Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Confirming Kavanaugh Means Return to ‘Back-Alley Abortions’

H/T Breitbart’s Big Government.

Princess Fauxcahontas is on the warpath trying to Bork Brett Kavanaugh.


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told her 4.5 million followers on Twitter that if the U.S. Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice, women will be forced to get “back-alley abortions.”

“We cannot go back to the time of back-alley abortions,” Warren said in a tweet on Wednesday. “But that could happen if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court and helps overturn Roe v. Wade. We must #StopKavanaugh – the lives and futures of countless American women are at stake”:

Elizabeth Warren


We cannot go back to the time of back-alley abortions. But that could happen if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court and helps overturn Roe v. Wade. We must – the lives and futures of countless American women are at stake. 

If You’re Not Worried About Justice Kavanaugh Overturning Roe v. Wade—You Should Be

An op-ed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

The Washington Times reported: 

President [Donald] Trump’s nominee for the high court told lawmakers during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade set an “important precedent” in 1973 before being “reaffirmed many times,” but the Massachusetts lawmaker isn’t letting up on her “#StopKavanaugh” activism.

Mr. Kavanaugh told lawmakers last week that 1992’s Parenthood v. Casey further cemented the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

“It was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 when the court specifically considered whether to reaffirm it or whether to overturn it,” Kavanaugh told lawmakers during his recent confirmation hearings. “That makes Casey precedent on precedent.”

Democrats have made the overturning of Roe v. Wade the centerpiece of their opposition to Kavanaugh, citing the threat to women’s “constitutional” right to abortion.

In fact, if the high court were to reconsider Roe v. Wade and a majority of jurors decided to overturn the law, it would not outlaw the procedure, but return jurisdiction to the states. States would then control abortion laws.

Republican leadership has said they have the 51 votes needed to confirm the judge. The Senate vote on Kavanaugh is expected to take place on September 20.



BREAKING: FBI Isn’t Investigating Brett Kavanaugh Over Content Of Vague Dianne Feinstein Document

H/T The Daily Wire.

I guess the F.B.I. will not be helping DI-FI and the Dippycraps Bork Brett Kavanaugh.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has declined to investigate Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over allegations sent to them by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).

Matt Zapotosky of The Washington Post quoted an FBI official as saying: “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process.” He also reported that the agency was not opening a criminal investigation into what Kavanaugh may or may not have done as a high school student.

Matt Zapotosky


FBI official on the Dianne Feinstein referral about Kavanaugh: “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process.”

Zapotosky explained the inclusion of the allegations in Kavanaugh’s background file in a subsequent tweet.

Matt Zapotosky


Here’s an explanation of what that means. The FBI backgrounds White House employees and nominees, & gives the White House a file on what they’ve found. But the FBI doesn’t decide whether the person gets a job/nomination. The White House does that, w/ the info in the FBI file…

Kavanaugh received a background check, which was provided to the White House. Then Feinstein gave them this information (that she had allegedly received back in July, but wouldn’t share with even her fellow Democrats until after all questions and interviews with Kavanaugh were conducted), and they passed the info along to the White House as well.

Matt Zapotosky


Same deal here. The FBI backgrounded Kavanaugh and gave White House a file. Then Feinstein gave them more info, and they passed that on as well…

Matt Zapotosky


Importantly, the FBI isn’t doing a criminal investigation based on what Feinstein told them. The broad outline of the allegation, as I understand it, seems like it’d be in state/local authorities wheelhouse, if there even is a crime, and if the statute of limitations hasn’t run.

Zapotosky ends his thread by suggesting that whatever Kavanaugh was accused of may have been serious or deserved scrutiny, but that the FBI isn’t investigating and just passed the info to the White House in case it wants to act, which is most likely won’t.

Matt Zapotosky


That’s not to say whatever happened or whatever was alleged isn’t serious and deserving of attention and scrutiny. It’s just to say the FBI has given the White House the info it might need for action. Because the White House, not the FBI, determines who it nominates.

In an article for the Post, reporters Seung Min Kim and Elise Viebeck echoed Zapotosky, writing that “the FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the matter, which would normally be handled by local authorities, if it was within the statute of limitations.”

We still don’t know the specifics of the allegation, but unsubstantiated rumors suggest it has something to do with something of a sexual nature while Kavanaugh was in high school. Had this been a serious allegation, one would suspect Feinstein wouldn’t have sat on it for months and would have brought it up during public or private interviews with Kavanaugh.

Democrats ask FBI to investigate Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over mysterious last-minute accusation dating back to high school by woman who has hired top #MeToo attorney

H/T The U.K.Daily Mail.

I am going to go out on a limb here and throw the bullshit flag on this alleged letter.

Especially the so-called incident happened in high school and now the feminazi lawyer from the metoo movement is involved.

  • Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to be confirmed by October 1 when the court begins its next term
  • Top Judiciary Committee Democrat has mysterious letter alleging Kavanaugh of something in high school but she won’t show it to other senators
  • Top D.C. #MeToo attorney is believed to be representing the woman at the center of whatever allegations the letter might contain
  • Letter came from someone the woman knows and was sent to a California congresswoman, who shared it with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein
  • Feinstein got it over the summer but chose this week to publicize it at an inopportune moment for Republicans 
  • Fellow Democrat Dick Durbin says they have referred the unspecified matter to the FBI; New York Times reports that it concerns ‘sexual misconduct’
  • Justice Department says the FBI has previously vetted Kavanaugh when he served in sensitive government posts in the past 
  • A Democratic senator said Thursday that she has ‘information’ about Judge Brett Kavanaugh that she has referred to federal investigators, just a week before the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on his nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Feinstein is a liberal California Democrat who has called on her colleagues to slow down the march toward confirming President Donald Trump‘s pick to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    She hasn’t said what the information is, but reports swirled on the margins of Congress that it concerns a woman whom Kavanaugh knew in high school, decades ago.

    The New York Times reported Thursday that sources believe the accusation relates to sexual misconduct. The Times also reported that Feinstein received the letter ‘this summer’ – meaning she may have held onto it for dramatic effect at an inopportune moment for Republicans.

    Debra Katz, a Washington, D.C. lawyer best known for representing women who make ‘#MeToo’-style accusations against powerful men, is reportedly representing the unnamed woman. Katz was seen leaving Capitol Hill on Wednesday night.

    Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, told the Associated Press that Feinstein’s potential bombshell has been referred to the FBI.

    Mystery: Brett Kavanaugh is the subject of the letter from the unknown woman which has been referred to the FBI. It is unclear if the bureau's agents are investigating
    FBI request: Diane Feinstein has referred a letter she has received to the Justice Department. It reportedly concerns Kavanuagh's high school behavior 

    FBI request: Diane Feinstein has referred a letter she has received to the Justice Department. It reportedly concerns Brett Kavanuagh’s high school behavior

    The unnamed woman has reportedly retained Debra Katz, a prominent Washington D.C. attorney involved in the #MeToo movement

    The unnamed woman has reportedly retained Debra Katz, a prominent Washington D.C. attorney involved in the #MeToo movement

    Both senators serve on the Judiciary Committee, which is considering Kavanaugh’s nomination. Feinstein is the panel’s ranking Democrat.  

    Republicans are pushing to confirm Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court by Oct. 1, when its next term begins.

    A tight-lipped Feinstein released a ryptic statement Thursday afternoon saying that the woman who provided the information about Kavanaugh ‘strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.’

    Buzzfeed claimed Thursday that it believes it knows who Kavanaugh’s potential accuser is, and has for at least a week, but hasn’t been able to reach her to confirm it.

    A White House spokeswoman complained about the timing of the vague and gauzy revelation.

    ‘Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new “information” about him,’ Kerri Kupec said.

    Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn mocked the idea of a legitimate bombshell that could sink Kavanaugh

    Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn mocked the idea of a legitimate bombshell that could sink Kavanaugh

    'Let me get this strsight': Cornyn was in disbelief about what appeared to be the substance of Feinstein's letter

    ‘Let me get this strsight’: Cornyn was in disbelief about what appeared to be the substance of Feinstein’s letter

    Cornyn also pointed out that the FBI had already cleared Kavanaugh and that committee Democrats had their report 

    Cornyn also pointed out that the FBI had already cleared Kavanaugh and that committee Democrats had their report

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, she said, had ‘promised to “oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have,” and it appears he is delivering with this 11th hour attempt to delay his confirmation.’

    Kupec added that the FBI had already ‘thoroughly and repeatedly vetted Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 1993, for some of the most highly sensitive roles.’

    Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told reporters outside a Senate hearing room that he hadn’t seen the letter Feinstein is guarding.

    ‘All I know is what I read, and I wouldn’t make any judgment of it until I get more information,’ Grassley said.

    Fellow committee Republican John Cornyn of Texas reacted with a digital eye-roll.

    ‘Let me get this straight: this is statement about secret letter regarding a secret matter and an unidentified person. Right,’ Cornyn tweeted.

    In a second tweet, he added that ‘the FBI already performed and has reported on a background investigation on the nominee and this has been made available to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee.’

    Feinstein received her information in a roundabout fashion. The Intercept reported late Wednesday that the alleged incident was described to someone affiliated with Stanford University, who then wrote to Democratic Rep. Ana Eshoo, who represents the area.

Fact Check: Trump is Right About Puerto Rico, Critics Manipulating Hurricane Maria Death ‘Estimates’

H/T Breitbart’s Big Government.

The drive-by media and the Dippycraps are going to do whatever it takes to make President Trump look bad and ensure a Dippycrap win in the midterms.

Democrats and the media have been pounding President Donald Trump over the past few days, as Hurricane Florence nears the Carolinas, over his alleged insensitivity to deaths in Puerto Rico last year from Hurricane Maria.

On Thursday morning, President Trump pushed back on Twitter, alleging that Democrats had inflated the death toll “in order to make me look as bad as possible.”

That led to more criticism, with the Associated Press accusing Trump of making claims “without evidence.”

But Trump is correct.

His opponents — including the media — have strained for more than a year to turn Hurricane Maria into his version of Hurricane Katrina, the devastating 2005 storm that prompted criticism of President George W. Bush’s response — even though state and local authorities had been far worse — and foreshadowed a Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006.

Leading the charge was CNN, which made a special effort to link Hurricane Maria in 2017 to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and made a temporary media sensation of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz, who accused the Trump administration of neglect.

However, the media’s effort at the time was frustrated by several factors. First, experts praised the federal government’s response to Hurricane Maria, which posed special challenges because Puerto Rico is so far from the mainland U.S.

Second, Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló himself praised the federal government’s response: ““The president and the administration, every time we’ve asked them to execute, they’ve executed quickly,” he told Fox News in September 2017.

Third, Puerto Rico was already something of a disaster before the hurricane hit, thanks to mismanagement by the territory’s government that led to a debt crisis in recent years. (Mayor Cruz herself is reportedly under FBI investigation for corruption.)

However, Trump’s critics did not give up. Over the past several months, they have attempted to cite several new studies that created new estimates of the “real” death toll of Hurricane Maria — based on statistical models, not on actual death counts.

Many studies addressed a real concern that the Puerto Rican government lacked the competence to do an accurate death count, but much of the media hype around the results was clearly motivated by the attempt to damage the Trump administration.

The Washington Post noted just some of the studies as of June 2018 (original links):

  • The New York Times calculated 1,052 deaths through October.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting calculated 985 through October.
  • University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez professors calculated 822, with a 95 percent confidence range that the total was somewhere between 605 and 1,039.
  • Pennsylvania State University professors calculated excess deaths of about 500 in September, or a total of 1,085 if the same pattern held in October. That estimate was based on six weeks of mortality records.
  • A Latino USA analysis, using updated data from Puerto Rico’s Department of Health, calculated 1,194 excess deaths in September and October.

The Post noted that the new estimates hovered around the 1,000 mark.

Then, in June, a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine estimated the number of deaths from Hurricane Maria at 4,645 instead of the official figure of 64. The researchers had conducted a survey and extrapolated the results — an extremely sloppy methodology.

The number was highly inflammatory. Puerto Rican opponents of the president cited it to accuse him of “genocide.” Much of the media hyped those claims: the caption that accompanies the Getty/AFP photograph above reads: “Hurricane Maria, which pummeled Puerto Rico in September 2017, is likely responsible for the deaths of more than 4,600 people, some 70 times more than official estimates, US researchers said Tuesday.”

Even the Post was skeptical of the absurdly high estimate: “This is not a verified number, unlike body counts in wars. The Harvard study offers only an estimate – a midpoint along a broad range of possibilities. It is not based on death records, only estimates of deaths from people who were interviewed in a survey.”

Last month, a new study was produced by George Washington University that estimated the “excess mortality” from Hurricane Maria over a six-month period at 2,975 within a 95% confidence interval of 2,658-3,290 “excess” deaths.

This was the second-highest estimate after the faulty Harvard study, and was based on a statistical model that subtracted the number of people who theoretically should have died over the same period from the number of people who actually died during that time.

It is also a rather useless way of comparing death tolls, because in order to evaluate the relative scale of Hurricane Maria, the same method would have to be used to measure other natural disasters, likely increasing their estimated death tolls as well.

The media reported the new estimate as if it were an actual confirmed death toll — with CNN taking care to note that the new number was released near the anniversary of Katrina. The Puerto Rican governor, under heavy political pressure due to the slow pace of the island’s recovery, officially revised the death toll to match the estimate.

That gave the media an excuse to throw out science and statistics, and to report the 2.975 number as an established fact — even though it was just an estimate based on a statistical model, and three times higher than all but one of the previous estimates.

The AP reported earlier this week that “3,000 people died in Puerto Rico” in Hurricane Maria — as if it were a proven fact. It did not indicate that the number was simply one estimate among many, and that its evidence was a controversial statistical model.

On Thursday, the AP — with a touch of chutzpah — accused the president of stating “without evidence” that the “Puerto Rico hurricane death count is [a] plot by Democrats to make him look bad.”

(Update: National Public Radio weighed in to accuse Trump of “falsely” claiming Democrats had inflated the numbers.)

Setting aside the AP’s odd effort to “fact-check” an opinion, the evidence is ample that the Democrats — and much of the media — did exactly what Trump accused them of doing.

Their goal, and the goal of Democrats who are hyping probable outliers as established facts, is to take down the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm elections by linking Trump with Bush’s alleged failures in Hurricane Katrina.

The Magic Carpet that flew everyone home

H/T Beyond The Band Of Brothers.

The passage home was a long time coming for war-weary GIs.

Returning the troops home after WWII was a daunting task.

The U.S. military experienced an unimaginable increase during World War II. In 1939, there were 334,000 servicemen, not counting the Coast Guard. In 1945, there were over 12 million, including the Coast Guard. At the end of the war, over 8 million of these men and women were scattered overseas in Europe, the Pacific and Asia. Shipping them out wasn’t a particular problem but getting them home was a massive logistical headache. The problem didn’t come as a surprise, as Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall had already established committees to address the issue in 1943.

Soldiers returning home on the USS General Harry Taylor in August 1945

When Germany fell in May 1945, the U.S. Navy was still busy fighting in the Pacific and couldn’t assist. The job of transporting 3 million men home fell to the Army and the Merchant Marine. 300 Victory and Liberty cargo ships were converted to troop transports for the task. During the war, 148,000 troops crossed the Atlantic west to east each month; the rush home ramped this up to 435,000 a month over 14 months.

unnamed (1)
Hammocks crammed into available spaces aboard the USS Intrepid

In October 1945, with the war in Asia also over, the Navy started chipping in, converting all available vessels to transport duty. On smaller ships like destroyers, capable of carrying perhaps 300 men, soldiers were told to hang their hammocks in whatever nook and cranny they could find. Carriers were particularly useful, as their large open hangar decks could house 3,000 or more troops in relative comfort, with bunks, sometimes in stacks of five welded or bolted in place.

Bunks aboard the Army transport SS Pennant

The Navy wasn’t picky, though: cruisers, battleships, hospital ships, even LSTs (Landing Ship, Tank) were packed full of men yearning for home. Two British ocean liners under American control, the RMS Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, had already served as troop transports before and continued to do so during the operation, each capable of carrying up to 15,000 people at a time, though their normal, peacetime capacity was less than 2,200. Twenty-nine ships were dedicated to transporting war brides: women married to American soldiers during the war.

unnamed (1)
Troops performing a lifeboat drill onboard the Queen Mary in December 1944, before Operation Magic Carpet

The Japanese surrender in August 1945 came none too soon, but it put an extra burden on Operation Magic Carpet. The war in Asia had been expected to go well into 1946 and the Navy and the War Shipping Administration were hard-pressed to bring home all the soldiers who now had to get home earlier than anticipated. The transports carrying them also had to collect numerous POWs from recently liberated Japanese camps, many of whom suffered from malnutrition and illness.

unnamed (2)
U.S. soldiers recently liberated from Japanese POW camps

The time to get home depended a lot on the circumstances. USS Lake Champlain, a brand new Essex-class carrier that arrived too late for the war, could cross the Atlantic and take 3,300 troops home a little under 4 days and 8 hours. Meanwhile, troops going home from Australia or India would sometimes spend months on slower vessels.

Hangar of the USS Wasp during the operation

There was enormous pressure on the operation to bring home as many men as possible by Christmas 1945. Therefore, a sub-operation, Operation Santa Claus, was dedicated to the purpose. Due to storms at sea and an overabundance of soldiers eligible for return home, however, Santa Claus could only return a fraction in time and still not quite home but at least to American soil. The nation’s transportation network was overloaded: trains heading west from the East Coast were on average 6 hours behind schedule and trains heading east from the West Coast were twice that late.

unnamed (1)
The crowded flight deck of the USS Saratoga. The ship transported home a total of 29,204 servicemen during Operation Magic Carpet, more than any other ship.

Many freshly discharged men found themselves stuck in separation centers but faced an outpouring of love and friendliness from the locals. Many townsfolk took in freshly arrived troops and invited them to Christmas dinner in their homes. Others gave their train tickets to soldiers and still others organized quick parties at local train stations for men on layover. A Los Angeles taxi driver took six soldiers all the way to Chicago; another took another carload of men to Manhattan, the Bronx, Pittsburgh, Long Island, Buffalo and New Hampshire. Neither of the drivers accepted a fare beyond the cost of gas.

Overjoyed troops returning home on the battleship USS Texas

All in all, though, the Christmas deadline proved untenable. The last 29 troop transports, carrying some 200,000 men from the China-India-Burma theater, arrived to America in April 1946, bringing Operation Magic Carpet to an end, though an additional 127,000 soldiers still took until September to return home and finally lay down the burden of war.

You can learn more about the logistical challenges of World War II on our historical tours to Western Europe, the Eastern Front and the Pacific.

Federal Court Strikes Down California Law That Bans Handgun Signs

H/T AmmoLand.

It is good to see Commifornia getting slapped down by the courts.

SACRAMENTO, CA –-( Today, federal Judge Troy Nunley ruled that a California law banning licensed gun dealers from displaying handgun-related signs or advertising is unconstitutional and violates their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit, Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Becerra, is supported by Second Amendment civil rights groups The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) as well as industry association California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL).

California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, banned gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. “But,” the court held today, quoting from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

While the law completely banned handgun-related signs, the “Plaintiffs could display a large neon sign reading ‘GUNS GUNS GUNS’ or a 15-foot depiction of a modern sporting rifle, and this would be permissible,” Judge Nunley explained in his order, highlighting how unreasonable and under-inclusive the law was. And even after four years of litigation, “the Government has not demonstrated that § 26820 would have any effect on handgun suicide or violence.”

The government defended the law on the theory that it “inhibits people with ‘impulsive personality traits’ from purchasing a handgun,” but Judge Nunley held that this cannot justify restricting free speech rights: “[T]he Supreme Court has rejected this highly paternalistic approach to limiting speech, holding that the Government may not ‘achieve its policy objectives through the indirect means of restraining certain speech by certain speakers.’” “California may not accomplish its goals by violating the First Amendment. . . . § 26820 is unconstitutional on its face,” Judge Nunley concluded.

“This is an important victory for our clients and for the First Amendment,” said lead counsel Brad Benbrook. “Judge Nunley decided that the State could not justify its censorship of our clients, and we are delighted with the opinion. As the Court explained today, the government cannot censor commercial speech in a paternalistic effort to keep citizens from making unpopular choices – or choices the government doesn’t approve – if they are told the truth.”

“Under the First Amendment, the government may not restrict speech on the theory that it will supposedly lead a few listeners to do bad things, or even to commit crimes,” explained Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. “The Supreme Court has held this in the past, and has indeed often struck down restrictions on supposedly dangerous commercial advertising—including advertising for products that some people abuse, such as alcohol. It’s good to see the district court recognizing that the First Amendment has no gun advertising exception.”

“Today, the Court correctly ruled that the First Amendment protects truthful, non-misleading speech about handguns protected under the Second Amendment,” commented CGF Executive Director Brandon Combs. “People have a fundamental, individual right to buy handguns and licensed dealers have a right to tell people where they can lawfully acquire those handguns. Today’s ruling means that the government cannot prevent people, or gun dealers, from talking about constitutionally protected instruments and conduct.”

“This decision will serve as a reminder that firearms dealers have First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights, even in California,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “The bottom line is that a state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right. We are delighted to offer financial support of this case.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group as well as Professor Volokh. They expect that today’s order in the long-running lawsuit, which was filed in 2014, will be appealed by Attorney General Becerra to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

A copy of the order can be viewed at

About the Calguns FoundationCalguns Foundation

The Calguns Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.

About the Second Amendment FoundationSecond Amendment Foundation

Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

About the California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees

California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees ( is California’s advocacy group for Second Amendment and related economic rights. CAL-FFL members include firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem.

Caught on Tape: Recording Shows Porter ‘Flip-Flop’ on Gas Taxes

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Big surprise a Dippycrap flip-flopping.

Porter: ‘I support all the people who voted for’ the gas-tax hike.

Katie Porter, a university professor and Democratic candidate running against Rep. Mimi Walters (R., Calif.), dismissed the gas-tax repeal campaign in California as a GOP distraction four months before she vocally opposed higher gas taxes in a campaign ad.

Porter surprised GOP organizers of California’s gas-tax ballot repeal campaign late last month when her campaign released an ad in which she came out in opposition to the gas-tax increase and pledged to fight Gov. Jerry Brown and other Democratic powers in Sacramento over higher gas taxes the Democratic-controlled legislature passed last year.

“I oppose higher gas taxes, and I won’t be afraid to take on leaders of both political parties,” she said in the ad, the first her campaign had cut during the general election season.

Just four months earlier, Porter, at a well-attended public townhall event May 6, had repeatedly disparaged the GOP-led campaign to repeal the gas tax, reaffirming her support for those who voted in favor of the gas-tax hike and accusing her opponent of being “obsessed” with the gas tax.

“Mimi is all obsessed with the gas tax,” Porter tells voters at the event, according to an audio recording of her comments.

She then goes on to say that she supports all the state lawmakers who voted in favor of the 12-cent gas tax increase, which went into effect in January across California.

“I support all the people who voted for it. I support [former State senator] Josh Newman who voted for the gas tax,” she said.

Voters in the traditionally conservative Orange County where Porter is trying to unseat Walters recalled Newman in June over his vote in favor of the gas-tax increase.

“So, I think the gas tax is just an effort to distract people,” Porter tells the crowd. She argued that Walters’s support for repealing the tax increase is an effort to distract from her vote on the GOP healthcare plan repealing Obamacare and her vote for the Republican-backed 2017 tax cut, which she labels a giveaway to “big billionaires” and “big corporations.”

Porter also seemed to imply that she supports the gas-tax because its backers say it will fund infrastructure investments and create jobs in California.

“I’m a single mom raising three kids here, and I understand people pay high taxes, and so I’m going to be very, very skeptical of any tax increase that is not going to be spent in a way that returns money to us through investment,” she said in the audio recording.

“So, when I say they are going to invest in clean energy, that [it] is going to create jobs in Orange County, we have already seen that,” she said. “If I say we are going to invest in infrastructure, that’s going to help us create more jobs in Orange County.”

Those spearheading the gas-tax repeal seized on the audio recording as proof of Porter’s “flip-flop” and dishonesty on the gas-tax, which polls show an overwhelming majority of Orange County voters want repealed.

Carl DeMaio, a conservative radio talk show host and former San Diego City councilman who is leading the gas-tax repeal campaign, said the recording shows that Porter is not being honest about her gas-tax opposition.

“A lot of folks out there haven’t been buying this recent surge in Democrat support for the gas tax repeal,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “Now she has been caught lying to her would-be constituents.”

“She is the epitome of what’s wrong with Washington. There are too many liars in Washington—we don’t need to send any more,” he said, adding that she never signed the initiative formally qualifying the Prop 6 measure for the ballot so he has doubted her support.

Rep. Walters, meanwhile, donated a total of $339,000 from her campaign committees to “Yes on Prop 6” campaign. DeMaio credits Walters’s contributions for making it possible for the proposition to garner the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot

When Porter, who studied under Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and touts the progressive senator’s endorsement, first announced her opposition to the gas-tax increase, DeMaio said the position takes “real chutzpah” because his campaign had reached out to her several times seeking support and said he never heard back.

“She is backed by the same people who raised our taxes—she is a tax-hiker,” DeMaio said at the time. “I don’t believe a word she says because she has stood arm-in-arm with the tax raisers.”

The Porter campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

In late August, the Free Beacon asked Porter’s campaign if she is supporting Prop 6, the effort to repeal the gas tax, which will appear on the November ballot.

A campaign spokesman at the time said only that Porter’s campaign ad saying she opposes the gas tax is “pretty clear.”

The confusion over whether Porter’s firmly stated opposition to the gas-tax increase meant she was backing Prop 6 has continued for weeks.

Just days later, at an Aug. 25 event at her campaign headquarters with campaign volunteers, she explained that her sudden opposition to the gas tax did not translate into backing the Prop 6 effort aimed at repealing it.

“I oppose the gas tax because we have a problem with transparency and accountability and tax fairness in this country and in this state,” she said, according to an audio recording of her remarks. “And there are no meaningful infrastructure projects being built for people in the 45th district. And that’s what actually changed my mind.”

“I was like, ‘I’m for it. I want infrastructure. I want jobs for union workers. I mean, right?’ And then I got the list of projects, and we’re getting signs on one road, and it’s because our Republican Assembly people are trying to sink this gas tax.”

She then goes on to say that she would use her position as a congresswoman to fight to bring home infrastructure dollars to the district, something she argues “Mimi has failed to do” and complain about for-profit toll roads in the district imposing fees of “$6 or $7 each way each day.”

“This is an incredible burden on our families. … If I’m going to say I’m going to be on the side of the people of the 45th district, I can’t say this [gas-tax] bill, this law, does this for us,” she explained. “I get that it may do it for other people, which is why I am not going to be advocating either way on Prop 6. Everyone has to do what is right for themselves and their districts.”

That gas tax hike was passed last year by a super-majority of Democrats in the state legislature to fund $5 billion in transportation spending. Republican opponents criticized the tax increase as another effort by Democrats to shift California lawmakers’ overspending onto the taxpayers who are already struggling to meet the state’s high cost of living.

National Republicans, including Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.), have cut large checks to the campaign in the hopes having the gas-tax repeal on the ballot will help calm the Democratic “blue wave” in the state that could sweep Democrats into power.

Even before the latest 12-cent hike, California gas prices were among the highest in the nation.

Californians pay nearly one dollar more per gallon in taxes and government fees alone. The new gas tax also increases each year until 2021, when consumers will be paying nearly two dollars extra a gallon in taxes and fees.

Critics noted that in years past California’s infrastructure funds have been diverted from road construction to transit buses and trains, light rail projects, bike lanes, and park acquisitions.

California Democratic governor Jerry Brown, who used his political muscle to pass the gas tax increase, has vowed to fight its repeal: He and his allies have amassed a $14 million war chest.

Supporters of Proposition 6 have raised just $3.5 million as of Aug. 1.