Mediaboss Marketing

Whew! For once, one of my predictions was correct: Donald Trump had a great visit to Saudi Arabia. It was a great visit for him, it was a great visit for the Saudis and the other Arab Gulf states, andlast but not leastit was a great visit for magical, glowing orbs.

I want to spend a little time talking about one of the reasons why the trip went so well. Ill warn you: This is a somewhat taboo subject for progressive foreign-policy types. The subject, friends, is arms sales. Progressives dont like arms sales very much, but they need to pay attention to them, because theyre one big way Republicans are fighting forand winningthe votes of working-class Americans who have traditionally voted for Democrats.

While the president was in Saudi Arabia, the Trump administration announced $110 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabiawith an additional $240 billion committed over a 10-year period. If youve ever worked in government, you know this is what is called a deliverable, the clunky management-consultantese term for a tangible outcome of a visit or meeting. When Donald Trump is asked to justify his trip to Saudi Arabia, hell cite that $110 billion in arms sales.

There are a few interesting things about these sales. The first is that many of these sales were already in the works. The Obama administration spent eight years quietly selling a lot of arms to Saudi Arabia: When President Obama left office, for example, the United States still had $100 billion in the foreign military sales pipeline with Saudi Arabia and, in 2011, had inked what was previously the largest arms sale in U.S. history with the Kingdoma $29 billion deal to sell F-15s to the Saudis.

The 18 Independent Agencies Trump Wants to Eliminate

Obama-era sales to Saudi Arabia were in keeping with sales to other Gulf states: Both Qatar and the United Arab Emirates bought a tremendous amount of U.S. arms between 2009 and 2017. Qatar bought more U.S. arms than any other state in 2014 and, in the waning days of the Obama administration, announced that it would buy nearly $4 billion in Boeing-made F-15s in addition to $19 billion in commercial aircraft, also from Boeing.

Overall, the Arab Gulf states went on a spending spree during the Obama years, and most of the money was spent on American arms.

So why didnt you hear a lot about this from Democratic politicians during the 2016 election season? There are two main reasonsone strategic and one moral.

Strategically, not everyone is convinced that arming the Arab Gulf states to the teeth is a wise idea. Some worry that these arms might someday endanger Israels security, while others worry the Arab Gulf states might be encouraged to use their new toys on disastrous military interventions against Iran or Iranian proxies in, say, Yemen.

The quick and unsatisfying answer to these concerns is the global market. The Arab Gulf states have money, and that money will buy the weapons that are available. If U.S. arms are not for sale, fine: French, Chinese, or Russian arms will be. (And if you dont believe me, look at the way in which Gulf statesfrustrated by U.S. export controls on drone technologyare turning to the Chinese.) Selling U.S. arms to the Gulf states, by contrast, further ties them to U.S. interests by deepening cooperation and interoperability between the U.S. military and its Gulf partners. One of the reasons Qatar wanted to buy U.S. fighters to partially replace its French-made fleet, for example, was because they discovered how difficult it was for their existing fighter aircraft to fly with the U.S. air force as part of coalitions over Libya and Syria.

Arms sales also drive down the cost of our own weapons and thus the amount of money U.S. tax-payers have to spend on defense instead of other priorities like, say, the State Department, school lunches, or housing subsidies. Heres one example: Because the United States is buying fewer F-35s than originally planned and using more of its fourth generation fighters (F-15s, F-16s, etc.) in the skies over Iraq and Syria than previously anticipated, the Department of Defense will likely need to buy more of those fourth generation fighters in the coming years. The recent sales of F-15s to Qatar, F-18s to Kuwait, and F-16s to Bahrain will drive down the cost per plane for the Pentagon. Thats a good thingat least financially.

Morally, though, many progressives just grow ill at the idea of selling weapons abroad. Senator Chris Murphy, for exampleone of the more eloquent and consistent critics of U.S. arms sales in the Senate, even though his own state has a very robust defense industrial basesees nothing admirable about the idea of selling weapons to the Saudis that might be used in Yemen. Other progressives agree: Yes, they argue, we understand the demand of the market will be met by someone, but do we have to be complicit in providing the supply? In other countries, progressives have even taken to the courts in an effort to halt sales.

I have a lot of respect for these progressives and their values. I spent too much time in Sunday School as a kid to not feel a little uneasy about the business of selling weapons. And the angst many progressives feel about U.S. arms sales has been enough to keep many Democrats from talking up their successes in helping U.S. industry abroad. I wonder, though, if there isnt a real political cost to not doing so.

Boeing employs 157,000 peoplealmost all of them in the United States. 14,500 people work in Boeings facilities in Missouri, where the F-15 and F-18 are made, where Senator Claire McCaskill is up for reelection next year, and where Donald Trump trounced Hillary Clinton 56 to 38 percent in 2016. (Those 14,500 people do not include the many thousands of other Americans who make parts for the F-15 and F-18 elsewhere in America.)

Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, a huge winner in the recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia (despite ace businessman Jared Kushner negotiating the price down on behalf of the Saudis), employs an additional 97,000 workersagain, most of them in the United States. And Raytheon, another big winner last week, employs another 60,000 or so Americans.

Donald Trump obviously has no moral qualms about selling weapons to our partners and allies abroad. And so while Democrats leave points on the board with working-class voters by not talking about how much Democrats do to support U.S. industry, Republicans swoop in to take credit with assembly line workers for even those things that Obama approved and set in motion.

The way in which Trump brags about U.S. arms sales, of course, is in keeping with the strain of economic mercantilism that ran through his populist campaign message. That message worked with voters throughout the Midwest, helping to cost Clinton the election. So while progressives might have moral qualms about companies that sell weapons, the roughly 1.2 million American voters who work in the aerospace and defense sectortogether with the roughly 3.2 million Americans who support the sector indirectlysee little wrong with the sales that help ensure their livelihoods and provide a future for their children.

This might be another area in which progressive eliteswho have the kinds of education and skills that dont require them to seek work on the assembly lineare simply out of touch with the voters they need to win back control of the Congress and state assemblies, never mind the presidency. And politics aside, surely even the moral calculus of arms sales gets more complicated when you think about the millions of American mouths that are fed by mothers and fathers who work in the aerospace and defense sector.

Donald Trump, for his part, is speaking to those voters. And even as progressives fret about U.S. arms sales, they should also fret about what it will mean for the rest of their agenda when Republicans claim credit for protecting some of the last good assembly-line jobs in America.

Read more:
What Progressives Miss About Arms Sales - The Atlantic

A member of queer punk rock duo PWR BTTM was recently accused of sexual assault, news that has taken the music industry by surprise.On May 11 a person claiming to be part of Chicagos DIY scene and queer community wrote on Facebook that musician Ben Hopkins is a known sexual predator and perpetrator of multiple assaults. A band that was booked to tour with PWR BTTM tweeted they had been forewarned about Hopkins predatory behavior and Jezebel posted an anonymous interview with a woman who says she was sexually assaulted by the rock star.

The fallout was swift:PWR BTTM, which has recently garnered critical acclaim from The New York Times and just released a sophomore album, was dropped by their management as well as their label, which pulled the bands music from all streaming services.

The allegations have shocked fans, many of whom idolize PWR BTTM for being one of the few gender fluid role models in a heteronormative music industry. The band is part of the queercore movement, a small subculture of punk that eschews aggressive masculinity, and writes songs such asI Wanna Boi, and Sissy. The gender-neutral Hopkins, who wears thrift store dresses onstage and a face smeared with glittery makeup, has become a queer icon and thebands shows are known as safe spaces the musicians demand every venue have gender-neutral bathrooms, and in November gave audience members access to a back entrance when homophobic protestors showed up outside a concert.

But given the complexity of many sexual assault cases, these allegations should not be surprising. They should instead serve as an important reminder that abusers can also come in progressive packages.

Theres a societal tendency to think sexual violence predators fit one, misogynistic mold. That they are the type of people who anchor right-wing talk shows, leer at women on the street or brag about grabbing genitals. This limited definition makes the threat of sexual assault feel contained rather than omnipresent. The reality is that progressive politics dont preclude non-consensual sex.

When a queer person with enlightened gender values is accused of sexual assault it creates cognitive dissonance. Nobody expects a musician who champions safe spaces especially one who isnt a heterosexual man to face allegations of sexual assault. But you know what else we didnt expect? That Americas dads favorite pastime was allegedly drugging and raping women. There is no one-size-fits-all model of an abuser.

There are countless examples of people whose liberal values or artistic jobs have helped distract from their alleged criminal behavior. Bill Clinton, who signed the Violence Against Women Act, secured family leave, and lobbied for sexual orientation to be included in hate crime law, has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct and has infamously used his power to get sexual favors. Canadas Jian Ghomeshi used his high-profile status as a progressive radio host and renaissance man to allegedly sexually abuse 15 women (the court acquitted him of four charges). And lets not forget thelong list of celebrities, including Casey Affleck, Roman Polanski, Woody Allen and Nate Parker, whose artistic work is at seemingly odds with the accusations or charges of sexual violence against them. (To be fair, the problem isnt only with men. The female self-proclaimed feminist founder of Thinx underwear was recently accused of sexual harassment by current and former employees.)

We all likely know someone who waxes poetic about gender equality during the day and becomes a total creeper in dark bars. In the worst cases, perpetrators explicitly use their liberal ideals as bait. The term macktivistm refers to men who espouse progressive politics to lure in female victims. A Jezebel article describes one man who was fluent with womens issues such as body-image politics, female silencing and, most chillingly, consent, whom 20 women have accused of sexual assault and harassment.

Liberal values can also become a shield to help perpetrators defend themselves against allegations. Hopkins, who goes by the gender-neutral pronoun they, used progressive gender ideals to bolster their innocence in a statementreleasedThursday. Though they denied the allegations, they wrote: I am firmly committed to consent, to communication, and to mutual expression of sexual interest...I believe it is my responsibility to be accountable to this individuals perspective and to honor it accordingly. While theres no doubt PWR BTTMs values have improved the lives of many queer fans, these enlightened politics come across as hollow and manipulative when used to deny accusations of sexual assault.

While the PWR BTTM allegations will likely never be tried in court, they follow a well-known pattern: Theres a prominent figure within a community whose sexual abuse certain members claim is well-known.Eventually someone posts a blog or a tweet about the persons behavior, which seemingly permits others to share corroborative experiences. This phenomenon recently occurred with an editor who ended his public writing career after a womans blog post about his behavior led to multiple sexual assault accusations and with a music publicist who resigned after a woman tweeted an allegation of sexual harassment that prompted many other similar stories.

While these accusations are incredibly painful for PWR BTTM fans, they are a good reminder that sexual assault perpetrators dont fit into neat categories. Sometimes, they are the aggressive men who grab women at bars and yell sexist slurs. But they can also be queer role models who sing about progressive gender messages while covered in sparkles.

More here:
Progressives Can Be Sexual Predators, Too | HuffPost - HuffPost

Red cards, signaling disagreement, often predominated at Sen. Dan Sullivans town hall May 20 in Anchorage. (Photo by Wesley Early/Alaska Public Media)

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan held a town hall meeting Saturday in Anchorage, one of only a few hes held on the road system since the election of President Donald Trump.

Hundreds packed into the Bartlett High School auditorium were frequently vocal.

This was not the kind of crowd Sullivan was used to.

I cant tell if those are boosor if those are Dont answer! Sullivan said at the start. You dont have to answer that.

When he spoke about rolling back federal regulation and turning control over to the states, lines that usually draw applause for him fell flat. Or worse.

The thrust of what we need to be doing is letting the states, who understand their (insurance) market much better, much better than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., design a systemthat fits Alaska, Sullivan said, straining to continue over the chorus of booing.

Sullivan took questions for more thanan hour. Many were about proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Health care worker Sarah Stevens asked the senator how he expects Alaskans to bear the cost of giving birth if Congress allows insurers to dropmaternity coverage.

Sullivan supports covering pregnancies, but flexibility would bring down insurance costs.

What I dont support is a federal government plan, like you have under the Affordable Care Act, that says to a 60-year-old male you have to have insurance that covers maternity, Sullivan said, amid sustainedbooing. It makes no sense, and thats why you have premiums spiking.

But isnt that just health insurance? Stevens asked, to hearty applause. I dont need prostate exams but I pay into a health care plan that provides prostate exams.

The booing continued, and the crowdheld up red cards to show their disagreement. A few people in the crowd started chants of single-payer.

Just to get it out of the system and get the biggest boo of the night, I am not supporting a single payer health system, Sullivan said, drawing the predicted response.

Red cards also went up when Sullivan spoke of defunding Planned Parenthood and mentioned Trumps more controversial cabinet secretaries.

Green cards appeared when Sullivan described Russia as an adversary and said Alaskas climate is changing.

(Sullivan, though, has disputed the scientific consensus on the cause of climate. He voted no to a Senate declarationthathuman activity contributes to climate change.)

The crowd chanted yes or no?when Sullivan did not give a simple answer to a question about his support for expanded Medicaid.

The senator saidhes focused on not pulling the rug out from under current enrollees.

Donna Marie is among the constituents who have been clamoring for months for a congressional town hall in Anchorage.

At his request, she introduced Sullivan on the Bartlett stage, and she took it on herself to ask people to be respectful and avoid booing. She wassurprised athow one-sided the audience was.

I thought the senator would have more conservative support in the crowd, and more support for his views, Marie said. I didnt see more than three or four ofwhat I would call Trump administration supporters, and the rest of the crowd seemed overwhelmingly progressive.

Sullivan responded with good grace and good humor to a fairly hostile audience,Marie said.

Were they rude? Perhaps a little bit, Marie said. But they werent out of control. Its not like they prevented the meeting from going on. They might have delayed (it) for a couple of moments, but otherwise I thought the audience reacted appropriately given the situation.

Marie said shes hoping U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski or U.S. Rep.Don Young will appear at a town hall shes organizing at the end of the month.

Sullivan, in a written statement Monday, said the Anchorage town hall was more raucous than his previous community outreach events. But he said he believes in listening to all Alaskans, regardless of theirideology.

Zachariah Hughes contributed to this story.

Continue reading here:
Progressives make voices heard at Sullivan town hall - KTOO

Texas Sheriff Tracy Murphree harshly condemned the Manchester bombing, and didnt shy away from decrying Islamic terrorism and his thoughts that it was the root of the Manchester Arena massacre.

Murphree of Denton County,vented his frustrations on Facebook Monday night where he warned America not to make mistakes that could put the country in harms way.

Murphrees statement read:

Pay attention to what you see in Manchester England tonight. Pay attention to what is happening in Europe. This is what happens when you disarm your citizens. When you open your borders without the proper vetting. When you allow political correctness to dictate how you respond to an enemy that wants to kill you. When you allow these radicals to travel to Afghanistan and Iran and simply let them back in. When you give up your citys [sic] and your neighborhoods to a religious ideology that says you must convert or die. A ideology that treats women as property, kills gays and women and christians [sic] with complete impunity. The left tells us we must submit and accept these radical beliefs and bend over backwards to make sure we dont hurt anybodys feelings. The left wants to cater to the very group that would kill every group they claim to support. Folks this is an enemy hell bent on killing you. Committed to forcing you to convert or die. This enemy will strap bombs to their own body and blow themselves up killing children. Im sick of it. You better wake up America. While you are distracted by the media and the crying of the left, Islamic Jihadist are among us and want to kill you. What will it take? This happening at a concert in Dallas or a school in Denton County? If we dont do something quick this country will die of political correctness and the fear that someones feelings may be hurt. It may very well be to [sic] late for Europe.

Though Murphree was faced with some criticism for pulling the left into his well-versed diatribe, the support for the sheriff was overwhelmingly positive.

During a Tuesday interview with CBS11, Murphree doubled down on his comments.

He said, Im just sick and tired of kids dying around the world. When youre chastised and called names because you use the words radical Islamic terrorism. It baffles me. when I made that post I thought everyone knew that radical Islamic terrorism was a problem in the world.

Nearly 21,000 Ariana Grande fans were in Manchester Arena on Monday night for a stop on Grandes Dangerous Woman world tour when a home-made bomb was detonated after the show concluded.

After the concert ended, lights in the arena were turned back on and concertgoers began exiting the venue. At that time, suicide bomber Salman Abedi detonated his homemade explosive, killing at least 22 people and injuring scores more. The suicide bomber also died at the arena.

On Tuesday, ISIS took responsibility for the terror attack, saying, One of the soldiers of the caliphate placed explosive devices in a gathering of crusaders in the middle of the British city of Manchester.

Go here to see the original:
Texas Sheriff eviscerates liberals over Manchester bombing: 'Wake up, America' - TheBlaze.com

Intolerance, at times exploding into violence, is spreading throughout our society. And its coming from the political left.

Its happening on college campuses. Most recently, students walked out on Vice President Mike Pences commencement address at Notre Dame University.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos was interrupted by boos and jeers at her commencement address at historically black Bethune-Cookman University.

Conservative scholar Charles Murray was met with violent protests at Middlebury College. Another conservative scholar, Heather Mac Donald, was violently shut down in a presentation she was giving at Claremont McKenna College. These are just a couple examples.

Now its spreading off college campuses with reports of violence and threats toward Republican members of Congress and their families, as they hold town halls in their districts.

A column in The Hill newspaper bears the headline, Republicans fearing for their safety as anger, threats mount.

Whats happening?

A recent commentary in Forbes Magazine from a London School of Business professor calls this The Post-Truth World.

He describes a prevailing feeling of helplessness as individuals inhabit a world in which knowledge is, in general, exploding but each individual knows, relatively, less and less. And he points to a world in which business and politics are becoming increasingly interdependent.

New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt attributes whats happening to a culture in which young people are not forced to deal with opposing viewpoints. This, says Haidt, is amplified by social media, which serves to reinforce existing biases.

But all this doesnt explain why the intolerance and violence is coming mainly from the political left.

A new survey from the Pew Research Center sheds light on this.

Sixty-six percent of Republicans compared to 29 percent of Democrats say that a person is rich because they worked harder than most people rather than because of having personal advantages in life. This 37 percent difference in attitudes of Republicans and Democrats about why some people are rich is 12 points larger today than where it stood just three years ago in 2014.

Seventy-one percent of Democrats compared to 32 percent of Republicans say someone is poor because of circumstances beyond a persons control, rather than because of lack of effort. This 37 percent difference between Republicans and Democrats in attitudes regarding why someone is poor is 19 points larger than where it stood three years ago in 2014.

The nation is becoming increasingly polarized on the very fundamental question regarding the extent to which individuals have control over their own life.

Across the nations whole population, 53 percent feel poverty is the result of circumstances beyond an individuals control compared to 34 percent who see poverty as the result of lack of effort.

What is the meaning of freedom in a country where more than half its citizens feel fate rather than choice governs their life?

Not surprisingly, for the first time in eight years, according to Pew, more Americans (48 percent) say they want bigger government than say they want smaller government (45 percent).

Conservatives are exposed to the same cultural and technological forces as liberals. But its not what comes from outside that determines human behavior. Its what comes from inside the individuals attitudes and approach to life.

Liberal mentality, increasingly dominated by moral relativism, produces a culture of victimhood. The victim sees life exclusively in political terms, seeing political power and government as the means to a better life, rather than freedom and personal responsibility.

With Republicans now in power, trying to restore economic vitality and fiscal balance by limiting government and expanding personal freedom, the left sees this as a threat, not an opportunity.

We all should be deeply troubled that, in the land of the free and home of the brave, some are turning to violence to battle the prospect of becoming freer.

More:
Liberals' violent fight against freedom - WND - WND.com