Mediaboss Marketing

The Conservatives want to replace Daniel Constantin at the helm of the Conservative Party (PC) by merging with Calin Popescu Tariceanus new party, according to the stiripesurse.ro news website. The merger with PLR could be considered, especially since they were working together. They are not yet a party, have no structures, but they have a fairly powerful parliamentary group, so a possible merger under PCs aegis, with a possible L from Liberals added to it, would raise the strength of a center-right party. If a new party is formed everything will have to be changed, a PC leader explained, being quoted by the aforementioned source.

In September, Calin Popescu Tariceanu stated on public television (referring to the new PC-PLR parliamentary group set up back then) that this is not an agreement between parties, but strictly between parliamentary groups that have decided to unite in order to gain more strength. We have become the third-largest group in Parliament. We plan to promote solutions in what concerns the right-wing spectrum and to fulfill them. The parties (PC and PLR editors note) maintain their independence.

In his turn, Daniel Constantin stated on that occasion, in a communiqu, that he salutes President Calin Popescu Tariceanus decision to join us, in order to jointly build a strong parliamentary group that would promote center-right measures. () Along with our PLR colleagues, we have thought-out a dynamic and flexible parliamentary construct that helps us fulfill the center-right doctrinaire goals, without affecting in any way the other commitments taken by our parties at political and government level.

According to Daniel Constantin, depending on the results of the parliamentary cooperation between PC and PLR, results that will be embodied in the Center-right Measures for Romania program, it would be possible to develop the partnership in other dimensions too.

Daniel Constantin is criticized by several PC MPs and members of party branches for being too close to Premier Victor Ponta, the critics demanding a distancing from PSD as a result. According to stiripesurse.ro, during a meeting of PC branches from northwestern regions, a meeting that took place at the end of last month, it was clearly stated that almost everyone is dissatisfied with the partys current leadership and that a party congress would be welcomed. The news websites sources hinted that this congress should result in the replacement of Daniel Constantin.

Originally posted here:
Liberals could merge with Conservatives. Daniel Constantins position threatened

NDP liberals PC cost us billion the Green Party o
This video was uploaded from an Android phone.

By: Phil Ryerson

Read more here:
NDP liberals PC cost us billion the Green Party o - Video

Liberals Making the Difference - A Project on Roma Integration (full video)
Liberals, Roma, Integration, Central Europe, Southeast Europe.

By: European Liberal Forum (ELF)

Go here to see the original:
Liberals Making the Difference - A Project on Roma Integration (full video) - Video

December 11, 2014|2:27 pm

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, delivering the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture, Washington, D.C., October 16, 2014.

WASHINGTON Will those liberals who value diversity and tolerance of differing viewpoints lose their fight with the liberals who have worked to drive those who do not share their opinions from the public square? Professor Robert P. George believes they will. Tolerant liberals, however, have two advantages in that fight.

On Oct. 16, George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, delivered the Institute on Religion and Democracy's 2014 Diane Knippers Memorial Lecture in Washington, D.C. In that speech (coverage and links to the video here), he argued that supporters of gay marriage will not allow for the religious freedom of those opposed to gay marriage because their ideology does not allow for the fact that gay marriage dissenters can be reasonable people of goodwill. There are some tolerant liberals that continue to support religious freedom, he said, but those liberals "will lose the battle."

During the Q&A after the speech, I suggested to George two reasons he could be wrong, that tolerant liberals could win that fight with intolerant liberals.

First, in American democracy extremism loses and moderation wins. In fact, our Founders designed our government to function that way. If most elections in the United States had a proportional representation system, candidates who can gain the support of a small portion of the population can still gain some measure of political power. Instead, the United States has a winner-take-all electoral system in which a plurality of the vote is required to win elections. This encourages candidates to build broad coalitions in order to win. In this way, our election system has a moderating effect on our candidates and our political discourse.

Intolerant liberalism has only recently become a mainstream phenomenon. It has been below the surface (or confined mostly to college campuses) for a while, but since President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, intolerant liberals have been much more strident and much more public.

This extremism will lead to a backlash. We may have already seen the beginnings of the backlash in the responses to the Houston Mayor sermon subpoena scandal, the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel storyand the Republican victories in the midterm elections.

While support for gay marriage has seen strong growth in recent years, support for religious freedom also remains strong. Political candidates, even those who support gay marriage, will not want to be associated with a movement seen as attacking religious freedom.

Second, tolerant liberals are holding views consistent with their ideology. The hypocrisy of intolerant liberals is unsustainable in the long-term as the absurdity of their position continues to reveal itself.

Read more here:
Analysis: Why Tolerant Liberals Can Win Their Fight With Intolerant Liberals; A Response to Robert P. George

The confused public is in dire need of guidance from those with knowledge and understanding of Islam.

COMMENT

by Yusri Jamaluddin

The clash between liberal and Islamist ideologies is imminent in Malaysia. The liberals, who call themselves moderates, are on a sudden attacking spree, each amplifying the voice of the other. Their voices seem loud, but they are low in number and they constantly manipulate public perception through duplication of organizations with the same inherent agenda and political interests.

After losing in parliamentary elections, they seek to reclaim the nation with a barrage of campaigns under the umbrella of civil society institutions. In reality, their numbers are nothing compared to the silent majority. Unfortunately, the problem with the majority is that they are living in a cave of wealth and comfort, refusing to speak up to tell the world that our country is just fine without secular and liberal ideologies.

The Malaysian public is now in a confused state. Whom should the people trust the moderates, who keep painting a gruesome and bloody picture of a Malaysia ruled by militant extremists, or the Islamists, who constantly remind the nation to stay true to its identity in order to maintain peace and stability while issuing stern warnings to those who fail to do so?

ISMA has long warned of the existence of a group of people trying to secularize Malaysia. At the same time, ISMA calls for Malaysians to stay away from extremist militant groups. Many have failed to heed the warnings against secularism. Perhaps they want to wait until the day comes when they lose the religious identity that Malaysia has inherited.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that Malaysia is not a secular state and should never be treated as one. It is a myth that a secular state will ever recognize a religion to be the religion of the federation. After all, the principle concept of a secular state is that it separates religion from the affairs of the state. The fact that the constitution mentions liberty does not make it liberal either.

National identity

In light of recent events, we must ask ourselves a simple question: should a country mold itself to suit the different desires and inclinations of minority individuals, or should the people adapt to the national identity of this country, which stands on the principles that Islam is the religion of the Federation, Bahasa Melayu is the national language, the rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras are to be protected, the position of the monarchs is to be protected and the citizenship of other races is to be protected according to the social contract?

See the article here:
Liberals disguised as moderates