Mediaboss Marketing

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

|

Posted: Feb 04, 2017 12:01 AM

Last week on Townhall I did a column called Answering 20 Questions Liberals Wanted to Ask a Conservative. In it, I noted that I had promised to answer liberal questions to conservatives without sarcasm. Since there was a great reaction to the column, I decided to do a part 2. Id like to give a special thanks to Conor Friedersdorf and Glenn Greenwald for helping me get liberal questions. Now, here are the answers.

1) Kamran ?@KamRancisco y are u so afraid of Muslims? Before 9-11, we were token Aladdin/Apu. Laughably, we are now out to destroy USA?

As a matter of fact, on 9/11 I had a Turkish roommate. So, no, I dont find Muslims scary. The conservatives who do find Muslims scary feel that way because they have been regularly reading headlines that feature Muslims murdering, raping, enslaving and torturing people in the name of Islam for the last 15 years.

Now is the average Muslim responsible for that? No, but that doesnt change the fact that a significant minority of Muslims support Sharia, are anti-Semitic, are pro-terrorist, etc. Unfortunately, these people have had some success in recruiting moderate Muslims to their way of thinking.

If we had an effective way to screen the radicals out, then Muslims wouldnt be any different than any other religious group. Unfortunately, we dont. In other words, there are unique risks to bringing in Muslim immigrants or refugees that dont exist with any other religious group. That leads to a certain amount of tension between screening out the not insubstantial number of Muslims who want to murder us while we try to avoid antagonizing moderate Muslims.

2) Paola Thomas ?@realpaolathomas Why don't women deserve equal pay for equal work?

Conservatives would argue that if you compare apples to apples, women already do have equal pay for equal work. Christina Hoff Sommers does a good job of explaining the conservative approach to the subject.

The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.

Much of the wage gap can be explained away by simply taking account of college majors. Early childhood educators and social workers can expect to earn around $36,000 and $39,000, respectively. By contrast, petroleum engineering and metallurgy degrees promise median earnings of $120,000 and $80,000. Not many aspiring early childhood educators would change course once they learn they can earn more in metallurgy or mining. The sexes, taken as a group, are somewhat different. Women, far more than men, appear to be drawn to jobs in the caring professions; and men are more likely to turn up in people-free zones. In the pursuit of happiness, men and women appear to take different paths.

3) John Q. Public ?@BusterWindle Why don't liberty loving conservatives ever utter the phrase "voting rights"?

This is a perspective difference between conservatives and liberals. Many conservatives believe that if anything, weve gone way overboard in an effort to maximize the number of people voting. Not asking for an ID seems nuts to conservatives. Think about it: you need a drivers license to get on a plane, buy alcohol, get a place to live, cash a check, rent a car, but having one to vote is too difficult? Its hard to take that seriously. There are also a number of states where illegal aliens are allowed to get drivers licenses which automatically qualify them to potentially vote. When were not even taking the most basic precautions to safeguard the integrity of the vote because someone, somewhere might potentially have a problem if theyre completely incompetent, weve gone too far in the wrong direction.

4) Deeply Troubled ?@derivativeburke finally it seems like conservatives have a hard time mixing smaller government with a desire for that gov. to be competent

That would only be true if you believe that more money leads to better government programs and thats often not the case.

Conservatives actually have a different view on that issue. We generally believe that the federal government doesnt do anything as quickly, cheaply and efficiently as the free market. Moreover, we think the biggest reason that the government is so incompetent is that its doing so many things it was never meant to do in the first place. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution reads, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If we actually stuck to that, the federal government would only be a fraction of its current size and the competence level of the government would probably dramatically escalate.

5) Paolo Bacigalupi ?@paolobacigalupi Are you at all concerned that Trump is undermining our national security? Kremlin links? Australia fight? NATO?

I think Trump could conceivably undermine our relations with other nations via careless words or tweets, but I dont know that will happen. For example, I think having a more positive relationship with Russia could turn out to be a good thing. The Obama Administration used to think so as well. Remember Hillary and her reset button? As to the Australia fight, Im not convinced that it happened. To me, an anonymous source dredged up by the Washington Post to a call that very, very few people would have had access to isnt very credible in the face of denials from Trump and Turnbull that it happened as it was reported. When it comes to NATO, I agree with Trump that changes need to be made. Essentially, the United States and Britain are supposed to do all the fighting while everyone else does almost nothing except complain about how things are going. Additionally, many of the nations in NATO have let their militaries degenerate to the point where they couldnt fight their way out of a wet paper bag. In other words, we should be taking a hard look at NATO and either making some changes or going in a different direction. Long story short, there could certainly be problems with how Trump handles our national security, but so far, so good.

6) Alex Chrisope ?@AlexChrisope Will GOP Congress or Trump admin consider a basic universal income, whether as a replacement or supplement to entitlements?

That seems very unlikely because there would be a great deal of concern on the Right that it would lead to large numbers of people refusing to work and just living off their universal income. If anything, we should want to bring a much greater share of the population into the work force, not encourage people to drop out of it.

7) James R. Hoffman ?@JRickHoffman Can we make grand compromises? Voter ID, but Early Voting/Nat. Holiday. Abortion restrictions but free birth control/welfare

The incentives in our political system make it difficult to cut any big deals. If youre in a safe state or district (and most Democrats and Republicans are), this is an extremely risky move for you because youre not going to lose to the other side in your race. Youre only going to lose in a primary and signing on to deals that help the other side get what it wants is how you get primaried.

For example, imagine what would happen to the politicians who signed on to the abortion restrictions in return for free birth control and a more generous welfare system deal. Any Democrats who voted for that would get skinned alive by Planned Parenthood, theyd have NARAL organizing protests on their doorsteps and every liberal blog would talk about them like the devil. On the other hand, groups like Heritage Action and FreedomWorks would hammer any Republicans who signed on, while Rush Limbaugh would call them RINOs, conservative blogs would roast them, etc.

In an environment where the partisanship level is off the charts on both sides, its very difficult to compromise.

8) Jess Remington ?@JessRems Do you believe Trump will significantly revive the manufacturing industry thru higher tariffs and alienating trade partners?

Manufacturing jobs went away because per capita income went up a lot, shipping containers and computers made overseas factories much more viable and because of automation. Tariffs might bring back a few jobs, but they would also raise costs. Barring an economic collapse that made it possible to hire American workers at a fraction of their current rates, low skill manufacturing jobs are unlikely to come back, no matter what Trump does.

9) Lina ?@linalinablina why doesn't character matter to you anymore?

Although I have been generally pleased with how Trump has governed so far, I didnt vote for him, in part because I did have concerns about his character. On the other hand, if character is your first concern, Hillary was probably even worse than Trump. So, its not as if either party put up a candidate who was beyond moral reproach. I think there were a lot of conservatives who didnt really feel comfortable with Trump, but who looked at the only viable alternative and felt he was the better moral choice. I can understand that reasoning.

10) Miles Palmer ?@palmerpolitics At what point will taxes be so low that you would cease advocating for them to be cut further?

This is a simple question that has a very complex answer.

To begin with, America already has the most progressive tax code in the Western World. Thats how you end up with some people paying north of 50% of their income in taxes (if you add in state, sales, gas, etc.) while roughly 40% of the population is paying no income taxes at all. So, given that we run a massive deficit every year, you could make the argument that the wealthy are simultaneously being overtaxed while the poor and lower middle class arent being taxed enough. Since thats political suicide, nobody will openly make that argument, but eventually politicians will sneak in a VAT or some other type of sneaky tax to try to get more money out of the poor and middle class.

I know that doesnt quite answer your question, but thats because the answer is dependent on the level of government spending. If we, lets say, cut the government spending in half, not only would it create a massive spike in economic growth, wed need a lot less tax money to pay for it. In an ideal world, the federal government would be a fraction the size that it is currently and therefore, wed only need a fraction of the taxes that are currently paid in to maintain it.

11) Anti-Fascist ?@jacobtaber why is the religious freedom of an anti-LGBT baker important to you, but not a Muslim soldier or physician?

All religions, including Christianity, tend to pay more attention to infringements that impact their faith. So, yes, conservative Christians probably care much more about a baker being harassed for not serving a gay marriage than they do about something that impacts people of another religion. However, that being said, per the 1st Amendment, the religious freedom of Muslim soldiers and physicians is important and it should be treated as such.

12) Jess Remington ?@JessRems Do you think Christian refugees are more deserving of American assistance than non-Christian refugees?

As a Christian, I do put a higher priority on helping Christians & Jews than I do on helping people from other religions. Christians dont look out for each other the way they should. Setting aside my religious beliefs, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world right now. Given that, if we are going to bring refugees here, Christians would seem to be the natural choice. Also as an added bonus, Christianity is the largest religion in the United States; so theyd be more likely to fit right in with the existing culture.

13) America 1776 - 2016 ?@ExGOPer How do conservatives square 8 yrs of calling Obama a "tyrant" while supporting an actual tyrant?

I have absolutely nothing good to say about Obama, but I dont know that Id say he was a tyrant. I think he was habitually dishonest, incompetent, hyper-partisan and deserved to be impeached, but I dont think he was Kim Jong-Il. He didnt try to put conservatives in camps. He didnt try to seize power although he certainly didnt care much about the Constitution or the law

As to Trump, I can see how some people may worry that he has authoritarian tendencies. I can understand how liberals would strongly dislike the fact that hes aggressively moving to the right just as Obama tried to move things to the Left. I could even see criticisms with how some of his policies have been executed, but he hasnt done anything Id consider tyrannical. In fact, other than a few divergences on trade, hes essentially governed so far as a standard conservative (albeit a very active one).

You may disagree, but Im not really sure that the reaction to President Ted Cruz or President Marco Rubio would be radically different than the one weve seen to Trump. After hearing that Bush, McCain, and Romney were all Hitler, its hard to seriously consider that Trump is tyrannical, particularly when it doesnt fit with what hes actually done so far.

14) DanFostersEthos ?@DanFostersEthos Why do you think a lot of conservatives are so receptive to stern father types on cable news and talk radio?

I dont know that Id describe Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, etc. as stern father types. That being said, theres an analogy that has fallen out of favor that may help explain the differences in what liberals and conservatives like to hear from the media.

Heres Larry Sabato explaining it back in 2008,

The Democratic Party is the mommy party, and the Republican Party is the daddy party. Now, you and I both love both our mothers and fathers, right? But they play different roles in many families. The mother is loving and caring and takes us back in and provides the safety net. The father is the disciplinarian -- tough love. He makes us face up to hard realities, at least in many families. Well, the mommy party is the Democratic Party. The daddy party is the Republican Party. And I think if you look at the economy, you look at the housing, the mortgage crisis, a whole wide range of things, you'll find that the parties fulfill these images.

These are very different approaches, but they have a great deal of influence on the attitudes, ideas and policies of both sides.

15) Osaye ?@Osaye1 why do you hate helping people?

Ive never mentioned this publicly before, but for the last three years Ive reached out to churches, found families that are struggling at Christmas time and bought presents for their whole family. It was all done anonymously and none of them have ever known who helped them out. Over the years, Ive also bought at least a weeks worth of groceries for three different friends in need. Incidentally, this sort of thing isnt unusual at all. Most of the missionaries, people working soup lines and tithing 10% of their income are conservatives. We tend to judge helpfulness based on what you actually do for people personally, not on whether or not you support a government program paid for with other peoples money. Its a different way of looking at it.

Here is the original post:
Answering 15 Questions Liberals Wanted to Ask a Conservative Part 2 - Townhall