Mediaboss Marketing

Updated 5 hours ago

In Connecticut's Cromwell High School, a 15-year-old boy with a mustache is crushing female competitors in track and field, to the great dismay of the girls who have spent many intense days training hard.

This doesn't seem fair, does it?

Well, it does in the left's brave new world of fundamental transformation.

The boy, you see, calls himself a girl. That's his self-proclaimed gender identity. And all's fair in the bizarre universe of modern-day LGBTQ liberalism.

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference permits students and their schools to decide which teams they can join. The conference is abiding by state and federal laws mandating that students have the ability to compete on sports teams that accord with their public gender identity.

And Andraya Yearwood, a 15-year-old biological boy, identifies (at least for now) as a girl. And get this, sports fans: He's only a freshman. He could easily dominate the girls' meets for four years.

Too bad, ladies. You've come a long way, but liberalism's new world is erecting some brand-new obstacles to your progress.

The (real) girl who finished second to Andraya, a junior named Kate Hall, was tearful over her loss. It's frustrating, Hall said. But that's just the way it is now. I can't really say what I want to say, but there's not much I can do about it.

No, there's not. Kate doesn't want to be denounced as a hater, as an intolerant bigot toward LGBTQ persons.

Ditto for Hall's coach, Ben Bowne, who's no doubt terrified about saying anything that would bring him the enmity of nature's redefiners. The coach lamely told the Hartford Courant: Kate was emotional. She works really hard. She's a very competitive athlete. She hates losing to anybody.

As for the father of the transgender girl, he's fully on board the LGBTQ-liberal train. He apparently has been sufficiently indoctrinated into the modern progressive worldview and thus is tolerating no objections. He told the Hartford newspaper: If someone says, Why is your daughter running with the girls?' I say because she's my daughter, much like the reason your daughter is running with the girls. The dad barks: She's running exactly where she should be running.

The dad, of course, is merely mimicking the prevailing progressive zeitgeist. Note how he cleverly uses all the right liberal language to silence any critics who dare suggest this was an unfair race biased toward his daughter.

And good for him. The well-coached dad simply is taking a page from the bible of modern liberalism, The New York Times, which, in a breathtakingly hilarious February editorial titled Welcoming Transgender Boy Scouts, authoritatively stated: The Boy Scouts are recognizing transgender boys for what they genuinely are: boys.

So, liberals, if your daughters lose their track meets, or swim meets, or tennis tournaments, or golf tournaments, or whatever other sporting events to inherently stronger biological boys declaring themselves girls and perhaps lose scholarships in the process then suck it up and take one for the liberal team.

You've created this monster. And now you can live with it.

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century.

'Star Wars': The ultimate morality tale

A better 'climate' for America

Recklessly exposing a CIA operative's identity

Jerry Brown, a CO2 kind of guy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Penguins notebook: Defenseman Justin Schultz signs three-year deal

Penguins sign defenseman Matt Hunwick, goalie Antti Niemi

Pittsburgh embraces Furries invasion

Read the original:
When liberals punish girls - Tribune-Review

Liberal Brits got a welcome wake-up call yesterday, when the woman theyve been calling the leader of the free world voted against Gay Marriage. For me, marriage in law should be between a man and a woman, and thats why I didnt vote in favour of this bill, said Angela Merkel, after the German parliament voted to legalise same-sex unions by 393 votes to 226.

All the usual suspects have been on Twitter, voicing their right-on indignation, but for anyone who knows anything about Merkel, the wonder is that anybody should be in the slightest bit surprised. The recent immigration crisis has made Merkel a hate figure for the British right and an unlikely heroine for the British left, but amid our Brexit furore an awful lot of Brits (left and right) seem to have forgotten that Merkel is leader of Europes most powerful and successful conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union.

The CDU has always been conservative on social issues, and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union, even more so. In parliament, the CDU is split on same-sex marriage, which is why Merkel lifted the party whip and allowed a free vote of conscience yesterday. However Merkels position is more in tune with CDU members, and her public opposition will do her no harm at all with her core support in Septembers national elections. Her right hand man, Volker Kauder, who heads the CDU/CSU alliance in the Bundestag, echoed her sentiments. On grounds of conscience, I wont support anything that allows marriage except between a man and a woman, he said.

Merkels attitude to Gay Marriage is consistent with her position on other social issues. Last year she called for a burqa ban wherever legally possible and she was a very late convert to full adoption rights for same-sex couples. Since she became Chancellor, in 2005, her stance on almost every issue, foreign and domestic, has been broadly conservative. Shes more Majorite than Blairite the total antithesis of Corbyn. So why do British liberals revere her, and why do so many Tories regard her as their foe?

The answer, of course, is immigration. Merkels disastrous immigration policy let a million migrants into Germany, and quite possibly tipped the balance in last years Brexit vote. Yet Merkel didnt let these migrants in for ideological reasons. Her motives were more pragmatic, an attempt at crisis management, and shes since backtracked, vowing never to repeat this process, and more or less admitted that her open door strategy was a mistake.

The other reason Merkel has become a bogeywoman in Brexit Britain is that shes regarded here as the de facto ruler of the EU. Again, this is a bit unfair. Merkel has never been an ardent Eurofederalist, and the Cameron government rightly regarded her as an ally. Shes certainly a lot less Europhile than her rival for the Chancellorship, Martin Schulz, leader of Germanys Social Democrats. In Germany, where Euroscepticism remains verboten in mainstream politics, her attitude to the EU could best be described as neutral.

Merkels stance on Gay Marriage was undoubtedly sincere, but shes also an astute tactician. Having seized the centre ground from the beleaguered SPD, she now needs to shore up her right wing, and make sure the CDU faithful turn out to vote for her in September. Beyond big cities like Berlin, Germany remains a distinctly traditional country. Voters in the Catholic South will approve of what she did this week, and vote to return her as their Chancellor.

In his Spectator Notes, Charles Moore observed that our last three Prime Ministers were all brought up in parsonages. He might have added that the German Chancellor had the same upbringing. Merkels father was a Lutheran Minister who left his comfortable home in West Germany, and went to live in East Germany to spread the Word of God. This Christian heritage is far more revealing of Merkels beliefs and character than the plaudits of British liberals. Tory Brexiteers may not warm to her but when it comes to family values, the woman Germans call Mutti is as conservative as they come.

Read more:
Liberals should not be surprised Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage - Spectator.co.uk (blog)

|

Posted: Jul 01, 2017 12:01 AM

In the Whats the matter with Kansas? era, elite liberals seemed to genuinely believe that people who didnt vote for them were just poor, deluded saps who didnt understand what was in their own best interest. Is that condescending? Sure, but at least its not hateful. At least it assumes that liberals still need to work to bring these people on board.

Does that attitude still exist? Sure, to a degree. In fact, just this week, James OKeefe caught a CNN producer on camera saying he thinks that the American voters are stupid as sh*t.

This sort of thinking comes from the fact that liberalism is shot through with narcissism. Narcissists believe theyre better than everyone else just by virtue of being who they are. So do liberals. Liberals also believe theyre smarter, more compassionate and more caring just because theyre on the Left. Whether youre talking about a liberal or a narcissist, this leads to high, but unstable self-esteem.

If you genuinely have high self-esteem, you can easily brush off challenges to your competence. When you have high, but unstable self-esteem, you become much more upset when your self-image is challenged. This can lead to anxiety, anger and lashing out as part of an effort to keep those doubts at bay. It can also lead to unchecked hatred of anyone who makes you question your value.

This tendency is amplified by the circular reasoning of liberals. Are you a better, smarter, more caring person by virtue of being liberal? Yes. Will other liberals challenge them on this? No. Will they pay attention to non-liberals who tell them that theyre not better, smarter and more caring than other people? No. So, this leads to an ironclad feedback loop. OBVIOUSLY, liberals are sensitive, wonderful and know it all and no one who matters will even question this thinking while anyone who does isnt worth listening to in the slightest.

So, what happens when their views are REJECTED wholesale across the heartland of the country to such an extent that you can drive coast to coast without ever crossing a district run by Democrats? What happens when people point out that most of the policies they champion dont work? What happens when people reject the idea that liberals know whats best for them?

We got a taste of that right after Trump won and liberals were finally angry enough to be honest about what they really believe,

This is what's terrifying: Even if Clinton wins, there are SO MANY people willing to vote for a bigoted imbecile. This is not my country. https://t.co/5wlgxi3viS Jill Filipovic

Where is the primetime special on the pervasive white supremacy that allowed for Trump's rise & popularity? deray mckesson (@deray) November 9, 2016

It appears racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia are powerful drugs. I'm so sad tonight. So so sad. Jillian Michaels (@JillianMichaels) November 9, 2016

This was a white-lash. This was a white-lash against a changing country. It was a white-lash against a black president in part, and thats the part where the pain comes. Van Jones

Fascism just got hold of the United States. We are now seeing the worst of the worst elevated to positions of incredible power. Racism has been legitimized and the reports of hate crimes are rolling in. Trans children are committing suicide. Stock prices of private prisons and coal have skyrocketed. Women are months away from truly losing the right to control their own bodies. The Daily Kos

This was combined with liberals going to the psych ward, cutting all their hair off and faking hate crimes. Those are all signs of stability, right?

How about all the political violence weve been treated to by the Left? Its turned into an epidemic. The Steve Scalise shooting may have gotten the most attention, but some of the other politically motivated assaults have been almost as jarring. Just to name a few

A Trump supporter was beaten and dragged by a car.

Protestors knocked a 71-year-old female staffer for California GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher unconscious during a protest outside the representatives office.

Masked protesters at Middlebury College rushed AEI scholar and political scientist Charles Murray and professor Allison Stranger, pushing and shoving Murray and grabbing Stranger by her hair and twisting her neck as they were leaving a campus building. Stranger suffered a concussion. Protesters then surrounded the car they got into, rocking it back and forth and jumping on the hood.

A former professor was arrested after police said they identified him on video beating Trump supporters with a U-shaped bike lock, leaving three people with significant injuries.

Liberals project their own hatred onto conservatives regularly with their rhetoric. She doesnt support gay marriage? She must hate gays. She doesnt want to expand welfare? She must hate the poor. He doesnt want to tear down a statue of a Founding Father who held slaves? He must hate black people. Thats their excuse for their own hatred. Its actually YOU who hates everyone; so they have to HATE YOU right back. This accounts for what my girlfriend Sierra Marlee calls their "I care about everyone and if you don't believe that then I hope your kids get cancer" attitude.

You want evidence of this? Besides the fact that the Democrat nominee was someone who quite literally noted that Republicans were her enemies in a debate? How about this? How about the fact that there is almost no soul-searching by liberals after their defeat by Donald Trump? Theres no talk of changing their agenda (other than making it more radical), no talk of appealing to people who didnt vote for them, no wondering what they did wrong.

Thats the problem. They dont believe they did anything wrong. They believe the real issue is that youre racist, sexist, subhuman pieces of garbage who need to be punished. When they get back into power, theyre going to do EXACTLY that and they will feel like you DESERVE IT the entire time because youre so evil. I wish it wasnt that way, but that is what the modern Left has become and if we dont acknowledge that reality, were kidding ourselves.

See the original post here:
If You're Conservative, Here's Why Elite Liberals Hate Your Guts - Townhall

By Arvin Temkar By Arvin Temkar June 30 at 8:40 AM

Arvin Temkar is a writer and editor in San Francisco.

I have an Independence Day tradition: I like to listen to songs about America. My favorites tend to be critical of this country in some way, such as Woody Guthries This Land Is Your Land or Bruce Springsteens Born in the USA. These arent the flag-waving anthems their titles suggest; theyre searing indictments of a nation that failed its citizens by leaving them poor, stuck and feeling as Springsteen sings like a dog thats been beat too much. On our day of national pride, when celebratory words such as freedom and liberty are hurled about like Roman candles, it feels important to remain clear-eyed about our faults.

But at some point in the day, perhaps after taking in a greed-bashing punk tune or Nina Simones burning civil rights lament Mississippi Goddam, I have a secret favorite: Lee Greenwoods God Bless the USA. Its a song my fellow liberals love to hate. I love it.

Yes, it is overwrought and jingoistic. It glorifies war. It trumpets self-righteousness. Theres a reason Greenwood was invited to perform the song at the inaugurations of the last four Republican presidents, including Donald America First Trump.

Im proud to be an American, where at least I know Im free, the song famously declares. Its exactly the kind of vapid Independence Day rhetoric I cant stand. Not everything about our country is rainbows and unicorns. What about government surveillance? Institutionalized racism? Children whose futures are determined by the Zip codes where theyre born?

And yet I still find myself moved by this song. Maybe its because I grew up surrounded by soldiers in Camp Zama, a U.S. Army base in Japan. I remember visiting home from college and seeing a soldier I knew sing the song one night at the local VFW, where my friend was a bartender. The soldiers voice, unexpectedly beautiful, gave me chills.

Or maybe its because even though my mother is from the Philippines and my father is from India, I have always identified first as American. Or maybe its simply the line, so magnificent in its crescendo: Cause there aint no doubt, I love this land.

Because despite the nations flaws, I do love this land. I am proud to be an American. And God Bless the USA, despite its flaws, beautifully captures that sentiment. The melody is an earworm, the swells are triumphant, and the emotion though a bit syrupy is authentic. I am impressed by its rawness, its conviction that we are one people and that we should be free. I admire its unabashed enthusiasm, its soft solemnity.

[Patriotism has always divided us. National memory can unite us.]

Im reminded of a story about another Independence Day standard: America the Beautiful. Ray Charless enduring version appears on the album A Message From the People, released in 1972, not long after the height of the civil rights movement.

Charles revised the songs lyrics, leaving out phrases such as pilgrim feet and alabaster cities ... undimmed by human tears. He later explained: Some of the verses were just too white for me, so I cut them out and sang the verses about the beauty of the country and the bravery of the soldiers. Then I put a little country church back beat on it and turned it my way.

When a black magazine criticized Charles for selling out by singing the song, he said his attitude toward America was like that of a mother chastising a child: You may be a pain in the ass, you may be bad, but child, you belong to me.

I know that feeling. It is a sense of immense love, even if that love is sometimes tinged by disappointment. When Greenwood sings in God Bless the USA that hed gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today, its easy to understand where that sentiment comes from. You fight for what you love.

I adore God Bless the USA, but, like Charles, I want to offer my own variation of the song to turn it my way. Its clearly a tribute to the armed forces, and I dont deny the honor in that. But when I listen this Independence Day, Ill also be thinking of the men and women who defended this country and its values in other ways: people like Edward R. Murrow, the broadcaster who risked his career to confront the demagogic Sen. Joe McCarthy; Harvey Milk, who helped pass gay rights legislation in San Francisco before he was assassinated; and Rosa Parks, whose courageous defiance was a spark for the civil rights movement, in which many were killed.

I think, too, of James Baldwin, who wrote in Notes of a Native Son that I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

For that, as the man says, Ill gladly stand up.

Twitter: @atemkar

Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter.

Read this article:
My fellow liberals hate Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless the USA.' I love ... - Washington Post

VANCOUVER A former Liberal cabinet minister in British Columbia says he's been mulling over his poverty reduction plan that was rejected by the party he once sought to lead.

George Abbott said the Liberals suddenly came up with their own plan in a throne speech last week but only as a strategic political move to win votes.

The throne speech came after the New Democrats and the Green party developed a plan to topple the Liberal party, which was defeated in a non-confidence vote in the legislature on Thursday after 16 years in power.

"I don't think the Liberals made it any easier for themselves with the machinations around the throne speech," Abbott said Friday. "If the aim was strategically to win the confidence of the Greens or perhaps random NDP members, it was entirely unsuccessful."

Premier Christy Clark promised policies to reduce poverty including $1 billion alone in spending on child care spaces, drawing criticism that the action was more in line with traditional NDP principles following years of cuts. Many of the throne speech promises from the Liberal minority government came from the election platforms the NDP and Greens campaigned on in May.

Abbott, who held three cabinet posts as health, education and aboriginal relations minister, left politics before the 2013 election after placing third in a Liberal leadership contest won by Clark two years earlier.

He said the poverty reduction plan he proposed during the leadership campaign faced resistance in the Liberal party "for reasons I still really don't understand."

"I have always thought it made a lot of sense to have some focus on that objective but I wouldn't have done it because strategically it was the clever thing to do, it was the right thing go do," he said. "I don't think that's a way to make democracy perform as it should."

Promising more social spending during the left-leaning throne speech only meant the Liberals "closed off some of the daylight" between themselves and the NDP, said Abbott, who is no longer a member of the Liberal party.

"Strategically, they may think that sets them up well for a near-term election but if there's not a near-term election, if we're looking at six months, a year, two years, it is going to be difficult for Ms. Clark, should she retain the leadership, to run again on what they offered up in the throne speech."

Officials with the Liberal party could not be reached for comment but on Thursday, Clark defended the Liberal throne speech, saying the party reacted to what voters expressed in the election campaign.

"When we go into political combat we all acknowledge that sometimes we spend so much time fighting with one another in here that it's hard to listen to what British Columbians want. And the throne speech is an answer to that," she said in the legislature.

"It's an answer to what voters told us on May 9. It's an acknowledgment, a sincere acknowledgment, that we didn't get it right. It is an expression of renewed priorities based on what voters told us."

Abbott said now, the Liberal party is likely clinging to its resource development policies to create some distance between itself and the New Democrats, who are poised to take office.

Clark has been a heavy promoter of the Trans Mountain pipeline, liquefied natural gas and the Site C hydroelectric project on the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia.

Premier-designate John Horgan has promised to fight expansion of the Alberta-to-B.C. pipeline with every means available, driving a wedge between himself and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley.

Hamish Telford, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, said the Liberals' throne speech promises were a failed policy gambit.

Telford said he predicts some grumbling on the social-policy shift among the Liberal party, which includes some conservative-leaning members previously with the now-defunct Social Credit party.

"I think (Clark) heard from the more liberal side, 'Look, we were too stingy and that's why we lost the election.' Now she's going to hear from the conservative side, saying: 'We tried to outdo the NDP and failed and now we're in a place where we're not comfortable.' "

Follow @CamilleBains1 on Twitter.

Continued here:
Former cabinet minister says 'little daylight' separates Liberals and NDP - Times Colonist