Monthly Archives: March 2017

Despite a late poll slump, scrappy organisation and the selection of "fruitcakes" as candidates, One Nation remains in a position to seize the balance of power in Western Australia's upper house, largely due to the enduring strength of Pauline Hanson's political brand, less than a week before the state election.

A ReachTEL poll commissioned by Fairfax last week showed that the Labor opposition was leading Colin Barnett's Liberal government by 52-48 on a two-party-preferred basis.

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

A poll of around 1700 residents shows the WA state election is set to be a tight contest.

Play Video Don't Play

A Camillo man has been charged with evading police through a number of Perth suburbs in the dramatic chase captured by WA Police's air-wing.

Play Video Don't Play

Trevor Gleeson says Matt Knight is a 50-50 chance to play in Sunday's final against Illawarra.

Play Video Don't Play

Trevor Gleeson says Matt Knight is a 50-50 chance to play in Sunday's final against Illawarra.

Play Video Don't Play

Winner of over 70 international awards, Matilda the musical makes it way to Perth.

Play Video Don't Play

Mother Nature put on an impressive display overnight, with a massive thunder and lightning storm. Vision: Today Perth News.

Play Video Don't Play

Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney speaks to the media ahead of his defamation case against the state government Vision: Network Ten.

A poll of around 1700 residents shows the WA state election is set to be a tight contest.

But the Liberal Party's controversial preference deal with One Nation, which is polling at 8.5 per cent, could leave Ms Hanson's party with the balance of power in the upper house.

Dr Martin Drum, a senior lecturer in politics at the University of Notre Dame, said such a result suggests that should One Nation learnfrom its mistakes and should Ms Hanson continue to operate as effectively as she has in recent months, One Nation could wreak havocfor the Liberal and National parties in other state and federal elections in the future.

When the WA campaign began One Nation was polling at just over 13 per cent. The slump since then appears to have been inflicted by the quality of its local candidates, some of whom have proved to be "fruitcakes" saidDr Drum. "When they are in the headlines, it is normally for the wrong reasons."

Dr Drum notedthat polling throughout the campaign has shown discontent with both major parties, with Liberal losses not all flowing to Labor.

He said given that One Nation failed to find enough candidates to run in all the state's contestable seats and because some candidates appear not to have been closely vetted the scope of its impact in this environment was unpredictable.

In January an article that the party's candidate for the crucial seat of Pilbara, David Archibald, held by the National Party's leader Brendon Grylls, wrote in the musty conservative journal Quadrant was dusted off and republished to a broad audience.

Listing lifestyle choices that the government should defund, he began with "ugly" single mothers.

"The first that springs to mind is single motherhood," Mr Archibald wrote.

"These are women too lazy to attract and hold a mate, undoing the work of possibly 3 million years of evolutionary pressure.

"This will result in a rapid rise in the portion of the population that is lazy and ugly."

On Friday One Nation's candidate for another crucial seat, Kalamunda, on the eastern fringe of Perth, suddenly quit, citing a preference deal between One Nation and the Liberal Party.

"I've had enough," Ray Gould, told ABC radio.

"I'm talking to voters and they say, 'We like Pauline Hanson but she's done a deal with the Liberals and she can't be trusted'.

"I don't think I'll even get 4 per cent of the vote because she's messing with the voters' heads."

Kalamunda could help decide which party wins government. It is held by the Liberal Party with a margin of 10.3 per cent, which is almost exactly the size of the swing Labor needs to win governmentand, according to recent polling, just about the size of the swing that polling suggests we might see on election day.

The Liberal Party has faced criticism for cutting a deal with One Nation that will see it giving preferences to the insurgent outlier in the upper house in return for One Nation's preferences in the lower house.

Speaking on ABC TV on Sunday morning, during an interview in which she backed a cut to weekend penalty rates, voiced her support for the Russian President Vladimir Putin and cast doubt on the safety of vaccines, Ms Hanson was frank in support of the agreement.

"I have no problem with saying that because it is our best chance of getting One Nation candidates selected to the floor of Parliament. Of course, who is not going to do it?"

The deal has increased tensions between the Liberal Party and its National Party coalition partners, and demonstrated how seriously the Liberal Party takes the One Nation threat.

Some observers believe Mr Barnett has effectively sacrificed the lower house seat of Perth, where voters have expressed anger at the deal, in order to stave off One Nation challenges in rural and regional seats.

In the aftermath of a mining boom thatsome analysts consider to have been wasted, the election is being fought over bread and butter economic issues such as unemployment and debt. This has pitted the state's giant resources and agricultural sectors against one another, in turn increasing tension between the coalition partners.

The National Party under Mr Grylls is pushing to increase a state production tax on iron ore from 25 cents a tonne to $5, a proposal being fought by WA's Chamber of Minerals and Energy.

The Chamber's chief executive, Reg Howard-Smith, has been watching the electorate closely in the lead-up to the election.

"We've been close to the ground over the last few months and the feedback we've got is that everyone is concerned about jobs," he said.

"Resource sector jobs, but jobs more generally always comes at the top of the order."

Although the tax increase would generate an extra $3 billion in revenue for state coffers, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have argued it would cost jobs in the Pilbara and across WA.

Mr Howard-Smith also believes the tax rise,which would require legislation to overhaul state agreements with the two companies, would damage the investment attractiveness of the state.

"We've had fantastic support across the sector for this campaign we're running about iron ore and that's focused on two companies, but the reason is there are many, many people who can remember the RSPT [Resource Super Profits Tax]," he said.

"When the RSPT was announced, on that Saturday the Dockers and the Eagles were to play I never got to that game capital dried up instantly."

But Mr Howard-Smith was also concerned about a Nationals plan to give companies payroll tax breaks for workers in the Pilbara who were not fly-in, fly-out (FIFO), an idea which could cost jobs everywhere but in Mr Grylls' own electorate.

Mr Howard-Smith said the plan would devastate small towns in the south-west like Busselton and Manjimup where many FIFO workers choose to live, and where the Liberal Party holds a swathe of crucial seats.

"If you're coming out of Busselton and you've made the choice to live there but to maintain your job you have to travel to the Pilbara, then it's clearly a matter of choice," he said.

"Manjimup only has a small number of FIFO workers, in the twenties, but by the time you look at families and everything else, the contribution they make is significant.

"Rio reached out to those workers in Manjimup. At the time the timber industry was closing there were some good operators who they took on, so it just doesn't make any sense.

"They would have the most mature FIFO model, so you have a lot of people coming out of Busselton, a number from Albany, Geraldton, and Broome and Broome is essentially Aboriginal employment.

"That's working extremely well and I don't think the National party policy is realistic for one moment."

Unions have been quick to link the Liberal Party to One Nation.On Sunday the Victorian CFMEU leader John Setka tweeted in reference to the penalty rates decision, "Pauline Hanson is just another Liberal who hates workers!"

MsHanson herself travelled to Western Australia to begin a week's campaigning on Sunday, with an itinerary planned to include stops in Perth and towns in the south-west as well as regional centres including Port Hedland, Karratha, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton.

The Labor leader Bill Shorten is expected to join the campaign later in the week.

So far the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, whose last WA visit was not warmly received, has no plans to make the trip.

Read this article:

Liberal and Labor on a knife edge in WA, while things look up for One Nation - The Sydney Morning Herald

Nigel Farage with Donald Trump. Brexit means that power can be dispersed outward and downwards. Photograph: Gerald Herbert/AP

What is Nigel Farage so cross about? We won the EU referendum, for goodness sake. Since 23 June, Ive been walking on sunshine. My mood has been a state of Zen-like bliss.

Alongside Boris Johnson, David Owen, Gisela Stuart and all of those involved in the official Vote Leave campaign, I spent the referendum arguing that leaving the EU would be an opportunity to make Britain more open, outward-looking and globally competitive. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this is where Brexit is going to take us.

Far from heralding a retreat into insularity, Brexit is shaping up to be the beginning of a liberal revolution. Having taken back control of our country, we will at last be able to tackle some of the public policy failures that have festered under successive governments for more than a generation.

Yes, we will see an end to the free movement of people between European Union member states and the United Kingdom. But I suspect we will see a sensible policy that will allow labour mobility, with parliament controlling the total numbers of migrants each year. It is perfectly possible to imagine a scenario under which UK firms would be allowed to hire EU nationals provided they paid them enough to preclude the possibility that they might claim in-work benefits. Doing so would help rebalance the low-wage, low-productivity economic model that the UK has by default come to depend upon.

Ministers seem to be feeling their way towards a new national consensus on issues where the leave and remain sides were once at odds; universities must continue to be able to collaborate with institutions across the EU, drawing on the brightest and best brains.

From telecoms to intelligence gathering, we need to ensure that we continue to cooperate with the rest of Europe, despite not being in the EU.

The great repeal bill, which will convert all existing EU legislation into UK law, might be better described as the great transfer bill. It will not of itself remove many regulations, but enable us to decide if we wish to retain or reform such rules and free ourselves from some of the constraints various legal rulings over the past 40 years have imposed on our ability to make our own law. Doing all that might initially change little, but it will awaken within our democracy the idea dormant for so long that we mightdo things better. In the run up to the next general election, we might see parties publish manifesto that give us real choice, not more tweedledumb versus tweedledee options. Any genuinely insurgent politician or party ought to revel in the possibility of meaningful change that leaving brings with it. Brexit is often bracketed alongside the election of Donald Trump and the rise of the new radical populist movements in many western countries. But to me the EU referendum result was a safety valve. Trump or Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is where you end up when you ignore legitimate public concerns and there isnt a safety valve.

Throughout history oligarchy has emerged in societies in which power was previously dispersed: in the late Roman republic, and in early modern times in the Venetian and then the Dutch republics. Each time, the emergence of oligarchy was always accompanied by an anti-oligarch insurgent reaction.Many of todays new radical movements arent oligarchs, but an anti-oligarchy insurgency. Trump is no American Caesar about to cross some constitutional Rubicon.

Yet such insurgents often ended up unwittingly assisting the oligarchs. In Rome the Gracchi brothers, with their Trump-like concern about cheap migrant labour, caused so much civil strife that an all-powerful emperor seemed a better bet. In Venice, the anti-oligarch rebel Bajamonte launched an unsuccessful coup and in doing so gave the elite a pretext to create a new, superpowerful executive arm of government, the Council of Ten. Created to respond to the crisis for six weeks, it ran the republic for the next 600 years.The Dutch anti-oligarch De Witt was so inept, he paved the way for the return of a strong stadtholder, or king.

So, too, today. If chaotic, angry insurgents such as Frances Marine Le Pen and the rightwing populist Alternative for Germany party are the alternative, then being governed by remote, unaccountable elites sitting in central banks and Brussels doesnt seem so unattractive after all. But Brexit isnt anything like that. It is the beginning of a liberal insurgency. Brexit means that we take back control from the supranational elite. Power can be dispersed outward and downwards. Those who make public policy might once more answer to the public.

Cheer up it might even mean that there is less space for anger in our politics too.

Read this article:

Leaving the EU is the start of a liberal insurgency - The Guardian

Meanwhile, this week, Casey Affleck received an Academy Award for Best Actor for Hacksaw, despite continued complaintsfrom several women that he sexually terrorized them on the set of Im Still Here. Where are the legions of liberal men expressing disgust that the MPAA would honor Affleck with one of their highest honors?

And while liberals joined conservatives in recoiling in disgust from Yiannopoulos speaking wistfully of being molested as a teen,liberal darling George Takeis similar reflectionsgot something of a shrug.

To be clear, there are important distinctions between Yiannopouloss comments and Takeis: Yiannopoulos offered them in a greater context of questioning the arbitrariness of age of consent laws and promoting man-boy sexual mentorship, while Takei was being asked to relate a story from the gossip mill to Howard Stern, and didnt suggest that everyone should experience what he did.

But even if Takei seemed uncomfortable relating the story (at least three separate times, all when prompted), he was laughing. The effect of the laughing, the optics, says that he was making light of an incident that was unarguably molestation. For that, people who would champion against molestation should at least question his presentation. We cannot look away from the reality that George Takei called being sexually assaulted delicious.

Forty years ago, Polish director Roman Polanski was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. He fled the country and has not returned since. The general feeling in Hollywood is frustration with the US and California authoritiesfor not just dropping the charges because, hey, its Roman!

Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange has been living in the Ecuadorean embassy for five years, dodging Swedish prosecutors over rape allegations. His supporters, many of whom are liberal and progressive men, insist the rape allegations are a conspiracy to shut him up.

When Conservative pick Clarence Thomas was accused of sexually harassing his then-subordinate Anita Hill, liberal males tried to use that to keep him from the Supreme Court. But when Bill Cosby was accused of drugging and raping multiple women, responses from men across the political spectrum were far more muted and ambivalent.

And the list goes on.

On the one hand, it is understandable that some of the incidents involving conservative men spark more condemnation than equivalent acts from liberal men. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was a crusader against gay rights prior to his arrest for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom. The liberal outrage, in this case is not over the solicitation (so what?) but over the blatant hypocrisy. You want to pick up guys in public bathrooms? Fine. But dont then act like gay sex is evilor other people are the predators.

Liberal males are quick to hide behind meta claims. When we mocked Melania Trumps nude pics, we claimed it was about the Rights hypocrisy of having criticized Michelle Obama for not being classy enough. When Obama bares her arms, its a conservative outrage; when 1984 Miss America Vanessa Williams bared everything, it was a conservative outrage.When nude pics of Melania Trump surface, though, thats a shrug.

Here is the original post:

Liberal Men and Blurred Lines - The Good Men Project (blog)

By Jean Kennedy

Posted March 05, 2017 16:52:49

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian has defended the Liberal Party's pre-selection process, despite conceding a head start to political rivals in two looming by-elections.

The seats of North Shore and Manly will up for grabs on April 8.

Both of the Sydney electorates had been held by high-profile Liberal candidates on safe margins: former health minister Jillian Skinner won North Shore in 1994 and former premier Mike Baird had represented Manly since 2007.

However, the seats also have long histories of being held by independents and the duo's retirement from politics has cracked the contests open.

Today, the Greens unveiled Clara Williams-Roldan, 25, as their candidate for Manly while Mosman Councillor Carolyn Corrigan, who is standing as an independent, is also on the campaign trail.

The Liberal Party will announce its candidate for Manly on March 13 and North Shore on March 15.

The ABC understands both contests have been plagued by powerplays and disputes within the Liberal Party.

The delays have not been helped by the NSW Liberal Party's complicated pre-selection process, in which a special panel picks candidates.

But Ms Berejiklian said she respected local party members' rights to choose their candidates.

"I think local residents in this community, and all communities, know our track record as a Government, they know my track record, and I'm looking forward to welcoming the candidates next week," she said.

There will also be a by-election in the central coast electorate of Gosford on April 8.

The ABC has confirmed Labor will not stand candidates in the Manly and North Shore by-elections.

Liesl Tesch, the Labor candidate for Gosford, was not picked by rank-and-file pre-selection.

Speaking in Manly, federal Greens leader Richard Di Natale was keen to challenge the Premier in one of her key policy areas housing affordability.

"Young people are being screwed over," he said.

"Here's an opportunity to elect somebody to represent young people across this state and to ensure they have a voice in the state parliament."

Topics: government-and-politics, political-parties, liberals, state-parliament, parliament, electoral-system, elections, greens, sydney-2000, manly-2095, gosford-2250, nsw

More here:

NSW by-elections: Liberal Party pre-selection delays mean head start for other candidates - ABC Online

Last July, with Donald Trump on the verge of sealing up the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Ross Douthat authored a column in the New York Times about the new political battlefield. "[P]erhaps we should speak no more of left and right, liberals and conservatives," the token trad wrote. "From now on the great political battles will be fought between nationalists and internationalists, nativists and globalists."

Douthat's sentiment was echoed at the recent CPAC gathering, where President Trump's chief strategist, Steven Bannon, explained the difference between economic populists like himself and the jet-setting Davos crowd. "[W]e're a nation with an economy," he preached to the crowd. "Not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being."

It's true that we in the West are undergoing a political reorganization. The past two years have seen an explosion of nationalist political parties and personalities. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," in the popular context, are beginning to lose relevance. What's replacing them isn't so much party difference, but class.

The lines of separation between the elites and provincials has never been clearer. On big, nation-defining issues trade agreements, wars, transnational partnerships, necessary credentials for high office the divide cuts evenly. Those moneyed, cloistered, and comfortable welcome globalization and all its attendant benefits. Those who aren't so well off don't.

But class separation doesn't get to the heart of the difference between one end of the widening gulf and the other. The nationalist-globalist frame stems from something different, something more epistemological.

Politics really comes down to a value judgement: how does society best organize its collective life?

For nationalists, love of country, its inhabitants, and its unique character guides law-making. Government is formed solely for the benefit of citizens. High-minded psalms to the brotherhood of man have little place in policy.

The globalists are devoted to the biggest community on Earth: worldwide humanity. To the globally minded activist, there is no difference between the man next door and the man in a hut in Cambodia. Each is due equal consideration when it comes to the law.

In his recent New York Times column, David Brooks hits on this difference by singing a dirge to the enlightened universalism he sees as the cornerstone of the West. "The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live," he explains. But the anti-enlightenment movements of today "don't think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate."

Who are these intellect-eschewing dunderheads? Donald Trump, of course. But also Nigel Farage and Brexit backers, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbn of Hungary. Each has cultivated popular support by appealing not to passionless debate, but to deep love of country and, more pointedly, familiarity.

These decidedly anti-intellectual voters act based not on cool reasoning. They go the polls not to impose their abstract philosophy on the world. They protect what is theirs, what is close, what they identify with.

To contrast this limited view of life with the liberal is to compare soil with sky. Wide open and infinite, the sky is spaceless. It doesn't shift and sift like dirt through your fingers. It can't be seen and felt like solid earth.

The nationalist is necessarily parochial, attached to his specific time and place. The globalist takes the opposite approach. Not starting from below but above, he takes an all-encompassing view of mankind and sets to reshape the world in its image. The leftist global crusader is a firm believer in what Michael Brendan Dougherty calls "the idea of eternal human progress and moral arcs bending across the universe."

The idea of unstoppable progression demands much from its acolytes. Do national borders impede immigrants looking for a better life? Then all barriers must be eliminated. Do some people prefer those who share their faith, culture, skin color, and history to those who don't? Then they must be made to take a more universal view toward man and be shamed for their bigotry. Does the preservation of national wealth deprive poorer countries of prosperity? Then wealth must be redistributed, be it in the form of trade, military occupation, or direct financial transfer.

On and on the reduction goes until all human distinctions are replaced by the universal, homogeneous, and thus bland and uninteresting man. When the liberal-globalist achieves this sterile paradise, he'll be left with mannequins for men, able to recite facile tropes about joyful togetherness. This "thin view of man," to use the words of Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, can be an anti-civilizing force if left unchecked.

What is the contra to thin humanity? Thick, obviously. And what does thick entail? It means an acceptance of complexity, of the infinitudes of thought and emotion within every individual. "Across a room," writes Ted McAllister, "a conservative might spy a sack of rapidly degenerating amino acids, but rather than thinking of the elements that make up the body he sees, he wonders about this creature's past, its network of relationships, its relationship with books."

Here's where the paradox sets in: while the nationalist-conservative takes a simple approach to living, his narrow vision accepts the inner complexity of the individual. He doesn't purport to have a theory for how all should be governed. Rather, the good he sees is best for his family, his community, his country. Going any farther impedes on the right of another nation-dweller to determine his future path.

The political clash before the West has its basis in distance. How far a man is willing to go to impose his will usually determines his political allegiance. For those who would stop at their country's defined border, the influence is growing. How far it grows will be determined by those who think of their persuasive power as limitless.

Last July, with Donald Trump on the verge of sealing up the Republican Party's presidential nomination, Ross Douthat authored a column in the New York Times about the new political battlefield. "[P]erhaps we should speak no more of left and right, liberals and conservatives," the token trad wrote. "From now on the great political battles will be fought between nationalists and internationalists, nativists and globalists."

Douthat's sentiment was echoed at the recent CPAC gathering, where President Trump's chief strategist, Steven Bannon, explained the difference between economic populists like himself and the jet-setting Davos crowd. "[W]e're a nation with an economy," he preached to the crowd. "Not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a reason for being."

It's true that we in the West are undergoing a political reorganization. The past two years have seen an explosion of nationalist political parties and personalities. The terms "liberal" and "conservative," in the popular context, are beginning to lose relevance. What's replacing them isn't so much party difference, but class.

The lines of separation between the elites and provincials has never been clearer. On big, nation-defining issues trade agreements, wars, transnational partnerships, necessary credentials for high office the divide cuts evenly. Those moneyed, cloistered, and comfortable welcome globalization and all its attendant benefits. Those who aren't so well off don't.

But class separation doesn't get to the heart of the difference between one end of the widening gulf and the other. The nationalist-globalist frame stems from something different, something more epistemological.

Politics really comes down to a value judgement: how does society best organize its collective life?

For nationalists, love of country, its inhabitants, and its unique character guides law-making. Government is formed solely for the benefit of citizens. High-minded psalms to the brotherhood of man have little place in policy.

The globalists are devoted to the biggest community on Earth: worldwide humanity. To the globally minded activist, there is no difference between the man next door and the man in a hut in Cambodia. Each is due equal consideration when it comes to the law.

In his recent New York Times column, David Brooks hits on this difference by singing a dirge to the enlightened universalism he sees as the cornerstone of the West. "The Enlightenment included thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant who argued that people should stop deferring blindly to authority for how to live," he explains. But the anti-enlightenment movements of today "don't think truth is to be found through skeptical inquiry and debate."

Who are these intellect-eschewing dunderheads? Donald Trump, of course. But also Nigel Farage and Brexit backers, Marine Le Pen of France, Geert Wilders of the Netherlands, and Viktor Orbn of Hungary. Each has cultivated popular support by appealing not to passionless debate, but to deep love of country and, more pointedly, familiarity.

These decidedly anti-intellectual voters act based not on cool reasoning. They go the polls not to impose their abstract philosophy on the world. They protect what is theirs, what is close, what they identify with.

To contrast this limited view of life with the liberal is to compare soil with sky. Wide open and infinite, the sky is spaceless. It doesn't shift and sift like dirt through your fingers. It can't be seen and felt like solid earth.

The nationalist is necessarily parochial, attached to his specific time and place. The globalist takes the opposite approach. Not starting from below but above, he takes an all-encompassing view of mankind and sets to reshape the world in its image. The leftist global crusader is a firm believer in what Michael Brendan Dougherty calls "the idea of eternal human progress and moral arcs bending across the universe."

The idea of unstoppable progression demands much from its acolytes. Do national borders impede immigrants looking for a better life? Then all barriers must be eliminated. Do some people prefer those who share their faith, culture, skin color, and history to those who don't? Then they must be made to take a more universal view toward man and be shamed for their bigotry. Does the preservation of national wealth deprive poorer countries of prosperity? Then wealth must be redistributed, be it in the form of trade, military occupation, or direct financial transfer.

On and on the reduction goes until all human distinctions are replaced by the universal, homogeneous, and thus bland and uninteresting man. When the liberal-globalist achieves this sterile paradise, he'll be left with mannequins for men, able to recite facile tropes about joyful togetherness. This "thin view of man," to use the words of Polish philosopher Ryszard Legutko, can be an anti-civilizing force if left unchecked.

What is the contra to thin humanity? Thick, obviously. And what does thick entail? It means an acceptance of complexity, of the infinitudes of thought and emotion within every individual. "Across a room," writes Ted McAllister, "a conservative might spy a sack of rapidly degenerating amino acids, but rather than thinking of the elements that make up the body he sees, he wonders about this creature's past, its network of relationships, its relationship with books."

Here's where the paradox sets in: while the nationalist-conservative takes a simple approach to living, his narrow vision accepts the inner complexity of the individual. He doesn't purport to have a theory for how all should be governed. Rather, the good he sees is best for his family, his community, his country. Going any farther impedes on the right of another nation-dweller to determine his future path.

The political clash before the West has its basis in distance. How far a man is willing to go to impose his will usually determines his political allegiance. For those who would stop at their country's defined border, the influence is growing. How far it grows will be determined by those who think of their persuasive power as limitless.

Here is the original post:

The Shift: From Liberal-Conservative to Globalist-Nationalist - American Thinker