Mediaboss Marketing

The federal director of the Liberal party, Tony Nutt, says activist organisations such as GetUp should be subject to a ban on foreign donations along with political parties. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP

A ban on receiving foreign donations should apply across the board to Australian political parties, associated entities and activist groups, the Liberal party has submitted to a parliamentary committee.

The Liberal partys federal director, Tony Nutt, told the committee on Wednesday that a level playing field would mean applying the ban to groups such as GetUp.

Labors assistant national secretary, Paul Erickson, supported the level playing field in principle and consideration of extending the ban to associated entities or third parties undertaking campaign activities.

The joint standing committee on electoral matters is inquiring into foreign donations after reports that international environmental charities funded opposition to the Adani coalmine and concerns that Russia interfered in the United States presidential election in favour of Donald Trump, albeit through hacking rather than donations.

Nutt said that a foreign donation ban was a necessary prudential measure to prevent interference in elections by foreign entities, including states, who have no legitimate role in our democratic society.

The Liberal senator Linda Reynolds, the committees chair, asked both about the need for a level playing field and noted GetUp and the Australian Conservation Foundation received foreign donations.

Nutt replied that rules should be set in such a way as to capture all participants in the democratic process. We would support a level playing field as a matter of principle.

The quantums of money available to political parties which people generally think are pretty large are in fact reasonably modest compared to some of the resources of foreign entities and their capacity to affect public policy.

If you can pump in a couple of million bucks to try and disrupt the Queensland government building a mine, that gives enormous assistance if youre running some sort of global agenda on that issue.

Asked about the fact activist groups only have to declare donations that relate to political campaigning, and not day to day expenses, Nutt replied the same rules should apply as apply to political parties, which have to declare all donations.

In response to a question about whether a ban on foreign donations to political parties could boost groups such as GetUp and environmental campaigners 350, Nutt warned of the risk of unintended consequences to inconsistent campaign finance.

He noted that reform efforts in the US had produced a system where parties were highly regulated but third-party Super PACs, which can raise unlimited sums, proliferate.

Nutt said any foreign donation ban should not apply to Australian residents overseas, dual citizens and enterprises that conduct business in Australia that employ Australians.

In his introductory remarks, Nutt recognised that activist groups and unions were legitimate contributors to political debates and stressing cross-party co-operation on reforms.

The comments were an olive branch after Malcolm Turnbulls remarks to the National Press Club earlier in February that Australians expect us to ensure that only Australians and Australian businesses can seek to influence Australian elections.

The remarks raised concern in Labor because although Turnbull said Australians exercised influence via a political party, an activist group like GetUp or an association or a union he did not accord their rights the same status as those of business and individuals.

The committees deputy chair, Andrew Giles, told Guardian Australia that Labor did want a level playing field to see our long-held position that foreign influence and money and doesnt shape [politics] reflected in law.

Giles said he looked forward to a constructive discussion on Labors bill proposing to ban foreign donations, which is already before the parliament.

In his evidence to the committee, Erickson accepted the need to ban foreign donations beyond those to political parties because otherwise foreign entities could mask donations by giving them to a third party.

We have publicly advocated ... that this committee or the parliament looks at exactly how we might broaden the prohibition on gifts of foreign property to contemplate a scenario where foreign property might be gifted to an associated entity or third party undertaking campaign activities.

Erickson accepted the principle of a level playing field, as it applied to foreign donations, but noted political parties, associated entities and other bodies running campaigns had different rights and responsibilities.

Its not as simple as enforcing one rule for all because not every actor is engaging from the same position.

The committee will report on foreign donations by 3 March.

View post:
Liberals boss Tony Nutt calls for foreign donations ban on all entities, including GetUp - The Guardian

Donald Trump signs orders to green-light the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines. Source: Donald Trump's Twitter Account

US Jewry stands out more than any Jewish community in history. They will determine if this works for them or against them.

For several months now, I have been writing about the exposure of the totalitarian nature of today's liberalism, the manipulation of public opinion through the media, and the necessity of American society to embrace all views, not only all colors and ethnicities. During those months, the divide between Democrats and Republicans has only deepened. If we could still hope that the demeaning attitudes toward the other side, the personal offenses, and the delegitimization campaigns would abate after the election, now that hope is gone. The entire left-hand column of The New York Times home page has become a section titled, "The 45th President," and is dedicated entirely to bashing Donald Trump and the Republican Party. CNN has also created a section high on its homepage called "The Trump Presidency," which dedicates the majority of its items to the same purpose as the section in the Times.

The biased reporting, organized protests, such as over the Dakota Access Pipeline, and the violence and tirades against conservative speakers do not hint at any easing of the battle of the media and financial elite against the new administration. Sooner or later, the tension will snap and the outcome could be devastating. From violent civil riots to a full-blown civil war, anything is possible right now.

And in the midst of all this balagan (mayhem)--the Jews. Jews are already top players on both sides of the conflict. If it turns violent, the Jews could be the first to take the heat.

Screen capture from "Crossing the Line 2 - The New Face of Anti-Semitism."

The liberal press often argues that electing Donald Trump has released anti-Semitic elements from the far right, which has kept relatively quiet until now. Perhaps this is true, but implying that this is the reason for the rise in anti-Semitism in the US is complete nonsense. Anti-Semitism has been rising in the US and all over the world for years now, particularly in liberal hubs, such as US universities and colleges. In February 2015, the most notable expert on anti-Semitism in the US, Prof. Charles Asher Small, spoke about "institutional anti-Semitism" in the US, inferring that the government itself, which at the time was the Obama Administration, is anti-Semitic.

In addition to all of the above, the leading role that some Jews--such as George Soros--play in flaming the toxic firestorm spreading through the US puts the Jews in a precarious position. As has always happened throughout history, if things go awry in the US, the Jews will be blamed for it, and they will incur the punishment.

Jews are not like other people, and they are not treated as such. Even when people intend to compliment the Jews, they often make it even more conspicuous that Jews are different. Just recently, during his Holocaust Memorial Day speech, Antonio Guterres, the new UN Secretary General, noted the vital role that Jews played in the history of his own country, Portugal. Lamenting the deportation of Portuguese Jewry in the 16th century, Guterres said about King Manuel's decision to expel them: "This was a hideous crime and an act of enormous stupidity. It caused tremendous suffering to the Jewish community - and deprived Portugal of much of the country's dynamism.Before long, the country entered a prolonged cycle of impoverishment." Subsequently, Guterres describes what the Lisbon Jews did to the Netherlands, where they resettled. "Lisbon's loss was Amsterdam's gain," Guterres said, "as the Portuguese Jewish community played a key role in transforming the Netherlands into the global economic powerhouse of the 17th century."

Just over a century earlier, Spain made the same mistake--expelling its Jews and ending centuries of prosperity for Spain. But the Jews who fled from Spain were not left homeless. Dr. Erwin W. Lutzer and Steve Miller wrote in The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent: An Informed Response to Islam's War with Christianity, that the Ottoman Sultan, Bayezid II, was so delighted at the Jews' expulsion from Spain and arrival in Turkey that he "sarcastically thanked Ferdinand for sending him some of his best subjects, thus impoverishing his own lands while enriching his."

The Jews did not take wealth with them when they fled from Spain or when they were deported from Portugal. They did not steal anything from these countries, but their departure denied these countries a trait that is more vital than any precious metal--the ability to make connections. The Jewish secret to wealth and power is the ability to make connections and utilize them for their needs.

Yet, it is precisely this trait that causes us to be so hated. We are using our unique ability for self-centered purposes, and this is something that the world cannot forgive.

The Ingathering of the Pariahs

Most nations are forged over generations of geographical proximity or biological affinity. Not so are the Jews. Our nation is the creation of an idea, a modus operandi that no other nation in the history of humanity has implemented. Like Abraham himself, the ancient Hebrews were outcasts. They fled from their tribes and joined Abraham when he told them about his ideology--that diversity of views and characters is welcome, as long as it is used for the common good. Our ancestors were individualists; they could not put aside their views and be run-of-the-mill folks. In Abraham's tent, they found a way to be themselves and at the same time belong.

Maimonides wrote in Mishneh Torah (Chapter 1) that Abraham was expelled from Babylon when he argued with Nimrod, king of Babylon, over whether or not there are multiple forces governing the world or only one force. Abraham won the debate but lost his home. As he wandered toward Canaan, he and Sarah would speak to anyone who wished to listen. They welcomed everyone, all the loners, pariahs, rejected and dejected who could not express themselves in their own communities. In Abraham's tent, they learned that all things are manifestations of a single force, and so they all belong to it, yet are its unique representation. Here they legitimized being who they were, yet became part of a greater whole--the family of humanity.

Abraham's disciples and descendants developed their father's teachings and continued to absorb anyone who subscribed to their notion that everyone is different, yet belongs to the same greater whole. Because we are different, we do not like each other. But because we all are parts of a greater whole, we unite nonetheless. The ideology was simple: "Hate stirs strife, and love covers all crimes" (Prov 10:12).

By the time the Jews came out of Egypt, they numbered some three million people. And yet, the same rule applied--connection above hatred. The result of their efforts to unite above differences was the revelation of a law that enabled them to unite at the highest level--loving their friends as themselves. The reason why they received this law--which we call Torah--specifically at the foot of Mt. Sinai is that the word "Sinai" comes from the Hebrew word sinaah (hatred), and Moses' trek up Mt. Sinai symbolizes the commitment of the people to rise above their mutual hatred and unite.

For centuries after the reception of the Torah, the Jews kept polishing their techniques for achieving unity. When they succeeded, they prospered; when they failed, they suffered. But after each failure, they always rose and united above their hatred. Gradually, the Jews became the masters of connection.

Mark Twain once wondered why the Jews have survived as a distinct nation since antiquity. In his essay, "Concerning the Jews," Twain wrote, "The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?" The secret is the ability to connect above all differences.

The book, Likutey Etzot (Assorted Counsels), writes, "The essence of peace is to connect two opposites. Hence, do not be alarmed if you see a person whose view is the complete opposite of yours and you think that you will never be able to make peace with him. Also, when you see two people who are completely opposite to each other, do not say that it is impossible to make peace between them. On the contrary, the essence of peace is to try to make peace between two opposites," by uniting above them.

Similarly, Eliezer Ben Yehuda, reviver of the Hebrew language, wrote in The Complete Writings of Eliezer Ben Yehuda (Vol. 1): "We have yet to open our eyes and see that only unity can save us. Only if we all unite ... to work in favor of the entire nation, our labor will not be in vain." Likewise, A.D. Gordon, the chief ideologist of Zionism, asserted in Light of Life on the Day of Smallness: "'All of Israel are responsible for one another' ... Only where people are responsible for one another there is Israel. Moreover, all the people are responsible for one another, and only where people are responsible for one another there are people (and there is a nation, a humane nation). If there are none who are responsible for one another, what is there? We, who are coming to build [the State of Israel], will certainly not build on the basis of relations of the generation of separation [generation of Babylon, when people were separated]."

And finally, the great British statesman Winston Churchill was quoted in Churchill and the Jews: "The Jews were a lucky community because they had that corporate spirit, the spirit of their race and faith. ...That special power which they possessed would enable them to bring vitality into their institutions, which nothing else would ever give."

Approximately two millennia ago, we lost our ability to connect above our differences. We fell into baseless hatred and thereby lost our ability to be "a light unto nations," the messengers of connection above differences. Because of it, we lost our land and mingled with the nations.

Yet, instead of using our ability to connect in order to solidify society, we started using it for self-benefit. Our ability to connect made us more perceptive, agile, yet sociable than any other nation. Is it any wonder then that we are always at the center of events? We connect to people and help people connect to one another. But unlike our forefathers, we do this only if there is something in this for us. Naturally, people fear us, admire us, want to be near us, and detest us all at the same time. And when things go awry because people cannot get along--which is the only reason why anything ever goes awry--they blame the Jews for it. We, the Jews, who were supposed to be the masters of connection, have failed them so they expel us or kill us.

Today's US Jewry is more emboldened and more vociferous than any Jewish community in history. Jews are dominant figures on Wall Street, in the film and TV industries, Internet and social media, and certainly in politics. If American society falls apart and chaos ensues, the Jews will take the blame. The only way they can avoid a tragedy of epic proportions is by reaching out to their brethren on the other side of the political map and saying, "Yes we disagree, and yes we hate each other's guts; now, let's connect above all this."

Jews must take the lead because they are still the masters of connection. Now they only have to force themselves to use it for the benefit of society rather than their own. By doing so, they will become "a light unto nations," showing a shredded nation how to transcend all disputes and find a new power in connection--just like our ancestors.

We are living in historic times. Usually, historic times entail horrific bloodshed. But we can make this time different. We can usher our global society into an era of peace not because one side obliterated the other, but because both sides have decided to contribute their uniqueness to the success of society as a whole. The global village, of which we are all parts, can become heaven on Earth or hell on Earth, depending solely on the decision of the Jews whether to rise above their differences and unite with their brethren, or not.

This Blogger's Books and Other Items from...

Like a Bundle of Reeds: Why Unity and Mutual Guarantee Are Today's Call of the Hour

by Michael Laitman

Self-Interest vs. Altruism in the Global Era: How Society Can Turn Self-Interests into Mutual Benefit

by Michael Laitman

The rest is here:
Liberals, Republicans, and the Jews Between Them - Huffington Post

The Grammy Awards, according to The Daily Beast, had a whiteness problem. Plenty of others criticized the awards show for having race issues as well. And what prompted this criticism, you wonder?

Adele, the vastly talented English singer, won Album of the Year over Beyonc.

Mind you, at Sunday nights ceremony, the rap group A Tribe Called Quest rocked the stage and lobbed direct Donald Trump insults while African-American artists like Chance the Rapper walked away with multiple Grammys. Even Beyonc didnt go home empty-handed. Her Lemonade album won for Best Urban Contemporary Album.

Still, outlets like The Daily Beast insisted the night was an example of institutionalized racism.

Accusations of racism at Hollywood awards shows are about as predictable as the aggressively liberal stances spewed from the stage. Whether it's #OscarsSoWhite or other charges, Hollywood awards shows cannot escape criticism from those obsessed with identity politics. It seems impossible in today's world of entitled social justice warriors and social media trolls.

Adele and Beyonc both put out high-selling and highly praised albums this year. You can likely find just as many people arguing for Adele's "25" as the Best Album of the Year as you can for Beyonce's "Lemonade."

There's a simple explanation for why Adele won her album was better. It connected more with people and on a bigger scale. That says nothing bad aboutBeyonc's "Lemonade" album. Adele likely didn't win by much.

The singer even humbly acknowledged Beyonc onstage and had her award broken in half so she could share it with Beyonc. "My artist of my life is Beyonc," said Adele in her acceptance speech Sunday night. "This album for me the 'Lemonade' album was so monumental, Beyonc."

She continued, "So monumental, and so well thought-out and soul-bearing, and we all got to see another side to you that you don't always let us see. And we appreciate that. All us artists here adore you. You are our light."

Beyonc appeared genuinely moved by Adele's words.

This humility and an example of artists coming together does not, however, please the sharks looking for blood in the water. They're more interested in being divisive and using identity politics to shame winning artists.

People who complain of racism at the Grammy Awards do the world a disservice. There is very real racism in the world. It is blatant and it is ugly and has nothing to do with an awards show meant to celebrate art, and at which performers of all backgrounds were able to take the stage.

Related: Joy Villa Wears Pro-Trump Dress, Gets Trashed by Liberals

Perhaps if Beyonc and other black artists had been snubbed in the nominations, there would be an argument. However, break down the nominees of Sunday's show and you'll see how ridiculous the "outrage" is on this topic.

Both Beyonc and Drake were nominated for Best Album of the Year. Rihanna and Beyonc were both nominated for Record of the Year. On and on it goes. Chance the Rapper walked away with three Grammy Awards, and Drake walked away with two.

At its best, art especially music can help people of all kinds, of all income levels, of all backgrounds, come together and forget identity politics. Unfortunately, many today are not satisfied until art itself is crippled into something divisive and aggressive.

Adele won Best Album of the Year because she had the best album of the year. Period. End of story. She didn't win because voters preferred her "whiteness." Her rich voice and vocal range have been widely praised by critics for a number of years; Jon Pareles, the chief music critic for The New York Times, once said of Adele, "She can seethe, sob, rasp, swoop, lilt and belt, in ways that draw more attention to the song than to the singer."

She and Beyonc are two impressive and accomplished artists regardless of skin color who put out very popular and influential albums. However, when there needs to be a winner, there will be one no matter how close the race is. And, in this case, it had nothing to do with skin color, no matter what some people would have the rest of us believe.

Read this article:
Liberals Charge 'Racism' at the Grammys Please - LifeZette

WA premier Colin Barnett and deputy premier Liza Harvey earlier this month at Government House in Perth on the day the state election was called. Photograph: Danella Bevis/AAP

A resurgent One Nation is looking to the Western Australian state election, on 11 March, as its first opportunity to demonstrate its growing support since last Julys federal election. Recent polling suggests One Nation is on track to win numerous seats in Western Australias upper house, and could even break through in the lower house.

One Nations prospects were given a further boost at the weekend when the Liberal party announced a preference swap with the minor party: Liberal preferences will favour One Nation in the upper house, while One Nation will give the Liberals a boost in lower house marginal seats.

The Liberal/National government in WA is facing an uphill battle to win a third term in office, and One Nation preferences will give them a boost. When One Nation first broke through in the late 1990s, they took a hefty chunk out of the Coalition vote, and that vote often did not return as preferences.

Recent polls have put One Nation on as high a vote as 13% in Western Australia. In contrast, the party polled just over 4% in the Western Australian Senate race in 2016. Last week on my blog I analysed where One Nation did best in that Senate election, and what the One Nation vote could look like if it jumped to 13%.

One Nations vote is strongly concentrated in regional areas, with a much lower vote in Perth. This reflects how One Nation performed in the 2001 Western Australian state election, where they won three upper house seats in regional areas.

Conveniently for One Nation, the Western Australian upper house is severely biased in favour of country voters. Approximately three-quarters of the states population lives in the Perth metropolitan area, but Perth voters only elect half of the states upper house. These regional voters overwhelmingly favour parties on the right, and this has helped give the current government a sizeable majority in the upper house.

If One Nation was to poll 13%, they would easily poll over a quota in the Agricultural, Mining and Pastoral, and South West regions, and could do reasonably well in the East Metropolitan region, giving them four seats in the upper house. This is made easier thanks to those Liberal preferences.

One Nation could well be a threat to Nationals seats in the lower house, too, but they wont benefit from Liberal preferences in those races. Liberal preferences to One Nation in the lower house could have had a devastating effect on the Nationals, wiping out quite a few of their MPs and making it much harder for the Liberal party to form government. In the upper house, on the other hand, One Nation are likely to win multiple seats with or without Liberal assistance, and a re-elected Liberal government would have an interest in working with a One Nation bloc in the balance of power.

There is a four-way contest for conservative votes in regional Western Australia. The Liberals and Nationals will be competing against each other for seats in both houses, alongside One Nation and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party, who hold two seats in the upper house.

Upper house preferences were formally lodged on Monday, and we saw some unusual decisions motivated by the Liberal-One Nation deal. The Nationals have decided to favour the Greens over their Liberal coalition partners, while the Shooters have gained preferences from many parties, including the Nationals.

The Liberal-National governments chances of re-election will be boosted thanks to One Nation preferences, but only if the deal can hold. Upper house preferences in Western Australia are required to be lodged ahead of time, and they will flow regardless of whether a party can find the volunteers to distribute how-to-vote cards at polling place, thanks to the group voting ticket system (the same system which was used for the Senate prior to law changes in 2016).

In contrast, One Nation preferences in the lower house are only as good as the partys capacity to hand out how-to-votes making the recommendation. One Nation voters have traditionally been happy to follow their partys recommendations, but there are signs that some One Nation candidates are not willing to go along with their partys deal. If candidates in key seats refuse to go along with the deal, the Liberal party could be left empty-handed, after giving away something quite valuable.

See more here:
One Nation could gain more than the Liberals from Western Australia seats deal - The Guardian

After President Barack Obamas inauguration in 2009, conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh made headlines when he said, I hope Obama fails. Many considered it a gauge of how bitter conservatives had become post-election.

Why would anyone, right or left, not want the new president to succeed?

The country was divided for a number of reasons then, but due in large part to too many conservatives drawing battle lines and retreating to the trenches.

Now, its the lefts turn.

In Sundays New York Post, gay Brooklyn-based journalist Chadwick Moore penned a thoughtful yet unsettling op-ed explaining why, although he had been a lifelong liberal, the lefts current intolerance has pushed him to the right. In September, Moore wrote a profile of hard right Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos for the LGBT publication Out! For this unpardonable sin, he was shunned by his friends, even those he thought were genuinely close to him.

After a barrage of negative messages and attacks on social media, (neither the author nor the magazine signaled in any way that they agreed with Yiannopoulos controversial views), Moore wrote, I lay low for a week or so. Finally, I decided to go out to my local gay bar, where Ive been a regular for 11 years.

Nothing felt the same; half the place people with whom Id shared many laughs seemed to be giving me the cold shoulder, Moore lamented. A friend who normally greets me with a hug and kiss pivoted and turned away.

Moore continued: I realized that, for the first time in my adult life, I was outside of the liberal bubble and looking in. What I saw was ugly, lock step, incurious and mean-spirited. I began to realize that maybe my opinions just didnt fit in with the liberal status quo, which seems to mean that you must absolutely hate Trump, his supporters and everything they believe. If you dare to question liberal stances or make an effort toward understanding why conservatives think the way they do, you are a traitor.

Partisanship is not new, but left and right do seem to become shriller with each election. This has been particularly true in regard to perhaps the most uniquely polarizing president in modern American history, Donald Trump.

The division in 2017 compared to 2009 seems broader and deeper, something Chadwick Moores unfortunate experience illustrates. When the right was concocting every angry accusation imaginable against Obama, most dismissed it as right-wing propaganda from a conservative echo chamber.

But the current Trump hate presents a different and perhaps more troubling dynamic. Right now its not just progressive outlets, but the mainstream media that too often behaves like a liberal echo chamber.

So, if youre a left-leaning American already distraught over the election, and the mainstream media is telling you that Trump is an anti-gay white supremacist who hates MLK and wants to invade Mexico, how is this different from right-wingers who used to believe Obama was a secret-Kenyan-radical-Muslim-who-hated-America?

Because its what you already believe Trump really is, its what most of your friends believe, and most of the news you consume reinforces those biases.

Conservatives during the Obama era risked having their biases shattered the moment they turned off Fox News. Liberals right now are having their biases confirmed at every turn, which allows them to insist that what they believe genuinely reflects the unassailable truth about Trump.

They could be right. Trump is problematic on many levels. But how can liberals, living in so broad a bubble, truly know?

And if their intolerance toward anyone who dares challenge their worldview continues to increase, how will they ever know?

Go here to see the original:
What happened to tolerant liberals? - MyDaytonDailyNews