(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Grass-roots movements can be the life and death of political leaders.

Its a well-worn story now about how John A. Boehner, then House minority leader, joined a rising star in his caucus, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, in April 2009 for one of the first major tea party protests in the California Republicans home town of Bakersfield.

A little more than six years later, after they surfed that wave into power, the movement consumed both of them. Boehner was driven out of the House speakers office and McCarthys expected succession fell apart, leaving him stuck at the rank of majority leader.

Democrats are well aware of that history as they try to tap the energy of the roiling liberal activists who have staged rallies and marches in the first three weeks of Donald Trumps presidency.

What if they can fuse these protesters, many of whom have never been politically active, into the liberal firmament? What if a new tea party is arising, with the energy and enthusiasm to bring out new voters and make a real difference at the polls, starting with the 2018 midterm elections?

(Alice Li,Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)

The womens marches that brought millions onto streets across the country the day after Trumps inauguration spurred organically through social media opened Democratic leaders eyes to the possibilities.

With a 10-day recess beginning next weekend, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has instructed her members to hold a day of action in their districts, including town halls focused on saving the Affordable Care Act. The following weekend, Democratic senators and House members will hold protests across the country, hoping to link arms with local activists who have already marched against Trump.

[Swarming crowds and hostile questions are the new normal at GOP town halls]

It was important to us to make sure that we reach out to everyone we could, to visit with them, to keep them engaged, to engage those that maybe arent engaged, Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (D-N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters at a Democratic retreat in Baltimore that ended Friday. The trick is to keep them aiming their fire at Republicans and Trump, not turning it into a circular firing squad targeting fellow Democrats.

Now we want people to run for office, to volunteer and to vote, Lujn added.

[Schumers dilemma: Satisfying the base while protecting the minority]

Its too early to tell which direction this movement will take, but there are some similarities to the early days of the conservative tea party.

In early 2009, as unemployment approached 10percent and the home mortgage industry collapsed, the tea party emerged in reaction to the Wall Street bailout. It grew throughout the summer of 2009 as the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pushed toward passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Many of the protesters were newly engaged, politically conservative but not active with their local GOP and often registered as independents. Their initial fury seemed directed exclusively at Democrats, given that they controlled all the levers of power in Washington at the time; the protesters famously provoked raucous showdowns at Democratic town halls over the August 2009 recess.

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumers first brush with the anti-Trump liberal movement came in a similar fashion to Boehner and McCarthys Bakersfield foray in 2009. Originally slated to deliver a brief speech at the womens march in New York, Schumer instead spent 41/2 hours on the streets there, talking to people he had never met. By his estimate, 20percent of them did not vote in November.

That, however, is where Schumer must surely hope the similarities end.

By the spring and summer of 2010, the tea party rage shifted its direction toward Republican primary politics. One incumbent GOP senator lost his primary, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) defeated the Kentucky establishment favorite, and three other insurgents knocked off other seasoned Republicans in Senate primaries (only to then lose in general elections).

One force that helped the tea party grow was a collection of Washington-based groups with some wealthy donors, notably the Koch-funded Americans For Prosperity, who positioned themselves as the self-declared leaders of the movement. For the next few years, they funded challenges to Republican incumbents, sparking a civil war that ran all the way through the 2016 GOP presidential primaries.

Boehner could never match the rhetorical ferocity of the movement. He was perpetually caught in a trap of overpromising and under-delivering. Republicans never repealed Obamacare, as they derisively called the ACA, and they could not stop then-President Obamas executive orders on immigration. Boehner resigned in October 2015.

Democrats want and need parallel outside groups to inject money and organization into their grass roots. There are signs it is happening: The thousands of activists who protested at a series of raucous town halls hosted by Republican congressmen over the past week were urged to action in part by sophisticated publicity campaigns run by such professional liberal enterprises as the Indivisible Guide, a blueprint for lobbying Congress written by former congressional staffers, and Planned Parenthood Action.

[Should House Democrats write off rural congressional districts?]

What is less clear is whether such energy and resources will remain united with Democratic leaders or will be turned on them, as happened with the tea party and the Republican establishment, if the activist base grows frustrated with the pace of progress.

There have been some signs of liberal disgruntlement toward Democratic leaders. Pelosi and Schumer (D-N.Y.) were jeered by some in a crowd of more than 1,000 that showed up at the Supreme Court two weeks ago to protest Trumps executive order travel ban. Marchers showed up outside Schumers home in Brooklyn, demanding he filibuster everything and complaining that he supported Trumps Cabinet members involved in national security.

But there are two key differences between the conservative and liberal movements: their funding, and their origins. Some anti-establishment liberal groups have feuded with leaders, but they are poorly funded compared with their conservative counterparts. And the tea party came of age in reaction not only to Obama but, before that, to what the movement considered a betrayal by George W. Bushs White House and a majority of congressional Republicans when they supported the 2008 Wall Street bailout.

There is no similar original sin for Democrats, as the liberal protests have grown as a reaction to Trump, not some failing by Schumer and Pelosi.

Schumer remains unconcerned about the few protesters who are angry at Democratic leaders. I think the energys terrific. Do some of them throw some brickbats and things? Sure, it doesnt bother me, Schumer said in a recent interview.

How the liberal activists respond to early defeats may be the next sign of which direction the movement takes. Their demand that Schumer block Trumps Cabinet is impossible to satisfy, because a simple majority can confirm these picks. All Schumer can do is drag out the debate, which he has done to an unprecedented degree.

The stakes will be even higher for the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, whose lifetime appointment still requires a 60-vote supermajority to reach a final confirmation vote. A Trump victory on Gorsuch might deflate the liberal passion, and some think that was the main ingredient missing for Democrats in 2016.

We just didnt have the emotional connection, Pelosi told reporters in Baltimore. He had the emotional connection.

Link:

A new, liberal tea party is forming. Can it last without turning against Democrats? - Washington Post

New York Times

Since When Is Being a Woman a Liberal Cause? - The New York ... New York Times Who gets to define what it means to be pro-women? The left has staked its claim. The public face of resistance to President Trump began with a women's march. and more »

Link:

Since When Is Being a Woman a Liberal Cause? - The New York ... - New York Times

Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump walk down the West Wing Colonnade following a bilateral meeting between Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe February 10, 2017 in Washington, D.C.(Photo: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Liberals are so determined to vanquish all things Trump that they risk losing the one friend they may have in this new White House.

Ivanka Trump, the new presidents oldest daughter and most trusted personal adviser, is as stylish a first family member as the country has seen in a while. She turned her fashion sense into a clothing line that is sold in many of the nations top stores, including Nordstrom.

Or at least it was. The sight of Ivanka Trumps name on the garments labels so triggered the derangement of her fathers haters that they demanded the upscale retailer rid the clothing from its racks, or face boycott.

Boycotts are the favorite weapon of the resistance movement. Anyone who suggests affinity for Donald Trump or cooperates with his administration or fails to speak out against him on command (see Tom Brady) faces being ostracized or having their livelihoods threatened and their names smeared.

The lefts demand for conformity in loathing Trump is creating a blacklist to rival that of Joe McCarthys Red Scare.

So Ivanka Trumps fancy dresses are a natural target. Its not the first time the first daughter has been villainized. Shortly after the election, she and her children were shouted off a commercial plane by rude, self-righteous wackos.

Ivanka, though, like her father has donated to several Democrats in the past, is not quite a true liberal she endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012. But shes a far sight left of some of Trumps more ideological counselors.

Like Trump himself, shes a product of the New York social scene, meaning shes spent more time with liberals than with conservatives, tempering her views on social issues.

She and her husband, White House adviser Jared Kushner, reportedly killed an attempt by Trumps inner circle to rescind an Obama executive order on LGBT rights. That influence was also evident in Trumps acceptance speech in Cleveland, when he pledged support for gay and transgender individuals in an arena filled with roaring Republicans.

Ivanka also is pushing her dad to attack the wage gap for women, and to develop a parental leave policy. And she signaled her views on climate change by inviting former Vice President Al Gore and actor/activist Leonardo DiCaprio to Trump Tower for post-election meetings on the Paris accord and other global warming concerns.

Conservatives worry about Ivanka, seeing her as a liberal Svengali too close to the ear of a president who already stretches the definition of conservatism. Youd think at a time in Washington when they have so little influence, the left would find opportunity in courting someone who might carry their concerns into the Oval Office.

But liberals cant see past their blind fury. To embrace Ivanka as a possible ally would mean letting go of a bit of their malice toward Trump.

So if you want an Ivanka Trump original, dont look in tony clothing stores. I thought about ordering one online, as I did a sandwich last week from a D.C. deli being boycotted because its owner shook Trumps hand. But the red lace sheath I fancied was not available in plus sizes.

nfinley@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2kye3fk

Read the original post:

Finley: Left bites Ivanka's liberal hand - The Detroit News

In the 1990s, a serious malady appeared on the American public square in which citizens were driven over the edge by their antipathy for incumbent presidents. It came to be known as the presidential-derangement syndrome and over the course of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama administrations its victims grew in number. But while it was a given that whoever won last Novembers election would have one named after them, we really had no idea what we were in for once Donald Trump moved into the White House. As weve seen this past week, presidential paranoia has not only gone mainstream in terms of the public, its now found a home in the mainstream media.

Though it was limited at first to the fever swamps of American politics where some on the right first imagined that black helicopters were about to swoop in and steal their freedom or that the Clintons were operating a drug cartel, the derangement virus adapted to the changing political environment in the years that followed. Those deranged by Bush were less marginal than the Clinton victims but shared the belief that the 43rd president was somehow a front for a vast conspiracy and not only blamed him for lying the country into war but viewed the entire national-security response to 9/11 as a put-up job intended to mask the theft of liberty.

As awful as the Bush version was, the Obama-derangement syndrome was in many ways even worse as the 44th presidents citizenship was questioned along with his religious faith and anything else about him that anyone could think of. Though Obamas liberal policies and power grabs were bad enough from a conservative point of view, some on the right preferred to instead spend their energy pondering the authenticity of his birth certificate (see Trump, Donald) or whether or not he was an Islamist mole. We can blame the Internet and the rise of social media for the more pervasive nature of Obama conspiracy theories but even that dispiriting spectacle may turn out to be insignificant when compared to the psychological torment Trump has inspired among not merely the far Left but also mainstream liberals.

Anyone with a Facebook account already knows that many of our liberal friends are convinced that Trump is, at best, setting the U.S. up for a rerun of the last days of Weimar Germany. At worst, they see him as not merely a billionaire with a thin skin but as the mastermind of a scheme aimed at replacing democracy with a dictatorship that will repress women and minorities.

When liked, shared, and echoed in comments on social media, that sort of thinking is a form of mass group therapy for those who still cant believe Trump won the election. But its also what helped to motivate the counter-inaugural marches and the rest of the reaction to the new administration that increasingly calls itself a resistance rather than mere political opposition.

That there is no more proof of a coming Trump coup than there was for past derangement-syndrome theories is immaterial. What matters is that growing numbers of liberals are operating under the assumption that Trump isnt merely an inappropriate figure or wrong on the issues; they think he is really plotting to destroy democracy.

One would hope that mainstream, liberal publications would, as serious conservative journalists did during the Obama presidency, act as a check on this sort of foolishness. But the fever pitch of angst about every one of Trumps appointees and the over-the-top denunciations of his immigration orders in mainstream publications like the New York Times and on cable-news networks have only served to reinforce the tendency to view the debate through a conspiratorial mindset.

But on Thursday the Washington Post went a step further. In his discussion of the controversy over Judge Neal Gorsuchs reported comments about Trumps criticism of judges, Chris Cillizza used The Fix column to probe the question of whether the entire kerfuffle what Gorsuch said and the reaction from both the president and Kellyanne Conway was a charade.

While its true that one can argue that Gorsuchs statement might make him more palatable to Democratic senators (though the odds that more than one or two will resist the party bases demand for an all-out war and filibuster of Trumps choice for the High Court are minimal), Cillizzas reasoning was based in a common thread of liberal thought these days: the belief that Trump is operating off a master plan only he can see and that the chaos of his administrations early days is actually careful orchestration. Trump fooled the country during the campaign and whats to say hes not doing it again now?

The conceit of the piece was that if you dig a little deeper this relatively minor sidebar to both the confirmation and the litigation over Trumps executive orders the conspiracy theories begin to seem, well, not so conspiratorial. Though the supposed proof for this is entirely circumstantial, Cillizza insisted we couldnt rule out the possibility that the ensuing controversy was all part of his [Trumps] broader plan. The column crossed the line between D.C. gossip and a bow in the direction of the social-media paranoia that is driving the anger of what is no longer a fringe element of the Democratic party.

Once even the gatekeepers of responsible liberal opinion begin to see hidden agendas everywhere then it is fair to ask whether the extremism and paranoia of the anti-Trump camp is matching or exceeding the bad judgment being exhibited by the White House. We cant know where this will lead as liberal hysteria and Trumpian contempt for political norms compete in a race to the bottom of the barrel. But what we can be sure of is that this derangement syndrome is already farmore serious than those that afflicted critics of Clinton, Bush, and Obama and is bound to get even worse over the next four years.

Jonathan S. Tobin is a contributing writer to National Review Online. Follow him on Twitter @jonathans_tobin.

Read the original:

The Paranoid Style of Anti-Trump Politics - National Review

Posted February 12, 2017 19:51:12

The success of the Liberal Party's preference deal with One Nation in WA could be determined by how many support staff are available to hand out how-to-vote cards on the day, according to a political analyst.

"In order to know what you're supposed to do with your preferences, what you need to do is go to someone handing out a how-to-vote card and find the order for this," said Emeritus Professor David Black.

"In the Legislative Council it's completely different. As soon as you vote any party ticket, the preferences will flow in the pre-arranged order, which that party has lodged."

Professor Black said it was likely the Liberal Party, with its larger base of volunteers, would need to help hand out One Nation how-to-vote cards on election day.

"In a difficult election for the Liberal Party, if they can get some kind of deal which works and an adequate number of people available to hand out how-to-vote cards, then it could be a crucial fact in an election which could be very, very tight," he said.

"The impact of preference distribution in the Lower House will be crucially affected by the extent by which the parties can provide the staff at the polling booths to make this happen."

Professor Black said it appeared One Nation could receive a significant primary vote in WA's March election.

"We know that in the previous election when this happened their preferences went against sitting members in the Liberal Party, which suffered," he said.

"In a very difficult election for the Liberal Party this is one obvious way [the Liberals] can see of trying to boost their chances by having a party that's likely to get a pretty strong primary vote more likely to give preferences towards the Liberal Party than against."

"The Labor Party, to win the election, has to probably win 11 to 12 seats or more. If they [the Liberals] can save two, three or four seats, that can make all the difference."

Professor Black described the National party as an election wildcard.

"In the end, what their votes do, how well they do, what happens in places like the Pilbara because of the mining tax and so on, which party benefits is very much up in the air and that just makes it an even more complicated election than we'd otherwise have," he said.

"In order for the Liberals to lose, the Labor Party has to have absolutely everything going right."

Professor Black said the Labor Party appeared to be a in a slightly stronger position, but at the same time they needed to win a lot of seats.

"It's an election that the Liberals, according to the polls, are facing a very, very real prospect of losing," he said.

"But they are confronted by this situation, where for a variety of reasons, One Nation has re-emerged from the clouds and all the opinion polls suggest they're going to get a very substantial portion of the vote."

Professor Black said there could also be some retaliation from the WA Nationals, who could direct their preferences elsewhere.

Topics: elections, liberals, one-nation, polls, wa

Read this article:

What the Liberal-One Nation preference deal could mean at the ballot box - ABC Online

The opportunities were few and far between during the first meeting.

But on Friday night, the Hays High School boys basketball team had enough chances to make a difference.

Only problem was the Indians couldnt convert on those opportunities down the stretch in a 43-42 loss to WAC foe Liberal at the HHS gym.

We had layups and free throws that could have won the game, said HHS coach Rick Keltner. We also made some layups and free throws that put us in position. I think maybe we can get a little more identity of what we can do.

The Indians, coming off a drubbing at the hands of Salina Central a day earlier, were facing a team Friday night in Liberal that had won handily in January on the Redskins home floor, 70-42.

And it looked as though Liberal (14-2 overall, 4-1 WAC) would run away with a victory again in the third quarter as the Redskins lead grew to 11 points on two occasions.

But after trailing 30-19, Hays High (10-5, 3-2) went on a 12-3 spurt that began with five straight points by sophomore Tradgon McCrae.

Missed free throws kept HHS from tying the score at 33 before Liberal would lead 35-31 entering the final period.

Before the game, coach said we needed to play with passion, said McCrae, who scored all seven of his points in the quarter. Thats what we did. We never quit. We just battled the whole time.

Liberal pushed the lead to 39-34 with 5:31 to play when senior Kylan Thomas hit a layup, part of his 13 points.

Hays High senior Tyrese Hill scored seconds later on a putback, and senior Claiborne Kyles hit a 3-pointer from the top of the key to knot the game at 39 with 3:35 remaining.

Senior Cole Evans grabbed a rebound off a Liberal miss at the other end, giving the Redskins a 41-39 advantage with 2:15 to play.

It was just a weird game, said Liberal senior Cade Hinkle, who scored 15 points. In Hays, you never know whats going to happen. You come in here and look to stay close with them throughout the game, and at the end, you make a break for it. Today, we got the W.

After the two teams swapped turnovers, Kyles turnaround jumper rimmed off, and Liberal snagged the rebound.

Hinkle missed the front end of a one-and-one attempt, and Hays Highs rebound was passed out to McCrae who was fouled as the Redskins tried to use time on the clock while only having three teams fouls.

But the Redskins were whistled for an intentional foul, giving McCrae two free throws and the Indians the ball.

McCrae missed both attempts to tie the game, then Kyles missed a layup after HHS inbounded the ball.

Hinkle iced the game with two free throws before Kyles hit a 3 from the left corner as time expired.

Its a really big win for us in the WAC, because both of us were 3-1, Hinkle said. Now, they moved to 3-2 in the WAC and we moved into first. So its a big win for us.

Its been tough for four years, Keltner said about battling Hinkle, who scored eight of his points in the second quarter as Liberal built a 26-17 lead at halftime. Hes a good kid. Weve had battles with him before. This one we just didnt win. They probably got the T-shirt tonight (for the WAC title), but you never know how things are going to play out.

Kyles finished with 16 points to lead all scorers but was the only Indian to score in double figures.

We had opportunities, for sure,McCrae said. We had a layup, I had two free throws myself that I missed. Wed have those shots every other time. Wed have (Claiborne) have the layup every game, and hed make it 99.9 percent of the time. It was the 0.1 percent of the time this time. He missed the layup, and I missed the free throws.

Liberal 43, Hays High 42

Liberal (14-2, 4-1) 12 14 9 8 43

Hays High (10-5, 3-2) 13 4 14 11 42

Liberal King 2, Eatmon 9, Kylan Thomas 13, Cade Hinkle 15, Evans 2, Bingham 2.

Hays High Murphy 6, X. Swayne 2, McCrae 7, Hill 6, Claiborne Kyles 16, Berens 5.

Girls

Liberal 42, Hays High 38

A scoreless span over the final 3:50 of the game left the Hays High girls falling short against Liberal.

The Indians led 38-36 after senior Talyn Kleweno sank a triple from the left wing in the fourth quarter, but it was the final points Hays High (9-7, 2-3) would get.

Liberal freshman Machia Mullens tied the game with 3:26 to play, and the Indians couldnt get a shot to fall as the Redskins (12-4, 4-1) made one of two free throws to take a 39-38 lead with just more than a minute remaining.

We had so many empty possession to start the second half where wed throw the ball away and not get a shot off, said HHS coach Kirk Maska, whose team trailed 15-12 after the first quarter and 21-18 at the break. We kind of fixed that a little bit, and that helped us get back into the game and actually take the lead.

Hays High missed two shots with less than a minute to play, and Liberal junior Ali Lucero sank a 3-pointer from the right corner after an assist from a teammate who fell to the ground and rolled with the ball appearing to travel before finding a wide-open Lucero.

Lucero finished with 19 points to lead Liberal, while Kleweno paced HHS with 12 points.

As good as Liberal is and as good as theyre coached, you cant go four minutes without scoring, Maska said. Maybe we should have tried to run something else, but we stayed with what was working. Im excited about the effort and how we adjusted since we played last night.

Both Hays High teams travel to Abilene on Tuesday for a non-conference battle.

Liberal 42, Hays High 38

Liberal (12-4, 4-1) 15 6 12 9 42

Hays High (9-7, 2-3) 12 6 9 11 38

Liberal Horyna 5, Ali Lucero 19, Mullens 6, Hay 6, Mickens 5, Gonzalez 1.

Hays High Talyn Kleweno 12, Dale 2, Leiker 2, Robben 2, Schneider 6, Hutchison 3, Denning 9, Keller 2.

Read the original:

Indians swept by Liberal in WAC action - Hays Daily News

On Monday, Donald Trumps war on the media took a ridiculous turn even by Trump standards when thepetulantpresidentspeculatedin a speech to theU.S. Central Commandthat the press was deliberatelytrying tocoverupreports of Islamic terrorism.

Its gotten to a point where its not even being reported, said Trump, who seems incapable of makinga speech withoutmentioning thedishonest press and touting the latestconspiracy theory he read on InfoWars.com.And in many casesthe very, very dishonest press doesnt want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that.

This claim no doubt came as a surprise toanyone who has watched cable news in his or herlife and has seen how extensively the mass media reports Islamic terrorist attacks whenthey occurin the West which they rarely do. Trump, who is reportedly an avidwatcher of cable news, either has a very bad memory or is fibbing once again to take a shot at the media and push his Islamophobicagenda.As Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, remarked to PolitiFact (whichruledTrumps statement pants on fire):

Due to its sensational nature, [Islamic terrorism is] over-reported compared to other forms of violence and causes of death that kill more people. Media has a strong incentive to focus on scary political violence the aphorism if it bleeds, it leads is a sound business principle in news media, especially television.

One would expect Trump a reality TV starwho clearlyunderstandsthe importance ofratings to have a pretty good idea how the mass media works in America. In public, however, the president espouses a simplisticright-wing view of the press, portraying it as an all-powerful monolith that is always out to unfairly smear him and advance a sinister left-wing agenda. (Trump may believe this to a degree, but he has clearly been playing onthe rights ingrained distrust and paranoia.)

And thus, in Trumps mind, the press isthe opposition party, as his chief strategist Steve Bannon put it last month. It deliberatelyunderreports Islamic terrorist attacks whileoverreportingor manufacturingbad press, such as mass protests, hisslipping approval rating orpublic opinion polls that disapprove of his agenda.

In reality, the mainstream media, or the corporate media,is driven primarilyby business rationale and the profit motive, not some left-wing or liberal agenda. This is evidenced by themediasinstitutional structure, and the startling fact that90 percent of the media todayisowned and controlled by justsix multinational corporationscompared to 50 different companiesin 1983. These six corporations function, like all other corporations, to make profit. Journalists working for those companies report to their managers andexecutives, who report to presidents and CEOs, who report to owners or shareholders.

It was this business rationale that led the media to excessivelycover Trump during the primaries, and prompted Les Moonves, the CEO of CBS, toremarkin early 2016 thatTrumps campaignmay not be good for America, but its damn good for CBS.

A Harvard Universitystudyconducted last June supported this reality, and found that Trump got the most coverage of any candidate running on either side during the primaries, and that the vast majority of it was favorable in tone. On theother hand, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who wasnt well known when he began his campaign (and thereforewasnt a bigratings draw), received the smallestamount of coverage during the first half of the primariesthough coveragedid increase during the latter half of his campaign, as he became an increasingly popular figure.

Meanwhile,Hillary Clintonreceived the least favorable coverage of any Democratic or Republican candidate, and during the first half of her campaign there were three negative reports about her for every positive one. That was partly because Clinton undeniably came with extensivepolitical baggage, but italso discredits the right-wing narrative that the media was a propaganda machine for Clinton.

Besides reality-TV-style political campaigns, terrorist attacks and other calamities tend to bring inbigratings for news networks, which means Trump hasitcompletely backwards when heclaimsthat those in the media have their reasons for underreporting terrorism. In fact,they have every reason tooverreportand sensationalize terrorismwhich they do. Thissensationalism has resulted ina false perception ofviolence and danger, leaving Americansextremely fearfulofterrorismeven though theyremore likely to befatally crushed by furniturethan to die in a terrorist attack.

The kind of stories that actually go underreported by the mainstream media are usuallythe ones that portraycorporate capitalismor the American governmentin an overly bad light, or stories that may alienate clients who spend millions of dollars on advertising. In 2016, some notable stories that received very little mainstream coverage were the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota, thenationwide prison strike last falland the U.S. governments continuedtargeted killing program.

It is clear that the mainstream media has some strong biases but not in the way right-wingers always complainabout. Media companies are generallybiased toward American interests and the economic system under which they operate. And whilethere isan obvious liberal bentonsocial issues such as diversity and LGBT rights (as there is in much of corporate America),there is just as strong a bent toward the right on economic and foreign policy matters.

President Trumps biggest pet peeve with the mainstream media, however, is not that it is politically biased but that it isbiased toward reality (at least on the stories that it chooses to report). Stephen Colbert famously declared back in 2006 that reality has a well-known liberal bias, but the comedian could have hardlypredicted just how pervasive falsehoods would become in the age of Trump. The new president lives in an alternative reality shaped by his colossal ego and his penchant for conspiracytheories. In less than a month, his new administration has peddled some of the most transparent lies in the history of American politics.

Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a lot of fact-checking and debunking by journalists. When the press does its job and calls out the president or one of his servile staffers for lying, Trump criesabout the dishonest, unfair, failing liberal media. Of course, the medias job is not to be fair and balanced when the president of the United States rejects objective truths and regularly embraces conspiracy theories. Climate change, for example, is not an opinion, but a scientific fact; and when someone calls it a Chinese hoax, this should be treated as the ludicrous conspiracy theory that it is, not another opinion that deserves fair treatment from the press.

In Noam Chomskys classic book on media, Manufacturing Consent, the MIT professor describes the American mass media as effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions and self-censorship, and without significant overt coercion. Since this was written nearly 30 years ago, media ownership has become increasingly concentrated, competition for advertising dollars has intensified (mostly due to the Internet) and the dividing line between commentary newsand old-fashionedreporting has become increasingly blurred with the invention of cable news and blogging. But Chomskys thesis remains highly accurate.

There has been no greater myth over the past four decades than that of the liberal or left-wingmedia,andTrump has benefited from both the myth and the reality. Not only did he receive billions of dollars worth of free publicity from the ratings-obsessed press, but he was able to scapegoat the same press and lie with virtual impunitybecause so many Americans have stopped trusting the liberal media (i.e., the fact-checkers). In a sense, then, the mainstream mediahas been Trumps greatest tooland when the next terrorist attack occurs andthe media amplifies it as usual, they willfurther help the president and his fear-mongering agenda.

See more here:

Trump's attacks on the press and how the liberal media myth has empowered him - Salon

ALMOST 70 outdated WA high schools will be revamped in a $560 million spending spree bankrolled by the partial sale of Western Power if the Liberal Party retains power on March 11.

The Sunday Times can today reveal the 69 secondary schools, which were built before 1985, to benefit from its flagged $1 billion next generation education fund and how much each can expect to reap.

The plan would see major upgrades of classrooms and building of new specialist facilities for science, design and technology, sport, media, performing and visual arts and home economics, with each school estimated to receive between $2 million and $34 million.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The partial sale of Western Power will allow us to bring older high schools up to 21st century standards across the board. It will also stimulate the economy by creating 18,480 jobs, Premier Colin Barnett said.

Education Minister Peter Collier denied the funds were being used to pork-barrel marginal seats, saying there were just as many safe and marginal Labor seats included in the list as Liberal seats.

This is not based on a political premise; this is based on an extremely forensic and well- audited appraisal by the Department of Education of whats required in those schools, he said. Schools would be salivating at the prospect of these improvements to their facilities. It would take a very brave person to prosecute an argument that whats been identified for any of those schools is not required.

Of the 11 high schools earmarked to receive $15 million or more, only three are in seats held by a margin of 10 per cent or less two by Labor (Kimberley and Thornlie) and one by the Liberals (Morley).

Regardless of the colour of government after March 11, any incoming government is going to be faced with significant challenges to bring these schools up to standard, Mr Collier said. He added this major spend on the school project backlog would not be possible without the unique opportunity presented by the part sale of Western Power. In a stark choice for voters, Labor is campaigning against selling off the utility.

The list has been around for a long time ... and the whole point of this exercise is that at last we can do it en masse. If not, I want to make it quite clear, these schools will not get these improvements for up to 20 years, Mr Collier said. This funding is above and beyond everything that has been committed thus far.

In December, the Premier said the Liberals would not be using the Western Power funds to bankroll election promises and would not allocate that money to specific schools during the campaign.

Mr Collier yesterday said it was always the intention to spell out the next generation fund during the campaign.

The balance of the $1 billion fund will flow to capital works in primary and district high schools and TAFE colleges.

Late last year, the Barnett Government vowed if re-elected it would sell 51 per cent of Western Power for a forecast $11 billion, $8 billion of which would be used to clear the utilitys debt.

The remaining $3 billion would be used for a next- generation fund for education and training, transport and energy projects.

Mr Collier said he would have more to say later in the campaign on how the remaining $1 billion for education and training would be used.

Education-centric policies have been high on the campaign agenda for both major parties, with the Liberals already promising revamps of Balcatta, Mt Lawley, Kalamunda and Harvey senior high schools as well as South Bunbury Primary School using consolidated revenue.

Labors education blueprint includes Perths first high-rise public school in the CBD. That would see Perth Modern, WAs only academically selective school, relocated to the new city college and the Subiaco site turned into a local intake school for 1500 students to ease pressure on other inner-city high schools.

Mr Collier said he would walk over hot coals if the (Perth Modern) community almost unanimously didnt agree with him Labors plan was ridiculous, misguided and fundamentally flawed.

SCHOOL SPENDING SPREE

(School, earmarked funds, year built)

Albany Senior High School, $10m, 1924

Armadale Senior High School, $4m, 1953

Balga Senior High School, $8m, 1970

Belmont City College, $7m, 1957 (rebuilt in 1990s)

Bridgetown High School, $2m, 1962

Broome Senior High School, $20m, 1972

Bunbury Senior High School, $10m, 1923

Busselton Senior High School, $5m, 1952

Canning College, $5m, 1982

Carine Senior High School, $5m, 1973

Cecil Andrews Senior High School, $5m, 1980

Central Midlands Senior High School, $4m, 1971

Collie Senior High School, $8m, 1946

Como Secondary College, $20m, 1969

Cyril Jackson Senior Campus, $5m, 1962

Darling Range Sports Academy, $10.5m, 1975

Denmark Senior High School, $4m, 1896 (one block is pre-1980s, rest rebuilt in 2000)

Duncraig Senior High School, $5m, 1979

Eastern Hills Senior High School, $5m, 1962

Esperance Senior High School, $20m, 1966

Geraldton Senior College, $3m, 1939

Girrawheen Senior High School, $5m, 1974

Greenwood College, $10m, 1976

Hampton Senior High School, $12m, 1966

Headland Senior High School, $5m, 1971

John Curtin College of the Arts, $25m, 1946

John Forrest Secondary College, $15m, 1961

John Tonkin College (Middle School Campus), $5m, 1980

John Willcock College, $5m, 1975

Kalamunda Senior High School, $2m, 1962

Kalgoorlie-Boulder Community High School, $3m, 1972

Katanning Senior High School, $5m, 1950

Kelmscott Senior High School, $15m, 1973

Kent Street Senior High School, $20m, 1940

Kiara College, $4m, 1974

Leeming Senior High School, $10m, 1985

Lesmurdie Senior High School, $10m, 1981

Lynwood Senior High School, $12m, 1974

Manjimup Senior High School, $5m, 1953

Margaret River Senior High School, $34.4m, 1962

Melville Senior High School, $10m, 1960

Merredin College, $4m, 1950

Mirrabooka Senior High School, $8m, 1965

Morley Senior High School, $12m, 1970

Mount Barker Community College, $4m, 1960

Narrogin Senior High School, $5m, 1950

Newman Senior High School, $5m, 1974

Newton Moore Senior High School, $5m, 1966

North Albany Senior High School, $10m, 1982

North Lake Senior Campus, $5m, 1973

Northam Senior High School, $3m, 1921

Ocean Reef Senior High School, $8m, 1983

Perth Modern School, $5.5m, 1911

Pinjarra Senior High School, $15m, 1921

Rockingham Senior High School, $5m, 1971

Rossmoyne Senior High School, $4m, 1968

Safety Bay Senior High School, $15m, 1978

Sevenoaks Secondary College, $3m, 1965

South Fremantle Senior High School (Fremantle College), $3m, 1967

Southern River College, $12m, 1976

Swan View Senior High School, $3m, 1977

Thornlie Senior High School, $15m, 1971

Tom Price Senior High School, $5m, 1972

Tuart College, $5m, 1982

Wanneroo Secondary College, $5m, 1977

Warwick Senior High School, $4m, 1981

Willetton Senior High School, $3m, 1977

Woodvale Secondary College, $5m, 1985

Yule Brook College, $5m, 1978

TOTAL: 69 schools, $559.4 million

Read more here:

Liberal pledge: Revamp for 69 outdated schools in $560 million spend - Perth Now

Trumps victory is virtually incomprehensible without a reading on the dynamics of white identity and national formation. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images

The first two weeks of the Trump presidency ought to be engraved in our memories as if in granite. We are witness to three simultaneous crises: a crisis of the working class, which, fractured by race, region, citizenship status and religious belief, lacks political cohesion or organisational representation.

Then we have a crisis of the ruling class, which was bullied and backed into a corner by a megalomaniacal kleptocrat who stole their candy, and who has no respect for the core institutions of class rule or for the stories his class brothers and sisters tell each other about the delights of the prevailing world order.

And a crisis of the state, in which far-right ideologues, autocrats and theocrats, having captured the governing apparatus, are rapidly concentrating power in the executive while bureaucrats scramble toward either dissent and defiance or appeasement and accommodation.

In response to these crises, a highly consequential debate about the direction of the Democratic party rages among academics, pundits and politicians. Sparked by the Columbia University professor Mark Lilla in a New York Times opinion piece, this debate is most active among liberals, but ranges both rightward and leftward as well.

The controversy focuses on the role of identity politics in Hillary Clintons presidential defeat. Essentially, the debate turns on whether the Democratic party and Clinton, in their embrace of racial, religious and sexual minorities, forsook working-class white people, who responded to their abandonment by casting their votes for Trump.

According to this perspective, the journey back from the devastation of 2016 requires that the party take an indefinite break from identity politics to concentrate on winning back economically squeezed white workers. Theres a leftish version of this line an economic fundamentalism that posits that bread-and-butter issues trump all others. The classic liberal version, seemingly reasonably, demands the subordination of the part to the whole, the interests of particular groups to the national interest.

Both boil down to the same thing: its time to subordinate the rights claims of various interest groups to an economic agenda that prioritises solving the distress of white workers. Only this adjustment will create the conditions for Democrats to make gains in congressional and state-wide races and retake the White House in 2020. (Or, in the leftish version, only this adjustment will set the foundation for building a successful workers movement.)

Where the Democratic party lands on this issue matters enormously. The traction this analysis gains will impact the flow of attention and resources of the party, liberal thinktanks and liberal philanthropy, as well as the focus of progressive organisations. It is likely to determine how the Democratic party positions itself relative to 2018 and 2020, and whether that positioning has the intended effect of creating a sufficiently broad electoral coalition to roll back Trumpism. With so much at stake, it is worth taking a moment to examine what might be problematic about analyses that lay 2016s rout of the Democratic party at the feet of identity politics.

Its never a good idea to enter willingly into a frame your opponent has constructed to entrap you. The term identity politics is part of a whole vocabulary including thought police, politically correct, and liberal elites, whose main intention is to undermine the legitimacy of liberal and left politics. Uncritically adopting the identity politics language of the right is the equivalent of dropping our guard and waltzing on to their terrain. Masters tools, masters house, anyone? We need to recognise a toxic frame when we see one and refuse to be a party to its proliferation.

Setting aside questions of language and framing, there is in fact an expression of identity politics core to the evolution of our nation and critical to how we understand the current juncture. White identity and nation-building have been bound together since way before the founding fathers and the drafting of our framing documents. The rest of us have had to fight our way into the body politic. Or, in the case of Indian nations, make the best of a spectacularly unequal and uneasy standoff.

The conceptual contrast between white Christians and red savages underwrote relentless territorial expansion and genocide. Between white Christians and black savages, the enslavement of Africans and the appropriation of their bodies, their labour, their progeny; between brown savages and white Christians, the taking of the south-west; between the yellow peril and white patriotic Americans, various exclusions, internments, property appropriations and ghettoisations.

This is not to project the racial sensibilities of today back onto social and political environments that operated on completely different sets of assumptions but to reckon with the degree to which the nation-building project has been, at the same time, a white identity formation project. Until we collectively get this, some will continue to deny the white rights subtext of Make America Great Again, or be surprised at how powerfully it resonated. Trumps victory is virtually incomprehensible without a reading on the dynamics of white identity and national formation. The liberal inquiry into the role of identity politics in Clintons loss is pointed in a direction diametrically opposite to where one might find answers.

This is not an argument against addressing the concerns and economic anxieties of white workers. It is an argument for:

(1) addressing those concerns as a component part of a larger story about the declining fortunes of the class as a whole;

(2) refusing to make concessions to racism, heterosexism, xenophobia, Christian supremacy, or misogyny while addressing those concerns;

(3) being clear that the displacement of white economic anxiety on to black people and immigrants is neither warranted nor wise;

(4) being clear that the postwar deal of expanding economic fortunes for a wide swath of white workers is completely off the table; what is on the table is the search for new forms of multiracial, multiethnic, multigendered worker organising that applies itself to the riddle of how to effectively extract significant concessions from 21st century capital;

(5) understanding that the work of addressing the economic and social concerns of white workers, and winning them away from thoroughly reactionary politics, is not principally an issue of crafting the best messages and communications strategies to produce results in the next election cycle, but a long-term, no-short-cuts proposition to which a battalion of people and organisations will need to devote their lives.

A liberal imagination perversely fixated on the alleged excesses of identity politics forgets that social movements of the marginalised are the spark and spur of democracy. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement extended democratic rights to the formerly enslaved and perpetually reviled, removing a deep moral stain from the nation. The womens movement unleashed the potential and talent of half the countrys population.

While the small-minded argue about bathrooms and pronouns, transgender activists, at great risk to themselves, have gifted us with a far more capacious understanding of the evolving spectrum of gender identities and expressions. None of these movements is done. Each has advanced not just the interests of a singular identity group, but also the ambit of freedom for all. Most assuredly, the generation that stepped forward in the wake of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown will not stand down just because some liberals are having a panic attack.

We are all navigating treacherous terrain, seeking a way forward. At least some of us know that not a single development over the past period indicates that the way forward requires that we abandon our freedom dreams. To the contrary.

More here:

Liberals, don't fall into the right's 'identity politics' trap - The Guardian

Networks Swoon Over GOP 'Feeling the Wrath' of Liberal Town Hall Protesters NewsBusters (blog) Friday's big three network evening newscasts showed no remorse when it came to Republican members of Congress being shouting down and blasted by angry, liberal protesters, gushing over how the GOP is feeling the wrath of demonstrators flooding ... and more »

See the rest here:

Networks Swoon Over GOP 'Feeling the Wrath' of Liberal Town Hall Protesters - NewsBusters (blog)

Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly interviews President Trump before Super Bowl LI, Sunday, February 5, 2017. (Fox News)

Do not say Donald Trump the candidate hid his foreign-policy plans under a bushel, or that President-elect Trump did not hang in when faced with instant and severe resistance from the high priests and priestesses of the Washington orthodoxy. Trump said all along he intended to take a running whack at our liberal interventionists, who have reigned without serious challenge the whole of the postCold War era. Now President Trump is going about his business.

So are the liberal interventionists, but we will get to that later on.

If Trumps policies abroad as we have them so far were stars in the sky, Greek shepherds would have no name for them. They do not make a coherent constellation. There are problems, naturally: Trump is not a progressive renovator of American foreign policy. But let us be clear on one point straightaway. The prevalent notion that Washington had it right on the foreign side before Donald Trump came along is beyond foolishthe indulgence of policy people who cannot think, media people too anxious about their jobs to think, and others who let these two sorts think for them. Once that is clear, so is this: There is continuity, inheritance, in Trumps policy mix, and in such cases he hurtles down the same wrong road Barack Obama took. When Trump departs from Obama and his predecessors, he is more likely to go in the right direction, although he does not as often as he does.

A few commentatorsthose refusing to surrender to the created reality within which this nation is trappedanticipated what we now witness in Washington. We cannot yet make out where Trump the grand strategistahem!will take foreign policy. Consistency is not this mans strong suit, and many questions are raised. But things come gradually into focus, nonetheless.

Hostility toward Russia is the linchpin of liberal interventionismfont of fear, paranoia, and security obsessions.

Trumps foreign-policy people are all in place and getting on airplanes. State and defense scrap over Asia policy, per usual. (And the latter will probably prevail, per usual.) Michael Flynn, the retired general serving as national security adviser, seems to hold the Iran file, and I will return to that. But here is the big latke: The Russia portfolio sits on Trumps desk. Relations with Moscow shape up as something like his premier foreign policy. If this is so, it is a good call. To be noted: Ever-mounting hostility toward Russia is the very linchpin of liberal interventionist thinkingfont of fear, paranoia, security obsessions, blame games, and all else with which we insist on crippling ourselves. In this they are more or less one with standard neoconservatives or traditional conservatives such as John McCainodd but no surprise. A brave prediction: Trump has a fight on his hands that will last as long as he stands his ground.

In my read, Trumps January 28 telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin was the biggest development in the foreign-policy sphere since he took office. Two reasons:

There have been signs since that Trump does not intend to flinch. In one of those klutzy moves Ukraine-watchers have come to expect, hostilities broke out in the eastern region within hours of the Trump-Putin exchange, and if you take this as coincidence, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to show you. There is little questionbeyond our shores, that isthat this was Kievs provocation, the gambit being to foil Trumps dmarche. Trump did not fall for it. When he spoke by telephone to Petro Poroshenko a week later, Ukraines so-called president, lets call him just for fun, got no joy. We will work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help restore peace along the border, Trump advised. Just right, Mr. President.

Trump is likely to oppose foreign adventures, which puts him up against the imperial edifice and all its janitors.

Now to Nikki Haleys address to the UN Security Council, also subsequent to Trumps conversation with Putin. You may have read that Trumps UN ambassador hit Russia hard on UkraineCNNs headline. Or maybe The New York Timess report to the effect that Russia sanctions are firm. See? Haley is loyally hostile. A breach in a discombobulated administration must be in the offing.

This is what I mean by created reality. While repeating the official position as it now stands, Haley said she regretted the incessant hostility of Samantha Power, her impossibly righteous predecessor; supported Trumps dtente line; and urged a settlement in Ukraine according to the 2015 cease-fire accord known as Minsk II. She was perfectly legible on these points. Here is an astute commentary by Alexander Mercouris, an analyst of Greek background who writes often for publications that do not enjoy the imprimatur of the orthodox. If you decline to read such publications, fine: Remain in Washingtons fog on Ukraine if you like.

The fallout since the TrumpPutin exchange and what followed has been considerable, as anyone could have predicted. And from all that has been said, we can infer a couple of other things about Trump.

One, he is not an exceptionalist. This is big, well beyond a conceptual abstraction. In substance, he is likely to oppose imperial adventuresa logical corollary of his America First theme. This, too, puts him up against the imperial edifice and all its janitors: the generals, the defense executives, NATO brass, the think-tank set, the press. OK, he has just said in so many words: Lets see about all these interventions.

Two, as of the morning press programs last Sunday, Trump and Vice President Pence have begun tearing the lid off one of the mythologies that wall in most of the American citizenry. Trump belched in chapel when Bill OReilly said on Fox News, But Putins a killer, and the president replied, What, you think our countrys so innocent? Scurrying to avoid this very fine questionI have not yet seen a single replythe press contorted this matter into one of equivalence and Americas moral superiority, with Trump and Pence accused of denying the latter.

It is excellent that a president at last puts the question of American innocence very publicly before us.

Who would have expected this?

Some retired general asserted on television afterward that Trumps remark was the worst thing a president has ever said. Wow. Serious contenders are overlooked, but that is another conversation. One could not disagree with the general more diametrically. It is excellent, excellent, that a president at last puts the question of American innocencethe answer to which must be self-evidentvery publicly before us. We as a nation have flinched from this for decades and so landed ourselves in all kinds of disgrace before others. As to moral superiority, this is for the record: Americans have no claim whatsoever. Who can take the ensuing outrage seriously? Are we all aging residents in a rest home?

One more matter in this line: Putins a killer. I do beg pardon. Apart from the sheer nonsense of OReillys assertionHitler! seems to have lost its appealAmericans ought to stay away from this one. How many millions must weyes, we, all of usaccept responsibility for in this century alone (as compared with how many imperial wars Russia has waged at what human cost)? Bringing it down to the ad hominem, as the press loves to do, how many ticks did our just-departed president make on the assassination lists placed on his desk every Tuesday morning?

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

Here I have to single out John Dickerson, who, when he is not toasting marshmallows with the rest of his Scout troop, hosts Face the Nation. His grilling of Pence last Sunday was without parallel as measured by shame and shock value. After Pence protested, There was no moral equivalency in what the president saida self-evident pointDickerson sent my mind back to old footage of the McCarthy hearings: Do you think America is morally superior to Russia? But America is morally superior to Russia, yes or no? Shouldnt we be able to just say yes to that question, though? That America is morally superior to Russia?

What is this? Not journalism, that is for sure. Read the transcript. Everyone has changed places. This is where American liberalism comes out. Behind the insistence on moral superiorityanyone know what that is?lies the liberal interventionists righteous agenda abroad: regime change, assassinations, Special Forces deployments, covert operations, and so onall in the name of doing the good we are on earth to do.

Think about these two things: Since 2001 there has been no substantial break in the premises, direction, or objectives of American foreign policy. In the same period, the American press has eagerly assisted in creating the phantom realities necessary to sustain this policy. Shame and banishment for anyone who speaks of reality without quotation marks.

Elsewhere in the news, as they say, there are many other things to think about. For now I will mention two, and briefly.

Trump said he would deep-six the Iran nuclear accord, and he is going to try. The proposal is to renegotiate, as with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Compounding the case, Treasury announced new sanctions a matter of days after Iran conducted another ballistic-missile test late last month. As of today, Michael Flynn announced, we are officially putting Iran on notice. It has no meaning, as many have remarked, except to notify all that Washingtons longstanding hostility has not gone anywhere.

Not good, but nothing new: This is mere continuity. The Obama administration set about sabotaging its celebrated accord with Tehran as soon as it was concluded. Obamas people drafted the sanctions just announced. In my read, this question will resolve itselfbarring a calamity, of course. Obama and John Kerry, his secretary of state, broke their picks claiming the missile tests violated the nuclear pact and thensecond tryan earlier UN resolution. They do not. As to a renegotiation, Iran is on record rejecting the thought, and five other nations are signatories. Theres not a chance in hell they will go back to the table, either. Sooner or later Washington will have to accept, as most others do, Irans right to defend itself against a nuclear-armed neighbor governed by, arguably, the most dangerous man in the Middle East.

Across the Pacific, Defense Secretary James Mattis just toured Japan and South Korea and vigorously reassured both of Washingtons continued commitment to the security role it assumed more than 70 years ago. In Seoul, where a proposed missile-defense system is a highly contentious political issue, Mattis was pointed as he urged it upon a nation nervously eager to avoid escalation. Predictable: This is what the Pentagon does, and the Pentagon has run policy in Asia for all of those 70-odd years.

Look a little more closely. Mattis, who famously knows war firsthand, favors diplomacy over it. In this he is a vast improvement over his quietly paranoid predecessor, Ashton Carter, who never missed a chance to sabotage John Kerrys diplomatic efforts across either ocean. Without saying so, Mattis also countered the reckless threats to China dispensed by Rex Tillerson during his confirmation hearings as Trumps designated secretary of state. For once and for now and maybe not for long, we are marginally better off with the Pentagon running policy across the Pacific.

Mixed picture so far: Some good things in Trumps foreign-policy chest, some middling things, some bad. Here is what I want to know: Why does one look to a figure such as Donald Trump as the best chance out there for a new direction? Who is responsible for this? Somebody failed to report for duty. Who?

Read the original here:

Trump Takes a Running Whack at the Liberal Interventionists - The Nation.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions nomination process was not smooth. It was fraught with political games and gimmicks that delayed his committee vote and his final confirmation vote. Alas, on Wednesday night, he was confirmed to be our top legal enforcer by a 52-47 vote; Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) broke with Democrats to vote for Sessions. Yet, while the attorney general took heat, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the Senates only black Republican who supported his nomination, was bombarded by racist tweets by the Left.

Scott took to the Senate floor to deliver his remarks, where he referenced the hate thats been hurled at him, even repeating some of the greatest hits, while keeping the ones calling him the n-word off the record. As a black conservative Republican, he knew that such hate would be hurled at him. Im used to being attacked, he said. It comes with the territory (via Politico):

You are an Uncle Tom, Scott. Youre for Sessions. How does a black man turn on his own, Scott said, reading criticisms of himself on social media. "Tim Scott ... doesnt have a shred of honor. Hes a House Negro like the one in Django.

He added, I left out all the ones that used the n-word. Just felt like that would not be appropriate.

Besides being called a disgrace to his race, Scott noted that since hes viewed as being no ally of liberal America, he is therefore an enemy of black people. You all know thisits identity politics at its most toxic. So, while people say that Sessions is a racist, for which there is zero substantive evidence to support such a claim unlike the late Sen. Robert Byrds (D-WV) membership in the Ku Klux Klan, they should probably look at whats hurled at conservatives that happen to be people of color.

House negro. I would say thatswhats the wordoh, racist.

Also, it's the Senate GOP that have diverse staffs,not the Democrats. Scott has a black chief of staff, which is a rarity among Senate Democrats. He also mentioned this fact in his remarks.

"My chief of staff, the only until three weeks ago, the only African-American chief of staff in the United States Senate out of a 100 is the chief of staff for a Republican," he said."The second African-American chief of staff in the United States Senate is the chief of staff of a Republican."

Democrats seem to be all talk, no action on the issue of inclusion and diversity.

Trump Won't Appeal Ninth Circuit Ruling, Might Issue A New Executive Order Next Week; UPDATE: WH Says All Options Still Being Considered

Read the original:

Liberal Tolerance: Sen. Tim Scott Reads His Hate Mail On Senate Floor For Supporting Sessions As AG - Townhall

Women can be vicious. Just ask men. Better yet, ask other women. If theyre honest, theyll tell you. Women can be harsh to their own kind, especially liberal women. Thats what makes feminist campaigns like the Womens March a bit of a joke. Its not about women sticking up for one another. Its about liberal women advancing their own liberal agenda, and if youre not on board, youre attacked, viciously.

Just look at how Ivanka Trump is being treated. After she posted an adorable photo with her son, comedian Ilana Glazer of Broad City unfurled her claws.

Ivankas tweet didnt mock other women. In fact, many women could identify with her. Plenty of working moms have taken their kids to work, and women who are homemakers or work from home appreciate a mom who is active in their childrens lives.

I can bet if any liberal celebrity or politician tweeted the same thing, theyd be praised for it. But not Ivanka. Because shes her fathers daughter, she is unfairly attacked by other women.

The same goes for all the stores that are pulling or downplaying her clothing lineNordstrom, Neiman Marcus, T.J. Maxx, and Marshalls. Ivanka was shocked, of course. Why would they boycott her clothing line just because of her dads politics? Arent women supposed to be treated independently, separate from their male relatives?

Isnt this what we were told repeatedly about Hillary Clinton? It didnt matter what Bill did. Hillary was her own woman. She didnt have to answer for her husbands shortcomings and immoral behavior, particularly toward women. Yet this is what we get about Ivanka: While she is not her dad, she is complicit in his actions, especially considering her husband is her dads advisor.

Complicit in his actions? Which illegal or immoral actions is she involved in, exactly? Unlike Hillary, who actually took active steps to silence her husbands accusers of sexual assault and rape, Ivanka has done nothing even remotely similar. She has supported her dads candidacy, and she continues to support him, but she is not actively complicit in anything. Women are independent of men, right?

Or is that true only for liberal women? Only they are seen as individuals with identities of their own, but Republican women, well, they have no independent identities. Theyre appendages of the men in their lives. I call BS on that one.

Its this kind of hypocrisy from the Left that got Donald Trump elected. People are tired of it. They see behind the veil where petty, insecure people are pulling the levers. This is especially true of the feminist movement: Madonna, Ashley Judd, Scarlett Johannsson, Sarah Silverman, and all the rest of the liberal celebrities who are in meltdown mode right now are being exposed for the frauds they are.

Just like the organizers who refused to let pro-life women participate in the Womans March, and the conga line of liberal elites who bash conservative female pundits and politicians as if theyre Sarah Palin beating a halibut, women who attack Ivanka are backstabbing harpies. Thats all. Theyre not principled. They dont care about womens rights. They dont care about the dignity of all women. They care about one thingtheir own egos, which are wrapped up in their liberal politics. They dont care about you. They care about themselves.

Instead of engaging in rational debate, they attack, boycott, politicize, and propagandize. They bastardize their art and their platforms to perpetuate an ideology that undermines our republic, our freedom, the American people, and the very women they say they represent.

Its time we said Enough! Enough of the double standards. Enough of the vicious attacks on Republican women or anyone who dares to challenge the Left and their ideology, which isnt about empowering women at all. Its about empowering the state, the political elites, and their handmaidens in Hollywood.

Ivanka Trump is a successful, beautiful, strong woman who should be celebrated and supported for the example she sets for young women as a wife, mother, business woman, and, yes, even daughter. Is she perfect? No, none of us are. But to put a target on her merely because she loves and supports her father is the opposite of what feminism represents. Feminism is supposed to be about respecting a womans choices, seeing her independent of a man, and celebrating her on her own merit. Ivanka deserves that. We all do.

Correction: An earlier version of this article included TJ Maxx and Marshalls in a list of retailers that have pulled Ivanka Trumps clothing line. The two have so far kept her clothes on the shelves but removed them from special displays and signs.

Go here to see the original:

Claws Out For Ivanka Trump Show Liberal Love For Women Is A Sham - The Federalist

Cleveland Indians pitcher Trevor Bauer is determined. That much was clear when Bauer attempted to pitch through a painful cut on his pinky finger against the Toronto Blue Jays in the playoffs. Bauer even considered cauterizing the wound with a soldering iron just so he could take the mound. It shouldnt come as a surprise that hes persistent.

[Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Baseball | 2017 Player Rankings]

That quality apparently extends off the field as well. Bauer proved as much after sending out a tweet about criticizing Apple and Twitter for only sending him negative Donald Trump articles on his phone.

Heres Bauer original tweet:

Since Bauer mixed sports and politics, there was sure to be an immense response to that tweet. Turns out, Bauer was ready for that. In the ensuing hours, Bauer responded to literally hundreds of tweetsabout his original comment.

Those responses varied in nature. Bauer tweeted fist pump emojis at fans who supported him, told fans who were unfollowing him good riddance, addressed his thoughts on climate change, declared himself one of the most scientific players in MLB and questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States.

Thats a wide-range of topics. Some of them make sense considering his initial tweet, while others seem far removed from his complaint. So, how long does it take for a baseball player to get from tweeting about liberal media bias to addressing climate change? Dont worry, we counted for you.

135 tweets!

Yes, since Bauers original tweet, hes sent out 135 responses to fans and critics defending his position. Like we said before, he can be persistent.

Theres a chance that figure will continue to grow, obviously. Bauer is no stranger to tweeting about politics and engaging people on social media. During the first Democratic debate last January, Bauer said he was appalled at what he was hearing. He warned critics on Twitter that the block button was ready in case anyone cared to challengehim.

[Newsletter: Get 5 great stories from the Yahoo Sports blogs in your inbox every morning!]

With that said, things seem to have quieted down. As of this writing, its been four hours since Bauer tweeted about anything. Hey, a guys gotta sleep sometime, right? Either that, or he has carpal tunnel after staying up all night shooting out hot tweets. It wouldnt bethe first time he injured a fingerplaying with modern technology.

More MLB coverage from Yahoo Sports:

Chris Cwik is a writer for Big League Stew on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at christophercwik@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter!

Visit link:

Trevor Bauer goes on long rant defending tweet about liberal bias - Yahoo Sports

We often casually assume that it is natural for young people to be predominantly liberal. But this is wrong: liberal policies hurt the young worse than anyone else. They deprive young people of job opportunities, drive up the cost of health care, needlessly increase the price of housing, and saddle the young with trillions of dollars in debt.

One of Center of the American Experiments key themes in 2017 will be, why liberal policies are bad for the young. Among other things, this will be the topic of our quarterly lunch forum series. On Wednesday, February 22, Diana Furchtgott-Roth will kick off the series by talking about her book Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying Americas Young. The forum will be at noon on the 22nd, a week from next Wednesday, at the Minneapolis Hilton.

If you live in or near the Twin Cities area, I strongly encourage you to attend. The Centers lunch forum series has been a huge hit, with over 400 attending our last forum to hear Heather Mac Donald talk about The War On Cops. This years series should be equally informative, and equally explosive. You can go here to register, or call Samantha Peterson at 612.584.4559.

See the rest here:

Why Liberal Policies Are Terrible For Young People - Power Line (blog)

No matter where you stand on the political aisle, we can all agree we are working through one of the most politically divisive times in our history. Many individuals can no longer visit some of the most popular social media platforms without seeing virtual-fights breaking out, which is leading to huge rifts between spouses, friends, co-workers and family.

It is not a stretch to say our country is a divided nation but, more importantly, we are now families, spouses and friends divided.

While some people cannot accept difference to the point where it is deemed as combative (and almost dangerous), the hope is your home life doesnt have to be that way solely because the socio-political climate over the last year has become more conflicted. The reality is, by using a methodology called Safe Conversations, people can have very different points of view that doesnt have to lead to social unrest.

Safe Conversations allows individuals to talk without criticizing, listen without judging, and connect beyond differences. Based on the most advanced relational and neurological science, Safe Conversations seeks to interrupt the downward cycle of family fragmentation that can reduce violence, strengthen communities and ultimately raise the joy index of a city.

The following tips provides a starting point on how to have a healthy and productive conversation with individuals who have opposing viewpoints:

1. The first step is to make an appointment to honor boundaries. This appointment will allow everyone to gather and acknowledge each others viewpoints without starting a potentially difficult conversation off-the-cuff. Respect is crucial in setting up an appointment to honor boundaries.

2. Once you choose a designated time to honor boundaries, identify the topic of opposition. The topic needs to be truly defined and specific for the brain to not jump to the human species genetic paranoid state of mind. Think about it this way when a person tells you they would like to talk, what is typically your first thought? Most of us jump to an exaggerated conclusion and begin to think of worst case scenarios. By defining the topic prior to communicating, it removes this apprehension for all individuals.

3. Next, implement I language when talking. Meaning always say I rather than you when having an oppositional conversation. Not only is this called the Sender Responsibility, it removes any blame away from the one receiving the senders opposing beliefs.

4. Individuals should also conduct a tactic called mirroring when someone talks. For example, once an individual is done stating his/her viewpoint, you respond back, What I am hearing is XYZ. This tactic allows for everyone to maintain accuracy, while also ensuring that you understand the Senders viewpoints.

5. Lastly, acknowledge that the other person makes sense. Even though you might not agree with the individuals viewpoint, you must acknowledge that their opinion is validated. From this moment, you can then share your point of view after validating their first point of view. A bridge has now been created between said individuals, and two opposing realities are now interfacing without judgment. Ultimately, the goal of having this type of conversation is to have both realities change without judgment.

Its absolutely possible to fully connect with people despite your differences, but to open that door, you have to believe its possible.

A negative attitude is the fastest roadblock to productive conversation, so over the next 30 days, try taking the Zero Negativity Challenge. Teach yourself to notice negativity and then redo the transaction by mentally changing gears to become positive again. There is an overwhelming amount of negativity in the world, but you can change thatstarting with yourself.

Dr. Harville Hendrix and Dr. Helen LaKelly Hunt are the creators of Safe Conversations | Relationships First, a nonprofit that envisions a world where everyone feels safe, valued and connected. For those who are interested in seeing these relationship techniques firsthand, we will be hosting a one-of-a-kind relationship event on Saturday, February 11 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (CST).

Read the original post:

Five tips on having a safe conversation with your liberal spouse or conservative brother - Fox News

Washington Times

Tim Scott reads racist tweets by 'liberal left' over support for Jeff Sessions Washington Times You see what I'm surprised by, just a smidgen, is that the liberal left that speaks and desires the rest of us to be tolerant do not want to be tolerant of anyone that disagrees with where they are coming from, the senator continued. So the ... 'Disgrace to the Black Race': Sen. Tim Scott Illustrates How Liberals Show ToleranceCNSNews.com Sen. Tim Scott: Liberal Left Activists 'Do not Want To Be Tolerant'Breitbart News SC's Scott aim takes aim at intolerant liberals in Senate speechThe State Charleston Post Courier -The Australian all 2,188 news articles »

Read the original:

Tim Scott reads racist tweets by 'liberal left' over support for Jeff Sessions - Washington Times

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a conservative Republican, put forward a surprisingly liberal budget Wednesday that includes a huge boost in funding for schools, sizable tuition cuts for college students and increased tax breaks for the working poor.

The shift by the famously tightfisted governor designed to position him for a third term in 2018 also appeases his conservative base with more welfare reforms, elimination of the prevailing wage and nearly $600 million in tax cuts.

"This budget includes historic investments in our priorities," Walker told the Republican-controlled Legislature as he released the plan Wednesday. "We're putting more money into public education than ever before, making college even more affordable, caring for the truly needy, building a stronger infrastructure, rewarding work, and cutting taxes to the lowest point in decades."

Democrats, and even some Republicans who control the Legislature, called his $76 billion budget that increases spending 4.2 percent over two years unrealistic and designed to boost his approval rating before another run for office.

"It's a death-bed conversion because he's going to be up for re-election in two years," said Democratic Sen. Tim Carpenter, of Milwaukee.

Republican legislative leaders were slow to jump on board with seemingly popular increases in education spending, sharing the fear with Democrats that Walker wasn't being realistic.

"We have to be cautious," said Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. "We have to be sure that we're not doing something we're going to have to revisit two years from now, or god forbid, sooner than that."

And Republican Sen. Alberta Darling, co-chair of the Legislature's budget committee, said the level of spending Walker proposed was an issue for her.

"We need to dig in and see how much is responsible and what is sustainable," she said.

The budget would spend $649 million more on K-12 schools, but districts would have to show they are in compliance with a law requiring teachers to contribute a certain amount for health care and pension costs in order to get more money. He's calling for extending a University of Wisconsin tuition freeze for a fifth year, then cutting tuition by 5 percent for all resident undergraduate students.

His budget would also increase pay for state workers 2 percent each of the next two years, cut the two lowest income tax brackets to save a median income family of four about $70 a year and eliminate the state portion of the property tax.

The budget is Walker's first since his short-lived run for president and the final one before he would appear on the ballot for a third term in 2018. Walker is raising money and taking other steps to run again, but said he won't officially announce until after the budget is done.

The budget comes after Walker previously cut funding for K-12 schools and UW, and froze tuition the past four years, while also giving them new ways to control costs. Walker credited an improved economy as allowing him to propose spending more money on education and other areas he had previously targeted for cuts.

"Of course we're pleased that there is some reinvestment, rededication to our schools, our families, our roads," said state Sen. Janet Bewley, of Ashland. "We are trying to make up for lost time and it's going to be very, very difficult to catch up."

Some Republicans have joined with Democrats in urging Walker to consider raising taxes and fees to pay for ongoing highway projects and plug a nearly $1 billion transportation budget gap. Walker relied on $500 million in borrowing and other budget moves to keep ongoing major road projects on track, while possibly leading to delays of other pending work.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, one of the leading advocates for considering transportation-related revenue increases, said he'd be willing to delay passage of the budget from late June into October if that's what it takes to find a long-term transportation solution.

"I think it's definitely possible that we are going to look at a gas tax," Vos said. "We are going to look at registration increases. We're going to look at tolling. It is not responsible for us to just continue to kick the can down the road and put more and more spending on the state's credit card."

Transportation, school funding and welfare reform will be the biggest areas where the Legislature works with Walker to find compromises, Fitzgerald said. At the same time, he said Republicans who have their largest majorities in the state Legislature in decades will be itching to make their own, unspecified "sweeping changes and more reforms."

The rest is here:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proposes surprisingly liberal budget - Chicago Tribune

about 10 hours ago Updated: about 9 hours ago

Berlin 1989: It was no accident that, once the Berlin Wall had come down, the freedoms available in the west of the continent were grabbed with both hands by the formerly communist nations in the east. Photograph: Lionel Cironneau/AP.

Sometimes a landscapes contours dissolve into the detail. This is happening now amid the fracturing of the wests liberal order. Brexit, Donald Trump, angry nationalism and populist politics - all are closely reported and rudely debated. Lost to the cacophony is clear sight of just how much is at stake.

For all its blemishes, the post-1945 settlement ushered in a remarkable period of relative peace and prosperity. We can all list the mistakes - whether hubris in Washington, corrupt politicians in Europe or greedy bankers everywhere. But for the most part, the story has been one of rising living standards and a spreading politics of generosity.

Freedom has advanced in step with the absence of war between the great powers. We too easily forget that there is nothing inevitable about peace or the march of democracy.

We might have noticed also the synergy between a rules-based world order and flourishing open societies. What unites peace abroad with democracy at home is the rule of law. Substitute arbitrary power and states fall to war and societies slide towards authoritarianism. That is why we should shiver when Mr Trump, the president of the worlds most powerful democracy, casually challenges the right of US judges to uphold basic freedoms and disdains international co-operation in favour of America-first nationalism.

The system established after 1945 was built on US power. But it endured and, after the end of the cold war, expanded because US leadership was embedded in multilateral rules and institutions. Everyone had a stake. Washington sometimes over-reached - in Vietnam or with the invasion of Iraq. By historys standards, however, the Pax Americana was essentially benign, resting as much on the force of example as military might.

In Europe, a legacy of war between states was replaced by a system that recognised their interdependence. There are lots of things wrong with the EU, but nothing at all when set against what came before. Compare the peace and prosperity of the second half of the 20th century with the barbarism of the first. It was no accident that, once the Berlin Wall had come down, the freedoms available in the west of the continent were grabbed with both hands by the formerly communist nations in the east.

This order, of course, was the creation of the west. The redistribution of power within the global system was always going to impose stresses. Nations such as China have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the US-led open trading system. But Beijing was never going to sign up to liberal democracy or forever abide by rules and institutions of exclusively western design. The challenge was whether the system could be revised to accommodate the aspirations of rising states and contain the resentments of a declining Russia.

What was not predicted was that the rich democracies would turn against their own creation, and the question would become whether they could manage the insurrections within. The textbooks tell us that at moments of global transition established powers such as the US defend the status quo, while rising states such as China seek to upend it.

History has been turned on its head. With Mr Trump, the US has joined the ranks of revisionist powers, threatening to surrender US global leadership in the cause of economic nationalism. Britain has done something similar by repudiating the EU. Germany and Japan are almost alone in seeking to hold on to the old multilateral order.

The charge sheet against western elites is by now familiar enough. Globalisation was rigged in favour of the one per cent. Politicians, mesmerised by markets, conspired in the theft. The incomes of the majority stagnated even as they carried the burden of post-crash austerity. Bankers who should be in jail are still pocketing bonuses. Unchecked migration has heaped cultural dislocation on to the economic insecurities wrought by technological change.

These grievances cannot be brushed aside. Mr Trumps xenophobia, the vote for Brexit in the UK and rising populism across Europe have been fed by the complacency of a political establishment in thrall to unfettered capitalism. Winning back public confidence requires mainstream politicians to deploy the tools of government - taxation, education and welfare policies, and yes, redistribution - to balance the excesses of globalisation.

No one should pretend, though, that the populists have the answer. Protectionism impoverishes everyone. Demonising Muslims will not make anyone safer. Locking out Mexicans or, for that matter, Polish plumbers, will not raise the living standards of workers in the US or Britain. Closed societies are meaner, poorer and more repressive. Rising nationalism most typically provides a backdrop to wars.

Memories are short. In Britain, the Brexit vote has stirred a fashion for rose-tinted spectacles. The 1950s were tough, the story goes, but communities stuck together. There were jobs and opportunities for the white working classes.

Breadline wages and slum housing, hotel signs declaring no dogs, no blacks, no Irish and cabinet ministers who denounced homosexuality as a contagious perversion as dangerous as heroin addiction go unmentioned. Opportunity? University was for a privileged five per cent.

The danger with nostalgia is that it can blind you to progress.

Financial Times Service

Link:

Why the liberal world order is worth saving - Irish Times

In a speech you didnt hear because it doesnt make for good TV or reaffirm the liberal narrative, Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla. (C, 74%) warned that tolerating Warrens brand of slanderous rhetoric on the floor of the U.S. Senate undermines the institution and weakens our republic.

I want people to think about our politics here today in America, Rubio exhorted his colleagues. Because Im telling you guys, I dont know of a single nation in the history of the world thats been able to solve its problems when half the people in the country absolutely hate the other half of people in that country.

This is not a partisan issue, it really is not Rubio said. Turn on the news and watch these parliaments around the world where people throw chairs at each other, and punches. And ask yourself how does that make you feel about those countries? Doesnt give you a lot of confidence about those countries.

Rubio continued, saying the nation and the U.S. Senate is flirting with becoming the sort of place where reasonable disagreement and debate is dead.

We are becoming a society incapable of having debates, he warned his colleagues.

Criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for contributing to the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric that divides, and noting that he himself is guilty of such words at times, Rubio warned that the floor of the Senate must be a place where that behavior is not tolerated.

If we lose this bodys ability to conduct debate in a dignified matter then where in this country is that going to happen? In what other form in this nation is that going to be possible?

Dont miss an episode of LevinTV!Sign up now!

Chris Pandolfo is a staff writer and type-shouter for Conservative Review. He holds a B.A. in Politics and Economics from Hillsdale College. His interests are Conservative Political Philosophy, the American Founding, and Progressive Rock. Follow him on Twitter for doom-saying and great album recommendations:@ChrisCPandolfo

See the rest here:

The Marco Rubio knockdown of Elizabeth Warren no liberal media outlet will cover - Conservative Review