Mediaboss Marketing

NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

AP, NY Times Are Conveniently AWOL as Women's March, Black Lives Matter Praise 1970s Cop KIller NewsBusters (press release) (blog) That controversy has even pulled in the Black Lives Matter movement, which has also received consistent and undeserved favorable press treatment, also exposing BLM once again as consistently, violently radical. Now the AP and the Times aren't covering ... and more »

View original post here:
AP, NY Times Are Conveniently AWOL as Women's March, Black Lives Matter Praise 1970s Cop KIller - NewsBusters (press release) (blog)

On Jan. 21 2017, the Womens March on Washington ledwhat many now believe wasthe largest single-day demonstration in recorded U.S. history. Organized by experienced women of coloractivists and organizers (Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Carmen Perez), the march called on women of diverse backgrounds, including immigrant, queer/trans, and Muslim women, to demonstrate a show offorce against the new regime of Donald Trump, which has so far been built almost exclusively on a platform of anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Muslim and xenophobic rhetoric.

Despite the impressive critical massthat turned outon January 20th, however, there were substantial and substantiated criticisms of the march:notwithstandingits leadership by women of color, the march was largely white, cisgender, and middle-class in representation.

Amidst white womens calls that womens rights are humans rights, there was little discussion of the way in which white women have historically colluded with white patriarchy in the oppression of Black people to obtain their rights, nor was there discussion of white womens historical participation in thegenocide and oppression of Indigenous people. Not to mention that it was white women who, more than any other single group of people, voted Donald Trump into the presidential office by an overwhelming majority.

In addition, calls for solidarity among all women through the donning of the now infamous pink pussy hats sparked rightful cynicism and criticismfrom trans and gender non-conforming women,many of whom did not appreciate an outdated and exclusionary version of womanhood rooted in biology rather than identity, experience, and structural oppression. Not all women have vaginas, and not all womens parts are pink. For many trans women and/or women of color, the call tounite underasupposedly universal symbol of womanhood that was so blatantly rooted in a white, cisgender experiencemade it impossible to endorse.

Despite its many flaws and shortcomings, however, the Womens March was not a one-time occurrence, and it did not simply disband after the march.

Since Jan. 21, the Womens March has become a smaller but more focused contingent of activists that more pointedly centers issues affectingBlack, immigrant, and Muslim women. Most recently, the WM contingent, under the leadership of Palestinian-American Muslim activist Linda Sarsour,centrally took up the concerns of the Black Lives Matter Movement in a way that it should continue to do if it is to be a lasting force for change during the Trump presidency and beyond.

After news broke last month that the court had failed to indictthe police officer who murdered Philando Castile (a legal, licensed gun carrier in the state of Minnesota), co-chair of the Womens MovementTamika Mallorya Black woman who has spent many years advocating for gun controlissueda letter to the NRA (National Rifle Association) askingwhy it had not stood up for the rights of Philando Castile. Given that Castilewas a legal gun owner (as required by law, Castile informed the officer who pulled him over that he had a legal license to carry), she argued, the NRA logically should have rallied for his cause, since it allegedlysupports the rights of citizens to arm themselves.

In typical hypocrite fashion, however, it soon became clear that by citizens right to bear arms, the NRA didnot mean all citizens, but seeminglyonly white male citizens. Anyone elses right to bear arms, apparently, was not worth defending. Rather than responding to Mallorysletter directly, the NRA instead issued thisoffensive advertisement, and Mallory was deluged with death threats from NRA supporters.In response, Sarsour, Mallory, and the WM contingent led a march from the NRA headquarters to the Department of Justice in Washington D.C.to demand that the NRA be held accountable for its failure to address the infringement of Castiles second amendment rights, and for endangering the safety of Tamika Mallory.

The kind of work that the Womens March is now doingwork that directly and specifically addresses police violence against the Black community and the safety of Black women in particularisexactly the kind of work it should continue to do. In other words, the Womens March should take its cue from the Black Lives Matter movement by centering issues specific to Black women and their communities.If the womens movement is to make any kind of meaningful progress, it must first make Black lives matter.

This is true especially because the Womens March that took place on January 20th, 2017 had an important precedent, which has so far received little attention: the Womens March of 1997, which was entirely conceived and led by Black women. OnOct. 25, 1997, an estimated 750,000 Blackwomen gathered together to march down the Ben Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, in order to inspire Blackwomen across the nation to work for their own improvement as well as that of their communities. The Womens March should not only acknowledge its debt to this earlier iteration of the Womens March, conceived and ledtwenty years previous by Black women, but should continue to center the voices and issues of Black women which remain by and large unaddressed.

See the original post here:
The Women's March Joins Forces with Black Lives Matter - Wear Your Voice

Corrupt to the core, Obama's hatchet-man is on the move

Look out Hillary Clinton. The former secretary of state and twice-failed presidential candidate proclaimed herself part of the #Resistance, but its a rabid left-wing movement that probably doesnt even want her.

Now Eric Holder wants to be the leader of the #Resistance. He is even pondering a 2020 presidential run. This might seem implausible , but the prospect of a Democratic nominee with massive baggage, in this case someone held in contempt of Congress in a bipartisan vote, should bring joy to the Republican Party.

It wont matter to the far-left hate-Trump voters, to whom the former attorney general has emerged as a hero and a leader. Never mind that Holder epitomizes the D.C.-Wall Street revolving door about as well as anyone. He has allied himself with California lawmakers who would rather not follow the law as long as Trump is presidenta bunch of modern-day John C. Calhouns.

Holder believes he has attributes more important than merely leading rebellious Californians.

I have a certain status as the former attorney general. A certain familiarity as the first African-American attorney general, Holder told Yahoo News, which first broke the news he was considering a run. Theres a justified perception that Im close to President Obama. So, I want to use whatever skills I have, whatever notoriety I have, to be effective in opposing things that are, at the end of the day, just bad for the country.

His actual presidency would involve heavy lifting on issues, likely pushing a constitutional amendment to ditch the Electoral College.

Its difficult to imagine Holder as a presidential candidate, or really a candidate for any elected office. Maybe hes close to Barack Obama, but he doesnt have Obamas stage presence. Controversy doesnt equal charisma. Holder almost makes Hillary seem energetic.

On the other hand, perhaps Trumps historic victory teaches us not to be dismissive of any candidate.

What can be said of Holder is that he probably has fewer skeletons than Hillary in his closet. But theres still fertile ground for Trump to campaign against Crooked Holder in 2020.

In June 2012, when 17 House Democrats joined Republicans in voting to hold the attorney general in contempt, it was about Americas top cop in the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history refusing to provide the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee with thousands of pages of documents.

This was a horrible mark on his record, essentially a censure, but Holder knew it amounted to very little functionally. He continued serving at the Department of Justice well into Obamas second term.

Congress was investigating Operation Fast and Furious, the botched sting in which the U.S. allowed 2,000 guns to flow to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The DoJ lost track of the guns, and halted the operation only after one of the guns was found at the murder scene of a border patrol agent .

Before the Fast and the Furious scandal, Holder stopped the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party members. There was near overwhelming evidence against Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson of misbehavior at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. They were even caught on video intimidating voters.

Should anyone think Trump is hostile to the media or anti-First Amendment, well, Holder would be absolutely ghastly. As attorney general, he regularly used the Espionage Act to silence leakers and even target journalists. He hunted James Risen of the New York Times and James Rosen of Fox News. He issued a subpoena to Risen to force him to testify against a whistleblower. He also made Rosen an unindicted co-conspirator in other cases.

His scandals really began in the Bill Clinton administration, where he was the deputy attorney general in Janet Renos ethically-challenged Justice Department.

In August 1999, he advised President Clinton to give clemency to members of the terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN. The FALN terrorists bombed a tavern in New York that killed four people and claimed responsibility for 100 bombings. Holder violated internal protocols by bypassingthe DoJs pardon attorneys and the U.S. attorney to push the clemency.

Holders most notorious act during his Clinton years was his role in securing the pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich managed to be a big financial booster of the Clinton presidential library fund before Clinton left office. Holder provided the legal cover for an obviously political pardon that Bill Clinton issued with hours left in office.

Between his dubious service in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Holder worked for the corporate law firm of Covington & Burling. Representing business giants such as UBS, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, CitiGroup, and Chaquita you might think would irk the left. But the firm also represented a few terrorists along the way, so the sin of defending capitalists can probably be forgiven by the far left. Still, after stepping aside as Obamas AG, he went back to the firm, prompting leftist journalist Matt Taibbi to say, I think this is probably the single biggest example of the revolving door that weve ever had.

For all his progressive weaponizing of the DoJ, such as suing states that want to clean their voter rolls of dead people and launching investigations of Americas police departments, Holder consistently disappointed the left for not prosecuting the big corporations.

That might be related to his private practice and could present a challenge when it comes to picking up the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrats that Hillary couldnt connect with. But, hell probably be okay. While progressive politicians goal is to effectuate the maximum amount of control over the most people possible, low-information progressive voters typically are governed by emotion. Even without charisma, Holder might be able to deliver on emotion, given the issues he likes to tout. He can ingratiate himself with the left because hes no fan of America. He called the U.S. a nation of cowards.

Also, based on what he told Yahoo, hes ready to capitalize on race. Theres nothing the left loves more than identity politics. As attorney general, Holder compared voter ID laws to Jim Crow-era poll taxeswhich either demonstrates a profound racial demagoguery interested only in political red meat or someone completely ignorant of the history of the wretched Jim Crow era in the South. Its most likely the former, since for all his flaws, Holder is a smart guy.

Could he be nominated? Possibly.

Sanders, a senator from Vermont, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren would seem to be in the top tier of Democrats who have indicated they might run in 2020. Holders name recognition would easily put him in that top tier. At 70 in 2020, hell be the youngest of the group, compared to the 71-year-old Warren, the 78-year-old Biden and the 79-year-old Sanders. To be fair, theyll all be vying to challenge a 74-year-old Republican president. It could be the most Jurassic presidential race in history, with a need to pick a 69-year-old vice presidential nominee to add youth and vigor to the ticket.

Sanders and Warren could split the socialist vote. Biden, likely wont run, but if he did, his tendency to unleash legendary gaffes would probably be the end of him. So Holder could walk right through the middle and win the nomination, having never held elected office. To low-information voters, he could even claim his not a politician.

Could he be elected?

Even if by 2020 the Russia-Trump theory has been cast into the territory of Roswell aliens and 9/11 Truthers, its possible the special counsel investigation could begin digging into something totally unrelated by that time. So, maybe there could be suspicion to go around. Whatever comes out on Trump, it will likely be difficult to top Holders past.

Bombthrowers is a blog about politics and the war for the hearts and minds of Americans from a conservative viewpoint.

In line with our name, we do not hold back. We have a take-no-prisoners attitude when it comes to fighting for conservative principles. The Left doesnt play nice, and thats why theyve been winning. Its time for conservatives to rise up and turn the tide.

Were not afraid to take on anyone, especially the Washington EstablishmentRepublican or Democrat.

Bombthrowers is a project supported by the Capital Research Center. Its editor-in-chief is Matthew Vadum.

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Read more from the original source:
Is Eric Holder Trump-haters' best hope for 2020? - Canada Free Press

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Democrats are in a tizzy about their latest and brightest prospect for the 2020 White House Kamala Harris, the senator from California who made a name for herself bullying Jeff Sessions during his attorney general confirmation hearings.

Make way for the next social justice warrior beating a drum for the White House. Harris, a la Eric Holder, a la Barack Obama, is a far leftist with a vision of America as an inherently racist, unjust, unfair, misogynist nation. And by gosh, shes just the candidate to fix it.

Democrats and their penchant for the Anti. They never can get the hang of running for something of standing for and in favor of something. They always have to stand opposed.

First off, the question of her run.

Shes running for president, one fundraiser at a Hamptons event said, The Hill reported. Take it to the bank.

Another: Shes absolutely going to run.

So if she does and no matter what fundraisers say, its still an if this is what the country will have to look forward to: a former prosecutor with an aggressive contempt for all things conservative.

We have to keep showing up to fight the GOPs radical agenda on health care, on taxes, and many more important issues, she tweeted, just a few hours ago.

Another, with a link to a story, Why Trumps travel ban hits women the hardest, from the Guardian: Make no mistake: this ban disproportionately affects women and children.

Thats a claim the left has been constant on making that the majority of refugees are poor mothers and their even poorer children. So why all the photographs of young and single men, filing across borders by the droves?

Moving on. More anti-Republican activism.

Because of your phone calls, tweets, and emails, the Senate GOPs repeal plan is defeated (for now). But we must keep up the fight, Harris tweeted.

And then this take, on the war on drugs that its not so much a criminal matter, or a personal failure. Rather this: Whole populations of people have been incarcerated for what is essentially a public health issue.

Does that mean a President Harris would release all the nations incarcerated dopers and pushers and use tax dollars to send them instead to therapy and rehab? Another of her tweets gives clue.

Its clear, she wrote, we must rethink criminal justice policy in terms of prevention first.

Well thank you, Capt. Obvious. Stopping crime before it starts does seem a novel idea. The problem, however, is that the real root of crime is the condition of the human heart and soul the failure of fathers to stay in homes and raise their children properly, the failure of mothers to provide adequate care for their babies, the failure of government to support traditional family structure and instead adopt an anything-goes mentality that flies in the face of what God intended.

But thats not how the left sees it.

The left sees crime and punishment as matters of haves and have-nots and far too often, whites are the haves, minorities the have-nots, so their solution lies with wealth redistribution.

The answer to fixing the criminal justice system is not to build more prisons or privatize those prisons, Harris tweeted. Weve been offered a false choice about the criminal justice system. We are either tough on crime or soft on crime I say be smart on crime.

OK. But what does that mean, exactly? To a far leftist, smart on crime means soft on reality. It means looking at crime statistics, for instance, and seeing a disproportionate number of blacks behind bars and concluding a fault with the system inherent racism rather than a fault with the individual, or community.

This is an Eric Holder style of thinking. This is a Barack Obama way of seeing the world.

Harris for president? Shell be Holder in a skirt; Obama, with longer hair.

Read the original post:
Kamala Harris: 'She's running for president. Take it to the bank ... - Washington Times

July 20, 2017

To the Editor:

Democracy in Chains author Nancy MacLean misrepresents my criticism of her connecting the work of my late colleague James Buchanan to that of John C. Calhoun (Nancy MacLean Responds to Her Critics, The Chronicle Review, July 19). My criticism is not that she drew a parallel between Buchanans political economy and that of John C. Calhoun. Instead, my criticism as I say plainly in the essay linked in your report is of her claim that the core ideas of Buchanan (and of others scholars who work in Buchanans tradition) come from John C. Calhoun. Had MacLean merely drawn a parallel between Buchanans efforts to study and compare different constitutional rules and Calhouns similar efforts, Id have raised no protest. But by asserting in her interview with the New Republic that Buchanans ideas trace back to John C. Calhoun andin her book describing Calhoun as the intellectual lodestar of Buchanan and others who work in the classical-liberal tradition she is demonstrably mistaken.

First, Buchanan never mentions Calhoun in any of his vast writings. Second, in an appendix to The Calculus of Consent his most famous book (co-authored with Gordon Tullock) Buchanan not only explicitly identifies several political thinkers as inspiration (nearly all of whom, by the way, pre-date Calhoun), he also explains in detail how their works influenced his own; these explicitly identified precursors to Buchanans political thought include Johannes Althusius, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Wilhelm von Humboldt, James Madison, and Baruch Spinoza. Again, they do not include Calhoun.

Somehow overlooking Buchanans own very clear mention of the thinkers whose ideas he found to be especially influential, MacLean contrary to all available evidence claimed in her book and in her interview that the major inspiration for Buchanans ideas is Calhoun. That claim is not only unsubstantiated, it is preposterous.

Donald J. Boudreaux Professor of Economics and Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center George Mason University Fairfax, Va.

Originally posted here:
Author's Claim That Calhoun Was Major Inspiration for Nobel-Winning Libertarian Is Absurd - The Chronicle of Higher Education (blog)