Trump Blew it on his Proposed Tax Plan

Pile more taxes on the wealthy and allow those below a certain level to never pay anything. We have that now. What is new? Not too much and no mention of the more proven plan called ‘Fair Tax’.

TownHall in part:

Trump’s plan for an overhaul of the U.S. tax code would eliminate federal income taxes on individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000. He said those individuals would receive “a new one page form to send the IRS saying, ‘I win.'”

Trump’s plan would also disproportionally benefit wealthy earners by lowering the highest income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and businesses by cutting their tax rate — from major corporations to mom-and-pop shops — to no more than 15 percent.

Trump said his plan would also bring in new sources of revenue to the Treasury by allowing corporations to bring money held in overseas accounts back to the United States after paying a one-time tax of 10 percent. He would also prevent companies from deferring taxes paid on income earned abroad.

In sum, he says, the changes he wants to enact would not add to the annual federal budget deficit or the national debt.

“We have an amazing code,” Trump said of his tax system. “It will be simple. It will be easy. It will be fair.”

Trump said the plan had been crafted with the help of leading economists, but refused to say who they are during his news conference. He also said his plan didn’t suit any particular political agenda, describing it as a “common sense approach.”

Trump to Call for Higher Taxes on the Wealthy

WSJ via MSN:

Donald Trump is set to release a tax plan Monday that calls for major reductions in levies on middle-income and poor payers, while increasing taxes on the wealthy and reining in companies that pay less in taxes by moving their headquarters overseas.

The plan will offer a “major tax reduction for almost all citizens” and help stimulate business in the U.S. again, the Republican candidate’s campaign said Sunday.

The GOP presidential front-runner is also expected to call for the poorest filers to pay no federal taxes at all while also recommending that corporate levies be reduced.

In an interview set to air on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night, Mr. Trump shrugged off questions as to how he would pay for the tax plan and what kind of Republican presidential candidate would recommend that the wealthy pay more to the government.

“Some very wealthy are going to be raised. Some people that are getting unfair deductions are going to be raised,” Mr. Trump told CBS anchor Scott Pelley about his tax plan, according to a transcript. “But overall it’s going to be a tremendous incentive to grow the economy and we’re going to take in the same or more money.”

The tax plan will be the second policy platform released by Mr. Trump in the more than three months since he declared his candidacy. He released a six-page paper outlining his hard-line stance on immigration last month.

The tax plan comes at an uncertain time for Mr. Trump as his summer status as the Republican front-runner could be fading with the arrival of fall. The businessman has led rounds of national public polls and drawn massive crowds to his campaign rallies, but his support has shown some signs of softening as other outsider candidates gain steam.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Sunday showed Mr. Trump is still the race’s front-runner with 21% of GOP primary voters saying he is their top pick, but he’s now virtually tied with Ben Carson, with 20% of those surveyed favoring the retired neurosurgeon. In the prior Journal/NBC News poll, Mr. Carson had only 10% of support compared with Mr. Trump’s 19%.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump came in fifth in a straw poll of social conservatives surveyed by the Family Research Council at the conclusion of its Values Voter Summit in Washington. He trailed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Mr. Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

Of the 1,151 summit participants who voted in the straw poll, 56 chose Mr. Trump for president, with 20 respondents saying he would make a good vice president.

Mr. Trump brought a Bible on stage with him during his Friday appearance at the summit and his address was full, but the businessman was booed when he called Mr. Rubio a “clown” at the event.

Mr. Trump is slated to hold a private meeting with evangelical Christian leaders at Trump Towers in Manhattan Monday afternoon. An invitation said the meeting would be capped at 30 people, but about 45 religious leaders have said they plan to attend the hourlong session, according to a person familiar with its planning.

Participants will come from churches across the country, and many are African-American pastors, the person said.

During the “60 Minutes” segment, Mr. Pelley repeatedly tried to press Mr. Trump to be more detailed with his policies and the two men went back and forth several times.

Regarding his plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Trump said he would be able to extend health insurance universally in the U.S. by making “a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people.” Coverage would be private, he said.

“They can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything,” Mr. Trump said about his health plan.

Mr. Trump said that the North American Free Trade Agreement should be ended regardless of breaking a standing international deal. He said he would support sending ground troops to Iraq to fight Islamic State, but would seek less involvement in Syria, believing that Islamic State and the Assad regime would turn on each other and then the U.S. would “pick up the remnants.”

When asked how he would get along with Congress to get his plans passed, Mr. Trump said his leadership style would pave the way.

“I’ve gotten along with politicians my whole life. I’ve made a fortune on politicians. Nobody knows politicians better than I do. I get along with politicians,” Mr. Trump said.

In discussing his personal life, Mr. Trump said his life’s greatest hardship was the loss of his brother, Fred, to alcohol abuse. Mr. Trump said it motivated his decision to not drink.

“I’ve never had a drink. I own the largest winery on the east coast and yet I don’t drink which is a little weird,” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump didn’t shy away from the image that he is a narcissist. When asked about magazine covers featuring the businessman that line the walls of his office at Trump Towers, he quipped: “it’s cheaper than wallpaper.”

Hillary, State of State and the Foundation

One has to wonder how retired Admiral Kirby, the State Department spokesperson is gonna spin all the mess noted below.

Hillary Clinton last month signed a certification of all emails being turned over and back to the State Department. Now there is a signature and possible perjury condition.

Are the phone calls flying to the White House demanding ‘executive privilege’ for Hillary and her team?

In part from the DailyCaller and good research team: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official diplomatic business created many national security problems, but they may pale by comparison with the wreckage she left behind in her department’s main digital information security office.

Harold W. Geisel, the State Department’s acting Inspector General, issued eight scathing audits and investigation reports during Clinton’s tenure, repeatedly warning about worsening problems and growing security weaknesses within the Bureau of Information Resource Management, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

Geisel’s critical comments about the deficiencies throughout IRM carry additional weight since he was not considered an “independent” IG.  Watchdog groups noted Geisel had served as a U.S. Ambassador for Hillary’s husband, President Clinton, and had never been confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In fact, President Obama did not nominate an IG to the State Department during Clinton’s entire term. It was only in September 2013 that the Senate finally confirmed Geisel’s successor, Steve Linick, who currently occupies the the post.

After Clinton left the State Department in 2013, Linick quickly undertook remedial action to save the IRM. Barely two months after his Senate confirmation, he issued a “management alert” to State Department leadership, warning that IRM’s languishing security deficiencies since 2010 were still there.

“The department has yet to report externally on or correct many of the existing significant deficiencies, thereby leading to continuing undue risk in the management of information,” Linick said.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not respond Sunday to a request for comment.

Clinton put Bryan Pagliano, her 2008 presidential campaign IT director, in the IRM in early 2009 as a “strategic advisor” who reported to the department’s deputy chief information officer. Pagliano had no prior national security experience or a national security clearance.

The seriousness of Clinton’s failure was summarized in a 2012 audit that warned, “the weakened security controls could adversely affect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems” used by U.S. officials around the world.

Geisel’s July 2013 inspection report issued after Clinton’s departure was so damning that the IRM became the butt of caustic comments throughout the IT world.

Network World, an IT review site, for example, headlined one of its articles on the issue with “FAIL: Your Tax Dollars at Play: the US State Department’s Bureau of Information of Resource Mis-Management.” The article charged that the IRM had become “a total joke.”

Another news outlet told its readers that the editors would “like to be able to tell you what the IRM does, but a new report from the Office of Inspector General concludes that it doesn’t really do anything.”

IRM “is evidently an aimless, over-funded LAN party with no real boss or reason to exist,” concluded reporter Jordan Brochette when the 2013 IG report was released.

Scott Amey, general counsel for the Project on Government Oversight, reviewed the IG reports for DCNF and concluded that “State’s IT security record is littered with questionable management, insecure systems, poor contract oversight, and inadequate training. The State IG’s reviews show a pattern of significant deficiencies and few, if any, corrections.”

Geisel issued his first audit of IRM in November 2009, eight months into Clinton’s term. It also was the first audit issued after Pagliano arrived at the bureau. Geisel identified many serious IT security deficiencies that year. Unfortunately, most of the problems would continue to be uncorrected throughout Clinton’s term.

One troubling observation early in Clinton’s secretaryship was that the IG found the State Department and even embassy chiefs of mission suffering from a lack of IT security training, including the lack of “security awareness training.”

The lack of IT security awareness by top State Department officials may partly explain why Clinton and her top aides saw no problems with the use of a personal email server. (RELATED: Fmr. CIA Head: Hillary’s Email Server Was Compromised By Foreign Intel Services)

Geisel also warned in late 2009 that at the IRM, he found “there were no Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for managing IT-related security weaknesses.”

In an audit about IRM in February 2010, the IG reviewed how well IRM officials were implementing Secretary Rice’s 2007 modernization and consolidation progam.

It was in this 2010 audit that the first hints emerged of poor management at the IRM. Geisel concluded the bureau’s leadership failed to satisfy vulnerable IRM field staff deployed at embassies and consulates.  He called them IRM’s “customers.”

The IG “found a significant level of customer dissatisfaction among bureaus about the quality and timeliness of IT services after consolidation.”

In November 2010 Geisel issued yet another warning about shortcomings within IRM. In this report, the IG repeated that IRM “needed to make significant improvements” to address “security weaknesses,”

Once again, he emphasized that IRM had failed in providing mandatory “security awareness training” to all top security personnel. He also noted a failure to require all contractors to undergo mandatory security authorization.

“The department did not identify all employees who had significant security responsibilities and provide specialized training,” the IG charged.

The IG discovered other worrisome problems in 2010. It found officials failed to provide corrective patches for security problems in a third of the cases examined by his office. The IG also pointed to more than 1,000 “guest” IT accounts within the department’s IT systems that could provide entry paths for hackers.

Geisel further reported that the IRM had 8,000 unused email accounts and that department officials never changed the passwords on 600 active email embassy and consulate accounts.

There were also “24 of 25 Windows systems tested [that] were not compliant with the security configuration guidance.”

The damning IG reports continued in July 2011 when Geisel detailed serious problems afflicting a new IRM program called eDiplomacy that Clinton unveiled earlier that year.

Geisel was blunt: “eDiplomacy lacks a clear, agreed-upon mission statement that defines key goals and objectives. With the absence of performance measurement process, management has few means to evaluate, control, budget, and measure the success of its projects.”

Geisel painted an alarmingly negative assessment in a November 2011 audit on the IRM’s overall information security program. Specific details were redacted but the report warned for the first time of “additional security breaches,” saying “we identified weaknesses that significantly impact the information security program controls. If these control weaknesses are exploited, the department could be exposed to additional security breaches. Collectively, these control weaknesses represent a significant deficiency.”

If the breaches weren’t quickly fixed, the consequences would be harmful to “the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and information systems.” Complete summary here.

*** Then there is the Clinton Foundation and the proven interaction of the State Department with the Clinton Charity:

Clinton Aide Shared Classified Information With Foundation, Email Shows

FreeBeacon: A member of Hillary Clinton’s staff at the Department of State emailed classified information about the government in Congo to a staffer at the Clinton Foundation in 2012, according to a copy of the correspondence obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, sent the email to the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, Amitabh Desai, on July 12, 2012.

The message, which was originally obtained by the group Citizens United through a public records request, is partially redacted because it includes “foreign government information” that has been classified as “Confidential” by the State Department.

Although the information was not marked classified by the State Department until this past summer, intelligence sources tell the Free Beacon that it would have been classified at the time Mills sent it because “foreign government information” is considered classified from inception.

The message could add to concerns from congressional and FBI investigators about whether former Secretary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information while at the State Department.

The email, which discussed the relationship between the governments in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, was originally drafted by Johnnie Carson, the State Department’s assistant secretary for African affairs, who sent it to Mills’ State Department email address.

Mills later forwarded the full message to Desai along with “talking points for Presient [sic] Clinton” shortly before Bill Clinton was scheduled to visit the region.

About half of the forwarded message was redacted due to its classified nature before the State Department released it to Citizens United last month. Although it is not clear what the redacted section includes, the State Department said in a court motion filed last week that it “concerns both foreign government information and critical aspects of U.S. foreign relations, including U.S. foreign activities carried out by officials of the U.S. Government.”

The State Department added that the “disclosure of this information has the potential to damage and inject friction into our bilateral relationship with African countries whose cooperation is important to U.S. national security.”

The Clinton Foundation and the State Department did not respond to request for comment about the email, or say whether Desai—a non-government employee who has worked at the foundation since 2007—would have been authorized to view “Confidential” information.

Mills currently sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation. She previously served on the board until a month after she joined the State Department in 2009.

An attorney for Mills said that she never knowingly transmitted classified information, and would presume that any information sent to her unclassified State Department email address—as opposed to through the department’s secure email system—was unclassified.

“When a subject matter sent the information on the unclassified system, [Mills] presumed it was unclassified,” said the attorney. ”She never knowingly transmitted classified information.”

Mills’ spokesperson also disputed the notion that the information would have been classified when it was sent. The attorney said that some information is not deemed classified until it is transmitted outside of the State Department.

“Information that is considered unclassified when discussed inside the State Department can later be deemed classified when it is being released outside of the Department,” said the attorney.

Intelligence experts have told the Free Beacon and other media outlets that “foreign government information” is one of the few categories of information that is automatically presumed classified from the time the U.S. government receives it, because it is so diplomatically sensitive.

Foreign government information is “born classified,” J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office, told Reuters in August.

The controversy over Clinton’s use of a private email server while at the State Department has been dogging her presidential bid since it was first revealed by the New York Times earlier this spring.

The Democratic frontrunner has turned over many of her emails in response to a State Department request and congressional inquiries. However, she has said that any emails that were deemed “personal” were deleted from her server.

The FBI is currently attempting to recover the deleted emails as part of an investigation into her server, according to reports.

Clinton declined to say whether the FBI investigation could uncover additional damaging revelations, during an interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press on Sunday.

“All I can tell you is that when my attorneys conducted this exhaustive process [of deleting personal emails], I did not participate,” said Clinton.

Clinton is scheduled to testify before Congress on the email issue in October.

Citizens United president David Bossie said the latest news reveals the ways in which the Clintons’s various interests intersect.

“The tangled web that is Clinton, Inc.—the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Teneo—is coming more and more into focus every day. Classified information moving from the State Department to the Clinton Foundation is extremely problematic—we’ll see if there’s a pattern here,” Bossie said.

 

 

 

Why No Search Warrant for Hillary’s Mobile Devices?

The revelation that Hillary had her own email server was a shocker. Then the forced and scheduled production of those emails was another shocker as they were produced. The Trey Gowdy House Benghazi Committee being stonewalled by the Clinton camp and by the State Department was another shocker as compared with Hillary’s own false pledges of cooperation. Several outside organizations have been forced to file FOIA requests and then were forced to file lawsuits for production of those FOIA requests. This is coupled with the subpoenas from the Gowdy commission.

We hear about the server and the emails, but to date, it seems any request for search warrants has been nil. We cannot overlook the fact that Hillary also had and may still have 3 mobile devices, a Blackberry, and iPhone and an iPad. What about the electronic data on those devices or the meta-data trail to either back up the server data or perhaps in addition to that cache the FBI is investigating?

To date, the general conclusion is the FBI is protecting Hillary at the behest of the Justice Department, which hardly seems to be the case. The FBI has assigned their ‘A’ team to this mission and they have a multi-track objective that includes global cyber- espionage, hacking and a meticulous investigation to determine just how many laws were broken beyond the scope of the one or two prevailing violations of protecting classified material. It must be mentioned here that the FBI was also a recipient from the normal intelligence distribution list, so the FBI has their own record of transmissions that went to Hillary and other intelligence or national security personnel.

It would also be a good time as well to include the fact that the Chinese hacked the Office of Personnel management and was able to capture files of all security clearance employees which included Hillary. It is estimate that the OPM hack was determined to have occurred in June of 2014, a year or so after Hillary left her position as Secretary of State, but that OPM hack date is an estimate. Further the depths of the stolen electronic files are still being realized and those numbers are growing exponentially. Were they other known foreign hacks the FBI has open case files on, beyond the OPM intrusion?

This is an important and perhaps a top concern for the FBI, the NSA and associated cyber agencies to determine other possible foreign hacks into Hillary’s electronic files and those of her inner circle personnel. This could in fact be the single reason why the White House or the Obama National Security Council has chosen to defer answers and comments on the Hillary server-gate scandal to either the Department of Justice or the FBI. There is a high probability of a deeper and more threatening security condition of classified material. There could be the likelihood of other cyber intrusions being investigated by the FBI that have not been made public for which Hillary and her team may have been victims.

Anyway, this is hardly a matter that will be solved soon, yet it is a sure bet that almost daily more will bubble to the surface. Meanwhile, Politico has published a fairly good summary as to why Hillary and her lawyers are white knuckled and in panic mode at this moment.

One also cannot omit the entire notion that violations on behalf of Hillary, Bill, Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others at the Clinton Foundation or at the State Department could add to the building nightmares for those mentioned or for the Hillary legal team headed by David Kendall. Mixing government business with a private and global foundation where big big money moved back and forth could be the cherry on the banana split for this building scandal.

Hillary’s FBI nightmare

If the feds have Clinton’s personal emails, too, some of them are bound to come out — exactly as she feared.

The next question in the Hillary Clinton email matter is who will force the FBI to release any documents it may have retrieved from the 2016 presidential candidate’s homemade server — Congress or the courts?

The answer: A federal judge may decide to get aggressive and order the law enforcement agency to turn over any newly discovered records or at least preserve them pending further court action. But don’t expect congressional subpoenas to fly — or FBI director James Comey to get hauled to Capitol Hill anytime soon.

Key congressional committees investigating Clinton’s emails argue that the courts are better suited to force the release of federal documents. One GOP source familiar with the investigations said a congressional committee could “theoretically subpoena the FBI” to demand the contents of Clinton’s server, but judges are likely to wade into the issue first.

“I think the court is better positioned right now because of where the cases are in litigation,” the source said.

Court action, however, depends on the aggressiveness of federal judges who are now managing more than 30 Freedom of Information Act cases involving emails on accounts maintained by Clinton or her top aides.

The FBI has already rebuffed one judge’s effort to obtain messages the agency has recovered from Clinton’s server, prompting a stinging attack from Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Wednesday, key members of Capitol Hill expressed reluctance to dive in after a report surfaced that the FBI has successfully retrieved messages left on Clinton’s server. The FBI declined to confirm the Bloomberg report Wednesday.

House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy — a former federal prosecutor — made clear through a spokesman that he has no intention to cross swords with the FBI.

“Chairman Gowdy has not asked the FBI about its investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unusual and unprecedented email arrangement, nor has the Bureau offered a briefing to the committee,” Benghazi panel spokesman Jamal Ware said.

“The chairman believes the FBI is the nation’s premier law enforcement agency and he is not willing to comment on its ongoing investigation into the mishandling of classified information in connection with Secretary Clinton’s server.”

Grassley said he was concerned by anonymous leaks cited in the Bloomberg story, noting that the FBI has not responded to congressional inquiries about the investigation.

“You know it is getting a little absurd when someone at the Justice Department is apparently leaking details to the press about an investigation that the department officially refuses to admit to Congress that it is conducting,” Grassley said.

“In light of the details reported in the media, the committee will be seeking more information about the State Department’s attempts to regain possession of the email records that should have remained at the State Department in the first place. The FBI should also provide clarity on how it will handle the emails now that they have been recovered from the server.”

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he was “hopeful” that the results of the FBI inquiry will be made public. He promised to press his own inquiry but offered no specifics.

Regardless of what Congress decides to do, Hillary Clinton’s decision to have a tech firm she hired turn the server over to the FBI last month at its request greatly raises the potential that messages she has claimed to be private will eventually make it into the public domain, lawyers tracking the case said. Clinton has said that she had tens of thousands of emails deleted after determining that they contained personal information, but now the FBI appears to have at least some of those in its possession.

“This is enormously significant,” said Dan Metcalfe, a former top Justice Department official handling disclosure issues. “It’s one thing for the bureau to have taken control of the server itself, and when you add to that their technical capabilities to glean information from it, if there is information there that transcends what [Clinton] furnished to State, I think the odds are exceedingly high that that at least some if not all of that information will ultimately enter the public domain.”

While State and the National Archives have determined that about 1,500 of the 30,000 emails Clinton turned over last December are entirely personal records, that determination won’t render those messages or others entirely and indefinitely off limits under the Freedom of Information Act if they turn up in the FBI’s files after being extracted from Clinton’s server, Metcalfe said.

“Those are no longer merely personal records,” said Metcalfe, a former director of Justice’s Office of Information & Privacy who now teaches law at American University. “Anything that the bureau pulls off that server, old messages, new messages, Hillary’s allegedly personal messages, Hillary’s admittedly official records is now an agency record of the bureau’s law enforcement activities.”

Metcalfe said those records could be withheld by the FBI, but once its investigation ends, the documents would have to be processed if requested. That could lead to messages State viewed as entirely personal being published at least in part, he added.

Meanwhile, action continues in the courts. On Monday, the FBI turned down U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan’s invitation to explain where its investigation stands. The response led Grassley to blast the FBI for “behaving like it’s above the law.”

Sullivan has not yet signaled what other steps he will take, if any. The plaintiff in the case, the conservative group Judicial Watch, could ask the judge to issue a subpoena to the FBI for relevant records. It would be an unusual step and likely lead to legal fireworks.

“A subpoena served upon the FBI will be resisted by the U.S. attorney’s office,” predicted former federal magistrate John Facciola.

At a hearing earlier this month in another case, U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton seemed uncomfortable with the idea that Clinton and her attorneys had the final call in determining that over 31,000 emails from her private account were purely personal.

“We’re not sure exactly what type of evaluation was made of that 31,000 messages,” the judge said.

Clinton’s lawyers have argued that government employees generally have the right to determine whether emails or other records are personal and delete them. The Justice Department backed Clinton — to a point — in a recent legal brief, while stopping short of saying that a former government employee such as Clinton has the right to independently make such a determination nearly two years after leaving the government.

Walton said the scenario that played out doesn’t really fit others the courts have previously addressed.

“This is sort of a unique situation,” the judge said. “The State Department never had possession of these records.”

Still, not all judges may be interested in delving into any Clinton files now in the possession of the FBI, particularly if it appears Congress is punting the issue to the courts.

“Congress has different and more powerful ways to obtain information from the State Department than a FOIA plaintiff,” Judge Rosemary Collyer wrote in an order Monday rejecting one group’s arguments that it needed prompt access to Clinton-related emails to aid Congress in getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks.

Another challenge for Congress is that it could be disturbing precedent by trying to bring in an outside party to verify that Clinton has turned over all her official emails or even those relevant to the Benghazi attacks. Usually, the recipient of a subpoena turns over what he or she deems responsive, not a broader set of records for someone else to review. “The way we’ve always had is a process of self-production,” Facciola said.

In cases involving search warrants for electronic records, courts have sometimes appointed magistrates to go through the records and sift out what law enforcement really needs. But the question these days is more often about how the computer that does the sorting should be programmed and who gets to decide that.

“That’s the real battle going on,” Facciola said. “Oftentimes, the technicians who create these programs don’t even agree on one methodology. … How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?”

 

 

 

 

 

The Deadly Kid Pot Epidemic in Colorado

Is there a guilty party in this problem? Who deserves the blame? Does the benefit of increased tax revenue outweigh the deaths and other criminal activity or the influx of pot tourism where people are sleeping in the streets and claiming social welfare benefits? Are employers having issues with quality hiring or quality of work output by their workers? How about the high students getting a good education or even attending class? Is Colorado able to compete with other states in the realm of business and commerce?

Report: Colorado Pot an ‘Epidemic’ Among Kids

Sure, we wanted it legalized, but didn’t think kids would want any!

By Trey Sanchez, TruthRevolt:

The results are in, and according to a report by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Colorado children are using marijuana at a much higher rate than ever before and are experiencing an increase in hospital visits, school suspensions, and even death.

It’s gotten so bad, the co-founder of an advocacy group called Smart Colorado has called child and teen use of marijuana an “epidemic.”

“Kids have no idea how dangerous or harmful Colorado’s pot is,” Diane Carlson said.

Here are the numbers in the report via CBS Denver: 29 percent increase in emergency room visits, and a 38 percent increase in hospitalizations during retail marijuana’s first year. Eleven percent of Colorado’s 12 to 17 year-olds use pot — 56 percent higher than the national average. It also cites a 40 percent increase in drug-related suspensions and expulsions — the vast majority from marijuana. The study cites a significant increase in marijuana-related traffic deaths.

The culprit according to Carlson? Its commercialization, she said, adding, “Marijuana might have been legalized in our state; it did not have to mean massive commercialization and promotion of marijuana use.”

Some parents who use medical marijuana have previously complained that its packaging could look attractive to children. In one instance, a mother complained that her hash dose called “Bruce Banner Wax” was contained inside of what looked like a colorful rubber bouncy ball from a vending machine. This was brought to the maker Boulder Pharma’s attention and they pulled the product from their shelves.

Other parents are complaining about the influx of marijuana ads popping up all over the state and how that intensive marketing is affecting children. One parent told CBS Denver that he came home to find his 13-year-old son unconscious, gray, no pulse, and no breathing after what he says was a marijuana overdose. Luckily, he was resuscitated by his father.

And high school-aged users and dealers are balking at the numbers that indicate 60 percent of students use marijuana regularly at certain schools, saying that number is “way low.”

Carlson agrees, saying her organization has heard from “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of parents throughout the state” with stories like this father and son.

Richards of Planned Parenthood, then a Hillary Hire

A bill that would strip Planned Parenthood of federal funds was passed in the House of Representatives on Friday. The 241-187 vote was divided mostly along party lines.

“For the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, subject to subsection (b), no funds authorized or appropriated by Federal law may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or any affiliate or clinic of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., unless such entities certify that Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates and clinics will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion during such period,” the bill reads.

The measure– HR 3134, also known as the Defund Planned Parenthood Act– would defund Planned Parenthood of federal funds for one year while investigations of the organization’s practices are conducted, in light of claims made by the Center for Medical Progress. More here.

Planned Parenthood President, Cecile Richards is scheduled to testify before Congress on Thursday, September 29th regarding the use of taxpayers funds ($500 million) that harvest fetal tissue for sale.

Hillary Clinton Hires Daughter of Planned Parenthood’s President

As Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defends Planned Parenthood from the fallout over its baby part-selling scandal, the mainstream media conveniently ignores one very important detail: the Planned Parenthood president’s daughter is a top Hillary campaign operative.

Rommel Demano/Getty Images for the 2014 Tribeca Film Festival/AFP

Breitbart: Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has seen her abortion-providing organization come under fire after a series of videos caught top employees trying to trade aborted baby parts in callous fashion.

Hillary Clinton, who said that she has only seen excerpts from the videos, strongly defended Planned Parenthood in her appearance this past weekend on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Clinton called the videos “misleadingly edited” and “intentionally taken out of context” and condemned a Republican “attack on Planned Parenthood.”

Clinton, who counts Planned Parenthood as a past donor, has a more glaring but little-discussed conflict of interest in this case. Her Iowa communications director is Lily Adams, daughter of Planned Parenthood boss Cecile Richards.

Adams is also the granddaughter of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, who lost her 1994 re-election bid to George W. Bush.

Lily Adams, who was tweeting from Iowa Tuesday as Clinton visited the state, previously worked in a deputy communications role for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Adams garnered attention during her stint at the DNC by organizing a failed boycott against this reporter’s former publication, after this reporter wrote that men looking at attractive women on the sidewalk should probably not be considered a hate crime. Adams endured mockery for her efforts.