Mediaboss Marketing

Recently on HBOs Real Time, Bill Maher had this to say about the recent attack on Republican legislators: We would never really think this would happen on the left. We think of the right as the people who pick up guns and do crazy things like this.

And thats just what they think. Liberals are peaceful and conservatives are violent. Even those who take pride in their political incorrectness repeat it. But you dont have to be an American historian to know how little it holds up to the facts.

Every year on the anniversary of JFKs assassination, media people talk about right-wingers in Dallas. But the real shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Soviet sympathizer. And Robert Kennedys killer was a Palestinian radical.

Last year at the Super Bowl, America watched Beyonces half-time tribute to the Black Panthers, who loved their guns as much as any NRA fanatic, and used them enthusiastically.

The media did everything they could to make us forget about former President Barack Obamas friendship with fellow Chicagoans Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both members of the bomb-wielding Weather Underground. This months Puerto Rican Day Parade controversy resurrected the 1970s leftist terrorist group the FALN. Today we have the Antifa, whose black mask image has become an emblem of America 2017.

And just last month, Obama appeared on video at the Songwriters Hall of Fame to help induct Jay-Z, who once wrote these lines in his song Money, Cash, Hoes:

Money cash hoes money cash chicks what

Sex murder and mayhem romance for the street

Only wife of mines is a life of crime ...

Jay, you have been inspiring, Obama said, but he didnt mention how the millions of young men whove listened to Jay-Z and other rappers have been affected by lyrics such as: Now if I kill you I probably do ten in the box/Come down on appeal then Im killin your pops (Reservoir Dogs).

It takes a strange act of the mind to overlook leftist violence in the American present and recent past. Its as if attributing deep hate to right-leaning people was a drug. An obvious addict is Bill Moyers, the former LBJ operative whos made a career out of sanctimonious exposes of conservative wrath. A few years ago, he spoke of how Conservative Talk Radio Incites Domestic Terrorism & Hate and last year during the campaign he warned:

Trump and his ilk would sweep the promise of America into the dustbin of history unless they are exposed now to the disinfectant of sunlight, the cleansing torch of truth. Nothing else can save us from the dark age of unreason that would arrive with the triumph of Donald Trump.

Whether its real (the softball shooter) or make-believe (Kathy Griffin), liberal violence in contemporary America is a fact. It would seem to be a natural focus for Moyers campaign against political hatred. But at his web site one can only find brief notices of the shooting in Alexandria, Va., that emphasize the bipartisan nature of wrath in the United States, citing another story on potential incitement of political violence by Democrats and Republicans, the right and the left, as well as a population research finding that Republicans and Democrats were indistinguishable in their support for political violence.

This all sounds like a cross-political appeal to reason, but in truth, its an effective way to push the liberal-peace and conservative-violence meme. When a lunatic with right-wing opinions goes on a rampage, it says something about the essence of conservatism. When a lunatic with left-wing opinions acts, it summons forth bipartisan expressions of civility.

Conservative hate is conservative, but liberal hate isnt liberal at all.

Republicans and conservatives should recognize the across-the-divide call for unity as a hustle. The next time a right-wing crazy picks up his gun, the one-sided denunciations of conservative hate will come once more. Liberals pay themselves a compliment when they attribute vice to their adversaries, and they double down on back-patting when they (putatively) rise above politics after one of their own commits violence. Conservatives shouldnt help them do it.

They should instead proclaim that liberalism circa 2017 is not give peace a chance.

It has a malicious streak, and too many liberals dont just despise President Trump and everyone who voted for him, but also take pleasure in their spite.

Mark Bauerlein is an English professor at Emory University. He wrote this for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may email him at engmb@emory.edu.

Original post:
Mark Bauerlein: Stop ignoring violence by liberals - La Crosse Tribune

Support for the Progressive Conservatives has jumped ahead of the governing Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador, suggests a new poll.

MQO Research's quarterly Atlantic Matters poll, released Thursday, suggests the Liberals' support is steady among decided and leaning voters at 35 per cent, the same as in the last pollin May.

But the PCs jumped from 39 per cent in May to 48 per cent in the new poll. The PCs' gain was the NDP's loss, as the New Democratsfell from 23 per cent last time to 16 per cent this quarter.

But one in three people polled, 33 per cent, say they're undecided or don't know who they support.

If the election were held today, 28 per cent would vote PC, 20 per cent Liberal, nine per cent NDP, and nine per cent wouldn't vote, or refused to answer.

Premier Dwight Ball's rating among the public remains low, with a mean rating of four on a scale of one to 10.

The poll also suggests Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are pessimistic about the provincial economy, with 56 per cent saying the general outlook is getting worse, and just eight per cent who think it's getting better.

MQO polled 600 randomly selected eligible votersacross the province by telephone from July 4 to July 19. The margin of error among decided voters is 5.2 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

See more here:
PC lead jumps while Liberals hold steady, NDP slide in latest MQO poll - CBC.ca

Trumps Failure to Use Twitter Enough to His Advantage, Simply to Provide Perspective

The biggest failure of the Trump Administration continues to be its failure to present its own policies in perspective.

President Trump is being pilloried in the press for his ban on transgenders in the military, just as all conservatives continue to be pilloried in the press for opposing same-sex marriage.

Trump should have and should rather present his ban NOT as a new draconian measure instituted by a raging rogue or lunatic but rather as RESTORING the ban that existed from time immemorial, under liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, through the first 7 years of the Obama Administration, through June 30, 2016, including both years in which Obama and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Liberals point excitedly to the fact that 18 other countries allow transgenders to serve in the military (to the extent they have militaries). But considering that there are 195 or 196 countries all together, fewer than 10% of the countries in the world allow transgenders in their militaries, even now.

Similarly, the ban on same-sex marriages existed from time immemorial , under liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, until the United States Supreme Court decided, on June 26, 2015, to usurp the powers of the people and the legislatures and the church and the dictionary to declare same-sex marriages real, let alone legal.

It should be noted that the progressive movement basically derives most of its values from liberals, where Jews have been in the forefront, from Karl Marx to Leon Trotsky to Betty Friedan to Bernie Sanders, but these values are derived directly from the Bible caring for the poor, the sick, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan (though charity in the Bible is to come from individuals as tithes, not imposed by the government or unelected governmental bureaucrats, and it may also be noted that the strangers referred to in the Bible, to be protected, did not necessarily include avowed terrorists and/or their supporters). Mainstream Jews, of course, temper their progressive instincts with the overall Biblical encouragement of moderation.

The Bible from time immemorial defined marriage as between a man and a woman and defined homosexual activities as abominations, so the people who believe homosexuals are entitled to all rights as partners but are still not entitled to call themselves spouses are in a way even more liberal than the Bible.

The Bible was not focused on transgender issues as are the liberal press and politicians, but the Bible does forbid a man from wearing a womans garment (Deuteronomy 22:5) and the prohibition has been extended to women as well, by the leading codifiers of Jewish law, generally conscious of and promoting equal rights for women, if not equal obligations (Code of Jewish Law, Shulchan Arukh YD 182:5).

The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not necessarily include a dubious right to serve in combat positions in the army.

Mr. Rich is a self-described liberal with common sense and an open mind.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Read the original post:
Trump Transgender Ban for Military Actually RESTORES Policies of Liberals, Including Obama - Canada Free Press

BY: David Rutz July 26, 2017 5:00 am

The new economic slogan for Democrats is not getting rave reviews from progressives and members of the media; in fact, it's receiving outright mocking in some corners.

Entitled "A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages," the economic agenda was rolled out Monday by top Democrats in Virginia as they plot a way back to power in Washington.

Former Barack Obama speechwriters Jon Lovett and Jon Favreau both criticized the new slogan on their podcast "Pod Save America," with Lovett saying he thought it was "garbage" upon first hearing of it.

MSNBC host and former Republican Joe Scarborough called the slogan "so bland" and "so terrible," and liberalWashington Postcolumnist Eugene Robinson said it lacked emotional heft.

"There's nothing there that sort of punches you in the gut, that tears at your heart, that involves you emotionally," he said.

Former Democratic congressman Harold Ford Jr. added on "Morning Joe" that the slogan "misses the point."

MSNBC host Chris Jansing noted the derisive comparisons on social media to the Papa John's slogan, "Better Ingredients. Better Pizza." She said it didn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Progressive commentator David Pakman referred to "A Better Deal" as "flaccid," and former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean said Sunday, "Do I think it's the best slogan I ever heard? No, but it's a start."

While interviewing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) on Tuesday, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell asked him for his take on the "stirring" new slogan for the Democrats, adding she was speaking ironically.

"A better deal?" she asked skeptically.

View post:
Liberals, Media Members Pan Democrats for 'Better Deal' Slogan - Washington Free Beacon

OTTAWA National Defence has been struggling to make good on one of the Trudeau government's recent promises: giving tax breaks to military personnel and police officers deployed on certain overseas operations.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the measure during a major speech at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont., in May as part of the Liberals' new defence policy.

While Sajjan billed the move as an attempt to recognize the sacrifices that are often made by military personnel and their families, it also addressed what had been a prickly issue for the minister.

Some service members based in Kuwait had become increasingly vocal in the weeks leading up the announcement about a policy change that threatened to strip their tax-exempt status.

Yet the devil has proven to be in the details, with officials now scratching their heads over what types of operations and deployments should and should not be eligible for tax relief.

The debate is particularly relevant for the navy's sailors, many of whom on close reading of the defence policy would not be eligible for tax relief despite spending up to six months at sea at any given time.

Sources tell The Canadian Press that the military's senior leadership is now seized with the issue, and that defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance has told officials he wants the issue resolved by mid-August.

Alan Okros, an expert on the management of military personnel at the Canadian Forces College, said officials are now caught trying to make good on the Liberals' promise without making matters worse.

Earlier on HuffPost:

"They're trying to find a solution here that will achieve what the government intended," Okros said.

"But they don't want to start creating precedents that would generate lawsuits or people making claims of 'Well, if that applied there, it applies here.'"

The tax measure would see the salaries of military personnel and police officers sent on certain operations exempted from federal income tax for the duration of their deployments.

The move, retroactive to Jan. 1, 2017, exempts eligible salaries up to the pay level of lieutenant-colonel and is expected to cost the federal treasury about $85-million over the next five years.

Personnel would still be eligible for extra hardship and risk pay if deployed into dangerous environments.

Both Sajjan and the Liberals' defence policy, which was released a few weeks after the minister's speech at RMC, said the exemption would be given to members deployed on what are called "named operations."

Named operations are usually the largest and most complex, such as Operation Impact, which is Canada's mission against the Islamic State group, and Operation Unifier, the military's training mission in Ukraine.

The service members complaining in Kuwait were attached to Operation Impact, and thus would be eligible for the tax benefit.

But many military personnel deployed overseas for extended periods are never attached to a named operation, or may only spend a portion of their time in such a situation.

That is particularly true of the navy, which has had two frigates sailing around the Asia-Pacific region since March, but whose sailors are not technically on a named operation.

Officials are now backing off the explicit reference to named operations, though no decision has been made on what criteria will trigger tax relief for deployed personnel.

"The Canadian Armed Forces is currently working on a framework aimed at implementing the proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act," said National Defence spokeswoman Kim Lemaire.

"It doesn't say specifically 'named operations' because there may be others that, as determined by the chief of defence staff, this tax relief will be applied to. That's still in the works right now."

Okros said the Liberals have been trying to contrast their treatment of Canada's military personnel with that of the Harper government, which was seen as being "stingy" with benefits for service members.

"Under Trudeau, they are trying to send a different message of 'We actually do support the troops,'" Okros said.

"So I think there's a bit of that in terms of a political agenda. But then how do you do this in the right way so that it doesn't create more problems than it solves?"

Current MPs With Military Experience (2016)

Read more here:
Liberals' Tax-Break Pledge To Troops Causing Headaches For Officials - Huffington Post Canada