Mediaboss Marketing

The mainstream media, liberals and Hollywood are pitching a super-sized hissy fit over President Trumps decision to protect the fruited plain from blood-thirsty jihadists.

They seem to think we are under some sort of moral obligation to allow refugees to flood into the country without vetting and pray that nobody gets blown up. I write about this very issue in my new book, The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again.

Click here for a free subscription to Todds newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!

I watched in utter amazement this weekend as hordes of agitators swarmed airports across the country causing all sorts of mayhem.

CNN called the protests spontaneous which is quite remarkable considering a number of protesters were waving professionally-made banners and posters.

Muslims at DFW International Airport turned a baggage claim area into a makeshift mosque kneeling on prayer rugs and chanting, Allah.

And there was nary a peep from TSA or airport officials.

But heaven help the poor fellow who tries to go through a TSA check point with a bottle of Head & Shoulders in his carry-on luggage.

Click here for Todds new book the most deplorable book in modern American history.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo lashed out at the president saying New Yorkers have no tolerance for intolerance.

New York City Mayor and Communist sympathizer Bill de Blasio said the ban was chilling to anyone in America who cares about religious liberty.

These are the same guys who tried to shut down a Chick-fil-A franchise and told gun-toting, Bible-clingers they were not welcome in the Empire State.

So spare us your righteous indignation.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel said he plans on hosting illegal aliens in his home and urged citizens to do the same.

Thats a mighty thoughtful gesture, but it might be safer for the refugees to eat a slice of deep dish pizza in Syria rather than the Windy Citys South Side.

The mainstream media feared the president was going overboard to protect Christians from radical Islamists, Newsbusters reported.

CNNs Carol Costello, seemed genuinely troubled that his underlying goal was to make this country aggressively Christian.

Failed talk show host Piers Morgan addressed the issue in a bizarre column titled, More Americans were killed last year by toddlers with guns than by Muslim terrorists, Mr. President where is the executive order to stop THAT?

This executive order is not making America great, Morgan wrote in the Daily Mail. Its making America hate.

Mr. Morgan is British.

It is grotesquely unfair because it punishes many decent, law-abiding people who have every right to be in the country, he added.

Piers Morgan is the poster child for extreme vetting.

Hollywood is even worse marginalizing Christianity while embracing Islam.

The people who play make believe for a living went out of their way to denounce President Trump during the Screen Actors Guild awards Sunday.

We have to speak up, actress Emma Stone said. Staying silent only helps the oppressor, not the victim. Right now I hope that people seeing things that are being done that are unconstitutional and inhumane would say something.

Here's a thought -- next year -- hold the SAG awards in downtown Tehran. I hear the Ayatollahs are big Rosie O'Donnell fans.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is The Deplorables Guide to Making America Great Again. Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals want US to admit all the refugees and pray we don't get blown up - Fox News

The pending electionof dumped minister John Ajaka as President of the NSW upper house has upset some senior Liberals, amid claims it is a "slap in the face" to the Legislative Council.

When Premier GladysBerejiklian unveiled her new cabinet on Monday, she also announced a list of parliamentary office holders.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

Deputy Premier Jonh Barliaro's 15-month-old daughter rolls on the ground during the swearing in of their new minister by the Governor of NSW, David Hurley.

Play Video Don't Play

Speaking after the day's proceedings in her trial at Denpasar District Court, murder suspect Sara Connor says Bali police officer Wayan Sudarsa bit her on the arm and the leg on Kuta beach.

Play Video Don't Play

Kirralie Smith is a well-known anti-Islamic politician and activist, and she is being tapped as Australia's newest libertarian leader.

Play Video Don't Play

With Toyota's Altona plant due to close in October, more than 2500 workers will be axed as Australian production wraps up. Vision courtesy Seven News, Melbourne.

Play Video Don't Play

The Queensland government orders an immediate review into security measures at a Brisbane youth detention centre after several juvenile inmates hold authorities at bay.

Play Video Don't Play

Police are investigating after the body of a woman was found at a beach in Melbourne's south-east Tuesday morning.

Play Video Don't Play

Renewed fear hits Melbourne CBD as police quickly move frightened people away from Bourke Street Mall after a suspicious package was found.

Play Video Don't Play

The Liberal Party is distancing itself from protesters who stormed one of its party meeting dressed as the Ku Klux Klan.

Deputy Premier Jonh Barliaro's 15-month-old daughter rolls on the ground during the swearing in of their new minister by the Governor of NSW, David Hurley.

First on that list was dumped former minister for multiculturalism and disability servicesJohn Ajaka, who was described as President of the Legislative Council (elect).

The announcement followed the appointment of current upper house President, Don Harwin a leader of MsBerejiklian'sleft faction who was instrumental in securing her election as leader as Minister for Energy and Utilities and the Arts.

However, the president who receivesa salary of $287,515, the same as a junior minister must be elected by the entire Legislative Council. A vote of Liberal upper house members to decide their nomination will be held during a party room meeting scheduled for Wednesday afternoon.

Ms Berejiklian's announcement pre-empted both votes.

A senior Liberal source said the decision was "a slap in the face from the executive to the house" and was part of a broader factional deal involving the final shape of Ms Berejiklian's cabinet and the North Shore by-election.

"The party won't oppose the choice of president because [Ms Berejiklian] has made it clear and they don't want to undermine her authority, which is already threadbare," the source said.

"But Idon't think the house will look kindly on it".

Another Liberal source confirmed there was widespread disquiet within the Liberal upper house party room over the circumstancesof Mr Ajaka's pending appointment because the usual processes had been pre-empted.

The senior Liberal source said Ms Berejiklian had needed to "lock in" Mr Ajaka as presidentas part of a deal between the left and centre right factions to ensure the centre right's Ray Williams was the 23rd cabinet spot.

Mr Williams replacedMr Ajakain the multiculturalism and disability services portfolios.

The source also alleged the deal extended to the centre right supporting the left's favoured candidate for the North Shore byelection likely to be Felicity Wilsonover the right's candidate, potentially Tim James.

However, a centre right source said "there was no deal".

Asked why she pre-empted the votes of the party room and the upper house with her announcement and if it was part of a factional deal, Ms Berejiklian said: "John Ajaka will make an excellent President of the Legislative Council."

Ms Berejiklian has repeatedly denied Liberal party factional chiefs have had any part in shaping her first cabinet, insisting all appointments have been made purely on merit.

Mr Ajaka declined to comment.

See the original post here:
'Slap in the face': appointment of new upper house president upsets Liberals - The Sydney Morning Herald

Updated January 31, 2017 21:52:40

Premier Colin Barnett has said he is more relaxed than he has ever been heading into the March election, but his colleagues say they are not taking anything for granted.

The members met in the partyroom for the last time on Tuesday afternoon before the campaign officially starts on Wednesday.

"This election is not going to be an easy election for the Liberal National Government, so we're all working extremely hard, as we should be," the member for Churchlands, Sean L'Estrange, said.

Corrective Services Minister Joe Francis said the State Government was clearly the underdog.

"Every single election the Labor Party tries to position itself as the underdog. There is no debate going into this election. Three terms for any government's a hard ask and the Liberal Party is clearly the underdog going into this election," Mr Francis said.

"I'm never relaxed about any campaign, I'm a member of parliament and every four years I have to reapply to the voters of my electorate for my job."

The member for Mount Lawley, Michael Sutherland, echoed Mr Francis' sentiment.

"Everybody knows that the election is going to be a battle," Mr Sutherland said.

"Anybody that thinks it's not going to be a battle is deluding themselves so we've just got to all do our best and hopefully our standing in the local community will carry some of us over the line," he said.

Health Minister John Day said there was a lot of work still to be done.

"I never feel super confident about being re-elected, I always take it very seriously and work very hard to do so," he said.

But others MPs, including Transport Minister Bill Marmion, were more confident.

"I'm buoyant, I think we've made some pretty good announcements leading up to the election. I think if the public see what we've delivered over the last eight years, I think they'll see we're a solid government," he said.

"We've got a pretty good record to stand on and I think we can build off that and continue building good outcomes for Western Australians."

The member for Balcatta, Chris Hatton, agreed.

"I think we'll get there, I'm feeling pretty confident that we will get there because we have done so much and we've got a lot more to do," Mr Hatton said.

MPs dismissed Labor polling that suggested a swing of almost 20 per cent in the Liberal seat of Joondalup.

"You can't trust what the union polls are about," Local Government Minister Paul Miles said.

Mr Miles was backed by Treasurer Mike Nahan.

"Reachtel is a device that you can use to push your own issues. That was designed for the meeting that we're about ready to have, we know it and we ignore it," Dr Nahan said.

The Treasurer also said Liberal polling told a different story.

After the meeting, Liberal MPs told the ABC the Premier had conceded the Government was not in a winning position at the moment, but told them if they all pulled their weight they could still get there.

WA Liberal state director Andrew Cox is believed to have told MPs the party would do preference deals with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, but it would likely not be a blanket deal and would be negotiated seat by seat.

Topics: elections, liberals, states-and-territories, perth-6000, wa

First posted January 31, 2017 19:42:11

See original here:
WA election 2017: Liberals claim 'underdog' status heading into March poll - ABC Online

5449880

Despitetodays outrage over President Donald Trumps refugee executive order,many liberals in 1975 were part of a chorus of big name Democrats who refused to accept any Vietnamese refugees when millions were trying to escape South Vietnam as it fell to the communists.

They even opposed orphans.

The group, led by Californias Gov. Jerry Brown, included such liberal luminaries as Delawares Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, former presidential peace candidate George McGovern, and New York Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman.

The Los Angeles Times reported Brown even attempted to prevent planes carrying Vietnamese refugees from landing at Travis Air Force Base outside San Francisco. About 500 people were arriving each day and eventually 131,000 arrivedin the United States between 1975 and 1977.

These people arrived despiteprotests from liberal Democrats. In 2015, the Los Angeles Times recounted Browns ugly attitude,reporting, Brown has his own checkered history of demagoguery about refugees.

Back in 1975, millions of South Vietnamese who worked for or supported the U.S. found themselves trapped behind the lines when the communists took over the country. Vietnamese emigre Tung Vu,writing in Northwest Asian Weekly, recalled the hardships the Vietnamese faced in 1975 as they tried to escape the communists.

After the fall of Saigon, many Vietnamese chose to leave by any means possible, often in small boats. Those who managed to escape pirates, typhoons, and starvation sought safety and a new life in refugee camps, Tung wrote.

Ironically, Republicans led by former President Gerald Ford were the political figures who fought for the refugees to enter the United States.

Julia Taft, who in 1975 headed up Fords Inter-agency Task Force on Indochinese refugee resettlement, told authorLarry Engelmann in his book, Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam,The new governor of California, Jerry Brown, was very concerned about refugees settling in his state.

National Public Radio host Debbie Elliottretraced Browns refusal to accept any refugees in a January 2007 interview with Taft. According to a transcript, which was aired on its flagship program, All Things Considered, Taftsaid, our biggest problem came from California due to Brown. She called his rejection of Vietnamese refugees a moral blow.

I remember at the time we had thousands and thousands of requests from military families in San Diego, for instance, who had worked in Vietnam, who knew some of these people, she told NPR.

Taft recalled another dark reason the liberals opposed the refugees: They said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didnt want these people.

They didnt want any of these refugees, because they had also unemployment, she told NPR. They had already a large number of foreign-born people there. They had they said they had too many Hispanics, too many people on welfare, they didnt want these people.

Brown echoed his isolationist theme throughout his first term. As recounted by author Larry Clinton Thompson in hisbook, Refugee Workers in the Indochina Exodus, Brown said, We cant be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here.

At the same time as Brown was fighting Washington, Democrats waged an anti-refugee campaign inside the nations capital.

Ford appealed to Congress to quickly help the refugees, who included thousands of Cambodians fleeing a genocidal campaign perpetrated by the communist Cambodian Pol Pot regime.

But in Washington, Ford found himself thwarted by many high-profile Democrats.

A review of the congressional debate at the time andrecounted by CQ Almanac shows New Yorks Elizabeth Holtzman who was one of the Houses most visible liberal congresswomen opposed helping the refugees. Like Brown, she tried to pit her constituents against the refugees. She said, according to CQ Almanac, some of her constituents felt that the same assistance and compassion was not being shown to the elderly, unemployed and poor in this country.

Rep. Donald Riegle, a liberal representative from Michigan who later would serve as its senator, offered an amendment that would have barred funds for the refugees unless similar assistance was given to Americans. The amendment was rejected by the House, 346 to 71, according to the Almanac.

Another House Democrat even tried to slow down the airlift of Vietnamese orphans. The Almanac reported that Rep. Joshua Eilberg, the Democratic chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and International Law, accused the Ford administration of having acted with unnecessary haste in the evacuation of the orphans.

The emergency rescue mission, called Operation Babylift, was activated by the United States, Australia, France and Canada after urgent appeals were issued by humanitarian relief organizations in Vietnam. The evacuation faced tragedy on its maiden flight when a C-5A cargo plane carrying the orphans crashed after takeoff, killing 78 children along with 35 U.S. government workers and diplomats.

The Library of Congress alsoreportedliberal congressmen tried to stall the refugee legislation, indicating they would rather wait for the administration to formulate a plan for the care and evacuation of refugees before approving the humanitarian aid.

Then-Sen. Joe Biden tried to slow down the refugee bill in the Senate, complaining that he needed more details about the quickly unfolding refugee problem before he would support it. He said the White House had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees, according to the Library of Congress historyof the legislation.

Quang X. Pham, who was born in Saigon and later served as a Marine pilot in the Persian Gulf War, later criticized Biden in an op-edpublished by the Washington Post on December 30, 2006. Quang wrote, Biden charged that the [Ford] Administration had not informed Congress adequately about the number of refugees as if anyone actually knew during the chaotic evacuation.

Peace candidate Sen. George McGovern, who had lost in a landslide to former President Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election, appeared the most heartless senator when he introduced a bill to assist those who wished to return to South Vietnam.

In the end, most of the Democrat complaints appeared to center on the fact that the refugees were escaping communism, which many liberals did not find that objectionable.

One of the justifications that Ford gave was related to communism. He said these people are all fleeing communism, which was the same criteria that had been used for the Cubans, the Hungarians, other refugee groups that had been processed in the past, Taft explained

Follow Richard on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Read this article:
FLASHBACK: When Liberals Opposed Refugees and Orphans | The ... - Daily Caller

|

Posted: Jan 30, 2017 12:01 AM

Since Donald Trump became president, liberals have beenlets just say... EXTREMELY upset. On the other hand, even as someone who was not a fan of Trump, I have been very happy with his performance. In fact, so far, I don't think anything Trump has done is radical. It's more of a re-balancing towards sanity and common sense.

So, with that disconnect between how conservatives and liberals see things in mind, I thought it would be a good idea to answer questions liberals have for conservatives. So, I asked on Twitter.

John Hawkins @johnhawkinsrwn: I'm doing a Townhall column where I'll honestly, w/out sarcasm, answer liberal questions to conservatives. Any libs want to ask questions?

A few people, including Peter Daou, Dave Weigel and Robert Gibson were kind enough to retweet me and I received an enormous number of questions. Although I tend to doubt that liberals will like most of the answers I give, I will at least be polite in my responses and maybe it will do some good. Enjoy!

1) JC?@JCrock_Do R's honestly believe voter fraud is a real issue and not just a blatant excuse to suppress min vote. Please provide proof.

I dont believe Trump is right when he claims he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal aliens voting. However, I do believe voter fraud is an issue. As to evidence, whether you like him or not, I think James OKeefe has done a phenomenal job of pointing out vulnerabilities in our system that could be used for fraud. Furthermore, the Heritage Foundation has put out a pretty extensive list of voter fraud cases. Then theres the study from Jesse Richman fromOld Dominion University in Virginiathat claims as many as 800,000 illegal aliens voted. Is he right? I dont know, but it does seem like something we should take seriously enough to investigate.

2) Michele Passarelli?@ShellyPassWhy are conservatives anti-progress?

Conservatives love progress. Its just that what we consider progress and you consider progress are very different. For example, building a wall? That would be progress. Reducing the number of people on welfare? Progress. Revamping our immigration system in order to improve the quality of immigrants were getting? Progress. Cutting into the deficit, reducing regulations, lowering taxes? To conservatives, those are steps forward that help the country progress towards a brighter future.

3) Christopher Wensley?@mipolitico If you're a Christian how do you reconcile Good Samaritan/Sermon of the Mount with Trump denying Arab children safe passage?

I am a Christian and I dont think Trump has gone far enough with refugees. Currently, the number hes going to allow overall is roughly in line with historical standards. Given that we have a huge deficit and bringing in refugees equates to bringing in people who will be on public assistance long-term, I dont think thats a good idea.

Moreover, getting back to the reality of the situation... Whats going on in Syria today is essentially the same thing that happened in Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia and smaller locales around the world. By the time Syria finally fades from the news, well be hearing the same stories from some other country. As a Christian, do I want to see us help these countries? Sure. Should we be sending them food, clothing and other basic necessities? Privately, definitely. Publicly, Im not as sure, but I wont complain about us helping someone in need and maybe, in the most extreme of circumstances, even helping out with our military.

However, its not our job to bring in the billions of people on the planet who are desperately poor, in a war torn area or just have a horrible life. In fact, if we did do that, all wed accomplish would be to turn ourselves into another one of those horrible countries. Put another way, our moral obligation to do good and help people does not extend to making them American citizens and handing them a welfare check.

4) mrcz0323?@mrcz032308 Why do so many people say Trump isn't racist? Or say they voted for him despite that and feel ok with it?

Of all the flaws that Trump may have, I thought it was particularly odd that this was the one that most liberals seem to have wholeheartedly embraced.

I have criticized Trump for what I thought at the time was a very lackluster attempt to distance himself from some of the crazier Alt-Right types who were worshipping him, but since then, he has denounced them in strong terms.

So, with that said, I dont even know anything off the top of my head that hes said or done that would make me think hes racist. Hes certainly expressed doubts about Muslims, but theyre not a race. Wanting to put an end to illegal immigration certainly isnt racist. If anything, hes reached out to black Americans more than previous GOP nominees.

Respectfully, I think people tend to see what they expect to see in the political opposition. Whoever the next Democratic nominee is, Republicans will be worried about them taking our guns, raising taxes and expanding government and liberals will worry that whoever comes after Trump is racist, hates the poor and wants to kill Social Security. Thats just a feature of American politics.

5) blue in a red state?@thewaybyelleDoesn't the president alarm you? What do you think about mass resignations & attempts to silence agencies?

Conservatives have a different view of these bureaucracies. I LOVE the mass resignations and as to silencing agencies, theyre not independent of the president. He should have the right to staff them with people who share his views, dramatically reduce their numbers and make sure theyre not undermining his agenda. If anything, other Republican presidents have been far too reluctant to make major changes in these agencies and its good to see Trump making some changes.

6) Noah Wasserman?@nmwass How do conservatives square a pro-life abortion policy with persistent attacks against the welfare state?

To start with, I think its morally wrong to kill a child and I cant in good conscience ever be okay with that except under the direst of circumstances (danger to the mothers life and more reluctantly, rape and incest). So then the question becomes, if I think that way, how do I not support the state taking care of a mother who cant afford her child? Not every conservative would say this, but I do believe welfare, food stamps, etc should exist.

That being said, public assistance should be a short-term measure given to people in dire straits. I think if it actually fit that definition, youd seldom ever hear conservatives talk about it. However, conservatives believe the system is being exploited by people who want to turn what should be a temporary measure into something long-term.

Not only is that bad for taxpayers whose charity is being abused, its bad for the people who stay on public assistance over long periods of time. Ive actually had conservatives ask me if I think it's okay for them to take public assistance. Ive always told them I thought it was fine as long as it was a temporary measure and they felt embarrassed by having to do it. At least if they think that way, it means their heads are in the right place about taking money that someone else worked to earn.

7) Privately Worrying?@derivativeburke If conservatives believed in the marketplace of ideas, and observed voter fraud is low, wouldnt they want everyone to vote?

A lot of conservatives look at it differently. Should we want people who are getting government assistance to vote? Should we want people whove committed felonies to vote? Should we want people who dont know which party Joe Biden belongs to voting? Should we want people to vote who pick the candidate they support based on which one is taller? If anything, the country would probably be better off if we had a smaller group of voters who were more informed and more invested in the country, voting. So, its a different way of looking at things.

8) Sandycpf?@Framerchick Why are they so against an investigation into Russian ties with Donald Trump?

I dont think conservatives are against an investigation into Russia, per se. Donald Trump is probably against it because hes trying to thaw relations with Russia and doesnt back an investigation that may be used as a tool to undermine his legitimacy. In any case, there are going to be investigations. There should be. If Russia was attempting to interfere in our elections, thats not okay and there should be consequences for that. All that being said, after our intelligence agencies so badly botched the WMDs in Iraq issue (Slam Dunk), I think people have a right to be a little skeptical until we get more information.

9) Political Troll?@polititrollsWhat is up with the obsession some conservatives have with cuckoldry?

Thats a weird cultural thing that has become popular with the Alt-Right. If you see someone calling someone else a cuck, theres about a 90% chance that youll find something on their timeline praising Hitler or freaking out about Jews. Online, it may seem like a lot of people, but they seem to be a small group of people in the real world.

10) Bae Talese?@elongreen Why don't conservatives seem to give a damn about climate change?

Pete Sikora?@PeteSikora1Why are conservatives so into climate denial when their future is also at stake?

Put simply, were dubious of the evidence that says its occurring and believe much of it is driven by government grants, as opposed to real science. Moreover, many of the plans to fix it seem incredibly expensive, inconvenient or unworkable. Personally, I think we should certainly keep investigating global warming, but it would take much stronger scientific evidence to convince me that it was a problem we need to make major changes to address.

11) dorkasaurus_rex?@dorkasaurus_rex Would love to. What is the conservative view of Trump's infrastructure plan? Good, bad, socialism?

Personally, I think Keynesian economic stimulus has proven to be ineffective time and time again and I dont think itll magically work just because Trump happens to be president. Im guessing a large number of conservatives feel that way. Unfortunately, stimulus plans do tend to be politically popular and both parties exert a lot of pressure on members of Congress to back major initiatives of the president. So, it may pass maybe even with major Democratic help, since they tend to be fans of stimulus spending, but it probably wont accomplish much other than adding to the debt at the end of the day.

12) requiem?@awrichnerWhere is the line for you? what action could Trump take that would ensure you'd fight against him and his supporters?

G$ Climate Sci?@ClimEducator_BGWhere is your red line? What won't you sign off on?

Patrick Fessenbecker?@pfessenbeckerIll bite. What would have to happen to make meaningful conservative opposition to Trump occur?

The final straw that convinced me that I needed to write in Ted Cruz instead of voting for Trump was his public statement saying that we should kill the families of terrorists followed up by him promising that no soldier was going to be allowed to disobey his direct order to do that. In retrospect, that was probably just Trump saying something that he thought made him sound tough followed up with him lashing out in generalized annoyance after he was attacked.

So, that would be a bridge too far for me. Trump is just as bound by the Constitution as any other president and IF he does something that I believe goes outside of that, I think many of us will oppose that policy.

13) Ignatz?????@iggy_uffda Do you still believe Trump's business conflicts won't be a problem after seeing the countries included/excluded in the ban?

So, two separate issues. First of all, I know a lot of people have noted that Trump has done no business with the nations that are facing extreme vetting. On the other hand, as my friend Ed Morrissey has noted, the group of nations he picked make perfect sense, Again: 6 of the 7 are failed or marginal states where Islamist terror networks hold ground. Other is Iran, largest state sponsor of terror.

As to Trumps business conflicts, I do think theyre a problem. After all, even if hes having his kids run his businesses, the companies still have his name on them. Would it be easy to see big spenders pumping money into his business ventures in hopes of potentially gaining favor with Trump? Absolutely.

On the other hand, even as someone who didnt support Trump, I have to admit that asking Trump to sell his entire business empire, especially when a great deal of the value is tied to his name, doesnt necessarily seem reasonable. Additionally, Trump has apparently done all of what he promised to do on the campaign trail which was let his kids take over. Its not a perfect solution, but I dont know that there is one.

14) JC?@JCrock_Free press is fundamental to democracy. So why do R's only trust media that flatters current admin much like state run media?

A free press is fundamental to our republic. Unfortunately, we live in a world where almost every outlet has chosen sides. They hire people who agree with them ideologically and they choose what stories they run or bury based on which side it impacts.

Some of them have different approaches, but at the end of the day Right Wing News =s Breitbart =s Townhall and CNN =s the Washington Post =s the Huffington Post. When conservatives didnt feel like they were getting fair treatment from liberal outfits, they moved on to conservative ones, while liberals were content to get their news from people who largely agreed with them. So, I guess you could say its more like there are TWO state run Medias out there servicing different halves of the population.

15) Matt Needham?@MattNeedham91Why should we allow Bannon to wield power & influence?

There were a lot of questions about Steve Bannon, so it seems appropriate that I discuss him even though its hard to give you a good answer. The reason I say that is that there are a couple of people that I like and respect (Ben Shapiro & Dana Loesch) who believe, with some justification as far as I can tell, that hes not a great guy. On the other hand, I also have friends at Breitbart whove worked with him who say hes a terrific person. So, on a personal level, its hard for me to know what to think. On the other hand, I do know Bannon was extremely successful at Breitbartand apparently, he was an integral part of the team that got Trump elected when almost everyone except true believers thought he was going down in a heap. So, for now, Im giving him the benefit of the doubt.

PS: I think his notorious statement about making Breitbart the platform of the Alt-Right was probably a poorly thought out bit of pandering. In the real world, Breitbart is not a racist publication or an Alt-Right website in any meaningful sense. So, I dont know whats in Steve Bannons heart, but I havent seen any evidence that convinces me that hes a racist, much less a white nationalist.

16) Bill Pieper?@WilliamPieperHow can a conservative square the funding request for the wall with past demands that spending be offset elsewhere?

The majority of the federal governments spending today is on things it shouldnt be doing anyway. On the other hand, the first duties of the government should be protecting us from foreign invaders, securing our border and establishing order. Building a fence is an important part of that. Additionally, if Congress cooperates, it is actually possible to make Mexico pay for the wall via taxing remittances and holding back aid. Many people think thats just an applause line, but it doesnt have to be. Last but not least, the centerpiece of Trumps agenda was promising to build a wall. That produces an enormous amount of pressure on Republicans to support it regardless of how its paid for.

17) Pete Sikora?@PeteSikora1Also, does it bother you that tiny #s of richest people have the same wealth as bottom half of entire world pop?

No, because I dont think income inequality is a particularly meaningful barometer of fairness or economic health.

How does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet having nearly infinite money make my life or yours worse? It doesnt. If anything, the amount of taxes theyre paying and jobs theyre creating are good for the country as a whole. Would we be better off if they didnt exist or were taxed into oblivion so the money could be redistributed? I dont think so. Were better off having them out there doing what theyre doing and thus, inspiring other people to try to match their level of success.

I grew up hearing stories from a father who lived through the Depression. You know, soda pop and peanut butter was a luxury, couldnt afford haircuts, etc. Without question, things have improved across the board for Americans today. Quite a lot actually,

Between 1969 and 2007, incomes for Americans in the bottom fifth of the income distribution rose by 46%, compared with a 63% increase for Americans in the middle fifth.

18) Delll?@DelDink1 Why do conservatives assume that Black people's views on society are a result of brainwashing by the left rather than by our own experience?

I think because a lot of what we hear said doesnt square with our experiences. I grew up in the Deep South, saw almost no racism publicly and heard very little privately. When I did hear it, it mostly came from really old guys who came of age in a different era. Racists definitely exist. Let me repeat that; racists definitely exist. Are they a common thing or are they largely pathetic Cletuses along with a few pseudo-intellectuals and some doddering old guys who cant get their heads out of the fifties? For the most part, I think its the latter.

Additionally, almost every conservative alive now has experience with being called a racist for no good reason. When you dont bear any ill will towards any race and youre constantly being accused of it on the flimsiest of grounds, you start to believe theres some going on other than people just recognizing reality.

19) John Hare?@johnahareIs there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern?

Whichever way you go, there are issues. The Electoral College was intended to force candidates to spend time in small states and it does this very well. I also believe its probably a better system overall than going the popular vote route.

For one thing, going by the popular vote would cause the candidates to spend most of their time in states like California, Texas, New York and Florida. Additionally, can you imagine the nightmare that would have ensued in the 2000 election between Gore and Bush if that election were decided by the national popular vote? You could have had lawsuits in every state and it may have taken months to hash it all out.

Additionally, keep in mind that the popular vote has only diverged from the Electoral College 4 times in history. Moreover, many liberals may assume that Gore and Clinton would have been elected if the popular vote were the deciding factor, but thats not necessarily true. Keep in mind that the type of campaign run by the Republican in those elections would have been entirely different if the popular vote were the deciding factor.

Last but not least, if and when the Democrats take Texas in a presidential election, you will immediately see both sides flip on whether the popular vote should be the deciding factor.

20) Chris?@howlingchris Why are you more comfortable with banning foreigners than banning assault weapons?

Two reasons.

First, we have a Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to own firearms. Getting beyond that to assault weapons in particular, they have a bad rap but the numbers dont match the hype. You dont have to believe me because even the New York Times admits that its true.

The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles dont kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

As to foreigners, like many conservatives, I believe that whether we allow someone to come into the United States is entirely dependent on whether it benefits us or not. So tourists, diplomats? Sure. Immigrants who come to the United States, embrace our country and add to the tax base? Yes. Immigrants who come here and take advantage of our welfare system? No. Illegal immigrants? No. People who are probably fine on the whole, but are much more likely than average to have a few terrorists in their ranks? At a minimum, they need more vetting. Again, the whole point of allowing someone to come to this country should be to benefit the people who already live here.

Read the original post:
Answering 20 Questions Liberals Wanted to Ask a Conservative - Townhall