Mediaboss Marketing

Planned Parenthood announced last week that it will honor former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with the groups first-ever Champion of the Century award. The organization will host a number of events this year to commemorate the centennial year of its founding in October 1916. Among those events will be a gala 100 Years Strong: The Celebration of a Century held on May 2 in New York City.

According to Planned Parenthoods press release, the gala will honor Clinton for her 40 years of service to women and girls in this country. At the same event, the group will present its Champion of Change award to producer Shonda Rhimes for revolutionizing the way women and issues of reproductive health including safe, legal abortion are portrayed on television.

This refers to Rhimess work as creator and producer of the television show Scandal, which in 2015 featured a scene depicting the shows main character undergoing an onscreen abortion while the Christmas song Silent Night played in the background. (The abortion itself was not pictured graphically; the camera focused on the characters face as the procedure occurred.)

These two awards are merely the latest proof that Planned Parenthood is not, in fact, an innocent defender of womens rights. Nor is it a pro-choice organization that exists to give American women an array of health-care options. Planned Parenthood is an abortion corporation that seeks every possible opportunity to glorify abortion and deify the public figures who push for total access to government-funded abortion-on-demand.

Clinton who has already received Planned Parenthoods Margaret Sanger award, named after the groups eugenicist founder has done little of note throughout her long and unsuccessful political career to serve American women and children, but she has always been a prominent and staunch supporter of abortion. And the love goes both ways: Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards stumped for Clintons campaign across the country in 2016, and her organizations political-action arms donated around $38 million to Democratic candidates at all levels in the last election cycle.

In return for this support, Clinton as the Democratic nominee oversaw the horrifying decision to alter her partys platform, adopting the most pro-abortion policy stance the party has ever taken. The revised Democratic platform endorses the full repeal of the Hyde Amendment which bans the direct taxpayer funding of abortion and calls for the repeal of all federal and state policies that impede abortion in any way, including abortions through the last week of pregnancy In fact, in the final debate of the presidential election, Clinton categorically defended late-term abortion, using a disingenuous definition womens health to justify partial-birth procedures.

Neither Planned Parenthood nor its Champion of the Century is committed to protecting or serving women and girls. Though the group claims to offer women an array of health-care choices, it has grossly exaggerated its commitment to providing prenatal care, which in fact is almost entirely unavailable at its clinics. Planned Parenthood continues to assert that abortion is a mere 3 percent of its services, even though that inaccurate statistic has been debunked numerous times, including by left-leaning outlets such as Slate and the Washington Post.

The companys leadership has routinely and falsely claimed that its clinics offer mammograms, though they have never done so. The group provides less than 1 percent of the nations Pap tests and less than 2 percent of its breast exams and cancer screenings, while performing 325,000 abortions annually, about one-third of the abortions performed in the U.S. each year. Planned Parenthood clinics are outnumbered across the country by federally qualified health-care clinics by a ratio of 20 to 1, and these alternative clinics actually provide women an extensive array of health-care options.

Planned Parenthood was recently subject to a 15-month congressional investigation, which uncovered extensive evidence that the group has been involved in the illegal trafficking of the body parts of aborted babies, for which the group apparently received monetary compensation. It has been referred by Congress to both federal and local law-enforcement agencies for further investigation.

Meanwhile, as Planned Parenthood takes the time to plan its fancy gala and hand out unmerited awards, it has yet to produce an annual financial report for the 201516 fiscal year. This, while the group continues to accept half a billion dollars of taxpayer money from the federal government each year. Whats more, several reports indicate that some of the groups affiliates have engaged in possible Medicaid fraud to cover up use of this public funding to directly facilitate abortion procedures.

There is no doubt that Clinton richly deserves this award, as she has long been a public champion for Planned Parenthood, sanctioning the murder of thousands of children and forcing unwilling Americans to pay for it. But as information continues to surface about the abortion groups illegal activity and public deceptions, it becomes increasingly evident that neither Clinton nor Planned Parenthood is a true champion of women and children. One can only hope that, in the fullness of time, Planned Parenthoods disgracefully propped-up fortunes take the same disastrous turn as did Hillary Clintons presidential ambitions.

Alexandra DeSanctis is a National Review Institute William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism.

READ MORE:

View original post here:
Why Hillary Clinton Deserves Planned Parenthood's Award - National Review

Trump was a vocal supporter of Knox during her incarceration and trial in Italy and, according to The New York Times, is not happy that the Seattle native voted for Hillary Clinton for president.

Back in 2011, Donald Trump tweeted that he believed Seattle native Amanda Knox was innocent. More than once.

In fact, Trumpspoke out on Knox behalf at the time and tweeted five times in support of her, proclaiming her innocence and blasting the U.S. government for allegedly not doing enough to help her, wroteGreg Hadley of The McClatchy Company.

Knox had been spending a year abroad in 2007 when her roommate was murdered. Knox, her boyfriend and another man were convicted in the death of Meredith Kercher. The twisted case went all the way to the Italys highest court where, in 2011, Knoxs overturned conviction was upheld.

When Knoxwas acquitted, Trump called it good news indeed.

But, according to an interview with the New York Times, Trump is now angry with Knox because she was open and unapologetic about voting for Hilary Clinton in 2016.

The allegation that Trump is angry with Knox came from the Times interview with Trumps neighbor, friend and adviser, George Guido Lombardi, who said Trump had asked him to look into her case when he was in his native Italy. Lombard told the Times reporter that the president was very upset with Knox.

In acolumn for the West Seattle Heraldlast year, Knox defended her decision to support Clinton over Trump, acknowledging that Trump had believed in her during her worst and most vulnerable moment but also listed the many political issues on which they differ and argued that he was not entitled to her politicalbacking.

Politics is not a tit-for-tat game, she wrote in the column. Its not: I helped you, now you help me.

Follow this link:
Trump reportedly 'very upset' with Amanda Knox for voting for Hillary ... - Seattle Times

The Democratic National Committee announced on Sunday that Hillary Clintons campaign had turned over its email list, giving the party a major boost as it rebuilds under a new chair and prepares for the midterm elections next year and the 2020 presidential race.

The list, provided as an in-kind contribution from the Hillary for America campaign organization, includes more than 10 million new names that the DNC did not have on its voter files, according to both Clinton and DNC aides. The contribution was valued as $3.5 million, according to data from the Federal Election Commission.

This information will help candidates up and down the ballot engage with voters and win seats from the school board to the Senate, said Xochitl Hinojosa, communications director for the DNC. Were seeing momentum and energy across the country, and this investment will help us harness the energy and turn it into votes.

The decision to turn over the email list in addition to providing the DNC with its analytics and voter modeling tools fulfills a campaign promise that Clinton made. During the primary, the former secretary of state pledged that if she were nominated,she would focus her resources on rebuilding a Democratic Party infrastructure that had decayed under President Barack Obama.

[P]utting the DNC on a strong footing is something that shes been very focused on since the campaign, when she set out to leave the DNC in the black and did so, said Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill. But in addition to a strong financial footing, sharing campaign data and resources is something she views as critical to electing Democrats in 2017, 2018 and beyond. It is an important and unprecedented step toward a strong, unified Democratic Party going forward.

Obamas win in 2008 had bolstered the partys elected ranks. But his own outside group, Organizing for Action, attempted to play much of the traditional role of the DNC, fostering frustration within party ranks. National and state party officials worried that local races were neglected in favor of Obama-specific ones. And they chaffed that they were not given complete access to the OFA email list until 2015.

Clintons email list will allow the party and its state affiliates to more effectively target voters in the lead-up to the 2018 midterms. But the party still does not have the crown jewel of email lists: that collected by Sen. Bernie Sanders 2016 campaign, which has the names of millions of individuals who do not associate with the Democratic Party and were brought into the political process largely because of their affinity for the independent Vermont senator.

Sanders team has been reluctant to hand that information to the DNC out of fear that the list will be misusedby the committee and under the belief that the individuals on it did not sign up as Democrats but as supporters of Sanders.

Read the original post:
Hillary Clinton's Campaign Turns Over Email List To DNC - Huffington Post

It seems that Hillary Clinton is following in her nephew's footsteps as a model. The former presidential candidate has been spotted modeling a pair of pink heels from pop superstar Katy Perry's new shoeline.

According to the Katy Perry Collection website, the shoe Clinton is wearing is a suede pump with a 3.5-inch heel with sparkling stars and moons inside.The heel aptly named 'The Hillary' comes in a seafoam green, and a trendy millennial pink which Clinton can be seen graciously modeling on Instagram.

The shoe is definitely fitting for a strong lady like Clinton who reached for the stars last year during her presidential campaign. Although the outcome didn't quite turn out as expected, Clinton set a precedent for future women to continue breaking through the 'glass ceiling.'

(Screenshot: Katy Perry Collections)

It should come to no surprise that Clinton chose to wear Perry's heel considering the two women actually have a pretty solid relationship. Not only do the duo share the same birthday, but the singerendorsed the former presidential candidate during her campaign.

Clinton is really well-known for her fabulous array of pantsuits, all in different colors. What many may not know is that Clinton's sense of style is a statement pink heels and all.

Clinton' wardrobe falls under a specific fashion style born in the late 70s known aspower dressing. The style helps empower women to establish their authority in professional and political settings that are normally dominated by men.

Former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was one of the first women to incorporate a black "power suit" in order to present a professional, yet commanding persona. Claiming that her style was "never flashy, just appropriate," Thatcher was at the forefront of the style that forced mento take women in the workforce seriously.

Since then, the style has gone through different stages of evolution. Women like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are considered to be new faces of the fashion style since they incorporated dresses, gowns, and most importantly, bright colors.

During an interview withTelegraph, Nina McLemore, the designer behind Clinton's pantsuits explained that Clinton's wardrobe is inspired by the power dressing style.

McLemore is a firm believer that someone's confidence level can be linked to their appearance and sense of style. She said:

"Women from a very early stage in their careers need to think about dressing to succeed. Dressing in a way that the people in power see you as someone who is serious about her career and wants to be sitting at that top table.

It means the clothes you wear also can send that message of 'Im a positive person which is much more challenging for men in grey suits to project, short of resorting to a novelty tie."

The colors of Clinton's pantsuits also play a strong role in the powerful image she projects. McLemore, the designer behind Clinton's pantsuits explained why she chooses such vibrant colors. She said:

"Color can change your attractiveness entirely and how people see you. What a woman wants is skin that has a pink touch to it, not grey or yellow which is what black does.

I've given many talks to law and accounting firms. I walk in and 70-80% of the people are in black, so of course they don't stand out."

While Clinton's pantsuits help project a powerful and professional image, the pink heels are the icing on the cake.

The millennial pink shoethat Perry describes as a "Power Pump," has not only been trending for quite some time, but it also pushes the definition of power dressing.

Millennial pink first showed up in 2012 as a toned-down, pastel Barbie Pink. The term was coined in 2016 since the color was beginning to overtake the closets of many millennial women.

Since then, the colorhas been seen in different ad campaigns, makeup, and hairstyles.

Pink is often seen as a feminine color (although that wasn't always the case). By wearing and promoting this particular color and shoe, both Perry and Clinton two powerful women in their respective careers are essentially giving femininity some amazing girl power.

This is further supported by Perry'sown personal hyper-feminine and tongue-in-cheek style which inspired her entire show collection. When someone puts on one of her shoes, Perry wants them to feel just as frilly yetempowered as she does when she dresses up.

According to the website:

"Katy Perry's vision, eye for detail and cheeky spirit give her footwear collection a distinct personality. Inspired by Katy's travels, humor and extraordinary imagination, the footwear reflect her whimsical approach towards life."

If you want to get Clinton's heels, or perhaps something a little different that stays true toPerry's style, definitely be sure to check out the collection.

Read More ->Starbucks Adds The Sensational 'Pink Drink' To Its Official Menu

More here:
Hillary Clinton's Millennial Pink Heel & The Art Of Power Dressing - Konbini US

It is difficult to tally how many conversations I have had with someone making extreme, paranoid and hateful remarks about Hillary Clinton. Often the accusers eyes open wide, spittle begins to form at the corner of his lips, and he declares that the worlds greatest monster is the former senator and secretary of state.

Once in a bar, two acquaintances rambled at torturous length about the email scandal. They had no clue what the then-presidential candidate had plotted with her private server, but they knew it was diabolical. No evidence is necessary if the suspect is Hillary Clinton a villain who rivals Professor Moriarty and Saddam Hussein.

My simple questions regarding Clintons exoneration bythe Justice Department, internal State Department review and FBI report made it painfully clear that if these two men were not obsessed with a minor email storage procedure, they would find another reason to cast Clinton into the fires of hell. First on the fringes of the right wing and eventually the general population, Americanssince the early 1990s have condemned the woman for unprovableoffense uponunverifiable innuendo. It is likely that no modern public figure has faced greater hostility, slander and scrutiny.

A close friend of mine, whomI immensely admire, enthusiastically supported Sen. Bernie Sanders in the presidential primary, but was reticent to vote for Clinton. She is deceitful by default, he said. The problem with adopting an absolute position is that it creates circular logic. If Hillary Clinton is incapable of telling the truth, then every statement she utters is a lie. The axiom eliminates the need for investigation of thoughtful evaluation. The case is closed before it opens.

Susan Bordo, a Pulitzer Prize nominee and feminist literary critic, interrogates the American media and political discourse in her new book, The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, with the hope of discovering how and why the flawed but largely noble political figure became the subject of such widespread scorn that survey respondents have consistently found her less trustworthy than her 2016 opponent, Donald Trump, a compulsive liar and snake oil-soaked con man.

The result is an important but incomplete examination of the strange political life of Hillary Clinton. Bordo has provided an interpretively annotated campaign narrative, re-creating the horror show of 2016 almost week by week. Due to no fault of Bordo, who writes in an accessible and enjoyable style,the reading experience is as sickening as ingesting medicine meant to induce vomiting because we know how awfully the story ends.

Bordo sharpens her focus most clearly and closely on sexism, exposing how gender stereotypes, misogynistic assumptions and chauvinistic typecasting have made it nearly impossible for Clinton or her supporters to influence, much less control, public perceptions about her ideology and candidacy.

In the 1990s, Bordo reminds readers, commentators objected to Clinton, calling her Lady Macbeth of Little Rock and an aspiring philosopher queen. Critics abhorred her radical feminism, believing she was an unsympathetic moralist. In 2016 she was cartoonishly amoral. Forthe far left or hard right, she didnt seem to possess any redeeming virtues and appeared to be a self-serving elitist who counted Clinton cash, to quote the title of a best-selling book, while watching Americans die in Benghazi and her Wall Street friends liquidate middle class wealth.

Millions of Americans also believe without awareness of cognitive dissonance, Clinton is a master manipulator of the political pair of aces the womans card and victim card andsimultaneously an enabler of her husbands adulterous affairs.

The incoherence of Clinton hatred becomes more decipherable when Bordo cites polling data demonstrating that in 2015 Americans routinely ranked least trustworthy alongside Clinton, Carly Fiorina an obscure Republican candidate with no prior experience in politics. A recent poll, not yet available when Bordo took to writing, has showedthat any Democrat but Elizabeth Warren would currently defeat Donald Trump in an election. Can anyone guess what Clinton, Fiorina and Warren have in common?

Bordo explores familiar territory when she illustrates her feminist thesis with powerful examples aboutmisperception. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both appeared as if their jugulars would explode mid-speech as they bellowed at rallies, their faces turning red, but only Clinton faced relentless mockery and criticism for her shrill and loud delivery.

Many Americans, committed to nothing but blindness, still insist that sexism played no role in the outcome of the 2016 presidential race. Thats even with the knowledge that 13women accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment and assault, after leaked footage of his boastsof similar criminal behavior, failed to resonate with the same power as questions surrounding Clintons email decisions and habits as secretary of state.

Bordo deftly handles the email issue to cast her story with identifiable culprits responsible for the destruction of Hillary Clinton. James Comey, a chronic abuser of his power and the hideously perfect personification of the FBIs right-wing culture, is the head snake, but there are other important characters slithering around the wreckage.

Bernie Sanders, the progressive revivalist and faith healer, began his campaign with the famous exhortation, Enough with the damn emails, but soon began castigating Clinton as a counterfeit progressive firmly resting underneath a manhole of Wall Street. With clever, roundabout phrasing, he would find a way to pair the word integrity with the email triviality and to reference the popular classification of Clinton as lesser of two evils. The Sanders doctrine, assigning authenticity to him alone, was not something his religiously fervent supporters would soon forget. It did not help that, for reasons of ego or something else as yet unexplained, Sanders stayed in the race long after it was all but impossible for him to win.

Various members of the media contributed to the destruction. Bordo makes the most of a Harvard University study of the primary showing that even aside from the email scandal, 84 percent of the television news coverage of the Clinton campaign was negative, compared with43 percent for Trumps and 17 percent for Sanders.

The avalanche of attacks on Clinton followed the mass medias fixation on, what Daniel Boorstin, called pseudo-events. A pseudo-event, Bordo writes, is something that acquires authority not because it is accurate, but simply because the media has reported it, repeated, exaggerated it, replayed it, and made a mantra of it.

The most absurd pseudo-event, among many possibilities, was the serious discussion regarding Clintons health after she almost collapsed during a spell with pneumonia. Speculation that Clinton was near death dominated social media, while media outlets asked what Clinton was hiding. As of the time of this writing, Hillary Clinton is still alive.

The existence of Hillary Clinton is objectionable to many Americans. In a strange and self-serving review of The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Jones, the social media editor at the New Republic, accuses Susan Borno of canonizing and infantilizing Clinton before mawkishly defending millennials who refused to support the Democratic nominee for president.

Jones is correct that Bordo undermines her credibility by entirely ignoring the failures, errors and injurious decisions of the Clinton campaign, but the crucial choice is one of emphasis. In telling the story of Donald Trumps defeat of Hillary Clinton, and in attempting to explain an outspoken buffoon and bigots rise to the office of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy, is it really best to focus on how Clinton should have spent more time in Wisconsin? Jones actually devotes attention tohow Clinton supported raising the minimum wage to $12, while Sanders went for the full $15. The $3 difference will surely comfort elderly people, who mayno longer receive Meal on Wheels services, and the poor teenagers who, thanks to Trump,may not be able toapply for Pell grants for college.

It is on the matter of accountability for the suicidal populism of the American people that Bordo also fails.The entire time I spent reading The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, I kept asking, but why? Why did so many people especially men believe all the smears and fall for all the tricks against Clinton? The power of propaganda is awe-inspiring, and the influence of the mediocre mass media is immeasurable, but there are flaws of character and intelligence among large swaths of the general publicrendering people susceptible to the allure of pseudo-event reporting.

Gore Vidal recalled a private conversation he had with Hillary Clinton whenhe asked her why so many people, especially the most ignorant of the population, to use his words, straight white men, hate her. She laughed, and with a jocular delivery answered, I remind them of their ex-wives. Vidal added that Clinton has a sardonic sense of humor much too witty and sharp for the American people.

Bordo approaches Vidals depth of insight when she wonders if the young women who despise Clinton do so because she reminds them of their mothers. Bordotosses out this gem and pulls it back after only a paragraph, like a rock band playing a few seconds of a classic riff only to abandon the song altogether.

It is easy to undress Comey for his obvious and odious misdeeds, just as it is straightforward business to ridicule the mainstream television media for sexist reportage. The real task awaiting the bold writer is to inspect a large percentage of the American people for the deformities and defects of intellect that would allow them to select Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. In this same population, large numbers disbelieve evolutionary biology but support the torture of terrorismsuspects.

During one of my conversations with a rabid opponent of Lucifer I mean, Hillary I noticed that he used the exact same language to bash and brand the politician as he did to insult his wife. I told him I was appalled by the language he used to describe his spouse, but never followed up on the Clinton connection.

I have a feeling that the real story behind the destruction of Hillary Clinton is visible at that intersection.

Visit link:
Hillary hatred, exposed: What drives America's never-ending case against Clinton - Salon