Mediaboss Marketing

National Rifle Association members attend the 146th NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits on April 29, 2017 in Atlanta, Ga.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

Many progressives are decrying a recruiting video fromthe National Rifle Association they say comes dangerously close to promoting violence against liberals.

In the video, conservative commentator Dana Loesch runs down a list of alleged atrocities committed by an unspecified "they."

"They use the media, schools and celebrities to indoctrinate people with "their narrative, Loesch says.They "smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding."

The only way to stop them and save the country "is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth," she says.

The ad, which was first posted to YouTube in April, drew condemnation on Twitter Thursday:

"Its a paranoid vision of American life that encourages the NRAs fans to see liberals not as political opponents, but as monsters," wrote Zack Beauchamp for Vox.

"How many of those Republican Congressmen who were calling for a reduction in rhetoric following the ballfield shooting, will step forward to condemn this video that uses that incident to call for civil war on Americans?" asked the Daily Kos' Mark Sumner.

Sumner said the NRA is trying to boost gun sales by "convincing half of America to declare war on the other half."

Loesch defended the ad on social media, saying the ad was about denouncing recent incidents ofviolent protest.

"And some of these people that are completely hyper-overreacting, get a grip," she said. "My gosh, how much energy do you use every damn day being so over-outraged about everything?"

"The reaction to this is insane,"Loesch told Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show Thursday night. "Apparently me condemning violence is what's inciting and dividing America."

Here is the full transcript of the video:

They use their media to assassinate real news.

They use their schools to teach children that the president is another Hitler.

They use their movie stars, and singers, and comedy shows, and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again.

And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

All to make them march. Make them protest. Make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law abiding.Until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, theyll use it as an excuse for their outrage.

The only way we stop this. The only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2u555v5

The rest is here:
NRA video declares war on liberals, critics say - USA TODAY

British Columbia premier-designate John Horgan prepares to make a statement following a non-confidence vote in Victoria. Photograph: Kevin Light/Reuters

British Columbias Liberal government has been defeated in a non-confidence vote, as expected, paving the way for the left-leaning New Democrats to rule the western Canadian province for the first time in 16 years.

Such a prospect has unnerved investors in Canadas third-most populous province, not least owners of oil and gas projects, such as Kinder Morgan Incs C$7.4bn Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which the New Democratic party (NDP) has vowed to halt.

But an NDP government, which has to be propped up by the third-place Green party to achieve a slim parliamentary majority of one, is fragile, and few expect it to survive the four-year term.

On Thursday, seven weeks after a knife-edge election, NDP and Green lawmakers used their 44 votes in the 87-member legislature to pass a non-confidence amendment to the Liberal governments Throne Speech.

After the vote, NDP leader John Horgan told reporters he had met the provinces nominal head, Lieutenant-Governor Judith Guichon, and that she had invited him to form a new government, making him British Columbias next premier.

Well have access to government documents tomorrow to start working on a transition, Horgan said. I cant predict when that (transition) will be, but its going to be soon.

Incumbent premier Christy Clark told media she offered her resignation to Guichon, but asked for a dissolution of the legislature, which the lieutenant-governor did not grant.

Dissolution would trigger another election. While Guichon technically has that power, such a move would go against convention for the largely ceremonial leader.

Guichon said in a statement she will accept Clarks resignation.

The NDP and Greens struck an agreement last month to oust the right-leaning British Columbia Liberal party unaffiliated with the left-leaning federal Liberal party of prime minister Justin Trudeau after a 9 May election reduced Clarks party to a minority.

The NDP and Greens, which will form the provinces first minority government in 65 years, have accused the Liberals of trying to retain power after the election by stealing their election promises and introducing them as last-minute legislation to delay being voted out.

Yet those same promises could be hard to deliver under an NDP government, which needs Green cooperation and every legislator to be present for every vote to pass laws, said University of British Columbia political science professor Hamish Telford.

The NDP may decide on its own accord that it needs to have a fresh election, he said.

Continued here:
No-confidence vote for British Columbia Liberals delivers blow to pipeline project - The Guardian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @atemkar

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

See original here:
My fellow liberals hate Lee Greenwood's 'God Bless the USA.' I love it. - Washington Post

Updated June 30, 2017 14:38:11

Liberals in Victoria claim the party's religious right is stacking branches with Mormons and Catholic groups in a drive to pre-select more conservative candidates.

It comes amid a heated debate in the New South Wales division over whether to adopt a Victorian-style "plebiscite" model to empower branch members.

Currently, candidates in NSW are chosen by a mix of branch representatives and party officials, a system critics claim is run by "factional warlords".

The Victorian model, introduced in 2008, allows party members of two years standing to vote in Lower House pre-selections in their electorates.

Sources have told the ABC the Victorian system is more open and democratic and has seen talented MPs including Josh Frydenberg, Kelly O'Dwyer and Dan Tehan win pre-selection.

Others claim it has also encouraged rampant branch-stacking.

Members of the party's executive have been accused of "actively recruiting" Mormons and conservative Catholics to branches across Victoria, which some fear could eventually lead to more conservative candidates winning pre-selection.

While the Liberals prides themselves on being a broad church, the ABC has been told the recruits are often motivated by "single issues" like same-sex marriage or euthanasia.

There are concerns this is distorting the values of the Liberal Party, which is shifting towards the right, but others argue it is part of a broad recruitment drive aimed at arresting a serious decline in membership numbers.

Victorian State Executive member Marcus Baastian said the party has been targeting business groups, young professionals and different cultural groups as well as religious organisations.

He hit back at claims the party was "swinging to the right", saying the accusation was designed to undermine efforts to modernise the state division.

"Recruitment in Victoria has delivered fantastic results in lowering our average age, increasing our party membership and ensuring we have campaigners on the ground in our marginal seats to help out candidates at election time," he told the ABC.

The battle over plebiscite pre-selections in NSW will come to a head at next month's "futures convention" where delegates will debate Tony Abbott's push to adopt a plebiscite or "one member, one vote" model.

Mr Bastiaan, who is considered a controversial figure in the party, is firmly behind Mr Abbott's push and has told the NSW division its duty was "to be relevant, forward footed and ensure it is a membership organisation that respects the very people who vote for it".

In a video to members attending a pre-convention event in Sydney tomorrow, he warned: "Without a strong New South Wales, we cannot win and hold Government."

Those pushing for change in NSW point to the Liberal's dwindling membership and narrow support base, arguing that giving people a say will revive the party.

But, for many, this is also a battle for control between a divided right faction and a dominant left.

The NSW State Council last year rejected Mr Abbott's motion to change the preselection process and voted in favour of a one put by Mr Turnbull and NSW Premier Mike Baird to debate the issue and broader party reforms at this year's futures convention.

Anyone will be able to attend and some party members have told the ABC they fear it will be ambushed by Mr Abbott's hard-right loyalists whose ultimate goal is to damage Malcolm Turnbull.

The Prime Minister supports plebiscites in principle, but the left faction to which he is aligned has been campaigning against it, fearing it could open the door to branch stacking in the state.

According to Mr Abbott, change to the NSW Liberal Party is "unstoppable" and most now concede that is the case.

"Nobody wants to leave that conference with the same system we have now"," a NSW Liberal source said.

"There has got to be change."

Topics: liberals, government-and-politics, federal---state-issues, federal-government, political-parties, community-and-society, religion-and-beliefs, australia, nsw, vic

First posted June 30, 2017 14:29:49

Original post:
Victorian Liberals claim right faction stacking branches with Mormons and Catholics - ABC Online

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

As someone who voted for Barack Obama twice, supported the Affordable Care Act, and could be persuaded to vote for the right kind of single-payer system, I've found the entire health-care debate over the past several months deeply depressing. That's no doubt why my first instinct was to cheer when reading a recent rant against the right from an editor at The Huffington Post.

The transparently titled opinion column, "I Don't Know How to Explain to You That You Should Care About Other People," is a perfect expression of our political moment in its utter exasperation at those on the other side of a policy debate, but even more so in how it casts these partisan opponents as moral monsters with whom communication, let alone persuasion, is simply impossible.

I admit that it does often feel that way these days, especially when it comes to the House and Senate bills to remake the nation's health-care system, since so much of the discussion has been conducted by Republicans in undeniable bad faith with bills primarily designed to cut or eliminate taxes dishonestly described by leaders in Congress, as well as the president, as efforts to make health care more affordable. (The tax cuts ensure that health care would in fact become much less affordable for millions of people.)

But the instinct to cheer on the argument should be resisted.

The fact is that most intelligent and informed people on the right do not oppose progressive policies because they're stingy bastards who don't give a damn about their fellow citizens. It's true that this may describe some Republicans. There are probably a non-trivial number, especially those unduly influenced by the odious ideas of Ayn Rand, who do come close to viewing the poor as parasitic moochers. But many, many others the vast majority, in my experience do not take this position. They believe, instead, that progressive policies do more harm than good for the very people they're designed to help.

Consider the minimum wage. Many conservatives oppose raising it, especially as high as $15/hour, as some municipalities around the country have opted to do over the last few years. Do they take this position because they prefer lower-wage workers to struggle? No. They take this position because they understand basic principles of economics, which predict that raising costs for businesses that employ low-wage workers will lead them to make fewer hires, thereby hurting these workers overall. (A study released earlier this week seems to indicate that this is precisely what's been happening in Seattle since the city began incrementally raising its minimum wage.)

The same holds for the concerns that led the original neoconservatives to make various proposals for reforming crime and welfare during the 1970s and '80s proposals that powerfully influenced policymaking at the local and federal levels during the 1990s.

My point isn't to make a case for these policies (though I think many of them were defensible in the context of the time). The point is to recognize that the proposals were made with the intent of improving the lives of the poor, crime victims, and others, not with the intent of hurting them, or of giving the rich a post-spending-cut tax break. (While it's true that most of these conservatives supported tax cuts as well, those cuts, too, were justified as a spur to economic growth and job creation that would benefit everyone.)

It's certainly easier and more morally satisfying for those on the left to presume that the right is just motivated by rank selfishness. But it's no more true at an individual level than it is as the level of public policy debate.

Though there's been considerable dispute about studies purporting to show that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to private charity, the most fair-minded critics don't claim the opposite that only people on the left care about the well-being of their fellow citizens. The critics claim, rather, that ideology is an insignificant variable in determining who gives to charity, and how much.

So much for having to explain to Republicans as a group why they "should care about other people."

Now, it may well be that Republicans are more inclined toward generosity when it comes to private charity than they are with regard to government programs. Is that foolish? Could conservatives do more social good if they supported tax hikes and policies devised and run by the federal government? That's an empirically testable proposition, the outcome of which just might change some minds on the right.

But only if liberals, progressives, and democratic socialists resist the temptation to flatter themselves and demonize their opponents and keep up the hard, unglamorous, sometimes infuriating work of trying to persuade.

View original post here:
Why can't self-satisfied liberals admit that conservatives care about people, too? - The Week Magazine