Mediaboss Marketing

This story has been corrected since it was originally published.

Kellanne Conway appears to be dabbling with alternative facts again.

In an interview with MSNBCs Chris Matthews that aired on Thursday night,Donald Trumps former campaign manager and now an adviser in his administration, referenced the Bowling Green massacre when justifying the presidents controversial executive order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending the United States Syrian refugee resettlement program.

I bet its brand new information to people that President Obama had a 6-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre. It didnt get covered.

While Matthews did not press Conway on her Bowling Green massacre claim in the interview, so much of her statement is untrue that essentially the only accurate part is that there were no media reports fitting her description.

First of all, Obama didnt stopthe Iraqi refugee program.

The Obama administration imposed additional background checks on Iraqi refugees in 2011 but did not stop or ban Iraqi refugees from resettling in the U.S.

As for Conways complaints that the Bowling Green massacre didnt get covered, it didnt get covered because it didnt happen.

Conway may havebeen referring totwo Iraqi men livingin Bowling Green, Kentuckywho were indicted in 2011forusing improvised explosive devices against U.S. soldiers in Iraq and also for attempting to send weapons and money to Al-Qaeda in Iraq for the purposeof killing U.S. soldiers. Both are serving life sentences. Neither the money nor the weapons ever reached foreign shores, the Associated Press reported, because they were intercepted by an FBI investigation into the two mens activities. As Vox notes:

During the investigation, the FBI found something worrying: fingerprints from Alwan on a roadside bomb in Iraq. This suggested there was a very specific flaw in Americas refugee screening process: Databases of fingerprints from Iraqi militants were not well-integrated into the broader State Departmentrun refugee admissions process. As a result, the Obama administration initiated a new review of all roughly 57,000 Iraqi refugees who had been recently admitted into the United States.

Neither man was linked to attacks or planned attacks within the United States.

Those incidents received a fair amount of media coverage, but public interest was limited since there was never even a plot to massacre people in Kentucky.The local newspaper the Bowling Green Daily News noted that the case received extensive coverage.

But despite the best reporting efforts of his local paper, even one of Kentuckys Republican senators echoed Conways wholly inaccurate account.In a separate interview with MSNBC, Paul referred to the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, where I live.

Contrary to what both the senator and Conway appear to be pushing by spreading the myth of a terror attack in Bowling Green, attempted or a massacre, analysis by the Cato Institute of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 found that foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trumps travel ban Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia have killed no Americans.

Conways conspicuous massacre comment comes less than two weeks after she defended false assertions about the size of Trumps inauguration crowd as alternative facts.

Youre saying its a falsehood. And theyre giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary gave alternative facts, Conway told NBCs Chuck Todd while discussing Spicers claim that the Jan. 20 crowd was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.

The rest is here:
Bowling Green massacre: Kellyanne Conway, Rand Paul fabricate attack to defend Muslim ban - Salon

On the day of President Trumps inauguration, the WhiteHouse.gov website was completely stripped of its previous build (which was archived as Obamas White House on a separate URL) and a new set of Issues were listed on behalf of the Trump administration. Conspicuously absent? LGBT issues, civil liberties, and the environment.

Many Trump apologists made excuses for this, claiming that since the new administration had to start from scratch, it would take time for them to fully flesh out the website. I agree which is why the Issues page was the only completed page upon the new WhiteHouse.gov launch. The rest of the site remained bare, but for a very specific reason, the Issues page was revamped and presented as a complete whole in the new website build. Trump wanted his voters (and the American people at large) to get familiar with the issues that most concerned him, and so it is clear that his transition team had already prepped this particular page of the website ahead of time so that the American people would at least have something to look at upon their new president taking the all important oath.

Considering this, the excuses dont hold any water if Trump truly wanted to say something reassuring to the LGBT people of America, who have publicly expressed fear of this new administration, he would have made sure it was included in his new Issues page. He didnt. Which means hes indifferent toward this demographic at best.

Now, to be fair, Trump did say pro-LGBT things during the campaign, and there was recent news that his administration would continue the lawful protections against active discrimination that Obama had previously put in place for gay and trans employees, etc. And thats all wonderful. I dont actually believe Trump is the boogeyman the liberal press has spun him into. However, the fact that Trump doesnt think LGBT issues are worthy of having a voice in his main advertised agenda is still a problem. It indicates, if nothing else, that our new president is ignorant to the true will of the people. Hundreds of thousands of gays, women, blacks, Latinos, and American-born Muslims are publicly crying out at the moment because they are genuinely afraid of Trump.

And what has Trump done to bring the American people together, considering this? Has he publicly stated on his website that he will continue Obamas LGBT protections? Has he publicly clarified that his recent executive order regarding Muslim immigration is only temporary, and only applies to non-American Muslims? No, he has not. And he should, if he intends on dispelling the ore exaggerated claims about him. Why he has yet to do so is trouble, because it is indicative of a lack of empathy or awareness of the unrest found in large portions of the people he claims to now represent and protect.

Is our president truly this tone deaf? Is he really so unable to understand that a simple addition to his website, a simple White House statement, a single tweet., etc. could start to make the difference and ebb peoples fears? Who cares if many of said fears were kicked up by the media unjustly? That ship has sailed, and the currently reality is one of fear, paranoia, and violence. If President Trump were truly presidential, he would be making his positions much more clear, and he would be reaching out to all Americans (not just in a general statement, but in direct addresses to specific demographics) to assure them that he is going to preserve their rights as well as the rights of their straight, male, white fellow citizens. Equally. With liberty and justice for all.

Until the President can do that, which is now warranted considering the hostile climate that has been kicked up by partisan fear mongering and demagoguery, then he has not earned the privilege of actually being referred to as presidential. Because being president is more than just the actions; it is also the words. Kennedy and Reagan spoke to their citizens like brothers and sisters is a common quest for liberty and greatness; Trump trashes people on Twitter for making harmless jabs at his expense. The bar has fallen significantly. And we are likely going to spiral further into chaotic unrest and heterogeneity as a result.

Brace for impact.

This post was written by Micah J. Fleck.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Like Loading...

Read more from the original source:
Why Trump's First Few Actions Already Matter - Being Libertarian

The Democrats have been decimated nationally and now face a national government controlled, in all three branches, by Republicans. In response, quite cynically, theres been a revival of a certain states rights mentality among liberals.

In sanctuary cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Oakland, mayors have boldly stated that they will not cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport undocumented denizens. Like Loretta Lynch, under Barack Obama, Trump has said he will cut off federal funds to cities that do not submit to federal will.

Democrat Governors like Dan Malloy and Jerry Brown are saying they will challenge federal laws, and progressive groups are looking to the states more and more to get what they want.

I may not like a large chunk of the liberal agenda but, if there are other folks who want to help shift the field of battle from the national to the local level, Ill take it.

Since FDR, progressives and liberals have pushed for an ever-greater centralization of authority; but in the age of Trump, it will be Republicans who reap what Democrats have sown, and liberals are cowering.

Libertarians are the truest champions of political decentralization, and if liberals want to serve our ends we should let them.

If the centralization of authority that liberals have pushed for over the decades is still around after theyve lost power; then, by that logic, the decentralization they cynically retreat to, when theyve lost elections, can remain when they inevitably get back into power only to find that power has been oh-so-beautifully diminished.

We can use liberal angst against big government nationalistic Republicans today, and use the fruits of liberal rage against incumbent progressives tomorrow.

We libertarians should use the changing battlefield to our advantage. We should be part of the push to shift politics to local and state levels, and then use that opportunity to seek power at lower-level offices that are more easily influenced by insurgent movements like ours.

Libertarianism has often been described as the perpetual ideology of the opposition in the United States, and federalism doubly so. As the biggest advocates for the nationalization of politics suffer the effects of their disastrous ideology, lets take the opportunity to prevent them from being able to do much damage down the line.

Jacob Linker is a Campus Coordinator with Students For Liberty and the State Chair of Young Americans for Liberty in his state.

Like Loading...

See the article here:
Progressives are Retreating to Federalism: Ironic, but an Opportunity - Being Libertarian

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the presidential campaign is that so many down-and-out people voted for Donald Trump with the idea he would help them. No. Now, he is going to help rich people rob you.

Today we have two widely expected pieces of financial lawmaking news from the Trump administration: Gary Cohnwho went directly from the presidents office at Goldman Sachs to take a job as Trumps top financial advisorsays that the White House will begin plans for scaling back the Dodd-Frank law, which was Congresss best attempt to make our financial system safer in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. On top of that, the Trump administration will also halt the implementation of the fiduciary rule, the purpose of which was to prevent financial advisers from ripping you off.

I am not exaggerating. The point of the fiduciary rule was that when you, the average person, go in to some financial adviser to learn what you should invest in for your retirement, you should be able to know that that advisor is recommending investments because they are good for you, and not because they are earning some kickback on the investment. In other words it protected consumers from predatory behavior from their hired financial experts. The one and only reason to roll back this rule is to allow people to once again be exploited by financial professionalsto allow them to make more money for themselves by costing you money. (Here is a good explanation of why the objections to the fiduciary rule are dishonest bullshit). It is extremely straightforward. The Trump administration has gained power and will now use that power to allow a small class of money people to exploit everyone else. The Dodd-Frank rules are a bit more arcane, but the general reason for dismantling them is the same: to allow Wall Street to make more money. Our financial system is about to get both more dangerous and more exploitative. This is the outcome of the blue collar billionaire who fed people slogans about Draining the Swamp and then immediately turned over our government regulatory system to Wall Street insiders.

Regular people do not win from these actions. The rich win and you lose. I know that fiduciary rule is not a very poetic or attractive term, but all you need to know is that these people areI am not exaggeratingdoing this for the express purpose of ripping you off. They will get more money out of you and you will get nothing of value. That is whats happening. Remember that every time you see these people smile for the next four years. Every time that you hear Republicans speak of themselves as the guardians of fiscal responsibility and protector of the common man, remember that their policy is explicitly to allow a con man in a suit to steer grandma into a too-expensive mutual fund that will leave her with less money to live on so that he can put more money in his own pocket. This is what it comes down to: money. More for them, and less for you. Forever and ever amen.

Read the original post:
Now The Republicans Will Rob You - Deadspin

As they struggle to figure out how to deliver on the most important (and repeated) promise they made to their constituents over the last eight years repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act Republicans face two sets of problems, both of which are far thornier than they imagined.

The first are the policy problems, which arise from the fact that health care reform is incredibly complex (and yes, theyre just realizing that now). The second are the political problems, which may be even more challenging. And their political task is going to become much harder when they actually propose something and try to get it through Congress, for a reason few seem to have noticed: Republicans are totally alone.

Health care reform, more than perhaps any other issue, implicates and potentially threatens the interests of a wide array of constituencies, groups, industries, and political actors. Youve got citizens/patients/consumers, of course. Then there are the doctors, and the hospitals, and the insurers, and the various health care industries industries, and patient advocacy groups, and even larger groups like the AARP. After all, were talking about a sector that employs over 12 million Americans, makes up 18 percent of the entire American economy, and touches absolutely everyones life. If you get opposition from even some of those interests, the whole effort can begin to crumble.

Thats why, when Democrats set out to construct the ACA in 2009, they spent an enormous amount of time and effort trying to co-opt as many of those groups as they could, often to the consternation of liberals. It was a tricky balancing act: some got on board wholeheartedly, some maintained opposition, and some, like the insurance industry, seemed to toggle between support and opposition on an almost daily basis. They had to be cajoled, convinced, threatened, and bought off.

But in the end, it worked. Democrats got the support of the American Medical Association, which had opposed just about every health reform effort in history, including the creation of Medicare. They convinced insurers that the new regulations theyd be subject to would be made up for by an infusion of new customers. In the end they held this tenuous coalition together just long enough to get the 60 votes they needed to pass the bill through the Senate, without a single vote to spare.

But who is with Republicans right now in their effort to repeal the ACA? Who has their back? The answer is: nobody. Hospitals are terrified that repeal will mean a flood of patients unable to pay their bills. The AMA is telling them not to do repeal without a replacement plan fully in place. Insurers are starting to panic, threatening to pull out of the individual market next year. The AARP, the most powerful lobby in America, is issuing warnings about GOP replacement plans that could increase costs for middle-aged consumers. Employers who may not have liked the law in the first place are nervous about the upheaval repeal will cause. Even the reliably pro-GOP U.S. Chamber of Commerce is telling them to slow down.

While this is happening, much of the grassroots energy is on the Democratic side. There are crowds of angry constituents hounding their representatives not to repeal the law, but the pressure on the other side seems less visible.

And if they push ahead and repeal the law, all the bad effects will happen just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Which is why Republicans are getting ready to cast off the very idea of repealing the ACA, the thing they voted 60 times in the House to do and have promised again and again. Heres what the New York Times reports today:

Congresss rush to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, once seemingly unstoppable, is flagging badly as Republicans struggle to come up with a replacement and a key senator has declared that the effort is more a repair job than a demolition.

It is more accurate to say repair Obamacare, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this week. We can repair the individual market, and that is a good place to start.

Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee (the other place the reform effort has to run through), told the Post that he is okay with either repealing or repairing the law. Hatch said:Im saying Im open to anything. Anything that will improve the system, Im for.

This is absolute blasphemy but its spreading. The dramatic shift in language comes after their retreat in Philadelphia last week, in which they fretted about the political and policy difficulties in repealing the law, and were told by pollster Frank Luntz that they should use the word repair when talking about what they plan to do.

Which is why youre suddenly hearing the word repair come out of Republicans mouths every time this subject comes up. Repeal is out, repair is in. Yes, there are still Tea Party members insisting that the whole law needs to be tossed as quickly as possible. But theyre being overtaken by the repair contingent, as Republicans realize not only that full-scale repeal would be catastrophic for the health care system, but that if they do it, there will be no one to help them with the political fallout. Despite the fact that pretty much all Republicans have promised for years to repeal the ACA, its possible that, if they brought up a repeal bill tomorrow, all those interest groups would quickly mobilize against them, frightened members would begin to peel away, and the measure would fail.

There may be one silver lining for Republicans in this extended debate. As there has been a public discussion of the consequences of repeal, the law has been getting more popular, with more Americans approving of it than disapproving of it. I wouldnt be surprised if even some Republican voters who a few months ago would have said Trash the whole thing! are now perfectly amenable to a more careful approach. That may give Republicans some room to take things slow without paying too much of a price with their base.

But theyll still be responsible for the damage they cause to peoples coverage when its all done. Even if they manage to hold on to many of the ACAs more popular provisions, the things they want to do are inevitably going to decrease Americans health security, raise their out-of-pocket costs, and increase the number of uninsured. They wont escape the political consequences of all that, no matter who if anyone winds up on their side.

Donald Trump has campaigned to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, once he gets into office. Now that he's won the presidency with a majority Republican House and Senate, that feat might not prove to be too easy. Wonkblog's Max Ehrenfreund explains. (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

View original post here:
With no allies, Republicans step away from precipice of repeal - Washington Post (blog)