Monthly Archives: July 2017

The Trailer For Charlie Sheen’s 9/11 Movie Is Really Something – UPROXX

Posted: July 22, 2017 at 8:37 am

Theres nothing inherently wrong with making a movie about what happened on September 11, 2001 but it has to be handled with grace. Some have done it better (United 93) than others (Reign Over Me, bonkers secret 9/11 movie Remember Me). The latest to try to walk that fine line between respectful and exploitative: 9/11. Who knows? Maybe a dramatization of what happened in Lower Manhattan 16 short years ago starring Charlie Sheen, Whoopi Goldberg, Gina Gershon, and Luis Guzmn, from the director of National Lampoons Cattle Call, from the same distribution company as Atlas Shrugged: Part I, will be a tasteful look at a dark day in Americas history?

[watches the trailer]

Or maybe not.

Directed and co-written by Martin Guigui, 9/11 centers on five people who find themselves trapped in an elevator in the World Trade Centers North Tower on 9/11, according to the official premise. They work together, never giving up hope, to try to escape before the unthinkable happens. One of the people trapped in the elevator is Sheen, which is notable for two reasons: its his first movie role since 2013s Machete Kills, and hes a notorious 9/11 truther. In 2006, he told Alex Jones (yes, that Alex Jones), It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airlines and hitting 75 percent of their targets that feels like a conspiracy theory. Sheen also blamed the destruction of the towers on a controlled explosion.

9/11 (the trailer for which you can watch above; I dont know why its in Japanese, either) opens on September 8. I cant wait.

Continued here:

The Trailer For Charlie Sheen's 9/11 Movie Is Really Something - UPROXX

Posted in Atlas Shrugged | Comments Off on The Trailer For Charlie Sheen’s 9/11 Movie Is Really Something – UPROXX

Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican – Patheos (blog)

Posted: at 8:37 am

You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican.

Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith).

I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism.

McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture.

Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies?

Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit.

McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those.

Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people.

There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums.

McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty?

Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government.

McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice?

Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not?

McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference?

Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers?

McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences?

Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them.

McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property?

Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well.

McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country?

Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected.

McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons?

Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments.

I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.

And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion

McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans?

Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure.

McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct?

Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually.

McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this?

Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own.

Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him?

See the rest here:

Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican – Patheos (blog)

Barron: Third-party movement stalled – Casper Star-Tribune Online

Posted: at 8:37 am

Ive always been interested in third political parties because of the wrench they can toss in an election even if they cannot win it.

The potential has always existed that a third-party candidate, like Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, could sway the outcome of an election. They could be spoilers, too.

Wyomings third-party movement seemed ripe after Taylor Haynes, did so well in the 2010 governors election.

But it hasnt gained much traction.

Haynes, a rancher and retired physician, was a write-in candidate for governor. He had the support of the tea party and the new Constitution Party.

He received nearly 14,000 votes to come in third in the general election for governor.

With 7 percent of the vote, Haynes outpolled libertarian gubernatorial candidate Mike Wheeler of Casper, who received 5,362 votes.

After the election, Wheeler said he expected some Libertarian Party members to defect and start another third party.

That is what happened. The new Constitution Party gained ballot access as a minor party for the 2012 election cycle through a petition campaign.

Don Wills, a former Libertarian Party president, led the support for the Constitutional Party.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, Wheeler said, suffers because the national Libertarian Party has such a stigma for its positions on legalizing drugs. National party members, he said, are considered anarchists.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party (WLP) has been active in Wyoming for years.

In the 2014 general election, when the five elected state offices were up for grabs, the WLP was on the ballot with candidates for governor and secretary of state as well as for U.S. senator and U.S. representative.

The party had no legislative candidates in 2014 or 2016.

In 2016, the Libertarians had a candidate for president, Gary Johnson, and one for U.S. representative.

Johnson was expected to do exceptionally well, but it didnt happen.

A former member of the Wyoming Libertarian Party, Barry Turner of Cody said Johnson and the previous libertarian candidate for president, Bob Barr, were basically Republicans.

He said he would like to see the national party come up with a genuine libertarian candidate for president.

Wyoming has often been called a libertarian-type state for the philosophy of many residents in favor of limited government and a general live-and-let-live attitude.

That political inclination hasnt been reflected at the polls, however.

The loose-knit tea party and the Trump phenomena has siphoned off voters to the Republican Party.

The Wyoming Constitution Party has picked up votes that previously would have gone to Libertarian candidates.

The Libertarian Party members, nationally and in Wyoming, moreover, have wrangled over their basic philosophies, such as the degree of resistance to government and taxes.

In Wyoming they have struggled in recent years just to keep the party going.

Despite all the inner conflicts, the WLP has grown substantially over the last decade. In 2006, only 452 residents identified themselves as libertarians. In July 2017, the number of registered libertarians totaled 2,389, according to the secretary of states office.

This compares with 797 members of the Constitution Party, 176,336 Republicans, 47,125 Democrats and 35,973 unaffiliated.

The national Libertarian Party also experienced growth in registration but not in votes at the polls.

The percentage of the American public that identifies as libertarian has steadily increased over the last few years.

A survey by Gallup showed that 27 percent of respondents identified themselves as libertarians, a new high.

Yet they cannot shake their image as a fringe party with some wacky ideas.

Johnsons campaign didnt help. The candidate couldnt explain the significance of Aleppo, Syria, in foreign affairs or identify a world leader he admired.

The libertarians marred their image as a serious political party by their weird silliness at their national convention, according to published sources.

They also were hurt by lack of coverage by the news media, which was focused on the Republican and Democratic candidates for president.

The Wyoming Libertarian Party, meanwhile, has a new president: Howard Kit Carson of Cheyenne. He was the partys candidate for secretary of state in 2014.

Carson said last week that he and other members are working on a platform that the people need to see.

Well find out more about that later.

Read the rest here:

Barron: Third-party movement stalled - Casper Star-Tribune Online

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Barron: Third-party movement stalled – Casper Star-Tribune Online

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for ‘real changes’ – Southernminn.com

Posted: at 8:37 am

CEDAR RAPIDS The politics-as-usual approach to state government by Republicans and Democrats is unsustainable and hurting vulnerable Iowans, according to Jake Porter, a Libertarian who is joining the race for governor.

Were having this huge budget crisis, and I dont see other candidates proposing real changes, Porter said Tuesday.

Instead, Statehouse lawmakers and the governor are using the budget as a weapon, according to Porter, who will formally announce his candidacy on The Simon Conway Show on WHO Radio between 4 and 7 p.m. Thursday.

Theyve decided were having a budget crisis, so were going to cut the services people use most, whether its mental health services, sexual abuse hotlines, domestic abuse shelters (or) hearing aids for kids, Porter said.

Theyre not actually going after any of the waste that could easily be cut. Theyre going after the things that are going to hurt the most people, probably as an excuse to raise the sales tax next year.

Porter, 29, a Council Bluffs business consultant long active in the Libertarian Party, previously ran for secretary of state. He thinks his views and priorities are more closely aligned with voters than either the Democratic or Republican platform.

He wants to make medical cannabis available, restore voting rights for felons who have served their time, end corporate welfare, return Medicaid to its pre-privatization status and phase out the state sales tax.

He opposes corporate welfare on libertarian principles. Its wrong, Porter said, to ask Iowans to pay millions of dollars to financially sound corporations. He singled out the Research Activities Credit that refunds tax money to corporations even if they have no tax liability.

Theyve put the tax bill on the smallest Iowans and smallest companies, he said. I dont think the state should favor one business over another.

Porter called turning over Medicaid management to private companies an example of big government cronyism by former Gov. Terry Branstads administration. He would return management responsibility to the Department of Human Services and then make improvements.

The state has messed around for far too long while people who could benefit from medical cannabis have suffered, Porter said. While he would favor legalization of marijuana for recreational use, I dont think the Legislature is going to pass that.

Despite the changes the Legislature has made, current law makes it difficult, nearly impossible, for Iowans who need cannabidiol to get it, he said.

As a Libertarian, Porter said, he would have the advantage of being able to work with and around the major political parties by using the governors bully pulpit to open a dialogue with voters and pressure lawmakers to act on his priorities.

As governor, you can go around and talk about issues and you can pound the issues until (lawmakers) basically have to do something about it, he said.

Porter said his campaign website, jakeporter.org, will go live Thursday afternoon.

Here is the original post:

Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for 'real changes' - Southernminn.com

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian gubernatorial candidate calls for ‘real changes’ – Southernminn.com

The golden, silver rules of animal treatment – Morganton News Herald

Posted: at 8:36 am

In the May Animal Matters article, I talked about why we need to be a role model for our youth. I'll continue that theme in this column.

You have probably heard of the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. Of course, there are many variations of this rule that refer to not judging others, walking in someone elses shoes, not treating others in ways that you would find hurtful, there, by the grace of God go I, and so on. As a nonprofit organization, we rely on people to donate time and money to support the program. Animal rescues also rely on individuals to give of themselves for the greater good/cause of helping the animals. No doubt, individuals who support us are treating others as they want to be treated. Thank you to those who donate time and/or money to support the animals.

REASON works with people from all over the county who call asking for assistance with spaying/neutering, finding homes for puppies/kittens, or asking for help with food for their animals, just to name a few things. If judgements were placed on every person who sought assistance from us or any of the rescues, versus lending a helping hand, where do you think our community would be? Do you think we would have seen a 41 percent decrease in the kill rate of dogs and cats over the past four years? Such progress is made because some of you believe in helping people and some in helping animals. Ultimately, everyone wins.

The Golden Rule probably strikes a chord if you yourself have ever experienced being treated with empathy. When we experience something, we relate to it and tend to be more sensitive to that circumstance. So, if people around us treat others with respect, especially as we are growing up, we are more likely to treat people with respect. What are you teaching those around you? Of course, for anyone in rescue or spay/neuter, its also about the animal. I would dare say we practice the Animal Golden Rule treating the animal as we would want to be treated if we were that animal, or treating the animal as we would want one of our own treated.

A philosopher spoke of the Silver Rule What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others. So, now its not so much a reflection of what has happened to me in my past, but its the nightmare or vision of what could happen. Again, from the animal side of this, I dont want to be chained up so that I cant move and not be able to reach food or water or my house. I dont want to be locked in a car in the heat of summer or the dead of winter. I dont want to be ignored and isolated from the rest of the family. I dont want to be abandoned, abused, forgotten about. As for me, I dont want any of my animals to be treated this way either. What is the lesson I am teaching someone if this is what they see me doing? Some of what I do may be legal, but is it something I would want done to me? If what I am doing does more good than harm, then maybe its right.

The new Burke County Animal Ordinance will go into effect Aug. 1, 2017, and it is 33-pages long and very detailed. Why? Not everyone defines what is hurtful to be same, so we need it spelled out what we should do and what we should not do. It is influenced by Animal Control officers field experiences, complaints filed, and criminal charges. Not everyone follows the Golden or Silver Rule. Some cannot put themselves in someone elses shoes because their own experiences stand in the way. Some cant empathize with an animal because their own lives are overwhelming they cant see the forest for the trees.

Our responsibility is to practice the Golden or Silver Rule every day, teach our youth by our actions toward other living beings what we would want done to us.

Debbie Hawkins is with REASON Inc.

The rest is here:

The golden, silver rules of animal treatment - Morganton News Herald

Posted in Golden Rule | Comments Off on The golden, silver rules of animal treatment – Morganton News Herald

Former NSW Liberal member threatens to ‘tear party apart’ if Warringah motion fails – The Guardian

Posted: at 8:36 am

Trent Zimmerman says all members should approach the NSW Liberal Futures convention prepared to compromise. Photograph: Toby Mann/AAP

A long-time Liberal member has threatened to tear the party apart and push fellow members to Cory Bernardis Australian Conservatives if the Warringah motion for one member-one preselection vote does not succeed this weekend.

The motion will be debated at the NSW Liberal Futures convention in Sydney, an unprecedented event called specifically to discuss the party rules.

The convention will be open to the media to hear Malcolm Turnbull and the NSW premier, Gladys Berejiklian, address 1,500 registered members before the convention closes to discuss the contentious rule changes.

John Howard recommended plebiscites following his review of the party after he left office. Turnbull favours more open preselections but has not backed any particular model.

John Ruddick has been campaigning for all members to vote in their local preselections since 2011. He said the only good outcome was the defeat of all motions apart from the Warringah motion.

He labelled attempts by Liberal MPs Julian Leeser and Alex Hawke to broker a compromise as a con. The Leeser/Hawke motions would place eligibility criteria on members such as activity tests and waiting times before being eligible to vote, and would protect sitting members from the new system with a grandfather clause.

Opponents of Warringah say that this would reduce the chance of branch stacking, though no Liberals would talk on the record as it is against party rules. Ruddick is no longer a party member.

If the Hawke/Leeser con-job compromise motions are supported, then I will be joining Cory Bernardis Australian Conservative party on Sunday afternoon and will launch a high-velocity campaign to bring as many Liberal party members as possible to join me, Ruddick told Guardian Australia.

I single-handedly launched the democracy campaign within the NSW Liberal party and I will gladly tear it apart if they explicitly reject simple democratic principles.

The outcome may feed Bernardis plans to cannibalise the Liberal party membership base. While the membership numbers are held secret, Warringah supporters have previously stated the NSW membership is as low as 8,000, though other Liberal sources say the numbers are closer to 12,000.

Bernardi has planned an event in Sydney next week and claims 4,000 paid-up AusCon members in NSW. He is also due to speak to the Roseville branch of the Liberal party next month.

Ruddick, also a conservative, won nearly 40% of the vote when he ran for NSW party president in 2012. He had been threatened with expulsion and suspension for speaking about party matters publicly, before he resigned his membership in 2015 when Turnbull became leader.

Ruddick was one of a number of conservatives who had lunch with Bernardi, the former Liberal senator, last month. They included another key preselection campaigner and conservative, Walter Villatora, who is also Tony Abbotts federal electorate conference president. Abbott has argued for the change since he lost the leadership.

Even if the Warringah motion passes the convention, it has to go to the partys constitutional committee, and also pass the partys state executive, which is controlled by the moderate faction, which remains opposed to full plebiscites. Ruddick says he does not trust the party machinery to expedite the move to plebiscites.

If Warringah only is approved we still have a battle ahead the war of ratification, Ruddick said. The lobbyists are banking on bogging down ratification for years as they have done in the past. I cant disclose strategy at this point but I promise we will win the war of ratification within three months.

The current preselection practice is that branches vote in local delegates, who vote for a candidate from a central pool. In some circumstances, the state executive can use special powers to intervene and change the rules to expedite the process.

NSW is one of only two states that does not have some form of plebiscite for preselection.

The NSW party state executive and its immediate past president, Trent Zimmerman, have long opposed plebiscites, arguing that the current system is appropriate because MPs are local representatives as well as flag bearers for the party.

On Friday, Zimmerman said all members should approach the convention prepared to compromise, which could mean support for either the Leeser or Hawke motions. But it is also possible that the convention could support two motions, such as the Warringah motion and one other compromise motion, if some members vote for both.

The convention is unprecedented in that any member could register to take part and vote. Electronic voting will be used, via smartphones, tablets or laptops, which had caused concern among some quarters of the party, given its ageing demographic.

Original post:

Former NSW Liberal member threatens to 'tear party apart' if Warringah motion fails - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Former NSW Liberal member threatens to ‘tear party apart’ if Warringah motion fails – The Guardian

A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open … – The Guardian

Posted: at 8:36 am

Turkeys president, Recep Tayyip Erdoan, speaks to a crowd in Ankara during the inauguration on 16 July 2017 of a monument to commemorate the victims of the coup attempt a year earlier. Photograph: AP

Some readers bristled when the Guardian published an article with the byline of Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the president of Turkey. Why had the increasingly authoritarian leader been given space to say online, as the headline put it, Turkey, a year after the attempted coup, is defending democratic values, and in print, Turkey, a year on, has a strong democracy (Opinion, 15 July, page 35)?

A selection of readers reactions:

I was genuinely shocked Apart from the tens of thousands of academics, civil servants and teachers hes imprisoned, he has locked up thousands of journalists and closed down every non-compliant newspaper, TV channel and radio station.

Ive read your own counterbalancing editorial piece on post-coup Turkey published a day later, but this doesnt explain the rationale behind providing media legitimacy to Turkeys de-facto dictatorship.

Running this item shows a depressing lack of judgement, and one I do not expect from the Guardian [T]he actions of the government he represents are universally regarded as a threat to democracy in his country. In running such a story the Guardian can now be accused of aiding the attempt to legitimise the actions of such governments.

I like the Guardian and the way that it offers a different opinion on the world but to actually provide a platform for a man like Erdoan is a step too far. The damage he has done to Turkey and the wider region should preclude him from securing a platform like the Guardian.

I asked the relevant editors about their decision and they replied: It is part of our role to let our readers know what people in power are thinking. Erdoan is the elected president of Turkey and represents one of the most significant countries in the region. Publishing his argument does not in any way legitimise his repression or imply the Guardians endorsement of his actions.

The Guardian, along with the rest of the international media, has in its editorials and reporting of Turkey been relentless in holding Erdoan to account since the coup. In the last couple of months alone we have covered the dismantling of the judiciary, the opposition mobilising for a justice march, the hunger strikes, the prosecution and trials of journalists, and much more.

In recent months we have hosted numerous columns by international and Turkish writers condemning Erdoans autocratic tendencies. We have also published Amnesty Internationals opinion on the crisis in Turkey. Just days before the first anniversary of the attempted coup, we ran an op-ed both online and in print by the head of the opposition, Kemal Kldarolu. It was following this that the Turkish government approached us, arguing that the president should, for balance, be allowed to set out their thinking in the Guardian so readers could hear both sides as they marked the coup anniversary.

Clearly Erdoans crackdown in the last 12 months has been reprehensible but in the piece we published, he raises what is arguably a legitimate point about the numbers of Turks who came out to defend the system against the military. He also used his piece to issue a warning to western governments about the price of not supporting those Turks who stood against the coup and that in news terms justified its inclusion.

I substantially agree with the editors perspective. But not for all the same reasons. In this context a foreign leader with constant media attention and many platforms at command balance is not a weighty factor.

A major international media outlet like the Guardian must try to be a forum where those who wish to be informed can find a range of leading views, including views with which they may vehemently disagree.

Leading views include those of leaders of countries, howsoever they obtained, use or extend their power. What they put on the record under their own names, even the cant, becomes a reference point. The public record has a way of turning on public figures.

For ironists, here is Vladimir Putin in the New York Times in November 1999: Because we value our relations with the United States and care about Americans perception of us, I want to explain our actions in clear terms

And here is Putin in the Washington Post in February 2012: True democracy was not created overnight.

Let political leaders speak too much, not too little or at too few. Let history hear them and judge.

The gradually closing White House briefings, a part-shuttered state department, the erased sections of public agencies websites, the minimalism of sometimes incoherent tweets these are the political communications techniques that trouble me more than authoritarians exploiting abroad the free press that they lack the confidence to permit at home.

Readers can be trusted to weigh the words of a politician like Erdoan, with a record like his before and after the attempted coup, and to reach their own conclusions within the context of the coverage the Guardian and others continue to provide as Turkey and its neighbours convulse.

Go here to read the rest:

A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open ... - The Guardian

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on A byline for Erdoan? Liberal megaphones for illiberal voices | Open … – The Guardian

Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us – News Chief

Posted: at 8:36 am

By Star Parker Syndicated columnist

Recently, Gallup published the results of its annual Values and Beliefs poll.

The headline of the report speaks for itself: "Americans Hold Record Liberal Views on Most Moral Issues."

Gallup has been doing this poll since 2001, and the change in public opinion on the moral issues surveyed has been in one direction - more liberal.

Of 19 issues surveyed in this latest poll, responses on 10 are the most liberal since the survey started.

Sixty-three percent say gay/lesbian relations are morally acceptable - up 23 points from the first year the question was asked. Sixty-two percent say having a baby outside of marriage is OK - up 17 points. Unmarried sex, 69 percent - up 16 points. Divorce, 73 percent - up 14 points.

More interesting, and of greater consequence, is what people actually do, rather than what they think. And, not surprisingly, the behavior we observe in our society at large reflects these trends in values.

Hence, the institution of traditional marriage is crumbling, Americans are having fewer children, and, compared with years gone by, the likelihood that children are born out of the framework of marriage has dramatically increased.

Undoubtedly, the liberals in academia, in the media, in politics, see this as good news. After all, doesn't removing the "thou shalt not's" that limit life's options liberate us?

Isn't the idea of freedom supposed to be, according to them, that you have a green light to do whatever you want, as long as you're not hurting someone else?

But here's the rub. How do you measure if you are hurting someone else?

No one lives in a vacuum. We all live in a country, in communities. We are social beings as well as individuals, no matter what your political philosophy happens to be. Everyone's behavior has consequences for others.

For instance, more and more research shows the correlation between the breakdown of the traditional family and poverty.

In 2009, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution published his "success sequence." According to Haskins, someone who completes high school, works full time, and doesn't have children until after marriage has only a 2 percent chance of being poor.

A new study from the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies focuses on millennials - those born between 1980-1984. And this study reaches conclusions similar to those of Haskins.

According to this study, only 3 percent of millennials who have a high school diploma, who are working full time, and who are married before having children are poor. On the other hand, 53 percent of millennials who have not done these three things are poor.

Behavior increasing the likelihood of poverty does have consequences on others. American taxpayers spend almost a trillion dollars a year to help those in poverty, a portion of whom would not be in this situation if they lived their lives differently.

But the same liberals who scream when Republicans look for ways to streamline spending on antipoverty programs like Medicaid, scream just as loudly at any attempt to expose young people to biblical values that teach traditional marriage and chastity outside of marriage.

The percent of American adults that are married dropped from 72 percent in 1960 to 52 percent in 2008. The percentage of our babies born to unmarried women increased from 5 percent in 1960 to 41 percent by 2008.

This occurred against a backdrop of court orders removing all vestiges of religion from our public spaces, beginning with banning school prayer in 1962, and then the legalization of abortion in 1973. In 2015, the Supreme Court redefined marriage.

Losing all recognition that personal and social responsibility matters, that the biblical tradition that existed in the cradle of our national founding is still relevant, is bankrupting us morally and fiscally.

We are long overdue for a new, grand awakening.

Star Parker (contact her at http://www.urbancure.org) is an author and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. She writes for Creators Syndicate.

See the article here:

Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us - News Chief

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Parker: Liberal values are bankrupting us – News Chief

Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ success – TheBlaze.com

Posted: at 8:36 am

With Fridays appointment of Sarah Huckabee Sanders as the new White House press secretary, its never been more evident that liberal feminists are selecting their Joan of Arcs based on their political slant rather than on the fact that they are women.

If youre sitting there, scratching your head, wondering why a self-proclaimed feminist would attempt to diminish another womans successes, youre not the only one, and there is an answer.

Its called selective feminism, and the concept is exactly what it sounds like: Women who support other women so long as they fit into the mold of what they consider acceptable feminist standards.

From the very moment that Sanders was revealed to be the latestWhite House press secretary for the Trump administration, she faced attacks on her education, her qualifications, and perhaps, worst of all her appearance.

See some choice tweets targeting Sanders for shattering her own glass ceiling.

Even an article written by a Mediaite author decried Sanders success, and chalked it up to well, not much at all.

An excerpt from the article titled How Sarah Sanders and the Women of Trumpland Hurt Women reads:

With the decision to promote Sanders, expect the topic of gender and the Trump administration to surface once again, and with this discussion, expect plenty of tokenism. Expect Sarah Huckabee Sanders to respond to every question about imminent future questions about Trump sexism by lavishing praise on the obviously open-minded, pro-woman boss who entrusted her with this high-level position. And expect Kellyanne [Conway] to bring up something about how women dont care about casual sexism from their president because ISIS and violent crime and jobs, but in either case, expect valid criticisms of Trumps sexism problem to be wholly tuned out.

Dee Dee Myers and Dana Perino two previous White House press secretaries who also happened to be female, and maybe just maybe got the jobs because they are qualified were celebrated, lauded for their groundbreaking work in a mans world.

Sanders, however, seems to have gotten the rougher end of the stick, and because she had the audacity to accept a position that many women in the political arena would give their life for no matter what their political affiliation, shes automatically forced to turn in her feminism card if she even cared to carry one at all.

If conservatives or Republicans said even half of the things about prolific liberal Democrats in power that liberals have said about Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway, and now Sanders over the last six months and more, youd have a liberal lynch mob on your hands.

Feminism isnt selective. Feminism is all-encompassing. Its about supporting all women because if its about supporting all women, its about supporting zero women. Picking and choosing which women should be supported because of their race, age, experience, physical appearance, or political affiliation shouldnt fly with die-hard feminists because that boils down to sexism, elitism, racism, and xenophobia all of the important tenets that the most vocal of feminisms claim to be against.

Is Sanders the best choice for White House press secretary?

Only time will tell, and if shes not, its certainly not because shes a woman. But liberals will likely tell you that theyll tell you that should Sanders be forced out of or resign her post, it was because shes a woman, and in Trumps sexist administration, women can never thrive.

But the excoriation of Sanders based on the fact that she is a conservative, Republican woman in power is worse than liberal feminism at its worst because its not feminism at all.

Read the rest here:

Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders' success - TheBlaze.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Commentary: Liberal feminists destroy their own cause by diminishing Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ success – TheBlaze.com

The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained – Vox

Posted: at 8:36 am

Quietly, a fight has bubbled up in the ranks of House Republicans, which could derail the centerpiece of President Donald Trumps congressional agenda.

The battle is really about tax reform, but its stage is the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, which passed out of committee this week with unanimous Republican support.

Behind it all is a clash between Republican leadership and a group of archconservatives who see this moment months before any major tax bill is likely to come before the full House as their best chance to force deep cuts to both tax rates and social welfare spending.

Republicans are unified in their goal to cut taxes, but they are locked in an intraparty struggle of how deeply to cut rates and whether to offset those cuts at all with increased taxation elsewhere. GOP leaders have proposed a tax reform blueprint that would include such an increase to offset lost revenue from rate cuts and keep the budget deficit from growing.

The conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus say that proposal is dead on arrival, and they are pushing House Speaker Paul Ryan to adopt an alternative: one that relies on draconian welfare spending cuts and incredibly optimistic economic growth projections in order to avoid swelling the deficit. Ryan has resisted their efforts, particularly their proposed spending cuts.

Rather than stage that fight this fall, when the White House and conservative leaders will undoubtedly ramp up the pressure to pass a tax bill, the Freedom Caucus members have chosen to make their tax stand over the budget resolution a nonbinding government spending guideline that both chambers have to pass if they want to circumvent the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate on tax reform.

GOP leaders are refusing to back down from a resolution that Freedom Caucus members warn would force a vote on a smaller batch of tax and spending cuts in the fall. But without the Freedom Caucus on board, the resolution will fail a floor vote which is why caucus members have identified the budget resolution as their best leverage to get what they want on tax reform, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) said.

And so the budget resolution has become a proxy war, while President Trumps attention is still on health care in the Senate.

It is the same game of chicken, with the same key players that nearly killed the House health care bill in March. If neither faction blinks, Republicans, in control of the House, Senate, and White House will be stuck in a stalemate: No budget resolution means no tax reform.

For now, at least, Freedom Caucus members are saying theyre willing to take that chance.

At the beginning of this year, thinking only Senate Democrats with the power of a filibuster would stop them from repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes, Republican leadership devised a plan to bypass Democrats altogether: They would tie their major agenda items to the budget through budget reconciliation, a bill that can impact spending, revenue, or the debt ceiling, with only a party line vote in the Senate.

Its a process President Bill Clinton used to pass welfare reform in 1996 and President George W. Bush used to pass tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Its how President Barack Obama saw several budgetary amendments to the Affordable Care Act through. Republicans also attempted to use budget reconciliation to try to pass an Obamacare repeal bill in the Senate.

Budget reconciliation requires passing a budget resolution, forcing Republicans to thread the needle between members competing spending priorities and the larger contingents of tax cutters, deficit hawks, and defense hawks. This is hard, and because budget resolutions dont actually fund the government or go to the presidents desk, and spending bills can be done without them, its a step thats often skipped.

But this year Republicans have tied their hands. The budget resolution unlocks a path to tax reform, and depending on how the instructions for budget reconciliation are written in, it can also dictate how Republican actually implement tax cuts.

In budget reconciliation, each committee is instructed how much savings they must produce in order to pass a reconciliation bill.

Committees can only find these savings through mandatory spending which most notably covers programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs like cash assistance and food stamps. But there are some limitations: Trump has repeatedly promised Medicare wouldnt be touched under his presidency, and per reconciliation rules, Social Security funding cannot be cut.

If these reconciliation instructions are written strictly in the budget resolution, the level of required mandatory savings could influence how Republicans can approach tax reform specifically how they pay for their tax cuts.

In any scenario, Republicans are relying on projections of increased economic growth from tax cuts to offset the revenue losses from those cuts. But under most projections, growth alone wont be enough to offset the full losses from the deepest cuts Republicans have discussed, including a drop in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Ryan and the tax-focused Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) are adamant about executing a revenue neutral tax plan. To do that, they have floated implementing a border adjustment tax, which would tax foreign imports and exempt exports, raising money because the US currently imports more than it exports. Some analysts have projected that plan would be revenue-neutral after economic growth is factored in.

Theres a problem, though: So many Republican lawmakers and major conservative donors hate the border adjustment idea that it appears to have no chance of passing the House.

You are adding a whole new tax and revenue stream on the economy and not getting rid of another one that is always dangerous because it is just one more tax that could go up over time, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, said of the BAT. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think this is problematic.

Theres no need for revenue neutrality with tax reform, Jordan and the Freedom Caucus argue, in an attempt to make the case that these corporate tax rates would lead to what looks like extremely unrealistic GDP growth. But its unlikely Republicans will be able to convince members to vote for tax reform that removes the BAT without an alternative; the possibility of blowing out the deficit wont gain much traction with a Republican conference thats campaigned on doing the opposite.

The Freedom Caucuss alternative is to make up the difference with deep cuts to welfare programs. Meadows said his caucus has identified upward of $500 billion in mandatory savings options Republicans could exercise. Most other House Republicans, though, seem unlikely to go along with those cuts.

The Freedom Caucus knows that even without the BAT, if the party leadership is determined to be revenue-neutral, conservatives might be pressured into accepting a higher corporate tax rate to offset revenue losses, which they believe would reduce the economic growth generated by the bill.

Thats why caucus members are fighting for more dramatic mandatory spending cuts in the budget resolution a welfare reform package that they say could in part pay for tax cuts.

With Medicare and Social Security off the table, the Freedom Caucus wants to put Medicaid, cash assistance, and food stamp programs on the chopping block. Currently the budget resolution has written in $203 billion in mandatory savings cuts overall. The Freedom Caucus wants something closer to $400 billion.

There are a lot of other dynamics at play here as well.

House Republicans, with overwhelming consensus, want to hike defense spending to $621.5 billion, which would bust the defense budget caps in the Senate set at $549 billion. Authorizing that level of spending requires negotiating with Democrats, which would almost certainly increase to non-defense discretionary spending from the $511 billion the House has proposed.

House leadership has floated avoiding Democrats altogether by putting the additional defense funding in the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which covers unplanned military expenses outside of the budgets baseline. The proposed budget resolution already calls for $75 billion in OCO. For defense hawks in the House, like Armed Services Committee Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX), its better to have the money than not have the money, but more than $100 billion in OCO is not ideal.

House conservatives, anticipating this negotiation with Democrats, are only heightening their call for more mandatory savings.

Maybe we as the Freedom Caucus can live with a higher budget number if in fact we do real welfare reform on the tax bill work requirements, time limits on able-bodied adults [are] part of that package, Jordan said of a proposal to tie tax reform to welfare reform.

Because budget reconciliation instructions denote specific savings requirements for each committee, the Freedom Caucus is pushing for higher savings assigned to committees with purview over welfare programs, like the Agriculture Committee, which oversees food stamps.

Thats a difficult ask for committees that have their own spending priorities.

For example, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, has a farm bill to think about to cover rural, low-income, and farming constituents. He and Budget Committee Chair Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) have made assurances that he would push for reforms including renewed work requirements for the food stamp programs, but not necessarily through the reconciliation bill.

Leadership say members can sign on to either $203 billion in savings overall or zero, one Republican aide close to the Budget Committee said and thats not enough to bring the archconservatives on board.

But for now, the Freedom Caucus isnt buying this binary choice without their votes, this resolution will fail on the House floor, and with it any hope for tax reform.

The question is, who will give in to the pressure first?

Theres no wiggle room for a failed budget resolution and no faction of the party will want to come out against the president.

The battle ultimately comes down to the same two political dynamics that almost choked the health bill earlier this year: an era of extreme partisanship, in which congressional Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to work together, and a Republican Party that is polarized between its own moderates and conservatives.

Despite an ambitious agenda to repeal Obamacare, rein in government spending, and slash taxes, congressional Republicans have yet to enact a single piece of major legislation.

Thats left the White House desperate for some big policy wins fast. This game of chicken between House leadership and Freedom Caucus members is a big gamble. The lower chambers far-right contingent might have been able to successfully extract key concessions from Trump on health care but its not certain they can do it again.

The White House is much more involved in the business of cutting taxes than it has been on health care policy. And the reality from this fight over the budget resolution is that if it continues and is exacerbated by the Senate it could keep Trump from yet another win.

Follow this link:

The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained - Vox

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on The coming Republican civil war over the budget resolution, explained – Vox