Mediaboss Marketing

Retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen resigned Sunday as president of the Brookings Institution amid a federal investigation into allegations that he illegally lobbied the U.S. government on behalf of Qatar.

We want to thank John for his contributions to Brookings, including his leadership in successfully guiding the institution during the pandemic, as well as his many years of service and sacrifice for our country, the think tank said in a statement.

Mr. Allens resignation comes after Brookings placed him on leave last week.

According to The Associated Press, he is accused of making false statements and withholding incriminating documents about his role on behalf of Qatar while simultaneously pursuing at least one multimillion-dollar business deal with the Persian Gulf monarchy.

The investigation has already ensnared a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

Richard G. Olson, a career Foreign Service officer, pleaded guilty to federal charges in connection with the secret lobbying campaign. He implicated Mr. Allen in the scheme, according to media reports and court documents.

Mr. Allen, a retired four-star general, was named president of the think tank in 2017 after having commanded U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan. He also was a vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the White House.

See the rest here:
John Allen, head of Brookings Institution think tank, resigns amid FBI investigation - Washington Times

Washington William Barr, President Donald Trump's former attorney general, toldthe House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riotthat he advisedTrump there was no evidence of election fraud in Detroit.

During pre-recorded testimony aired Monday, Barr said that after the 2020 election, Trump "didn't seem to be listening" to him and members of his Cabinet who repeatedly told him there was no validity to his claims that the election had been stolen from him, including in Detroit.

On Dec. 1, 2020, Barr told the Associated Press there was no evidence of election fraud. Later that day, he was summoned to the White House for a meeting with Trump. He said "the president was as mad as I'veever seen him."

Trump raised "the big vote dump, as he called it, in Detroit," Barr said. "He said people saw boxes coming into the counting station at all hours of the morning' and so forth."

Barr said he explained to Trump that Detroit centralizeditscounting process at the TCF Center downtown convention hallrather than in each precinct. For the November 2020 general election, Michigan's largest citycounted its absentee ballots at the convention center under the supervision of stateBureau of Election Director Chris Thomas. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, most ballots cast were absentee.

"Theyre moved to counting stations," Barr said. "And so the normal process would involve boxes coming in at all different hours."

"I said, 'Did anyone point out to you ... that you did better in Detroit than you didlast time? Theres no indication of fraud in Detroit," Barr said he told Trump.

Trump's percentage of votes went from 3% to 5% in the Democratic stronghold, and the Republican former president received almost 5,000 more votes than in 2016, according to the city's official results.

"I told him the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public were bullshit, that the claims of fraud were bullshit," Barr added.

The next day, Trump gave a speech reiterating unfounded claims of "a vote dump" in Detroit and elsewhere.

My opinion then and my opinion now is that the election was not stolen by fraud," Barr said. "And I havent seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that.

Barr resigned as attorney general on Dec. 14, shortly after the exchange.

Trump repeatedly questioned Michigan's election results in the wake of the 2020 election, falsely claiming that Detroit was the epicenter of"a lot of fraud."

Not only did Trump performbetter in Detroit in 2020 than he did four years earlier, but Joe Biden received nearly 1,000 votes fewer than Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The statewide certified election results in 2020 showed Biden beat Trump 51-48%, or by more than 154,000 votes.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, also concluded the first portion of Monday's hearing by adding for the record the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee's 2021 report investigating claims of fraud in the state led by Sen. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan.

The report found "no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud" and recommended thatDemocratic Attorney General Dana Nessel consider investigating individuals who pushed false claims "to raise money or publicity for their own ends."

Biden's margin of victory of 154,000 votes wasmore than 14 times the 10,704 votes Trump won Michigan by in 2016.

In Michigan alone, Biden's marginalso was more than the margin by which Trumpwon Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin combined in 2016.

Michigan also has election procedures in place to prevent widespread fraud, including bipartisan boards of canvassers that examine and confirm results in each county.

Each record produced during the ballot counting process is scrutinized and compared in public during the canvassing process, and the state uses paper ballots that can be used as a backup if there is a question about the electronic tally.

The Wayne County Board of Canvassers certified Detroit's electionresults after absenteeballot poll books at 70% of Detroit's 134 absentee counting boards were found to be out of balance without explanation.

There were similar or worse imbalances in Detroit in the August 2020 and November 2016 elections, and the same board with different canvassers certified the results. The office of then-Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, found "no evidence of pervasive voter fraud" leading to those imbalances.

Michigan Elections Director Jonathan Brater said in an affidavit that there were 150 fewer ballots tabulated than there were names in poll books in Detroit.

"If ballots had been illegally counted, there would be substantially more, not slightly fewer, ballots tabulated than names in the poll books," he said.

rbeggin@detroitnews.com

Twitter: @rbeggin

Staff writer Craig Mauger contributed.

Go here to read the rest:
Barr to Trump: 'There's no indication of fraud in Detroit' - Detroit News

DOLLARS FOR LIFEThe Anti-Abortion Movement and the Fall of the Republican EstablishmentBy Mary Ziegler318 pages. Yale University Press. $35.

The upheavals of the last few years have been so relentless that it can be hard to recall just how weird the partnership was: Donald J. Trump and social conservatives, an odd couple for the ages. As the legal historian Mary Ziegler writes in Dollars for Life, the start of the 2016 election cycle had evangelicals extremely worried. Hillary Clinton whose possible presidency they deemed catastrophic was running on what Ziegler calls arguably the most pro-choice platform in history. Could a foul-mouthed real estate mogul really turn out to be the savior they were looking for?

Sort of, says Ziegler, the author of several books about the history of abortion in the United States, though her argument in Dollars for Life mostly runs the other way that, over the course of decades, the anti-abortion movement laid the groundwork for an insurgent candidate like Trump.

Much of this was accomplished through the loosening of campaign finance restrictions, or changing how money worked in American political campaigns. While progressives have long argued that allowing more money to flow into politics empowers plutocrats to ignore the will of the people, Ziegler shows that its effects have been more ambiguous than that. Yes, she says, billionaires like Charles and David Koch worked assiduously to deregulate campaign finance, but big industry wasnt the only beneficiary; some members of the anti-abortion movement recognized early on that deregulation could help populist outsiders like them shatter the traditional G.O.P. hierarchy. Money moves in mysterious ways.

That traditional G.O.P. hierarchy wasnt always committed to the anti-abortion cause. Republicans of the late 1960s, Ziegler points out, were in fact more likely to favor repealing criminal abortion laws than Democrats were. Abortion itself was merely one issue and to the establishment, far from the most important in a broad right-wing agenda.

Even when Republican politicians tried to placate the restive anti-abortion wing of their party, they could count on campaign finance restrictions that favored the party machines, which in turn could crush any upstart competition. A Georgia delegate at the 1988 Republican National Convention described his socially conservative colleagues as the people who brought you the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trial.

Dollars for Life begins in the years leading up to Roe v. Wade, which the power brokers of the Republican Party tried as much as they could to use to their advantage. On the one hand, the 1973 decision could bring a divided party together. Control of the Supreme Court motivated conservative voters who agreed on little else, Ziegler writes. But mainstream Republicans were also scared that Roe would be overturned. Roe, Ziegler says, was their shield. Without it, anti-abortion activists would demand that Republican politicians, inevitably preoccupied with the electoral odds, pursue a more radical agenda than American voters actually wanted. After George H.W. Bush lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton, who put abortion rights at the forefront of his platform, Republican leaders seemed to want the issue to go away.

But people like James Bopp Jr. werent about to let that happen. A central figure in Zieglers book, Bopp was 24 when Roe was decided, and has been a determined anti-abortion Republican ever since. He drew a direct connection between money and speech, noticing that even Republican control of the White House didnt translate into the kind of anti-abortion regime that he wanted to see.

He believed that limits on spending privileged big government at the expense of liberty, protected incumbents from grassroots movements and made it hard for advocacy organizations to function, Ziegler writes. More money, more influence. If establishment Republicans were getting skittish about abortion as an issue, thinking it was electorally safer to tack toward the center, Bopp decided that an influx of money raised by the anti-abortion movement would convince them otherwise.

You get the sense that Ziegler could recite this history backward and forward, comfortably parsing the arcane differences between 501(c)(4) and 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporations. She takes bits of levity where she can find them a hapless Republican populist done in by a pancake-flipping contest; an anti-abortion activist who thinks that she could help end abortion in America by making an autobiographical rom-com but Dollars for Life is an inevitably sober book.

Even if social conservatives like Bopp were initially turned off by Trumps antics, they soon realized that his weakness in the Republican Party might work in their favor. Isolated and unpopular, Trump was dependent on the anti-abortion movements support and ever attuned to his own self-preservation, he comported himself accordingly. He went beyond what would ordinarily be expected of a pro-life president, Ziegler writes.

Ziegler acknowledges a number of forces that contributed to Trumps ascent negative partisanship, for instance, and the proliferation of conservative media. But money, she points out, has played a key role in this new politics, with outside groups amassing formidable war chests to fund candidates who could be counted on to promote such groups interests rather than capitulate to the moderating pressures of the Republican machine. The rise of Trump and candidates like him, she asserts, is the story of the Republican establishments demise.

What looks like the imminent overturning of Roe has been decades in the making. And if the anti-abortion movement does get its way, a post-Roe world wont mean that the issue is simply turned back to the states. Ziegler shows that the movement turned to incrementalism strategically settling for pragmatic stopgaps only in pursuit of a much broader goal. Anything short of a nationwide abortion ban will not satisfy them, she writes. Dollars for Life recounts how the religious right learned a useful, if profane, lesson: You get what you pay for.

Read the original post:
Abortion Politics, Money and the Reshaping of the G.O.P. - The New York Times

In his 1983 essay Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, President Ronald Reagan wrote that the real question today is not when human life begins, but, what is the value of human life? That will always be the real question, and it is the one question that abortion advocates will do anything to avoid answering. The so-called Womens Health Protection Act (WHPA) and a new set of abortion messaging dos and dont from the House of Representatives Pro Choice Caucus are their latest attempt to avoid the inconvenient truth that abortion kills babies.

On May 11, for the second time in less than three months, the Senate voted against allowing consideration of the WHPA. Its sponsors want you to believe that the bill would simply codify Roe v. Wade in case, as appears likely, the Supreme Court overrules that decision, which created the right to abortion. In fact, the WHPA would gar far beyond Roe, attempting to prohibit any government anywhere from doing anything that might, potentially or indirectly, reduce the likelihood that abortions will actually take place.

Not only that, the WHPA would require every state and local government to repeal any existing laws, regulations, rules, anything that also could have that effect. Members of Congress, who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, should know that Congress has no authority to dictate how state and local governments exercise powers that the Constitution gives them.

Even in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court acknowledged that abortion affects two human beings, referring multiple times to unborn children, pregnant women, and even mother. In fact, the Court said that the presence of the unborn child made abortion inherently different than other rights. As radical as the WHPA is, as recently as 2017, it referred a dozen times to woman and multiple times to child. The bill stated its purpose as protecting a womans right and ability to determine whether and when to bear a child.

>>> EVENT:Life After Roe Symposium

That, however, was too close to reality for current abortion extremists. The WHPA introduced last year expands its focus from pregnant women to people with the capacity for pregnancy. These include cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, [and] those who identify with a different gender. The bill entertains these hypothetical categories while completely deleting any suggestion, hint, or whisper of the actual human beingthe unborn childwho actually exists. The bill even scrapped its prior definition of abortion because it referred to a live birth (of what?) and a dead fetus (that must once have been alive).

Leading feminists once embraced, rather than repudiated, the truth about women and babies. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for example, published The Revolution magazine from 1868 to 1872, regularly arguing that the law should treat abortion for what it is, child murder. The first women to enter the medical profession separated killing babies from health care for women; Dr. Charlotte Lozier, for example, campaigned both against abortion and for womens rights. Women, er, potentially pregnant people have come a long way, but not necessarily in the right direction.

Then there are the abortion spinmeisters. Organizations promoting abortion have long produced various manuals, guides, and recommendations for abortion messaging. The latest instructions on this is a list of dos and donts from the House Pro-Choice Caucus with examples of harmful and helpful language. The confusion, however, starts right at the top. The Pro-Choice Caucuss first example of harmful language is the word choice. Wait, what? Hasnt choice been lynchpin of the abortion movements messaging for the last 50 years? Last September, in defending the WHPA, members of the Pro-Choice Caucus routinely described abortion as a deeply personal choice and pro-life legislators as anti-choice. According to the Pro-Choice Caucuss latest guidelines, however, Caucus members were actually using harmful language that, no doubt unbeknownst to them at the time, was undermining their own cause.

The Pro-Choice Caucus now rejects another of the movements longstanding clarion calls. In 1992, then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. The Democratic Platform that year endorsed reproductive choice (theres that word again) including the right to safe, legal abortion. Four years later, with Clinton running for re-election, the platform said: Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare. The Democratic platform made the same point in the next two cycles, with the 2004 document stating directly: Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Hillary Clinton even used the same phrase during her 2008 presidential campaign.

>>>We Have a Duty To Protect the Unborn

Not anymore. The 2008 and 2012 Democratic platforms dropped rare, while still endorsing efforts to reduce abortions. But since 2012, abortion advocates have embraced killing babies as fully legitimate all by itself. Signs at their rallies and protests often say Abortion On Demand and without Apology. The Pro-Choice Caucus also rejects any suggestion that abortion should be rare; its website even include a photograph of caucus members on the Capitol steps holding signs that read Abortion Is Essential and Liberate Abortion.

We cannot avoid answering the question Reagan asked almost four decades ago about the value of human life by pretending that human beings never existed before they were born or that men can somehow become pregnant, or by using some new words suggested by the latest focus group. Abortion kills babies, and its advocates are loudly telling us the value they place on human life.

Read this article:
What Is the Value of Human Life? - Heritage.org

"At Redken, hairdressing is our passion and we believe in the power of the salon and the sense of community it can create for both hair stylists and clients," says Shane Wolf, Global President, Professional Products Division at L'Oral. "We knew we had to share this message of hope, not only with our community, but with anyone out there experiencing bullying who might also find a home in this industry. Partnering with the It Gets Better Project to spread that message will help support millions of young people worldwide."

Together, Redken and It Gets Better will embark on a mission to spread the message that everyone can feel safe, authentic and empowered in the hairdressing community, while evolving the hairdressing industry's LGBTQ+ inclusion practices and inspiring consumer allyship. Redken will utilize the It Gets Better unique education modules to upskill salon professionals with a training certification allowing salons to become a Redken Certified Safe Space Salon, welcoming both clients and stylists to a space that positively influences their journey with empathy and understanding.

As part of the Hairdressers United program, Redken is also inviting stylists to share their personal stories on social media and inspire others to share theirs tagging #ItGetsBetter and #RedkenHairdressersUnited.

As Redken kicks off this new partnership with It Gets Better, the brand is excited to continue to grow its efforts with the organization, educating and inspiring both stylists and consumers to join their global mission of inclusivity and community. Consumers can learn more about this exciting initiative and what they can do to support the cause at redken.com/hairdressersunited.

*Based on 2021 edition of Kline's Salon Hair Care Global Series, among brands selling shampoos, conditioners, hair color, hair styling and hair texturizing products

ABOUT REDKEN 5th AVENUE NYC

For over 60 years, Redken has been a leader in the professional salon industry, empowering professionals and consumers to achieve healthy hair transformations with confidence. Founded by Paula Kent, a woman who believed in the power of science, Redken was the first company to take a scientific approach to hair, defined as the right balance of protein, moisture and supported by an acidic pH, which remains the alpha and omega of haircare to this very day. All Redken products are made with the highest quality ingredients, and tested by salon professionals to ensure maximum efficacy, for every hair type and texture and every hair need. Based in New York City, Redken supports the expertise of salon professionals with principle-based education, cutting edge technologies rooted in protein-science, and a portfolio of products including Shades EQ the #1 demi-permanent hair color on the market for maximum versatility and flexibility for clients of all hair types and hair textures.

To learn more, visit Redken.com or Instagram.com/Redken.

ABOUT IT GETS BETTER PROJECT

It Gets Better Project is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that strives to uplift, empower and connect LGBTQ+ youth around the globe. Created in 2010 as the result of one of the most successful viral campaigns in YouTube's history, the It Gets Better Project provides critical support and hope to LGBTQ+ youth around the world by leveraging the power of media to reach millions of people each year. The project has expanded its origins in storytelling and media to include educational resources through It Gets Better EDU and reaches 18 countries outside of the U.S. through It Gets Better Global.

The project has garnered support from President Joe Biden, former President Barack Obama, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with numerous celebrities, including Kelly Clarkson, Gabrielle Union, Zachary Quinto, Mj Rodriguez, Josie Totah, and Gigi Gorgeous. More than 750,000 people have taken the It Gets Better pledge to share messages of hope and speak up against intolerance. Please visit http://www.itgetsbetter.org for more information, and join the conversation on TikTok, Instagram and Twitter at @ItGetsBetter; Facebook.com/ItGetsBetterProject; and YouTube.com/ItGetsBetterProject.

SOURCE Redken

See the article here:
Redken Partners With It Gets Better to Support LGBTQ+ & Hairdresser Community - PR Newswire