Category Archives: alternative energy

Environmentalists Get Bit By California’s Premier Environmental Law

by AnnetteCathcart Posted on April 7, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’m a pretty committed environmentalist, but it’s still hard not to feel a bit of schadenfreude over the problems that California’s premier environmental law has had on the construction of bike lanes:

The California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, has stymied bike lanes up and down the state for more than a decade….“The environmental law is hugely frustrating,” said Dave Campbell, advocacy director for Bike East Bay, which has pushed for the Fulton Street bike lane. “It’s a law that allows you to say no. It’s not a law that lets you say yes.”

….The issue has festered for a long time. A decade ago, a lawsuit against San Francisco’s citywide bike plan stalled the city’s plans to add more than 30 miles of bike lanes for several years….Even without the threat of litigation, the environmental law can stop bike lanes in their tracks. When city of Oakland officials wanted to narrow a wide road near a major transit station and add two bike lanes, they realized it would be difficult to comply with the environmental law’s rules and didn’t proceed, said Jason Patton, Oakland’s bike program manager. About a decade later, the road remains a six-lane highway.

“CEQA is an incredible burden to doing work in urban areas,” Patton said. “And I say that as a committed environmentalist.”

The environmental law requires proponents of new projects — including bike lanes — to measure the effect the project would have on car congestion. When a traffic lane is taken out in favor of a bike lane, more congestion could result along that road. That result can put proposed bike lanes in peril. And traffic studies to show whether installing a bike lane would lead to greater congestion can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Oftentimes, cities won’t bother with the effort.

Needless to say, this is the same complaint that developers have long had with CEQA: It allows NIMBYs to hold up construction of new projects endlessly with faux environmental objections. Go ahead and just try to build a dense development in LA. Plenty of folks would love to do it. But you’d better be prepared for years or more of grinding lawsuits from every nearby resident who doesn’t want more traffic.

I’m no expert on CEQA, so I won’t try to offer any detailed criticism here. Generally speaking, though, I’d like to see the law reformed so that genuine environmental concerns get the hearings they deserve, but no more. There needs to be some kind of stopping point or reasonableness test in there. A $100,000 bike lane shouldn’t require $200,000 in environmental impact reports and another $200,000 defending lawsuits from bike lane haters. Likewise, a proposed apartment building should be required to acknowledge genuine environmental impacts—on traffic, on sewage, on air quality—but there needs to be a limit to how detailed this needs to be. Bike lanes are great, but so are apartment buildings.

Link:  

Environmentalists Get Bit By California’s Premier Environmental Law

Posted in alo, alternative energy, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Environmentalists Get Bit By California’s Premier Environmental Law

The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World

by GidgetPrinsep Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The global death penalty rate is skyrocketing. According to the latest tallies, published today by Amnesty International, at least 1,634 people were put to death last year, a 54 percent increase from the previous year. That’s the highest number of recorded executions in more than a quarter century, and it’s not even counting deaths in China, the world’s top executioner, where death penalty data is treated as a state secret.

Most of those deaths were in the Middle East: Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia accounted for nearly 90 percent of all executions in 2015. The vast majority of Iran’s executions were for drug-related crimes, while Pakistan lifted a moratorium on civilian executions in 2014 to more aggressively punish suspected terrorists. In Saudi Arabia, the justice system is so opaque that it’s hard to know what’s driving executions, but since the new king came to power last year, the country has drawn increasing international condemnation for its crackdown on dissidents.

While executions surged in those three countries, the trend elsewhere was more heartening. Four more countries abolished the death penalty last year, which means that for the first time ever, more than half of all nations have legally abolished it. (Other countries have abandoned it in practice, after not executing anyone for at least a decade.)

And where does the United States stand? Just like in 2014, it ranked fifth on the list of the world’s top executioners last year. The country recorded 28 executions, its lowest annual amount since 1991, and 52 new death sentences, the lowest since 1977. Since 1846, 19 states have abolished the death penalty, but even though lethal punishment here is on the decline, we’re still the only country in the Americas to execute people.

You can read Amnesty International’s full report here.

View this article:

The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The US Is One of the Top Executioners in the World

San Francisco Just Did Something Really Cool for Working Parents

by JacobHaralson Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday, San Francisco became the first US city to require that all new parents—mothers, fathers, and same-sex partners—get fully paid parental leave for six weeks after giving birth or adopting a child. The new law follows the efforts by tech companies in the area, including Amazon, Apple, Google, and Twitter, to offer employees robust parental leave policies in an effort to increase work-life balance.

California is one of only five states that already offers some form of parental leave, but this new city-wide law is one of the most generous in the country. Workers in the Golden State now get six weeks off, but they receive just 55 percent of their pay. New Jersey and Rhode Island have similar laws, and Washington state recently passed a parental leave law that has not taken effect. In March, the New York legislature approved a parental leave policy that will cover 12 weeks of paid time off, though the law will go into effect in 2018 and will initially cover only 50 percent of average pay.

The United States, which guarantees up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave, is the only developed country that does not guarantee all new parents paid parental leave. Expectant mothers get 18 weeks of paid leave in Australia, 39 weeks in the UK, and 480 days in Sweden.

For workers in both California and New York, paid parental leave was one of two victories this week. Governors in both states also signed legislation Monday that will increase the minimum wage in each state to $15 an hour, to be phased in over about seven years. The higher wages, which are more than double the federal minimum wage, will affect roughly 60 million Americans. President Obama responded to the wage increases by asking Congress to follow suit.

“Since I first called on Congress to increase the federal minimum wage in 2013, 18 states and more than 40 cities and counties have acted on their own—thanks to the strong leadership of elected officials, businesses, and workers who organized and fought so hard for the economic security families deserve,” he said in a statement. “Now Congress needs to act to raise the federal minimum wage and expand access to paid leave for all Americans.”

Original post: 

San Francisco Just Did Something Really Cool for Working Parents

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on San Francisco Just Did Something Really Cool for Working Parents

Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

by DelorasBenham8 Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who heads up the Judiciary Committee, took to the floor yesterday to criticize Chief Justice John Roberts, who says that politicized confirmation hearings have caused the public to believe the court itself is politicized. Now, Roberts made those comments two months ago, so I’m not quite sure what prompted Grassley to suddenly get worked up about them. Nonetheless, Grassley is taking a lot of heat for his crazy talk. Let’s listen in:

The Chief Justice has it exactly backwards. The confirmation process doesn’t make the Justices appear political. The confirmation process has gotten political precisely because the court has drifted from the constitutional text, and rendered decisions based instead on policy preferences….In fact, many of my constituents believe, with all due respect, that the Chief Justice is part of this problem.

….As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that? The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases. For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others….The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

That sounds…surprisingly reasonable. It was anger at Supreme Court rulings that turned confirmation hearings political, not the other way around. And Grassley is right that for truly impartial justices, the law shouldn’t be any harder to interpret in hot button cases than in more obscure cases. And yet, hot button cases are very often split along partisan lines.

Now, it’s worth noting a couple of things. First, Grassley’s beef with Roberts is precisely that he didn’t vote on partisan lines when he upheld Obamacare. So he’s not exactly on the moral high ground here. Second, the court has always been political. But for most of its history it was politically conservative and mostly confirmed Republican positions. That changed after World War II, and what conservatives are really upset about is that the Supreme Court now hands down both liberal and conservative rulings. They want it to go back to being an arm of the Republican Party.

So Grassley is hardly presenting a balanced picture here. But he’s a Republican partisan, so why would he? More generally, though, I’d say his view of the Supreme Court is pretty defensible, and certainly more accurate than Roberts’ view. I see no particular crazy talk here.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

As the Chief Justice remarked, although many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are unanimous or nearly so, the Justices tend to disagree on what the Chief Justice called the ‘hot button issues.’ We all know what kinds of cases he had in mind. Freedom of religion, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, free speech, the death penalty, and others.

The Chief Justice was very revealing when he acknowledged that the lesser known cases are often unanimous and the ‘hot button’ cases are frequently 5-4.

But why is that?

The law is no more or less likely to be clear in a ‘hot button’ case than in other cases.

For those Justices committed to the rule of law, it shouldn’t be any harder to keep personal preferences out of politically charged cases than others.

In some cases, the Justices are all willing to follow the law. But in others, where they are deeply invested in the policy implications of the ruling, they are 5-4.

The explanation for these 5-4 rulings must be that in the ‘hot button’ cases, some of the Justices are deciding based on their political preferences and not the law.

– See more at: http://www.publicnow.com/view/F2FDFB07EA2C3F7479ECA11B451EC03E32E4545E?2016-04-06-02:30:30+01:00-xxx6292#sthash.7tuZH0HM.dpuf

Read article here: 

Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

Posted in alo, alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chuck Grassley Is Making Sense

Cops Raid the Former Offices of FIFA’s Brand-New President

by ErnestiRosenber Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Global soccer may be embroiled in yet another corruption crisis after Swiss police raided the offices of UEFA, the sport’s European governing body, on Wednesday. The raid came days after Gianni Infantino, UEFA’s former chief and the newly installed president of FIFA, appeared in the massive Panama Papers leak, which exposed the complex offshore banking arrangements of some of the world’s most powerful people.

According to the Guardian, those documents show that Infantino co-signed a UEFA broadcast rights deal in 2006 with two Argentinian businessmen, Hugo and Marino Jinkis, who are now under indictment as part of the United States’ global soccer corruption investigation. The men immediately resold the rights to Ecuador’s TV station Teleamazonas at a steep markup, and the documents potentially tie Infantino to both that deal and other illicit acts by the Jinkis’.

Infantino was UEFA’s director of legal services at the time, and he said in a statement yesterday that the contract was awarded properly and that he had no direct dealings with either of the two men or their company. “There is no indication whatsoever for any wrongdoings from neither UEFA nor myself in this matter,” he said.

Infantino was only elected FIFA president in February, following months of scandal during which the US and Swiss authorities arrested a string of FIFA officials and the organization banned its former president, Sepp Blatter, from any soccer-related activities for six years.

At the time, Infantino promised to turn the page on FIFA’s corruption problems and implement badly needed reforms. “We will restore the image of FIFA and the respect of FIFA, and everyone in the world will applaud us,” he said after his election.

Source article:

Cops Raid the Former Offices of FIFA’s Brand-New President

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cops Raid the Former Offices of FIFA’s Brand-New President

Notorious Coal Baron Don Blankenship Sentenced to a Year in Prison

by CindyParkhill Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A federal judge in West Virginia sentenced former Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship to a year in prison on Wednesday for conspiring to commit mine safety violations at his company’s Upper Big Branch mine during a period leading up to the explosion there that left 29 miners dead in 2010.

The mountaintop estate where Blankenship once hosted visitors. Read MoJo‘s chronicle of Blankenship’s rise and fall in West Virginia. Stacy Kranitz

Blankenship was convicted of the misdemeanor charge in December, but the conviction was explicitly not linked to the Upper Big Branch disaster itself and Blankenship’s attorney worked hard to ensure the accident was hardly mentioned during the trial. And that verdict was a disappointment to prosecutors; he was found not guilty of the more serious felony charges of making false statements to federal regulators in the aftermath of the blast in order to boost Massey’s stock price. (Had he been convicted on all counts, he would have faced up to 30 years in prison.) The conspiracy conviction rested on evidence of Blankenship’s domineering management style, which emphasized profits over the federal mine safety laws designed to avert underground explosions:

The attention to detail that made Blankenship such an effective bean counter may also be his undoing. He constantly monitored every inch of his operation and wrote memos instructing subordinates to move coal at all costs. “I could Krushchev you,” he warned in a handwritten memo to one Massey official whose facilities Blankenship thought were underperforming. He called another mine manager “literally crazy” and “ridiculous” for devoting too many of his miners to safety projects. Despite repeated citations by the MSHA, Blankenship instructed Massey executives to postpone safety improvements: “We’ll worry about ventilation or other issues at an appropriate time. Now is not the time.” And this is only what investigators gleaned from the documents they could find: Hughie Stover, Blankenship’s bodyguard and personal driver—and the head of security at Upper Big Branch—ordered a subordinate to destroy thousands of pages of documents, while the government’s investigation was ongoing. (Stover was sentenced to three years in prison in 2012 for lying to federal investigators and attempting to destroy evidence.)

Before he stepped down as Massey’s CEO in 2010, Blankenship had built the company into one of the largest coal producers in the United States and become a polarizing figure in his home state, where he bankrolled the rise of the Republican Party, pushed climate denial, and crushed unions. For more on Blankenship, read my piece from the magazine on his rise and fall.

Read this article:

Notorious Coal Baron Don Blankenship Sentenced to a Year in Prison

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Notorious Coal Baron Don Blankenship Sentenced to a Year in Prison

Quote of the Day: Photo ID Will Help Republicans Beat Hillary

by ShanonAkhtar Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

From Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman on how Republicans can win his state this November:

I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up. And now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well.

Shhh! You’re not supposed to admit publicly that this is the point of photo ID laws. But Grothman is a freshman, so I guess he can be excused. He’ll learn.

See original article here:

Quote of the Day: Photo ID Will Help Republicans Beat Hillary

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quote of the Day: Photo ID Will Help Republicans Beat Hillary

Brokers No Longer Allowed to Scam You on Your IRA Investments

by Lovie9666thwo Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After six years, a new rule requiring brokers to act in their clients’ best interests has finally gone into effect:

The fiduciary rule is aimed at curbing billions of dollars in fees paid annually by small savers who transfer money out of 401(k)s, which are required to operate in their best interests—and into individual retirement accounts, which aren’t currently bound by such protections. There, savers may be working with financial-product salespeople who earn more selling certain products and don’t have to put their clients’ interests before their own.

Administration officials intend it as a direct attack on what they consider “a business model that rests on bilking hard-working Americans out of their retirement money,” Jeff Zients, director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters Tuesday.

….“Unless we see fundamental changes, this rule will remain unworkable, and we will consider every approach to address our concerns,” David Hirschmann, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s capital-markets division, said in a statement Tuesday. The chamber has said it was considering a lawsuit to block the regulation.

Unworkable! Sure, brokers have been following this rule for years with 401(k) plans, but extending that to IRAs will bring Wall Street to its knees. That’s despite a wide range of concessions from the administration after it received comments on the proposed rule:

Mr. Perez said, for example, that an employee of MetLife Inc. wouldn’t be obligated to advise clients about offerings from a competitor, like New York Life….To cut down on paperwork that industry officials said would be too burdensome, the new version of the rule only requires that firms sign one “best interest contract” with clients when they open an account.

….The latest rule also clarifies that brokers and others can continue offering a wide range of guidance without having to clear the “fiduciary” bar for “advice.” It specifies that investor education isn’t considered advice, allowing companies to continue providing general education on retirement savings. Also excluded from the advice category are general circulation newsletters, media talk shows and commentaries as well as general marketing materials.

Hmmm. “General education.” I have a feeling these are going to be boom times for general education. Stay tuned.

Continue reading: 

Brokers No Longer Allowed to Scam You on Your IRA Investments

Posted in alternative energy, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Brokers No Longer Allowed to Scam You on Your IRA Investments

Woman Publicly Shames Florida Gov. Rick Scott at Starbucks for Anti-Abortion Bill and Medicaid Cut

by Robin66977532909 Posted on April 6, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Florida Gov. Rick Scott was served quite the verbal beatdown on Tuesday after a woman publicly shamed the Republican governor for a laundry list of GOP-supported issues—and it all unfolded on camera at a local Gainesville Starbucks.

“You cut Medicaid so I couldn’t get Obamacare,” Cara Jennings told the visibly shaken governor as he waited to pay for his coffee. “You’re an asshole. You don’t care about the working people. You should be ashamed to show your face around here.”

When Scott attempted to placate Jennings with the defense that his governorship created a million jobs, Jennings refused to back down and continued with her stunning reproach.

“A million jobs?” Jennings responded. “Who here has a great job or is looking forward to finishing school? Do you really feel like you have a job coming up?”

“You strip women of access to public health care. Shame on you, Rick Scott!”

Afterwards, Jennings told a local news station that several people thanked her for taking a stand against the governor. The incident, however, proved too much for Scott, who slunk out of the Starbucks empty-handed.

Original article:  

Woman Publicly Shames Florida Gov. Rick Scott at Starbucks for Anti-Abortion Bill and Medicaid Cut

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Scotts, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Woman Publicly Shames Florida Gov. Rick Scott at Starbucks for Anti-Abortion Bill and Medicaid Cut

Trump Says His Controversial Comment About Abortion Was "Excellent"

by ErickaFontenot Posted on April 5, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump ignited a firestorm last week when he said that he wants to outlaw abortion and punish women who obtain abortions anyway. He soon clarified his comment, suggesting that women who get abortions should not be penalized. But most recently, he doubled down on his initial statement.

Here’s the chronology: During an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews last Wednesday, Trump said that abortion should be banned and that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who obtain abortions once they are outlawed. Faced with immediate criticism from both anti-abortion and pro-abortion rights groups, his campaign issued a statement saying that Trump believed that only the abortion provider, not the woman, should be held legally responsible.

But a few days later, on Saturday, Trump essentially reaffirmed his initial comments. His answer to Matthews’ question was “excellent,” Trump told talk radio host Joe Pags, in an interview flagged on Tuesday by the liberal website Right Wing Watch. Here’s the exchange:

TRUMP: A lot of people thought my answer was excellent, by the way. There were a lot of people who thought that was a very good answer. It was a hypothetical question. I didn’t see any big deal and then all of a sudden there was somewhat of a storm. And you know, it’s interesting, this morning I’m hearing two hosts on television that were critical and they said, “We really thought his first answer was very good.” Because you can’t win. “We thought it was good, what was wrong with his first answer?” And I heard a pastor, who is a fantastic pastor, saying, “Well, you know, if you think about it, his first answer was right”…

PAGS: Well, your answer was consistent with conservatism but Chris Matthews has an agenda, so I’m not even wondering about the question because I thought it was loaded and stupid and hypothetical.

TRUMP: It was disgraceful.

PAGS: Why go on the show? Why go?

TRUMP: I heard people defending it today. Now they defend it. Now they say, “It was really right.” The whole thing is just so—look, the press is extremely unfair.

Trump, though, was not done with this subject. The next day, he had yet another position on abortion. He appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation and stated that the current law on abortion should not be changed. Once again, his campaign had to renovate his message. It quickly walked back this statement, asserting that Trump meant the law will remain the same “until he is President.”

Read More: 

Trump Says His Controversial Comment About Abortion Was "Excellent"

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Says His Controversial Comment About Abortion Was "Excellent"