Mediaboss Marketing

Liberals have long claimed that sanctuary cities are a law and order mechanism aimed at allowing those here illegally to report crimes without fear of deportation. Its absolutely ridiculous. Nancy Pelosi reiterated that point in a CNN town hall event. Mayor Bill de Blasio reiterated this point to Jake Tapper and added that when illegals are caught drunk driving, theyre not deported as long as it doesnt lead to any other negative outcome. Whatever that means.

Sheriffs from across the country met with President Trump last week and told The Washington Examiner that not only is the liberal talking point about sanctuary cities wrongtheresnot even anecdotal evidenceto back it up:

"I've not even seen anecdotal evidence," Thompson told the Washington Examiner. "The sad thing is that [the Democratic claim] suggests that people here are aware of criminal activity and are not reporting it. We have to give them specific dispensation so that they're reporting crimes? ... I find the irony thicker than anything I can cut with a knife, that somebody here illegally is going to report a crime."

[]

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins of Frederick County, Md., who was called last April to testify in a House of Representatives hearing on the effectiveness of immigration policies, said he's heard the Democratic argument many times over the years. Jenkins, in his 12th year as mayor in Maryland's largest county, said he doesn't buy it because his experiences on the job point to a different reality.

"I believe the illegal alien community is smart enough to know that there are protections in place that if they are victims, not to put them into removal custody," Jenkins said. "They can request a U-visa basically gives them asylum from any deportation or removal."

Jenkins added that most jurisdictions do not actively try to identify the immigration status of someone who comes forward, "so the whole argument doesn't really make sense."

So, theres another shoddy liberal talking point you can throw in the garbage. Frankly, arguments that support law enforcement being barred from enforcing federal immigration protocols are ridiculous. We shield people who have broken the law to come here illegally so they can report crimes. Thats rich.

Also, Mothers Against Drunk Driving ripped the mayor over his remarksand rightfully so.

More here:
Liberals: Sanctuary Cities Allow Illegal Immigrants To Report Crimes. Sheriffs: What Are You Talking About? - Townhall

Updated February 13, 2017 15:33:23

Several WA One Nation candidates say they will refuse to preference the Liberal Party, contrary to a statewide deal announced on the weekend.

The WA Liberals will preference One Nation above the Nationals in the Upper House in regional areas, with One Nation preferencing the Liberals in all Lower House seats in return.

High-profile One Nation candidate Margaret Dodd, who is contesting the Liberal-held seat of Scarborough for One Nation and is the mother of murdered teenager Hayley Dodd, today condemned the decision and accused the party of bullying its candidates.

Speaking outside a Perth court where her daughter's alleged murderer, Francis Wark, is appearing today, Ms Dodd said she had "not been informed of any [preference] deal whatsoever, and I'm sure all the candidates haven't".

"I will make my own choices on who I will give my preferences to, and it certainly will not be the Liberal party," she said.

"The Liberal party will be at the bottom on the how to vote card."

Last month Ms Dodd backed Labor's "no body, no parole" promise to enact legislation where convicted murderers would not be eligible for parole unless they had cooperated with police to locate their victims' remains.

She had long campaigned for the law change, and said she was backing the Labor pledge because she felt the Liberal Government treated victims of crime as "second-class citizens".

"I was told by One Nation they support no body, no parole. We all know that Liberals don't," an angry Ms Dodd said today.

"We all know that Liberals want to sell off Western Power. One Nation doesn't, so what the hell is going on?

"I encourage other members of One Nation to stand up, do not be bullied and do not be dictated to.

"I will not be part of a dictatorship."

Ms Dodd denied she had struck a preference deal with Labor or any other party.

"I have done no deal whatsoever. The Liberal policies are the complete opposite to One Nation, so why on Earth are we doing a deal if it's not just that somebody just wants to get into power?

"I'm not about power ... I'm about principles."

One Nation Upper House candidate Charles Smith is also refusing to preference the Liberals.

In a post titled "Re Preferences" on his official Facebook page, Mr Smith urged voters to put the Liberals last.

"No-one can tell you how to vote! If you like One Nation mark a 1," the post reads.

"If you do not like the Liberals as I don't mark them last!"

One Nation's Moore candidate Jim Kelly and South Metropolitan candidate Philip Scott also used their Facebook pages to urge voters to choose their own preferences.

"OK preferences everyone ... YOU make the choice by numbering all the boxes ... that way YOU the voter has control," Mr Scott wrote.

Meanwhile, Premier Colin Barnett declared he was not a racist, and denied the preference deal would effectively hand Pauline Hanson's party control of WA's Upper House.

"I am anything but a racist and I will be judged on my values and my standards as will the Liberal Party, that's my accountability, I'm not accountable for One Nation," he told ABC Radio Perth.

"I've got to be focused on the objective and the objective is for me to get as many votes for the Liberal Party as possible."

Topics: elections, political-parties, minor-parties, wa

First posted February 13, 2017 12:50:58

Read the original:
WA One Nation candidates refuse to preference Liberals - ABC Online

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, February 12, 2017, 5:00 AM

One of the things most obvious to me as I watched images of the peaceful protest by Yemeni Americans against the Trump administrations seven-nation travel ban wasnt the size of the crowd. The thousands who turned out at Brooklyns Borough Hall made it impressive for sure, as was the coordination they employed in mobilizing to shut their bodega shops en masse.

No, it was the sight of the star-spangled banner that the men waved that had me riveted. Many held only the American flag, while others raised it in one hand and waved Yemens flag in the other. Others wore the Stars and Stripes draped around their shoulders, like a protective shield.

Whatever flag they carried, the American flag outnumbered all other flags that late afternoon. Seeing that many U.S. flags hoisted as a symbol for the values this country represents for immigrants was a beautiful thing.

And it was refreshing. You dont see our flag that much at the other protests that have taken place since Trump was elected as President. I participated in the Womens March on D.C. the day after his inauguration and for the most part, the American flag was missing in action.

When I searched images of the simultaneous marches that took place across the country, our flag was hard to find. Viewing photos of the protest against the Iraq war in 2003, it didnt pop out there, either.

In 2007, when then.-Sen Barack Obama caught flak about why he didnt wear a flag pin, he responded that he was less concerned with what you were wearing on your lapel than whats in your heart.

Too many of those of us who believe that our country is failing to live up to its ideals and cultural values seem to have abandoned the flag. It seems we cant square the patriotic act of protesting with the pride of carrying our flag.

Theres history here. During the landmark civil rights marches of the 1960s, protesters waved the American flag. They owned it as a symbol of freedom in their struggle for equal rights. A few years later, protesters marching against the Vietnam War rebranded the flag with peace signs, while others burned it. For many the flag was no longer something that inspired pride; it had become tarnished by the countrys domestic and foreign policy.

And that belief, whether explicitly or subliminally, seems to have carried the day: When it comes to anti-government protests, the left seems to have distanced itself from the flag. Somehow we cant reconcile the lack of pride we may feel with our government with reverence for the country.

And so, pride of place for our flag has been seized by Republican Party, as they stand on their soapbox of patriotism.

After 9/11, the Stars and Stripes made a comeback. From sea to shining sea, Americans flew flags from their porches, windows and rooftops. In the liberal neighborhood of Park Slope, Brooklyn, flags waved in the autumn breeze. Hell, I even flew one from my fire escape. It was a beautiful thing

Then the Bush administrations vain attempts to connect the dots between the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon led to the invasion of Iraq. They used fear and the propaganda of weapons of mass destruction to justify this war.

U.S. troops wouldnt fully withdraw until 2011, and in the end it resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. The government called them casualties. Over those eight years, many of us put away our flags. We lowered them from their stoop perches and front yard poles. We werent so proud anymore.

Now we find ourselves under a Trump administration. Many Americans are alarmed and frightened. Presidential executive orders are signed with a dramatic flourish of a pen but without any forethought about the consequences.

Its time those of us who think we cant square our patriotic values with our countrys flag to rethink the meaning of patriotism.

Those of us who love our country but hate the direction in which it seems to be headed cannot let others who love our country to claim the flag as their own.

The flag is owned by liberal America just as much as it is by conservative America.

As ideological battle lines are drawn and those of us on the left march against ideas we consider to be un-American and antithetical to our Constitution, its time we waved our banner high.

Santino is a travel and non-fiction writer based in Brooklyn.

Link:
Fellow liberals: Reclaim the flag - New York Daily News

Updated February 13, 2017 10:40:30

South Australia's Liberal Opposition has promised to scrap the state's target to source half its energy from renewable sources.

Leader Steven Marshall joined Liberals in Victoria and Queensland with a pledge to replace local targets with one set by the Federal Government.

Mr Marshall said South Australia's 50 per cent renewable goal had not improved electricity security or kept power bills in check.

"We want to restore affordable, reliable power to our state and we want to do it as soon as possible," he said.

The Liberals would consider more coal or gas generation if it would prevent further blackouts.

"We're not removing any options because of obsessive ideologies, that hasn't worked for us. Labor has put South Australia in a perilous situation," Mr Marshall said.

South Australia's renewable energy target began in 2009 with a goal of 33 per cent by 2020, however that was upgraded to 50 per cent by 2050 when the target was achieved early, in 2014.

Port Augusta's Northern coal-fired power station has since closed, while Victoria's Hazelwood coal-fired station is due to shut in March.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is forecasting a shortfall in power supply in both South Australia and Victoria in early 2018.

"We're very concerned about AEMO's latest report, which shows more blackouts are on their way to South Australia," Mr Marshall said.

"There is a massive shortfall because Labor has done everything it can to drive out affordable, baseload power from South Australia."

Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said abolishing the target would not help South Australians.

"All it would do is help the coal cartel, and it kills solar thermal in Port Augusta or any part of this state, forever," Mr Koutsantonis said.

"The dream of renewable energy that is dispatchable, that has storage and can be baseload, has just been pierced through the heart by Mr Marshall."

"Do we really want to put this future in the hands of people like [Prime Minister Malcolm] Turnbull and [Energy Minister Josh] Frydenberg, people who carry lumps of coal around in the Federal Parliament?"

Mr Koutsantonis acknowledged that the state's renewable target had no mechanism, but led to projects that were funded through federal subsidies.

"[This plan] stops people from investing in South Australia," he said.

The Government also said there would be enough power in the state in early 2018, through increased use of the Pelican Point power station and its own measures still to be announced.

Topics: alternative-energy, states-and-territories, coal, government-and-politics, sa

First posted February 13, 2017 09:27:34

Original post:
South Australian Liberals pledge to scrap renewables target - ABC Online

A number of comments in Sound Off have complained about liberal columnists or news stories about the activities of liberals in our community. They correctly note that the majority of residents are conservative.

So, why do we, a conservative newspaper, report on liberals activities in the news or publish their columns?

Because it is the mission of a newspaper to keep its readers informed. Conservatives are the main beneficiaries of news about the activities of liberals. After all, the liberal activists already know.

If we pretended that everyone in the community is a conservative and that there are no liberals at all, that would not only be inaccurate, but it would be punish conservatives who would find themselves surprised and outmaneuvered by their political opponents. As conservatives ourselves, that is not the outcome we want.

Instead, by striving to provide balanced and objective news coverage, we aim to equip readers of all philosophical orientations with the information they need and with a true picture of how diverse our community has become.

Naturally, it can be frustrating to read the statements of people we disagree with. It is much more satisfying to only read articles that affirm our own personal opinions. Thats human nature. But, is it wise to be deluded about the existence of contrary viewpoints?

So a story about John Lewis speaking nearby, local artists joining a protest in Atlanta or Coweta residents traveling to D.C. for a march is valuable intelligence for conservatives. It equips conservatives to counter the arguments and tactics of liberals, just as any smart football coach or military commander would study every available scrap of information about an adversary.

After all, it's not like liberals would disappear if the newspaper did not cover them. The liberals themselves don't need the newspaper to tell them what they are doing. And its not like conservatives could be brainwashed by reading something they disagree with. The only consequence of not reporting on liberals activities is that conservatives would be uninformed.

If you look at the unsigned editorials and the majority of columnists on the opinion page, you'll see how conservative the paper is. Only one liberal has been a regular columnist, selected by the previous publisher mainly because he provided some insights on state politics. The rest are very conservative, as are the majority of Sound Off comments published.

The paper hasn't shed its conservative orientation, just tried to give a truer picture of what is happening in this complex, growing community. It's the community that has changed, and it would be a disservice to our subscribers not to let them know.

See the rest here:
Here's why we report on liberals - Newnan Times-Herald