Mediaboss Marketing

I am always wary of those who purport to speak for their respective generation, and a recent New York Post op-ed by a self-espoused libertarian student at New York University put on full display exactly what the Republican Party must abandon in the years ahead.

In close to 700 words, writer Rikki Schlott calls for the GOP to compromise on social and environmental issues and stand up to leftist extremism, ignoring that these two are different sides of the same strategic coin. Schlott concedes a talking point that merely assists the left in its campaign to smear Republicans especially those in Gen Z as operating in extremist fringes who need to be like their predecessors and champion old neoconservatism.

As the GOP rebrands in the post-Trump, post-pandemic era, it has a huge opportunity to make inroads with this new, open-minded contingent, she writes. But appealing to Gen Z will require significant modernization and compromise. Calls for progress are coming from young voters of every political persuasion. In fact, while Gen Z Democrats are almost politically identical to their older counterparts, generationaldifferences among Republicans are far more stark.

Even if we are to submit to polling that finds Gen Z is driven by anti-Trump backlash and more Independent than categorically conservative appealing to Gen Z and its supposed more moderate nature should be far from the primary, secondary, or tertiary objective of the Trump-shifted GOP. As Evita Duffy pointed out in The Federalist last year, polling indicates Gen Z, even while in their likely most liberal youthful years, are significantly more socially moderate than millennials.

Thus, the idea that appealing to Gen Z will require significant modernization and compromise is ill-supported, and a losing strategy. Conservatives who wish to target the lefts institutional monopoly and overhaul of morally shared principles would lay themselves a booby trap by continuing to compromise with the radically left Democratic Party of today.

The GOP ought to instead focus on reinforcing social conservatismas advantageous. Not doing so is a naive rejection of the last four years, which proved there is a massive constituency for taking on the culture war rather than conceding it. Republicans in the past have neglected these voters in favor of the same old fiscal promises that never materialize.

If the GOP can deliver viable, free-market alternatives to the restrictive environmental policies coming from the left, their appeal to Gen Z would skyrocket, Schlott argues. Pushing for innovation and offering economic incentives to businesses fighting climate change is just one way the GOP could show its on team green.

The very last thing Republicans should be doing is keeping governments dead hand on the scale to push one scientific understanding of climate change and its effects, which Democrats have universally campaigned on as a means to expand government and harm the American worker. Worse, Schlott also claims it would be wise for the GOP to join this effort to destabilize the energy industry and provide more opportunities for corporations to yield even more power. In making this claim, the writer cites John Olds, the president of the essentially liberal group Gen Z GOP.

Olds says, If the GOP were to reshuffle its priorities a little bit to address generational issues and present conservative solutions, they would make huge progress with Generation Z, producing a blanket statement all too familiar from the work Gen Z GOP does.

As Saagar Enjeti rightly pointed out last summer upon the group releasing a promotional video, Gen Z GOP is basically Bidenism-lite and a product of the corporate elites who have run the Republican Party for far too long. More than just playing the old game of conservative defense, Schlott and Olds essentially call for Republicans to not be conservative at all. In all this, one wonders as always what is the point of being Republican if it is, as Phyllis Schlafly once said, merely an echo of Democrats rather than offering voters a clearly different political choice.

Meanwhile, Gen Z Republicans say society does not do enough to accept gender non-conforming people at a rate three times higher than some older Republican generations, Schlott writes. Many Gen Z voters imagine Republicans as rigid, evangelizing traditionalists. By adopting a more live-and-let-live philosophy in favor of cultural conservatism, the GOP would appeal to more young people.

A live-and-let-live philosophy is exactly what propelled America into the mess we find ourselves in today. While American jobs got shipped overseas, leftists manipulated language, sexual anarchy took over the country, and Big Tech and Big Business grew into oligarchies, Republicans pushed tax cuts and never seriously cut federal spending.

If appealing to more young people means forfeiting a moral society in favor of worshiping the application of market activities through open borders, the killing of the unborn, and allowing critical race theory to hijack the education system, you can count me out. If a free market means putting the force of law behind constituencies that demand bake the cake, bigot, its clear once again that libertarian slogans are being deceitfully deployed to destroy historic American freedoms.

In short, the GOP should work on rebranding as the modern, reasonable, solutions-oriented party, Schlott concludes. If Republicans succeed in crafting this new identity, it will make enormous strides with young voters and secure its future.

Schlott is operating on a very different definition about what is modern and reasonable than those seeking a GOP that works for more than just Wall Street. The way to solve Americas issues and connect with conservative voters is not to parrot libertarian talking points.

Read more here:
No, Republicans Will Not Win Anything By Bowing Down To The Left - The Federalist

By Tom Harper, Las Vegas

Monday, June 21, 2021 | 2 a.m.

I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her commitment to an investigation after the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted against a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission. How can the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and those Republicans reconcile their actions with the preamble to the Constitution, which the Republicans swore to protect and preserve and which states, We the people ... in order to form a more perfect union ... insure domestic tranquility ... promote the general welfare ...?

Compare this to the flag held by many insurrectionists the Gadsden flag which depicts a coiled rattlesnake with the words Dont tread on me. Me: the selfish cry of the libertarian, is antithetical to the We of the preamble and the Declaration of Independence, which recognized that laws are for the public (i.e. common) good.

If the Gadsden folks believed they had the right to commit insurrection resulting in the deaths of five people and property damage in excess of $1million, how do we know Republicans were not complicit? Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., raised a fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists, and Republican members of Congress gave tours before the insurrection.

The snake is an apropos symbol for the Gadsden folks. A snake can mean a deceitful and treacherous person; traitor; turncoat. Criminal investigation and prosecution will take care of the Gadsden folks. A full investigation will expose all of the traitors involved in this heinous and despicable event.

See original here:
Insurrectionists picked the right flag - Las Vegas Sun

Timothy Holdiness, Letter to the Editor Published 9:48 a.m. CT June 22, 2021

Everyone should get the COVID-19 vaccine, though I can understand any uneasiness tied to it.

Our government hardly ever gives anything out for free, which can cause some concern when the vaccine is being provided for free. The proof of vaccination that comes with it shouldnt be seen as a tool to segregate anyone. I have not personally been asked for proof of my vaccination, even though I have it readily available on my LA Wallet app that includes my drivers license.

Those who refuse the vaccine should know that they are putting others at risk by going to events where they could contract the virus or pass it on to others.

To say that citizens are being pitted against each other over race and political beliefs is nothing new. We must remember that the civil rights movement has not ended.

The separation between political parties has become increasingly divided which should bring to light the need for more than two parties. The Green and Libertarian parties should be included in national politics instead of being blacklisted and excluded from debates. Having only two controlling parties is just asking for this division between citizens.

The claim that the military is weeding out anyone who doesnt agree with global warming, agrees with the Second Amendment, and has conservative opinions is incorrect. The military is trying to keep extremists from enlisting, not simply refusing all Republicans.

Having claimed that critical race theory is purely Marxism is incorrect. It is not a political faction, rather it is teaching the youth of the country about how racism shaped the way we live and how our public policy was shaped by the racism that has run rampant in our country for hundreds of years.

The First Amendment is one of the most well-known across the country, and it must be known that there are consequences when used to make statements that are hateful or incite violence. Just because we have the right to speak our minds freely, does not mean that people should be allowed to be hateful online with no repercussions. When anyone can post anything online without moderation, online environments will become toxic and ineffective at their goal of giving people a commonplace to have a voice virtually.

No time soon do I see the citizens of The United States of America losing their freedoms. If anything, we will have more individualized freedom away from the exclusive ways of the past.

Timothy Holdiness

Bossier City

Read or Share this story: https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2021/06/22/letter-freedom-not-being-lost-united-states/5304329001/

See more here:
Letter: Freedom could be more individualized, but not lost in the United States - Shreveport Times

Getting down to the specifics of these bills, they range from bad to ugly, said Patrick Hedger, vice president of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is funded in part by groups connected to the Kochs. Americans for Prosperity, a Koch group, called the antitrust package a jumble of legislative proposals [that] targets American companies [and] treats them as guilty until proven innocent.

The critics are arguing, in part, that the bills are antithetical to GOP values, which traditionally emphasize the free market and oppose regulatory intervention.

These bills represent a huge intervention into the U.S. economy, said Jessica Melugin, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institutes Center for Technology and Innovation, which has received tens of thousands of dollars from Koch foundations in recent years as well as funding from the major tech companies. This is not on-brand for Republicans.

The Houses top Republican, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, weighed in against the legislation on Wednesday, saying it only gives Democrats in the federal government more power to tip the scales. McCarthy, a California lawmaker, has received tens of thousands of dollars from Google, Amazon and Facebook, as well as the Koch Industries PAC, in recent years.

But traditional Republican aversion to meddling in big business saw serious erosion under Trump, whose Justice Department filed a major antitrust suit against Google. The antitrust bills right-leaning supporters say the Koch groups are simply out of touch with a populist GOP base that feels censored and silenced by the tech giants.

The Koch group and all of these pro-big tech people on the right, they do have an advantage, which is inertia, said Jon Schweppe, the director of policy and government affairs at the populist American Principles Project, which has received money from the Mercer family. The Republican Party for a long time has been a party opposed to any antitrust or concern about concentrated power. But the divide here is that the base definitely wants to break up Big Tech.

One sign of the anti-tech messages growing appeal among the GOP caucus: Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, the top Republican on the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, co-sponsored all five of the antitrust bills, along with North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn and Texas Rep. Lance Gooden.

Buck said he believes that the legislative efforts are an extension of his outreach to blue collar voters.

When I go back to my district, I hear a lot of people talk about the fact that what Big Tech doing is wrong, he said. They dont necessarily know they cheated this particular company in this way, but they have this gut feeling that these companies are too big and theyre cheating. So I do think that we will reach out to a broad spectrum [with these bills].

Democrats behind the legislation have welcomed the support from Republicans, seeking to ride the populist wave to garner lasting support for their agenda.

Ultimately, its a fight for the future of the Republican party Trump-style populism vs. traditional conservatism and the Koch network isnt going down without a fight. As soon as the bills were introduced last week, Koch-backed groups including Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Open Competition Center, TechFreedom and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation came out with statements and campaigns condemning the legislation.

Aside from the tech companies themselves, the Koch groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been some of the loudest voices blanketing Capitol Hill urging Republican lawmakers to oppose the legislation, according to two aides familiar with the conversations who asked to remain anonymous in order to discuss private conversations. (Many of the groups that receive Koch funding also receive money from Facebook, Google or Amazon.)

I dont think Koch is out on their own on this, said Zach Graves, head of policy at the Lincoln Network, a right-of-center tech advocacy group. I think they have a lot of alignment with relatively powerful industry groups not just tech, but also just general Chamber of Commerce types who dont want to see massive expansion of the antitrust regime and giving big new powers to the [Federal Trade Commission] and DOJ.

Each of the bills has at least one Republican co-sponsor, but the legislation will need more GOP support to push through the Senate. Thats left undecided Republicans in the middle of a tense debate.

For instance, the Heritage Foundation, which is building out its tech policy apparatus, has chosen to stay out of the public conversation for now as it weighs how to thread the needle between taking on Big Tech and maintaining a hands-off approach to government regulation.

As with any other meaningful policy debate, Heritage is carefully looking at the issues inherent to the Big Tech debate in order to come up with policy recommendations that address legitimate concerns about censorship and the growing influence of Big Tech platforms, said John Cooper, the Heritage Foundations associate director for institute communications. To argue that these are issues that dont require some sort of action is simply unrealistic at this point, though its important policymakers act in a way that doesnt give the federal government undue authority that Americans will regret giving to bureaucrats down the road.

Another crucial dynamic is the fact that the Koch network and the Chamber of Commerce, once two of the most important forces in the Republican Party, fell increasingly out of favor with GOP backers during the Trump era. The Koch network alienated a huge swath of formerly devoted Republican followers as its political arm expressed new openness last year to backing Democrats, and the Chamber drew fire for backing several Democrats as well.

The Koch network and Chamber crowd have zero influence right now, said one House Republican aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. Most of the House Judiciary members and their staff couldnt pick out their people from a police lineup.

But on the other side of the schism, many traditional conservatives and libertarians feel theyre defending the core of their party against Trumps influence. That includes growing GOP calls for a government crackdown on social media companies that they accuse of censoring conservatives, a theme that Trump pressed repeatedly during his time in the White House.

I reject the premise that this is the right is divided, said Berin Szoka, president of the tech- and Koch-funded think tank TechFreedom. People accusing tech companies of censorship, he added, are seeking to compel social media sites to host the most despicable people and content imaginable.

The Democratic-led bills H.R. 3816 (117), H.R. 3825 (117), H.R. 3826 (117), H.R. 3843 (117) and H.R. 3849 (117) dont include prominent anti-tech proposals that Trump and other Republicans had championed, such as stripping or reducing the online industrys protections against lawsuits over user-posted content. But anti-tech activists on the right have made it clear that they support the House antitrust bills in part to punish the major tech companies alleged censorship.

Conservatives are being canceled by Big Tech, we are being kicked off these platforms, we are being silenced and censored, said Mike Davis, founder and president of the right-wing Internet Accountability Project, which receives some funding from Oracle. Conservatives need to pick a side theyre either with everyday Americans or theyre with these Big Tech monopolists and their D.C. lobbyists.

Both sides agree that theres nowhere near as robust of an apparatus on the right for supporting antitrust changes. Whereas a swath of academics and groups on the left have taken up trust-busting as a priority policy area, only a few groups and figures are devoted to the issue on the right.

I think its going to take a new generation of folks, said the House Republican aide.

So far, most Republicans in Congress have not weighed in publicly on the legislation. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the pro-Trump ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee with a more libertarian bent, has been actively whipping against the bills, targeting their Democratic roots.

On the other side, lobbyists for News Corp. and fellow Murdoch-owned company Fox have been working Republican lawmakers to vote in favor, according to two people familiar with the dynamics. And the tech giants themselves some of the biggest lobbying spenders in Washington are caught in the middle.

There is going to continue to be a battle on this, and it parallels the realignment, Schweppe said. The Kochs have always been this more libertarian wing. I dont think thats the main thrust of the party anymore.

Go here to see the original:
How the Houses Silicon Valley smackdown is dividing conservatives - POLITICO

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 17, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Louis Marinelli, an American political activistand California governor candidate, released a short filmexploring the issue of Vrbetice explosions in the light of the first Biden - Putin meeting.

The film was made in collaboration with Adam Kokesh, a libertarian activist who ran for USA presidency in 2020 and was aimed to present a perspective that is not widespread in the media today and discuss an alternative vision of the explosions in Czech Republic, sanctions against Russia and the current state of international relations prior to Putin - Biden meeting.

In 2014, a series of explosions destroyed an arms depot in the Czech Republic, causing two deaths. At the time, Czech authorities blamed the explosions on human error. But now, in the months leading up to the Biden-Putin meeting set for Geneva, the explosions have resurfaced as a topic of international concern - except now NATO allies and EU members are blaming Russia - and placing sanctions on Russia as a result, even though they lack any direct evidence of Russian involvement.

Louis Marinelli unravels the story and presents an alternative theory - is Europe's renewed interest in the 2014 explosions in Vrbetice really just a pretext to place sanctions on Russia and tarnish Russia's reputation before Putin's meeting with Biden? Or maybe the explosions are simply the result of a rivalry between two arms dealers - Emelian Gebrev, and Boyko Borissov, who, until recently, was also the Prime Minister of Bulgaria?

Additional information:

Louis J. Marinelli(born March 28, 1986) is an Americanpolitical activistof theCalifornia independencemovement organized under theYes CaliforniaIndependence Campaign, an umbrella organization representing the coalition of parties and organizations supporting the proposed California independence referendum. Marinelli is the former president of Yes California and the former interim chairman of theCalifornia National Party, under which he also ran forCalifornia State AssemblyinCalifornia's 80th State Assembly districtrepresenting southSan Diego,National City,Chula Vista,San Ysidro, and the surrounding communities.

Adam Charles Kokesh(born February 1, 1982) is anAmericanlibertarianpoliticalactivist, radio host, and author. Kokesh was a U.S.2020 Libertarian presidential candidaterunning on thesingle-issueplatform of an "orderly dissolution of thefederal government."

Kokesh is a formerU.S. Marine Corpssergeant, serving in theIraq Warin 2004. Upon his return from Iraq, he became ananti-waractivist and an advocate forIraq Veterans Against the War.

Media contact:Louis Marinelli[emailprotected]+79859426240

SOURCE Louis Marinelli

Originally posted here:
Louis Marinelli: Is Europe's interest in the 2014 Vrbetice Explosions driven by the Biden-Putin meeting? - PRNewswire