Mediaboss Marketing

Canada is often touted in the United States as the panacea of health care, leadership, love, peace and thick bacon.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Need an account? Create one now.

kAm{:DE6?:?8 E@ s6>@4C2ED q6C?:6 $2?56CD[ |2I:?6 (2E6CD 2?5 r9F4< $49F>6C[ @?6 H@F=5 E9:?< E96C6 2C6 ?@ r2?25:2?D H2:E:?8 =@?86C E92? p>6C:42?D 7@C =:76D2G:?8 DFC86C:6D @C ;FDE E@ D66 2 5@4E@C 😕 2? 6>6C86?4J C@@>]k^Am

kAmr2?252 😀 A6C764EPk^Am

kAm$:?46 =:36C2=D 6?;@J E96 4@>A2C2E:G6 A9C2D6[ Q:?5FDEC:2=:K65 ?2E:@?D[Q E96C6 >2J 36 D@>6 2?8DE @C 56?:2= 😕 E96 724E E92E E96 r2?25:2? x?DE:EFE6 7@C w62=E9 x?7@C>2E:@? 92D 8:G6? E96:C 6>6C86?4J C@@> C2E:?8 2 72:=:?8 8C256]k^Am

kAmp44@C5:?8 E@ E96 :?56A6?56?E ?@?AC@7:E[ 6DE23=:D965 E@ AC@G:56 24E:@?23=6 :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE E96 ?2E:@?VD 962=E9 42C6 DJDE6>[ Q]]]]4@>A2C65 E@ @E96C :?5FDEC:2=:K65 4@F?EC:6D[ r2?252 92D E96 9:896DE AC@A@CE:@? @7 A2E:6?ED C6A@CE:?8 6I46DD:G6=J =@?8 H2:ED 😕 2? 6>6C86?4J 56A2CE>6?E]Qk^Am

kAm~? 2G6C286[ :E E2<6D ?62C=J 7@FC 9@FCD E@ D66 2 5@4E@C 27E6C J@FVG6 2CC:G65 2E 2 r2?25:2? 6>6C86?4J C@@>] x? 724E[ ah A6C46?E @7 r2?25:2?D 4964<:?8 :?E@ 6>6C86?4J C@@>D 92G6 E@ H2:E 7@FC 9@FCD @C =@?86C 367@C6 36:?8 D66? 3J 2 AC24E:E:@?6C]k^Am

kAm{2DE J62C[ "F6364VD 962=E9 2?5 H6=72C6 4@>>:DD:@?6C C6A@CE65 bd A6C46?E @7 A2E:6?ED 😕 E96 AC@G:?46 92G6 E@ H2:E 7:G6 9@FCD @C >@C6 7@C 42C6]%92EVD ?@E ;FDE 325[ :EVD E96 G6CJ H@CDE 😕 E96 H6DE6C? 96>:DA96C6]k^Am

kAm|62?H9:=6[ E96 r6?E6CD 7@C s:D62D6 r@?EC@= C6A@CED E96 2G6C286 H2:E E:>6 E@ D66 2 5@4E@C 😕 &]$] 6>6C86?4J C@@>D 😀 E9:CEJ >:?FE6D]k^Am

kAmr2?252 2=D@ E@AA65 E96 =:DE 7@C 92G:?8 E96 9:896DE AC@A@CE:@? @7 A2E:6?ED H:E9 =@?8 56=2JD E@ D66 DA64:2=:DED[ H:E9 de A6C46?E H2:E:?8 =@?86C E92? 7@FC H66A2C65 H:E9 E96 :?E6C?2E:@?2= 2G6C286 @7 be A6C46?E]k^Am

kAmx? E96 &]$][ H9:49 =:36C2=D 92G6 366? E6==:?8 FD 92D E96 H@CDE 962=E9 42C6 😕 E96 Q:?5FDEC:2=:K65 H@C=5[Q 92=7 2D >2?J A6@A=6 92G:?8 E@ H2:E E92E =@?8 E@ D66 2 DA64:2=:DE]k^Am

kAm~z[ D@ E96:C 962=E9 42C6 DJDE6> >:89E ?@E 36 A6C764E[ 3FE 2E =62DE r2?252 92D =:36C2= 962CEE9C@3 yFDE:? %CF562F]k^Am

kAm#@==:?8 $E@?6 >282K:?6[ E96 A@=:E:42==J =:36C2= 7:C63C2?5 E92E 92D 2 5:46J C6=2E:@?D9:A H:E9 ECFE97F= C6A@CE:?8[ A@D6D r2?25:2? !C:>6 |:?:DE6C %CF562F 2D E96 H6DE6C? H@C=5VD =2DE 8C62E 9@A6]k^Am

kAm%96J H6C6 @3G:@FD=J :>AC6DD65 H:E9 9:D EH66E A2J:?8 EC:3FE6 E@ u:56= r2DEC@[ 2 >2? H9@ 56?:6D E96 A@@C 962=E9 42C6 2D 8@@5 7@C E96 CF=:?8 4=2DD 2?5 :>AC:D@?65 76==@H rF32?D H9@D6 A@=:E:4D 5:776C65 7C@> 9:D @H? 2D Q=2C86C E92? =:76 =6256C H9@ D6CG65 9:D A6@A=6]]]Qk^Am

kAm%9:D 😀 E96 D2>6 %CF562F H9@ 2H2C565 2 4@?G:4E65 E6CC@C:DE H9@ >FC56C65 p>6C:42?D[ ~>2C z925C[ S`_]d >:==:@? 2D C6DE:EFE:@? 7@C ~>2C 36:?8 96=5 2E vF2?E2?2>@]k^Am

kAm%CF562F >256 ?@ D:>:=2C A2J>6?ED E@ E96 72>:=:6D @7 E96 D@=5:6CD >FC56C65 3J z295C]k^Am

kAmp== @7 E9:D >2<6D r2?252 D@ 2AA62=:?8 E92E E96 %CF>A 6=64E:@? 5C@G6 {6?2 sF?92>[ }6G6 r2>A36==[ q2C3C2 $EC6:D2?5[ #2G6?$:>@?6[ (9@@A:6 v@=536C8 WH9@ H2D =2DE D66? 2E s:D?6J (@C=5[ H96C6 &]$] 4:E:K6? 6>A=@J66D H6C6 7@C465 E@ EC2:? E96:C 4962A6C :>>:8C2?E C6A=246>6?ED @C 36 7:C65 :>>65:2E6=JX[ r96=D62 w2?5=6C[ 2?5 qC62<:?8 q25VD qCJ@? rC2?DE@? E@ >@G6 E96C6]]]k^Am

kAm]]] @C ?@E]k^Am

kAm*629[ H2:E]%96 =2E6DE 😀 E92E ?@?6 @7 E96> <6AE E96:C H@C5]k^Am

kAmtG6? p>J $49F>6C 324<65 5@H?[ 4=2:>:?8 96C AC@>:D6 E@ >@G6 E@ r2?252 H2D Q2 ;@<6]Qk^Am

kAmqF>>6C]k^Am

kAmqFE]]] r2?252Pk^Am

kAmxEVD E96 A6C764E H6DE6C? 4@F?ECJPtG6CJ =:36C2= =@G6D r2?252Pk^Am

kAm%92EVD H9J 😀 C2E96C @55 E92E E96 r2?25:2? {vq% !C:56 >2C49 😕 r2=82CJ 32??65 A@=:46 @77:46CD 7C@> 2EE6?5:?8 E96 A2C256 😕 F?:7@C>]k^Am

kAmx7 r2?252 😀 D@ H@?56C7F=[ H92EVD E96 AC@3=6> H:E9 DA:77J C65F?:7@C>65 9F?2C49:?8 @C ;FDE 8F2C5:?8 E96 >2C496CDnk^Am

kAm%96 AC6D:56?E @7 r2=82CJ !C:56[ y2D@? z:?8D=6J[ 4=2:>D E96 DJ>3@=D @7 =2H 6?7@C46>6?E 4@F=5 36 QEC:886C:?8Q E@ 2EE6?566D[ 4@>A2C:?8 :E E@ !%$s]k^Am

kAmQxEVD E92E DJ>3@=[ E92E 2FE9@C:E2E:G6 DJ>3@=[ E92E H62A@? E92E 42? 24EF2==J 36 EC:886C:?8 2?5 EC2F>2E:4 7@C :?5:G:5F2=D H9@ 92G6 72465 @AAC6DD:@? @C 72465 :DDF6D] $@ :EVD D:>:=2C E@ E9:?8D =:<6 !%$s[ H96C6 D@F?5D @C D:89ED 42? 24EF2==J EC:886C E96D6 6>@E:@?D @C E96D6 C6DA@?D6D[ H96C6 E96J 42? C6=:G6 E96D6 <:?5 @7 EC2F>2E:4 6A:D@56D @C D:EF2E:@?D E92E E96JVG6 6IA6C:6?465 😕 E96:C =:G6D]Qk^Am

kAm%@ E96 @C82?:K6CDV 5:D2AA@:?E>6?E[ E96 r2=82CJ A@=:46 H:== DE:== AC@G:56 D64FC:EJ E@ AC@E64E E96>]$@>6 H:== >2C49 😕 4:G:=:2? 4=@E96D]k^Am

kAm$@>6 >2C496CD H:== =:<6=J 72:?E 2E E96 9@CC:3=6 D:89E @7 r2=82CJ A@=:46 DE@:42==J AC@E64E:?8 E96:C C:89E E@ >2C49]k^Am

kAmu@C E96:C D2<6[ =6EVD 9@A6 ?@?6 @7 E96 >2C496CD EH:DE 2? 2?<=6 2?5 ?665 E@ 4964< :? E@ 2 r2?25:2? 6>6C86?4J C@@>]k^Am

kAm#:4< y6?D6? :D 2 DJ?5:42E65 4@=F>?:DE] r@?E24E 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@iC:4QmC:4k^2m ]k^Am

View post:
RICK JENSEN: O, Canada! If only liberals knew all the facts - Harrison Daily (subscription)

After the election of 2016, as many others, I was surprised, disappointed, and fearful. So as a result I frequently liked or shared a number of the liberal sites of Facebook. There were just a few progressive sites that showed up on my Facebook page and I would respond to them.

Now eight months later it seems that the number of those democratic, progressive, liberal sites has multiplied ten-fold. They almost seem to dominate my entire Facebook site. Many of them have shown up uninvited by me and unacknowledged by me.

The thing that is a bit disturbing is that the claims and the statements that are reported on these more liberal sites are, indeed, almost fake news. There is the constant refrain that something has happened that will surely bring the current administration to an end. This new event that is breaking news will be the end of atheist Trumps presidency. Or maybe, one of the children will be expelled from the White House, or the smoking gun on Russian involvement has just been discovered. Every day these kind of extreme exaggerated claims are put forth on these liberal sites. The claims they make are seldom supported by stories from the major news sources of the New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR or BBC. These liberal sites seem to be contributing to the climate that encourages this great debate about what is fake news and where is honest reporting. These sites may think they are inspiring the liberal base, but this hardly seems the best way for that to happen.

The other thing that is appearing is the consistent commenting on these liberal, progressive sites a barrage of alt-right attacks. A negative, vile, locker room attack is now the first comment under each of these liberal post. The impression that is given is that this is an organized and systematic program of insulting the posts and the people who read them. The names of the people who post these nasty and hateful comments are not your standard, normal names. These comments have no content other than curse words, vulgar slurs on the people who like these sites and to gloat that the atheist Trump will be president for eight years.

In this nasty and deeply divided society, with all kinds of people and ideas trying to manipulate the public, one has to wonder whether the Republican party has enlisted a group of people to be active in attacking these liberal sites or whether perhaps the liberal sites themselves have put these vile comments there to evoke from the readers more responses and more participation.

As Kris Kristofferson said it is getting harder to separate the winners from the losers, the good guys from the bad guys.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Originally posted here:
Who Is Saying All Those Mean Things About Liberals? - HuffPost

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