Mediaboss Marketing

|

Posted: Aug 16, 2017 8:05 PM

Apparently, as long as violent leftists label their victims fascists, they are free to set fires, smash windows and beat civilians bloody. No police officer will stop them. They have carte blanche to physically assault anyone they disapprove of, including Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, Ben Shapiro, me and Milo Yiannopoulos, as well as anyone who wanted to hear us speak.

Even far-left liberals like Evergreen State professor Bret Weinstein will be stripped of police protection solely because the mob called him a racist.

If the liberal shock troops deem local Republicans Nazis because some of them support the duly elected Republican president Portland will cancel the annual Rose Festival parade rather than allow any Trump supporters to march.

Theyre all fascists! Ipso facto, the people cracking their skulls and smashing store windows are anti-fascists, or as they call themselves, antifa.

We have no way of knowing if the speakers at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally last weekend were Nazis, white supremacists or passionate Civil War buffs, inasmuch as they werent allowed to speak. The Democratic governor shut the event down, despite a court order to let it proceed.

We have only visuals presented to us by the activist media, showing some participants with Nazi paraphernalia. But for all we know, the Nazi photos are as unrepresentative of the rally as that photo of the drowned Syrian child is of Europes migrant crisis. Was it 1 percent Nazi or 99 percent Nazi?

As the Unite the Right crowd was dispersing, they were forced by the police into the path of the peace-loving, rock-throwing, fire-spraying antifa. A far-left reporter for The New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, tweeted live from the event: The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding antifa beating white nationalists being led out of the park.

Thats when protestor James Fields sped his car into a crowd of the counter-protesters, then immediately hit reverse, injuring dozens of people, and killing one woman, Heather Heyer.

This has been universally labeled terrorism, but we still dont know whether Fields hit the gas accidentally, was in fear for his life or if he rammed the group intentionally and maliciously.

With any luck, well unravel Fields motives faster than it took the Obama administration to discern the motives of a Muslim shouting Allahu Akbar! while gunning down soldiers at Fort Hood. (Six years.)

But so far, all we know is that Fields said he was upset about black people and wanted to kill as many as possible. On his Facebook page, he displayed a White Power poster and liked three organizations deemed white separatist hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. A subsequent search of his home turned up bomb-making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition and a personal journal of combat tactics.

Actually, none of that is true. The paragraph above describes, down to the letter, what was known about Micah Xavier Johnson, the black man who murdered five Dallas cops a year ago during a Black Lives Matter demonstration. My sole alteration to the facts is reversing the words black and white.

President Obama held a news conference the next day to say its very hard to untangle the motives. The New York Times editorialized agnostically that many possible motives will be ticked off for the killer. (One motive kind of sticks out like a sore thumb to me.)

In certain cases, the media are quite willing to jump to conclusions. In others, they seem to need an inordinate amount of time to detect motives.

The media think they already know all there is to know about James Fields, but they also thought they knew all about the Duke lacrosse players, gentle giant Michael Brown and those alleged gang-rapists at the University of Virginia.

Waiting for facts is now the Nazi position.

Liberals have Republicans over a barrel because they used the word racist. The word is kryptonite, capable of turning the entire GOP and 99 percent of the conservative media into a panicky mass of cowardice.

This week, Mitt Romney and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) among others instructed us that masked liberals hitting people with baseball bats are pure of heart provided they first label the likes of Charles Murray or some housewife in a MAGA hat fascists.

Luckily, the week before opening fire on Republicans, critically injuring House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, Bernie Sanders-supporter James Hodgkinson had used the vital talisman, calling the GOP fascist. So you see, he wasnt trying to commit mass murder! He was just fighting Nazis. Rubio and Romney will be expert witnesses.

And lets recall the response of Hillary Clinton to the horrifying murder of five Dallas cops last year. The woman who ran against Trump displayed all the moral blindness currently being slanderously imputed to him.

In an interview on CNN about the slaughter that had taken place roughly 12 hours earlier, Hillary barely paused to acknowledge the five dead officers much less condemn the shooting before criticizing police for their implicit bias six times in about as many minutes.

What she really wanted to talk about were the two recent police shootings of black men in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis, refusing to contradict Minnesota Gov. Mark Daytons claim that the Minneapolis shooting was based on racism.

Officers in both cases were later found innocent of any wrongdoing. Either the left has had a really bad streak of luck on their police brutality cases, or bad cops are a lot rarer than they think.

Some people would not consider the mass murder of five white policemen by an anti-cop nut in the middle of a BLM protest a good jumping-off point for airing BLMs delusional complaints about the police. It would be like responding to John Hinckley Jr.s attempted murder of President Reagan by denouncing Jodie Foster for not dating him.

Or, to bring it back to Charlottesville, it would be as if Trump had responded by expounding on the kookiest positions of Unite the Right just as Hillarys response echoed the paranoid obsessions of the cop-killer. Trump would have quickly skipped over the dead girl and railed against black people, Jews and so on.

That is the precise analogy to what Hillary did as the bodies of five Dallas cops lay in the morgue.

Thank God Donald J. Trump is our president, and not Mitt Romney, not Marco Rubio and not that nasty woman.

See the rest here:
When Liberals Club People, It's With Love In Their Hearts - Townhall

OTTAWA The Justice Department wants to know what Canadians think of changing some of the former Conservative government'scontroversial tough-on-crime sentencing legacy including mandatory minimum penalties before the Liberals bring in their promised reforms.

An online survey asks respondents to judge several scenarios involving mitigating circumstances surrounding a crime, such as a brain-damaged offender whose condition leads to poor decision-making skills, or an offender who acted out of character and has apologized to the victim in court.

Consider, for example, the fictional case of Sarah, a 36-year-old single mother struggling with addiction who was convicted of drug trafficking after she was caught selling some of her prescription opioid pills.

The survey says she had a knife in her backpack, which she claimed was for her own protection, and after she went to jail, her two children were placed with child welfare services because she had no family to take them in.

The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates, Inc., says everyone convicted of drug trafficking while carrying a weapon must be sentenced to at least one year behind bars, no matter the circumstances,and then asks respondents whether they believe the sentence is appropriate and fair.

The Liberals have promised legislative changes to mandatory minimum sentences, including at least some of the dozens the Conservatives imposed, or increased, over the decade they were in power.

Proponents of mandatory minimumpenalties argue they help ensureconsistency in sentencing, whilecritics have decried them for taking away the ability of judges to use their discretion in handing down a consequence that fits not only the crime, but also the person convicted of committing it.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, who said earlier this summer about half the charter challenges her officials are tracking involve mandatory minimum penalties, is expected to introduce legislation this fall.

Ottawa-based criminal defence lawyer Michael Spratt said he is concerned the surveysuggests the Liberal government is looking to public opinion, rather than evidence, when it comes to shaping its justice policy.

"Governing your justice policy based on the popular opinion is a dangerous game that potentially could undermine the rule of law and important constitutional protections," Spratt said.

Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, B.C., said he does not share that view because he knows the Liberal government is doing much more than polling when it comes to its review of the criminal justice system.

"They have done just about everything else to develop a good, rational policy on sentencing so to find out where public opinion lies is just part of that," Dandurand said.

Kathleen Davis, a spokeswoman for Wilson-Raybould, said the survey, which was not crafted by her office, is part of a broader effort by the department to engage the public on such issues, includingfocus groups and a more traditional public opinion survey using a randomized sample.

She said othertopics they will explore this fall include restorative justice, sexual assault, court delays, Indigenous issues and mental health.

Davis also said she has seenpreliminary results of the survey, which she would not release, and that she was surprised by the level of support for repealing mandatory minimum penalties.

"That goes against the narrative that's out there that the public would not be in favour of that," she said.

Carissima Mathen, a University of Ottawa law professor, said she would be concerned if the survey results were being used to determine policy, but said it could serve to educate people about "complexities in the criminal justice system," including how sentencing goes beyond the crime.

NDP justice criticAlistair MacGregor said he hopes the polling means the Liberals are getting closer to acting on their promise.

"I guess at the end of the day, you have to say better late than never," he said.

Follow @smithjoanna on Twitter

Joanna Smith, The Canadian Press

See the rest here:
Justice officials testing waters for sentencing reform promised by Liberals - rdnewsnow.com

Surrey-Panorama Liberal candidate Puneet Sandhar tops the charts for South Surrey

Financial disclosures published Aug. 15 show that BC Liberal Party candidates in South Surrey spent the most on the 2017 election compared to their counterparts.

Surrey-Panorama BC Liberal candidate Puneet Sandhar led the pack, spending $171,542 to lose the May 9 election to NDP MLA Jinny Sims, who tallied $100,521 in expenses.

The biggest discrepancy between the two candidates was Sandhars $55,462 bill on media advertising, compared to Sims $2,210. Sandhar also spent $67,153 on newsletters and promotional material, while Sims spent $29,003.

Sandhars bill was paid in full by the BC Liberal Party. Sims fundraised nearly $13,000 of her expenses, with the BC NDP picking up the rest.

Sandhars bill was nearly doubled by a party colleague in a more northern part of the city. Surreys biggest-spending candidate was former BC Liberal cabinet minister Peter Fassbender, who dropped more than $317,000 to lose his Surrey-Fleetwood seat to BC NDP Jagrup Brar. Brar spent about $96,000.

Surrey-South BC Liberal MLA Stephanie Cadieux spent $68,037 to secure the newly created seat, while her opponent, NDP candidate John Silviera, spent $19,690.

Cadieux whos bill was fully covered by the BC Liberal Party spent $13,200 on media advertising and $19,128 on newsletters and promotional material.

Surrey-White Rock BC Liberal MLA Tracy Redies spent $76,215 to win the election. Her nearest opponent, New Democrat Niovi Patsicakis, spent $23,858.

Redies spent $15,244 on promotional material and $12,350 on media advertising, her two largest expenses. Patsicakis spent $120 on media advertising and $7,504 on promotional material.

Redies campaign was funded almost entirely by the BC Liberal Party. Patsicakis raised $1,459 and chipped in $727.70 out of her own pocket for her campaign; the rest of her bill was paid for by the NDP.

Surrey-Cloverdale BC Liberal MLA Marvin Hunt spent 15 times as much as the ridings next highest spender. According to the disclosures, Hunt spent $84,308 to NDP candidate Rebecca Smiths $4,860. Hunt spent $11,612 on media advertising while Smith spent $588. Hunt spent nearly $16,000 for promotional material and Smith claimed just under $1,300.

Go here to read the rest:
South Surrey BC Liberals spend the most in election - Surrey Now-Leader

And heres Eric Boehlert of Shareblue, the social media network that was created by David Brock to help lead the online resistance to Trump:

Liberals often use alt-left to describe progressives they consider rude or with whom they have Twitter beef; it is personal animus disguised as politics. James Wolcott, writing in Vanity Fair in March, captured the general spirit of disdain and irritation:

Disillusionment with Obamas presidency, loathing of Hillary Clinton, disgust with identity politics, and a craving for a climactic reckoning that will clear the stage for a bold tomorrow have created a kinship between the alt-right and an alt-left. Theyre not kissin cousins, but they caterwaul some of the same tunes in different keys.

The events of Charlottesville should clarify that the only tune the so-called alt-left is singing is that it hates fascists. And yet Markos Moulitsas, founder of what is supposed to be one of the most progressive blogs in the world, decided to regurgitate red-baiting canards the very day a white supremacist killed a counter-protester:

The function of the term alt-left is to collapse the distinction between the activist left and the racist right. Thats why reactionaries like Sean Hannity use it. Thats why Donald Trump has taken it up. We are likely to hear a lot more about the alt-left in the coming months and yearsand if liberals continue to use it, they will be doing the right-wings work.

So it is time for the entire left to permanently retire the term. It insults the dead and the work the left is doing to stop the rise of fascism in our country. It serves the cause of the right wing, amplifying its noxious tactics of delegitimization. These liberals have invested a lot of energy in an effort to discredit anyone sitting to their left. They are so furious, so disturbed by the emergence of this invigorated movement, that they paint them with the brush of fascismeven while the very people they vilify are on the streets fighting the Ku Klux Klan. In so doing, they have served the purposes of Donald Trump and no one else.

Follow this link:
Liberals Helped Create Trump's New Bogeyman, the Alt-Left - New Republic

Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Nashville, Tennessee. Photograph: Mark Humphrey/AP

Did I tell you Donald Trump is a vulgar, foul-mouthed, meat-faced, 71-year-old redneck buffoon? To be honest, he is a fossil-fuel guzzling, Big Mac-eating, pussy-grabbing, racist dick. He has hubris syndrome with paranoid narcissistic disorder. Do you read his tweets? The English is dreadful. How can a man run the country who is so uncouth, with that hair, those ties, those baggy suits? He is a Baathist generalissimo, the president of a banana republic. He is anti-Christ. There. Does that make you feel better?

All the above phrases are culled from a brief Google scan on the current American president. They reflect a melange of national shame, liberal trauma, snobbery and class hatred. They extend across the Atlantic and around the world. They assume two things. One is that Trump is so appalling it is inconceivable he could win a second term in office. The other is that deploying the same language as he did to win office is the best way to send him packing.

I hope the first is true, but I am not sure about the second. The comparison this week between Trumps scripted and spontaneous reactions to the Charlottesville riot spoke volumes of his technique and his appeal. He failed to fully address the one aspect of the riot where attacking the left might have had traction, its Orwellian history scrubbing of the Confederate hero General Robert E Lee. Instead he used the occasion to denigrate the alt-left, and ramp up his appeal not just to the alt-right but to the silent right that, perhaps ashamedly, sympathises with it.

Trump made it almost arrogantly clear that his formally scripted criticism of the right was merely to appease Washingtons liberal elite. He promptly erased it in the sort of street fight with the media that his followers love. Every time this happens, Fox, Drudge, Breitbart and his social media operators gleefully edit clips and feed them to his millions of supporters. A BBC documentary by Jamie Bartlett this week showed how Trump may be a gastronomic and sartorial throwback, but he is a master at social media. The 1990s thesis that the internet would turn the world into one vast lovable, liberal community has never looked less likely than today. It plays into the hands of the political polarisers.

Trumps approval rating is at a historic low for a first-year president of 34%. Republicans are almost as appalled by him as Democrats, since they fear he may lose them votes in next years mid-terms. This is even though they have not done badly in recent byelections. Hence the two former Bush presidents issuing a joint statement denouncing racismtoday. The basis of Trumps second-term appeal is already emerging: the tried and tested technique (see Margaret Thatcher) of taking on his own government and keeping up the fight.

Eliminating Trump will depend not on making liberal America feel good, but on detaching him from the bulk of his conservative support. The battle will not be for the elusive centre of American opinion, an entity that political scientists such as Jonathan Haidt and others have declared non-existent. It will be over a group that both Trump and the failed Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders identified as the white working class, urban as much as rural. Sanders did astonishingly well, given his socialist credentials.

Forty-two per cent of American adults are classified as white working class. For two decades they have seen incomes shrink in favour, as they see it, of welfare recipients, identity groups, graduates and the rich. Defining them as racist xenophobes and deplorables, as did Hillary Clinton, when they craved jobs and income security, was a sign of the class cluelessness, analysed by Joan Williams in the bestseller White Working Class. Written like a Victorian explorer encountering unknown tribes on the Congo, it has joined JD Vances Hillbilly Elegy in charting the origins of Trumps appeal.

Tolerating Trump may stick in the craw, but it must be counter-productive to feed his paranoia

These people made up the bulk of the 63 million who voted for Trump. Insulting him insults them. When the insults carry a tinge of cultural, intellectual and class superiority, they bite deep. As Edward Luttwak points out in the Times Literary Supplement, liberal America finds it hard to believe that since the crash the median American family cannot any longer afford a new car. That is the key to Trumpism, not the loud-mouthed spoilt brat but the word JOBS with which he ends his tweets.

In New York recently I read in the New York Times each day pages of columns competing with each other not just in criticising but in jeering at their president, to the point where I could understand his paranoia. Articles in the New Yorker discussed his mental health, his impeachment or his dismissal for incapacity under the constitutions 25th amendment. It was all preaching to the converted.

Meanwhile a deafening wall descended somewhere beyond the Hudson river, where there lay a frightened, puzzled, increasingly poor America, one that had put its faith in a man who seemed to speak its language and address its fears. No one was reaching out to them, calmly explaining that others than Trump felt their pain. Trump does not appeal to the Republican wealth nexus, as did Ronald Reagan. He appeals to those whom the left thought were its own, and whom it has long neglected. Hence perhaps the fury that lies behind the insults.

Trump is easily depicted as a man whose narcissism renders him unsuited to the presidency. He is testing Americas constitutional power balance to the limit. Pundits assume that his ineptitude will be curbed by the grown-ups now gathered around him and by the weight of congressional opposition. Either by unforeseen accident, or by the rise of rivals, they predict he will be a one-term nightmare.

But Trump and his supporters thrive on the venom of their liberal tormentors. The old maxim should apply: think what your enemy most wants you to do, and do the opposite. Tolerating Trump may stick in the craw, but it must be counter-productive to feed his paranoia, to behave exactly as his lieutenants want his critics to behave, like the liberal snobs that obsess him.

If Trump wins again, it will be by convincing voters the system still cares nothing for them. He will say that it will be an eight-year job to bring his anarchic rage to bear on a smug establishment, and let him finish the job. I would rather not help him to that ambition.

Read more:
With every sneer, liberals just make Trump stronger - The Guardian