Mediaboss Marketing

5488106

Standing courageously against the orthodoxy of the lefts promoted stereotypes of Trump voters is Asra Nomani, a life-long liberal, female Muslim immigrant.

After explaining her vote for President Donald Trump, she endured a torrent of hate, vitriol and swift condemnation from the intolerant liberal left, many of her old friends and current colleagues. (RELATED: F**K YOU. GO TO HELL: Georgetown Prof Loses It On Muslim Trump Voter)

Nomani, raised in West Virginia, is a respected journalist and author, who has dedicated the last 15 years to reforming her Muslim religion since the murder of Daniel Pearl, her friend and colleague at the Wall Street Journal.

Nomani calls what Americans are facing since the election an insurgency or a civil war, as she watches Americas escalating violence, disruption and social chaos. In the distorted eyes of the left, Nomani can be called a fascist, racist or hater because by voting for Trump, she has left the tribe and needs to be ostracized or killed, she says with her fingers in quotes.

The resolute, soft-spoken Muslim, who does not wear a headscarf, has learned not be defined by other peoples idea of what it means to be honorable. In this interview, she spoke as a shameless person who voted for Trump, refusing to internalize the shaming by her old friends.

In this exclusive video interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation, Nomani worries that America is losing the ability to live peacefully with those who differ from each other. Its on us to be the civility we want to see in the world, although hate-filled message boards should be moderated by those who run them, she adds. (RELATED:Psycho Shrew: Georgetown Prof Doubles Down After Attacking Muslim Trump Voter)

Conservatives, who are attracting new allegiances, have an opportunity to expand their numbers since the national election, she says. The intolerance, anger and vulgarity surfacing by the radical left is now eroding their popular support, driving many away with their any means necessary tactics rare in America.

Hoping they will call out any intolerance in their ranks, Nomani calls on conservatives to expand their numbers by welcoming those being pushed out by the intolerant left.

Nomani wrote a revealing investigative pieceon the violent protests against Milo Yiannopoulos speaking at the University of California, Berkeley recently. Berkeley is known to her as a place housing the honor brigade, which has tried to silence the debate on Islamic extremism. In her piece, she tracked the hashtag, #ShutMiloDown, to an agitation website fomenting speech-stopping violence months before the Feb. 1 violence.

She is watching the far left working with the far right of her faith, including the Muslim Brotherhood, to create a powder keg environment. Her focus is encouraging greater awareness, exposure and then defeat of this dangerous network.

People in the media consider certain involved organizations as untouchable sacred cows, such as ACLU and Planned Parenthood, Nomani says.

Everybody is more than happy to follow the money when it comes to the Koch brothers, right?, she says. The journalist believes we have to equally follow the money on the left to see how these influencers are trying to affect our society and politics.

Nomani considered attending the so-called Womens March but then realized it was not for all women; it was for women who despised Donald Trump.

The last seven minutes of the video interview is a tribute to her murdered friend and colleague, Daniel Pearl,from the Washington bureau of the Wall Street Journal who was beheaded by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 15 years ago.

The terrorists used two weapons, she says, a knife to his neck and a camera for their propaganda to recruit and radicalize more Muslims. Her lifes mission is now irreparably altered because she was forced to confront the truth and the dangerous ideology she found herself facing in the murder of Danny Pearl. She views extreme Islam as the number one threat to America. Until stopped, Americans cant live with peace, safety, security and self-determination, she says.

For more on Nomani, read her booksor follow her on Twitter at @AsraNomani.

Videographer Sean Moody is credited with the video work for this piece.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.

Read the original post:
Female Muslim Proudly Votes For Trump, Liberals Act As Expected [VIDEO] - Daily Caller

When it comes to mobilizing the base, realists on the right will grudgingly concede that liberals outperform conservatives. Its not even close. Progressives march, demonstrate, boycott and raise hell at the drop of a hat; the traditionalist, in response, rolls his eyes, bites his tongue and goes to work.

The efforts of noisy, left-wing agitators do not always or even, usually lead to electoral success. Still, to those of us who prefer order over chaos, law over anarchy and assimilation over multiculturalism, progressives domination of the news cycle, day after day, is tiresome.

A partial explanation comes to mind: Liberals typically argue with emotional appeals, while conservatives are persuaded by reason and evidence. Of the two forms of persuasion, an emotional appeal is more likely to inspire protests (which often include vandalism, arson and assorted acts of violence). Those who read newspapers or watch serious television news understand that professional journalists are highly skilled practitioners of the emotional appeal.

Reason and evidence might persuade, but they dont drive frenzied mobs into the streets. A high-profile illustration is the manner in which each camp has reacted to President Donald Trumps executive action on immigration.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals began its convoluted, legally indefensible ruling on Trumps immigration order as follows: To rule on the Governments motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay.

Of the three factors mentioned by the court, the second and third are irrelevant; only the first (legal merit) matters. But, for obvious reasons, the court studiously avoided the law most pertinent to its decision: Title 8 US Code, section 1182(f). That law had to be ignored, for it represents an insurmountable stumbling block (or should I say wall?) in the path of the courts predetermined ideological outcome: a defeat for Trump.

Judge for yourself. Here is Title 8 US Code, section 1182(f): Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Passive news consumers, those who obtain their information (if any) from celebrities, Facebook and the E! television network, have never heard of the relevant immigration law. Because of the limited, largely inaccurate and inflammatory information they receive, they take to the streets to shout, burn and loot.

Only active news consumers, those who seek out additional (and legitimate) sources of information are aware of section 1182(f). If the law is what matters, its a slam-dunk. Case closed. That is a rational, evidence-based argument.

But among progressives, including the frequently overturned, activist Ninth Circuit Court, whether Trumps executive order is legal doesnt matter at all; what matters is delegitimizing the Trump administration and obstructing its progress. By any means necessary legal or not.

The Ninth Circuits decision advances the left-wing portrayal of Trump as an ignorant bigot who discriminates against Muslims (and blacks, women, gays, lesbians, the poor, the handicapped, etc.). That is an emotional appeal. Among leftists, the illusion of hate is a great motivational tool. It is quite effective, unfortunately, but it has nothing to do with the law.

Charles Davenport Jr. is a News & Record columnist who is published on the first and third Sundays of the month. Contact him at cdavenportjr@hotmail.com.

Read more here:
Charles Davenport Jr.: Liberals favor protest over law - Greensboro News & Record

A group of liberal moms at an elite New York City school torpedoed an annual ice-skating party because Donald Trump rebuilt the rink in the 1980s. The Dalton School said that the event was shelved due to low participation, thoughreported anti-Trump sentiment is said to be the real reason. When The New York Post asked the school's parent association president about the allegation, she refused to comment:

I think it is completely insane, said one Dalton parent who disagrees with the protest. Like him or not, it feels like a strange place for New Yorkers to protest. And sad that kids now have no skating party.

Before Trump took over the project in the 1980s, the Wollman Rink in Central Park was a symbol of government incompetence. The rinks repairs and renovations went $12 million over budget, contractors botched the amount of concrete needed, and for six years the incomplete rink served as a lightning rod for the press to remind the Ed Koch administration how untamed things were in the city, according to Bloomberg. When Trump finally took it over, he finished two months ahead of scheduled and $775,000 under budget:

[]

The renovation of Wollman Rink had begun poorly and turned disastrous. Rather than using brinewater as a coolant to freeze the rink, the parks commissioner elected to use Freon, a chemical used in air conditioning units and now widely banned for its ozone-depleting properties. It was an immensely complicated operation, and one the city was incapable of properly completing. A subcontractor underestimated the amount of concrete needed to pour the rink's floor and so was forced to dilute the mixture. Design flaws meant that one part of the rink was six inches lower than the rest. There was an ongoing feud between the Parks Department under the mayors control in Manhattan and its capital projects bureau in Queens, still staffed with loyalists to Robert Moses who saw the construction of an ice rink as a frivolity. The projects lead contractor was officially ruled to be in default, but by that point the principal of the company that was originally building the rink had been killed in a car accident en route to a company-wide getaway to Atlantic City, and the company subsequently disbanded.

[]

The Koch administration, meanwhile, was being consumed by a massive corruption scandal involving a kickback scheme in its parking violations bureau, a scandal that led to the suicide of the Queens borough president, a close Koch ally. And the citys comptroller, Harrison Goldin, was eyeing his own mayoral challenge to Koch and held up any further work on the rink. Turning the project over to Trump was a way to break the political logjam and to rid himself of the cascading bureaucratic mishaps, even as Trump released a letter he wrote to Koch decrying incompetence that ''must be considered one of the great embarrassments of your administration. (Koch meanwhile railed to anyone who would listen that Trump was a blowhard and a supreme egotistical lightweight, according to Soffer, his biographer.)

[]

Trump had Wollman Rink up and running by November 1, two months ahead of schedule and $775,000 under budget. Skating stars like Dorothy Hamill, Scott Hamilton, Dick Button, and Aja Zanova-Steindler glided across the ice at the ribbon cutting, with Button declaring the new rink to be like skating on velvet.

Read more:
Whiny Liberals: New York City Moms Kill Skating Party Because Trump Renovated The Rink - Townhall

Free speech is a conservative position now, said controversial guest Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart, on Real Time with Bill Maher Friday night. Your side has gone insane, he added. It has become the party of Lena Dunham. Liberals used to be funny before they contracted feminism, like Sarah Silverman. Maher took issue with Yiannopoulos lambasting comedians who are his friends, calling the remarks off base.

Describing himself as a virtuous troll, Yiannopoulos and Maher agreed on one thing: laughter is involuntary, and thats how they know [the subjects are] true, said Maher. Humor isnt how we drive people apart, its how you connect them. These basic human fundamental psychological traits are what the left has forgotten, added Milo. Mean words dont hurt people, said Yiannopoulos, arguing that Twitter is intended for free expression and sport. If I wanted to cry myself to sleep at night, I would just read my Twitter feed, laughed Maher.

Youre very wrong about some things, and youre a little broken, said Maher. Like that you dont believe in Black Lives Matter, and that white privilege is made up. Referring to journalist Jeremy Scahill, who made news last week when he pulled out of his appearance on Real Time to protest the fact that Yiannopoulos would also appear on the show. What some dont understand, is that if you dont show up to debate, you lose, said Yiannopoulos, to rare applause. Maher agreed. Stop taking the bait, liberals, yelled Maher, calling them school girls. Maher seemed to get Yiannoupoulos schtick, but said he should get off the Trump train, because of President Donald Trumps recent attempted controls on free speech. For a guy who loves free speech, youve picked a weird boyfriend, said Maher, to wild applause and laughter.

Maher, as usual, had the last word in a conversation full of disagreements, but also humor. He cut the conversation short, ushered Yiannopoulos off, thanked him, and told the young conservative they would talk again soon.

Excerpt from:
WATCH: Bill Maher says liberals shouldn't be afraid of impish, British fag Yiannopoulos - Salon

Appearing before reporters earlier this week to explain that the Liberal government would be putting its authority behind a Liberal MP's motion calling for a parliamentarycondemnation and study of Islamophobia,Heritage Minister Melanie Joly said a "question of leadership" was at hand.

Shereturned to the theme Thursday as she explainedwhy the Liberals would not support a Conservative counter-proposalthat drops references to Islamophobia in favour of a general focus on religious discrimination.

"Those of us in leadership positions have a social responsibility to take a strong stance on these matters, to be clear, to be courageous, to lead," she said.

There were echoes here of something Justin Trudeau said two weeks ago when he rose inthe House of Commons to addressthe shooting at a mosque in Quebec City that left six men dead.

"I want to remind each and every one of my 337 colleagues that we are all leaders in our communities," the prime ministersaid. "It is at times like these that our communities need our leadership the most."

People attend a vigil on Jan. 30 for victims of the deadly mosque shooting in Quebec City. (Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press)

So, at a moment of anxiety, the Liberals see a moment to define leadership.

Conservatives, meanwhile, have drawn a line under Islamophobia and want to see the word defined.

But, beyond the semantics of Motion 103, the Conservatives now seem in danger of being defined by theloudest voices of objection in their midst.

M-103was tabledin December, following an e-petition on the same topicposted in June.

Less than two months after Liberal MP Iqra Khalid brought the motion forward, a gunman opened fire during prayers at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre. And in the Houseon Thursday, Joly could cite a list of other hateful acts.

Still, the motion came to the floor of the House for debate this week with loud voices of opposition claiming that an attack on free speech is at hand.

The motion requests that the heritage committee conduct a study ofIslamophobiaand religious discrimination and provide recommendations for how the government could respond to such prejudice. To critics, thisisthe first step toward a prohibition against any criticism of Islamic practice or belief.

Some Conservative MPs allowed the House to unanimously adopt a motioncondemning Islamophobia in October on a quick voice vote. But now Conservatives are concerned thatIslamophobianeeds to be defined: aliteral reading of the word would suggest that criticism ofthe religion, not merely its adherents, is at issue.

During debate on Wednesday, Khalid and the Conservative critic, David Anderson, actually offered similar definitions: "the irrational hatred of Muslims that leads to discrimination" and "hatred against Muslims," respectively.

Saskatchewan Conservative MP David Anderson tabled a counter-proposal to Motion 103 that focuses on all religious discrimination, rather than Islamophobia specifically. (CBC)

ButKhalidhasn't added that to her motion. And the Conservative proposal, tabled by Anderson on Thursday, suggests merely focusing on all religious discrimination instead.

Jolydismissed thatas a"watered down" and "cynical" offer,meant to cover up internal Conservative divisions. She insistedMPs shouldn't be afraid to say the word.

Rising shortly after question period to address the Conservative motion,Khalidread aloud the threats and hateshe has been subjected to.

"lslamophobiais real," she said.

Motion 103 is another opportunity for Trudeau to embrace thelatest flashpoint in the long story of Canadian multiculturalism: the immigration, integration and acceptance of those of the Muslim faith.

As a candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party,Trudeauaddressed an Islamic conferenceand used the opportunity todiscuss Wilfrid Laurier's efforts tounite cultures and religions.

Two years later, in March 2015, he used alongaddress on liberty and diversityto condemnthe Conservative government's attempt to ban the niqab during the swearing of the citizenship oath.

The election campaign that brought Trudeau's Liberals to government was then defined, in part, by the niqab and Conservative proposals tostripcitizenship from dual nationals when convicted of terrorism and to create a hotline for reporting "barbaric cultural practices."

Celebrating his victory on election night,Trudeau recalled his encounter with a Muslim woman in a hijabwho told him of her hope that her child wouldn'tbe a second-class citizen.

Justin Trudeau gives his election victory speech in Montreal on Oct. 19, 2015. (Jim Young/Reuters)

There are philosophical underpinnings toTrudeau's thinking based on the guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an argument that diversity creates strength and an acknowledgement that core values must persist alongside multiculturalism but an outspoken commitment to pluralismhas also become a powerful piece of Trudeau's brand.

All the more so now that Donald Trump, Brexit and tensions in Europe seem to cast doubt on the success of multiculturalism.

Conservative leadership contender Michael Chong has voiced support for Motion 103, but four of his rivalshave touted their opposition in fundraising appeals. Kellie Leitch created a website, with an image from the October 2014 attack on Parliament Hill visible in the background, where those who oppose the motion can sign a petition.

Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch created a website to organize opposition to Motion 103. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press)

Speakingin the House on Thursday, Joly took aim at those actions and the appearance offour Conservative leadership candidates at a "freedom rally" organized by a conservative activist to defend free speech and "stand against sharia law in this country."

At that rally on Wednesday night, the organizer, Ezra Levant,warned that the prime minister was pursuing"massive unvetted, un-integrateable Muslim migration."

Any Conservative who believes their party's losses in 2015 werelinked to theniqab, "barbaric cultural practices" and citizenship revocation might see reason to worry in all that.

And the Liberals are pressing the issue.

On Thursday, several Liberal MPs tweeted a link to Trudeau's speech on the niqab. Video of the remarks was then posted to the prime minister's account.

By late in the afternoon, two Liberals had tweeted a graphic touting that "condemning hate is as Canadian as" maple syrup, the charter and Tim Horton's.

"Call your MP and say yes to #M103," it reads."#MakeItAwkward."

The serious matters of justice and dignity are no doubt difficult to separate from the politics of the situation.

In terms of leadership, it is to wonder whether some kind of compromise, perhaps merelyadding a definition to the existing text of Motion 103, might result in a more united expression of support

Read more here:
Anti-Islamophobia debate might define both Liberals and Conservatives - CBC.ca