Mediaboss Marketing

What happened to liberal Democrats, and their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. Yeah, you can look it up.

And their liberal friends in liberal Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was "Three Days of the Condor," with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for "the clarity" of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and Wikileaks was their winged chariot of truth and beauty. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on private citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to them? What happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats?

Donald Trump was elected president, that's what happened to them.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer, and Pence was his superior. Lying to a superior is grounds for court-martial. Or, at least gives pretext for a quick and brutal departure from the Trump White House, which is what happened.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. It's as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk. And Flynn's head, up there above them, is pecked endlessly in the sun.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA and others on multiple occasions, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the "Never Trump" Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador before Trump was inaugurated president.

This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It means his conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about. I have a hard time believing Flynn was a traitor. But I don't have a hard time believing that arrogance and foolishness are necessary prerequisites for a hard public fall.

What's astounding about this is that news reports on Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else.

They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

That's what is amazing. That the intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks to damage and weaken a president.

Liberals who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians are overjoyed. They don't question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Trump declared his war with American intelligence on his Twitter account and then did so in person as he stood in the White House at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I think he's (Flynn) been treated very, very unfairly by the media as I call it, the 'fake media,' in many cases and I think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly," Trump said.

"I think in addition to that, from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked," said the president, adding that such leaks were a "criminal action, criminal act."

The president's references to Flynn are awkward and politically self-serving.

But the president's reference to the intelligence community in his government is an open declaration of war. And it's dangerous.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's not whether they believe it that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

So why aren't liberals more concerned, when once they'd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they weren't concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, it's all about power, isn't it? And ideals even those which help keep the republic be damned.

Listen to "The Chicago Way" podcast with John Kass and WGN's Jeff Carlin and guests Sen. Rand Paul and Kristen McQueary at http://www.wgnradio.com/category/wgn-plus/thechicagoway.

jskass@chicagotribune.com

View original post here:
Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune

Ordinary black people cannot afford to go along with the liberal agenda that calls for undermining police authority. That agenda makes for more black crime victims. Lets look at what works and what doesnt work.

In 1990, New York City adopted the practice in which its police officers might stop and question a pedestrian. If there was suspicion, they would frisk the person for weapons and other contraband. This practice, well within the law, is known as a Terry stop. After two decades of this proactive police program, New York Citys homicides fell from over 2,200 per year to about 300. Blacks were the major beneficiaries of proactive policing. According to Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald author of The War on Cops seeing as black males are the majority of New York Citys homicide victims, more than 10,000 blacks are alive today who would not be had it not been for proactive policing.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other leftist groups brought suit against proactive policing. A U.S. District Court judge ruled that New York Citys stop and frisk policy violated the 14th Amendments promise of equal protection because black and Hispanic people were subject to stops and searches at a higher rate than whites. But the higher rate was justified. Mac Donald points out that while blacks are 23 percent of New York Citys population, they are responsible for 75 percent of shootings and 70 percent of robberies. Whites are 34 percent of the population of New York City. They are responsible for less than 2 percent of shootings and 4 percent of robberies. If youre trying to prevent shootings and robberies, whom are you going to focus most attention on, blacks or whites?

In 2015, 986 people were shot and killed by police. Of that number, 495 were white (50 percent), and 258 were black (26 percent). Liberals portray shootings by police as racist attacks on blacks. To solve this problem, they want police departments to hire more black police officers. It turns out that the U.S. Justice Department has found that black police officers in San Francisco and Philadelphia are likelier than whites to shoot and use force against black suspects. That finding is consistent with a study of 2,699 fatal police killings between 2013 and 2015, conducted by John R. Lott Jr. and Carlisle E. Moody of the Crime Prevention Research Center, showing that the odds of a black suspects being killed by a black police officer were consistently greater than the odds of a black suspects being killed by a white officer. And little is said about cops killed. Mac Donald reports that in 2013, 42 percent of cop killers were black.

Academic liberals and civil rights spokespeople make the claim that the disproportionate number of blacks in prison is a result of racism. They ignore the fact that black criminal activity is many multiples of that of other racial groups. They argue that differential imprisonment of blacks is a result of the racist war on drugs. Mac Donald says that state prisons contain 88 percent of the nations prison population. Just 4 percent of state prisoners are incarcerated for drug possession. She argues that if drug offenders were removed from the nations prisons, the black incarceration rate would go down from about 37.6 percent to 37.4 percent. The vast majority of blacks in prison are there because of violent crime and mostly against black people.

That brings us to the most tragic aspect of black crime. The primary victims are law-abiding black people who must conduct their lives in fear. Some parents serve their children meals on the floor and sometimes put them to sleep in bathtubs so as to avoid stray bullets. The average American does not live this way and would not tolerate it and that includes the white liberals who support and make excuses for criminals. Plain decency mandates that we come to the aid of millions of law-abiding people under siege. For their part, black people should stop being pawns for white liberals and support the police who are trying to protect them.

Read more from the original source:
Black pawns for white liberals - WND.com - WND.com

I try really hard to look past the Hollywood idiots. I mean, REALLY hard. But at some point you just have to add them to the boycott list. Ill overlook stupidity, but at some point a line is crossed. Here are a couple of examples:

A couple years ago, the Dixie Chicks began publicly hammering GW Bush. Mostly about the war in Iraq, but generally they followed the liberal mantra: Bush Lied, Kids Died (or whatever the hell that stupid slogan was). Many of my patriot brothers and sisters came down hard on the Dixie Chicks. Indeed, looking back, it was the beginning of the end of their stardom. Since 2007ish, where have they been? Nowhere a flop album and near zero publicity. I have to admit, I was not one of the album stompers. The way I see it, Natalie Maines is just a stupid woman with no frame of reference and zero knowledge or understanding about complex foreign policy issues. Shes a singer in a band for crying out loud!

So, while others were destroying CDs, I continued to enjoy their music especially the album Home just with the knowledge that Maines is an idiot. I dont hold it against her its how God made her.

But sometimes, these Hollywood lefties go too far and they get added to my boycott list. Here are a few who have made it:

Sean Penn He has crossed the line many times. Particularly by cozying up to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Tom Hanks I gave him a pass too, thinking hes just another Hollywood idiot (did you see Bachelor Party? I meancome on). But then he came out talking about how The US fought the Japanese because we are racistspromptly added him to the boycott list.

Alec Baldwin This guy is a piece of work. Where to begin I guess with calling Dick Cheney a terrorist. Boycott.

Susan Sarandon Complete lefty nut. Thinks US companies are like Al Queda. Boycott.

Dave Matthews okay, pretty harmless liberal idiot, but I think his music is a bunch of off-beat noise, so Boycott. (See, I can be petty with the best of them!)

Rosie ODonnell Complete nutbag. Her offenses are too numerous to list, but she went off the deep end when she compared Christians to terrorists. Boycott.

Danny Glover Commie buddies with Sean Penn. Boycott.

The West Wing I know its a TV show, but come on the constant leftist dribble is just too much to handle. Boycott.

George Clooney For the most part, just a liberal squish. But he crosses the line because he tries to come off like he knows something. For being such a pompous assboycott.

Janeane Garofalo Maybe she should get the Queen Nut award. A good example is how she claims that if you disagree with Obama, youre a racist. Also for trying to make people think she knows what shes talking about. I mean, for a second (third?) rate commedian and actress, she sure is arrogant! Boycott. Here she is being hailed as serious. Ha!

Michael Moore Nuff said.

Thats really about it. There are so many other leftys out there in Hollywood but they really dont bother me and dont warrant a boycott. Here are some of the people who I chalk up to just being sadly misinformed and are wrong-headed, but are basically harmless, lefty squishes:

Jerry Seinfeld a well-intentioned lib, who stays quiet about it.

Bon Jovi Too many great songs from the 80s. He also stays quiet. Whoopi Goldberg I think Whoopi is more conservative than she lets on. Woody Harrelson Stay quiet most of the time. Besides does anyone really care what he thinks about economic or foreign policy? I think he knows nobody does.

Matt Damon He started getting loud, but I think he realized he has no idea what hes talking about. Still just a young idealist. Ill give him a pass for a few more years.

Jimmy Buffett total squish of the pacifist type. I think Jimmy just wants everybody to sit back and have a drink. Hes not a pinko-commie lib type just a do-gooder who is too wealthy to know better. (Not that theres anything wrong with that!)

The clowns from Pearl Jam Though I do fault them (and Nirvana) for the destruction of heavy metal in the early 90s thats another story.

David Letterman A clown, for sure. But Ive seen him dish it out to both sides. A pretty harmless squish.

Steven Spielberg This guy is like a cartoon character. He is quite a philanthropist though, so he gets a pass.

Ophrah No typo again, just being petty. I came close to a boycott when she went public for Barack Obama in an overtly racist act. Even if she agreed with his policies, she only publicly campaigned for him because he is black. Racism cuts both ways. Still, she does a lot of good things and stays pretty quiet.

Jerry Springer this poor sap has enough problems with his credibility without me piling on.

This overview of the ToBeRIGHT Hollywood boycott list was presented as a prelude to the next post. CSI Las Vegas made a big mistake in their season opener Season 11, episode 1 called Shockwave. This episode paints a pretty bad picture of the Tea Party movement. Well explore that tomorrow

UPDATE: 9/30/10 See the post about how CSI Las Vegas made the ToBeRIGHT boycott list. Good riddance, I couldnt stand Sarah anyway.

Link:
Hollywood Liberals - Boycott Liberal Actors | ToBeRIGHT

OTTAWA The Liberal government won't be able to spend hundreds of millions in infrastructure money this year, instead moving the planned spending to next year.

Spending documents released Tuesday show that $828 million that was budgeted to be spent this year on the Liberals' new infrastructure plan will be moved over to the coming fiscal year that begins April 1.

That amount represents about one quarter of the $3.27 billion budgeted to be spent on new and existing infrastructure programs in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

The figure doesn't include $282 million that Public Services and Procurement Canada and Fisheries and Oceans had planned to spend on federal infrastructure projects in this fiscal year. Nor does it include $24.4 million being carried over from a national program to upgrade community and cultural centres as part of Canada 150 celebrations.

Justin Trudeau speaks to the media with minister Amarjeet Sohi in Edmonton in March 2016. (Photo: Codie McLachlan/The Canadian Press)

It's not unheard of to have federal infrastructure money "reprofiled" from one fiscal year to the next: Spending analyses have shown that about one-quarter of infrastructure funds don't get spent in the year for which they are budgeted.

The reason is that federal dollars only flow once project proponents submit receipts for reimbursement, often leaving a lag between when work takes place and when infrastructure money is actually spent. In some cases, the federal government won't receive receipts until the end of a project.

And projects themselves can be delayed for any number of reasons, such as bad weather or a labour disruption, that are beyond the control of the federal government.

The money, however, doesn't disappear.

"Money committed to specific projects continues to be available for those projects and is reprofiled as needed to reflect the updated needs of our partners and their timelines," said Brook Simpson, a spokesman for Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi.

"We will continue to work with all of our partners to deliver on our infrastructure commitments."

The government's economic agenda is tied to spurring construction projects that can create enough growth to help bring the budget back to balance, which Finance Canada doesn't expect to happen for decades under current spending plans.

The government is quick to say that a lack of federal spending doesn't necessarily mean that cities and provinces aren't spending money on construction projects that can yield the needed economic benefit.

Departments behind on infrastructure plan

The latest figures tabled in Parliament add to concerns raised earlier this month by the parliamentary budget office that departments are well behind on allocating infrastructure spending, putting economic growth projections at risk.

The Liberals' first budget predicted that the infrastructure money would boost the economy by 0.6 per cent over two years.

Last week, in an appearance before the Senate's national finance committee, budget officer Jean-Denis Frechette said the actual impact could now be lower, given the slow pace of fund allocation. Frechette's office now predicts a reduction in employment equal to 7,400 full-time jobs.

View post:
Liberals Put Off $828M In Infrastructure Spending Pegged For This Year - Huffington Post Canada

Failing to woo a liberal this Valentines Day? Its not just you. For some liberals in the United States, the presidential election results have been a total turn-off.

Normally in the first month of the year, the dating site Match.com sees an uptick in the number of active users on the site. January, after all, is a popular month for singles to get back out there.

But this January, Match.com noticed something surprising: a decrease in activity among the sites more liberal users. In January, people who call themselves liberals were far less likely to sign up with Match and werent contacting potential matches or checking out new profiles as much, says Helen Fisher, the companys science adviser.

Meanwhile, conservatives flocked to find new partners in droves. Users in counties that voted for Donald Trump seem to be more interested in dating than users in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton.

Match was curious about why, as the site didnt see conservatives drop out of the game after Barack Obamas reelection in 2012. So in the past few weeks, Match randomly polled 1,800 of its users. The sample included roughly the same number of Trump and Clinton voters (38 percent voted for Trump, 40 voted for Clinton) and slightly more men than women (54 percent of the sample were men).

The results suggested the election really did have an effect on users self-reported dating drive: 29 percent of liberals said they felt less like dating since Trump won. Among conservatives, that figure is 14.2 percent.

Why? Match is not so sure. Fisher, a biological anthropologist by training, suggests a simple answer: Theyre depressed. (A political loss could depress the drive to mate. Or it could be that liberals are generally feeling downtrodden and arent yet ready to let joy back into their lives.)

Whats more, conservatives reported a greater willingness than liberals to reach out across the aisle in their love lives post-election. Around 60 percent of the liberals responded they are less likely to date a conservative than two years ago. Meanwhile, around 56 percent of conservatives said the same.

Of course, a poll of Match users isnt representative of all of Americans. But it illustrates a trend other social scientists have picked up on. As Ezra Klein has written, its now more common for Americans to discriminate based on politics than it is to discriminate based on race.

The more partisanship becomes a social identity and I think this is as true today as it's been in modern American politics the more we should expect people to engage in in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination," political scientist Danny Hayes told Klein. So its not surprising that in the aftermath of a hostile election cycle, partisans are feeling less warmly toward one another, and less likely to date the other side.

We tend to fall in love with somebody who has the same values as we do, Fisher says. And this is a time when the values are very polarized, and very personalized.

Which is perhaps concerning. People who have more social interactions with members of other political parties tend to have warmer feelings about them, Pew Research finds. Fully 62% of Republicans with just a few or no Democratic friends feel very coldly toward Democrats, Pew reported in June 2016. That compares with just 30% of Republicans who have at least some Democratic friends.

As the political shockwave of the 2016 election continues to set in, people are still figuring out how to deal with it on a personal level. A recent Reuters poll finds the number of people who reported getting into arguments with family or friends increased 6 points from December to January (from 33 to 39). Thirteen percent told Reuters they had ended a relationship with a family member or friend due to the election.

But if Republicans and Democrats cant get together over awkward first-date drinks, how will the parties ever get along?

See more here:
Liberals on Match.com aren't in the mood since the election of Donald Trump - Vox