Mediaboss Marketing

Getty Images

(JTA) An influential progressive political action committee denounced a bipartisan measuretargeting boycotts of Israel and its settlements.

MoveOn.org, an influential liberal public policy advocacy group and PAC that raises money for progressive political candidates, criticized the Israel Anti-Boycott Act on Twitter.

Regardless how you feel about BDS, Congress must reject action to criminalize free speech and peaceful protest. The Democrats in House and Senate must say no to H.R. 1697/S. 720, MoveOn.org tweeted, referring to the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Free speech and peaceful protest are integral to democracy, the group added.

The bill, introduced in March in both the House and the Senate,would expand 1970s-era laws that make illegal compliance with boycotts of Israel sponsored by governments laws inspired at the time by the Arab League boycott of Israel, to include boycotts backed by international organizations.Those adhering to boycotts would be subject to fines.

It also targets efforts by the United Nations and the European Union to distinguish between products manufactured in Israel and West Bank settlements.

See the original post here:
Moveon.org Calls On Progressives To KIll Anti-BDS Bill - Forward

Arnold Ahlert Jul. 20, 2017

Since the principles undergirding Americas founding are beyond mortal law, they are beyond the reach of the progressives and the administrative state. Hence the war on the founding values, beliefs, and traditions was and is intended to, among other things, stop legitimate inquiry into and teaching of first principles or purposes. They are to be made intellectually and culturally off-limits. Consequently, what is left is only one acceptable and overarching agenda the progressive agenda. Mark Levin, from his book, Rediscovering Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism

Perhaps nothing is more toxic than a progressive ideology that has become the default position that millions of unwilling people are expected to oblige. And nothing facilitates that forced subservience more than political correctness.

Yet what, precisely, is political correctness? It is totalitarianism promoted as morality.

Thus one is not merely wrong for challenging the progressive status quo on same-sex marriage, transgenderism, white privilege, illegal immigration, global warming, hate speech, or a host of other leftist causes. One is evil, and the appropriate label defining what particular evil is applied: homophobic, transphobic, racist, nativist, anti-science, fascist, etc.

Labeling one as evil as opposed to wrong is critical. Wrong leaves room for debate. Evil makes debate unnecessary and entrenches the progressive default position as a result.

It is an ever-expanding entrenchment. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system, insists Northeastern University psychology professor Lisa Feldman Barrett. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain even kill neurons and shorten your life.

What to do? The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldnt be acceptable on campus and in civil society, Barrett asserts. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.

And who gets to define which is which? There is a difference between permitting a culture of casual brutality and entertaining an opinion you strongly oppose, she states. The former is a danger to a civil society (and to our health); the latter is the lifeblood of democracy. Thus, Barrett insists, its reasonable to completely prevent provocateur and hatemonger Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus because hes abusive, while political scientist Charles Murray is acceptable because you might find his view to be repugnant and misguided, but its only offensive.

In other words, what Barrett and her fellow progressives define as abusive must be rendered intellectually and culturally off-limits.

Attacks on the First Amendment are merely the tip of the progressive spear. Reality itself must also be aligned to suit progressive sensibilities. In Wales, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) is demanding that higher education teachers undergo gender diversity training, warning that the failure to use proper pronouns to address non-binary persons could precipitate legal action.

Jasper Williams, LGBT+ officer for NUS Wales, reveals the unbridled arrogance behind the effort. She singles out a teacher who couldnt get anything that wasnt male or female, telling BBC News he made comments making it sound like non-binary genders [are] made up and like a fantasy idea.

Thus by implication, biological and chromosomal realities are now fantasy ideas that must be rendered inoperable by force of law. The same force of law the Obama administration unilaterally imposed on schools around the entire nation when it insisted Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gave transgender students the right to use restrooms and locker rooms matching their gender identities using the threat of withholding federal education funds as a hammer to enforce its guidelines. The Trump administration rescinded the directive, but there is no doubt progressives will reinstate it if they regain power.

As far as progressives are concerned, the transgender science is settled.

And theyve got the documentation to prove it. The evidence is clear the American Left succeeded in lobbying the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to eliminate some of the sexual identity disorders from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), columnist Mark A. Hewitt explains.

The end game is also clear. If you get enough votes, he adds, you can negate, soften, redefine, and ultimately legitimize any of the mental disorders.

Toward what end? To achieve a radical break from Americas heritage, Levin asserts, further explaining progressive ideology is an elitist-driven counterrevolution to the American Revolution, in which the sovereignty of the individual, natural law, natural rights, and the civil society built on a foundation of thousands of years of enlightened thinking and human experience would be drastically altered and even abandoned for an ideological agenda broadly characterized as historical progress.

As Victor Davis Hanson explains, such progress has brought the nation to a dangerous climax in which the consequences of globalization, the growth of the deep state, changing demographics, open borders, the rise of a geographic apartheid between blue and red states, and the institutionalization of a permanent coastal political and culture elite and the reaction to all that are tearing apart the country.

And yet again, the progressive default position dominates, irrespective of the consequences. It does not matter that the ossified European social model does not work and leads to collective decline in the standard of living, Hanson states. The world knows that from seeing the implosion of Venezuela and Cuba, or the gradual decline of the EU and the wreckage of its Mediterranean members, or the plight of blue states such as Illinois and California.

Despite this plethora of evidence, Hanson believes the near-religious idea of egalitarianism progressives cherish has all but won the war against liberty.

Hanson is somewhat in error. Egalitarianism is a means to an end. The end is suppression of the masses by all-knowing elitists who grant themselves the near-religious power of enforcing equality of outcome and enjoying the unequal bounty engendered by their noble tyranny. Elitists who come to a unanimous conclusion regarding a historical record replete with ossified social models, collective declines and societal wreckage:

The wrong people were in charge.

And the war is not over. Far from progress, the trajectory of progressives toward indolence, malice, violence, and unrestrained sexuality is as old as society, columnist E.M. Cadwaladr asserts. It is just paganism with cell phones added.

It is paganism that may ultimately be fatal. Through some process of increasing entropy, failed memory management, or unanticipated side effects, the status quo the one dominated by the Left is collapsing, writes PJ Medias Richard Fernandez.

Fernandez attributes that collapse to a higher power. God killed the Left, he asserts. Of course one could legitimately use some other term. Reality, consequences, the laws of nature, economics, even truth will do.

So will terms like natural law, natural rights and civil society, all of which will prove far more enduring than progressive ideology.

Why? Because only God is God, Cadwaladr explains. Politicians, pundits, and opinion makers are not.

Thus, progressive efforts to create utopia are nothing more than monumental hubris. And when that hubris is rejected by a horde of deplorables, it explains why so many formerly tolerant progressives are now full of anger and hate and why Liberty and first principles will ultimately prevail.

Go here to see the original:
Defeating Progressive Ideology - Patriot Post

THE TICKER

Then-PresidentObama hugs then-Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)after signing the Dodd-Frank law on July 21, 2010. (AP/Charles Dharapak)

When it comes to Wall Street regulations, congressional Democrats have spent the year playing defense. But as the seventh anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act approaches Friday, a coalition of progressive groups is pushing the party to get back on offense.

The groups including major labor unions, lefty activists, faith-based organizations and consumer advocates, organized under the banner of"Take on Wall Street" aim to crank up grassroots heat on elected Democrats. They want party leaders, though deep in the minority, to revive some of the get-tough measures they campaigned on last year, when they expected to win at least the White House.

The coalitions agenda remains a work in progress. So far it includes proposals to close the carried interest loophole for investment managers; impose a financial transaction tax of .03 percent on most trades; end the deductibility of executive bonuses; revive the Glass-Steagall laws separation between commercial and investment banking; and slow the revolving door between industry and government.

None of those ideas is new. And the coalition plans to build on them, says Shane Larson, the Communications Workers of Americas legislative director, whos coordinating the coalitions efforts.

It plans to get started now, since the collapse of the Obamacare repeal drive on Capitol Hill is giving way to a debate over a tax code overhaul. Larson says the coalition will start a conversation about Wall Street paying its fair share this week by firing up an email list that reaches hundreds of thousands of progressive voters.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The push comes as Democrats begin to reconsider a governing vision. The party is still reeling from its shock November loss, and leaders are divided over what their message should be as the midterm campaign season swings into view.

A Washington Post-ABC poll released over the weekendshows just 37 percent of voters believe Democrats stand for something, while 52 percent say the party just stands against Trump.

Coalition officials think an anti-Wall Street agenda could help solve that problem. A poll released Tuesday found broad bipartisan support for stricter industry regulation. The survey, commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform and the Center for Responsible Lending, shows 78 percent of respondents in favor of tougher rules and enforcement on the sector, versus 11 percent who say practices have changed enough that no more restrictions are needed.

To us, its crystal clear, Larson says, adding coalition members have been frustrated that Democrats havent yet devoted enough attention to kitchen-table concerns. Democrats are focusing more on Russia than core economic issues that our members really want to hear people talking about.

Democrats say they have only a limited ability to steer the conversation these days in the face of a news avalanche thats so far consisted mostly of Russia revelations and the health-care debate (and the fact they don't control Congress or the White House). Russia is a big deal in the news for reasons that are beyond anyones control besides Donald Trump, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), deputy chair of the national party, told me. And we have been trying to protect this country from having their health-care stripped away. This has been the most salient issue thats been in front of the Congress.

Ellison, who also sits on the House Financial Services Committee, says Democrats will be talking more about the need to tighten the screws on big financial institutions. That would mark a shift for the party. Despite running just last year on a platform promising aggressive new regulations, Democrats have split this year over simply defending the status quo and endorsing tweaks to ease the industrys burden. Says one party strategist in favor of a tougher anti-industry stance, "Some cover from these groups would be helpful."

MONEY ON THE HILL

House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.)(EPA/JIM LO SCALZO)

A budget resolution now represents the key to unlocking what remains of President Trump's economic agenda. The House Budget Committee today is proceeding with a markup of its spending blueprint, a measure if adopted that would allow Republicans to pass a tax-code overhaul without any Democratic votes (which, of course, didn't work out so well for them onObamacare). AP's Andrew Taylor reports: "But it also proposes trillions of dollars in cuts to the social safety net and other domestic programs and puts congressional Republicans at odds with Trump over cutting Medicare. It also would sharply boost military spending... Unclear, however, is whether GOP leaders can get the budget measure through the House. Conservatives want a larger package of spending cuts to accompany this falls tax overhaul bill, while moderates are concerned cuts to programs such as food stamps could go too far."

Congressional reporters and commentators were quick to note Tuesday that the measure faces long odds, and Republicans don't have any better options.

From Politicos Rachael Bade:

From Roll Call's Jennifer Shutt:

Author and writer David Dayen:

From Politicos Sarah Ferris:

Roll Call's Lindsey McPherson has this good rundown of the possible paths forward for a Republican budget resolution. There could be some fireworks at the markup today, especially if Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) follows through with this threat to offer a poison-pill amendment targeting a border adjustment tax.

Financial markets likewise are skeptical that the Trump team will be able to deliver on the sweeping tax overhaul it's promised. The dollar tumbled to a 10-month low after the health-care bill's implosion stoked new fears among investors about the prospects for the administration's economic agenda,Lisa Twaronite of Reuters reports. And/but: Wall Street analysts are still holding out hope for a more targeted package of tax cuts, CNBC's Patti Domm reports.

Meanwhile, the Obamacarerepealdebacle may have taught the Trump administration there are limits to what it can accomplish, even with nominal control of both chambers of Congress. The White House is trimming its ambitions for the tax code overhaul it hopes to take up next. Administration officials are now privately talking about a corporate tax rate between 20 and 25 percent, Politico's Josh Dawsey and company report. That's a major move from the 15 percent rate that Trump has talked up publicly and a bow to the reality that the math and politics of a tax code rewrite are exceedingly difficult, despite what Trump and his top officials have said.

TRUMP TRACKER

President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping meet on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, July 8, 2017. (REUTERS/Saul Loeb, Pool)

Trump is long on tough talk and short on action when it comes to trade. That's the conclusion Chinese governementofficials have drawn from his first six months in office, a period they entered fearing what the new president might do to make good on his China-focused saber rattling on trade during the campaign. The Wall Street Journal's Jacob Schlesinger reports: "But Mr. Trump has since dropped his threats to impose drastic penalties against Chinese importsan across-the-board tariff, or a formal charge of currency manipulationand has so far focused on small market-opening agreements, instead..U.S. business groups, which had originally braced for the hostilities Mr. Wang referred to, are now growing worried the Trump administration may not press China hard enough for broad reforms they consider necessary to pry Chinas economy open." The two sides meet in Washington today for economic talks.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchinand Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross say they want to see some "concrete" stepsby the Chinese to open their markets. Steve Holland of Reuters reports: "Ross said some initial deals announced in April, as part of a 100-day economic plan aimed at reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China, were a 'good start.'These include the sale of U.S. beef in China for the first time in 14 years and commitments to open up narrow areas of China's financial services sector, such as credit card services and credit ratings agencies. Some of these agreements are yet to be implemented, and there has been little evidence of progress on thornier issues, such as excess capacity in China's steel and aluminum sectors."

Mexico and Canada likely see the early record of the Trump team differently. The Trump administration on Monday released its goals for renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, and it includes what my colleague Ana Swanson calls some "fighting words." Here she walks through four points in particular from the 17-page document that the governmentsof our largest export markets won't be happy about.

This feels like another unforced error on the Russia front by the White House:"Trump had undisclosed hour-long meeting with Putin at G-20 summit." Karen DeYoung and Phil Rucker report: "After his much-publicized two-and-a-quarter-hour meeting early this month with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Germany, President Trump chatted informally with the Russian leader for up to an additional hour later the same day. The second meeting, undisclosed at the time, took place at a dinner for G-20 leaders, a senior administration official said. At some point during the meal, Trump left his own seat to occupy a chair next to Putin. Trump approached alone, and Putin was attended only by his official interpreter."

The White House announced Tuesday that Trump will nominate former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman to serve as ambassador to Russia. Huntsman, a Republican, served as Obama's first ambassador to China.

POCKET CHANGE

JP Morgan Chase Chief Executive Jamie Dimon walks next to Chairman and Chief Executive of the Goldman Sachs Group Lloyd C. Blankfein at the White House after a meeting with President Obama on March 27, 2009. (REUTERS/Larry Downing)

Goldman Sachs's bond-trading unit turned in its second bad quarter in a row,prompting a sell-off and raising new questions about the firm's strategy. The Wall Street Journal's Liz Hoffman: "Goldman, once the fiercest trading shop on Wall Street, reported a 40% decline in its fixed-income trading business that lands it at the back of the pack among big U.S. banks to report quarterly results. The results will likely amplify criticism that Goldman hasnt responded quickly enough to dramatic changes in trading trends and market conditions. A rejiggering of the divisions leadership last fall failed to jolt the desk from its malaise, which culminated in having its revenue surpassed in the first quarter by Morgan Stanley, Goldmans rival historically weaker in debt trading."

Morgan Stanley, meanwhile, beat expectations, posting a $1.76 billion second-quarter profit.

Big U.S. banks are starting to pay corporations, financial firms and rich people more to hold on to their deposits, but ordinary consumers will have to wait longer to see more than a few pennies for every $100 they stash in their accounts.

Reuters

Chipotle confirmed that several customers who ate at a location in Sterling, Virginia, reported norovirus symptoms.

CNBC

THE REGULATORS

The Securities and Exchange Commission buildingin Washington. (AP/Andrew Harnik)

Trump is set to nominateformer Senate Republican aide Hester Maria Peirceto the Securities and Exchange Commission. Peirce, who was nominated by then-President Obama but stalled out in the Senate, is likely to face stiff opposition from Democrats. Eric Beech of Reuters reports: "Liberal firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren is highly critical of Peirce, who is a member of the Federalist Society, an organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Peirce could be instrumental in carrying out Trump's plan to reform regulations imposed after the 2007-09 financial crisis and recession. She recently edited and contributed to a book published by the right-leaning Mercatus Center that called for totally restructuring the country's financial regulation." She'd fill one of two empty slots on the five-member SEC.

Executives that represent Wall Street interests pitched ideas on Tuesday about ways to scale back securities regulations that they blamed for stifling the market for initial public offerings.

Reuters

"If you see Cohn go to the Fed, to me, that's an escape path for him and that means that Goldman has given up on the Trump administration," Chris Whalen says.

CNBC

DAYBOOK

Today

Coming Up

THE FUNNIES

The Posts Tom Toles says Republicans werent exactly leveling with you about health care all along

BULL SESSION

Here's what you need to know about the House GOP budget plan:

Washington reacts after the collapse of the GOP health-care bill:

The Post's Glenn Kessler explains:No spending cuts to Medicaid? Then no tax cuts either:

Fans of 'goat yoga' move to a different bleat:

More here:
The Finance 202: Progressives revive attacks on Wall Street in health care's wake - Washington Post

UPDATE: Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour has responded to Tapper, looping him in with her "alt-right" attackers.

***Original Post***

The Women's March, part of the "Resistance" that has emerged in the era of President Trump, has a knack for championing convicted cop killers. The group, which recently went on a 17-mile march in Washington, D.C. against the NRA, declared itslove for Assata Shakur on Twitter.

Shakur, also known as Joanne Deborah Chesimard, is currently on the FBI's Most Wanted list for murdering a New Jersey police officer in 1977. She escaped prison two years later and is now hiding in Cuba. What a perfect person to celebrate!

Condemning cop killers is something upon which I hope both Republicans and Democrats can find consensus. Why, then, CNN's Jake Tapper wondered, aren't any progressives speaking out against the march?

When a social media user challenged Tapper to suggest that most people believe Chesimard to be innocent, he replied with a simple, "nope," and let this FBI document do the talking.

Nevertheless, the Women's March activists are doubling down on their praise of Chesimard. Sophie Ellman-Golan, who serves as the deputy head of socials and outreach for the group, responded to Tapper's tweet with a sarcastic message that read, "Right, because the FBI has a history of being really fair to well-known Black activists." The Women's March Twitter account also defended its initial tweet celebrating Shakur's birthday by sending out a 20-tweet explainer, as documented by the Free Beacon.

Social media users who didn't buy the Women's March's explanation thanked Tapper for exposing the group's radicalism.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined Tapper in his outrage. "Unbelievable that anyone would idolize a cop killer. Chesimard belongs in jail, & #Cuba should return her to the US so she can face justice," he tweeted.

Hopefully some of his Democratic colleagues will echo his calls.

Oh, and it's always worth mentioning that Women's March organizer Linda Sarsour once called for jihad against President Trump.

Even The New York Times Noticed the Dems' Obstructionism

Original post:
Tapper: Why Aren't Progressives Calling Out the Women's March ... - Townhall

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and his main challenger City Councilor Tito Jackson will attend two separate community conversations in Jamaica Plain this week. And you have the opportunity to ask the candidates questions before the events.

The JP Progressives are hosting the two public conversations: Tito Jackson on Tuesday at 7 pm and Mayor Walsh on Thursday at 7:30 pm. It is free to attend either event, but registration is requested. Please register here for the conversation with Jackson, and register here for the conversation with Walsh. Both events will be at the First Baptist Churchs community room (633 Centre St.).

District 7 City Councilor Tito Jackson announced his candidacy for Boston mayor on Jan. 12, 2017 outside of the Haley House Cafe.

Our neighborhood and our city has an important decision to make: what issues will we prioritize, and what solutions will we work on, over the next four years? said an email blast from JP Progressives about the events. For so many challenges from housing and education to racial and economic justice voting for the mayor of Boston is our biggest opportunity to improve our city.While national politics may dominate the news, the mayors race is just around the corner. On Tuesday and Thursday, its JPs chance to show up and make our voices heard!

Mayor Walsh addresses the audience with JP resident Heidi Schork, director of the Mayors Mural Crew looking on.

And if you have a question for either candidate you can actually post them in advance or support others questions by clicking here using the following codes: #2687 for Tito Jackson and #H599 for Marty Walsh.

By posting your questions and voting for the questions you care the most about, help ensure that we are discussing the issues of most concern to theprogressivecommunity, said the JP Progressives.

Read more from the original source:
JP Progressives Hosting Community Conversations with Tito Jackson and Mayor Walsh - Jamaica Plain News