Mediaboss Marketing

SACRAMENTO California Democrats are dressing up their opposition to the Sept. 14 recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom by pointing to high-minded principles, but their arguments are hard to take seriously. Progressives dont really think that the recall process is illegitimate or unconstitutional. They simply dont like that its being used against one of their own.

Ive got mixed feelings about this particular recall, mainly because the organizers blame in their statement of reasons illegal immigrants for the bulk of Californias problems. Our states problems entirely are the making of its U.S.-citizen politicians and the voters that have empowered them.

Nevertheless, the recall process like the two other cornerstones of direct democracy, the initiative and referendum is dyed into the fabric of our state. Todays progressives, who claim to stand for the power of the People against special interests and the political class, despise a process that was devised by early 1900s progressives for that explicit purpose.

Their opposition is situational, an outgrowth of their fear that the public isnt nearly as given to liberal pipedreams as they would like. Note the results from November, when the same California voters who reliably send Democrats to Sacramento rejected initiatives that would expand rent control, increase commercial property taxes and re-impose race-based college admissions. They supported a measure that exempts drivers from a ban on independent contracting.

This special election is entirely legitimate. State law clearly spells out the rules. Recall supporters gathered the requisite signatures, submitted them for approval and have legally placed it on the ballot. By contrast, California Democrats toyed with the schedule, as they passed a law designed to speed up the election date because they believed an earlier date would help Newsom.

As news reports note, they previously passed a law to protect Democratic Sen. Josh Newman from a recall in 2018 by moving the date to a more Democratic-friendly primary. Their goal in both situations was to rig the rules to benefit their candidates, so they ought not to lecture us about their, er, principled opposition to this time-tested election innovation. Their only principle is whatever helps them the most.

Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks and a lineup of Democratic elected officials claimed the recall effort was a coup to remove Newsom, led by far-right extremists including white supremacists and neo-Nazis, according to an Associated Press report from January. I love this line in the AP story: However, they provided no evidence to support the allegations. Seriously, a coup?

Democratic attacks on the recall havent gotten much better since then. The same Republicans who refused to hold Donald Trump accountable for the deadly insurrection of January 6th are now trying to hold Governor Newsom accountable for the failures of Donald Trump. The recall effort is partisan, reckless, dangerous, said U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-California.

From a political perspective, its fair game to depict this election as a partisan, right-wing, blah-blah-blah effort, but Im disturbed by ongoing arguments that the recall process itself is some affront to democracy or a distortion of the original creation. The father of direct democracy, Gov. Hiram Johnson, argued, that if you believe in the recall, and if in your wisdom you desire its adoption by the people, you make no exception in its application. Thats rather far reaching.

The latest absurdity comes from UC Berkeley professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Aaron Edlin. Theyve offered a novel argument for why this type of election, which is embedded in the state Constitution, is unconstitutional. Theyre concerned that the winning candidate might end up with fewer votes than the no side on the recall question.

The most basic principles of democracy are that the candidate who gets the most votes is elected and that every voter gets an equal say in an elections outcome they argued in a New York Times op-ed. The California system for voting in a recall election violates these principles and should be declared unconstitutional.

Thats a fascinating legalistic theory, but simply is a contortion that would gut the states direct democracy in service to short-term political preferences. As Johnson noted in his First Inaugural Address, The opponents of direct legislation and the recall, however they may phrase their opposition, in reality believe the people cannot be trusted.

Progressives apparently no longer trust the people they claim to represent. Conservatives at least in some other states arent much better as they seek to rein in their initiative systems because they are yielding results (e.g., marijuana legalization) they dislike. Thats an odd position for newfound champions of populism.

California voters often do the wrong thing, but I trust them to decide whether to recall their governor. But whatever you decide, base it on your views of Newsoms governance not on bogus arguments about the illegitimacy or undemocratic nature of the states recall process.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Read more here:
Progressives now cry, no more power to the People - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

The Biden administration managed to draw criticism from both Republicans and progressives last week when it called on other countries to produce more oil amid high gasoline prices in the U.S.

Environmentalists rebuked the White House for encouraging the use of more fossil fuels at a time when the effects of climate change are intensifying, while Republicans responded by arguing President BidenJoe BidenBriahna Joy Gray: Democrats playing 'game of chicken' with infrastructure bills Overnight Defense: Top general acknowledges intel missed speed of Afghan collapse Overnight Health Care: US to start booster shots on Sept. 20 | Biden to require COVID-19 vaccination of all nursing home staff | Democrats embrace COVID mandates in governor races MOREs energy policies have increased Americas reliance on foreign oil.

The progressives see the hypocrisy in President Bidens action just like we do, House Republican Whip Steve ScaliseStephen (Steve) Joseph ScaliseOvernight Energy: US bans use of pesticide tied to health problems in children Biden draws ire of GOP, progressives with call to boost OPEC output Taliban seize power as Washington debates what went wrong MORE (La.) said in an interview Tuesday.

President Biden said he would be a uniter and I guess he has because hes uniting conservatives and progressives who are all pointing out that his energy strategy is incredibly anti-American and foolish, Scalise said.

Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversitys Climate Law Institute, said the choice should not be between calling for increased production or Americans shouldering higher gas prices.

The way to give people relief from gas prices is not to expand oil production, because that will extend the life of a dying industry and it will maximize damage to our climate and to peoples lives and to their livelihoods, she said. What the Biden administration needs to do is give people direct relief when needed, like Congress did during the pandemic.

White House national security adviser Jake SullivanJake SullivanAfghanistan disaster puts intelligence under scrutiny Overnight Energy: US bans use of pesticide tied to health problems in children Former Afghan women's soccer captain: Take down photos, 'get rid of your national team uniform' MORE last week saidOPEC's recent steps on increased production weren't sufficient.

While OPEC+ recently agreed to production increases, these increases will not fully offset previous production cuts that OPEC+ imposed during the pandemic until well into 2022, Sullivan said in a statement. At a critical moment in the global recovery, this is simply not enough.

President Biden has made clear that he wants Americans to have access to affordable and reliable energy, including at the pump, he added.

The Biden administration has defended its decision, reiterating its commitment to tackling climate change while pointing out that OPEC has the ability to impact global supply and push down prices.

But OPEC isnt beholden to the U.S. and has no obligation to abide by its requests.Reuters reported on Monday that OPEC and its allies dont believe they need to release oil more quickly.

Nevertheless, the administrations push for increased output drew swift pushback from Republicans, who used it to hammer Bidens energy agenda.

We actually succeeded in largely cutting ourselves off from OPEC ... to now heading in a direction where were going to become dependent on China and OPEC, Rep. Garret GravesGarret Neal GravesBiden draws ire of GOP, progressives with call to boost OPEC output Some Democrats put activism over climate action OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Supreme Court rules that pipeline can seize land from New Jersey | Study: EPA underestimated methane emissions from oil and gas development | Kevin McCarthy sets up task forces on climate, other issues MORE (R-La.) told The Hill.

The stupidity behind this couldnt be any greater, he added.

Republicans pointed to policies that would not have had an immediate impact on oil supply, like the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, but ones they say highlight the administrations hostility to the fossil fuel industry.

The Keystone decision, along with others like the administrations now-enjoined pause on new oil and gas leases, was highlighted in a letter to Biden on Monday by 24 Republican lawmakers criticizing the OPEC comments.

Your Administrations domestic oil and gas development policies are hurting American consumers and workers, are contrary to an America First energy agenda, the lawmakers wrote in a letter led by Sen. James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeBiden draws ire of GOP, progressives with call to boost OPEC output Republicans are the 21st-century Know-Nothing Party Overnight Defense: Biden administration expands Afghan refugee program | Culture war comes for female draft registration | US launches third Somalia strike in recent weeks MORE (R-Okla.).

The Keystone XL pipeline expansion was only about 8 percent built when Biden revoked a major permit for it, and it wouldve brought Canadian oil to the U.S. instead of increasing domestic production. The more recent leasing pausing would not impact energy production until next year at the earliest, according to the Energy Information Administration.

But Scalise argued that such actions send important signals to the market.

There are futures that are involved in this as well, and when people know that for the next three years Americas not going to be competing on the world market for oil, it allows a smaller group of countries and OPEC to control the price, he said.

For progressives, the administrations OPEC comments were equally frustrating.

Siegel, of the Center for Biological Diversity, invoked the dire warnings in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The disconnect couldnt be starker, Siegel said. One day the U.N. secretary-general says this climate report is a code red alert for humanity and must be the death knell for fossil fuels ... and then two days later the Biden administration urges OPEC to increase oil production.

The progressive environmentalist group Sunrise Movement, which has frequently pressured the administration on climate issues, also invoked the IPCC report.

"Biden can't be the climate leader he thinks he is if he's lobbying oil states to produce more fossil fuels, said campaign director Deirdre Shelly. We must ask Biden, what are your real priorities?

Instead of lobbying oil states, Biden should be addressing the root cause of this crisis, which is our dependence on fossil fuels," she added.

A White House official defended the OPEC comments by reiterating the administrations commitment to climate change while also pushing to make sure people dont have to pay too much at the pump.

We have to do two things at once: Achieve our climate goals while ensuring the energy transition accounts for the interests of the middle class and meet global energy needs as the economy recovers from the pandemic, the official said in an email to The Hill.

OPEC+ has the power to impact supply now. Global energy markets affect energy prices at home and OPEC+ accounts for a significant portion of the worlds oil production, the official added.

That has been the longstanding case which is why we are continuing engagement, like previous Administrations, with relevant OPEC+ members on the importance of competitive, well-functioning markets and doing more to support the ongoing recovery.

For Americans who are more concerned about gas prices than either climate change or energy independence, the administrations move may look better than doing nothing at all.

When prices are low, voters are happy and theyre not asking questions about why prices are low. ... When prices are high, theyre not happy, and thats when they begin asking questions, said GOP strategist Doug Heye, while adding that the move made Biden look weak.

Numerous presidents have called for other countries to release more oil into the market, but to some GOP opponents, the main difference is that Biden is looking to move the U.S. in a different direction than that of his Republican predecessors.

Their policies were a hell of a lot better, Graves said of former Presidents Trump and George W. Bush. This is night and day.

Original post:
Biden draws ire of GOP, progressives with call to boost OPEC output | TheHill - The Hill

While President Biden tries to blame Donald Trump or even Afghans themselves for the collapse of Afghanistan to the Taliban, the real lesson is the failure of progressive policies there. The unmitigated disaster for Americas armchair nation-builders is reminiscent of Custers Last Stand in 1876, when the inept U.S. colonels entire force was slaughtered by enemy Indian tribes.

Missing in action for days, Biden finally emerged to pretend that the problem is Afghans supposedly not having the will to fight. This was after the Afghan president handpicked by liberals, an American-educated academic with progressive political beliefs, had fled the country in a helicopter.

Just a few weeks ago, the progressive chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, had defended indoctrinating U.S. soldiers in the tenets of critical race theory. He pompously declared to Congress, I want to understand white rage and Im white.

Trump was blistering in his criticism of Milley back then, declaring that General Milley ought to resign, and be replaced with someone who is actually willing to defend our military from the leftist radicals who hate our country and flag.

General George Patton, our finest and toughest field commander of the 20th century, believed in reincarnation. One thing we know for certain: Patton did not return as General Milley.

No doubt disliked by Afghan soldiers as much as he is here, in July Milley misled the public by declaring to reporters that the Afghan Security Forces have the capacity to sufficiently fight and defend their country. But defend their country for whom: Biden and his ideological twin who quickly abandoned his post and fled?

The departed Afghan president Ashraf Ghani was installed as president by liberals after a disputed election that took months to resolve. Like Biden, President Ghani is an elderly, low-energy man who promoted progressive policies having little connection with reality or what the Afghan people want and believe in.

Like Biden, President Ghani failed to attract genuine support among ordinary Afghans as Trump does so well with many Americans. The equivalent of woke ideologies and policies were being pushed on that rugged country, and of course no Afghans would risk their lives to defend what they do not believe in.

Feminist policies were being imposed on Afghans who have a deep-rooted patriarchal culture that is the opposite of what liberals demand. The vast majority of adult Afghan men cannot read or write, yet liberals insisted on building schools to indoctrinate Afghan girls and young women with secular progressive beliefs.

For those old enough to remember the fall of Saigon, as the last U.S. helicopter lifted off the roof of the U.S. embassy, that horror was repeated as Afghans clung to U.S. transport planes while they taxied down the runway. Deaths by people dropping off the departing airplanes trigger painful reminders of victims falling from the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Biden seems to have timed his pullout from Afghanistan, not to minimize deaths and destruction, but to facilitate photo-ops for him on the upcoming 20-year anniversary of 9/11. Instead, on Sept. 11 Americans will need to be on high alert for a potential copycat attack, either here or in European countries that foolishly admitted too many Muslim immigrants from hostile countries.

Trump responded by properly calling for Bidens resignation, before China and other rogue nations exploit his weakness as the Taliban just did. The same European leaders who enjoyed treating Trump with disdain probably now wish he never left the White House, as Europe prepares to be overrun by Afghan refugees.

Do you miss me yet? Trump asked last week, and with each passing day we miss him more. In four entire years of Trumps leadership nothing like this catastrophe occurred, and barely six months into the presidency of Biden the wheels are already coming off.

The coming flood of refugees from Afghanistan may be what liberals really want, just as they have tolerated over a million impoverished migrants crossing our southern border. This was another monthly surge in July of illegal aliens pouring in, with record-high levels of COVID among them.

To be clear, Afghanistan is not a defeat for Americas brave soldiers and Marines, who served so courageously in Afghanistan under terrible and frightening conditions. In late 2001, merely 3,000 American troops swiftly accomplished what seemed impossible, by seizing control of the country from Al Qaeda for harboring 9/11 terrorists.

But progressives and an effete occupant of the White House have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. This failure was not on the battlefield, but in the misguided ideology of those who attempted to impose political correctness on a country that is the antithesis of it.

John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work.

Read the rest here:
Progressives last stand in Afghanistan - Alton Telegraph

Toplines and Key Points:

What does the state of Texas actually look like? Thanks to the 2020 census results that dropped last week, we finally have an idea of how our Lone Star community has changed over the last ten years. The census data has major implications for voting rights, redistricting, and the political future of Texas over the next decade. Its a lot of information, so we laid out three takeaways that Texas progressives need to know.

While Texas has added 4 million new residents over the last decade, that growth has been disproportionately concentrated in our states urban areas. Over the last decade, only 14 cities in the country grew by over 100,000 residents. Five of those cities are in Texas Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. Suburban populations exploded as well, with Frisco, McKinney, New Braunfels, and Conroe landing in the top ten fastest growing cities in the nation.

But as urban areas have boomed, rural counties across the state are experiencing population decline. Over half of Texas counties lost residents in the last decade, with 143 shrinking in size since 2010. Both Texas residents and transplants are moving into our states largest metros, sounding alarms for Republicans hoping to keep control of our state over the next ten years.

Over the last decade, Texas has added a lot more blueberries in the tomato soup. Democratic gains in our state have largely been driven by our urban areas, which have only grown larger in the last election cycles. Thats why Democrats have picked up dozens of Texas House seats, several congressional seats, and many more local positions. Its also why Republicans are targeting urban areas in their voter suppression schemes.

In the first Texas legislative session, Republicans specifically created voting restrictions that would only apply to counties with over one million people. Theyve also targeted voter access initiatives put into place in Harris County, attempting to outlaw measures that made it easier for Houston residents to access the ballot box. Its no coincidence that these areas are often the most diverse in the state, as the GOP ramps up their efforts to target voters of color.

In the last decade, Texas gained the most people of any state in the nation, with people of color making up 95% of that growth. Texas gained 11 Hispanic residents for each white resident, making Hispanic Texans half a percentage point away from becoming the largest demographic group in our state. The Black and Asian populations also grew considerably, as Asian population growth outnumbered white population growth by nearly 3 to 1.

Texans of color dont just vote Democratic, and no vote can ever be taken for granted. But its no secret that the Texas GOP is scared of what can happen when communities of color turn out just take a look at their voter suppression efforts over the last year. Since the first Texas legislative session began in May, Republicans have tried targeting souls to the polls, empowering partisan poll watchers, singling out voters receiving assistance in the polling place, and restricting drive-thru voting and vote-by-mail. Its also a near certainty that Republicans will try to gerrymander our districts to limit the voting power of Texans of color, as they have done repeatedly in past redistricting cycles.

The new Texans in our state are bringing with them two shiny new congressional districts that are sure to be the subject of a long redistricting battle over the next few years. Unfortunately, with Republicans still in control of the Texas state government, the GOP is in charge of drawing what our maps look like over the next ten years. But that doesnt mean progressives cant fight back against racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering.

The massive population growth driven by people of color will make it difficult for the GOP to draw two new Republican seats without racial discrimination according to the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, theres simply no way for them to add two more GOP seats in Texas without racially gerrymandering based on this Census Data. Of course, theyll try anyway. Courts have found that Texas targeted communities of color in every redistricting cycle in the last half-century, and this year will be no different.

Encourage your federal representatives to pass voting rights legislation that includes a ban on partisan gerrymandering. Follow our Twitter and Facebook to stay updated on opportunities to testify on redistricting, as Gov. Abbott will likely bring lawmakers back to the state capitol for a redistricting special session. And contact your state representatives to let them know that Texans deserve fair and equitable legislative maps.

The census has shown us what Texas progressives already know we are a rapidly growing, diverse state targeted by voter suppression and gerrymandering. Now, its time to organize to make our government look like the people of Texas!

Read more from the original source:
3 takeaways from the 2020 Census that Texas progressives need to know - Progress Texas

A progressive has won Tuesdays special election for the seat vacated by a fellow progressive on the Burlington, Vermont City Council.

In May, Ward 3 Progressive City Councilor Brian Pine resigned his seat after his appointment to lead the Burlington Community and Economic Development Office was ratified. Three people ran in Tuesdays special election for the seat: Independent Owen Milne, Progressive Joe Magee and Republican Christopher-Aaron Felker.

Turnout was low with 22 percent of eligible voters, or 1,011 ballots, cast in the ward. Progressive Magee won.

We had a message of raising the minimum wage here in Burlington and advocating for more affordable housing that I think resonated with a lot of folks.

Party Chair Josh Wronski says the Ward 3 seat has been held by a Progressive since the 1980s and is historically a big part of the partys base.

Joe ran on a very clear platform of continuing to advance a progressive agenda and advocating for policies that will make Burlington more affordable, things like living wages for working class people.

According to the unofficial results released by the city clerks office Magee received 475 votes, Milne 397 and Felker 136. That means Magees two challengers combined received nearly 6 percent more of the vote.

Former Republican city council president Republican Kurt Wright says the Progressively controlled council should pay attention to what he considers a close result.

In a ward thats very left, very dominated by Progressives and has been for many decades, the results certainly did not produce a mandate for the Progressives or Joe Magee." Wright continues "So no question Joe Magee is the winner. Hell join the council. But theres a message actually for the Progressives there. More people voted against their candidate and voted for candidates that have had different views on policing and public safety than they do.

But Progressive Chair Wronski downplays the numbers showing Magee behind the combined numbers of his challengers.

Were looking at an 8 percent margin and there are close elections all the time. This is certainly not the closest election weve had in Ward 3 even, " said Wronski. "Its just part of politics and this was a very low turn out election. And we typically dont do as well when turn outs low.

Wright, meanwhile, believes that the results are tied to growing public safety concerns after Progressives on the council approved a cap on the number of police officers.

Its really compromised public safety and its going to get worse. This group of city councilors are really much farther left and are really in some ways certainly in regard to policing I think are you know somewhat militant and extremist.

Magee says he heard from a lot of voters who said while community safety is important, it was not their priority.

I think a lot of folks recognize that we do need to continue to transition away from status quo policing. And you know I think theres a conversation that we need to have about the changes that need to be made in the police department as we continue to invest in mental health services here in Burlington and other community supports that meet peoples most basic needs.

Middlebury College Professor of Political Science Bert Johnson says public safety has been the dominant issue throughout the city this summer. Magees win, he says, superficially represents progressive continuity on the city council.

It would be wise probably for Progressives be a little bit cautious about how they respond to the upcoming report on policing and staffing and especially how they speak about what theyre trying to do.

Magee will serve until the end of the current term April 4th, 2022.

Continued here:
Progressive Joe Magee Wins Burlington Ward 3 Special Election - WAMC