New York Times | Religious Liberals' Moment - The New York Times New York Times Readers, including members of the clergy, write about the religious left's newfound purpose. U.S. liberals fighting for their faith | TheRecord.com |
Original post:
Religious Liberals' Moment - The New York Times - New York Times
|
Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM
When I wrote two weeks ago about how liberals would not stop until someone got killed, I was hoping it was more of a warning than a prophecy. Unfortunately, it was not.
But the actions and words of leftists in the wake of the attempted slaughter of Republican members of Congress for the sin of not being Democrats has done nothing to bring about the moment of reflection one might expect from people with blood on their hands.
Thankfully, the only life lost was that of the progressive terrorist who sought to embody the attitude of the media and the Democratic Party. But no sooner had the echoes of the shots stopped reverberating than that attitude returned.
Liberal journalists and activists took to their Twitter accounts to blame everything except the reality that their twisted fantasies came true.
But it did come true. And all the editorials and proclamations in the world will not change that.
Worst of all, the paper of record, the paper that sets the agenda for the mainstream media, the glorified birdcage liner that announced its new slogan this year to be the truth is more important now than ever, took the attempted mass murder as an opportunity to rewrite history for a second time this week.
In the wake of a mass-political assassination attempt the Times ran an editorial entitled, Americas Lethal Politics, that attempted, once again, to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting that killed six and seriously wounded former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., in Tucson in 2011.
The editorial board of the Times actually wrote, In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear.
It was? Because it wasnt all that clear once it was discovered Loughner was a mentally unstable George W. Bush-hater.
The Times continued: Before the shooting, Sarah Palins political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.
That wasnt clear when, in the pages of none other than the New York Times, it was made clear hed had a history with Giffords pre-dating Palins website by years.
Maybe the people who run the New York Times dont read the New York Times. Who could blame them, really?
Not satisfied to bastardize reality, the Times wrote:
Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. Theyre right. Though theres no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.)
So a map of the country with some marks on it no one ever even suggested Loughner saw, on a website there is zero evidence he ever visited, is direct incitement. But years of claiming Republican want to kill children, the elderly, the poor, the middle class, animals, vegetables, the planet and anything else you can think of is of little to no consequence?
Comparing the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and any other monster you can think of had no impact on left-wingers?
The Times eventually changed its editorial, long after it had printed and distributed millions copies in the paper edition, tempering its smear of Palin (likely after lawyers made the editors aware of possible liability), but the damage was done.
The editors added, An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.
Not only was no such link established, there was no such link to establish. It was never real reporting; it was progressive porn, a left-wing snuff film in the minds of journalists that still, apparently, thrives in the minds of the people who run the New York Times.
Later in the piece it required a further correction. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs, the editors wrote.
Hilariously, the Times eliminated its public editor position, the man responsible for holding the paper to journalistic standards, only two weeks ago. Perhaps speaking to someone outside the bubble mightve spared the paper the embarrassment of its hatred spilling out on its pages again.
Make no mistake about it, James Hodgkinson is as much a committed man of the left as the editorial board of the Times. Hes the spawn of every fever-dream MSNBC airs on a nightly basis, and the network is trying to wash off its close association with him as fast as possible.
But it wont wash off. Hodgkinson cant be dismissed as a simple lunatic the way Loughner is.
Hodgkinsons social media posts dont show an insane person; they echo the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post, Mother Jones, Slate and every other left-wing rag. His words have been spoken on CNN and MSNBC to a chorus of amens. He was onboard with what has become the mainstream of the Democratic Party. He was a true believer.
Since the movement that created him is actively refusing to recognize its role in that birth, theres no reason to believe it will change its ways. Leftists arent willing or able to pump the brakes of hate for differing opinions. Simply wounding Republicans, it would seem, no longer is enough.
Leadership on the left remained mostly silent in the face of their followers violence around the campaign, the inauguration and college campuses across the country. When they werent silent, they were blaming Republicans for the sin of existing and, therefore, provoking the violence against them.
In other words, liberals dont care.
They wont be shamed into being decent human beings. If the attempted mass murder of Republicans by one of their own didnt result in 24 hours of honesty and civility, why would anyone think the next 24 days would be any different? Or any day after that?
It wont be. The only way to really hurt the left is through the voting booth and to put conservative judges on the courts. Remind the American people of who these leftists are, every single time they expose themselves, then relegate them to the cautionary tale section of history books.
Dont be them, beat them. Stripping the left of all political power is really the only way to harm them because political power is the only thing they care about. Just be careful out there till theyre done.
BREAKING: UN Mission Official Says Terror Attack Underway in Mali Resort Area Popular With Foreigners
See the rest here:
Liberals Got Their Blood, Will It Be Enough? - Derek Hunter - Townhall - Townhall
To the editor: Calls for civility in the wake of the shooting in Alexandria, Va., are beside the point. The deranged will always be with us. What is more to the point is to deny the deranged the means of carrying out their mayhem. (A shooting in Alexandria brings gun violence directly to those best situated to act, editorial, June 14)
It would be inappropriate to describe the Republican healthcare bill and their devious and dishonest way of avoiding scrutiny in anything but the most uncivil terms. Giving President Trump the courtesy of civility would obfuscate the true nature of his contempt for democracy.
Now is not the time for timidity in our discourse.
Charles Berezin, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: While gun violence is a legitimate concern, the serious issue here is hatred hatred fueled by politicians and, yes, media coverage that accentuates the extremes.
The slain gunman could have just as easily tossed a bomb over the park fence. In that event, The Times would have had to discuss hatred and how the media perpetrate it instead of its tired anti-gun rhetoric.
Please fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address below. Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. This information is seen only by the letters editors and is not used for any commercial purpose. We generally do not publish...
Please fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address below. Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. This information is seen only by the letters editors and is not used for any commercial purpose. We generally do not publish...
Mike Post, Winnetka
..
To the editor: House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) rightly said about the victims, These were our sisters and brothers in the line of fire.
Yet on the same day as the shooting in Virginia, four people were shot dead in San Francisco.They were also our sisters and brothers, yet they were treated as simply more casualties caused by the availability of guns in our country.
The National Rifle Assn. is currently pushing two bills to legalize silencers and push down state concealed carry laws to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps it is time for the American people, in the face of this unfolding daily horror, to call on the Republican Congress to distance itself from the NRA.
Alfred Sils, Woodland Hills
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
Read the original post:
In the era of Trump, liberals must resist calls for civility - LA Times - Los Angeles Times
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will introduce legislation next week that will substantially alter exisiting national security measures, The Canadian Press reports. The previous Conservative government passed Bill C-51 in response to a terrorist attack in the nations capitol of Ottawa.
After shooting an army reservist who was guarding the national cenotaph, a lone-wolf assailant ran across the street and began shooting inside the Parliament buildings. Had he not been taken out by sergeant-at-arms Kevin Vickers, the gunman could have killed dozens of Members of Parliament.
Under C-51, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was given additional powers to fully investigate terrorist threats and not merely be an information conduit for the police.
Public Safety Mnister Ralph Goodale is expected to reign-in those powers. Trudeau has repeatedly promised to deal with the problematic elements in the Conservative bill. That includes his objection to a federal no-fly list. Trudeau has promised that Canadians placed on that list will have their appeals subject to a mandatory review.
Liberals have already introduced legislation that will reverse another of former prime ministerStephen Harpers national security legacies: stripping convicted terrorists who are dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship.
The Liberal amendments will also include more oversight for the Canada Border Services Agency while tightening the definition of terrorism.
Critics of the Liberal initiative say this is entirely the wrong time to weaken national security, given the spate of terrorist attacks in the U.K., and tie the hands of CSIS. Former CSIS director and Harper national security advisor Richard Fadden says Canada remains a terrorist target and urged the Liberals to consider the consequences of their legislative actions.
I believe the government should move with caution in removing some of the authorities Parliament has given to national security agencies,Fadden told the National Post.
First, because the threat remains real and, secondly, because the additional powers that might be scaled back have not to my knowledge either been abused or overused.
Follow David on Twitter
Continued here:
Trudeau Liberals To Weaken Conservative National Security Bill ... - The Daily Caller
It has been over a week since the U.K. election that left the political establishment reeling in Britain and around the world. And though Prime Minister Theresa May will remain in office for now Jeremy Corbyn was correct when he said last week that the election had changed the face of British politics.
The snap election that was supposed to have crushed Corbyn and the Labour Party once and for all has instead re-energized the British left, while throwing serious doubt on the Conservative Partys future. When Theresa May arrogantlycalled the election inApril, polls indicated thather Conservative Party would win by ahistoric landslide, and the British press which has been fiercely against Corbyn since he was elected as leader of the Labour Party two years ago ran giddy headlines predicting the death of his party.There was no doubt whether May and the Tories would win a majority;it was only a matter of how massive that majority would be.
But if we have learned anything over the past year, with the election of U.S. President Donald Trump and the Brexitreferendum resultlast summer, it is that absolutely nothing is certain in this populist age. May was expectedto Crush the Saboteurs, as the Daily Mails front page readafter herannouncement in April,but instead she ended up crushing her own party, which lost its majority in the House of Commons after leading by more than20 points just amonth earlier.
Meanwhile, the unconventionaland unelectable Corbyn, who has beensmeared and misrepresented by the British media for the past two years and who has faced repeated mutinies within his own party generated the highest turnout for a U.K. election since 1997and won a larger share of the popular vote than Tony Blair did in 2005.It was an even bigger upset than last years Brexit shocker.
Even Labour Party members and Corbynites had been resigned to the Tories winning back theirmajority; their goal had been simply to keep thatmajority as slim as possible and to not be completely humiliated. But Theresa May was the only one humiliated on election day,while the leftist Labour leader wasclearlyvindicated after years of abuse.
And Corbyns political success will be felt far beyond the shores of Great Britain. For weeks and months to come pundits and politicalstrategistswill continue to ask themselves how this happened, and many will no doubt try to spin anddistortwhat happened last week. But the answer is simple: The old-school socialist triumphed because he ran an effective grassroots campaign with a compellingmessage that offered principled leadership and a progressive platform togalvanize the working-class and young people of Britain. Though Labour clearly benefited from Mays poorly run campaign, there is little doubt thatLabours progressive manifestowas essential toits parliamentary gains.
Before the election, Corbyns approval ratings were in the gutter after years of his beingmaligned by the British press.Ananalysisof 2016 by The Independent foundthat more than 75 percent of press coverage had misrepresented Corbyn (and his views), while more than half of the (purportedly neutral) news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces.
By contrast, the British public was broadlysupportive ofCorbyns actual policies. According to apoll byThe Independent, along with aMay surveyby ComRes for the Daily Mirror,the major policies featured in Labours general election manifesto earned strong support from the British public, while the right-wing Tory manifesto was widely rejected. It is not surprising then that the candidates approval ratings changed places during the election, as their policies were publicized.According to the latest pollingby YouGov, Mays approval ratings have plummeted to Corbyns pre-election levels,while the Labour leaders ratings have surged.
It is already quite clear how last weeks election has changed politics in the U.K., but its outcome has also been felt across the Atlantic.
Much has already been saidabout the obvious parallels between Corbyns Labour Party success and the rise of Sen. Bernie Sanders in the U.S. and what the Britishelectionmeans for Americanpolitics. Like Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders was seen by the commentariatas a fringe socialist kook who was completely unelectable and like Corbyn, he created a mass movement that appealed to working people and young voters in particular. Sanders was by far the most popular candidate among millennials in the 2016 election, while Corbyns Labour Party won 63percent of aged 18 to 34 and increased voter turnout for 18- to 25-year-olds from 45percent in 2015 to about72percent last week, according to exit polls from Sky data. Similar to the scenario in the U.K., the majority of Americans tend to support Sanders social democratic policies, including his support for Medicare for all and raising taxes on the rich.
Of course, theresat least one obvious difference between the two progressivepoliticians: While Corbyn has been personally unpopular in his country,Sanderscontinues to rank asthe most popularpolitician in the United States. Moreover, Sanders consistently outperformed Hillary Clinton in the polls against Donald Trump last year and would have likely defeated the Republican billionairehandily barring a major spoiler candidate like Michael Bloomberg.
This reality continues to infuriate many establishment Democrats, who have inevitablytried to dismiss and downplay Corbyns success in Britain, noting that Labour still didnt win a majority of itsown. If a centrist Blairite wereleading the party, they insist (with no empirical basis whatsoever), then he or she would have been elected prime minister, say centrist Democrats. The same people who were gloating about Labours anticipatedruin just a month ago and using itas evidence that a populist shift to the left would be disastrous for the Democratic Party are now spinning Labourshistoric accomplishment to fit their narrative.Clearly there is a lot of denial going onhere. The Blairites and Clintonites cannot bring themselves to admit that third way centrism isa relic of the neoliberal 1990s. They refuse to see the writing on the wall, even as it stares at themdirectly.
In a column for The New York Times on Tuesday, Sen. Sanderswrote that the British election should be a lesson for the Democratic Party to stop clinging to an overly cautious, centrist ideology.
He wrote, There is never one reason elections are won or lost, adding, but there is widespread agreement that momentum shifted to Labour after it released a very progressive manifesto that generated much enthusiasm among young people and workers. . . . The [Democratic] partys main thrust must be to make politics relevant to those who have given up on democracy and bring millions of new voters into the political process.
A few days earlier at the Peoples Summit in Chicago, Sandersdiscussed the U.K. election during aspeech, noting that Labour won those seats not by moving to the right but by standing up to the ruling class of the U.K. Healso reiteratedthat Trump didnt win the election,the Democratic Party lost the election. It seems clear that if the Democratic Party wantsto start winning elections again,it should pay careful attention to what iscurrently happening in Britain.
Original post:
Sorry, centrist liberals, the politics of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are the progressive path forward - Salon