Mediaboss Marketing

The president of Planned Parenthood says the group is willing to talk to Republicans about threats to its federal funding because [at] Planned Parenthood, were nonpartisan. In fact, the groups political action committee gave 98 percent of its campaign contributions in the 2016 election to Democrats.

The groups president, Cecile Richards, alsospoke at the Democratic National Convention in support of the partys 2016 presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. Lets go win this election! she told Democrats.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., receives federal funding for health care services, but that funding is in jeopardy. House Speaker Paul Ryan announced last month that the House would move to defund Planned Parenthood as part of legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Planned Parenthoods funding has long been a target of Republicans over the groups abortion services. As we have noted before, the Hyde Amendmentlimitsfederal funding to only abortion cases involving rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Abortions accounted for about 3 percent of the groups total of nearly 9.5 million services in fiscal year 2014, according to itsannual report. Most of its health services were for contraception, treatment and tests for sexually transmitted diseases and infections, cancer screenings, and other womens health services.

Richardstouted the groups nonpartisan status during a Feb. 2 interview on MSNBCs Morning Joe. MikaBrzezinski, the shows co-host, asked Richards about the threat of losing federal funding, and whether the group was willing to negotiate with Republican President Donald Trumps administration.

Brzezinski, Feb. 2: But you realize you have to cut a deal of some sort with this new administration in some way? Would you come to the table?

Richards: Were always at the table. I mean we talk to everybody. I mean because Planned Parenthood, were nonpartisan.

Richards is the presidentof thePlanned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., which is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3)and prohibited from political activities and making campaign contributions. She is also the president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is the political arm of PPFA. Planned Parenthood Action Fund is registered as a 501(c)(4), which is a social welfare organization that is allowed to engage in political activity.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund PAC, which is registered with theFederal Election Commission, contributed about $694,000 to congressional candidates in the 2016 cycle, and 98 percent of that went to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks federal campaign contributions.

The group also contributed $9,613 to Clintons presidential campaign. Richards, as we mention, spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. The daughter of former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards, Cecile Richards told Democrats at the convention how proud her mother would be to see a woman elected president.

Richards, July 26, 2016:Tonight, we are closer than ever to putting a woman in the White House. And I can almost hear mom saying, Well, it sure took yall long enough. So what do you say? Are you ready to make history? Lets go win this election.

Richards support for Clinton and the PACs contributions to Democrats is not surprising given that many congressional Republicans oppose abortion rights and seek to defund Planned Parenthood. And we understand the point that Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a nonpartisan provider of health care services. But the groups leader and its PAC are not nonpartisan.

Continue reading here:
Planned Parenthood and the Democrats - FactCheck.org

The popular progressive understanding of the Republican party and conservative movement is something like this: It is, at heart, a conspiracy of corporate oligarchs who use a collection of so-called social issues religion, bigotry, racial resentment, anti-immigrant sentiment to stir up the rubes in support of its own parochial economic agenda, tricking them into voting against their own interests in the popular progressive phrase. Wall Street guys pulling the strings and writing the checks, foot-washing snake-handlers manning the barricades.

This isnt really true, of course, as anybody who ever has spent any time around actual Republican politicians or conservative activists knows.

But might something similar actually be true of the Democratic party?

A few progressives have been wondering aloud this week why it is that Democrats have stirred themselves to oppose, with steely resolve, the nomination of Betsy DeVos as secretary of education, while more or less going along with the nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general. DeVos (a friend of this magazine) may have ideas about school choice that dont comport with the views of some Democrats (though they comport very much with the views of other Democrats, particularly those of the black urban middle class), but she is a relatively anodyne figure, a philanthropist and activist who has made a career out of doing what she can to look after the interests of children who dont have the advantages enjoyed by her own. Sessions, on the other hand, is their view, not mine a racist as well as a radical who as attorney general would be empowered to do real damage to all that progressives hold dear.

So why does DeVos get the Eichmann treatment while Sessions just gets a rap on the knuckles?

Whats the matter with Camden?

Here is one possibility: The Democratic party in reality is the cartoon version of the Republican party stood on its head, with cold-eyed self-serving economic interests using the so-called social issues to stir up the rubes while they go about seeing to their own paydays and pensions.

The economic interests attached to the Democratic party are fairly easy to identify: people who work for government at all levels. You may come across the occasional Ron Swanson in the wild, but when it comes to the teachers unions which are the biggest spender in U.S. politics or the AFSCME gang or the vast majority of people receiving a taxpayer-funded paycheck, the politics of the public sector is almost exclusively Democratic. And what they care about isnt social justice or inequality or diversity or peace or whether little Johnny can use the ladies room if his heart tells him to they care about getting paid.

Heres an interesting point of comparison. When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he opposed gay marriage. So did Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Obamas opposition was especially interesting in that he cited religious doctrine in support of his position: My faith teaches me...that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it is also a sacred union Gods in the mix. George W. Bush, who was derided as a fundamentalist bigot by lifestyle liberals, never said anything like that. (Dick Cheney was well to the left of the Democrats on the question.) But there was barely a murmur of opposition to Obamas staking out this ground on the wrong side of history. Social issues are for the nafs.

During the 2008 Democratic primary, Obama gave an off-the-record speech to a group of Wall Street financial executives in which he shared his frustration with the sclerotic and bureaucratic state of American education, and declared that he was close to publicly endorsing a nationwide school-choice program. (This is according to one of those in attendance.) The moneymen were enthused by this, but nothing ever came of it. In fact, Obama went hard in the opposite direction, working to gut the school-choice program in Washington, D.C., a popular program, which benefited urban black families almost exclusively. You dont have to be a hard-boiled cynic to suspect that this has to do with the manpower and money-power of the teachers unions, who could have done a great deal more than they did to elevate Hillary Rodham Clinton over Barack Obama that year.

Think about that: If you are the candidate of the Left running in the party of the Left, you could, in 2008, run against equal rights for gay people but you could not, if you had any sense of self-preservation, run in favor of school choice. Justice is one thing, but getting paid is the real issue.

That probably explains why Betsy DeVos is getting the business and Jeff Sessions really isnt.

Democrats are in an awful position just now. Hillary Rodham Clinton was beaten by Donald Trump; Republicans control the Senate; Republicans control the House; Republicans are about to put an Antonin Scaliastyle constitutionalist on the Supreme Court, a development made possible by the Democrats weak position in the Senate; Republicans control 34 of 50 governorships; Republicans control the great majority of state legislative houses. What, exactly, are the Democrats up to? Dressing up as vaginas and inviting Madonna to rile up the rubes with empty speeches in D.C. while the real power in the party the public-sector unions concentrate their fire on...Betsy DeVos, who believes that there should be some choice and accountability in public education.

What is the Democratic party? Is it a genuine political party, or is it simply an instrument of relatively well-off government workers who care about very little other than securing for themselves regular raises and comfortable pensions?

If I were a progressive, Id be curious about that.

Kevin D. Williamson is National Reviews roving correspondent.

See the article here:
What Is the Democratic Party? - National Review

Ami Bera / AP

BY: Brent Scher February 2, 2017 4:15 pm

A three-term California congressman is facing an uproar from within his own party as a newly formed anti-Trump group called The Resistance plansto stage a protest outside his office on Thursdayafternoon.

Rep. Ami Bera (D.),who has represented a swing district in California since 2013, will have his commitment to protecting minority groups challenged by the group, according to a report in the local Elk Grove News.

Bera has beena vocal opponent of President Trump's policieshis office points out that he co-sponsored a bill to overturn Trump's immigration executive orderbut many in his district questionwhether he can be trusted to be their voice in Washington, D.C.

"We are putting his office on notice that these are issues that are really important to us and we are not going away and this is something that is really important to us," said Jaclyn Moreno, who founded The Resistance.

The group's demonstrationis being organized throughMoveOn.org, which has been targeting both Democratic and Republican legislators with protests.

"Democrats and Republicans alike need to hear from us before this parade of greed and hate is confirmed to a Cabinet that will attack working people, civil liberties, and the environment, while benefiting fellow billionaires and corporations," says MoveOn.org.

Concern in Bera's district is rooted partially in his vote for the SAFE Act, a bill that strengthened background checks for Syrians and Iraqis seeking refugee status in the United States. He was also one of the few Democrats whosupportedlegislation to cut of some funding to sanctuary cities.

Neither bill became law, but they are still seenby Bera's activist constituents as reasons to doubt the congressman's commitment to fighting Trump's immigrationpolicies.

"Ami Bera has a voting record in the past where he has voted against funding for sanctuary cities and where he has made it more difficult for certain groups coming from Iraq and other countries," Moreno said. "We want to let him know that we expect him to protect all vulnerable communities."

"We are putting his office on notice that these are issue that are really important to us and we are not going away and this is something that is really important to us," she said.

Moreno's group showed up to atown hall Bera held last week, according to the Sacramento Bee. The stated goal at the meeting was to "keep [Bera]progressive as we move toward this hateful new administration."

Bera told the Washington Free Beacon that he views the demonstration as "a good thing."

"Just as I was uplifted by the level of engagement at our overflowing town hall last Saturday, I am energized by how many of our neighbors today are coming together to stand up for our American values," Bera said. "People are engaged right now, and that is a good thing."

"The presidents recent executive order affecting refugees and immigrants does not reflect who we are as a nation, and this week I was proud to sponsor the SOLVE Act to block this un-American policy," he said.

Bera's seat in Congress is far from secure.All three of Bera's victories in the northern California district have been by thin margins, and the campaigns were not without controversy.

Bera's father,Babulal Bera, was sentenced to just over a year in federal prison for orchestrating a money laundering scheme that funneled at least $260,000 to his son's campaign.The congressman denied any knowledge of his father's scheme.

Link:
Democrats Now Targeting Their Own - Washington Free Beacon

In my first election in 1982, Democrats rigged about 25 percent of the voting machines to vote for everyone on the ballot but me. Thats 11 of 45 machines. The whole state was Democrat. Nothing was done to fix it. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), in a meeting between congressional Republicans and Vice President Pence, article published Jan. 27, 2017

While expressing support for the Trump administrations plans to investigate potential voter fraud in the 2016 election, an Alabama congressman offered a stunning claim: Democrats rigged 11 of 45 voting machine in his first election to the state legislature in 1982.

Thats a significant charge, especially since its pretty tough to rig an election. So we set out to find out whether facts supported Brookss claim.

Brookss comment, made during congressional Republicans meeting with Vice President Pence, became public via a leaked audio recording of the private meeting. His office corroborated the statement but did not offer much evidence to support it.

His office provided newspaper clippings showing there were complaints about malfunctioning voting machines in Brookss legislative district in Huntsville, Ala. During the afternoon on Election Day, Brooks announced that he planned on challenging election results and charged that 11 voting machines at one time or another during the day would not register Mo Brooks votes.

Brooks changed his mind after he won the election.

Im not going to contest it, Brooks said at his victory party on election night. But I hope therell be an investigation.

A month later, the county requested the FBI to investigate Election Day irregularities in Brookss district. But there is no evidence the FBI conducted an investigation or, if it did, whether it found that anyone (Democrat or otherwise) had tampered with the machines. Brookss office did not respond to our repeated requests for more evidence.

State investigative agencies and the U.S. attorneys office had no record of this investigation or its findings. News clippings from 1982 and 1983 reviewed by the Huntsville-Madison County Public Library and the Alabama Department of Archives and History had no reference to any investigative findings, either.

In fact, Alabama was one of three states the Justice Department placed under its watch in 1982 for potential voting rights violations or discrimination against black voters. There were nearly 200 federal observers at Alabama polling places on Election Day.

Henry Frohsin, anassistant U.S. attorney in Alabama at the time, could not recall any investigation or indictment related to Brookss 1982 election.

Had there been any bona fides to the allegation, we would have investigated and prosecuted it, if it had merit. But based on the fact that I dont recall that, I would have to conclude that there was no validity to the complaint, said Frohsin, who was interviewed for a 1982 Huntsville Times article about the irregularities.

Voting machines at the time had one lever for a straight-ticket vote and levers for individual races. The individual levers would sometimes malfunction, Frohsin said. News clippings show that some of the problematic machines were fixed by the afternoon on Election Day.

The Voting Rights Act had singled out states in the South, and we were cognizant of that. We were not going to have any hanky-panky going on in the polling areas, Frohsin said.

After our inquiry, Brooks told AL.com that the Alabama Bureau of Investigation confirmed that voting machines were not counting votes for him but could not find who was at fault.The agency could not provide The Fact Checker any record of this investigation.

Brooks claimed Democrats rigged a quarterof the voting machines in his 1982 election, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. Some voters reported problems with voting machines that day, but theres no record that an investigation turned up rigged machines or any Democrats responsible for it.

Memories may fade and change over time, and perhaps Brooks made the claim in the confidence of a private meeting. But its irresponsible to make a claim about a politically charged topic like this without the evidence to back it up. We dont know how oftenBrooks has been telling this apparently tall tale, but its time to retire it.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

How would you rate this claim? (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

See the article here:
Alabama congressman's unsupported claim that Democrats rigged voting machines in his election - Washington Post

One of the commercials by the pro-DeVos group is complete with clips of anti-Trump protesters destroying cars and lighting fires. | Getty

With education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos facing a rocky path to confirmation, a conservative group is launching a pair of scorched-earth TV ads defending her and accusing her Democratic opponents of being full of rage and hate.

One of the commercials, from the nonprofit organization America Next, is complete with clips of anti-President Donald Trump protesters destroying cars and lighting fires. It also has footage of actress Ashley Judd delivering impassioned remarks at the anti-Trump Womens March on Washington the day after the inauguration.

Story Continued Below

The 30-second spot provides a window into how Republicans plan to hit back against their Democratic rivals: by painting them as bitter and out-of-the-mainstream. It uses some variation of angry or hate no fewer than five times and left or liberal a handful more.

Why is the radical left so full of rage and hate? They still cant accept that Trump won and they lost, it says. Now extreme liberals like Elizabeth Warren are trying to stop Betsy DeVos from becoming secretary of education.

Why? DeVos angers the extreme left because she exposes their hypocrisy. DeVos wants low-income kids to have the same choices that liberal elitists have for their families. DeVos wants equal opportunity for all kids. That makes angry liberals even angrier, it concludes.

DeVos, a school-choice advocate, has come under fire from Democrats, who charge that she is too focused on public education alternatives. She has also drawn opposition from two Republicans, Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who have voiced similar concerns. To be confirmed, it is likely that DeVos will need Vice President Mike Pence to deliver a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

America Next is overseen by former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has also advocated for education reform. Before DeVos was picked for the post, Jindal had been mentioned as a possible contender.

A second commercial accuses Washington liberals of opposing giving low-income families the same education choices as everyone.

The group is spending more than $500,000 to air the commercials, which will begin running Friday morning on multiple networks nationwide.

The ads were created by Curt Anderson, a veteran strategist who has worked for Jindal and a number of prominent Republican politicians.

Betsy has been very polite and deferential to these Democrat senators, he wrote in an email. But we dont have to.

See the article here:
Pro-DeVos TV ads attack Democrats as 'full of rage and hate' - Politico