Mediaboss Marketing

It isnt only Donald Trump tossing out the insults these days.

Racism, sexism and ageism have already raised their ugly heads and the presidential campaigns have barely begun. And, sadly, it seems most of the recent insults and derogatory remarks have been directed at the female candidates.

One of the latest flaps was Don Lemons snarky comment about Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on CNN.

Talking about her suggestion that all presidential candidates over the age of 75 should be required to pass a cognition test to make sure their intellectual capacities have not diminished, Lemon said of the 50ish Haley, Nikki Haley isnt in her prime. Sorry. When a woman is considered to be in her prime is her 20s and 30s maybe 40s.

As you can imagine, it all hit the fan.

Lemon later apologized and CNN Chairman Chris Licht told his staff Lemons comments were upsetting, unacceptable and unfair.

Reaction from New Jersey former Gov. Dick Codey, after Republican State Chairman Bob Hugin insulted Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, was a lot stronger.

The language and the attitude are classless and inexcusable. Chairman Hugin should resign immediately, said Codey after Hugin called Sherrill a piece of sh-- congresswoman after she defeated his candidate in Somerset County.

Sherrill shrugged off the insult and Haley used the offense against her to launch a fund-raising campaign.

But it isnt only men picking on the women.

On ABCs The View, host Sunny Hostins comments about Haley were blasted as a racist attack. She went off on a rant about the former UN ambassador, saying she was using a fake name to hide her Indian heritage. Haleys birth name is Nimrata, but shes been known as Nikki since grade school.

Ironically, Hostin also uses a nickname, claiming she calls herself Sunny because undereducated Americans dont know how to pronounce Ascunsion.

Then conservative pundit Ann Coulter weighed in. Nastily, as always. On the Mark Simone podcast, she made several xenophobic comments about Haley. Although the former South Carolina governor was born in the United States to Indian immigrants, Coulter taunted, Why dont you go back to your own country?

Haleys not going to have it easy on the campaign trail. Nor will Kamala Harris, Marianne Williamson or any of the other women considering a run for the White House. But Im certain that wont deter them. After a short time in public life, you build up callouses to prevent your feeling wounded when you are deliberately or inadvertently insulted.

Things have undoubtedly improved for female candidates. There were six major contestants for the White House in 2020 and there may be even more this year. Not long ago Christie Whitman was a sensation as a female governor; now there are 12 in states and a few more in American territories.

However, as an editorial in this newspaper said only a short time ago, New Jersey still lags in electing women. Sometimes it is indeed the old boys network that selects mostly male candidates, but as often it is because women are unable or unwilling to put in the work necessary to climb the political ladder.

Women undoubtedly have the knowledge to seriously address public issues, and Rutgers has a program on navigating the politics of becoming known and trusted by both party decision-makers and voters.

The Institute for Womens Leadership at Rutgers University offers excellent training to potential candidates, and I recommend that any woman interested in public affairs should enroll. Unfortunately, theyll probably need to continue teaching the girls how to ignore an insult for some time to come.

A former assemblywoman from Jersey City, Joan Quigley is the president and CEO of North Hudson Community Action Corp.

Submit letters to the editor and guest columns at jjletters@jjournal.com.

See the original post:
Insults in the political world continue and theyre aimed at women | Quigley - NJ.com

According to the latest census data, the foreign-born share of the American population is close to a historic high. In 2021, approximately 13.6% of the population was born outside of the U.S.second only to 14.8% in 1890.

Some Americans are wary of this upward trend. Still, U.S. history should teach us that the new arrivals in our country will only work to our cultural benefit.

The Irish diasporanow tightly interwoven into the fabric of American culture faced many of the same challenges, suspicions, and stereotypes as todays immigrants.

This is important because a common line of the modern immigration-skeptic argument is that previous waves were fundamentally different from the current one because those immigrants had positive attributes that todays new arrivals lack. This creates a separation between the imagined good immigrant of previous centuries and the bad immigrant of the 21st century.

For example, in attempting to differentiate recent Hispanic migration from that of older groups, political scientist Samuel Huntington favorably quoted Lionel Sosas description of Hispanic cultural traits as: mistrust of people outside the family; lack of initiative, self-reliance, and ambition; low priority for education; acceptance of poverty as a virtue necessary for entrance into heaven. More recently (and more crudely), Ann Coulter authored a book centered on this premise.

This description is eerily similar to characterizations of 19th-century Irish immigrants. In his book The Boston Irish: A Political History, historian Thomas H. OConnor notes that the majority of Irish Catholic immigrants were perceived as being deeply clannish, parochial, and suspicious of enterprise and innovation, on the whole more influenced by the appeals of continuity and tradition than calls for change and innovation.

Despite this dire prognosis, the Irish in America, made their way up the economic ladder into the middle class within two generations. Indeed, in his book Wherever the Green is Worn, historian Tim Pat Coogan notes that by the late 1990s, up to 30% of all American Fortune 500 CEOs were of Irish descent. This begs the question: why should we believe that identical cultural claims made against the current groups of immigrants will prove correct?

The purported political inclinations of immigrants and their descendants have also been perceived through a determinist lens. On the left, some expect these changes to usher in a new era of progressive dominance. On the right, it is often taken as a given that these trends will strain social cohesion and fundamentally alter the nature of American politics.

Still, fears (or hopes) that immigrant groups will irreversibly tilt the country towards one party are unfounded. OConnor writes that it took several decades and great reluctance for the Irish to organize into a cohesive political front. Today, other leading experts on Irish in America argue that the Irish vote is split between the parties, with some arguing that there is no longer a distinctively Irish American bloc. Indeed, Coogan bemoans that the robust Irish-American diaspora has not worked to Irelands benefit regarding U.S. foreign policy.

Whats more, the one-size-fits-all mentality regarding immigrant political inclinations has proven patently false, as the Irish test case can demonstrate. Even during their heyday as consistent Democratic voters, many Irish-Americans clashed with their party on social issues, most famously in the case of racially integrated bussing programs. Today, many newer immigrant groups are assumed to be a liberal constituency, when much like the Irish immigrants before them, they are often more moderate than progressive voters.

As recent trends in Hispanic and Asian voting patterns demonstrate, immigrant voters and their descendants cant be neatly tied to any one partyand as history has taught us, likely never will be.

The largely negative and often misguided stereotypes assigned to the Irish diaspora could easily have stymied their experience inand contributions tothe U.S., had they not worked hard to disprove these preconceived notions. The similarities between these 19th century stereotypes and those used to describe todays new immigrants in the U.S. is nothing short of jarring. If we should learn anything from the Irish experience, its that immigrant groups are not a monolith, and treating them as such undermines the myriad benefits they can bring to American society.

Visit link:
What the Irish immigrant experience can teach us about todays ... - Niskanen Center

AT FIRST GLANCE, Florida House Bill 999, recently introduced by State Representative Alex Andrade in response to Governor Ron DeSantiss Stop WOKE Act, which was passed by the legislature in 2022, represents a new stage in the rights conflict with the university. Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, most conservative activists embraced a civil libertarian position on campus free speech. They targeted so-called political correctness, arguing that speech codes and other measures infringed on the First Amendment rights of conservative students. With Bill 999, Florida Republicans have gone on the offensive, openly attempting to fire or silence liberal professors.

If passed, the bill will ban programs in Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, or Intersectionality, or any derivative major or minor of these belief systems in state universities. It will also grant boards of trustees complete control over faculty hiring decisions and allow them to strip faculty of tenure. Six of the 13 members of the Florida State University Board of Trustees are appointees of the governor, which effectively gives Republicans veto power over who teaches in Florida postsecondary institutions. Tellingly, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties organization (which notably receives funding from libertarian groups) that has defended conservative students since 1999, has pledged legal action against Bill 999, complaining that its measures are unconstitutional.

Floridas tactics, however, also reaffirm an authoritarian stance on higher education that has guided movement conservatism since its inception in the early 1950s. Much of Bill 999 closely echoes a foundational text of modern American conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr.s God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom (1951), which complained that most of the humanities and social science faculty at the authors alma mater seek to subvert religion and individualism. He called on the universitys president to fire all faculty who did not agree to adhere to Christian and free-market orthodoxy. This orthodoxy, he insisted, should be defined by the president and board of trustees, who represented the conservative views of the universitys customers: the parents who paid to send their children to Yale, and the alumni who were taught there and expected the institution to reflect their values.

Like contemporary conservatives, Buckley believed that the academy had been taken over by liberals, and he wanted conservative intellectuals to reclaim it. This political demand informed the magazine that he founded, National Review, and indeed the entire postwar conservative movement. This movement has been and continues to be fueled by a sense of grievance: conservatives anxiety that they have been locked out of the academy, media, and government by a triumphant liberal establishment. As Ann Coulter complained in her 2003 book Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, They have the media, the universities, the textbooks. We have ourselves.

Buckley, in other words, is not interested in presenting students with conservative ideas to balance out the alleged liberal bias of Yales faculty, allowing them the freedom to choose between rival political philosophies. Rather, he discounts the very idea of education as a process of testing ideas. As a conservative, he believes that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. From his perspective, atheists and economic collectivists are enemies who must be defeated because they have strayed from already settled truths; otherwise, they will corrupt the youth.

If left-wing ideas are to be taught at all, they must be introduced by right-wing educators who will guide students to perceive those ideas as dangerous heresy. The classroom, he writes, should be considered the practice field on which the gladiators of the future are taught to use their weapons, are briefed in the wiles and stratagems of the enemy, and are inspired with the virtues of their cause in anticipation of the day when they will step forward and join in the struggle against error. Writing at the height of the Cold War, Buckley developed a pedagogical model that mirrored the totalitarianism he attributed to the Soviet Union.

This conception of education informs Bill 999. It explains the documents attack on faculty governance and carte-blanche canceling of critical race theory and gender studies courses. These courses offer dangerous errors that must be expunged. It also explains the bills seemingly contradictory attempt to establish and regulate general education courses that must promote the philosophical underpinnings of Western civilization but may not suppress or distort significant historical events or include unproven, theoretical, or exploratory content. Setting aside the bills racist insistence that students only learn about the West, the notion of exploring Western civilization while excluding the unproven and exploratory seems bizarre to anyone who studies history. This exclusion only makes sense once we realize that, for the bills authors, the underpinnings of Western civilization are self-evident, a series of received truths ultimately derived from God.

This is the central fantasy of authoritarian governments that target universities as centers of political dissent: they believe they can continue to foster the technically educated class essential to a postindustrial economy without creating a socially or politically critical citizenry. After the conservative educational revolution, American universities will still produce competent doctors, nurses, engineers, and nuclear physicists. They will just stop producing left-wing ideologues who ask uncomfortable questions about the nations history, the divinity of Christ, or the distributive justice of unfettered markets. In other words, the principle of rigorous and skeptical testing, which is at the core of the scientific method, can be safely walled up within the technical fields, where it will do no harm to the beliefs and values of young people.

There are at least two problems with this fantasy. First, as sociologist Alvin Gouldner argued in his 1979 book The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class, every university discipline nourishes and is nourished by a shared culture of critical discourse that de-authorizes all speech grounded in traditional societal authority. Destroying this culture in one discipline starves all the disciplines around it. For example, trying to run a nursing program while circumscribing all discussions of gender and race as forbidden speech will lead to substandard healthcare, even for white male Republicans like Ron DeSantis and Alex Andrade. Second, the bill opens the door for legislators to place other topics out of bounds. Bill 999, in its current form, does not prevent faculty from teaching anthropogenic climate change or evolution. Conservative activists, however, will certainly pressure legislators to introduce a bill that does so. The current bill, if enacted, will undoubtedly lead talented teachers, researchers, and students to pursue jobs and educational opportunities in other states, where they will not be subject to a government that dictates what topics are safe for them to discuss in the classroom.

As both God and Man at Yale and Bill 999 highlight, movement conservatives are paradoxically dependent on the academy they seek to devitalize and conquer. William F. Buckley Jr. wrote his book to debunk his alma mater, revealing to outsiders the extent of its departure from the religious conservatism of its Congregationalist founders and the business interests of its private-sector funders. The book, however, was enabled by Buckleys Yale education, especially by the argumentative give-and-take with liberal and conservative scholars like Buckleys faculty mentor Willmoore Kendall.

Buckleys signature accomplishment after completing his degree was to found National Review, a magazine that presented itself as the conservative intellectual antidote to the liberal academy, even as it drew most of its expertise from tenured professors such as Kendall, James Burnham, and Hugh Kenner. Today, measures like Bill 999 make it look like Republican lawmakers want to transform public universities into reliably conservative institutions such as Liberty University. That is not, however, the education that fashioned the Republican elite. Ron DeSantis, like many members of the American upper class, benefited from the Ivy League, liberal education he received at Harvard University.

Go here to see the original:
The Perils of Orthodoxy and Florida House Bill 999 - lareviewofbooks

Known for movies

Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004)as Herself

Hannity (2009-2017)as Herself / Herself - Author / Herself - Panelist

Comedy Central Roast of Rob Lowe (2016)as Herself - Roaster

I Am JFK Jr. (2016)as Herself

Ann Coulter is quite a multi-talented persona she is not only a conservative social and political commentator, but also a writer as well as a columnist and a lawyer. She is probably best known for her sharp tongue and bitter criticism which she has presented in several of her best-selling books, such as Adios, America! and In Trump We Trust. However, Ann Coulter is also widely recognized for her frequent on-camera appearances and radio commentaries, and is quite active on social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook, on which shes amassed a total of more than 2.6 million fans altogether.

Upon completing her education, Ann relocated to Kansas City, Missouri, where she began her professional career, serving as a law clerk of Pasco Bowman II, who was a Senior US Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. She then moved to New York City where she briefly worked in private practice, specializing in corporate law. After the 1994 Republican (Gingrich) Revolution and their takeover of the US Congress, Coulter landed a job within the US Senate Judiciary Committee, working under Senator Spencer Abraham, handling crime and immigration issues. In the course of the next several years, she became the litigant for the Center for Individual Rights as well.

Since her on-camera debut at the MSNBC in 1996, Ann Coulter has frequently appeared on several big networks such as Fox News and CNN. She has also made memorable appearances in popular television talk shows such as The Fifth Estate, American Morning, The OReilly Factor as well as in The Mike Gallagher Show, The Today Show, Fox and Friends and HARDtalk among plenty of others.

Over the years, Ann Coulter has added a dozen of books to her, already abundant, professional portfolio, which have sold several millions of copies combined. Her debut book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton hit the shelves in 1998 and soon appeared on The New York Times Bestseller list. Four years later the second one, named Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right followed, and was a New York Times non-fiction bestseller. In 2004 Crown Forum released a collection of her columns under the title How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter. Some of her more recent publications include Adios, America!: The Lefts Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole released in 2015, and In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! released in 2016 both peaking on The New York Times bestseller lists.

No, Ann is not married and has never been married. However, she has engaged in several relationships to this day; prior to dating American far-right conservative commentator and author, Dinesh DSouza, Ann Coulter was in a relationship with Bob Guccione Jr. who is best known for being the founder of the music magazine Spin. Between October 2007 and January 2008, she dated liberal Democrat and the former president of the New York City Council, Andrew Stein. For the past decade, Coulter has been rumoured to be in a long-term relationship with one of her security guards.Image source

Have you ever wondered how much wealth this controversial media personality has accumulated so far? How rich Ann Coulter is? According to authoritative sources, it is estimated that the total of Ann Coulters net worth, as of mid-2018, revolves around the impressive sum of $8.5 million, primarily acquired through the commercial success of her publications and other writings. Anns wealth includes several valuable assets such as a condominium in New York Citys borough of Manhattan, as well as an apartment located in Los Angeles, California, and a house in Palm Beach, Florida.

View post:
Where is Ann Coulter today? Her Bio: Husband, Net Worth ...

Lets hope Merrick Garlands search of Mar-a-Lago is based on more evidence than his indictment of the Louisville, Kentucky, police officers involved in the raid on Breonna Taylors house.

That passive construction I just used involved in the raid on, instead of who raided is not sloppy writing: Its the facts. The officers who actually shot Taylor have not been charged, apparently on the flimsy grounds thatthey were being shot at when they fired.

Instead, our lunatic attorney general has indicted officers who prepared the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Taylors home. In the words of theindictment, the affidavit contained information that was false, misleading and out-of-date and that the officers lacked probable cause for the search.

Further, the indictment also alleges that the officersknewthey were providing false information.

Breonna Taylor, you will recall, was themoll for drug dealer Jamarcus Glover, one of Louisvilles biggest suppliers of cocaine and fentanyl, and therefore by definition a murderer. On March 13, 2020, the police executed simultaneous search warrants on two of his trap houses as well as the home of his bagwoman, Breonna.

At Taylors house, police announced themselves and got no response. They announced themselves again; no response. They announced themselves again; no response. Finally, they used a battering ram to enter. Almost immediately, an officer was shot.

The man with Taylor, Kenneth Walker, claims he shot at the officers because he thought the guys pounding on the front door and yelling POLICE! were home invaders. Skeptics will say thats implausible, but it is now treated as hard fact in such solid, reliable news sources as The New York Times.

The officers returned fire and hit Taylor, who had the misfortune to be standing next to her boyfriend as he was shooting at the police. Riots ensued. Taylors family got $12 million.

Kentuckys criminal prosecution of the one officer charged ended in an acquittal. With last weeks suit, the federal government is now bringing its own criminal charges against the police in a sane world, this would be double jeopardy alleging that the affidavit for a search warrant was based on information that was knowingly false, misleading and out-of-date.

Specifically, the feds say the following claims were false:

1. Glover and Taylor had an ongoing connection;

2. Glover used Taylors address as his residence;

3. Glover received packages at Taylors address.

While it can be murky determining the precise relationship status and residence of a drug dealer, especially when he works out of three trap houses and has multiple girlfriends, those three claims are not false. They are true.

The cops didnt lie; the indictment does.

1. Did Glover and Taylor have an ongoing connection?

Their relationship dates back to at least 2016, when Taylor loaned Glover her rental car, only to have the police show up at her door to ask about the dead body in thetrunk. The dead man turned out to be the brother of one of Glovers criminal confederates.

But that was four years before the raid! Surely, Breonna wised up after the body-in-the-trunk incident and dumped Jamarcus like a hot potato. Right?

Nope! Taylor continued bonding Glover out of jail through his many arrests from 2016 to 2020. He called Taylor from jail at least26 timesduring those four years that can be proven including on Jan. 3, 2020, three months before the raids. During that call from January 2020, the two talk about sleeping together and exchange I love yous.

On Jan. 2, 2020, police installed a pole camera to observe one of the crack houses in response to numerous violent assaults in the area. The very day the camera went up, Taylors car was seen pulling up to the house, dropping off Glover. On Feb. 13, 2020, Taylor drove him there again, and while waiting for him, got out of her car, in full view of the camera.

GPS tracking showed his car driving to Taylors house six times in January 2020 alone.

But this is a dry recitation of police evidence. Glovers baby mama (not Breonna) is more colorful. In a recordedjailhouse phone callthe day after the shooting, she told him: This bitch (Breonna) where shes been with you, since you aint been over at my house the same day you post a picture I guess she post a video, you knew it because she said whats up she was in the bed with you, you kissing all over her.

Glover repeatedly assures the irate baby mama that Breonna just kept his money for him and that thousands of dollars were still at her house.

Now, where in the world would the police get the idea that Glover and Taylor had some sort of ongoing connection? Its a puzzlement.

2. Did Glover use Taylors address as his residence?

Again, what constituted Glovers residence is a bit of a philosophical question because, in the words of his baby mama, You bounce back and forth between these bitches.

But he had to give the bank an address. He gave them Taylors as confirmed by the police withsubpoenaedbank records they obtained on Feb. 24, 2020, mere weeks before the raids. He also had to give police a phone number when he filed a complaint in February about his car being towed. He gave them Breonnas number.

To the extent that a major coke dealer with a string of ladies has any fixed address, Glovers address was Taylors house.

3. Did Glover receive packages at Taylorsresidence?

This ones the easiest to answer. The police hadphotosof Glover carrying a USPS package from her house on Jan. 16, 2020. His car pulls up, he walks into her house empty-handed, then emerges carrying the USPS package. (Whereupon, he drove directly to a trap house.)

That search must have been exhaustive.

Even the lawyer representing Taylors family wasnt stupid enough to deny the packages. Amid a blizzard of fanciful claims about Taylor and Glovers relationship Theyd broken up years ago! They barely stayed in touch! the lawyer admitted that Taylor accepted packages for Glover.

Yeah, we know. There arepictures. The only people who dont know are the Louisville postal inspector and the attorney general of the United States.

This fall, the Democrats will try to convince you that they support the police.Why, look at how well we treated thecop who shotAshli Babbitt!Never forget that this is the party that spent 2 1/2 years and counting! trying to destroy Louisville police officers for risking their lives to take down a major drug ring.

See the original post:
Ann Coulter: Merrick Garland Is a Lunatic - Breitbart