Mediaboss Marketing

A couple of weeks ago I penned a comprehensive and mandatory piece that I modestly titled A General Theory of Leftist Politics. I argued that leftist politics has always been about representing the unrepresented, the people outside the system. Think workers in 1850, African-Americans in 1950.

Imagine my delight when I noticed, on my regular afternoon walk, one of those placards that are starting to breed like rabbits outside liberal houses in liberal North Seattle. The sign said, in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic, that you are welcome here and you belong.

Was I right, or was I right? Liberals now demand the right to represent the only people left in the world that are not properly represented by the system: illegal Hispanic aliens and violent Muslim jihadis. And they are signaling their virtue with mass-produced signs outside their wealthy homes in their wealthy fashionable neighborhoods.

I wonder which Democratic bigwig runs the non-partisan 501(c)(3) Center for Lefty Antifascist Astroturf Resistance and Messaging that coordinates this sort of thing.

Hey, liberals! Theres a reason why illegal Hispanics and jihadis arent represented by the system. In the first place, they have broken the law by coming here without completing the administrative states vital and voluminous paperwork. In the second place, they intend to break the law by violently overturning the United States government and its separation of church and state, replacing Western culture with Sharia law. And I thought that you guys were supposed to be the smart ones.

My point, in the original article, was that the strategy of representing the unrepresented was a wizard wheeze back in 1850. And in 1950 it was noble and honorable to make African-Americans full members of the American family.

But now, after 40 years of wage stagnation, we need to welcome the world? After 50 years of stigmatizing Christian fundamentalism, we need to import and promote Muslim fundamentalism? Alas, its the only game the left knows how to play.

Good luck with that agenda, Tom Perez, if you want to get the Democrats back into the winners circle here in the good old USA.

Let us talk about why the white working class has finally turned up in the Republican column. It is because the left repaid the loyalty of the working class -- won 150 years ago -- by leading it into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with tribal labor unions and replaced mutual aid and fraternal associations with government welfare. So the white working class ended up dying of despair in the Rust Belt, and liberals didnt care. In fact New York Times columnist Charles Blow seems to think that the white working class had it coming.

You may have noticed that President Trump is clearly making a bid for the votes of African-Americans. I say he has a sporting chance, given that liberals have repaid the loyalty of African-Americans -- won 70 years ago -- by leading them into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with identity politics and Black Lives Matter. No wonder African-Americans are angry -- the First Black President seems to have done nothing for them.

Now let us talk about women, that seem to be beside themselves after having got out the champagne to celebrate the First Woman President last November. Id say that someday, after the liberals have left them in the wilderness of divorce, sexual revolution, abortion, no children, and a boring nine-to-five job with no Promised Land of a work/life balance in sight, that even the liberal women presently besieging their therapists will realize that they have been had. And hell hath no fury, etc.

Have you noticed? What I have just written about the working class is called, by our liberal friends, classism; what I have just written about African-Americans is called, by our liberal friends, racism; and what I have just written down about women is sexism.

You may wonder why that is so, but I do not. I have stopped wondering about that sort of thing. There is only one answer to the vile accusation of racism, sexism, or homophobia: We Dont Care.

God bless our liberal rulers for doubling down on their represent-the-unrepresented politics. It may be the only thing they know, it may lead millions of people into the wilderness, it may be brutally divisive and neo-feudal, but at least they believe in it, and at least they are consistent.

Maybe Im missing something, but I dont see a lot of Americans voting for the party of illegal immigration and religious war.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

A couple of weeks ago I penned a comprehensive and mandatory piece that I modestly titled A General Theory of Leftist Politics. I argued that leftist politics has always been about representing the unrepresented, the people outside the system. Think workers in 1850, African-Americans in 1950.

Imagine my delight when I noticed, on my regular afternoon walk, one of those placards that are starting to breed like rabbits outside liberal houses in liberal North Seattle. The sign said, in English, in Spanish, and in Arabic, that you are welcome here and you belong.

Was I right, or was I right? Liberals now demand the right to represent the only people left in the world that are not properly represented by the system: illegal Hispanic aliens and violent Muslim jihadis. And they are signaling their virtue with mass-produced signs outside their wealthy homes in their wealthy fashionable neighborhoods.

I wonder which Democratic bigwig runs the non-partisan 501(c)(3) Center for Lefty Antifascist Astroturf Resistance and Messaging that coordinates this sort of thing.

Hey, liberals! Theres a reason why illegal Hispanics and jihadis arent represented by the system. In the first place, they have broken the law by coming here without completing the administrative states vital and voluminous paperwork. In the second place, they intend to break the law by violently overturning the United States government and its separation of church and state, replacing Western culture with Sharia law. And I thought that you guys were supposed to be the smart ones.

My point, in the original article, was that the strategy of representing the unrepresented was a wizard wheeze back in 1850. And in 1950 it was noble and honorable to make African-Americans full members of the American family.

But now, after 40 years of wage stagnation, we need to welcome the world? After 50 years of stigmatizing Christian fundamentalism, we need to import and promote Muslim fundamentalism? Alas, its the only game the left knows how to play.

Good luck with that agenda, Tom Perez, if you want to get the Democrats back into the winners circle here in the good old USA.

Let us talk about why the white working class has finally turned up in the Republican column. It is because the left repaid the loyalty of the working class -- won 150 years ago -- by leading it into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with tribal labor unions and replaced mutual aid and fraternal associations with government welfare. So the white working class ended up dying of despair in the Rust Belt, and liberals didnt care. In fact New York Times columnist Charles Blow seems to think that the white working class had it coming.

You may have noticed that President Trump is clearly making a bid for the votes of African-Americans. I say he has a sporting chance, given that liberals have repaid the loyalty of African-Americans -- won 70 years ago -- by leading them into the wilderness, with no Promised Land at the end of the journey. Why? Because the left blocked off the road to the middle class with identity politics and Black Lives Matter. No wonder African-Americans are angry -- the First Black President seems to have done nothing for them.

Now let us talk about women, that seem to be beside themselves after having got out the champagne to celebrate the First Woman President last November. Id say that someday, after the liberals have left them in the wilderness of divorce, sexual revolution, abortion, no children, and a boring nine-to-five job with no Promised Land of a work/life balance in sight, that even the liberal women presently besieging their therapists will realize that they have been had. And hell hath no fury, etc.

Have you noticed? What I have just written about the working class is called, by our liberal friends, classism; what I have just written about African-Americans is called, by our liberal friends, racism; and what I have just written down about women is sexism.

You may wonder why that is so, but I do not. I have stopped wondering about that sort of thing. There is only one answer to the vile accusation of racism, sexism, or homophobia: We Dont Care.

God bless our liberal rulers for doubling down on their represent-the-unrepresented politics. It may be the only thing they know, it may lead millions of people into the wilderness, it may be brutally divisive and neo-feudal, but at least they believe in it, and at least they are consistent.

Maybe Im missing something, but I dont see a lot of Americans voting for the party of illegal immigration and religious war.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

Read more:
It's Official: Liberals Care Only About Illegals and Muslims - American Thinker

The happy, confusing ending.

Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images

Before Sunday nights Oscars had even begun, there was a sense that the show would be predictable: lots of fiery political speeches paired with a sweep by La La Land, the apolitical homage to Technicolor Hollywood musicals. Well, thats why you actually have to watch the damn show.

Willa Paskin is Slates television critic.

The 89th Academy Awards did not play out as expected: instead of being an explicit rebuke of Donald Trump, full of Meryl Streepstyle barn burners, the show was an implicit but relatively quiet rebuke of Donald Trump until the wacky, wild ending, in which La La Land appeared to have won Best Picture, only to have lost Best Picture to Moonlight. Sorry to all the tourists who rolled up to the Academy Awards in a tour bus: Your 15 minutes of fame lasted exactly until whatever happened with Warren Beatty and that envelope. Instead of being what, for nearly four hours, this broadcast seemed to bea low-key celebration of Muslim, foreign, and black talent capped by a predictable win for a sexual harasser and a message-free box office juggernautthe Academy Awards suddenly became the fantasy metaphor so many liberals have been longing for. (Whether La La Land was unfairly cast in that fantasy metaphor is a question for another, clearer-headed time.)

The producers of the Oscars, rather than the winners of the Oscars, seemed to be expecting an openly provocative show. Despite starting with Justin Timberlakes performance of Cant Stop the Feeling, an enticement to an escapist good time, host Jimmy Kimmels monologue took shots at Trump, including I want to say thank you to President Trump: I mean, last year, remember when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? It wasnt just the monologue. Later in the evening, Kimmel Tweeted at Trump, u up? and #Merylsayshi. There was a lengthy montage of foreign moviegoers talking about their favorite American films. Even the most ambitious bit of the evening, in which a busload of tourists was given a surprise trip to the Oscars, seemed to be in direct, if confused, conversation with the notion that Hollywood is out of touch with regular people. The bit was overly long and awkward, but it was perhaps intended as a rejoinder emphasizing that regular folks are, instead, pretty enamored with Hollywood (or at least Denzel Washington).

But the winners had other, mellower ideas, mounting a slow and inexorable assault on Trumps vision of America without talking too much about him at all. Mahershala Ali, who won the first Oscar of the night, is the first Muslim actor ever to win an Academy Award. Later in the evening, the winner for the Best Documentary short, about the White Hats, quoted a verse from the Quran. The most political speech of the night belonged to Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi, who won Best Foreign Film for The Salesman and didn't attend because of the travel ban on his country. His eloquent statement, read in absentia, including the observation that Dividing the world into the us and our enemies categories creates fear. Meanwhile, in other Oscar categories, Italians, a Frenchman, Hungarians, and a Swede won awards. Viola Davis won for Best Supporting Actress and Ezra Edelmans O.J.: Made in America won for Best Documentaryso that by the time Barry Jenkins and Tarrell Alvin McCraney won for Best Adapted Screenplay, the Oscars had set a record: the first to feature more than three black winners. The cumulative effect was a show that was deeply anti-Trump, without being all that vocally or entertainingly anti-Trump.

By the time La La Land was announced as Best Picture winner, the night seemed to be a tepid rejoinder to Trump, if a substantive response to #OscarsSoWhiteand even still, there was Casey Affleck beating out Denzel Washington in the midst of a seeming La La Land sweep. The evenings most interesting moment wasnt some controversial speech that liberals could love and be embarrassed by, and that conservatives could hate and torture us with. At that point, the highlights, if you can call them that, of the show included the bus bit, Kimmels habitual running-down of Matt Damon, and the Oscars now-annual attempt to feed famous people. (Why has this become a trope? Stars, they eat food? Stars, theyre just like usthey eat candy rained down upon them at the Academy Awards in little parachutes?)

Why had the broadcast been so apolitical up to this point? Were the winners and presenters skittish about saying much at the Oscars, a much bigger show than the far more political Globes and SAG Awards? (At the Independent Spirit Awards, which took place just the night before the Oscars, Casey Affleck gave an anti-Trump speech, while doing no such thing when he won tonight.) Were they expecting others to do it, except only Gael Garca Bernal actually did? Does the Oscars unique structure, in which the majority of awards are given to low-profile winners, play a part? Whatever the reason, Barry Jenkins remarks during his Best Adapted Screenplay speechand all you people out there who think theres no mirror for you, that your life is not reflected, the academy has your back. The ACLU has your back. We have your back. And for the next four years, we will not leave you alone. We will not forget.were the high-water mark of resistance, beside the Farhadi speech.

But then, the ceremony running more than half an hour over, La La Land was announced Best Picture, seemingly crowning a dull night, but, in fact, inaugurating a crazy one. The ending of the show completely overshadowed everything that came before it, even as it undermined any coherent sense of trajectory. Moonlight didn't get to revel in its victory so much as deal with the weirdness of the circumstancesbut those circumstances were so much more abundantly theatrical than everything that had come before.

Read the original:
The 2017 Oscars Transformed From a Tepid Rejoinder to Trump Into a Full-Fledged Liberal Fantasy - Slate Magazine (blog)

There`s little doubt that the high cost of hydro will be a major issue in next year`s provincial election. So it`s no surprise that the issue continues to be raised during Question Period at Queen`s Park by the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats. The NDP are the latest to bring up hydro and Gilles Bisson who represents Timmins-James Bay was the messenger. Bisson told the House that people are frustrated. He says they`ve done what the Liberals have asked of them to lower consumption but still their bills continue to rise. Bisson cited the Sylvain family in Kapuskasing that is off the grid and heats their home with wood because it has no access to natural gas. The Sylvains only use hydro as a back-up if the fire goes out, Bisson told the Legislature. Their Hydro bill used to be $275 a month but when it started rising, they began consuming even less and switched to LED`s and still their bill kept going up. Their bill this month was $375. Bisson called on the Liberals to admit that their Hydro policy has failed and it`s time to stop talking about it and find a solution.

Energy Minister Glenn Thibeault ignored Bisson`s call to admit failure and claimed just the opposite. Thibeault said the Liberals have built a system people can rely on because blackouts and brownouts are a thing of the past. Thibeault admits more can still be done and the Liberals will find ways to help families in Ontario. The energy minister says with time the cost of energy can come down if more people conserve because we won`t need as much energy and won`t have to spend more money on building more generation. In the meantime, Thibeault told Bisson that Liberal policies have had a positive effect on healthcare. He says by phasing out coal, the province has saved $4.3 billion in health. `We`ve seen a 23 percent reduction in air pollution deaths and a 41 percent reduction in air pollution hospitalization, Thibeault said.

See the rest here:
NDP and Liberals debate hydro rates - My North Bay Now

ATLANTA The battle over electing new Democratic Party officials has revealed the growing populist energy within the party, which could fuel an electoral turnaround but also risks turning against the establishment.

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez won a narrow second-ballot victory to become Democratic National Committee chairman over Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, disappointing the partys progressive wing that latched on to Sen. Bernie Sanders during last years primary campaign. Despite Ellisons defeat, the burgeoning power of the partys left flank was evident on a number of fronts.

Democrats choose their next party chairman on Saturday in a highly contested race, amid struggles by the party to find its footing after losses at the federal and state levels. WSJ's Jeanne Cummings outlines the race and the candidates on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: Getty

Restive activists threatened to support primary challenges to elected Democrats seen as not liberal enough, creating tension reminiscent of the tea-party wave that began targeting Republicans deemed as too moderate beginning in 2009. Liberals also pushed for the party to limit corporate donations to the DNC. Their voices erupted when Perez won the contested race for DNC chairman and dissidents drowned out the proceedings with chants of, Party for the people, not big money.

Divisions were so evident throughout the three-day gathering that both Perez and Ellison begged their supporters to stick together and with the party to fight their common foe, Republican President Donald Trump. When we have these conversations, sometimes difficult, sometimes spirited, thats not a sign of weakness, said Perez, who moved to appease dissidents by naming Ellison as DNC deputy chairman. Thats a sign of strength.

An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

Also popular on WSJ.com:

How Nasty Gal went from an $85 million company to bankruptcy.

Donald Trump to skip White House Correspondents Association dinner.

See the original post:
Are populist liberals giving Democrats their own tea-party moment? - MarketWatch

5502007

Liberals like their gays wearing pink triangles. Put another way, liberals like it when gays (and other minorities) identify as victims, because victims always need the Democratic Party. But woe to those more enlightened travelers who deviate from prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

Former Breitbart editor and respected gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos turned the victim narrative on its head, threatening to topple the teetering house of cards on which the Democratic Party rests. Milo paid a heavy price for his heresy.

Like the conventional wisdom that suggests that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with his slave Sally Hemings, or that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser, the actual facts do not matter.

Like Jefferson and Hoover before him, Milo will likely become the new hot-topic ice-breaker for every pretentious, pontificating, pseudo-intellectual cocktail party expert trying to impress their date.

In the coming years, it will almost surely be common knowledge that Milo is a pedophile who promotes sex with minors. [EDITORS NOTE: Hoovers rumored penchant for womens clothing was hearsay printed in an unofficial biography in 1993 and later debunked. And, Nature Magazine, which rushed to report Jeffersons nonexistent sexual escapades, later retracted the story because the DNA paternity test was not conclusive for Thomas Jefferson.]

If Democrats have demonstrated repeatedly that they are willing to tear down the memory of important American icons for short-term political gain, it is certain theyll waste no time destroying an upstart like Milo Yiannopoulos.

The question, is why? Why are Democrats so easily able to lie about people with whom they disagree? It certainly isnt because the left subscribes to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Thats one transparent reason that the attacks on Milo are so blatantly disingenuous.

The answer is simply that the entire success of the Democratic Party at the ballot box depends on voter ignorance and a virtual fact vacuum.

For example, the governments own data (Historical Tables of the U.S. Budget), shows that when presidents dramatically cut marginal income tax rates for job-creators (the rich), unemployment goes down dramatically and the federal government takes in more revenue than when taxes are hiked.

Democrats have to hope voters dont know that.

And thats why Democrats depend on a steady supply of victims. Everyone is a victim and no one is responsible for their actions (unless theyre Republicans) in the distorted liberal reality.

Victims always need the Democrats, because they are always told that they are disadvantaged. Democrats promise to level the playing field, but, in practice, feed the victim a steady diet of de facto food stamps and class warfare demagoguery. And demagoguery is not policy.

Paradoxically, victims who realize the potential of the American Dream that unparalleled opportunity unmatched anywhere in the world to become whomever we want to be no longer need the Democrats.

Thats why black Republicans and gay conservatives are targeted ruthlessly by liberals. They escaped. Moreover, they no longer buy the lie of perpetual self-defeat and plantation politics. Milo Yiannopoulos was attacked ferociously and hypocritically by a mindless mob of Trump-hating liberals who feign offense when it serves their agenda, people who on another day are heard defending Islamic terrorists, actual pedophiles, and murderers.

The same people who hold up Donald Trumps locker-room talk as offensive and anti-women are never heard condemning Ted Kennedys drunkenly abandoning his mistress at Chappaquiddick. Nor are they ever heard condemning the organized and widespread genital mutilation of women by Muslim men, the execution of gay men by Muslims, or the bacha bazi of Afghans (raping underage boys to death.) In point of fact, U.S. soldiers were ordered by the last administration to totally ignore Afghan boy rape, because its their culture.

Former President Barack Obamas safe schools czar Kevin Jennings was a supporter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and one of its most vocal proponents, Harry Hay, whose views on underage sex make Milos comment sound positively quaint.

[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.

Moreover, Florida Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings advocated protecting philias and fetishes under the Matthew Shepard Act even explicitly demanding civil rights protections for avowed pedophiles. Hastings said:

This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these philias and fetishes and isms that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule .

Democrats also struck down Iowa Republican Rep. Steve Kings simpleclarification amendment, which read, The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.

It is hilarious to see liberals trying perversely to appropriate Christian values theyve for decades publicly rejected and even tried to outlaw in the name of the First Amendment.

Democrats are never shamed when their hypocrisy is exposed, because they appear to have no moral compass. If they did, the actual instances of abuse and horrific behavior mentioned before would be resoundingly condemned by the same salivating chorus we now hear gleefully attacking Milo for his stray remarks.

Since what Jesus thinks suddenly appears to matter to liberals, maybe they should consult him. As Jesus remarked when the Pharisees demanded that a quivering, weeping adulteress be stoned, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

And for Republicans eager to use, then discard, the Milos of the world for tactical gain, another of Jesus instructions bears repeating: He who is not against us, is for us Let him speak.

Read the original:
Victims: Liberals Like Their Gays Wearing Pink Triangles - Daily Caller