Mediaboss Marketing

Bill Maher would probably like to make fun of conservatives like he's done in years past. I admit some were funny jabs. He's a comedian. He's pro-free speech. He hates the political correctness ethos that's infected his side of the aisle. It's why he's shot inside the ship more than a few times. He's returned fire against his own because they've lost their minds. The man just likes having conversations with anyone. He and Ann Coulter are best friends. He sat down with The Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro where he discussed how his side has lost the plot. Defunding the police, kids being transgender at age fourthis never happened. Being "woke" was not a thing. Introducing yourself via pronouns was not a thing either. So, when Joe Biden decided to form a thought police task force at the Department of Homeland Security ahead of the 2022 midterms, you can only imagine how Maher would react given his past remarks about Big Tech censorship concerning the Wuhan lab leak theory and Hunter Biden's laptop.

First, it just shows you how out of touch Joe Biden has become thinking that so-called misinformation, which is just anything that makes him look bad, is what's causing his bad polling numbers. It's just that he has a trash agenda. Yet, Maher warned liberals about this thought police task force, noting they would have had a field day over Barack Obama's lie about healthcare. Remember, if you like your plan, you can keep it? The HBO host also said that people comparing it to "1984's" Ministry of Truth in Oceania are right.

"It's exactly what it sounds like," he said (via The Blaze):

On Friday night's episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher," the liberal talk show host said he agreed with the newly-formed department's role in combatting Russian disinformation since "they are our adversary and trying to hurt us." However, Maher was deeply concerned with how the Disinformation Governance Board could be politically weaponizedhere's from the Department of Homeland Security, 'Disinformation is defined as false information that is deliberately spread with the intention to deceive or mislead,'" Maher quoted the DHS.

[]

"Well, you could have said that about If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," Maher suggested, recalling Obama's vow that was proclaimed "Lie of the Year" by PolitiFact in 2013.

"It said also, here's a phrase, can take many forms. Okay, now we're going faster down the slippery slope," Maher warned.

Maher declared, "Okay, so government should not be involved in deciding what's true or not true!"

Maher then questioned what would happen to the Disinformation Governance Board if Republicans regained the White House in the next presidential election.

[]

Maher mentioned that many people are labeling the Disinformation Governance Board as the "Ministry of Truth" the department of propaganda in George Orwell's dystopian book "1984."

"Yes, they're right to compare this to Orwell in the Ministry of Truth. It's exactly what it sounds like," Maher exclaimed.

[]

Maher also slammed the incoming director of the new Disinformation Governance Board for wanting to enable verified Twitter users to edit other users if they feel like a tweet is misleading.

During a recent Zoom call, Nina Jankowicz said, Verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter [in] the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.

Maher noted that Twitter users can easily add a reply to tweets which could provide context.

"Oh, you mean like what Twitter is? That's what Twitter is. Somebody says something and then you add context," Maher snapped back sarcastically, then added, "These are not bright people in our government."

Well, that's for sure, sir. Democrats sure act as if they'll be in the majority forever. That's coming to an end this year. I hope they understand thatand I'm not so sure we should dissolve this thought police task force once we regain control in due time. They set the rules. And we know the left has been spewing a steady lava stream of misinformation.

Originally posted here:
Bill Maher Cites Obama's Big Lie When Warning Liberals About Biden's ...

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read the rest here:
OPINION: Society reaps what liberals have sowed | Opinion | lmtribune.com - Lewiston Morning Tribune

The federal Liberals tabled a bill Friday that seeks to eliminate self-induced extreme intoxication as a legal defence for violent crimes, after the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in May.

Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, would add new language to the Criminal Code that creates criminal liability when a person who commits a violent crime is in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.

For a person to be found liable for their actions under the drafted update of Section 33.1 in the code, prosecutors would need to establish that they were criminally negligent.

The court would need to consider whether a reasonable person in that situation could have foreseen the risk that ingesting intoxicating substances could cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.

The specific circumstances of the case would factor into the analysis, such as the substance itself and the quantity that was consumed, the persons state of mind at the time and anything they may have done to mitigate such a risk.

Extreme intoxication is defined in the bill as intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour.

It is not a presumed defence, meaning that the test would only apply if a defendant specifically raises it.

This has only ever happened a handful of times, Lametti said.

It would not apply to the vast majority of cases where drugs or alcohol are involved and almost never in situations where only alcohol was consumed.

This is not about being really drunk or really high, he said, repeating several times: Being drunk or high is not a defence for committing criminal acts like sexual assault.

Marci Ien, the Liberal minister for women and gender equality and youth, told reporters the government has been increasingly concerned about online misinformation suggesting that the recent Supreme Court decision meant that being drunk could be a defence for sexual assault.

She cited social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one that suggested rape is now legal if youre intoxicated.

Lametti said one of the motivations for closing the gap in the law so quickly was to address some of the rising fear and confusion around the decision.

You dont want someone to think, Oh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever the blank I want, he quipped.

In its unanimous May ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that being drunk will never get someone off the hook for a violent crime.

Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision that under the previous wording of Section 33.1, convicting someone for how they behave in a state of automatism, or when they are too intoxicated to stay in control of themselves, violates principles of fundamental justice.

The wording had been added by the Liberal government of Jean Chrtien in 1995, in response to a 1994 Supreme Court decision that acquitted a man of sexual assault because he was blackout drunk at the time of the offence.

But it failed the constitutional test because a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that they acted voluntarily or that they ever intended to commit a crime even though a guilty action and a guilty mind must ordinarily be present for someone to be found criminally responsible.

On that basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after voluntarily consuming drugs, and ordered a new trial in a third, similar case.

Some groups expressed concern about the court ruling, with Kerri Anne Froc of the National Association of Women and the Laws steering committee urging action to rectify a gap in the criminal justice system and protect women and children, often the victims of these crimes.

The court suggested Parliament could enact new legislation to update the language of the Criminal Code in such a way that extremely intoxicated people could still be held accountable for their violent crimes.

Lamettis office reacted with what he called lightning speed, consulting with stakeholders, court interveners and members of Parliament to come up with a solution that could get broad support.

Pam Hrick, the executive director and general counsel of the Womens Legal Education and Action Fund, appeared alongside ministers at Fridays news conference and praised the governments thoughtful, nuanced and constitutional response.

Asked whether he expects the bill to be passed by unanimous motions before the House of Commons and Senate rise next week for a summer break, Lametti said he is optimistic.

There is a point of agreement here, and I hope we can move this forward.

The NDPs justice critic, Randall Garrison, said in a statement that his party will push to have the bill passed quickly.

The Conservatives say they are still reviewing the legislation.

Marie-Danielle Smith, The Canadian Press

More:
Liberals table bill responding to Supreme Court decision on 'extreme intoxication' Terrace Standard - Terrace Standard

For those who've paid attention to the science around COVID-19, the B.C. Liberals have been a colossal disappointment.

It's been particularly disheartening to those who've read literature in peer-reviewed journals about airborne transmission of the disease and who have immune-compromised members of their family.

Moreover, the Official Opposition has offered no help to parents and educators who wanted HEPA filters and carbon-dioxide monitors in classrooms to reduce the spread of COVID-19.

These measures have been advanced by the Ontario and Quebec governments, respectively, but not in B.C.

Kids between 5 and 11 years old still have relatively low vaccination rates. And the B.C. Liberals, through their actions, have sent a signal that they're okay with a proliferation of Long COVID in this age bracket.

One of the few times when the B.C. Liberals actually acted as an ally for those who worry about the spread of this potentially crippling and fatal disease was when they spoke up for more rapid testing.

Another time came when Peace River South MLA Mike Bernier continued advocating for vaccinations even after receiving death threats.

But these instances of responsible political conduct have been more than offset by the B.C. Liberal MLAs failing to hold the NDP government accountable for pursuing policies that ignore the reality of how COVID-19 is transmitted.

Most COVID-19 cases result from tiny particles hanging around in the airin indoor settings, sometimes even after the person has left the room. The virus hitchikes on these "aerosols", which are exhaled by infected people when they talk, cough, and breathe, and can, in some cases, travel well beyond two metres.

The B.C. Liberals remained silent on the end of mask mandates on ferries and public transit. They did not rise up in outrage when the B.C. human rights commissioner noted that this would discriminate against marginalized groups and immunocompromised people.

Is it any surprise that B.C.'s COVID-19 death rate surpassed that of Ontario, which retained a mask mandate on transit for three months longer than B.C.'s NDP government?

That's to say nothing of the dreadful image of so many B.C. Liberal MLAs, including the new leader, Kevin Falcon, refusing to wear masks in the B.C. legislature in the midst of a pandemic.

Yet this week, the B.C. Liberal caucushad the gall to issue a news release on COVID-19 that twice mentioned the importance of following the "science" around the disease.

It came in connection with a call to suspend the vaccine mandate for provincial employees, just as the federal government has done for its workers.

Since becoming B.C. Liberal leader, Falcon has gone out of his way to present himself as an economic saviour for B.C.

Perhaps Falcon thinks that he can stimulate the economy by promoting the spread of COVID-19.

It certainly has the potential to increase demand for hospital and ambulance services.

After all, COVID-19 attacks the vascular systemand can cause strokes and neuromuscular disorders.

One of the world's leading business magazines, Forbes, has evenreported on long-term brain damage from COVID-19.

So by sending a signal to public-sector workers that there won't be consequences from remaining unvaccinated, Falcon might actually be promoting more use of rehab facilities over the long term. Yippie!

That's because the B.C. Liberal leader must know that the unvaccinated tend to suffer more severe consequences from COVID-19. And even the vaccinated, particularly those who are immune compromised, can be hospitalized and/or endure long COVID after being infected.

A recent study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "the risk of infection was markedly higher among unvaccinated people than among vaccinated people under all mixing assumptions".

Most troubling for the vaccinated, however, this same study found that their rate of infection rate increased when they were put in contact with the unvaccinated. That's the predictable outcome of Falcon's approach for B.C.'s vaccinated public servants.

"Although risk associated with avoiding vaccination during a virulent pandemic accrues chiefly to people who are unvaccinated, their choices affect risk of viral infection among those who are vaccinated in a manner that is disproportionate to the portion of unvaccinated people in the population," the researchers wrote.

Maybe by mixing the unvaccinated and vaccinated public servants, especially on ferries and in hospitals, this will even increase the number of funerals, thereby boosting the provincial gross domestic product.

My God, maybe Falcon's onto something here.

With stock markets plunging and real-estate markets tanking, perhaps this is the way out of a looming recession.

Who knew that COVID-19 could be such a life saver?

Isn't it wonderful to have someone with business experience as captain of the B.C. Liberal ship?

Read the original here:
Beware of B.C. Liberals who claim to be following the science around COVID-19 - The Georgia Straight

The televised hearings addressing the violence that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were nothing short of riveting and disturbing.

The House committee has been gathering information and investigating the attempted act of sedition for more than a year, amassing at minimum 140,000-plus documents and investigating more than 1,000 witnesses.

The committee learned all sorts of appalling facts, including that former President Donald Trump flippantly said his former vice president, Mike Pence, deserved to be hung after hearing rioters were reciting hang Mike Pence.

Newly released footage and original testimony nullified the pathetically disingenuous remark made by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who equated the behavior of violent insurrectionists to that of a normal tourist visit.

Several capitol police officers and other witnesses provided testimony to the committee, all of whom were riveting and captivating to listen to.

Engaging commentary notwithstanding, the highlight of the evening was Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., whose performance was nothing short of a tour de force.

She put her MAGA Republican counterparts to shame, exposing them for both their cowardice and their dereliction of duty. Among her most deliberate comments (one of many) was when Cheney stated President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.

For the record, I am not a political supporter of Cheney. Her politics differ dramatically from mine.

Despite Cheneys honorable and arguably courageous stance in challenging a sizable segment of her Republican colleagues for their habitually untoward behavior, the truth is that she is a right of center conservative who overwhelmingly supported much of Trumps agenda during his presidency.

Considerable partisan allegiance aside, when it came time to stand up for the protection and preservation of democracy, Cheney disregarded so-called party loyalty and aligned herself with the virtues of truth and honesty. For this, she deserves accolades.

Among other facts, the initial night of the hearings revealed that many of those around Trump were well aware of the fact that he had lost the election to President Joe Biden.

Trumps attorney general, Bill Barr, testified that he dismissed the claim that the 2020 election was stolen as bullshit. Interestingly, Trumps daughter, Ivanka, concurred with Barrs assessment.

Notably, numerous Republican lawmakers, such as Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., frantically sought pardons from Trump for their role in attempting to overturn the election. It goes without saying that people convinced of their innocence dont seek to be pardoned, and its old news now that many Republicans in Congress who knew better perversely embraced Trumps election lies.

There are a number of historical parallels to draw from as it relates to this horrid event. One that seems most evident is the fact that a large percentage of the anarchists who journeyed to the nations capital on Jan. 6, 2021, are rabid white supremacists.

These were men and women who were inspired and motivated by a fellow white supremacist who was unable to garner the votes of most nonwhite citizens, failed to successfully win re-election and thus, sought to overthrow the government and dismantle democracy.

There has been a long history of this sort of activity in America.

Perhaps Cheneys most iconic statement made during the opening night of the hearings was the following: I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible, there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

She spoke truth to power here.

Elwood Watson Ph.D. is a professor of history, black studies, and gender and sexuality studies at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tennessee. He is also an author and public speaker, and his column is syndicated through Cagle Cartoons. Click here for previous columns. Follow him on Twitter: @bleachbred. The opinions expressed are his own.

Read this article:
Elwood Watson: In Liz Cheney, Liberals Find a Conservative They Can Laud - Noozhawk