Tag Archives: election

The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Mother Jones

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

The first head has rolled after more than 100,000 voters were mistakenly purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls ahead of this week’s New York primary, which handed Hillary Clinton a much-needed win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of the New York Board of Elections, was suspended “without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn,” the agency said in a statement, according to the New York Daily News.

Anonymous city elections officials said Haslett-Rudiano, who was in charge of the city’s Republican voter rolls, had been “scapegoated,” according to the New York Post. “It sounds like they cut a deal to make the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann,” an anonymous Democratic elected official from Brooklyn told the Post, referring to Betty Ann Canizio, who was in charge of the Democratic voter rolls.

On the day of the primary, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, a Clinton supporter, said he’d heard reports of the “purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists.” He said, “The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process.”

The voter purge was just one of several problems with the primary throughout the city. Voters also reported long lines, poll locations that didn’t open, and, in one case, an elections worker sleeping on the job.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano was in charge of maintaining accurate voter registration lists, a job that includes updating party registration information and removing the names of people who’ve died or moved. That process had fallen six months to a year behind schedule, according to WNYC, which reported the day before the primary that 60,000 Democrats had been removed from the polls in Brooklyn. That number later doubled after the Board of Elections followed up on the WNYC story.

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer has opened an investigation into the matter, and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office had received more than 1,000 complaints about the election and would also look into “alleged improprieties” by the New York City Board of Elections. Scheiderman’s statement noted that he would expand his investigation to other areas of the state if warranted. On Friday, an official in Schneiderman’s press office told Mother Jones that there had been reports of issues in other parts of the state, but that for now the investigation was limited to the New York City area.

“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and if any New Yorker was illegally prevented from voting, I will do everything in my power to make their vote count and ensure that it never happens again,” Schneiderman said.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano skipped a step in the process of purging people from the list, which led to some people being improperly removed. Many voters reported being registered as Democrats, only to find that their affiliation had been changed from Democrat to unaffiliated. That meant they couldn’t vote in New York’s closed primary election, which requires an official registration with one of the major parties.

This isn’t the first time Haslett-Rudiano has made headlines. According to the Daily News, a building she owned on the Upper West Side of Manhattan was the subject of more than 20 Department of Buildings violations over the years after she’d let it fall into disrepair. The building, which she reportedly bought for $5,000 in 1976, was sold in 2014 for $6.6 million.

New York State Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly told Think Progress that each complaint he’d followed up on had been due to a mistake on the voter’s part. “I’ve yet to come across a voter registration that’s been maliciously changed,” he said. “There’s always been a legitimate reason.”

Election Justice USA, a national organization formed after the botched Arizona elections on March 22, tried to help voters whose affiliations had been switched without their knowledge by filing a lawsuit to make the primaries open to any registered voter. A judge dismissed that request on Tuesday, but the group hasn’t given up. Shyla Nelson, a co-founder of the organization, said there is an ongoing lawsuit seeking a review of all the provisional ballots submitted by voters who reported being removed from the rolls against their will. The group is also seeking to have provisional ballots (sometimes referred to as “affidavit ballots” in New York) counted before the state certifies its primary results on May 5.

Nelson told Mother Jones that an evidentiary hearing will be held in the case on April 29. The group is nonpartisan, said Nelson, who noted that there are Republicans among the 700-plus reports of election troubles the group has collected. She added that until there’s a full understanding of improperly disqualified ballots, the results of the election are in doubt.

“If that had not happened, would that have changed the outcome of the election?” she asked. “It may have. And so long as that’s out there as a question, I think we’re looking at some deep fundamental questions about how we conduct our elections systematically, and what it is that we need to do to ensure that we’re not left with so severe a level of doubt in that process.”

See more here:

The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ringer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Mother Jones

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

For the last couple of months, we’ve been taking flak from some of our readers over our election coverage. Here’s a sample of Facebook comments from a recent story, headlined “Sanders Extends His Lead in Wyoming.”

“You hate Bernie.” “Boy the media hates her!”

Journalists like us typically shrug off this kind of criticism. When we make people on both sides mad, we must be doing something right…right?

But Mother Jones is not your typical news organization, this isn’t your typical election season, and we’ve never been too much into doing things the way they’ve always been done. So we wanted to take a different tack this time and address these concerns with you, head-on.

We won’t be coy: This is about building a relationship, and we’re going to ask for money.

Mother Jones is a reader-supported nonprofit, and that means we rely on donations and magazine subscriptions for 70 percent of our annual budget. It also means that by April 30, we need to raise $175,000 from readers like you to stay on track.

So the easiest thing to do, in some ways, would be taking it easy on our election coverage so as not to upset any of you while we’re asking for your support—we know Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders appeal to a lot of our readers. But taking it easy on anything is not in our DNA; in fact, it’s exactly the opposite of what (we think) you want us to do.

We’ll explain why we believe that—but if you don’t need to read more, please make your tax-deducible donation to help fund our reporting right now. (You can use PayPal, too, which could be easier if you’re reading this on your phone.)

Here’s one big thing about being supported by readers: No one tells us what to cover, or how. That means we’re free to do what good journalism has always done: Offend some of the people, all of the time.

Unlike some publications, we don’t endorse or support candidates. As a nonprofit, we’re legally prohibited from doing that, and, just as importantly, it would be counter to what we stand for journalistically. We’re not about telling you how to make up your mind. You do just fine on your own. What we are about is giving you the facts you need to do it—even when they are uncomfortable.

That often means going to extra lengths: Unlike a lot of “news” you read online, what we write goes through a real fact-checking process. (Read a great description of it, by one of our ace former researchers, here.)

And it means digging in places where others aren’t. Back in 2012, pundits insisted that voters didn’t really care about the 0.01 percent and their disproportionate influence in politics—until we revealed how Mitt Romney had told his big-ticket donors that 47 percent of Americans were moochers. Two years ago, when few were talking about Clinton’s links to the fossil fuel industry, we did a major investigative feature on her support for fracking as secretary of state; now her links to the fossil fuel industry are a big issue. Last summer, we ran the first in-depth piece on Sanders’ political evolution (and put an illustration of him on Mount Rushmore on the cover of our magazine); it took months for other major outlets to take him seriously. Since then, we’ve both covered the breaking news in the race and dug deeper on the strong points and weak points of both candidates—because that’s the job you want us to do.

Stories that make some of our readers uncomfortable don’t just happen during a presidential election. The increase in mass shootings and the influence of the National Rifle Association, the neuroscience behind racism, the incredible amount of water it takes to grow a single almond—we’ve gotten pushback from a lot of people about these stories, too, but they’ve also turned into mainstays of the public debate.

And that’s what we’re aiming for: substantive reporting that challenges conventional wisdom. There are plenty of places that serve up content to affirm what their readers already believe. But we think you deserve better.

Do we expect our biggest critics to open up their wallets to support us after reading this? Nope. But being a reader-supported nonprofit means building a real relationship with our audience, and that starts with trust. We hope there are enough of you who trust us to provide information you won’t find anywhere else—even if, especially if, it challenges your own preconceptions.

Continue reading here: 

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Elizabeth Warren Lists All the Ways She Considers Trump a "Loser"

Mother Jones

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

In a Twitter rampage on Monday afternoon, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) enumerated all the ways in which she considers Donald Trump a loser. The liberal favorite launched a barrage of critiques at the Republican presidential candidate, tweeting about everything from the Trump University fiasco to Trump’s numerous corporate bankruptcies. She repeatedly called him a “loser” and concluded, “It’s our job to make sure @realDonaldTrump ends this campaign every bit the loser that he started it.”

Visit site:  

Elizabeth Warren Lists All the Ways She Considers Trump a "Loser"

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Elizabeth Warren Lists All the Ways She Considers Trump a "Loser"

Here are Big Oil’s favorite presidential candidates

Here are Big Oil’s favorite presidential candidates

By on 10 Mar 2016commentsShare

Hillary Clinton is getting a ride on a roiling river of dirty fossil fuel money, but she’s not the biggest oil-industry recipient with presidential aspirations — not even close.

Oil and gas interests funneled $3.25 million into Priorities USA Action, the largest super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton, during this election cycle, according to new data from Federal Election Commission and compiled by Greenpeace. The funds make up one in every 15 dollars given to the PAC — a striking number for someone who once complained of being tired “of being at the mercy of these large oil companies.”

What’s more, Clinton is receiving fossil fuel funds directly into her campaign, as well. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, she’s received nearly $268,000 from PACs and individuals associated with the oil and gas sector.

Advertisement – Article continues below

A spokesperson for Clinton told VICE News that she has “fought against fossil fuel interests for decades,” and the former secretary of state has repeatedly argued that her donors don’t hold sway over her decisions. Amid calls for her to release the transcripts of the speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs employees earlier this year, Clinton responded: “Anybody who knows me, who thinks they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing.”

But Clinton’s history isn’t quite that of a tireless campaigner against the interests of fossil fuel companies. While she surely understands climate science and supports Obama’s recent Clean Power Plan regulations, the Clinton Foundation, her family’s nonprofit, has a long record of accepting money from oil giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, as well as from oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia.

Fossil fuel donations received by Clinton’s biggest Democratic adversary, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, pale in comparison. Sanders has received only $35,000 in campaign donations from fossil fuel interests this election cycle.But both Sanders and Clinton pale in comparison to the real oil money guzzler, Ted Cruz.

OpenSecrets.org

Throughout his simpering bid for the presidency, Cruz has been called many things: a troll, a jerk, and the zodiac killer. Now, the junior senator from Texas — who once boldly proclaimed, “Climate change is not science. It’s religion” — has officially earned the title of fossil fuel errand boy. Throughout the presidential race, super PACs supporting Cruz received more than $25 million from “megadonors,” or executives, board members, or major investors in the fossil fuel industry. In fact, more than half of the money given to the super PACs that support him — 57 percent — came from fossil fuel companies and stakeholders, according to that same data compiled by Greenpeace. And according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ numbers, Cruz’s own campaign received $887,451 from PACs and individuals associated with oil and gas. Personally, fossil fuel investments also make up 15.8 to 22.7 percent of Cruz’s own assets.

Simultaneously, Cruz has been doing everything he can to promise an easy road for Big Oil under a Cruz regime. This includes pushing to scale back restrictions on sending U.S. crude oil overseas, making public declarations of love for fracking, and reiterating his anti-science stance over and over again. But none of this should come as a surprise, given that, for years, Cruz has categorically denied the existence of climate change at every chance he can get. To hear Cruz talk about climate change is akin to hearing a Bigfoot hunter explain his latest simian sighting: his argument ignores science, rationale, and any semblance of sanity.

“If you line up the priorities of the hydrocarbons industry, they fit almost perfectly with Cruz’s positions,” Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston, told Bloomberg last month. “It’s a natural policy fit.”

Cruz’s hands are covered in oil, and he’s getting dangerously close to smearing them all over the walls of the White House.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading – 

Here are Big Oil’s favorite presidential candidates

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here are Big Oil’s favorite presidential candidates

Breaking: Michael Bloomberg Officially Rules Out a Presidential Run

Mother Jones

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

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Monday that he has ruled out a presidential bid. In an editorial on Bloomberg View, Bloomberg wrote that he feared his entry into the race would only strengthen Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s chances at the White House.

“As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz,” he said. “That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.”

Read Bloomberg’s editorial in its entirety here.

Taken from: 

Breaking: Michael Bloomberg Officially Rules Out a Presidential Run

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Breaking: Michael Bloomberg Officially Rules Out a Presidential Run

Will Conservatives Abandon Donald Trump in the General Election?

Mother Jones

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

The New York Times has a big story this morning about the trials and tribulations of the Republican Party establishment in their efforts to stop Donald Trump. I would like to draw your attention to two things. First this:

Late last fall, the strategists Alex Castellanos and Gail Gitcho, both presidential campaign veterans, reached out to dozens of the party’s leading donors, including the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and the hedge-fund manager Paul Singer, with a plan to create a “super PAC” that would take down Mr. Trump….A Trump nomination would not only cause Republicans to lose the presidency, they wrote, “but we also lose the Senate, competitive gubernatorial elections and moderate House Republicans.” No major donors committed to the project, and it was abandoned. No other sustained Stop Trump effort sprang up in its place.

….Mitt Romney had been eager to tilt the race, and even called Mr. Christie after he ended his campaign to vent about Mr. Trump and say he must be stopped. On the night of the primary, Mr. Romney was close to endorsing Mr. Rubio himself, people familiar with his deliberations said.

Yet Mr. Romney pulled back, instead telling advisers that he would take on Mr. Trump directly. After a Tuesday night dinner with former campaign aides, during which he expressed a sense of horror at the Republican race, Mr. Romney made a blunt demand Wednesday on Fox News: Mr. Trump must release his tax returns to prove he was not concealing a “bombshell” political vulnerability.

So why didn’t Romney just fund this Super-PAC himself? $10 million would be pocket change for him, and these PACs all know how to keep contributions anonymous if Romney had wanted that. It’s ridiculous that the Republican Party’s many zillionaires have all been unwilling to drop a few megabucks on this effort, and doubly ridiculous that Romney is willing to go public with his “horror” but wasn’t willing shell out to do something about it. Maybe that’s why he lost the 2012 race.

And there’s also this:

At least two campaigns have drafted plans to overtake Mr. Trump in a brokered convention, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has laid out a plan that would have lawmakers break with Mr. Trump explicitly in a general election.

….While still hopeful that Mr. Rubio might prevail, Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination….Mr. McConnell has raised the possibility of treating Mr. Trump’s loss as a given and describing a Republican Senate to voters as a necessary check on a President Hillary Clinton, according to senators at the lunches.

He has reminded colleagues of his own 1996 re-election campaign, when he won comfortably amid President Bill Clinton’s easy re-election. Of Mr. Trump, Mr. McConnell has said, “We’ll drop him like a hot rock,” according to his colleagues.

Mitch McConnell is the ultimate transactional politician. He never bothers with fancy justifications for what he wants to do; he just tells reporters that his goal is stop x or push y because it’s what he wants, and that’s that. It’s almost refreshing in a way.

So if he’s seriously suggesting that Republicans in significant numbers might break with Trump and hand the election to Hillary Clinton, he’s probably serious. He doesn’t play 11-dimensional chess. I’ve been frankly dubious about all the promises I’ve heard from conservatives about abandoning Trump even if he wins the nomination, and I still am. I think most of them will eventually invent some reason to “reluctantly” pull the lever for him thanks to their existential horror of a Hillary Clinton presidency. But who knows? If McConnell is up for it, maybe it’s a more serious possibility than I think.

Link – 

Will Conservatives Abandon Donald Trump in the General Election?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Conservatives Abandon Donald Trump in the General Election?

Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

Mother Jones

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

After a disappointing third-place finish in Saturday’s South Carolina Republican primary, Ted Cruz is looking to a new ally to boost his performance in the Nevada caucuses on Tuesday: the ghost of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Cruz seems to have settled on the idea that President Barack Obama won’t get a Supreme Court justice confirmed to replace Scalia. During a stump speech Monday afternoon in Las Vegas, Cruz said one of his first actions as president would be to name a “strong principled constitutionalist” as Scalia’s successor.

Cruz has begun to emphasize his legal career on the campaign trail in order to paint himself as the lone Republican candidate who can defend Scalia’s legacy. It’s a two-step dance to take down his rivals: heighten the stakes of the election to minimize Donald Trump as an unserious candidate, and push the idea that Marco Rubio isn’t conservative enough to be entrusted with picking Supreme Court nominees.

“As Ronald Reagan was to the presidency, so too was Justice Scalia to the Supreme Court,” Cruz said. “And his passing underscores the stakes of this election. It’s not one branch of government, but two that hang in the balance.”

Cruz laid out a conservative’s dystopian vision of the Supreme Court, where the law of the land would flip to a liberal interpretation should Scalia’s seat go to a Democratic appointee. “We are one liberal justice away from the Supreme Court mandating unlimited abortion on demand all across this country with no restrictions whatsoever,” Cruz said. “We are one liberal justice away from the Supreme Court reading the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights.” Cruz warned that a 5-4 liberal majority would also mean the dismantling of statues based on the Ten Commandments, “or the Supreme Court concluding that the United Nations and the World Court can bind our justice system…and subjecting us to international law and taking away sovereignty.”

Amid this doom and gloom, Cruz made sure to remind the crowd of Nevadans that he is a former lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, so he knows how the institution operates. At the same time, he repeatedly hammered the point that he wouldn’t waffle, vowing that he was the only Republican candidate the voters should trust to appoint truly conservative judges.

“I think Justice Scalia’s passing,” Cruz said, taking a veiled jab at Trump’s gutter politics, “has elevated the assessment of the men and women of Nevada.”

Original article: 

Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Tells Nevadans Only He Can Preserve Scalia’s Legacy

Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

Mother Jones

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

Chelsea Clinton hit the trail for the first time this election cycle on Tuesday to campaign for her mother, and she came out swinging.

In New Hampshire, the younger Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-all, or single-payer, health care plan by wondering if it would in fact take away coverage from millions.

“Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance,” she said, according to MSNBC. “I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we’ll go back to an era—before we had the Affordable Care Act—that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.”

Chelsea Clinton is technically right: Millions of Americans would lose their current health insurance plans, which would be replaced by enrollment in a coverage program available to all (except, perhaps, undocumented immigrants). But it’s unclear how a plan that would make almost everyone eligible for coverage would strip millions of health care coverage, which is what Clinton seemed to be saying. (The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Sanders’ health care plan, which he outlined in legislation in 2013, would replace the current piecemeal approach to coverage through many different programs—private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP—with government-provided coverage for everyone. As with the Affordable Care Act’s health care exchanges, Sanders’ 2013 bill relies on states to develop single-payer plans. But as the Sanders campaign stresses, any state that refused to set up a singe-payer system would have the federal government step in and do it. So unlike with the current Medicaid expansion, states could not opt out of “Berniecare.”

“It is time for the United States to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care as a right to every man, woman, and child,” Sanders campaign spokeswoman Arianna Jones said in a statement responding to Chelsea Clinton’s attack. “A Medicare-for-all plan will save the average middle-class family $5,000 a year. Further, the Clinton campaign is wrong. Our plan will be implemented in every state in the union regardless of who is governor.”

Like her daughter, Hillary Clinton has taken to attacking Sanders over health care, despite having said in 2008 that Democrats shouldn’t criticize each other over universal health care. In Iowa on Monday, Clinton called Sanders’ plan a “risky deal.” Expect this issue to come up on Sunday, when Clinton and Sanders face off in the last debate before voting begins with the February 1 caucuses in Iowa.

Read this article:

Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chelsea Clinton Accuses Sanders of Trying to "Dismantle Obamacare"

Planned Parenthood Announces It’s Backing Hillary Clinton for President

Mother Jones

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

Planned Parenthood announced on Thursday it will endorse Hillary Clinton for president—a choice that, while unsurprising, marks the first time the women’s health organization has endorsed a candidate in a presidential primary. The group will make the formal endorsement this Sunday at a campaign event in New Hampshire.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards confirmed the news on Twitter:

Hillary Clinton followed up by expressing her support of the embattled women’s health organization.

The New York Times reports the endorsement will open up $20 million from the advocacy wing of Planned Parenthood to help Clinton and senate candidates around the country this election year.

The news comes the day after Congress voted to defund the organization for the eighth time in the last year. After a series of heavily edited videos claiming to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue were released in July, the organization has faced an onslaught of attacks and threats to pull millions of dollars in both Federal and state funding.

“This week was a jarring reminder of what’s at stake in 2016,” Clinton said in a statement on Thursday. “For the first time ever, the United States House and Senate passed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

“We need a president who has what it takes to stop Republicans from defunding Planned Parenthood and taking away a woman’s right to basic health care,” she added. “If I’m elected, I will be that president.”

Original article: 

Planned Parenthood Announces It’s Backing Hillary Clinton for President

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Planned Parenthood Announces It’s Backing Hillary Clinton for President

Rick Santorum Just Defended Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims From Traveling to the US

Mother Jones

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

In what could be his final appearance on the GOP debate stage this election cycle, Rick Santorum (who’s polling at 0.3 percent, which is second to last) ramped up his rhetoric on Muslims and terrorism. “We have entered World War III!” he declared.

Asked about Donald Trump’s widely condemned proposal to ban Muslims from traveling to the United States, Santorum set himself apart from his undercard rivals by defending the GOP front-runner. “What Donald Trump was saying was nothing against Muslims,” Santorum claimed, faulting President Barack Obama for Trump’s position.

“The fact of the matter is that not all Muslims are jihadists,” Santorum said. “No one—including, I suspect, Donald Trump—would say that. But the reality is all jihadists are Muslims. That’s a reality, and we have to stop worrying about offending some people and start defending all Americans.”

Source – 

Rick Santorum Just Defended Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims From Traveling to the US

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rick Santorum Just Defended Donald Trump’s Plan to Ban Muslims From Traveling to the US