Mediaboss Marketing

To the editor:

In his Jan. 26th opinion piece, self-proclaimed "progressive" Dr. Wayne-Daniel Berard attempted to find some common ground with conservatives. Condescendingly, he concluded that the point of contact is that "what they want, what they've wanted all along, is for we progressives to include them, too, among those we want to lift up." It was good to read his acknowledgment of the fact that many progressives have marginalized those "who have no college degrees or do manual labor," or those labeled as a "stupider-than-us conservative Christian."

Additionally, Dr. Berard proudly wrote of progressive achievements including, "We have fought for the freedom of all to live their core beliefs, popular or un." However, he could not resist writing, "I will confess, I do not understand how many of these deal with LGBTQ folk or woman's reproductive freedom. But my progressivism includes the right of religions to set their own course, in house." And with only two words, "in house", he exposed what he really means by religious freedom. Those of faith should be free to practice their beliefs, but their expressions of it should be confined to their places of worship and the home. Clearly, Dr. Berard would like us to shut up in the public square.

As a Christian, I and others of like faith will continue to live out, speak out, private and public, for what we believe is God's created order regarding sexuality and against the horrific and unconscionable wrongs of abortion, which is pathetically whitewashed with its dismal depiction as "reproductive health."

No, Dr. Berard, we are not just like you. The only real ultimate point of contact with all of us is that we, as we read in the Bible, are sinners who have offended our creator, and we all are in dire need of a savior. That savior is Jesus Christ for all who embrace and follow him in faith.

Rev. Paul Wanamaker

Norton

The left must stop obstructing Trump

To the editor:

I read the newspaper, watch the TV news and listen to America, and I am utterly disgusted.

In 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president, I, and many of my conservative friends, were very disappointed. But we didn't need a "safe place" to go to. We didn't protest in the streets and destroy the property of others. We were willing to give him an opportunity to succeed or fail knowing we could vote him out in four years.

President Trump has been in office slightly more then a week. He has a very few members of his cabinet confirmed due to unprecedented Democrat obstructionism. He issues an executive order that puts a 180-day hold on accepting any persons from seven countries that Obama said were war sites because we don't know if ISIS is sending people over here. The order doesn't say a hold on Muslims, it says a hold on anyone and allows Homeland Security an opportunity to make exceptions.

Yet the left portrays this as a ban on Muslims despite the fact that there is no hold on the 99 percent of Muslims living in any country other then these seven countries. And the left, in the person of the mainstream media and the Hollywood crowd, spreads the lies as if they were the truth

A man with a highly-qualified status from the left of center American Bar Association, Neil Gorsuch, was nominated to the Supreme Court. The protesters were on the Supreme Court steps with "fill in the blank" signs where the wrote in the justice's name and the libs began the fight before having asked the man a single question. And you can already see the left salivating at the thought of what kind of hell they can put this man and his family through.

This all must stop. These people need to get a grip. We have elections in this country and those elections have consequences. If you don't like the results then do something about it in the next election.

We conservatives endured eight years of a failed presidency without obstructing every nomination (Obama's cabinets were in place within a week of his inaugurations). It's time the left did the same thing.

Joseph Chabot

North Attleboro

Editor's note: Tuesday is the deadline to receive endorsement letters for the Feb. 14 preliminary election in North Attleboro. Send to opinion@thesunchronicle.com or to Voice of the Public. PO Box 600, Attleboro, MA 02703.

On to Super Bowl

Goodell tried to hamper

the Pats on their quest,

but... in the end,

he just gave Tom some rest.

They won with Garoppolo,

J. Brissett, too;

with only two bumps,

through the schedule they flew!

Unlike the year last,

they locked up home field;

and with the bye week,

the players, they healed.

The game against Houston,

did not play their best;

it sharpened their focus,

to play with more zest.

TB had his game face

against the poor Steelers;

the Patriots rocked,

Ben and Co. were The Reelers.

Ten zip after one,

Pats got a great start;

Do Your Job! Do Your Job!

Each did their own part.

Mistakes Pitt' did make,

they started to bicker -

wouldn't you after seeing

that Hogan flea flicker?

How 'bout power, too?

That Blount rugby scrum

showed that Tom just might get

that "One For The Thumb."

Here in New England,

or so I've been told,

these trips to the Big Dance

just never get old.

And talk about dances,

of this, have no qualms:

M. Bennett is surely

the King of pom poms!

So bring on Atlanta

and all their offense.

Matt Ryan just might make

this game a bit tense.

But at the game's end,

when all's said and done,

expect Pats to win

SB Fifty One!

Don't know about you,

but I think you'll agree:

can't wait to see Roger

hand Tom ... MVP!

Allan Fournier

North Attleboro

View original post here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: No, conservatives are not like progressives - The Sun Chronicle

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the vacancies a judicial emergency, according to Bay Area public radio station KQED, even though there are 29 judges on the court. The emergency is that Trumps nominees might be able to make the court more conservative.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Ninth Circuits jurisdiction covers many West Coast states, and its decisions have often reflected the liberal political culture of California and other left coast outposts. Over the past several decades, the frequency with which the U.S. Supreme Court which had a narrow 5-4 conservative majority until 2016 reversedNinth Circuit rulings became a recurring theme. However, the Ninth Circuit has shown flashes of independence, as in recent Second Amendment rulings.

Liberals are worried about that increasing moderation at the Ninth Circuit. KQED interviewedUniversity of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who commented: I think even in the Obama years the court has moved to be more moderate than it used to be, so I think that with those four appointments it could make some difference and move the court further in that direction.

On some issues, particularly on gay marriage, the liberal outlook of the Ninth Circuit has also become accepted more widely. The Supreme Courts ruling onHollingsworth v. Perry (2013), for example, vacated the Ninth Circuits ruling on procedural grounds but effectively paved the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage in California and elsewhere.

Barring a last-minute set of recess appointments, Trump will be able to fill the four vacancies, subject to the approvalof the Senate. During the election, Trump produced a list of potential conservative judicial nominees to the Supreme Court.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the most influential people in news media in 2016. His new book,See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Cant Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

See the rest here:
Liberals Panic as Trump Could Flip Left-Leaning Ninth Circuit

In the 1997 case Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to direct state and local law enforcement officers to enforce certain provisions of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In short, Printz held, the feds may not commandeer the states for federal purposes.

At the time it was decided, Printz was criticized by many liberals for being a "conservative" decision that promoted states' rights at the expense of duly enacted national reforms. In other words, they saw it as a case of the 10th Amendment run amok.

Liberals today are more likely to view Scalia's handiwork in a far more favorable light. That's because Printz now serves as perhaps the single best legal precedent in support of the constitutionality of so-called sanctuary citiesmunicipalities that either won't help the federal government round up and deport undocumented immigrants or otherwise refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities have become a hot topic since the election of Donald Trump. Less than a week after Trump won, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo took to Facebook with a defiant message for the incoming administration. "We won't allow a federal government that attacks immigrants to do so in our state," he declared. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was equally blunt: The Windy City, he said, "will always be a sanctuary city." Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck announced that his department was "not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job."

Federal authorities retain their own power to enforce national laws in those places. But the lack of meaningful local cooperation is no small hindrance. In effect, these cities are a bulwark against the far-reaching national agenda of border hawks in Washington.

If you like the sound of that, take a moment to thank Justice Scalia. As he made clear in Printz, "federal commandeering of state governments" goes against the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. Trump may not want to hear it, but "such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our system of dual sovereignty."

Read the original here:
Will Liberals Learn to Love the 10th Amendment? - Reason

(Adding: protests held on Saturday)

The unlikely battle over the confirmation of Betsy DeVos as President Trumps nominee for education secretary is becoming even more pitched in the final days before a Senate vote with the airing of hundreds of thousands of dollars of advertisements attacking extreme liberals full of rage and hate who oppose her while protests against her were being staged around the country.

The controversy over the nomination of DeVos, a Michigan billionaire, is the most ferocious of any education secretary in the nearly 40-year history of the Education Department, and of any Trump nominee and it is only likely to deepen until there is a vote early next week on the Senate floor. The vote stands, it is believed, at 50-50, including two Republicans who have come out against DeVos despite enormous pressure from the GOP to support her. If no senator changes position, Vice President Pence would have to break the tie to confirm her.

Republican leaders and a White House spokesman said they are sure she will be confirmed, but her opponents are still hoping to persuade one Republican senator to switch sides this weekend. Senate offices in Washington and in the states have been swamped with phone calls and emails in some cases unprecedented numbers.

Supporters of DeVos say that she is a champion of school choice who wants to help students find the best educational opportunities and that the opposition is coming from partisan Democrats playing politics. Her critics say that her advocacy for charter schools and vouchers and support for religious schools shows her determination to privatize public education and that she is out of the mainstream even in the school choice world, evidenced by opposition to her from many supporters of school choice.

In the final days before the vote, the wrangling over the nomination is increasing and taking some unusual turns.

Advertisements began running on television in support of DeVos, with one of them saying:

Why is the radical left so full of rage and hate? They still cant accept that Trump won and they lost. Now extreme liberals like Elizabeth Warren are trying to stop Betsy DeVos from becoming secretary of education. DeVos angers the extreme left because she exposes their hypocrisy. DeVos wants low-income kids to have the same choices that liberal elitists have for their families. DeVos wants equal opportunity in education for all kids, and that makes angry liberals even angrier.

The ads are being paid for by a conservative group called America Next, which has both ads posted on its website, and is led by Bobby Jindal, the former Louisiana governor who had a short-lived campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. The group is spending, according to Politico, a half-million dollars on the ads. They follow a digital pro-DeVos advertising campaign launched by America Rising Squared an arm of the Republican super PAC America Rising.

Although supporters of DeVos blame the opposition on Democrats and the two teachers unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, critics come from the political spectrum. Some conservative Republicans oppose her in part because they say she supports the Common Core State Standards, though she says she doesnt; she is a strong ally of former Florida governor Jeb Bush who was a big Core supporter for years. Parents with children with disabilities have come out against her, saying they dont believe she will protect their interests, and many school choice supporters, such as billionaire Eli Broad, who would have been expected to support her are in fact opposing her, saying they dont think she believes in public education. She says she does. Hundreds of students and graduates from the Christian college she attended, Calvin College, wrote against her nomination too, saying she isnt qualified and didnt care enough about public schools.

Meanwhile protests are being held in cities across the country this weekend, some of them organized by teachers unions, to try to persuade at least one Republican senator to vote against her, which would tank the nomination. Among the protests on Saturday was one in Denver outside the office of Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), urging him to vote against he, and one in Verona, N.J., where hundreds gathered to protest DeVos:

On Friday, a few hundred people protested in front of the west Omaha offices of Sen. Deb Fischer(R-Neb.), asking her to do the same. Fischer was one Republican that DeVos critics had hoped would buck the GOP leadership on the vote because she has stated that she opposes vouchers, which DeVos supports, and is a strong supporter of public education, but the senator came out in support of DeVos.

There were protests in Kansas by teachers, parents and others urging Sen. Jerry Moran (R) to change his mind after he came out in support of DeVos, and in Philadelphia, protesters appeared at the offices of Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) to try to persuade him to reverse his decision to vote for her. He said he wouldnt.

One teacher, Katherine Fritz, noting that DeVos had donated $55,800 to Toomeys campaign, started a tongue-in-cheek $60,050 fundraising effort to pay for Toomeys vote on GoFundMe.com. She actually got more than that, over$66,000 from almost4,000 people in two days, the website says. She wrote:

Betsy DeVos has never set foot in a classroom, did not send her children to public school, cannot distinguish between proficiency and growth, and thinks that guns should be allowed in schools in the event of grizzly attacks. That fictitious grizzly is about as qualified as Ms. DeVos to run the Department of Education.

If Betsy DeVos can buy Senator Toomeys vote, we should be allowed to do the same.

If, of course, Senator Toomey does not wish to accept any funds raised*, all money will be donated to Camp Sojourner, the Pennsylvania Arts Education Network, and the Childrens Literacy Initiative.

Other people started a GoFundMe.com campaigns to buy the votes of other senators who had accepted donations from DeVos, including Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio).

In Utah, the Salt Lake Tribune reported, a woman named Julia Silge couldnt get through to the office of her senator, Orrin G. Hatch (R), for weeks to talk about DeVos, so she bought a ham-and-pineapple pizza and tried to get it delivered to the office with a note saying, From a Salt Lake constituent in 84105: Please vote NO on Betsy DeVos. She is an inappropriate choice to lead our public schools.

Alas, it didnt get through, but the office saw the pizza order after she posted it on Twitter, the newspaper said.

A new element has entered the debate about DeVos whether the opposition to DeVos is sexist. The line goes that DeVos is being attacked by critics for being clueless about key education issues, which she displayed during her Jan. 17 confirmation hearing but other Cabinet nominees who have known next to nothing about their portfolios have been confirmed, such as neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who said he wasnt qualified to run a federal government department before he decided to accept Trumps offer to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, Nikki Haley wasnt exactly an expert on foreign affairs when she, as governor of South Carolina, was tapped by Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Go here to see the original:
Pro-DeVos ads air, saying 'liberal' critics are full of 'rage and hate,' as anti-DeVos protests are held - Washington Post

5462565

Has Google, the worlds most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word fascism to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggest they have.

You see it on signs at every protest or riot liberals accuse President Donald Trump of being a fascist. The words association with Adolf Hitler and its use now is no accident, its meant to strike fear in peoples hearts of tyranny.

Merriam-Webster defines the word fascism as a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralizedautocraticgovernment headed by adictatorialleader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. The secondary definition is a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.

This definition reflects the fact that Nazis were, in fact, both fascists and of the political left. They were the National Socialist German Workers Party, which favored a heavy-handed government in business and the personal lives of its citizens.

The authoritarian government of Nazi Germany not only oppressed opposing political views and used violence to enforce it, they supported a powerful central government which heaped social benefits on its citizens. The second part of Nazismis the socialist part, which is very similar to what the modern American political left advocates. For all their bluster to the contrary, Hitler was a man of the extreme left, and so was fellow fascist and Axis Powers member Benito Mussolini.

But if you type the word into Google, the definition they provide is quite different.

The worlds largest search engine pins fascism on the political right, not the left.

Google defines fascism as, an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (emphasis added)

The secondary definition is, (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Thats a striking difference from how the word has been defined for decades.

Screen capture from Google

Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.

Google curiously adds right-wing to its definition and omits the severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition part.

By the traditional Merriam-Webster definition of severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition, the violent mobs protesting and rioting over President Trumps actions are the ones engaging in fascistic tactics.

The exact reason Google has changed the definition of fascism to reflect on the political right rather than the left is unknown. However, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the worlds richest men, has been a vocal critic of President Trump, an activist liberal, and has protested the Presidents executive order on immigration.

Many members of the mainstream media have unquestioningly adopted the new Google meaningwithout explaining why, leaving their audience with the impression that speech or advocacy contrary to liberal orthodoxy is fascistic when, by definition, it is not.

Follow this link:
Google Redefines The Word 'Fascism' To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters - Daily Caller