Mediaboss Marketing

Washington Times

Don't let liberals demonize immigration reform Washington Times Liberals are launching a campaign to demonize and delegitimize one of President Trump's key policy initiatives for purely partisan ends. No sooner had Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia joined Mr. Trump Wednesday at ... Perdue on Immigration Proposal: If Liberals Are 'Fear-Mongering,' Then We're Onto SomethingFox News Insider all 1,421 news articles »

Read more:
Don't let liberals demonize immigration reform - Washington Times

By Kristen Day By Kristen Day August 3

Kristen Day is the executive director of Democrats For Life of America and advocates for a pro-life voice within the Democratic Party.

On Monday, Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), the Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman, announced there will be no litmus test based on abortion for Democrats seeking office in 2018. As we look at candidates across the country, you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America, Lujn said.

This attention to local values and interests was the crux of Howard Deans 50 state strategy, which earned the party victories across the country in 2006 and 2008. As Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez put it back in April: In order to execute a 50-state strategy, we need to understand whats going on in all 50 states, and attract candidates who are consistent with their messages but perhaps not on 100 percent of the issues. If you demand fealty on every single issue, then its a challenge.

Still, many Democrats were horrified by Lujns remarks. Shame on Democrats backing anti-choice candidates, Guardian writer Jamie Peck declared, for acting as if issues like abortion dont have profound economic implications. Of course abortion should be a litmus test for Democrats, New York Times contributing columnist Lindy West added.There is no recognizable version of the Democratic Party that does not fight unequivocally against half its constituents being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. Plenty more chimed in along those lines.

[Democrats could crush the GOP, if only they would welcome antiabortion liberals]

But when Democrats or others on the left bash the party for funding Democratic candidates with whom they disagree on abortion, they miss a key point: Democrats who oppose abortion arent like Republicans who oppose abortion. Not only are their priorities different, so are their policies. While Republicans who oppose abortion usually aim simply at banning the practice or making it difficult, Democrats who oppose abortion tend to take a whole-life approach, and to focus especially on reducing incentives to have abortions, rather than creating penalties.

Consider Pecks allegation that by funding candidates who oppose abortion, the Democratic party is de facto refusing to consider the economic aspects of abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats who oppose abortion are keenly aware of how many abortions are the result of financial stress and economic pressures, and we advocate constantly to reduce those burdens.

Signed into law along with the Affordable Care Act were several legislation proposals crafted by Democrats for Life of America called the Pregnant Women Support Act. We intended our proposals to reduce abortion by getting rid of many of the forces that push women toward abortion in the first place. We moved to eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition for insurers, require State Child Health Insurance programs to cover mothers, fully and federally fund WIC and provide federal funding for day care. Likewise, when Senate Republicans moved last year to institute a 20-week ban on abortion, we at Democrats for Life of America urged legislators to include a paid family leave package along with the bill, with the aim of reducing financial burdens on pregnant women and their families. And in 2012, antiabortion Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law that would ensure that pregnant women receive reasonable adjustments on the job and that they dont face retribution for asking to be accommodated.

[Everyone agrees women who have abortions shouldnt be penalized. Or do they?]

In other words, one of the factors that best distinguishes Democrats who oppose abortion from Republicans who do is the very fact that Democrats are cognizant of the pressures that finances and the economy can place on a persons life, and we are invested in freeing people from them to the greatest degree possible.

But perhaps more important, it simply isnt true that, as West implies, antiabortion Democrats are comfortable with women being stripped of ownership of their own bodies and lives. If supporting pregnant women with government programs and employment protections isnt enough proof of antiabortion Democrats commitment to womens health, safety and liberty, antiabortion Democrats have also argued for higher minimum wages and for expanding services available to pregnant victims of domestic violence, stalking and other forms of abuse.Democrats who oppose abortion want to stopabortion, but that doesnt entail a wholesale stripping away of womens autonomy, as the policies outlined above indicate. And it certainly doesnt imply a disregard for womens lives.

The abortion debate is polarized and often extremely bitter. Its easy to imagine that there really are only two sides: yours and the other guys. But Americans views on abortion are mostly in the gray area between always legal and never legal, and each persons moral perspective will be nuanced by his or her own values and experiences. When Lujn says that Democratic candidates who run for office in districts with strong antiabortion leanings deserve funding from the party, he isnt saying that the party is going to fund candidates whose positions are tantamount to those of Republicans. Hes rightly observing that Democrats real, bona-fide Democrats do have a range of views on abortion, and to win as many elections as possible, the party has to recognize that.

Read the original post:
Democrats don't need to be afraid of antiabortion liberals - Washington Post

The Bishop of Cordoba, Demetrio Fernndez Gonzlez, is waging holy war against Muslims and lefties who want to wrest control of a cathedral away from the Catholic Church who stole it from the Moors 800 years ago.

The bitter fight has broken out over the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba in Andalusia, in southern Spain.

The consecrated site is believed to have originally been a Christian church dedicated to Saint Vincent the third.

The city was seized in 711 by a Moorish army, and it became a provincial capital.

But it was recaptured from the Moors in 1236 during the Spanish Reconquista by King Ferdinand III of Castile, following a siege lasting several months, and the Mosque was converted to a Roman Catholic cathedral.

Gonzlez has now claimed opponents now want to reverse the Reconquista.

Gonzlez said: For eight centuries we have lived peacefully with the cathedral in Catholic hands.

But right now, the idea the Muslims have had, this dream that theyve had to somehow take back the cathedral, is being helped by the political left.

So it is a kind of alliance coming in from the left.

The politicians realize that the cathedral is the property of the Church, but what they would like is for it to become public property.

So it would be a type of expropriation.

Gonzlez was speaking at a meeting in Washington DC, organizedby the Center for Religious Freedom of the Hudson Institute.

Fernndez added that sharing the cathedral with Muslims would not be possible, neither for the Catholics nor for the Muslims.

A church dedicated to St Vincent of Saragossa occupied the site and was razed by the Moors in 711.

Cordoba was governed by direct Moorish rule, with commanders establishing themselves within the city.

The city became a provincial capital in 716, and was subordinate to the Caliphate of Damascus.

Originally posted here:
Meet the bishop 'waging holy war' on both liberals and Muslims - New York Post

Clockwise from top left, Surrey-White Rock MLA Tracy Redies, former Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg, Surrey South MLA Stephanie Cadieux, Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Marvin Hunt.

Former Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg suggests former premiers throne speech caused instability

As BC Liberal Party MLAs check their shoulders to see which one of their colleagues will make the first step toward becoming the partys leader, current and former Surrey MLAs are suggesting that the most appropriate candidate may be one from outside the caucus.

Former premier and BC Liberal Party leader Christy Clark stepped down June 29 after holding B.C.s top job for six years. Her decision came as a surprise to many, because the week before she reaffirmed her commitment to leading the party in opposition.

As the party searches for a new boss, former Surrey-White Rock MLA Gordon Hogg who did not seek re-election May 9 after five terms in provincial office said there are advantages to recruiting from outside of the party.

He said the BC Liberals need someone who can reaffirm the partys stability after Clarks throne speech, which was made two weeks after the election. The speech, Hogg said, contradicted a number of positions made by the party during the campaign.

We lost a little bit of balance when we ran on a platform and shortly after the election we introduced a throne speech that really diverted a long way from the platform we ran on, Hogg told Peace Arch News Wednesday.

We went through a campaign and presented all of the things we believed we were going to carry out and then there was a quick change. I think theres some instability around that and theres a need to build back the confidence and stability that is needed to go forward, I think some of that was lost.

Hogg said the BC Liberals should have put more of a focus on education and health care during the partys most recent campaign.

This has been said, I dont think the campaign was run as well as it could have and as well as it should have been run. I think part of that now needs to be readdressed.

As for potential leaders, Hogg said he doesnt have any that come to mind.

Depending on the level of renewal the party wants to address, I think there are some distinctive advantages of getting someone who is outside of the party who is not part of the old regime that has been in power for 16 years and went through the election, he said.

Theres been some media speculation that South Surrey-White Rock MP Dianne Watts a former Surrey mayor is making a move for the position. Hogg said he hasnt spoken with the MP, but Ive heard those rumours that she may be interested.

Certainly Dianne is well known, particularly in the Lower Mainland. Im just not sure about her relationship and commitment to the federal Conservatives at this point.

PAN attempted to contact Watts, but her legislative assistant emailed back saying Watts is unavailable for an interview at this time. PAN asked why but received no response.

However, the Globe and Mail received a statement this week from Watts saying that she had received a lot of calls and emails about the contest, but I have not made any decisions at all one way or another.

BC Liberal Surrey-Cloverdale MLA Marvin Hunt told PAN this week that there are a number of people that would make a good fit for the leadership, inside and outside the party.

Youve got, for example, people like (Kamloops-South Thompson MLA) Todd Stone who are young, smart, good head on their shoulders.

Asked if he was referring to Watts when he said theres potential leadership from outside of the party, Hunt said Sure.

Shes one that certainly the press has been making a fair bit of lately, and I suspect there will be others as well.

Although he hasnt seriously considered making a move for the leadership, Hunt said the thought did cross his mind.

Just about as fast as it went into my mind, it went out the other side, he said, noting media attention is a deterrent.

The saying goes that you go from being a big fish in a little pond to a little fish in a big pond. The press are piranhas.

Another aspect of the leadership job Hunt wouldnt enjoy, he said, are vicious online trolls who hide behind fake names.

Thats why I enjoyed municipal politics because it was much more local. Sure, you still had people that were upset with you no matter what happened, but by the same token, they were far more gentle because they knew that they could meet you in the grocery store.

Stephanie Cadieux, BC Liberal MLA for Surrey South, also said she has no interest in leading the party.

Im very happy in my role. (Leading the party) is another level of commitment to the province and it takes a certain type of person. I certainly have passion and ideas but I am comfortable for someone else to have that (job), she said.

Cadieux said that at this point, she wont identify any potential candidates.

There are a lot of names being bantered about, of course, and Im sure there are likely to be some that havent yet circulated. Right now were getting speculation from all sorts of arenas, but until individuals make it known publicly that theyre going to make a run for it and put their positions on their table, Im not going to presuppose it.

She said there are capable people both inside and outside the caucus that could fill the role.

It will be about who I believe puts forward the vision for the province that is best for today.

BC Liberal Surrey-White Rock MLA Tracy Redies said she was disappointed with Clarks resignation, however starting on a clean slate could be healthy for the party.

Its not what I would have picked but now that the premier made her decision, theres an opportunity for us to rejuvenate the party and think about what we need to do for the people of British Columbia and come up with a plan, Redies said.

See the original post:
Surrey BC Liberals look beyond their caucus for next leader - Surrey ... - Surrey Now-Leader

HBOs Confederate, dreamt up by the producers behind Game of Thrones, hasnt even been scripted yet and some people already hate it. This is how the press release reads: The series takes place in an alternate timeline, where the Southern states have successfully seceded from the Union, giving rise to a nation in which slavery remains legal and has evolved into a modern institution. MSNBC host Joy Reid called the idea repugnant; film writer ReBecca Theodore said: black trauma is not for sale. The hashtag campaign on Twitter is #NoConfederate.

So, is this it? Has American TV - after years of cashing in on sex, violence and genocide - finally found the line it cannot cross? Is slavery the new taboo? Yes and no. The problem with Confederate might be less its content than its context, and while some say the protest is knee-jerk, its reasoning is just.

In defence of Confederate, its bizarrely...

See more here:
HBO's 'slavery fan fiction' Confederate is the work of liberals with the noblest of intentions but it's still a ... - Telegraph.co.uk