Mediaboss Marketing

If I were president of the United States, the number one priority would be the security of the country. This means a strong military. It appears we have become complacent by not responding appropriately to acts of aggression by other nations.

At times we dont display a strong resolve to defend ourselves and act decisively to promote our position in the world. A strong military, not necessarily to be used randomly, creates the concept of Show of Force, which is the first defense we have to contain those who would do us harm.

The second priority I would insist on is energy independence. We were on the road to energy independence until the Biden administration cancelled the Keystone Pipeline. By doing so, he eliminated a number of good paying jobs and left us again dependent on foreign oil. Can anyone tell me why that pipeline project was canceled and for what good reason?

The next priority and probably number one on some peoples list who live in the western states is the illegal migrants entering the country. Can someone explain to me why the construction of the wall around our southern border was stopped? Controlling our boarders is a security issue for the legal residents here.

Flooding the economy with easy money creates inflation. There are people struggling and public assistance may be necessary. Those folks who stay at home and chose not to work due to government benefit programs lose respect for themselves and the people around them. There is a great deal of satisfaction coming home from a decent days work that creates a positive life experience. Inflation is a silent tax that does most harm to the lower-income wage earners.

Can anyone name the greatest accomplishments of the Biden administration over the past 12 months? I would be curious to know.

A few other points that come to mind; at times we Americans dont get along. There is no longer the concept of compromise between the two political parties. Commentary is rude and abusive. Private lives are no longer private. Television networks have become propaganda machines. Controlling our reading material and what is broadcast all seemed to have an agenda. This needs to stop before it becomes irreversible.

My final thought; President Obama was unique. We will never have such a powerful individual come to the White House with the greatest opportunity our country could ask for and not deliver. He was unique because of his racial background. A good and persuasive speaker that could have done wonders for this country in mending the fences between white and Black folks and bringing this country together. He chose not to do that. He did the opposite; he widened the divide between the races. That was his biggest failure of his administration.

Read this article:
Rich Luccarelli: Here's a list of reasons why liberals are ruining America - Conway Daily Sun

Thursdays meeting could endorse Mr Judah, who was the Liberal candidate for Bentleigh at the 2018 state election, overturn the result and order a fresh preselection, or wait for further information.

Last week upper house Liberal leader David Davis, representing Opposition Leader Matthew Guy, and Sarah Henderson, representing federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, spoke in favour of the status quo.

State party president Robert Clark recommended that the partys constitutional committee examine the vote.

If the committee members loyal to Mr Clark decide the electoral irregularities are too great, then the preselection would be overturned by a vote of 10-9.

Party state secretary Sam McQuestin is yet to give a recommendation to the committee.

Over the summer the party secretariat, who have been installing a new membership database, took to calling members in an attempt to ascertain their eligibility, which is determined by residence of an electorate, length of party membership and payment of membership dues.

In October the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission created the new seats of Ashwood, taking in Burwood and Box Hill, and Glen Waverley after scrapping the eastern seats Burwood (held by Labor), Ferntree Gully (Liberal), Forest Hill (Liberal) and Mount Waverley (Labor).

Analysts say the new seat is nominally held by Labor on a margin of 2.1 per cent. Burwood was held by Labor on 3.3 per cent.

The Liberal Party, which replaced Michael OBrien with former leader Matthew Guy in a September coup, must win back lost eastern suburbs seats, such as Ringwood, to have a chance of winning the state election in November. The Coalition has 28 fewer seats than Labor, and is behind in the polls.

Loading

The Victorian branch has been mired in factional infighting for years. The controversial preselected candidate for Ringwood, Cynthia Watson, was overwhelmingly formally endorsed by the administration committee last week.

Moderate faction members had wanted to dump the former mayor of Boroondara, a Mormon, because of her conservative and religious views.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the days most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

Read this article:
Liberals in a lather over preselection irregularities for newly minted seat - The Sydney Morning Herald

President Joe Biden came into office promising to reverse President Donald Trump's restrictive immigration policies but failed to deliver in his first year, disappointing liberals and overseeing a major border crisis that hurt his popularity.

Biden struggled to follow through on vows to rescind Trump's "Remain in Mexico" program for asylum-seekers, to end the practice of using pandemic public health authority to automatically expel illegal immigrants, and to resolve problems in Central America that prompt many to flee to the United States.

The public has turned on him. Biden's approval ratings on his handling of immigration plummeted through his first year, dropping from upwards of 55% approval to 35% this month, according to RealClearPolitics averages.

In his first year, the president took swift action to halt some of the most harmful and legally indefensible policies of his predecessor, Gregory Chen, the senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, wrote in an email. But with each step forward, the president also took major steps backwards.

Conservatives, meanwhile, fault Biden for the policies he has been able to enact.

We said this would be the most radical policy changes in immigration before he even took office. And they were very effective, very quickly, said Lora Ries, the senior research fellow for homeland security at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. I would say it's worse than even we anticipated.

47,705 MIGRANTS RELEASED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REPORT TO ICE HAVE GONE MISSING UNDER BIDEN

The new administration moved in last January, quickly rescinding a slew of former President Donald Trumps border policies and plans, including stopping billions of dollars worth of previously funded border wall construction, ordering a 100-day halt on deportations, and promising to debut an improved asylum system.

But before he got too far easing border restrictions, the administration was met by an enormous increase in illegal immigration. The full extent of illegal immigration at the southern border is unknown, but the number of migrants who are caught or surrender to Border Patrol is tracked. Over the past decade, before Biden took office, the number of apprehensions ranged between 30,000 and 50,000 noncitizens encountered in a single month. Last March, 170,000 noncitizens were encountered at the southern border. Encounters have remained between 160,000 and 210,000 every month since March 2021.

As border numbers rose, the public began to sour on Biden's management, forcing the White House to spend its first few months focused on the border instead of steering sweeping immigration reforms through Congress. In response to the surge at the border, the Biden administration was forced to choose between maintaining the Trump administration enforcement measures it had vowed to rescind (and disappointing liberal immigration activists) or seeing a rise in illegal immigration of the kind the GOP has predicted. It chose a little bit of both, and that is what has infuriated both Democrats and Republicans.

One such border initiative created by the Trump administration was the Migrant Protection Protocols, which required migrants who sought asylum at the southern border to remain in Mexico for months until their day in court. Biden ended it in June and was sued by Texas and Missouri. The Supreme Court ordered MPP to be restarted.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a restrictionist group in Washington, viewed the initial conclusion of MPP as Bidens most noteworthy promise kept. Liberal groups, though, are furious because Biden restarted the program and expanded it so that more migrants had the potential to be turned back than when the program was operating under Trump.

Biden was pushed early on in his first year by the same left-leaning immigration groups to stop using the pandemic public health measure, Title 42, which mandated that Border Patrol agents turn all illegal immigrants back to Mexico or to their home country. All illegal crossers, not just those seeking asylum, would be turned away.

Biden planned to end Title 42 as soon as the coronavirus was no longer a serious threat, but the spikes in cases, including the delta and omicron variants this past year, prevented him from doing so. Of the nearly 1.7 million encounters made by the Border Patrol in fiscal year 2021, more than 1 million people were turned away under Title 42, according to federal data.

It is absolutely indefensible that the president has stood behind a CDC ban on asylum-seekers put in place by his predecessor using falsely justified and now widely discredited public health statements, Chen wrote.

Chen said Biden promised to reduce the use of immigration detention, as well as eliminate the use of facilities operated by companies that are for-profit as opposed to nonprofit.

Instead, his agencies expanded detention and signed more contracts with private prisons reneging on those commitments, said Chen. During COVID, the administration continued to detain people unnecessarily in facilities that became Petri dishes for widespread infection, and it failed to provide vaccines and adequate protection for people detained in facilities.

More than 32,000 cases of the coronavirus have been detected among people jailed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities nationwide since the start of the pandemic, according to federal data. However, the Biden administration did stop using ICE family residential centers to hold migrants before release. Instead, it relied on hotels and also released people onto the street, but rather than using ankle monitors to track adults, it gave some migrants cellphones to track them in a less invasive way.

However, noncitizens released into the U.S. to await future court dates must wait several years due to massive backlogs for the fewer than 500 immigration judges nationwide. It's a problem that the Biden administration needs to do more to address, Chen said.

The president needs to take far more aggressive action to eliminate the 1.5 million case backlog that is keeping people waiting years for decisions, said Chen.

Within the interior of the country, Krikorian said, Biden has all but ended interior immigration enforcement deportations. His order to halt deportations for 100 days was blocked in court. But, Ries said, he was very effective at reforming ICE by significantly limiting the categories of migrants subject to arrest, making many with criminal records ineligible.

The Biden administration did follow through on a promise to roll back a Trump rule that deemed immigrants who were poor a public charge because they did not make enough money and therefore would not be given green cards. Rosanna Berardi, managing partner of Berardi Immigration Law, which has offices across the U.S. and England, praised Biden for taking down that restriction. Naturalizations, the ceremonies by which legal permanent residents become citizens, drastically increased last year, which she applauded.

But when it comes to overhauling the immigration system through Congress, Biden has not gotten far. The White House-backed Democratic bill, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, includes anearned roadmap to citizenship for11 million non-U.S. citizens illegally residing in the country and would drastically boost security at land, air, and seaports of entry on the border. Four billion dollars would be available over four years to address underlying reasons that people flee Central America for the U.S. southern border. The bill states that it will improve the immigration courts and expand family case management programs and reduce immigration court backlogs, which top 1.5 million. It has not made it through the House or Senate.

This is my 25th year of being an immigration lawyer. Ive lived through lots of administrations. They all promised the same thing. They promised comprehensive immigration reform, said Berardi. They promised ways of making illegals lawful and no administration, including the Biden administration, has delivered on that promise.

Even foreigners seeking to immigrate to the U.S. legally are having trouble doing so under the Biden White House. U.S. consulates and embassies overseas that are responsible for part of the visa screening processes have remained closed, understaffed, or have simply not prioritized immigration matters, preventing immigrants and tourists seeking admission to the U.S. from being able to reunite with family or take a job here, Chen said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Biden raised the number of refugees admitted to 125,000 but fell short this past year. Krikorian said the Trump administration shrank the U.S. government's capacity for reviewing refugee applications and that that has continued to affect the number of refugees able to be screened under Biden.

View original post here:
Biden immigration promises after one year: Border chaos and frustrated liberals - Washington Examiner

Fox News Channel said it would count on a larger group of anchors to boost one of its top shows, The Five, as it enjoys a new levels of viewership.

Jeanine Pirro, the firebrand former prosecutor who has held forth on Fox News Saturday-night schedule for a decade, will fill one of two empty seats at the networks late-afternoon mainstay, with a trio Harold Ford Jr., Geraldo Rivera and Jessica Tarlov rotating as the programs voice from the left. Those three have been filling in since the resident liberal of The Five, Juan Williams, parted ways with the show last May. Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino and Jesse Watters have carried on the interim. Pirro will give up the regular Saturday-night show she has hosted for a decade.

The Five has in recent months done something unusual. More than a decade into its tenure on the Fox Corp.-backed outlet, it has seen a surge in audience an atypical trend for a program that doesnt air in primetime. In the fourth quarter of 2021, the program won more viewers overall across all cable-news offerings.

As such, tinkering with it is not something to be done lightly. The Five has served as a template for a range of programs across the Fox News schedule, including the new late-night round-table program Gutfeld, the daytime staple Outnumbered, and two weekend programs, The Big Saturday Show and The Big Sunday Show. In executives view, The Five serves as sort of family-dinner table where people can argue over topics without walking away angry. Its a great show for us, and its a great show for America, actually, Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott told Variety in a 2019 interview. She was involved in the shows creation and choosing its original lineup, which has featured Gutfeld and Perino since its debut.

Whether the addition of Pirro, a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of former President Trump who has been prone to dramatic commentary on her own program, tilts that balance remains to be seen.

Pirros move to the weekday show is emblematic of Fox News current strategy of placing decidedly right-leaning opinion host in many of its top slots. On Monday, Fox News put Watters in its 7 p.m. hour, ensuring the networks schedule between 7 p.m. and midnight is stocked with pundits who espouse conservative sometimes even more rightward viewpoints.

Pirro is nothing if not colorful. Before joining Fox News, she was the host of a syndicated court program from Warner Brothers that relied on her three terms as Westchester County District Attorney. In 2019, Pirro did not appear on her show for a handful of weeks after making pointed remarks about U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, a Muslim lawmaker, suggesting she was more tied to Muslim law than the U.S. Constitution. Even so, she has a long track record in Republican circles in New York, elected elected as the first woman to serve as a Westchester County Court judge, and appointed by then-Governor George Pataki to chair the New York State Commission on Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board in 1997.

Although Fox News tilts decidedly right, the networks executives have long maintained The Five will not work without a liberal counterpoint. Fox has had a right-and-left format on its air since 1996, when Sean Hannity used to spar in primetime with liberal foil, Alan B. Colmes. The Five has kept the concept on air.

Harold Ford, Jr. a former Democratic U.S. Representative from Tennessee, will be one of those offering a leftward viewpoint. Ford, a one-time regular at NBC News and MSNBCs Morning Joe, is an executive vice chairman of PNC Banks corporate and institutional banking business. Jessica Tarlov, a Fox News contributor since 2017, is vice president of research and consumer insight for Bustle Digital Group and a former Democratic pollster who will also appear regularly on the show. Geraldo Rivera, a longtime Fox News presence and correspondent-at-large, has politics that are less easy to pin down, but will also fill the shows roster of leftward points of view.

Original post:
Fox News Fills Out The Five With Jeanine Pirro, Trio of Liberals - Variety

Rarely do you see a court case with a title as tasty as the one thats coming on Feb. 1 in federal district court right here in Manhattan: Grab your popcorn for Palin v. New York Times.

Unlike, say, Batman v. Commissioner (1950, federal tax court), however, this one is about exactly who you think its about. Fun!

But this trial is not only entertaining, it will address an important principle: you dont get to make up nasty stuff about somebody you dont like and print it anyway. Reminding us that there is punishment in store for those who do this could move us a half-a-baby-step closer to restoring civility in the discourse.

After a madman shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Arizona in 2011, when Sarah Palin was the most despised woman in America on the left because of her merciless and effective put-downs of Barack Obama three years earlier, lefty pundits were desperate to find some way, however far-fetched, to link the shooting to her. They tried to make a banquet out of a crumb: they discovered Palins PAC had put out a map about defeating Obamacare that was illustrated with crosshairs to identify congressional districts as potential pickups for the GOP. Target, campaign, crosshairs and the like are long-standing military metaphors used in election battles. (Battles. Theres another one.) Nobody goes, Aaaaaugh, youre trying to get me killed! when a press release mentions that this or that incumbent is being targeted.

Did Giffords shooter ever see this map? No, not that we know of. Moreover, he had no clear political views. Instead, he simply harbored an obsessive hate for Giffords specifically, which was documented back to three years before the maps existence. Three days after the shooting, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote, The charge that Palins map had anything to do with the shooting is bogus.

Yet six years later, after a far-left Bernie Sanders-loving terrorist shot and nearly killed Republican Congressman Steve Scalise on a Virginia baseball field, the Times tried to change the subject back to the Giffords shooting to deflect blame from the left. Its unsigned editorial of June 14, 2017, stated that in the Giffords attack, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palins political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts and claimed that the Scalise shooting showed no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack.

Awful stuff, and completely untrue, as the Times acknowledged in a corrective note: In fact, no such link was established. Much less a direct or clear one. The whole Palin link was simply made up because the left hates her, and the Times editorial board stepped in a mess out on Bullspit Boulevard.

Ill sue you for libel, you ink-stained bastard! is the kind of idle threat heard by every reporter six times a day before lunch. No, you probably wont! And if you do, I like my chances. American libel law strongly favors the press rather than the people we write about, and for excellent reason. Opinions, even extremely nasty ones, are protected. Hurrah! What a dim, gray, Soviet-scented discourse wed have in this country if it were otherwise. Also, the media can be forgiven for honest mistakes. Believe it or not, Were too dumb to know what we said was false is a legit defense.

Its pretty hard to lose a libel case, but the Times has put itself in a dicey spot. The Times smeared Palin, plain and simple. They thought theyd get away with it because Palin is a public figure, and the national press has been unloading on her since the day John McCain picked her to be his running mate. But Palins lawyers are the ones who trounced Gawker so badly in the Hulk Hogan case that the site went under.

If I were the Times, Id be looking forward to this trial about as much as you would spending winter in Juneau.

Go here to see the original:
Why Sarah Palin has a case against the lying liberals at New York Times - New York Post