Election 2016

It Doesn’t Matter If Donald Trump Is ‘Disciplined’

This piece originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

It turns out that the boisterous and bigoted Donald Trump we’ve known for the last few years has just been acting a part. According to the frontrunner’s chief strategist Paul Manafort, Trump is simply “projecting an image“ and once Americans get to know the real Donald Trump, they’ll love him: “The negatives will come down, the image is going to change.”

What a relief!

Some pundits, it seems, were willing to play along with Manafort’s claim that Trump is shedding his outrageous persona, citing a single speech that he delivered immediately following his victory in the New York primary as proof that “Donald Trump 2.0” is “markedly more disciplined, gentler and more appealing than the version of Trump we’ve seen for much of the last year.”

Howard Kurtz of Fox News raved that “the disciplined Donald” was a “changed candidate” who has scrubbed the insults and started “acting more presidential. “

In reality, the only thing that was substantively different about Trump’s New York speech was that he referred to his chief opponent as “Senator Cruz” instead of “Lyin’ Ted.”

That’s it.

But before anybody had a chance to give him a medal for this brave reformation, Trump returned to using his “Lyin’ Ted” moniker in his subsequent speeches and Twitter broadsides. The much-heralded new, disciplined and thoughtful Donald Trump didn’t even last a day.

He even mocked reports of his supposed “presidential” transformation, a transformation we’ve been hearing about since well into last year.

The standards for Trump are so low that he was even hailed for acting “more presidential” simply for using a teleprompter in a speech.

There seems to be no expectation that Trump will have any knowledge of world events, answer basis questions or hold consistent positions. Instead, he wins praise simply for not insulting someone.

Today Trump will deliver a speech at the Mayflower Hotel as part of a series of speeches intended to show “a more sober and serious presidential candidate,” who so far has mostly received attention for his uninformed rants and almost daily policy shifts.

But Trump changing his style won’t make the substance of what he says any less terrifying. After all, his main foreign policy objectives include committing war crimes and accelerating nuclear proliferation.

Appearances in “formal settings” won’t change the fact that Trump’s speeches are so replete with falsehoods that some reporters covering him have admitted that they have all but given up on fact-checking them.

Trump seems to relish in repeating mistruths, like his claim about Muslims partying in New Jersey on 9/11 or a U.S. general who he said rightly massacred Muslim prisoners with bullets covered in pig’s blood. Both are fallacious stories that gained popularity in the online rumor mill. Not that that matters to Trump, who said of the dubious massacre: “It’s an amazing story. It shows toughness, it shows toughness. A true story. The press will say, ‘Well it was a rumor.’ It’s not a rumor, it’s a true story.”

His bizarre birther conspiracy theories, disparaging remarks about POWs and criticism of vaccines have largely faded from the limelight as Trump finds new outrageous things to say each week.

No other candidate for president would ever be able to get away with the amount of falsehoods, unhinged diatribes and sleaze pushed on a daily basis by Trump.

And simply saying that it was all an act doesn’t make Trump a new man or any less scary of a possible future president.

###

PFAW

The Extremists Behind the 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates

As People For the American Way (PFAW) Senior Researcher for Special Projects Miranda Blue explained on the most recent telebriefing for PFAW members, “In past years, we’ve seen extreme endorsers for Republican presidential candidates, but there was always a level of extremism that the candidates wouldn’t go past. This year, it’s completely different. Leading 2016 Republican presidential candidates have shared the stage with individuals who say that the government should kill gay people, embrace a Christian Nation ideology, and more.”

This unprecedented extremism was discussed during last Thursday’s telebriefing, and has been closely tracked by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch team.

Some of the most striking examples come from Ted Cruz. He spoke at a conference alongside far-right pastor Kevin Swanson, who believes that according to the Bible, our government should impose the death penalty on gay people. Troy Newman, who Cruz appointed to co-chair his anti-abortion committee, has argued that the government should execute abortion providers. And Cruz touted the endorsement of Mike Bickle, who says that Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God for the Jewish people. But don’t just take our word for it – watch this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show last month, which uses research from PFAW’s Right Wing Watch:

It’s not just Ted Cruz who’s courting extremists. Donald Trump, for example, has campaigned with the support of people like Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter. Coulter is not quite the household name that Palin is, but they’re two peas in a pod in their far-right extremism. Coulter said recently that Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States was her “best birthday gift ever!”

Far-right figures also exert undue influence in the 2016 election through campaign spending. Because of Citizens United, millionaires and billionaires are able to push a far-right agenda in the Republican Party through unlimited expenditures. As PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery discussed on the telebriefing, Farris and Dan Wilks are top donors to Ted Cruz’s super PACs. The Wilks brothers hold strongly anti-gay, anti-choice and anti-government views. Peter was quoted earlier this month in the Houston Chronicle discussing the Wilks brothers: "Their willingness to pour millions of dollars into the presidential race and to write enormous checks for Religious Right organizations give them the potential to make a huge and destructive impact on our politics.”

Marco Rubio, for his part, is bankrolled both personally and professionally by billionaire Norman Braman. Marco Rubio returned the favor to Braman when he was in the Florida state legislature; Rubio “has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami instate for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.”

As the 2016 election continues, we’re sure to see more of the far-right financing and supporting the leading 2016 candidates. Be sure to follow our coverage at www.rightwingwatch.org.

PFAW

Supreme Court Goes Back to Work in January and Shows Again Why Election Day is Judgment Day

This piece originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

After a Holiday break, the Supreme Court returned to a full schedule of arguments and other activity in January. The crucial oral argument before the Court this month in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, as well as several cases that the Court agreed to review later this year, again show that on a variety of important issues, the Court has enormous influence but is closely divided. With the president elected in November likely to select as many as four new Supreme Court justices beginning as early as next year, the person we elect as president will be critical. That’s why Election Day 2016 will be Judgment Day for the Court and our rights and liberties.

Friedrichs is the latest battle in what the New York Times has called the “war on workers” and unions being waged by Justice Alito and other conservatives on the Court. A primary target of that war has been a decision almost 40 years ago inAbood v. Detroit Board of Education. In that case the Court determined that although workers cannot be forced to join a union or contribute to its political activities, since that would violate their First Amendment rights, they can be required to help pay for the costs of collective bargaining and related activities from which they benefit even if they are not union members. That solution to what would otherwise be a “free rider” problem is crucial to the ability of unions to effectively represent the interests of workers.  Even though a unanimous Supreme Court recognized the principle of Abood as recently as 2009, subsequent 5-4 decisions written by Justice Alito have criticized that ruling and effectively invited attempts to overturn it. That is exactly what the plaintiffs in Friedrichs, a small group of California teachers, are attempting to do, claiming they should not have to join or pay “fair share” costs to the state teachers union and that Abood should be overturned.

The justices’ comments at the oral argument made clear that the conservative 5-4 majority remains hostile to unions and Abood, and may well be prepared to overrule it this year. (As usual, Justice Thomas did not speak at the argument, but his negative views in this area have been made clear in past opinions). Particularly troubling were some comments by Justice Kennedy, who is often the “swing” vote on the Court, but in this case maintained that “free riders” are really “compelled riders” who, he claimed, are forced to support unions on “issues on which they strongly disagree.” Regardless of the merits of that claim, on which many have disagreed, it strongly suggests that there may now be five votes to overturnAbood, with disastrous consequences for unions and workers.

It is impossible, of course, to predict the precise outcome of a Supreme Court case based on the oral argument, and the Court could issue a decision that does not completely overrule Abood. The Court could send the case back to a lower court for specific fact-finding on issues like the impact of eliminating “free rider” payments on unions, as was suggested at one point in the argument, or could limit its holding to the specific case in California. Particularly if the Court chooses one of those alternatives, the question of who will replace older justices like Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Scalia when they retire will be critical. That is why the election in November of our next president, who will nominate such replacements, is crucial for the Court and workers’ rights. Even an outright overruling of Abood could be softened or revisited, but only if a progressive president is elected and selects more progressives Justices for the Court.

During January, the Court also agreed to review several important cases on other subjects this year. The case that has generated the most controversy is United States v. Texas, where lower courts have put on hold the president’s executive orders on immigration that would defer deportation enforcement against millions of undocumented immigrants who have children who are citizens or legal permanent residents and would be able to apply for jobs and stay in the U.S. for three years.  Twenty-six states led by Texas filed the challenge, and the huge partisan divide on the question almost guarantees that it will be an election issue this fall. The most extreme Justices on the Court (Scalia, Alito and Thomas) have voted against virtually every significant Obama initiative that has come before the Court, and the Court’s decision to add a question for the parties to address - whether the Obama order is consistent with the Constitution’s language that the president should “take care” that federal laws be “faithfully executed” -- suggests deep skepticism by some of the justices. The decision itself could have a huge impact not only on this specific issue, but also on the ability of a future progressive president to take other executive action in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. However this case is decided, there is also little question that these issues will return to the Court in 2017 or later, and the views of the president who will appoint future justices will be crucial to the results. 

The Court also decided in January to review several other important cases this year. In one, the Court has been asked to decide whether a state constitution can more strictly separate church and state than the increasingly conservative Supreme Court has and can prohibit any direct state financial aid to religious institutions. Thirty-five states have such constitutional provisions, and the Court is very divided on such religion issues, which are very likely to come up in the future as well. And in another big business vs. consumers case, the Court will consider what must be proven to prosecute someone for illegally using inside company information for stock or other trading. This issue has divided lower courts, one of which has adopted a narrow interpretation that has dealt a significant setback to the efforts of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara to crack down on insider trading in the $3 trillion hedge fund industry. The Court is likely to be divided on this issue as well.

The Court’s decisions in both these cases later this year will be important in and of themselves. But they are also very unlikely to be the last word on the significant big business, consumer, and religion issues they raise. The fact that these and other crucial issues will be decided by this divided Court in the future, and the fact that four justices on the current Court will be over 80 in the next president’s first term, is what makes the identity of the president who will appoint future justices so important. Statements this month by both Democratic and Republican candidates show that, even as they also discuss other issues, they clearly recognize the importance of the election for the future direction of the Court. In short, Election Day 2016 truly is Judgment Day for the Supreme Court and for all of our rights and liberties.

PFAW

PFAW, CODEPINK and Allies Speak Out Against Trump

Donald Trump has established himself as the candidate of hatred and bigotry, and he's dragging the rest of the party along with him. Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric has become the norm in the GOP presidential debates, as Trump's policy proposals become more absurdly racist and xenophobic -- like a ban on allowing any Muslims to enter the United States.

In the face of this, the progressive movement is standing up for what's right. Over 30,000 PFAW members have already pledged to stand strongly against fascist policies that restrict our basic rights, like the ones Trump has built his campaign on. And our allies at CODEPINK are leading the #StopHateDumpTrump campaign, calling on Americans of all political affiliations to speak out in every way possible against political fear-mongering.

Together, we are pledging to take action in the face of hatred and bigotry that stand in stark contrast to our fundamental American values. 

PFAW

Hillary Clinton Lays Out Her Vision For the Supreme Court

In an op-ed today in the Boston Globe, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes on what may be the biggest issue at stake in the 2016 election: the future of the US Supreme Court.

The court’s decisions have a profound impact on American families. In the past two decades alone, it effectively declared George W. Bush president, significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, and opened the door to a flood of unaccountable money in our politics. It also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, preserved the Affordable Care Act not once but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women.

On Election Day, three of the current justices will be over 80 years old, which is past the court’s average retirement age. The next president could easily appoint more than one justice. That makes this a make-or-break moment — for the court and our country.

That’s true. As People For the American Way recently laid out in our Judgment Day report, virtually every single important issue—from voting rights to guns to reproductive freedom to workplace fairness to the environment and beyond—will be at stake before the Supreme Court. And because the Justices most likely to retire in the next few years come from both sides of the bench, our country has the opportunity to pull the Court from its dangerous rightward lurch of the last decade—or to solidify a far-right majority for a generation.

But just as important as preventing the next president from appointing more Justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas and Alito, we need to elect a President who will appoint extraordinary jurists who understand the profoundly progressive nature of our constitution. In her op-ed, Senator Clinton lays out what that looks like.

As president (and a lawyer and former law professor), I’ll appoint justices who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; and protect citizens’ right to vote, rather than billionaires’ right to buy elections.

Secretary Clinton isn’t alone in laying out a progressive vision for the Court. Senator Bernie Sanders has spoken repeatedly about the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United and how we need to "overturn this disastrous decision.”  And Governor Martin O’Malley has promised to “appoint judges who don't think corporations are people.”

All of this is good news for progressives—and why People For the American Way has been pushing so hard for more conversation about the importance of the Supreme Court as we head into the 2016 election. But it’s not enough.

In the coming weeks and months we’ll continue to push candidates of both parties to make clear what kind of judges they’d appoint to our nation’s highest courts, because, as Secretary Clinton says, “There’s a lot at stake in this election. Nowhere is this clearer than in the US Supreme Court.”
 

PFAW

PFAW’s Latinos Vote! 2015 Highlights

2015 was a banner year for People For the American Way’s Latinos Vote! program, which works to expose and counter anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric and policies from the far-right, the Republican Party, and GOP presidential candidates.

In 2015, PFAW was on the ground in key states discussing the importance of the Latino vote and the extreme agendas of the Republican Party and its presidential candidates. Frequently, we were joined by PFAW board member and civil rights icon Dolores Huerta in our efforts. PFAW also launched numerous Spanish-language radio and digital ads as part of our program.

PFAW’s Latinos Vote! 2015 Highlights

GOP Debates

Colorado

Leading up to the Republican debate in Colorado, PFAW organized a Latino voters and leaders roundtable to address the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric and stances of the GOP candidates. Dolores Huerta and CO State Rep. Salazar headlined the event. Huerta also joined PFAW to participate in the My Country, My Vote rally in Boulder, CO before the debate.

Selected coverage:

NBC.com: Before GOP Debate, Political Opposites Condemn Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

Fox News Latino: Latinos analizan inmigración y otros temas prioritarios en encuentro Denver

Univision Denver: Dolores Huerta conversa con votantes hispanos en Colorado

Telemundo Denver: Candidatos republicanos debatirán en Colorado

Latin Life Denver: “If We Don’t Vote The Haters Win,” Dolores Huerta, Colorado Latino Leaders and Voters Speak Out Against Republican Candidates

Wisconsin

Before the GOP debate in Wisconsin, Dolores Huerta joined PFAW staff and activists in Milwaukee to protest the extreme Republican candidates. PFAW partnered with local groups including Voces de la Frontera for a press conference and rally.

Selected coverage:

Univision: Debate republicano se llevaría a cabo en medio del tema migratorio

Latina Magazine: Dolores Huerta Sounds Off On the GOP Candidates for President

The Nation: A Billionaire, Some Millionaires, and a No-Show Senator Debate How Best to Block Wage Hikes

Telemundo Wisconsin: Dolores Huerta participó en una marcha en protesta al debate republicano en Milwaukee

CBS 58: 'Stop the Hate' Group to March Tuesday

Nevada

Huerta also traveled with PFAW to Las Vegas, Nevada for the most recent GOP debate. She participated in a Latino voters and leaders roundtable and spoke at the #NoHateDebate rally outside of the debate.

Selected coverage:

PBS Las Vegas: Ralston Live

El Tiempo: “Latinos decidan próximas elecciones”: Dolores Huerta

Las Vegas Review-Journal: Candidates Roll Through Las Vegas Ahead of Tuesday’s Debate

Univision Las Vegas: Varios manifestantes se expresan en contra de discursos anti-inmigrantes de pre-candidatos a la pres

An opinion piece by Dolores was also published on Univision.com before the debate: “Dolores Huerta: La guerra abierta de los republicanos contra latinos e inmigrantes.”

Statewide Elections

Virginia

Leading up to Virginia’s State Senate elections, PFAW launched the first Spanish-language ads to use Trump’s bigoted rhetoric to encourage voters to turn out to the polls. Dolores Huerta also joined PFAW staff and activists on the ground to get out the vote in Northern Virginia.

Selected coverage:

USA Today: How Trump is Helping Clinton: Latino Mobilization Takes Shape

Reuters: Trump Becomes Poster Boy for Efforts to Mobilize 2016 Latino Voters

Washington Post: Anti-Trump Ads to Soon Air on Spanish-Language Radio Stations in Northern Virginia

Washington Post: Democrats Use Anti-Trump Sentiment to Win Latino Votes in Local Elections

El Tiempo Latino: Dolores Huerta: “el voto latino traerá el cambio”

La Opinion: “Callarle la bocota a Trump”: comercial electoral enfocado en movilizar enojo de latinos

Huerta also appeared on Telemundo DC on the weekend leading up to the election to discuss the importance of the Latino vote and encourage voters to cast a ballot in the upcoming elections.

North Carolina

Dolores Huerta traveled with PFAW to North Carolina to get out the vote leading up to local elections in North Carolina, and to protest Gov. McCrory’s decision to sign a severely anti-immigrant bill, HB-318, into law.

In addition to numerous Spanish-language radio interviews, top coverage included:

La Noticia: Dolores Huerta: A votar para sacar a los antiinmigrantes del gobierno

El Progreso Hispano: Dolores Huerta rechaza en Charlotte la HB318

Mundo Latino: ¡A Votar!…es el mensaje para los nuevos ciudadanos USCIS juramentó a 50 nuevos ciudadanos en Charlotte

Scott Walker ALEC Conference

Just after announcing his candidacy for the president, Scott Walker headlined the annual meeting of the far-right, corporate-led American Legislative Exchange Council in California. Dolores Huerta joined PFAW to protest the event on the ground, and PFAW launched Spanish- and English- language ads in Wisconsin, California, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and North Carolina targeting Walker for his ALEC appearance and anti-immigrant stances.

Watch the ads here.

Selected coverage:

Los Angeles Times: In San Diego, Union Members Protest Conservative Group’s Gathering

Latin Post: Scott Walker on Immigration: Progressive Groups, Civil Rights Icon Dolores Huerta Takes Aim at 'Terrible' Walker

Fox News Latino: Activistas reciben con protestas reunión de ALEC en California

Jeb Bush Presidential Announcement

PFAW ran digital ads on Univision.com and in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, and Virginia the week that Jeb Bush announced his campaign for president. The ad highlighted Bush’s opposition to the minimum wage and to a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Watch the ad here.

Selected coverage:

La Opinion: Dolores Huerta: “Jeb Bush Dice lo Que le Conviene”

Sunshine State News: On His Announcement Day, Democrats Go After Jeb Bush

The Pueblo Chieftain: Huerta: Jeb Bush Against Latinos

Viva Colorado also ran a piece by Dolores Huerta that targeted Bush for his harmful rhetoric and policies following his presidential announcement, “Un vistazo al precandidato republicano Jeb Bush.”

Marco Rubio Presidential Announcement

On the morning that Marco Rubio officially launched his presidential campaign, PFAW released Spanish-language radio ads that ran in Florida and Colorado criticizing Rubio for his dangerous agenda that ignores the interests of working families, including Latinos.

Listen to the ad, and read the English translation, here.

Selected coverage:

Tampa Bay Times: Spanish-Language Radio Ad Goes After Marco Rubio

El Nuevo Herald: El republican Marco Rubio se lanza a la presidencia

The Hill: Progressives: Rubio Bad for Middle Class

Dolores Huerta also published an op-ed in Florida’s El Nuevo Herald following Rubio’s announcement, “Marco Rubio, el candidato equivocado.”

Additional Highlights

In January, PFAW teamed up with American Bridge to release a Spanish language ad targeting Majority Whip Steve Scalise for speaking to a white supremacist group and calling out the Republican Party for its embrace of extremism.

Early this year, PFAW released a new report on the Libre Initiative, a right-wing organization attempting to win over Latino votes for the Republican Party, as part of our efforts to counter the Koch-funded organization.

Throughout 2015, PFAW has continually spoken out as GOP presidential candidates and the Republican Party followed Trump’s lead in anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric and policy positions. Additional press highlights, including op-eds by PFAW staff and PFAW board member Dolores Huerta included:

Univision: Al Punto con Jorge Ramos

USA Today: Dolores Huerta: El poder de la comunidad hispana el día de las elecciones

Univision.com: Marco Rubio eliminará la protección a jóvenes indocumentados aún sin reforma migratoria

Latin Post: People for the American Way's Carlos Sanchez Says GOP Needs Accountability in Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

Fox News Latino: Opinion: GOP Targets Latinos’ Ability to Vote

El Tiempo Latino: Por qué los candidatos republicanos son malos para nuestra comunidad

Latina Magazine: Marco Rubio Says He’d End DACA if President

2016 Elections

PFAW’s Latinos Vote! program in 2016 will continue to expose and counter anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric and policies of the Republican Party and GOP presidential candidates. For more information about our program, please contact Laura Epstein (lepstein@pfaw.org).

 

###

PFAW

5th Circuit Immigration Ruling Shows Importance of Courts & Elections

One of the most important issues in any presidential election is the type of judges the person elected to the office would place on the bench.
PFAW

35 Years After Reagan's Election, His Justices Still Have a Huge Impact

The next president may pick 3-4 justices who could transform the Court for a generation.
PFAW

Poll Has Ben Carson Now LEADING Trump

A New York Times/CBS News poll has Ben Carson now leading Donald Trump in the GOP presidential contest. Apparently all somebody had to do to edge out Trump was to sink to his level and then keep going, by spewing even more extreme and bigoted positions!

For example, here are just a few of the things Carson has gotten press for over the last few weeks:

  • He compared abortion to slavery -- and women who have abortions to slaveholders -- and reiterated his belief that all abortions should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest.
  • He said he thought someone who is Muslim should not be president because that person’s religious beliefs are not “consistent with the Constitution,” despite the Constitution’s explicit rejection of religious tests for office.
  • He blamed the Holocaust on gun control, saying that if not for Hitler confiscating guns, Germans -- Jews and non-Jews alike --would have fought back against his plans for genocide.
  • He also blamed the victims of the Oregon mass shooting for not attacking the shooter, saying HE “would not just stand there and let him shoot me.”

The reason Carson’s rise amidst these controversial comments is so important is because it shows that the more hateful and detached from reality a candidate appears, the more the far-right base will favor him.

Make no mistake -- the demagogues of the Religious Right and the Tea Party are a problem, but base voters they are so eager to please with wild internet-fueled conspiracy theories and naked bigotry are arguably the bigger problem.

A September poll from Public Policy Polling found that 54 percent of Republican voters believe the president is a Muslim. Let that sink in.

This isn’t just benign wackiness that’s confined to Republican nominating contests, it’s a SIGNIFICANT chunk of the American electorate. And it’s the people who represent those views who are now IN CHARGE of Congress and fighting to get into the White House!

Rep. Paul Ryan looks all set to come in as the new Speaker of the House -- and there’s a faction of House Republicans who are accusing this rigidly anti-choice, Medicare-slashing Ayn Rand fanboy of being “too moderate!”

And whoever the eventually wins the GOP nomination for president, we know he or she will be one of the most right-wing candidates, pursuing one of the most extreme right-wing agendas, ever.

The GOP lives to serve its base. Let’s not forget exactly who is in charge. Ben Carson’s rise is a good reminder.

* * * * *

For much, much more on Ben Carson’s radical views, check out RightWingWatch.org.

Here are some particularly off-the-wall examples:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-womens-lib-movement-created-me-generation-helped-lead-ferguson

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/carson-obamacare-worst-thing-happen-nation-slavery

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-know-obama-read-mein-kampf

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-explains-how-gay-marriage-marxist-plot-impose-new-world-order

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ben-carson-prisons-gay-choice/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-ap-history-isis

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/carson-makes-rare-endorsement-war-crimes

PFAW

Why Next Week's Election in Virginia is So, So Important

Next Tuesday, November 3, Virginia will have its state elections and who votes, how they vote, and the work that goes into mobilizing voters in advance of Election Day are all critically important to 2016.

Virginia is more likely than not to be THE deciding swing state in 2016. So we need to lay the groundwork NOW for victory next year, and that means building voter turnout infrastructure, especially for the Latino vote, in key parts of the state.

A recent analysis from Moody’s Analytics projected that (based on current economic and political indicators), Democrats would win the White House by just 2 electoral votes -- which would be the closest margin in U.S. history. Their findings concluded that one state -- Virginia -- would deliver the election for the Democratic nominee.

There are few states that can change the electoral math more than Virginia, and one of the most important factors is the Latino share of the electorate -- a crucial 5% of the vote that will determine who wins and loses in the state.

PFAW is already on the air in Virginia with a Spanish-language ad that’s been getting a lot of press attention – highlighting for Latinos the importance of voting against the party of Donald Trump and its anti-immigrant, anti-working family agenda.

Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión said of our ad (translated):

“It’s the first ad that uses Trump to drive Latino voters to the polls, but it won’t be the last. Its focus on women and on two generations, immigrants and first generation, is innovative.”

And it’s not just 2016 that makes Virginia important on the national level. The upcoming 2015 elections for Virginia’s state legislature matter too.

In a recent court filing, Republicans ADMITTED that the GOP intentionally rigged the state’s congressional districts in order to produce a delegation heavily tilted their way.

It’s the Republican state legislature that has made Virginia one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. In 2012, President Obama won Virginia narrowly, but Republicans still picked up 8 of the state’s 11 congressional seats under the GOP-friendly maps drawn by the state legislature.

Now, party control of the state legislature is up for grabs.

If we can flip control of the State Senate away from right-wing Republicans, it will be a MAJOR DEFEAT for the Radical Right in what was once one of their most reliable strongholds!

Virginia not only housed the capital of the old Confederacy, it's the home of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, the Founding Fathers of the modern radical Religious Right -- as well as the foundational institutions of the movement they created, like Robertson's Regent University and Falwell's Liberty University.

It's so sweetly fitting that People For the American Way -- the organization founded to counter their hate that was a constant thorn in their sides -- would be instrumental in finally turning what was once their deep red home state solid blue.

La Opinion Quote

Virginia is an Early Opportunity to Tarnish the GOP Brand


This year’s fight for control of the State Senate in Virginia has emerged as an excellent opportunity to engage Virginia’s Latino community and to further attach the extreme rhetoric and policies of the Republican Presidential candidates to the overall GOP brand. Targeting the Northern Virginia area, with its large Latino population, we’ll have an impact in the Senate District 29 race -- which is likely to determine party control of the state Senate. It will also allow us to connect with the Latino community and deepen the association of radical, anti-immigrant sentiment with the Republican Party at the local, state, and national level.

Building on our previous work and refining it ahead of 2016, PFAW’s 2015 plans include:

  • Radio and digital advertising targeting the Latino community in Northern Virginia, with the message that the state elections are the best way to make their voice heard ahead of 2016.
  • Media strategies to capitalize on the consistent stream of anti-immigrant remarks from national Republican candidates.
  • On the ground events and mobilizing volunteers along with partner organizations and PFAW Board Member Dolores Huerta ahead of Election Day.

Not only will these efforts boost Latino turnout in 2015, they will further damage the Republican brand with Latinos and help increase civic participation -- boosting the “muscle memory” of voting ahead of 2016.

Turn this purple state blue

PFAW’s Proven Track Record of Success


People For the American Way has a demonstrated record of mobilizing Latino voters, especially in Virginia, where our Latinos Vote! campaign has been active since 2012. That year, we made a full investment in Virginia and built a comprehensive program of outreach to the Latino community through TV, radio, digital, and direct mail. In the 2013 Governor’s race, we worked hand-in-hand with the McAuliffe campaign to secure victory over Tea Party darling Ken Cuccinelli and in 2014, we ran targeted digital ads to help secure Senator Warner’s re-election. In each of these races the Latino vote proved decisive in the Democratic candidates’ success. 2015 presents an excellent opportunity to continue to engage the Latino community and to further build the overall narrative about the dangerous policies and ideology that Republican candidates hold.

Is this a plan you can support? If so, please help PFAW fund this work with a donation today>>

PFAW

Far Right SCOTUS Isn't Extreme Enough For GOP Presidential Hopefuls

GOP presidential hopefuls would make the already-right-wing Supreme Court even more extreme.
PFAW

Conservatives See 2016 as Key to a More Conservative SCOTUS

Four of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be in their 80s during the first term of whoever is elected president next year, meaning he or she could usher in an enormous shift in the Court’s makeup.  The Court issues enormously consequential rulings on numerous issues affecting everyone across the country – LGBT equality, money in politics, workers’ rights, religious liberty, workplace discrimination, abortion rights, and many others.  With the current Court so often divided 5-4, usually tilting toward far-right conservatives, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is perhaps the most important issue in the 2016 presidential election.

You certainly don’t need to persuade conservatives.  In fact, according to press reports, the far-right Judicial Crisis Network is launching a new website and ad campaign to pressure GOP presidential hopefuls ever rightward on the issue of Supreme Court nominations.  A reported in The Hill, the group blasts the arch-conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and very conservative Anthony Kennedy as insufficiently conservative.

“Demand justices with a proven record of upholding the constitution. We can’t afford more surprises,” a narrator says as the video shows the faces of Roberts, Kennedy and former Justice David Souter, who retired in 2009.

The three justices are “examples of bad GOP appointments,” the Judicial Crisis Network said in a statement announcing the advertisements.

[JCN] says it made the $200,000 television and digital ad buys ahead of the Republican presidential debates to get candidates on the record about their approach to Supreme Court picks. The next Republican debate is Wednesday.

The television and digital ads are set to run in Iowa, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. starting Monday, the group said.

Roberts and Kennedy … not conservative enough?  Along with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, they formed the five-person majority that gutted the heart of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County), opened the floodgates to corporate money in politics (Citizens United), twisted religious liberty into a tool to deprive others of their legal rights (Hobby Lobby), and regularly misinterpret and severely undermine our nation’s anti-discrimination laws (Ledbetter, for a start).  True, Justice Kennedy authored the Court’s key opinions recognizing the constitutional rights and basic humanity of LGBT people, but he is no liberal.

If conservative activists succeed in electing a conservative president who wants to drive the currently far-right Supreme Court even farther rightward, the repercussions will be enormous.

But imagine instead if Americans elect a president who wants to restore a high court that recognizes and protects our constitutional and statutory rights to liberty, equality, and democracy … Again, the repercussions for people across the entire country would be enormous.

There is one thing where we agree with the JCN.  As their ad says:

On the most important issues, the Supreme Court decides.  The next president could appoint a new majority to last a generation.

Keep that in mind between now and Election Day.  You can be assured that conservatives will.

PFAW

Bush Will Back GOP Nominee, Even If It’s Trump

Last week, Jeb Bush said “Of course I would” support Donald Trump if he won the Republican nomination. Bush’s embrace of Donald Trump and, in turn, Trump’s xenophobia, racism, sexism, and homophobia is disturbing but unsurprising. As PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager put it:

“Naturally Jeb Bush has no qualms about supporting Donald Trump. From speaking out against increases to the minimum wage to opposing a woman’s right to choose, Bush and Trump are united in pushing an extreme agenda that would be devastating to working class families. Moreover, the fact that Bush would support Donald Trump and his mass deportation policies shows that Bush’s loyalties lie only with the extreme Republican base, not immigrants or working families.”

Bush, Trump, and the rest of the GOP presidential candidates have shown time and again during the primary campaign that no idea is too extreme if it can win votes from the party’s radical base. 

From ignoring the science of climate change to supporting tax plans that favor the wealthiest in our society while harming  working families, on critical issues, PFAW Coordinator of Political Campaigns Carlos A. Sanchez pointed out, “Trump and his less flamboyant competitors all share virtually identical positions.” At points, Trump has even been the voice of moderation in the GOP field. As PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker wrote last month, Trump has been one of the few Republican presidential candidates to speak out against the undue influence of big money in elections.

In every primary election, candidates cater to their base. But Republicans have outdone themselves this year. Pledging to support Trump if he becomes the party’s nominee, as Jeb Bush and other Republican candidates have done, is just the latest example of how extreme Bush, Trump, and all of the leading GOP candidates are.
 

PFAW

The Constitution The Republicans Can't Stand

This post was written by PFAW President Michael B. Keegan and originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

If you are running for office as a Republican today, you have to mention your reverence for the Constitution at least as much as you mention your love for Ronald Reagan.

The Second Amendment-- every word should be taken literally because it was literally ordained by God! The First Amendment protects my right to discriminate against gay people! Neither the Constitution nor the Bible contains the word "Obamacare"!

But Republican politicians have a few glaring blind spots when it comes to the Constitution. One of those is the 14th Amendment, a pillar of our inclusive democracy, a key component of which Republican presidential candidates are now asking us to ignore or change.

In its infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the descendants of enslaved people were disqualified from U.S. citizenship. After we fought a civil war, the U.S. ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868, which overturned Dred Scott in its opening lines, declaring, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During the congressional debate over the 14th Amendment, both its supporters and detractors recognized that this birthright citizenship clause would apply to everyone born on U.S. soil, not just the descendants of slaves. In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that even after the passage of the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act, the U.S.could not deny citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, a California-born son of Chinese immigrants, because the 14th Amendment guaranteed him citizenship.

Yet, anti-immigrant activists and their allies in the GOP are now fighting against this most American of constitutional principles.

In an immigration plan released this week, GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump called for ending birthright citizenship. No matter that he didn't say how he would do that(while most people acknowledge that it would take a constitutional amendment to change the policy, some claim it was never included in the 14th Amendment in the first place). His Republican rivals started jumping to join him. Scott Walker told reporters that he "absolutely" wanted to change the Constitution's definition of citizenship, adding, paradoxically, that "to me it's about enforcing the laws in this country." Ben Carson said it "doesn't make any sense" to allow "anchor babies." Bobby Jindal joined the fray. So did Lindsey Graham. Rand Paul and Rick Santorum had already expressed their support for undoing the citizenship provision, with Paul sponsoring a constitutional amendment to do so and Santorum saying the 14th Amendment doesn't even say what it says.

Jeb Bush has been getting unearned credit for acknowledging that birthright citizenship is a "constitutional right" that we shouldn't "take away" -- just a few days after implying that if he had a "magic wand" to change the Constitution he would use it to do just that. Similarly, John Kasich has renounced his previous support for repealing birthright citizenship, but now says he doesn't want to "dwell on it." Carly Fiorina's and Rick Perry's passionate defense of the 14th Amendment is that it would take too much work to change it. This is what now passes for moderation. What ever happened to defending basic constitutional rights?

The Republican presidential contenders' rush to badmouth a basic constitutional right -- in an apparent attempt to appeal to their supposedly Constitution-loving far-right base -- speaks volumes about what they really mean when they talk about constitutionalism. They use their pocket Constitutions for the parts that come in handy. The rest of it? Not so much.

PFAW

Kasich and Bush: More Like Other Extreme GOP Candidates Than Perceived

This post by PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager was originally published in the Huffington Post. 

Discussions of Governor Kasich's role in the 2016 election have centered around his strategy of defining himself to voters as an alternative to Jeb Bush: a moderate, compassionate conservative without Bush's last name. This strategy presupposes that both Bush and Kasich are in fact middle-of-the-road Republicans who hold moderate positions that would make them electable next November.

That proposition is false. While Kasich and Bush certainly took a more measured tone in the first Republican debate compared to, say, Donald Trump, their policy positions and records as governor in Ohio and Florida show that they're just as extreme and far-right as the rest of the Republican field.

Few issues demonstrate the extreme agenda of Bush, Kasich, and the Republican Party more than a woman's right to choose. Kasich has directly targeted access to legal abortion in Ohio though enacting medically unnecessary, cumbersome laws that closed abortion clinics. He signed a bill including a policy that restricts rape crisis counselors from providing referrals to abortion services to rape survivors. Jeb Bush calls himself the "most pro-life governor in modern times." As governor, he tried to restrict the ability of a mentally disabled rape victim to have an abortion. The "Scarlet Letter" law enacted during Bush's term as governor required a single mother who did not know the father of her child to pay for a month-long newspaper ad before putting her child up for adoption. The ad had to include personal details about the mother and her sexual history, complete with dates and locations where the child could have been conceived. Bush and Kasich are just as bad as their fellow candidates like Scott Walker, who recently signed a 20-week abortion bill even though he promised voters in his last campaign that the right to choose is between a woman and her doctor; or Marco Rubio, who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion bill in the Senate.

On Social Security, Kasich and Bush support former President George W. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. Had his plan been enacted, the stock market crash of 2008 would have decimated Social Security savings of seniors across the country. That doesn't seem to bother anyone in the Republican field other than, of all people, Donald Trump. He's actually spoken out against cuts to Social Security and Medicare, calling them "not fair" to workers. On immigration, Kasich and Bush have used less offensive language than Donald Trump, but both - and the rest of the leading Republican candidates - oppose President Obama's policies that protect DREAMers and families from deportation. Neither Bush nor Kasich nor any leading Republican candidate supports comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship, even though that's a commonsense policy that would enable undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows, stay with their families, and contribute to the American economy.

Kasich and Bush have reiterated time and again that their economic experience would make them ideal presidential candidates. The extreme GOP base might like those policies, but the fact is, they've made it more difficult for working class families to get ahead. After accounting for inflation, the average Ohio household earned less in 2013 than it did in 1984. Kasich's 2015 budget cut taxes by only $24 for middle-class Ohioans, raised taxes by $20 for taxpayers in the lowest income bracket, yet included a $10,000 tax cut for the wealthiest Ohioans. Bush keeps trumpeting his tenure as governor, but as the Washington Post reported, "Florida owed a substantial portion of its growth under Bush not to any state policies but to a massive and unsustainable housing bubble -- one that ultimately benefited rich investors at the expense of middle-class families." Bush also provided tax cuts to the wealthiest Floridians while cutting funding for essential programs for senior citizens and children. Kasich and Bush's failed economic policies are par for the course for Republican candidates: Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie have both been hammered for their states' economic woes.

Far-right policy positions defined the gubernatorial terms of Bush and Kasich. Now that they're running for president, we can't let them run from their records. Bush and Kasich's extreme agendas are in line with every single other Republican candidate that was on stage during the first debate.

Randy Borntrager lives in Ohio and is the political director of People For the American Way, D.C.-based progressive advocacy organization. He has previously served as chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy and the communications director and interim executive director of the Ohio Democratic Party.

PFAW

Who Said It? Donald Trump Or Another GOP Candidate?

Think Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration is leaps and bounds worse than the rest of the Republican candidates running for president?

Test your knowledge by taking our quiz! Each of the statements below were made by Donald Trump or one of the other GOP candidates in the 2016 race.

 

Who Said It?

 
PFAW

Some Questions for the Republican Candidates

As the leading Republican presidential candidates prepare to take the stage on Thursday for the first official presidential debate, we know that they all share a common goal of promoting an far-right agenda in the White House.

We don’t expect to get much clarity on the Republicans’ extreme positions on Thursday. But if we had the chance to moderate the debate, here’s some of the questions we’d ask each of the candidates:

  • Jeb Bush: Why are you catering to the anti-immigrant base of the Republican Party by condemning undocumented immigrants to second class status through denying them any path to citizenship?
  • Scott Walker: You have an abysmal record when it comes to the environment and fighting against climate change. But just like you’ve punted on so many other critical questions, you’ve never actually told us your position on climate change. So, do you deny the science of climate change or do you accept that it’s a reality that must be addressed?
  • Mike Huckabee: You’ve compared Obama and abortion rights to the Nazis and their genocide. How and why did you think that was appropriate?
  • Ted Cruz: Why did you cook bacon on a machine gun?
  • Ben Carson: You’ve compared Obamacare to slavery. How is ensuring access to quality, affordable healthcare – as the ACA does – like slavery in any way?
  • Marco Rubio: This past April, before the Supreme Court ruled on marriage equality, you said that anyone who believes that gay people have a constitutional right to marriage has a “ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.” Is that still your belief today?
  • Rand Paul: In a talk you once explained that while direct cheating is off the table, “I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic.” What are some examples of times that you’ve “misinformed” the American people?
  • Donald Trump: How does deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants or denying spousal rape make America great again?
PFAW

Dolores Huerta and Activists Protest ALEC and Scott Walker

The call and response chant, “Tell me what democracy looks like,” “This is what democracy looks like!” rang true as activists rallied against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) during its annual meeting in San Diego this week.

ALEC is a far-right organization that connects corporate executives to policy makers in order to craft and enact state-by-state legislation that raises corporate profits while stomping on the rights and economic prospects of working families. For instance, ALEC is behind Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070 law and the “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida that helped George Zimmerman to walk free.

At the protest, more than a thousand participants from faith communities, labor unions, environmental groups, immigration groups, and more proclaimed that ALEC corrupts democracy by allowing corporations to – literally – buy a seat at the table with state legislators.  Common Cause President Miles Rapoport described the ALEC meeting as “a festival of closed-door deal-making by politicians, corporate executives and lobbyists. They gather to do the public’s business in private, fashioning legislation that undercuts the public interest.”

Civil rights leader and People For the American Way board member Dolores Huerta revved up the crowd, telling activists, “The only way we can stop [ALEC] is to go back to our communities, we’ve got to organize. People do not know how perilous this organization is. Let’s say ‘abajo (that means down) con ALEC!’”

After Huerta’s speech, activists – including a Young Elected Official (YEO) with the YEO Network, a project of People For the American Way Foundation – sought out Huerta to introduce themselves and share the work they're doing in their communities.

Activists then walked to the hotel where the ALEC meetings are being held to continue the protest. Huerta and others highlighted the message that Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker – who spoke this morning at the conference – and ALEC are unified in their support for corporations at the expense of working families.

In addition to participating in the rally, PFAW released Spanish- and English-language digital ads criticizing Walker for his alliance with ALEC. The Huffington Post also published an opinion piece yesterday by Huerta that details the anti-immigrant, anti-worker efforts of ALEC and how Walker has a long history of partnering with ALEC.
 

PFAW