Two weeks ago, the liberal Center for Media and Democracy kicked off a national campaign to reveal the identities of anonymous contributors to conservative groups in an effort to unseat the GOP governor in Wisconsin.
Now the group may have to answer embarrassing questions about its own anonymous donors.
A Watchdog.org review of financial documents reveals the Madison-based CMD, which bills itself as a journalism organization, received $520,000 in 2011 from the Schwab Charitable Fund. That’s 60 percent of the $864,740 CMD received that year.
CMD lists no donors on its tax returns, but its website identifies numerous financial backers without any financial data. Several are highlighted in bold and labeled “current donors.” But one important name is missing: Schwab.
Read the full story at WatchDog.org.
In February, the NAACP threatened to sue LifeNews.com and Ryan Bomberger, a LifeNews blogger , for a column that took the civil rights organization to task over its abortion position. The NAACP is upset about a column Bomberger wrote at LifeNews titled, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” which notes the organization’s 44th Annual Image Awards.
Following the piece, the NAACP sent Bomberger, the director of the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews a threatening letter claiming infringement on its name and logo for including it in the opinion column. The letter accuses Bomberger and his group, the Radiance Foundation, of “trademark infringement” over an ad campaign that exposes the NAACP’s pro-abortion position.
Stating that while “you are certainly entitled to express your viewpoint, you cannot do so in connection with a name that infringes on the NAACP’s rights,” the letter demands a response within a self-imposed time period.
In response to the letter, Bomberger asked a federal court to declare that the First Amendment protects his and the Radiance Foundation’s exercise of free speech and that his speech does not infringe on any of the NAACP’s trademarks or other rights. The lawsuit does not seek any damages.
Read the full story at LifeNews.com.
Under a regulation issued by the Office of Personnel Management, members of Congress and their staff will be able to use federal subsidies worth up to $11,378 per year to purchase any of the 103 different health insurance plans that expressly cover elective abortions that are now being offered on the Washington, D.C. Obamacare exchange.
The federal subsidy members of Congress and their staff can now use to buy health-insurance plans that cover elective abortions contradicts a vow Obama made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.
It also contradicts the express purpose of the executive order on abortion funding that Obama promised to issue in March 2010 when the House of Representatives was preparing to take its final vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Obama needed to promise to issue that executive order to secure the votes of a group of Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.), who said they would not vote for Obamacare so long as it funded abortion. Without Obama’s executive order, the bill would not have passed.
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” Obama said in his Sept. 9, 2009 speech to Congress.
Read the full article at CNS News.
The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 29, 2013 reveals that in 2010, 56.7% of abortions reported to the CDC nationwide were done on Hispanic and Black women.
According to the report, there were 415,479 abortions for known ethnicity reported for selected states in 2010 and 153,045 (or 36.8 percent) were non-Hispanic white babies, 148,261 (or 35.7 percent) were non-Hispanic black babies, 87,240 (or 21.0 percent) were Hispanic babies, and 26,933 (or 6.5 percent) were babies of other races or ethnicities.
The report reveals that a majority of Black or Hispanic babies were aborted in New Jersey (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (64.8 percent) and Georgia (73.2 percent). In New York City alone 81.9 percent of the babies aborted were Black or Hispanic while in the state of Texas 63.7 percent were Black or Hispanic an increase from 2009.
“This confirms what we have said all along, that abortion is not about woman’s rights or reproductive freedom it is simply about eugenics,” says Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics. “We not only documented the eugenic targeting of minorities in our film, Maafa21 but also in a report we published in 2011. Research we produced for our report, Racial Profiling by Planned Parenthood and the American Abortion Lobby, clearly shows that a majority of family planning centers market abortion to minorities by locating their centers in minority communities.”
Read the full article at LifeNews.com.
At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Tuesday asked if President Barack Obama has the “prosecutorial discretion” not to enforce immigration and marijuana laws, what’s to stop him from deciding not to enforce election laws.
“If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?” Gowdy asked Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center, one of several legal experts who testified at the hearing titled, “The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws.”
GOWDY: “If you can dispense with immigration laws or marijuana laws or mandatory minimums, can you also dispense with election laws?”
GOWDY: “Why not? If he can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?”
LAZARUS: “Because we live in a government of laws, and the president is bound to obey them and apply them.”
GOWDY: “Well he’s not applying the ACA, and he’s not applying immigration laws, and he’s not applying marijuana laws, and he’s not applying mandatory minimums. What’s the difference with election laws?”
LAZARUS: “We have a disagreement as to whether in fact he is applying those laws. My view is that he is applying those laws.”
Gowdy then turned to Jonathan Turley, professor at George Washington University Law School.
GOWDY: “Professor Turley, what are the limits of prosecutorial discretion, and if the president can suspend immigration laws, marijuana laws, why not election laws?”
TURLEY: “I think that some of these areas I can’t imagine to be justified through prosecutorial discretion. It’s not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say, an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the law. That’s a legislative decision. Prosecutorial discretion is a case-by-case decision that is made by the Department of Justice. When the Department of Justice starts to say we’re going to extend that to whole sections of laws, then they are engaging in a legislative act, not an act of prosecutorial discretion. Wherever the line is drawn has got to be drawn somewhere from here. It can’t include categorical rejections of the application of the law to millions of people.”