PAC skirted rules that prevent such entities and campaigns from directly coordinating with campaigns by claiming all its activities were covered by an FEC exemption regarding public communications.
“Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation,” notes a 2015 Washington Post report. “The ‘Internet exemption’ said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites.” The Patriots Foundation FEC complaint strongly disputes that the operations of the CTR PAC were defensible under this interpretation, noting that the PAC spent money on polling and other activities that don’t constitute communications.
Organizationally, there also appears to have been not much separation between CTR and Brock’s other PAC, American Bridge. “During the 2016 election, Brock claimed that AB PAC remained independent of both the Clinton campaign and CTR PAC so that it could make independent expenditures in support of Clinton,” notes the Patriots Foundation FEC complaint. “However, he continued to collect a salary from both PACs, and disclosure reports show that the committees shared at least seven overlapping staff members at various times during 2016. Moreover, AB PAC reported making in-kind disbursements to CTR PAC in 2016.” (In addition to getting paid by both PACs, Brock drew a salary of $278,566 from Media Matters as well, 2017 tax records show.
Overall, the American Bridge Foundation was the largest donor to the AB PAC in the 2016 and 2018 election cycles. As a 501(c)4 nonprofit, the AB Foundation is not required to disclose its own donors. Other notable donors to the AB PAC include George Soros, who gave AB PAC $2 million between 2015 and 2016. Some of America's biggest unions – the SEIU, AFL-CIO, NEA, AFT, and AFSCME – all made six-figure donations in the 2016 election cycle. And Win McCormack, the owner and publisher of the New Republic, gave $100,000 to the AB PAC five months before his publication ran the story on Media Matters' troubles.
Not the First Time
The Patriots Foundation alleges that the legally required separation between the groups did not exist. The two organizations shared staff, office space, and equipment, but the AB Foundation stated in IRS filings the “two entities have entered into a cost-sharing agreement to allocate shared overhead costs so that neither entity is financially supporting the activities of the other.”
But other audited financial statements from the AB Foundation note they did “not have a formal agreement relating to the allocation of expenses between the two entities” and “allocations were made based on management and budget estimates.” Those estimates varied wildly. The AB Foundation gave the PAC some $2.9 million “for salary, rent, and expenses” in 2015; $720,000 in 2016; $4.5 million in 2017; and $3.3 million in 2018. In many of those years, the AB Foundation also claimed to owe AB PAC more than it paid, also by varying amounts.
This is not the first time one of Brock’s organizations has been challenged for running afoul of FEC regulations. Last year, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint regarding the Correct the Record PAC’s claim that it could coordinate with the Clinton campaign under the public Internet communications exemption. FEC attorneys agreed with the Campaign Legal Center but the FEC, which has been understaffed during the Trump administration, only had four of six members on the commission. The complaint was dismissed when the two GOP commissioners sided with the CTR PAC, leaving the commission deadlocked. The Campaign Legal Center is still litigating the matter.
The Patriots Foundation complaint is different in that it addresses the coordination across all of the Brock organizations, as well as the allegations American Bridge PAC inaccurately reported the operational costs it shares with the American Bridge Foundation.
The Patriots Foundation told RealClearInvestigations it is not seeking remedies from the FEC beyond what was outlined in its original complaint. That complaint asks the FEC to "elicit admission of the violations from each of the respondents, conduct a robust investigation to determine the scope of the alleged violations, bar respondents from continuing violative activities, and collect civil penalties in amounts commensurate with the gravity of these serious ongoing violations.”
The IRS action filed by the Patriots Foundation seeks to revoke the tax-exempt status of Media Matters and the AB PAC, and calls for both to be compelled to pay applicable taxes while improperly operating as tax exempt, plus applicable financial penalties, while referring both to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
[Editor's note: This story originally was published by Real Clear Investigations.]


wnd--2020-08-13--Appeal charges Harris launched criminal case 'at behest of Planned Parenthood'

Charging that former California Attorney General Kamala Harris , now Democrat Joe Biden 's pick as vice presidential hopeful in the 2020 presidential campaign , launched a criminal case because that 's what Planned Parenthood `` financiers '' who supported her wanted , the legal counsel for Sandra Merritt has appealed the criminal charges pending against her .
Merritt was one of the undercover investigators who recorded statements from Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and released videos back in 2015 revealing abortionists ' trade in the body parts of unborn babies .
She 's represented by Liberty Counsel , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case Harris launched , has separate counsel .
They both worked with the Center for Medical Progress to do the videos , which resulted in recommendations from Congress for investigations and charges if appropriate .
Liberty Counsel said on Thursday it has filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California asking that the eight remaining counts – others were dismissed earlier – be thrown out .
`` The bogus criminal investigation and heavy-handed tactics began under then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris ( now senator and VP candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Xavier Becerra , who filed 15 charges for Merritt ’ s undercover journalism work in exposing Planned Parenthood ’ s trafficking in baby body parts , '' her lawyers reported .
The lawyers noted Becerra at one point stood with a sign stating , `` I Stand with Planned Parenthood . ''
The lawyers explained , `` Becerra has not shown , and can not show , probable cause for any of the politically motivated charges .
Merritt ’ s appeal details with evidence that she did not intend to violate any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate and expose potential fetal-trafficking abuses and crimes being committed by Planned Parenthood . ''
Liberty Counsel ’ s Vice President of Legal Affairs Horatio Mihet said , `` This political prosecution against Sandra Merritt has gone on long enough .
It is time for the legal inquisition , that began with Kamala Harris at the behest of her Planned Parenthood financiers , to meet its demise .
We will not rest until Sandra Merritt is vindicated . ''
The appeal describes the roughshod `` investigation '' launched by Harris when she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been continued by Becerra , her successor .
`` Among numerous documented deficiencies , their investigator , who had never investigated any previous cases of illegal recording , admitted that he never asked the alleged recording 'victims ' any questions to probe their manufactured stories .
He simply wrote down and accepted what they told him at face value .
For most of the so-called 'victims , ' he had to inform them that they were alleged 'victims , ' since the videos depicting them had not yet been published .
They had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the attorney general ’ s investigator called to tell them and recruit them for this prosecution , '' the lawyers explained .
`` Merritt ’ s appeal also examines the testimony of those alleged “ victims ” in court , each of which admitted under oath that their conversations with Merritt could be overheard by others in the public spaces where they were recorded , and they took no steps to prevent others from overhearing their candid discussion of what Planned Parenthood does behind closed doors .
Under California law , conversations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by definition , not 'confidential , ' and can be recorded without consent . ''
The filing points out the counts , over recording `` private '' conversations , lack any showing of a specific intent to violate the law , that some of the charges were based on `` hearsay , '' that even the `` recorded persons '' admitted the conversations were in the public , and more .
As a result of the undercover work , `` two fetal tissue profiteering companies in California were successfully prosecuted , forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and shuttered permanently , '' the filing explains .
Yet the California AG has gone `` a different course . ''
`` Rather than joining other law enforcement agencies to prosecute the persons and organizations caught by defendants on tape to be engaging in egregious abuses and violations of law , the attorney general has chosen to bring this prosecution … the first prosecution of its kind in California and the nation . ''
Mat Staver , general counsel of Liberty Counsel , told WND when Biden picked Harris that she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecution of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt . ''
`` She is the one who initiated the criminal investigation , '' he said .
And it was Harris who dispatched law enforcement officers to Daleiden 's home to confiscate the undercover videos .
Harris also used an affidavit against the journalists from a person who claimed the videos were illegally recorded secretly in locations where `` there was an expectation of privacy . ''
However , many of the videos were recorded in restaurants with passers-by , and at least one was taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public were able to listen to the conversation , he said .
He said Harris , and successor Xavier Becerra , have pursued an ideological agenda using the resources of the state of California .
He pointed out that never before have undercover journalists been charged for their investigations , which are protected by the First Amendment .
Here are two of the videos released by CMP :

Charging that former California Attorney General Kamala Harris, now Democrat Joe Biden's pick as vice presidential hopeful in the 2020 presidential campaign, launched a criminal case because that's what Planned Parenthood "financiers" who supported her wanted, the legal counsel for Sandra Merritt has appealed the criminal charges pending against her.
Merritt was one of the undercover investigators who recorded statements from Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and released videos back in 2015 revealing abortionists' trade in the body parts of unborn babies.
She's represented by Liberty Counsel, while David Daleiden, the other defendant in the case Harris launched, has separate counsel. They both worked with the Center for Medical Progress to do the videos, which resulted in recommendations from Congress for investigations and charges if appropriate.
Liberty Counsel said on Thursday it has filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California asking that the eight remaining counts – others were dismissed earlier – be thrown out.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"The bogus criminal investigation and heavy-handed tactics began under then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris (now senator and VP candidate) and then her replacement, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who filed 15 charges for Merritt’s undercover journalism work in exposing Planned Parenthood’s trafficking in baby body parts," her lawyers reported.
The lawyers noted Becerra at one point stood with a sign stating, "I Stand with Planned Parenthood."
The lawyers explained, "Becerra has not shown, and cannot show, probable cause for any of the politically motivated charges. Merritt’s appeal details with evidence that she did not intend to violate any laws but used legal undercover techniques to investigate and expose potential fetal-trafficking abuses and crimes being committed by Planned Parenthood."
Liberty Counsel’s Vice President of Legal Affairs Horatio Mihet said, "This political prosecution against Sandra Merritt has gone on long enough. It is time for the legal inquisition, that began with Kamala Harris at the behest of her Planned Parenthood financiers, to meet its demise. We will not rest until Sandra Merritt is vindicated."
The appeal describes the roughshod "investigation" launched by Harris when she was in office in California. It's been continued by Becerra, her successor.
"Among numerous documented deficiencies, their investigator, who had never investigated any previous cases of illegal recording, admitted that he never asked the alleged recording 'victims' any questions to probe their manufactured stories. He simply wrote down and accepted what they told him at face value. For most of the so-called 'victims,' he had to inform them that they were alleged 'victims,' since the videos depicting them had not yet been published. They had no idea that they were 'victims' until the attorney general’s investigator called to tell them and recruit them for this prosecution," the lawyers explained.
"Merritt’s appeal also examines the testimony of those alleged “victims” in court, each of which admitted under oath that their conversations with Merritt could be overheard by others in the public spaces where they were recorded, and they took no steps to prevent others from overhearing their candid discussion of what Planned Parenthood does behind closed doors. Under California law, conversations that 'may be overheard' are, by definition, not 'confidential,' and can be recorded without consent."
The filing points out the counts, over recording "private" conversations, lack any showing of a specific intent to violate the law, that some of the charges were based on "hearsay," that even the "recorded persons" admitted the conversations were in the public, and more.
As a result of the undercover work, "two fetal tissue profiteering companies in California were successfully prosecuted, forced to pay almost $8 million in penalties, and shuttered permanently," the filing explains.
Yet the California AG has gone "a different course."
"Rather than joining other law enforcement agencies to prosecute the persons and organizations caught by defendants on tape to be engaging in egregious abuses and violations of law, the attorney general has chosen to bring this prosecution … the first prosecution of its kind in California and the nation."
Mat Staver, general counsel of Liberty Counsel, told WND when Biden picked Harris that she was "directly responsible for the persecution and prosecution of David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt."
"She is the one who initiated the criminal investigation," he said.
And it was Harris who dispatched law enforcement officers to Daleiden's home to confiscate the undercover videos.
Harris also used an affidavit against the journalists from a person who claimed the videos were illegally recorded secretly in locations where "there was an expectation of privacy."
However, many of the videos were recorded in restaurants with passers-by, and at least one was taken in an elevator where members of the public were able to listen to the conversation, he said.
He said Harris, and successor Xavier Becerra, have pursued an ideological agenda using the resources of the state of California.
He pointed out that never before have undercover journalists been charged for their investigations, which are protected by the First Amendment.
Here are two of the videos released by CMP:
See a CMP video about Planned Parenthood skirting federal law:


wnd--2020-08-13--The politicization of everything and the tone-deaf N.Y. Times

Late last week , Thomas Friedman published an opinion piece in The New York Times titled `` Beirut 's Blast Is a Warning for America . ''
The subhead says , `` In this country , as in Lebanon , everything is now politics . ''
Friedman intones ominously , `` ( W ) hen everything is politics , everything is just about power .
There is no center , only sides ; no truth , only versions ; no facts , only a contest of wills . ''
I agree , so I read on for examples .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – they are exclusively opinions in opposition to leftist worldviews .
`` If you believe that climate change is real , '' he offers , `` it must be because someone paid you off with a research grant .
If you believe the president committed an impeachable offense trying to enlist the president of Ukraine to undermine Joe Biden , it 's only because you want power for your party . ''
Conversely , therefore , if you question the current scientific `` consensus '' on climate change , it 's just `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you 're old enough to remember when we were told that the Earth was headed for another Ice Age ( before that same `` consensus '' shifted to global warming ) .
If you do n't think President Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense , it is n't because it was n't apparently an impeachable offense when then-Vice President Joe Biden withheld a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine unless its government fired a particular prosecutor investigating corruption .
And it was just coincidence that Biden 's son Hunter was being paid millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being investigated for corruption .
There were facts missing in all those simplistic synopses , but you 'd have to do a lot of digging to find them .
That 's the point : Our media have made it their mission to push a narrative they want ( often political ) , even if that means obscuring or ignoring facts they do n't want Americans to know .
As a result , they 're not trusted .
Friedman ignores the press ' role in all of this , just as he conveniently overlooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – science , medicine , weather , sports , entertainment , education , shopping , where you have your wedding .
Everything conceivable has a leftist litmus test today ( and painful consequences for deviation ) .
His jeremiad might also ring a bit less hollow if we had n't just endured a three-year , mega-million-dollar `` Russia collusion '' charade launched and perpetrated entirely for political reasons ; based upon factless fraud and deliberate deceit ; and promoted incessantly by the press .
And if governments and the press can be deceitful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So when science – especially uncertain science – gets politicized and the press gets into the mix with an agenda , yes , I 'm sorry ; that 's a prescription for serious skepticism .
Three years ago , I wrote a column about margarine , and how the U.S. government and public interest organizations took preliminary nutritional science about saturated fats and turned it into a pro-margarine , anti-dairy crusade .
Sixty years later ?
`` Oops .
We were wrong . ''
Another example is medical marijuana .
For years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chronic pain swore that marijuana helped .
Doctors – and politicians – insisted there were no studies to prove the truth of that .
( Hello ?
It 's a Schedule 1 drug and illegal under federal law .
Of course there have been few studies . )
California decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes , and despite a Supreme Court decision upholding Congress 's constitutional power to criminalize marijuana nationally , other states have followed suit .
Thus , if we subsequently determine – officially – that marijuana does help patients with nausea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of what the `` experts '' told us , not because of it .
Now we have COVID-19 , a global pandemic .
The medical experts have been wrong about some things from the beginning .
First we were told masks did n't help ; now they 're mandatory .
Originally , we were told to stay home unless dealing with serious shortness of breath so we 'd save ventilators for those who really needed them .
Later information revealed that to be bad advice .
Not only did it delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anoxia also have blood and circulatory problems , not pneumonia .
That new information changed early detection and treatment .
We get it ; mistakes will happen .
But it is cynical and inaccurate to dismiss as mere `` politics '' people 's legitimate concerns about government policies that cripple the economy , when those policies are based upon uncertain medical information .
The same can be said about medical treatments for the virus .
There are 330 million people in this country and nearly 8 billion globally .
The virus will mutate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or for everyone .
Physicians , clinicians and researchers are doing their best in a situation of incomplete and rapidly changing information .
And they wo n't always agree .
Letting professionals try different treatments is n't dangerous , nor is the willingness to listen to multiple viewpoints .
That 's the way science works .
What 's dangerous is politicizing the research , the available treatments and the dissemination of information .
It 's counterintuitive when we 're told by government `` experts '' that only one perspective on the efficacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's absurd when the social media companies that gave us cat memes and duck-lip selfies proclaim themselves to be arbiters of accurate medical and scientific information .
And every red flag should go up when the national media decides to make medical opinions on the efficacy of certain treatment methodologies a referendum on Donald Trump .
Are you kidding ?
There 's your `` politicizing . ''
If you want people to heed your professional opinion , do n't tie your professional opinion to your politics .
If you tie your professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complain when those who do n't agree with your politics do n't take your professional opinion seriously .
And if you want people to believe the facts , then give them the facts , whether you like them or not .
If you wo n't do that , then you wo n't be trusted , even – perhaps especially – when you need the public to trust you .

Late last week, Thomas Friedman published an opinion piece in The New York Times titled "Beirut's Blast Is a Warning for America." The subhead says, "In this country, as in Lebanon, everything is now politics."
Friedman intones ominously, "(W)hen everything is politics, everything is just about power. There is no center, only sides; no truth, only versions; no facts, only a contest of wills."
I agree, so I read on for examples. And Friedman has them. But – ironically – they are exclusively opinions in opposition to leftist worldviews. "If you believe that climate change is real," he offers, "it must be because someone paid you off with a research grant. If you believe the president committed an impeachable offense trying to enlist the president of Ukraine to undermine Joe Biden, it's only because you want power for your party."
Conversely, therefore, if you question the current scientific "consensus" on climate change, it's just "politics"; it isn't because you're old enough to remember when we were told that the Earth was headed for another Ice Age (before that same "consensus" shifted to global warming). If you don't think President Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, it isn't because it wasn't apparently an impeachable offense when then-Vice President Joe Biden withheld a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine unless its government fired a particular prosecutor investigating corruption. And it was just coincidence that Biden's son Hunter was being paid millions by a Ukrainian energy company that was being investigated for corruption.
There were facts missing in all those simplistic synopses, but you'd have to do a lot of digging to find them. That's the point: Our media have made it their mission to push a narrative they want (often political), even if that means obscuring or ignoring facts they don't want Americans to know. As a result, they're not trusted.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Friedman ignores the press' role in all of this, just as he conveniently overlooks the left's politicization of everything generally – science, medicine, weather, sports, entertainment, education, shopping, where you have your wedding. Everything conceivable has a leftist litmus test today (and painful consequences for deviation).
His jeremiad might also ring a bit less hollow if we hadn't just endured a three-year, mega-million-dollar "Russia collusion" charade launched and perpetrated entirely for political reasons; based upon factless fraud and deliberate deceit; and promoted incessantly by the press.
And if governments and the press can be deceitful, scientists are sometimes just flat-out wrong. So when science – especially uncertain science – gets politicized and the press gets into the mix with an agenda, yes, I'm sorry; that's a prescription for serious skepticism.
Three years ago, I wrote a column about margarine, and how the U.S. government and public interest organizations took preliminary nutritional science about saturated fats and turned it into a pro-margarine, anti-dairy crusade.
Sixty years later? "Oops. We were wrong."
Another example is medical marijuana. For years, patients suffering from crippling nausea and chronic pain swore that marijuana helped. Doctors – and politicians – insisted there were no studies to prove the truth of that. (Hello? It's a Schedule 1 drug and illegal under federal law. Of course there have been few studies.)
California decriminalized marijuana for medical purposes, and despite a Supreme Court decision upholding Congress's constitutional power to criminalize marijuana nationally, other states have followed suit. Thus, if we subsequently determine – officially – that marijuana does help patients with nausea and chronic pain, it will be in spite of what the "experts" told us, not because of it.
Now we have COVID-19, a global pandemic. The medical experts have been wrong about some things from the beginning. First we were told masks didn't help; now they're mandatory. Originally, we were told to stay home unless dealing with serious shortness of breath so we'd save ventilators for those who really needed them. Later information revealed that to be bad advice. Not only did it delay early intervention but some patients suffering from anoxia also have blood and circulatory problems, not pneumonia. That new information changed early detection and treatment.
We get it; mistakes will happen. But it is cynical and inaccurate to dismiss as mere "politics" people's legitimate concerns about government policies that cripple the economy, when those policies are based upon uncertain medical information.
The same can be said about medical treatments for the virus.
There are 330 million people in this country and nearly 8 billion globally. The virus will mutate. No medical intervention will work forever or for everyone. Physicians, clinicians and researchers are doing their best in a situation of incomplete and rapidly changing information. And they won't always agree.
Letting professionals try different treatments isn't dangerous, nor is the willingness to listen to multiple viewpoints. That's the way science works. What's dangerous is politicizing the research, the available treatments and the dissemination of information.
It's counterintuitive when we're told by government "experts" that only one perspective on the efficacy of treatments or medical interventions is permitted. It's absurd when the social media companies that gave us cat memes and duck-lip selfies proclaim themselves to be arbiters of accurate medical and scientific information. And every red flag should go up when the national media decides to make medical opinions on the efficacy of certain treatment methodologies a referendum on Donald Trump. Are you kidding? There's your "politicizing."
If you want people to heed your professional opinion, don't tie your professional opinion to your politics. If you tie your professional opinion to your politics, don't complain when those who don't agree with your politics don't take your professional opinion seriously.
And if you want people to believe the facts, then give them the facts, whether you like them or not. If you won't do that, then you won't be trusted, even – perhaps especially – when you need the public to trust you.


wnd--2020-08-13--GOP Congress members demand end to tax breaks for abortion

Over 100 Republican members of Congress sent a letter Wednesday calling on President Donald Trump ’ s administration to end tax deductions for abortions .
In a letter addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , 23 senators and 80 representatives urged the Department of the Treasury “ to take swift action to issue new regulations to protect innocent human life by ending tax breaks for abortion under the guise of medical care.
” “ Abortion is not health care , as it takes an innocent human life , ” Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines , who joined lawmakers in sending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News Foundation .
“ The IRS should reverse its misguided policy.
” The lawmakers note in the letter that following the passage of Roe v. Wade , IRS officials determined that “ amounts paid for any legal abortion are tax-deductible as ‘ medical care ’ under §213 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of the Internal Revenue Code.
” “ This holding , in turn , creates tax breaks for abortions through the medical expenses deduction as well as through health flexible spending accounts , health savings accounts , health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health accounts and tax breaks that incorporate §213 ( d ) ’ s definition of ‘ medical care , ' ” the letter from lawmakers said .
The senators and representatives insist that the holding must be reversed with regard to abortion .
“ Every human life from the moment of conception is invaluable , ” said Republican Indiana Sen. Mike Braun in a statement provided to the DCNF .
“ Taking the life of an unborn child through abortion is certainly not health care , and should not be treated as such.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the March for Life , the Susan B. Anthony List , the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , and Americans United for Life , have endorsed the letter , according to a press release from the Senate Pro-Life Caucus .
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Mary Margaret Olohan
Daily Caller News Foundation
Over 100 Republican members of Congress sent a letter Wednesday calling on President Donald Trump’s administration to end tax deductions for abortions.
In a letter addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, 23 senators and 80 representatives urged the Department of the Treasury “to take swift action to issue new regulations to protect innocent human life by ending tax breaks for abortion under the guise of medical care.”
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
“Abortion is not health care, as it takes an innocent human life,” Republican Montana Sen. Steve Daines, who joined lawmakers in sending the letter, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The IRS should reverse its misguided policy.”
Thank you @SenatorBraun and Rep. @WarrenDavidson for leading 103 members of Congress to urge @stevenmnuchin1 to issue new regs to protect innocent human life by ending tax breaks for abortion under the guise of medical care. https://t.co/bO14JCu5Ix — Susan B. Anthony List (@SBAList) August 13, 2020
The lawmakers note in the letter that following the passage of Roe v. Wade, IRS officials determined that “amounts paid for any legal abortion are tax-deductible as ‘medical care’ under §213(d)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code.”
“This holding, in turn, creates tax breaks for abortions through the medical expenses deduction as well as through health flexible spending accounts, health savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements, and other tax preferred health accounts and tax breaks that incorporate §213(d)’s definition of ‘medical care,'” the letter from lawmakers said.
The senators and representatives insist that the holding must be reversed with regard to abortion.
“Every human life from the moment of conception is invaluable,” said Republican Indiana Sen. Mike Braun in a statement provided to the DCNF. “Taking the life of an unborn child through abortion is certainly not health care, and should not be treated as such.”
A number of pro-life organizations, including the March for Life, the Susan B. Anthony List, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Americans United for Life, have endorsed the letter, according to a press release from the Senate Pro-Life Caucus.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-08-14--Harris once given qualified immunity, now wants it eliminated

A judge once gave Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris qualified immunity after a healthcare company sued the former California attorney general for allegedly blocking the company ’ s attempt to purchase a financially struggling Catholic hospital .
Prime Healthcare Services sued Harris for supposedly imposing strict conditions on the sale of the Daughters of Charity Health System in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions .
Prime scuttled the deal and claimed in the 2015 lawsuit that executives at Daughters told the company that Harris would block the sale if Prime did not agree to unionize Daughter ’ s network of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West ( SEIU-UHW ) in return promised to support Harris with $ 25 million in contributions .
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board reported on the lawsuit in a post Wednesday , noting also that Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego rejected Prime ’ s claim in 2017 and gave her qualified immunity .
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden selected Harris as his running mate Tuesday as he prepares for what will likely be an intense general election .
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s constitutional liberties .
Harris , a former California prosecutor , introduced a Senate resolution in June alongside Sens .
Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers .
Their bill came amid protests following the death of George Floyd , a black man who died in May after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes , video of the incident shows .
Harris “ abused her constitutional authority by placing her need for political financial support over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Troy Schell , general counsel for Prime , said in a 2015 statement .
Prime alleged that Harris effectively “ forced the company to withdraw its offer for the DCHS hospitals , jeopardizing health care in these underserved communities.
” Daughter ’ s board of directors selected Prime to take over the hospitals in 2014 , HealthCare Finance reported in 2015 .
Prime ’ s $ 843 million offer far exceeded all other proposals and allowed Daughters Charity ’ s healthcare mission to continue .
The deal also would have protected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s then-17,000 staff , according to HealthCare ’ s report .
Harris imposed several “ poison pills ” to the deal , The WSJ Editorial Board noted in the Wednesday report .
These included a condition forcing Prime to continue hospital operations unchanged for 10 years — the “ requirement that would have made it impossible to save the hospitals , ” according to Prime ’ s lawsuit .
Harris , who at the time was responsible for approving such acquisitions , also required Prime to maintain 24-hour nursing at the hospital , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laboratory , radiology and pharmacies for five years .
In addition , she mandated that hospitals offer 12 to 18 services such as orthopedics for 10 years .
“ These conditions were unprecedented , ” The WSJ Editorial Board noted .
Integrity Healthcare took over the hospitals in July 2015 before going bankrupt in 2018 due in part to the expense of managing the network , the Los Angeles Times reported in 2018 .
Verity Health , which is managed by Integrity , had more than $ 1 billion of debt from bonds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of taking on Daughters .
Santa Clara County , California bought two of the six hospitals in 2019 , according to Mercury News .
Prime Healthcare purchased another hospital in April , with California hospital operator AHMC Healthcare buying the remaining two in March , media reports show .
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , Harris ’ s successor , approved both the AHMC and Prime deals in July .
Harris has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation ’ s request for comment about the lawsuit and Prime ’ s claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Daily Caller News Foundation .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact [ email protected ]

By Chris White
Daily Caller News Foundation
A judge once gave Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris qualified immunity after a healthcare company sued the former California attorney general for allegedly blocking the company’s attempt to purchase a financially struggling Catholic hospital.
Prime Healthcare Services sued Harris for supposedly imposing strict conditions on the sale of the Daughters of Charity Health System in exchange for millions of dollars in contributions.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
Prime scuttled the deal and claimed in the 2015 lawsuit that executives at Daughters told the company that Harris would block the sale if Prime did not agree to unionize Daughter’s network of six hospitals. The lawsuit alleges Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) in return promised to support Harris with $25 million in contributions.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board reported on the lawsuit in a post Wednesday, noting also that Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego rejected Prime’s claim in 2017 and gave her qualified immunity.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden selected Harris as his running mate Tuesday as he prepares for what will likely be an intense general election.
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields public officials from liability for violating citizen’s constitutional liberties. Harris, a former California prosecutor, introduced a Senate resolution in June alongside Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Cory Booker of New Jersey to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement officers.
Their bill came amid protests following the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in May after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes, video of the incident shows.
Harris “abused her constitutional authority by placing her need for political financial support over the health-care needs of the people,” Troy Schell, general counsel for Prime, said in a 2015 statement. Prime alleged that Harris effectively “forced the company to withdraw its offer for the DCHS hospitals, jeopardizing health care in these underserved communities.”
Daughter’s board of directors selected Prime to take over the hospitals in 2014, HealthCare Finance reported in 2015. Prime’s $843 million offer far exceeded all other proposals and allowed Daughters Charity’s healthcare mission to continue. The deal also would have protected the unfunded pensions of the hospital network’s then-17,000 staff, according to HealthCare’s report.
Harris imposed several “poison pills” to the deal, The WSJ Editorial Board noted in the Wednesday report. These included a condition forcing Prime to continue hospital operations unchanged for 10 years — the “requirement that would have made it impossible to save the hospitals,” according to Prime’s lawsuit.
Harris, who at the time was responsible for approving such acquisitions, also required Prime to maintain 24-hour nursing at the hospital, as well as surgery, anesthesia, laboratory, radiology and pharmacies for five years. In addition, she mandated that hospitals offer 12 to 18 services such as orthopedics for 10 years. “These conditions were unprecedented,” The WSJ Editorial Board noted.
Integrity Healthcare took over the hospitals in July 2015 before going bankrupt in 2018 due in part to the expense of managing the network, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2018. Verity Health, which is managed by Integrity, had more than $1 billion of debt from bonds and unfunded pension liabilities as a result of taking on Daughters.
Santa Clara County, California bought two of the six hospitals in 2019, according to Mercury News. Prime Healthcare purchased another hospital in April, with California hospital operator AHMC Healthcare buying the remaining two in March, media reports show. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Harris’s successor, approved both the AHMC and Prime deals in July.
Harris has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the lawsuit and Prime’s claims.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


wnd--2020-08-14--Dem governor asks DNC to support abortion funding ban

( WASHINGTON EXAMINER ) -- Louisiana Gov .
John Bel Edwards on Friday petitioned the Democratic National Committee to support @ @ @ @ @ official platform .
Edwards , joined by a number of anti-abortion Democrats , including Illinois @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Collin Peterson , said in an open letter to the DNC that the party @ @ @ @ @ because `` many Democratic leaders support policies on abortion that are radically out of line @ @ @ @ @ `` When Democratic leaders support late-term abortion , they push many voters into the arms @ @ @ @ @ '' the letter said .
`` Many people holding pro-life views are single-issue voters .
@

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) -- Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards on Friday petitioned the Democratic National Committee to support the Hyde Amendment in its official platform.
Edwards, joined by a number of anti-abortion Democrats, including Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, said in an open letter to the DNC that the party is "alienating voters" because "many Democratic leaders support policies on abortion that are radically out of line with public opinion."
"When Democratic leaders support late-term abortion, they push many voters into the arms of the Republican Party," the letter said. "Many people holding pro-life views are single-issue voters."
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-14--Barr: 'Development' coming in Durham investigation

( FOX NEWS ) -- There will be `` a development '' Friday in Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham 's @ @ @ @ @ the Russia investigation , Attorney General William Barr told Fox News ' Sean Hannity in @ @ @ @ @ Barr said that the development would not be `` earth-shattering , '' but would be @ @ @ @ @ are moving along at the proper pace as dictated by the facts in this investigation @ @ @ @ @ two different things going on , Sean , '' Barr said .
`` I said @ @ @ @ @ know what actually happened , we need to get the story of what happened in @ @ @ @ @ That will be done .

(FOX NEWS) -- There will be "a development" Friday in Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, Attorney General William Barr told Fox News' Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview Thursday.
Barr said that the development would not be "earth-shattering," but would be "an indication that things are moving along at the proper pace as dictated by the facts in this investigation."
"There are two different things going on, Sean," Barr said. "I said the American people need to know what actually happened, we need to get the story of what happened in 2016 and '17 out. That will be done.
Read the full story ›


wnd--2020-08-14--Kamala Harris, imaginary centrist

Kamala Harris, imaginary centrist

By the time the 2020 campaign ends , president-in-waiting Kamala Harris will have been transformed into the greatest exemplar of judicious centrism and political level-headedness in American history .
`` Kamala Harris comes from the middle-of-the-road , moderate wing of the Democratic Party , '' claims George Stephanopoulos .
Though The New York Times was the first to call Joe Biden 's running mate a `` pragmatic moderate , '' CNN concurred , as did a reporter on CNBC , who noted that Harris is `` widely considered a moderate Democrat . ''
The Associated Press claims that she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' A writer for New York magazine wonders if progressives will ever be able to find it in their hearts to forgive Harris 's `` moderation . ''
David Byler at The Washington Post ratchets it up by declaring Harris is a `` small-c conservative . ''
( Drew Holden has a running inventory of this trend . )
Professional political analysts marveled at the alleged incongruity of the dueling GOP accusations that Harris was both a hardcore left-winger and `` a cop , '' as if the use of state force is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have news for you : Nearly every policy Harris supports will entail compelling Americans to participate .
According to GovTrack , Harris 's record in the Senate , in fact , is more liberal than that of self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders .
Harris was , apparently , least likely of all Democratic senators to join in any bipartisan bills .
Then again , we do n't really need a tracker to inform us that Harris has taken a host of positions that sit well outside the traditional political agendas – outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there a single issue in which Harris has not staked out a stance to the left of Barack Obama ?
Now , obviously , everyone operates under the notion that the Democratic Party has a historical imperative to `` evolve '' leftward .
Even considering this trajectory , there is no compelling case to be made that Harris is a `` moderate '' in either her political manner or her ideological disposition .
As the National Review editors noted , Harris is at best a `` moderate autocrat . ''
She is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Literally laughing at the Constitution as a restraint of political power is just the start .
Setting aside her long record of investigatory and prosecutorial abuses in California – including against ideological opponents – Harris will likely be the first candidate on a major presidential ticket to support gun confiscation and the creation of a gun registry .
At one point , Harris promised to ban private health insurance .
She supports ending all restrictions on state-funded abortion .
She supports banning all fossil fuels within a decade .
She supports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to corrode checks and balances of American governance .
And she has promised to pursue a number of these policies by circumventing the legislative branch if Congress does n't take orders from her .
And the same reporters who take every mangled Trumpian assertion hyperliterally will treat Harris ' contentions and positions neither seriously nor literally .
None of this is new .
You might recall that when there seemed to be a chance that Sanders might capture the Democratic presidential nomination , columnists began whipping up think pieces to worries about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatism '' and other imaginary qualities of the Vermont senator .
Similar effort dominated Barack Obama 's run for the White House , even though the future president told us that he planned to fundamentally change the nation .
And after Democrats lost Congress from 2010 to 2014 , the inability of Obama to move forward with his agenda was quickly framed as evidence of his moderation .
Obama was always going to go as far left as was politically feasible – for instance , in his fight with moderate Blue Dogs on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same as having restrained aims .
Now , there 's a strong argument to make that neither side is really captivated by the thought of centrism anymore .
And we are all aware of the numerous arguments against Donald Trump 's candidacy .
Though temperamentally the president is n't anything approaching a small-c conservative , his policy aims are well within the centrist tradition .
Trump is a largely unideological populist , whose views on trade , spending , the border and foreign policy – and a host of other major issues – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any standard , he is more of a centrist than Kamala Harris .
Why is n't his agenda ever framed that way ?
Well , because the `` center '' of American politics will always be wherever the Democratic Party 's nominees happen to stand .

By the time the 2020 campaign ends, president-in-waiting Kamala Harris will have been transformed into the greatest exemplar of judicious centrism and political level-headedness in American history.
"Kamala Harris comes from the middle-of-the-road, moderate wing of the Democratic Party," claims George Stephanopoulos. Though The New York Times was the first to call Joe Biden's running mate a "pragmatic moderate," CNN concurred, as did a reporter on CNBC, who noted that Harris is "widely considered a moderate Democrat." The Associated Press claims that she was picked for her "centrist record." A writer for New York magazine wonders if progressives will ever be able to find it in their hearts to forgive Harris's "moderation." David Byler at The Washington Post ratchets it up by declaring Harris is a "small-c conservative." (Drew Holden has a running inventory of this trend.)
Professional political analysts marveled at the alleged incongruity of the dueling GOP accusations that Harris was both a hardcore left-winger and "a cop," as if the use of state force is somehow alien to progressive ideological aims. I have news for you: Nearly every policy Harris supports will entail compelling Americans to participate.
According to GovTrack, Harris's record in the Senate, in fact, is more liberal than that of self-proclaimed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. Harris was, apparently, least likely of all Democratic senators to join in any bipartisan bills. Then again, we don't really need a tracker to inform us that Harris has taken a host of positions that sit well outside the traditional political agendas – outside even traditional Democratic Party agendas. Is there a single issue in which Harris has not staked out a stance to the left of Barack Obama?
Now, obviously, everyone operates under the notion that the Democratic Party has a historical imperative to "evolve" leftward. Even considering this trajectory, there is no compelling case to be made that Harris is a "moderate" in either her political manner or her ideological disposition. As the National Review editors noted, Harris is at best a "moderate autocrat." She is, by her own account, an anti-constitutionalist. Literally laughing at the Constitution as a restraint of political power is just the start. Setting aside her long record of investigatory and prosecutorial abuses in California – including against ideological opponents – Harris will likely be the first candidate on a major presidential ticket to support gun confiscation and the creation of a gun registry. At one point, Harris promised to ban private health insurance. She supports ending all restrictions on state-funded abortion. She supports banning all fossil fuels within a decade. She supports the partisan packing of courts, in an effort to corrode checks and balances of American governance. And she has promised to pursue a number of these policies by circumventing the legislative branch if Congress doesn't take orders from her.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
And the same reporters who take every mangled Trumpian assertion hyperliterally will treat Harris' contentions and positions neither seriously nor literally.
None of this is new. You might recall that when there seemed to be a chance that Sanders might capture the Democratic presidential nomination, columnists began whipping up think pieces to worries about his radicalism, wondering about his "conservatism" and other imaginary qualities of the Vermont senator.
Similar effort dominated Barack Obama's run for the White House, even though the future president told us that he planned to fundamentally change the nation. And after Democrats lost Congress from 2010 to 2014, the inability of Obama to move forward with his agenda was quickly framed as evidence of his moderation. Obama was always going to go as far left as was politically feasible – for instance, in his fight with moderate Blue Dogs on Obamacare – which is not exactly the same as having restrained aims.
Now, there's a strong argument to make that neither side is really captivated by the thought of centrism anymore. And we are all aware of the numerous arguments against Donald Trump's candidacy. Though temperamentally the president isn't anything approaching a small-c conservative, his policy aims are well within the centrist tradition. Trump is a largely unideological populist, whose views on trade, spending, the border and foreign policy – and a host of other major issues – are well within the mainstream. By any standard, he is more of a centrist than Kamala Harris.
Why isn't his agenda ever framed that way? Well, because the "center" of American politics will always be wherever the Democratic Party's nominees happen to stand.


wnd--2020-08-14--Black bear breaks into pizza-delivery driver's car, completely destroys inside

Bears are notorious for following their noses to fill their bellies .
Campers are told to never put food in their tents and to rig up their food so bears ca n't get into it .
Trash bins in bear-infested areas have special locks to keep the creatures out of the garbage .
People in Juneau , Alaska , are very familiar with the scavengers .
And during this time of the year , the potential for interactions between people and bears is high .
Recently , two bears were put down by authorities after an alleged bear attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack took place -- though it was significantly less scary .
A black bear must have smelled the residual pizza aroma in a pizza delivery car , and it broke in .
The inside of the car , which belonged to Juneau Pizza deliverer Andrew Fairchild , was shredded .
`` I think it was the delicious smell of the pizza that drove the bear to the point where he could not resist the urge to go into the car , '' Fairchild told the Juneau Empire .
`` It ’ s pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belt was ripped completely out .
The panel where the stereo is ripped off . ''
`` It was about 3 a.m. , in the wee hours of the morning , '' he continued .
`` We were awoken by a commotion by all the neighbors standing around .
It kept honking the horn . ''
Photos show the inside of the car in a shambles .
The bear eventually wandered off , but it returned , still not ready to give up .
When it came back for round two , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minivan , but -- perhaps because there was no tantalizing smell -- did n't inflict the same sort of damage on her car .
`` Luckily we have local insurance and they completely understand what ’ s going , '' Fairchild added .
`` Fix Auto was immediately on top of it and it ’ s already in the shop .
Also , thanks to Capital Towing . ''
The bear disappeared into the night , and a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said that if they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to put it down , as breaking into cars `` brings it up to that next level of damage . ''
The restaurant shared the photos along with some sarcastic sentiments .
`` Pizza delivery car -- assaulted by black bear , '' Juneau Pizza posted on Friday .
`` There was no pizza was inside the vehicle at the time of the incident . ''
`` No playing favorites , '' they commented on the post , `` the bear wants a pizza he has to call it in just like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originally on The Western Journal .

Bears are notorious for following their noses to fill their bellies.
Campers are told to never put food in their tents and to rig up their food so bears can't get into it. Trash bins in bear-infested areas have special locks to keep the creatures out of the garbage.
People in Juneau, Alaska, are very familiar with the scavengers. And during this time of the year, the potential for interactions between people and bears is high.
Recently, two bears were put down by authorities after an alleged bear attack on a man. On Friday, another attack took place -- though it was significantly less scary.
A black bear must have smelled the residual pizza aroma in a pizza delivery car, and it broke in. The inside of the car, which belonged to Juneau Pizza deliverer Andrew Fairchild, was shredded.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
"I think it was the delicious smell of the pizza that drove the bear to the point where he could not resist the urge to go into the car," Fairchild told the Juneau Empire. "It’s pretty totaled on the inside. The seat belt was ripped completely out. The panel where the stereo is ripped off."
"It was about 3 a.m., in the wee hours of the morning," he continued. "We were awoken by a commotion by all the neighbors standing around. It kept honking the horn."
Photos show the inside of the car in a shambles. The bear eventually wandered off, but it returned, still not ready to give up.
When it came back for round two, it investigated Fairchild's daughter's car, a minivan, but -- perhaps because there was no tantalizing smell -- didn't inflict the same sort of damage on her car.
"Luckily we have local insurance and they completely understand what’s going," Fairchild added. "Fix Auto was immediately on top of it and it’s already in the shop. Also, thanks to Capital Towing."
The bear disappeared into the night, and a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said that if they did capture the bear, they would likely have to put it down, as breaking into cars "brings it up to that next level of damage."
The restaurant shared the photos along with some sarcastic sentiments.
"Pizza delivery car -- assaulted by black bear," Juneau Pizza posted on Friday. "There was no pizza was inside the vehicle at the time of the incident."
"No playing favorites," they commented on the post, "the bear wants a pizza he has to call it in just like everyone else."
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.


wnd--2020-08-14--Trump rolls back Obama water regulation so bad it was mistaken for a scam

The political left is up in arms after the federal government announced a plan to cut a decade-old water conservation regulation , mocking President Donald Trump for caring more about his showers than the planet .
What many fail to mention is that the original enforcement guidance , a policy of former President Barack Obama 's administration , was so bad that it caused industry outrage and was even mistaken for a scam .
The government 's reversal of the previous interpretation is set to give companies more market power as they try new models , and consumers more freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes one last relic of the Obama administration out of American bathrooms .
The original 1992 Energy Policy Act set the maximum flow of `` any showerhead '' to be 2.5 gallons per minute or less .
This was largely interpreted to mean the restriction applied to individual nozzles in a system , so that showerheads with separate hoses , columns with body-spraying jets , and other configurations could emit 2.5 gallons per nozzle .
After a year of review following a publicly released draft , the former administration issued the guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , all nozzles in a system can not exceed 2.5 gpm total when used together .
For showerheads with only two nozzles , this meant up to a 50 percent reduction of power .
On more complicated systems , the restriction made the devices functionally impractical .
The update was such a drastic change that one person thought a letter from the government about the restriction was part of some criminal scheme .
`` At first , I thought it was a scam , '' Pedro Mier , vice president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told The Foundation for Economic Education in 2017 .
Mier 's company was forced to stop selling several high-flow models despite the showerheads ' popularity among customers .
Of course , Trump 's move to give more freedom to the American consumer is being panned by the left as narcissistic and embarrassing .
Mockery of the president 's hair is widespread in criticisms of the decision .
The deregulation of American bathing habits is only the latest in Trump 's war against government red tape .
Giving companies and customers more freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring our economy roaring back stronger than ever .
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal .

The political left is up in arms after the federal government announced a plan to cut a decade-old water conservation regulation, mocking President Donald Trump for caring more about his showers than the planet.
What many fail to mention is that the original enforcement guidance, a policy of former President Barack Obama's administration, was so bad that it caused industry outrage and was even mistaken for a scam.
Trump's Department of Energy issued the rule change Thursday.
The government's reversal of the previous interpretation is set to give companies more market power as they try new models, and consumers more freedom of choice.
Best of all, it takes one last relic of the Obama administration out of American bathrooms.
TRENDING: Is this the 'Final Battle'?
The original 1992 Energy Policy Act set the maximum flow of "any showerhead" to be 2.5 gallons per minute or less.
This was largely interpreted to mean the restriction applied to individual nozzles in a system, so that showerheads with separate hoses, columns with body-spraying jets, and other configurations could emit 2.5 gallons per nozzle.
An Obama-era guidance change drastically reversed this interpretation.
After a year of review following a publicly released draft, the former administration issued the guidance change in 2011. Under the updated view, all nozzles in a system cannot exceed 2.5 gpm total when used together.
For showerheads with only two nozzles, this meant up to a 50 percent reduction of power. On more complicated systems, the restriction made the devices functionally impractical.
The update was such a drastic change that one person thought a letter from the government about the restriction was part of some criminal scheme.
"At first, I thought it was a scam," Pedro Mier, vice president of the bathroom and kitchen fixture company Altmans Products, told The Foundation for Economic Education in 2017.
Mier's company was forced to stop selling several high-flow models despite the showerheads' popularity among customers.
Of course, Trump's move to give more freedom to the American consumer is being panned by the left as narcissistic and embarrassing. Mockery of the president's hair is widespread in criticisms of the decision.
I cannot believe I have to say this: the federal government should not be changing our country’s water efficiency standards because Donald Trump is having problems washing his hair. https://t.co/twHtj6zK8S — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) August 13, 2020
We're also now just wildly embarrassing: "The Energy Department today proposed easing efficiency requirements for shower heads following multiple complaints from President Trump about how low water flow is impeding his ability to properly wash his hair."https://t.co/oQzflFDbJ7 — Rachel Maddow MSNBC (@maddow) August 12, 2020
The deregulation of American bathing habits is only the latest in Trump's war against government red tape. Giving companies and customers more freedom than ever is a surefire way to bring our economy roaring back stronger than ever.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.