Person or organization Notes Reference Allan Armsworthy* President, Central Nova Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Gail Asper Director and Corporate Secretary of CanWest Global [1] Scott Brison* Member of Parliament for KingsHants [2] Dianne Brushett* President, Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Ryan Buffalo Vice-President (Youth), Alberta Aboriginal Peoples Commission [citation needed] T.J. Burke Member of the Legislative Assembly, New Brunswick [citation needed] Mike Burton* President, Regina QuAppelle Riding Association, Saskatchewan [citation needed] George Cameron Past Provincial Liberal Candidate, Saskatchewan [citation needed] Hilary Casey* President of the New Brunswick Young Liberals [citation needed] Jim Cowan* Senator for Nova Scotia [3] Jane Cordy* Senator for Nova Scotia [4] Joseph A. Day* Senator for New Brunswick [5] Richard Diamond* President of the Young Liberals of Canada [6] Autumn EagleSpeaker* President, Alberta, Aboriginal People's Commission [7] Chris Emanuel Central Region President, Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) [citation needed] Mark Eyking* Member of Parliament for SydneyVictoria [8] Bill Fleming* Past Candidate, Sackville Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Ryan Francis* President, Nova Scotia Aboriginal Peoples Commission [citation needed] Josh Fraser* Vice-President (Youth) Aboriginal People's Commission [9] George Furey* Senator for Newfoundland [citation needed] Joe Gillis* President, SydneyVictoria Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] John Gillis Vice-President, Nova Scotia Liberal Party [citation needed] Darian Huskilson* 2006 Election Candidate for South ShoreSt. Margaret's, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Jim Kane* President, Edmonton Centre Riding Association, Alberta [citation needed] Michael Kirby* Senator for Nova Scotia [10] Mike MacKenzie* President, KingsHants Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Martin MacKinnon* 2006 Election Candidate for Halifax, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Frank McKenna* Former Premier of New Brunswick [citation needed] Wilfred Moore* Senator for Nova Scotia [11] Shawn Murphy* Member of Parliament for Charlottetown [12] Rey Pagtakhan* Former Minister under Jean Chrtien, and Paul Martin, Former Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North and Winnipeg NorthSt. Paul [13] Eric Peterson* President, Toronto Centre Riding Association, Ontario [citation needed] Gerard Phalen* Senator for Nova Scotia [14] Gary Richard* 2006 Election Candidate for Cumberland Colchester, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Charlie Rutt* President, Sackville Eastern Shore Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Michael Savage* Member of Parliament for DartmouthCole Harbour [15] Carolyn Scott Vice-President (Federal) Nova Scotia Liberal Party [citation needed] Jane Spurr* President, Halifax Riding Association, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Pat Thomas* President, EdmontonLeduc Riding Association, Alberta [citation needed] Danny Walsh* 2006 Election Candidate for Central Nova, Nova Scotia [citation needed] Derek Wells* President, Nova Scotia Liberal Party [citation needed] Cindy Woodhouse* Vice-President (Communications) Aboriginal People's Commission [16] Person or organization Notes Reference Warren Allmand* Former Solicitor General of Canada under Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grce, Quebec [17] Eleni Bakopanos* Former Member of Parliament for Ahuntsic, Quebec [18] Tommy Banks* Senator from Alberta [citation needed] Sue Barnes* Member of Parliament for London West, Ontario [19] Tudor Beattie* President of the Calgary Centre Riding, Alberta [20] Doug Beaton Former Executive Director of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia [21] Andre Beaumier* President of the RichmondArthabaska Riding, Quebec [22] Colleen Beaumier* Member of Parliament for Brampton West, Ontario [23] Cecil Bechamp* President of the Brampton West Riding, Ontario [citation needed] Bruce Benson* 2006 Election Candidate for SelkirkInterlake, Manitoba [24] Edgar Benson* Former Member of Parliament for Kingston, Ontario, Treasury Board Minister under Lester Pearson and Finance Minister under Pierre Elliott Trudeau [citation needed] David Berger Former Member of Parliament for Laurier Montreal-area riding, former Canadian Ambassador to Israel [25] Grard Binet Former Member of Parliament for FrontenacMgantic, Quebec [citation needed] Jean-Jacques Blais* Former Minister in the Pierre Trudeau and John Turner governments. Former Member of Parliament for Nipissing,Ontario [26] Don Boudria* Former Member of Parliament for GlengarryPrescottRussell, Ontario [27] Claudette Bradshaw* Former Member of Parliament for MonctonRiverviewDieppe, New Brunswick, former Minister [28] Stephen R. Bronfman Montreal businessman, Chairman, Claridge Inc. [29] Bonnie Brown* Member of Parliament for Oakville, Ontario [30] Richard Brown* Member of the Legislative Assembly, Charlottetown-Kings Square, Prince Edward Island [31] Denise Brunsdon Former National Director of the Young Liberals of Canada [32] John G. Bryden* Senator for New Brunswick [33] Rod Bryden Former owner of the Ottawa Senators [34] Jhim Burwell* 2006 Election Candidate for KootenayColumbia, British Columbia [35] Adam Campbell* President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Alberta) [36][permanent dead link] Richard Cashin* Former Newfoundland Member of Parliament for St. John's West and Former President of the Newfoundland Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union [37] Bill Caton* 2006 Election Candidate for Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan [citation needed] Kevin Chalmers* Liberal Organizer in British Columbia, and organizer for David Emerson's election campaign in Vancouver Kingsway, as well as the De-Elect Emerson campaign after Emerson's defection to the Tories. Maria Chaput* Senator for Manitoba [38] Michel Chartand Former Chair of the Liberal Party's Standing Committee on Communications & Publicity, and former President of the Young Liberals of Canada [39] Jason Cherniak* Liblogs founder, President of Richmond Hill Liberal riding association, York Region Director for LPC(O)

[40]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[93]

[124]

[129]

[161]

[172]

[208] igna

[359]

[390]

[399]

[412]

See the original post here:

Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership ...

New Political Terrain for a Liberal Discipline Inside Higher Ed That's also true of populations whom the mostly liberal-minded anthropological profession may not initially empathize with, he said. Gusterson studies the people who make up the American security state -- members of the intelligence community ...

Go here to read the rest:

New Political Terrain for a Liberal Discipline - Inside Higher Ed

At the J Street Conference on February 27, Bernie Sanders delivered one of the most intriguing Israel-related speeches an American politician has given in years. Read it carefully, and you can grasp Donald Trumps radicalizing impact on the America-Israel debate. The more Trump and his advisers question long-standing taboos by shifting right, the more Democrats will do the same by shifting left.

To understand how Sanderss speech pushes the boundaries of the Israel debate in Washington, D.C., compare it to the one John Kerry gave last December after the Obama administration abstained from a United Nations resolution criticizing settlements. In that speech, Kerry defended American policy the way Obama officials usually did: in the language of Israeli self-interest. Kerry declared, Throughout his administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East.

Kerry discussed Palestinian rights and dignity, too. But they were a secondary theme.

Thats not how ordinary Democrats think anymore. This past January, the Pew Research Center found that, for the first time since they began asking the question in 2001, Democrats were as likely to sympathize with the Palestinians as with Israel. Sanderss speech reflected that.

Like most American politicians, he celebrated Israels war of independence. But then he did something American politicians almost never do: He acknowledged the wars impact on Palestinians. Like our own country, Sanders declared, the founding of Israel involved the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people already living there, the Palestinian people. Over 700,000 people were made refugees.

Sanderss moral parallelism continued when he left the past and moved to the present. My question here today is, Okay, what now? he continued. Where do Israelis and Palestinians go from here? What should be U.S. policy to end this conflict, to end this 50-year-long occupation, and enable a better, more secure and prosperous future for Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians alike?

For Kerry, the answer to those questions was clear: the two-state solution. In his December 2016 speech he mentioned the phrase 29 times. But Sanders didnt answer the question by talking about diplomatic agreements. He answered it by talking about the values we share as progressives. We believe in democracy. We believe in equality. We believe in pluralism. We are strongly opposed to xenophobia. We respect and we will protect the rights of minorities.

What political arrangement would best reflect those values? Sanders didnt exactly say. He acknowledged that the two-state solution has been bipartisan U.S. policy for many years and is also supported by an overwhelming international consensus. And he criticized Trump for casually suggesting that he might discard it in favor of one state.

But Sanders also peeked through the door that Trump opened. Kerry described the demise of the two-state solution as calamitous. If it dies, he insisted, Israel wont ever really be at peace.

Sanders, by contrast, was less apocalyptic than quizzical. If Palestinians in the occupied territories are to be denied self-determination in a state of their own, he asked, will they receive full citizenship and equal rights in a single state, potentially meaning the end of a Jewish majority state? These are very serious questions with significant implications for Americas broader regional partnerships and goals.

In emphasizing the values that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement must reflect rather than the two-state solution as an end in itself, Sanders again reflected a shift on the grassroots left. J Street still firmly supports two states. But the millennial-powered If Not Now, which contains many veterans of J Streets student wing, is officially agnostic on the subject. So is the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, although one-staters are its most prominent leaders.

This shift preceded Trump, but he is accelerating it. A more conventional Republican president would have undermined the two-state solution in practice while supporting it in theory, which is what the American Jewish establishment has been doing for decades. But Trump is contemptuous or maybe just ignorant of the long-standing rhetorical conventions guiding U.S. policy toward Israel.

Hes not merely hostile to the two-state solution in practice. He and advisers like ambassador-designate David Friedman talk openly about ditching it in favor of a one-state alternative, and thus empower those on the Israeli right, like Naftali Bennett, who want to do the same. In the years to come, this will liberate Democratic politicians to think beyond two states, too. Sanderss speech is the clearest evidence yet.

The two-state solution, which I still support, requires both American conservatives and American progressives to compromise core values. The right must compromise its values of nationalism and Judeo-Christian religious authority by giving up biblically sacred land to a state populated mostly by Arab Muslims. The left must compromise its values of secularism, multiculturalism and equality by supporting two ethnically and religiously based countries.

But we do not live in an age of moral compromise. We live in an age of moral extremism. Trump is making the Republican Party more nationalistic. Democrats are responding by becoming more universalistic. Trumps Republican Party is becoming a more naked expression of white, Christian self-interest. Democrats are responding by embracing the interests of people of color more emphatically.

All this will change the American debate over Israel. For Barack Obama and John Kerry, the impending death of the two-state solution was a tragedy. The Democrats who follow them may increasingly see it as an opportunity instead.

Peter Beinart is a Forward senior columnist and contributing editor. Follow him on Twitter, @PeterBeinart

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

See the rest here:

Bernie Sanders Signals Liberal Push To End Israel's Occupation With Two States Or One - Forward

Several liberal groups plan to deliver a petition to Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerCharles SchumerLiberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership Impact, incidence of Chinese currency controls largely overblown GOP's leaked 'repeal and replace' plan is the scorpion striking the frog MORE (D-N.Y.) Thursday morning calling on him to remove Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinSessions faces growing pressure to recuse himself from Russia probe Senate advances Rick Perry to be Energy secretary Manchin: Sessions should resign if he lied about Russia contacts MORE (D-W.Va.) from party leadership.

The groups argue that Manchins lack of resistance to President Trump warrants his removal as the vice chairman of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

There is no justification for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck SchumerCharles SchumerLiberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership Impact, incidence of Chinese currency controls largely overblown GOP's leaked 'repeal and replace' plan is the scorpion striking the frog MORE to anoint someone as a member of Democratic leadership who consistently votes with Trumps extreme right-wing priorities, fails to defend our progressive values, and routinely collaborates with Trump by enabling his racist and fascist agenda grounded in xenophobia and hate, CREDO Action, one of the groups collecting signatures, wrote on its website.

One of the groups involved in the petition effort against Manchin, We Will Replace You, is threatening primary challenges to Democratic senators who have not committed to a full resistance of Trump's agenda.

The groups, which include We Will Replace You, Democracy for America, CREDO Action, Other98 and 350 Action, have collected more than 225,000 signatures for the Manchin petition.

We Will Replace You called for Manchin to be removed from leadership after leaked audio revealed that the senator took part in an off-the-record meeting with Breitbart News.

Activists plan to phone all of Schumers state and D.C. offices Thursday morning, as others deliver the petition to his office on Capitol Hill.

More:

Liberal groups want Manchin removed from Dem leadership - The Hill

Forbes

The Liberal Redneck, Trae Crowder, Leaves Dixie for Hollywood Forbes Raised by his dad in rural Tennessee, Trae Crowder's town had no streetlights. Mostly surrounded by political conservatives and the politically apathetic, Trae was liberal early on. He was poor but smart, and his dad was emphatic about him going to ...

Read the original post:

The Liberal Redneck, Trae Crowder, Leaves Dixie for Hollywood - Forbes

The latest and perhaps most damaging accusation to be levelled at Donald Trump is that he likes his steaks well-done and accompanied with tomato ketchup. He was seen ordering exactly this dish last week. It would not surprise me if he also had a side order of battered onion rings.

I do not know if the person who cooked the steak was an immigrant and, this being the case, added a gobbet of alien phlegm to the griddle. If so, Trump didnt seem to mind. He chomped away, dipping bits of incinerated meat in his ketchup, quite unconcerned that over here in Blighty a new sneerfest was rapidly getting underway. The mans a monster, someone tweeted. He eats like my toddler and acts like him too, some dappy woman commented. You give your toddler steak? How does he like it? Au point with barnaise and a crisp side salad (along with the ketchup)? I think were back dealing with the liberal elite once again.

The journalist Mick Hume has just written a book about that very thing (the liberal elite, not how to eat steak) and been eviscerated for it by denizens of the, er, liberal elite. No surprise then. The book is called Revolting: How the Establishment Are Undermining Democracy And What Theyre Afraid Of and concerns itself principally with the establishment reactions to both the Brexit vote here and Trumps victory in the USA.

First to stick the boot in was some woman called Helen Lewis in the Sunday Times, who either did not understand the book or more likely wilfully misunderstood it. Then it was our own Nick Cohen, reviewing the book for the Guardian. Nick was never going to like it, because he is, first, a staunch Remainer who was appalled by the vote last June and since then has been railing with increasing fury about how were all going to hell in a handcart as a consequence of that democratic decision. On this issue hes a sort of reverse Richard Littlejohn, perpetually splenetic and beside himself.

But then, second, because he has an all-consuming loathing of the old Revolutionary Communist Party cadre who have turned themselves into entertaining anti-establishment libertarians at Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas. The likes of Brendan ONeill, Claire Fox, Frank Furedi and indeed Mick Hume. I have a scintilla of sympathy with Nick in his animus, even though some of my closest friends are part of that contrarian post-Marxist bloc. I am never entirely sure what they are actually for even if their critiques of what they are against are pungent, often counter-intuitive and frankly very welcome.

Nick, who is also a friend and a writer I admire, made the same mistake in his furious annihilation of Hume as Lewis had made in hers. There is no liberal elite, they both insisted. It does not exist. Cohen went still further and offered Hume a short lesson in what constitutes an elite: political parties, effectively. And so, because we and the US are ruled by right-wing governments, it is ludicrous to talk of a ruling liberal elite, or a liberal establishment.

Oh dear. This is so shallow a reading of the issue that it would not even tickle your toes. So I thought, reading Nicks piece, that maybe I ought to offer a short lesson on what constitutes a real elite. Especially as I refer to it every week or so.

For a start, the elite is not liberal in the classical liberal sense, but closer to the American sense of the word. It is certainly not liberal if by that you mean tolerant: it is intolerant and authoritarian. And by elite I do not mean the elected government: establishment elites can survive most forms of government and easily outlast them.

The liberal elite we talk about today is beholden to a leftish cultural and political paradigm which predominates in all the non-elected institutions which run our lives. In the judiciary, for example. Within the BBC. In the running of our universities and in the courses they put before students. In the teaching profession. In the social services departments of every council in the land. At the top of the medical profession. On the boards of all the quangos the lot of them, from those which hand out money in the arts to those which regulate our media and our utilities. It is a left-liberal paradigm, informed by affluence, which has been swallowed whole by all of these institutions and which is utterly intolerant of dissent.

Try being a social worker who thinks gay adoptions are problematic. Or a doctor who disapproves of abortion or transitioning. Or a student who quite likes Germaine Greer and wearing a sombrero. Or a teacher who thinks Trump is maybe OK. (The headmaster at a school in south London recently told pupils that if any child uttered the same sorts of words as Donald Trump about immigration, theyd be excluded.)

Try being a judge who thinks an awful lot of hate crimes are imaginary or vexatious. In all cases youd be drummed out. No job. Youd be finished. There would be tribunals where you would be judged by other upholders of the liberal elite and youd be out.

That is what we mean by the liberal elite. The template for how our society is governed and which antithetical political parties may battle, but in the short to medium term, lose.

Elites do change, though. I remember as a speechwriter for the Labour party in the early 1980s suggesting that we do something in support of the teachers, who were complaining about pay. Fuck them theyre all Tories, I was told. And so statistically they were, at the time. And in the 1970s the BBC, the Church of England, the judiciary and the emergent quangos were small c conservative. Elites last for about two generations. Our liberal elite has lasted since about 1985. And my guess is that right now it is on the way out, which is why we are hearing this continual howling.

Link:

A field guide to our doomed liberal elite - Spectator.co.uk

The installation of a community mailbox in her older neighbourhood violatesa Liberal election promise to reinstate door-to-door delivery, an Edmonton woman says.

Canada Post began moving fromdoor-to-door service to community mailboxesin 2015 in an effort to save money.

The Liberals campaigned on a promise to reverse the trendand in Decembera House of Commons committee recommended Canada Post maintain a freeze on the installation of community mailboxes.

But Dawne Colwell, who has lived in West Jasper Place for 25 years, claims Canada Post is not following through.

In all her time living in the neighbourhood, she's never seen a community mailbox, until last week.

West Jasper Place Civics Director Irene Blain wants to know why this community mailbox was put in her mature neighbourhood. (CBC)

"Sunday, I walked over and had a look and saw that it was community mailbox."

She called somebody fromthe community league whom she expected could tell her whatwas happening.

But news of the box also came as a surprise to civics director Irene Blain.

"The first I heard about it was when I received an email from Dawne," said Blain. "I went down there as soon as possible we drove down and sure enough it's the community Canada Post mailbox."

According to Blain, there was no public announcement prior to the installation of thecommunity box.

"I find it very deceptive for this to be just plopped in the neighbourhood,"Blain said.

Canada Post say the new community mailbox will serve four addresses including this infill under construction. (CBC)

"I really don't know if the Liberals know that this is happening. We really need to get to the bottom of it."

The community box in West Jasper Place isinstalled outside an infill development and Blain believes Canada Post may have used a loophole in its policy.

"It states something about all areas with new developments shall be served by community mailboxes," said Blain.

"Well they're looking at any new development and that's a way of it coming into a mature neighbourhood; as long as it's adjacent to a brand new development that's under construction."

But in an email to the CBC, Canada Post spokesperson Darcia Kmet said there is no loophole.

"It has been Canada Post's practice and process since community mailboxes were introduced more than 30 years ago to provide new housing developments with community mailboxes for their mode of mail delivery," she said.

"This includes most infill developments where multiple addresses replace one previous address. The new community mailbox near the corner of 155st StreetNW and 97th AvenueNW will serve the new four addresses for the homes being built."

Blain calls the responseridiculous.

"If in fact these mailboxes are going to be for the new builds and all the other houses that are currently receiving door-to-door delivery will continue to have door-to-door delivery, what kind of sense does that make?"

Colwell says there are good reasons to keep the mailboxes out of their community.

"There's a lot of litter and there can be vandalism and people can slip on the ice. It's not something I really want in my neighbourhood."

Read the original:

Canada Post violating Liberal election promise, Edmonton woman says - CBC.ca

Its somehow fitting that Alan Colmes got his start in standup comedy, since he needed a strong sense of humorand equally strong debating skillsto spar with Sean Hannity and other conservatives at Fox News.

The unabashedly liberal commentator, who died this morning at 66 after a brief illness that has not been disclosed, gained national fame as one-half of the Hannity & Colmes show that launched when FNC did in 1996. But his roots were in radio, working for such powerhouse stations as WABC and WNBC in New York. Colmes remained a Fox News contributor and Fox radio host after the channel ended the prime-time partnership and made Hannity the solo host just before the start of the Obama administration.

Colmes faced a difficult challenge in his heyday as Foxs most prominent left-wing voice, doing battle not just with Hannity but with Bill OReilly and other hosts. His views were not popular with much of the Fox audience, but liberals sometimes criticized him for not being more forceful against Hannity.

The reason the duos chemistry worked, even as their clashes sometimes turned contentious, is that Colmes leavened his arguments with wit, often flashing a broad grin. I take some great pride in seeing how Ive aged you over the years, he told Hannity on air.

In a statement, Hannity said: Despite major political differences, we forged a deep friendship.Alan, in the midst of great sickness and illness, showed the single greatest amount of courage Ive ever seen. And through it all, he showed his incredible wit and humor that was Alans signature throughout his entire life. Im truly heartbroken at the loss of a dear friend.

Despite his uber-liberal image, Colmes once told USA Today:I'm quite moderate... I follow [Rush] Limbaugh on about 100 stations and I precede other conservatives, so I may be the only person giving a different point of view.

But there was no mistaking what side he was on, as was clear when he published his 2003 book Red, White & Liberal: How Left is Right and Right is Wrong.

When his 12-year run in Foxs prime-time lineup ended, Colmes said in a statement that he had approached management about taking on new challenges. Although its bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, Im proud that both Sean and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years, he said.

Colmes is survived by his wife Jocelyn Crowley, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University. The family, which asked for privacy, said in a statement: He was a great guy, brilliant, hysterical, and moral. He was fiercely loyal, and the only thing he loved more than his work was his life with Jocelyn.

In an era of political polarization, perhaps his most enduring trait was that even those who fiercely disagreed with him found Alan Colmes likable.

Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

See more here:

Remembering Alan Colmes, a liberal who could laugh

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

I didnt watch the Academy Awards, but I sure enjoyed them via Twitter. The collection of world-famous and super-rich liberals and leftists had one job, and they failed. The spectacular screwup of announcing the wrong winner for Best Picture wasnt even the issue, or about one person making a mistake. Mistakes are made all the time.

In reality, this vignette of fools is a perfect illustration of why the liberal establishment is in collapse: hate-obsessing on something that contradicts their own self-reverential worldview, condemning them to perpetual distraction. The result is the inevitable crashing and burning.

In other words, Democrats and liberals have been driving drunk while texting for eight years. Swerving into the wrong lane, they crashed into oncoming traffic and sit, dazed and confused, wondering what happened. The few survivors crawl out of the clown car screaming at the innocent people theyve harmed. After all, its never their fault, you see, its everyone elses for daring to get in their way.

Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel led the way, as Entertainment Weekly noted, The first salvo against Donald Trump was fired only a few minutes into the Oscars and then they just kept on coming. In what might be an unprecedented number of jokes, allusions, and sincere articulations inspired by a single person during an awards telecast, Hollywoods most luminous tackled Trump and his policies.

The target may have been President Trump, but the derision was meant for the people who elected him. Nothing says oops like ridiculing your audience.

I apparently was one of the millions who didnt tune in, causing the ABC network program to be the least-watched in nine years. The Los Angeles Times spent thousands of words trying to explain why the awards show had its third year of ratings decline. It was late, they explained, small budget films and, they mused pensively, maybe, just maybe, [t]he promise of strong criticism of President Trump from the Oscars participants may also have put off some viewers.

Ya think? But its not about criticism of any particularly president, its Hollywoods constant sanctimonious lecturing of the unwashed hoi polloi.

The transformation of actors into thugs condemning those who dont conform is something George Orwell would understand, and they are in the same free-fall as their beloved Democratic Party. Vanity Fair reported last year, The Atlantics Derek Thompson points out that in 2016, the film industry is on pace to sell the fewest U.S. tickets per person of any year since perhaps before the 1920s and the fewest total tickets in two decades.

Fortunately, on Oscar night the only people harmed by liberal clueless sanctimony were the smug liberals themselves. Much worse happens when they actually wield power.

Obamacare is Oscar night writ large: A concept based in fantasy, and as Jonathan Gruber, one of its architects was exposed as noting, it relied on the stupidity of the American voter. Obamacare, reliant on lies and presuming the average American is a rube, ruined peoples lives and almost destroyed our health care infrastructure.

The rise and spread of the Islamic State terror group in 2014, and the consequential U.N.-recognized genocide of Christians in the Middle East, was made possible by a president who decided (and publicly stated) the bloodthirsty terrorist group was a JV team, signaling that no action would be taken against them.

The National Review reminds us: In the following months, ISIS established a de facto capital in Raqqa, Syria; took large swathes of the country and swept into northern Iraq; captured Mosul, Iraqs second-largest city, before moving on Baghdad; attempted genocide against Yazidi minorities in northern Iraq; and drew the United States into an air campaign in September 2014.

As reported by The Sun, by the summer of 2016 a leaked White House intelligence assessment revealed ISIS now has fully operational branches in 18 countries.

The president was too distracted by his legacy and remaking American society to actually get his hands dirty dealing with a rising terrorist cancer.

Then there was Mr. Obamas dramatic red line declaration in 2012 about Syrias chemical weapons use on its own citizens. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, Mr. Obama said.

Later that same year, Syrias butcher Bashar Assad murdered 1,500 people in a chemical weapons attack, but Mr. Obama backed down. Why? Business Insider learned: Obama reportedly declined to enforce a red line in Syria after Iran threatened to back out of nuclear deal.

Lots of talk, lots of drama and moral preening, then collapse when details and commitment matter.

The ultimate example of distracted Democrats fixation on completely the wrong thing leading to disaster is the debacle of the Hillary Clinton race for the presidency.

Perhaps they were relying on the stupidity of the American voter, but that was the wrong equation. In the various autopsies of that miserable campaign, her failure comes down to fixation on herself and entitlement. The presumption was the election was hers.

Overconfident and smug, her strategy required taking her base for granted and waltzing to the inauguration. For the entire campaign season, she was told there was only one name on the card in the winners envelope, and it was hers. Until it wasnt.

Sound familiar?

Tammy Bruce, author and Fox News contributor, is a radio talk show host.

Continue reading here:

Why the liberal establishment is collapsing - Washington Times

After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China, and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and US President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The Internet, migration, trade, and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions, and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran, and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington, DC. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU, and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the US outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

Writer is theDirector of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Originally posted here:

What liberal world order? - New Vision

I get a kick out of the Republican members of Congress who claim the angry constituents at their town hall meetings are paid agitators.

Not surprisingly, President Donald Trump doesnt see it that way.

The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans, Trump tweeted, are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists.

Gee, imagine that: Angry liberals are strategically encouraging people to come out and let their lawmakers know whats on their minds. Liberals are calling it grassroots politics while some conservatives are calling it AstroTurf politics.

But thats what a lot of liberals called it when the conservative tea party movement erupted in 2009. Now many of those tea party critics are trying to employ the same tactic.

Angry constituents have made headlines across the nation, upset over everything from the Republican plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, evidence of Russian interference in the U.S. elections and the Trump White Houses travel ban, just for starters.

As for liberal activists? Republican have known since December that a growing number of liberal organizations and activists have been sharing strategies for ways to encourage voters to light up town halls with tough questions for members of Congress.

More than a thousand local groups have popped up across the country, organizing around an online how-to organizing manual called Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.

Drafted by former Democratic congressional staffers who say they came up with the idea at an Austin, bar a couple of days after Thanksgiving, the manual has gone viral on the web, helped along by some prominent liberal groups like Barack Obamas Organizing for America in promoting the Indivisible Guide.

Following the tea party model makes more sense than the Occupy Wall Street movement, which captured public attention for a few weeks and then faded without much follow-up. By contrast, the tea party grew potent enough to help take away the Democrats House majority in 2010, its second year. President Obamas momentum was never the same.

Does Indivisible have a chance to do the same to President Trump? That depends mainly on how well local organizers can keep their enthusiasm and momentum going.

The first big test for this new Indivisible movement may not come until next years midterms, just as it did for Republicans in 2010.

Thats a good test because Democratic Party turnout tends to drop in midterm elections. The most recent and notable exception was 2006. Dissatisfaction over President George W. Bushs handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War and a series of scandals involving Republican politicians, among other woes for the Grand Old Party, resulted in a Democratic sweep.

.

This time, Democrats have another unusual asset: President Trump. Defying traditions, as he loves to do, he has continued to focus on whipping up his conservative base without making the traditional pivot that others have made toward the political center.

The result has been approval ratings in almost all of the major polls that are historically low for a new president. A new Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, for example, found only 38 percent of voters think he is doing a good job while 55 percent said he was doing a bad job.

Worse for the GOP, a Pew Research Center poll released the day before showed rank-and file Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are still so psyched up for Trump that 52 percent of them say they are likely to side with Trump in a dispute with party leaders.

If Trump fails to keep his promises, even his core support could erode.

But, of course, Trump only gives Democrats someone to vote against. Lets see whom they offer us to vote for.

Read more:

Will today's town hall crowds turn into a liberal tea party? - MyDaytonDailyNews

Daniel Kaluuya in Get Out. The villains here arent southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called alt-right. Theyre middle-class white liberals. Photograph: Justin Lubin/Universal Pictures

The success of Jordan Peeles Get Out it took $30m in its first weekend in the US is remarkable for lots of reasons. This is a first-time film from a respected, but essentially cult comedian, with no real big-name stars and a premise that is anathema to most of middle America. Yet people came out to see it in their thousands and critics raved about a horror film, which just does not happen. The film has a A- rating from audiences on CinemaScore, which as some have pointed out is unheard of for a horror, and a rare 99% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Like Donald Glovers Atlanta, almost universal praise has followed the films debut and as with that series, Peele has dealt with race in America in a refreshing, funny and unflinching manner. The number of things Peele manages to reference is stunning: the taboo of mixed relationships, eugenics, the slave trade, black men dying first in horror films, suburban racism, police brutality.

Film-makers have used absurd horror to tackle race before, like in Timo Vuorensolas 2012 film Iron Sky, which placed the action on the dark side of the moon where the Nazis had been hiding out, plotting to forcibly make black people white. But in Get Out, Peele brought the action much closer to home. Some have dubbed the film an African-American nightmare movie; it isnt. This is an American horror story. (It comes after an impressive run of low-budget two-word-title horrors that place the action in middle America, and prod at issues bubbling just beneath the surface: Dont Breathe, It Follows and Youre Next.)

The villains here arent southern rednecks or neo-Nazi skinheads, or the so-called alt-right. Theyre middle-class white liberals. The kind of people who read this website. The kind of people who shop at Trader Joes, donate to the ACLU and would have voted for Obama a third time if they could. Good people. Nice people. Your parents, probably. The thing Get Out does so well and the thing that will rankle with some viewers is to show how, however unintentionally, these same people can make life so hard and uncomfortable for black people. It exposes a liberal ignorance and hubris that has been allowed to fester. Its an attitude, an arrogance which in the film leads to a horrific final solution, but in reality leads to a complacency that is just as dangerous.

There was always something that didnt quite ring true about Guess Whos Coming to Dinner a film many have compared to Get Out. It wasnt in Sidney Poitiers performance, which felt real: his anger, fear and frustration at having to battle his own familys disapproval of him marrying a white woman and her familys liberal hand-wringing was note-perfect. What didnt feel real was the mostly calm reactions of almost everyone involved. In Get Out, under that placid exterior lurks the dark subconscious, where the true horror lies.

In the screening I was at, the biggest reactions from the mainly black audience were the knowing laughs whenever Peele took on tropes people recognised from real life. There was the anxiety about meeting the family of a white partner, which proved to be well placed when Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) arrives at the Armitage residency and is immediately treated to a line of ham-fisted and loaded questioning. There was the cringe-inducing way the black serving staff are treated; the interactions with the police who, unlike in most horror films, arent last-minute saviors but potential fatal hurdles.

Horror tropes are inverted, subverted and turned on their head, none more so than the way Peele takes the idea of a white woman being in peril as soon as shes in an inner-city area and turns that into a black man being at his vulnerable in an affluent white neighborhood. The unique history plus the fascination, fetishization and fear of dark-skinned men on this continent gives Get Out even more punch. After seeing it, I started to think that it might not be a coincidence the film came out almost five years to the day since Trayvon Martin was killed.

Peele said The Stepford Wives, because of the way it dealt with social issues in regards to gender, was an inspiration for Get Out. I just thought, thats proof that you can pull off a movie about race, thats a thriller and entertaining and fun, he said. His debut has managed to do just that, and like The Daily Show a satirical news show which became must-watch social commentary Peele has placed real issues in an unlikely context, this time a horror film, and said something painfully true about them. Get Out will be one of this years biggest conversation starters. Just dont expect it to be comfortable.

Read more here:

Get Out: the film that dares to reveal the horror of liberal racism in America - The Guardian

DENVER We are only in the second month of Donald Trumps presidency, but many Americans have already tired of the drama, and are wondering what the next 46 months have in store.

Beyond producing constant anxiety, Trumps bizarre presidency poses a more fundamental question: Having already come under siege in many of its outposts around the world, is liberal democracy now at risk of losing its citadel, too? If so, the implications for US foreign policy, and the world, could be far-reaching.

The United States has elected a president whose understanding of American democracy is apparently limited to the fact that he won the Electoral College. To be sure, this does require some passing acquaintance with the US Constitution, where the Electoral College is defined. Beyond that, however, Trump seems to have little respect for the Constitutions system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. Nor does he respect Americas fourth estate, the press, which he has begun describing as the enemy of the American people.

Elections, while necessary, are hardly sufficient for upholding liberal democracys central tenets. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, and many other despots have come to power by winning a popular vote.

As any schoolchild should know, elections require all citizens to tolerate views that differ from their own. Elections are not meant to transcend or overturn democratic institutions or the separation of powers. Regardless of how the Trump administration ultimately performs, its first month of presidential decrees or, in American political parlance, executive orders can hardly be viewed as a triumph for liberal democracy.

Trump would do well to study the Constitution; and while he is at it, he should find time to read some of the republics other founding documents. He could start with the 1620 Mayflower Compact, which implicitly recognized the rights of political and social minorities in one of Americas earliest religious colonies.

But Trump is not the only American who should use this moment to reflect on his countrys history and its role in the world. Although the administrations America first sloganeering may sound frightening to some foreign ears, it might come as a relief to others.

Since the end of the Cold War, more than a quarter-century ago, the primary goal of American foreign policy has been to spread democracy around the world. But in pursuit of this lofty ambition, the US has sometimes overreached. Although Americas support for democracy would seem to put it on the side of the angels, its policies have often been implemented with a measure of arrogance, and even anger.

America has sometimes force-fed democracy to countries, or even delivered it at the tip of a bayonet. There are many reasons why liberal democracy seems to be in retreat around the world. But among them is surely the growing resentment of other countries and their leaders, who have tired of listening to American accusations, lectures, and admonitions.

Consider Iraq. Many Western observers were inspired by the sight of Iraqis ink-stained fingers after they had cast their ballots in that countrys first election. But while free elections are often a first step on the road to democracy, the aftermath was not so smooth in Iraq. Political identities became increasingly defined by sectarianism, rather than substantive issues; and it soon became clear that democratic institutions and the culture of tolerance on which they rely are not so easily introduced to societies that have not known them before.

Some years ago, I spoke to a Balkan leader who had just spent the day listening to an American philanthropist lecture him about all of his troubled young countrys democratic shortcomings. As he contemplated the political pain of following the philanthropists free advice, he asked me, What am I supposed to do with that? He had identified a fundamental shortfall in the movement to promote democracy: telling someone how to implement democratic reforms is not the same as taking on the risks and responsibilities of actually doing it.

Notwithstanding its currently toxic political scene, the US still has one of the most successful democracies in history. It provides a great model for others to emulate, but its example cannot be forced on the world. Telling people that their countries have to be like America is not a sound strategy.

Liberal democracy was already off balance before Trumps victory; now it has lost its center of gravity. The next four years could be remembered as a dark period for this precious form of government. But liberal democracy has outlasted its rivals in the past, and it will likely do so again. Those who have fought so hard and sacrificed so much for it will be ready to ensure that it does.

Read this article:

Liberal Democracy in Retreat? - Project Syndicate

R. Alexander Acosta, President Trump's nominee for secretary of labor, is racking up an impressive list of endorsements from liberal groups and appears to be drawing no serious opposition from the union movement, suggesting that the nominee will likely have an easy confirmation when the Senate gets around to him.

At least three major unions have endorsed Acosta's bid and most other groups that would lead the effort against a Republican appointee are holding their fire. That's a sharp change from their reaction to Trump's previous nominee for the position, fast-food businessman Andrew Puzder. He drew fierce opposition from Democrats and liberal groups, especially organized labor.

"He's been a public servant, he has a record of enforcing the laws that he's been put in charge of, whether it's the [National Labor Relations Board] or elsewhere. We think he deserves absolute serious consideration, yes," Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the nation's largest labor federation, said of Acosta in an interview Tuesday on Fox Business. An AFL-CIO spokesman clarified that Trumka was not endorsing Acosta.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., told the Washington Examiner, "It doesn't appear as if Acosta has the same level of conflicts of interests and other problems that Puzder did." She did not endorse Acosta but raised no possible problems with him.

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation's capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

Sorry, there was a problem processing your email signup. Please try again later.

Processing...

Thank you for signing up for Washington Examiner News Alerts. You should receive your first alert soon!

Acosta, who is currently dean of Florida International University law school, appears to be benefiting from interactions he has had with liberal groups from his past career in public service. He served as a member of the NLRB, the main federal labor law enforcement agency, from 2002 to 2003. He was also an assistant attorney general for civil rights during President George W. Bush's administration and was a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida.

Wilma Liebman, who was appointed chairwoman of the NLRB by President Obama and whose time on the board overlapped with Acosta's, told Politico, "Even though we often came out differently on policy conclusions or the outcome of a case, he was a good colleague and he was always willing to talk and bounce around ideas. I would say he's very smart and he's an independent thinker."

Lafe Solomon, who served as acting general counsel for NLRB under President Barack Obama, told Bloomberg Businessweek Monday: "I found Alex to be very open-minded and fair ... He deserves to be secretary of labor."

Acosta has been endorsed by the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of North America and the International Association of Fire Fighters. All praised his record of public service in the two previous presidential administrations and said they expected he would fairly apply the law as labor secretary.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The quieter and more removed from my life the commander in chief is, the better.

03/01/17 12:26 AM

Here is the original post:

Trump's new Labor secretary drawing liberal support - Washington Examiner

|

Posted: Mar 01, 2017 12:01 AM

The left plans a so-calledMarch for Scienceon Earth Day,April 22, as part of its national tantrum against the Trump Administration. But the more-important event has already taken place and liberals are far ahead of their opponents.

Its called the Dash for Cash.

That annual fundraising marathon is part of the lefts push to finance liberal journalism, while claiming its neutral and unbiased. 2017 has already been a banner year for left-wing charities. The ACLU raised more than $24 million online in just a few days. Thats nearly seven times as much raised online in 2015, roughly $3.5 million, a spokesman toldThe New York Times.

Nowhere is that financial success more important to the left than journalism. Liberals can already count on the traditional media to push their agenda, especially in Trumps America. But these politicized outlets operate under different rules. They build their operations with prominent left-wing funding and then pretend to produce neutral journalism -- working in concert with the traditional press. Viewers and readers never know the difference. And they need to learn.

The results of that reporting can be staggering as agenda-based outlets influence policy, attack companies and eviscerate people on a national level. The left used this strategy to push climate change alarmism, targetExxonMobiland undermine potential EPA nominees. The Media Research Center has been tracking those trends, as well as the money foundations donate to them on a website calledBuyingBias.org.

Its more important than ever. According to a newreportfrom the Center for International Media Assistance, half of all journalism donations studied were designed to directly or indirectly influence editorial agendas. That should make readers cautious about outfits that get liberal money and claim neutrality.

The liberal-founded and Soros-funded ProPublica is one outfit that requires close attention because it is doing especially well. Its one of the most visible left-wing journalism operations. Prior to this year, it had tons of industry status -- including three Pulitizers, two Emmys and a Peabody award. Now its got the anti-Trump Seal of Approval and journalists are thrilled. ProPublica also has139 big-namenews media partners, including all three broadcast networks and bothThe Washington PostandThe New York Times.

HBOs left-wing, sometime comedian John Oliver carried the outlet to the nextlevelsoon after the election. He urged viewers to donate to groups like ProPublica, a nonprofit group which does great investigative journalism, It was part of an episode-long rant against Trump where he advocated support for series of liberal groups including abortion giant Planned Parenthood and eco-extremists at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Angry liberals ate it up and the result has been stunning. ProPublica is flush with cash from public-spirited contributors looking to finance hard-hitting journalism, said the Poynter Institute, a journalism education organization. Thats an understatement. ProPublicas monthly recurring donations have skyrocketed from $4,500 in October before the rant to $104,000 in January -- 23 times higher. That works out to at least $1.2 million in a year. Other areas of the groups funding also saw huge spikes. It raised $17.2 million in 2016, a monstrous hike from recent years.

The result is ProPublicaaddingsomewhere between 15 and 25 journalists to its newsrooms in New York and Illinois. At least 10 are targeted for its new invasion of battleground state Illinois, as the left uses journalism to try to reverse GOP growth. The organization is getting seed funding for that new project from the liberal FordFoundation. ProPublica has a similar offshoot planned for New York.

ProPublica is staffed with top-flight journalists and has an Journalism Advisory Board filled with big names including: ABC Newss vice president for editorial quality Kerry Smith; former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson; and left-wing Univsions news and digital president Isaac Lee.

Its funding list features several top names from the liberal donor community: George Soross Foundation to Promote Open Society, eco-warrior Tom Steyer, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and the Google News Lab. No wonder it brought in more than $9 million in grants larger than $50,000.

Conservatives have nothing to compete with an outlet of that stature. That means it can set the agenda wherever it goes and be unchallenged. The right already has enough problems fending off the traditional media. Deep-pocketed outlets like ProPublica are a new threat and conservatives need to match it.

See the article here:

Liberal Journalism Is Flush With Cash And Conservatives Should Be Worried - Townhall

Liberal senator David Fawcett has apologise for causing hurt to many people after he said the Labor party had brought the fleas during a Senate estimates discussion about asylum seekers. Photograph: Ben Macmahon/AAP

Liberal senator David Fawcett has apologised after making a poor choice of words in parliament that appeared to describe asylum seekers coming to Australia seeking protection as fleas.

Fawcetts comments were made during a Senate estimates discussion on asylum seekers arriving by boat, saying the Labor party had brought the fleas and was now attempting to nitpick in parliament with questions over asylum policy cost blow-outs, wasteful and unauthorised spending.

I just do question the ethics of nitpicking when your particular group perhaps brought the fleas in the first place, he told the hearing at Parliament House, directing his comments at Labor members.

Unknown senators on the committee said hear hear, while Fawcetts fellow Liberal and committee chair Ian McDonald was heard on the microphones to say nicely put.

Following the comments, Fawcett sought to clarify that he had intended to suggest that Labor had created the irritation of stress within the immigration department, not that he was characterising asylum seekers as fleas.

But he made a further late-night apology to the Senate.

I have just been on the phone to Mr Phil Glendenning, the president of Refugee Council of Australia, Fawcett said. He has outlined how the words I spoke earlier today have been taken, and the deep hurt that this has caused across the network of communities that his council represents.

Whilst it was never my intention that my comments would refer to refugees in such a way, its clear that my poor choice of words has caused hurt to many people, and consequently I sincerely apologise.

Read more from the original source:

Liberal senator 'sincerely apologises' for flea comment in asylum policy debate - The Guardian

LONDON After the annus horribilis that was 2016, most political observers believe that the liberal world order is in serious trouble. But that is where the agreement ends. At the recent Munich Security Conference, debate on the subject among leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel, US Vice President Mike Pence, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demonstrated a lack of consensus even on what the liberal order is. That makes it hard to say what will happen to it.

When the West, and especially the United States, dominated the world, the liberal order was pretty much whatever they said it was. Other countries complained and expounded alternate approaches, but basically went along with the Western-defined rules.

But as global power has shifted from the West to the rest, the liberal world order has become an increasingly contested idea, with rising powers like Russia, China, and India increasingly challenging Western perspectives. And, indeed, Merkels criticism in Munich of Russia for invading Crimea and supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was met with Lavrovs assertions that the West ignored the sovereignty norm in international law by invading Iraq and recognizing Kosovos independence.

This is not to say that the liberal world order is an entirely obscure concept. The original iteration call it Liberal Order 1.0 arose from the ashes of World War II to uphold peace and support global prosperity. It was underpinned by institutions like the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, as well as regional security arrangements, such as NATO. It emphasized multilateralism, including through the United Nations, and promoted free trade.

But Liberal Order 1.0 had its limits namely, sovereign borders. Given the ongoing geopolitical struggle between the US and the Soviet Union, it could not even quite be called a world order. What countries did at home was basically their business, as long as it didnt affect the superpower rivalry.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a triumphant West expanded the concept of the liberal world order substantially. The result Liberal Order 2.0 penetrated countries borders to consider the rights of those who lived there.

Rather than upholding national sovereignty at all costs, the expanded order sought to pool sovereignty and to establish shared rules to which national governments must adhere. In many ways, Liberal Order 2.0 underpinned by institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as new norms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) sought to shape the world in the Wests image.

But, before too long, sovereignty-obsessed powers like Russia and China halted its implementation. Calamitous mistakes for which Western policymakers were responsible namely, the protracted war in Iraq and the global economic crisis cemented the reversal of Liberal Order 2.0.

But now the West itself is rejecting the order that it created, often using the very same logic of sovereignty that the rising powers used. And it is not just more recent additions like the ICC and R2P that are at risk. With the United Kingdom having rejected the European Union and US President Donald Trump condemning free-trade deals and the Paris climate agreement, the more fundamental Liberal Order 1.0 seems to be under threat.

Some claim that the West overreached in creating Liberal Order 2.0. But even Trumps America still needs Liberal Order 1.0 and the multilateralism that underpins it. Otherwise, it may face a new kind of globalization that combines the technologies of the future with the enmities of the past.

In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone). Instead, modern and pre-modern forms will prevail: support for government repression, like Russia has provided in Syria, or ethno-religious proxy wars, like those that Saudi Arabia and Iran have waged across the Middle East.

The Internet, migration, trade, and the enforcement of international law will be turned into weapons in new conflicts, rather than governed effectively by global rules. International conflict will be driven primarily by a domestic politics increasingly defined by status anxiety, distrust of institutions, and narrow-minded nationalism.

European countries are unsure how to respond to this new global disorder. Three potential coping strategies have emerged.

The first would require a country like Germany, which considers itself a responsible stakeholder and has some international heft, to take over as a main custodian of the liberal world order. In this scenario, Germany would work to uphold Liberal Order 1.0 globally and to preserve Liberal Order 2.0 within Europe.

A second strategy, exemplified today by Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoan, could be called profit maximization. Turkey isnt trying to overturn the existing order, but it doesnt feel responsible for its upkeep, either. Instead, Turkey seeks to extract as much as possible from Western-led institutions like the EU and NATO, while fostering mutually beneficial relationships with countries, such as Russia, Iran, and China, that often seek to undermine those institutions.

The third strategy is simple hypocrisy: Europe would talk like a responsible stakeholder, but act like a profit maximizer. This is the path British Prime Minister Theresa May took when she met with Trump in Washington, DC. She said all the right things about NATO, the EU, and free trade, but pleaded for a special deal with the US outside of those frameworks.

In the months ahead, many leaders will need to make a bet on whether the liberal order will survive and on whether they should invest resources in bringing about that outcome. The West collectively has the power to uphold Liberal Order 1.0. But if the Western powers cant agree on what they want from that order, or what their responsibilities are to maintain it, they are unlikely even to try.

Read more from the original source:

What Liberal World Order? - Project Syndicate

For more than 400 years, the only halt to England's annual Pancake Race was World War II.

Tradition runs deep in Olney, anchored by St. Peter and St. Paul the church with the tall spire along the bank of the River Great Ouse in the heart of England.

It's here the bell has been tolling every Shrove Tuesday, calling the community to the Shriving service, the day before the 40 days of Lent. Even through the War of the Roses, legend has it the annual Pancake Race was run in Olney.

"Traditionally, it's the day all household stocks of fat and sweet ingredients were exhausted in the making of pancakes, in readiness, for the period of fasting, giving things up for the season of Lent," said the Rev. Claire Wood, Rector of St. Peter and St. Paul Church, in her welcome to the race.

Today, gray clouds are expected in this town of of about 6,477 people. Temperatures should hover about 46 degrees, according Haydn Langley, race chairman. Activities will begin around this town's Market Place, where there will be a variety of stalls, pancakes and entertainment, along with the children's races.

Women carrying frying pans donning aprons and head scarves will begin gathering by 11:30 a.m. for the race. They will be dressed as they imagine the storied woman once was: preoccupied by the chore of using up her cooking fat, making pancakes before the Shriving service.

Suddenly, the church bells pealed, and off she dashed with the pan in hand still flipping a pancake.

Meanwhile, at 11:55 a.m., the church Warden will ring the hand-held bell and call out "Toss your pancakes. Are you ready?" Then, the women will take off for the 415-yard dash.

Here in Kansas, it will be 5:55 a.m. Some will be starting to stir. In Liberal the grills will be fired-up for breakfast, which begins at 6 a.m at the Seward County Civic Center - served until 10 a.m. Liberal won't race against Olney in the International Pancake Day Race until 11:55 a.m. CST.

A history

Following the lapse during WWII, the Olney race was picked up again in 1948. According to race history, the Vicar of Olney - the Rev. Cannon Ronald Collins - was cleaning out a cupboard when he came across old photographs taken in the 1920s and 1930s of women running with frying pans.

Collins recruited 13 runners for that Shrove Tuesday. It caught on and turned into a day of festivities that have continued since.

Two years later, Collins received a letter from R.J. Leete, then the president of the Liberal Jaycees. Leete challenged the Olney women to race the Liberal women. Following several letters, cables and then a trans-Atlantic telephone call, the first race was set for Shrove Tuesday, Feb. 21, 1950.

One-day event

Olney's race course, on narrow streets, is over quickly. At the finish line, dressed in her clerical robes, the Rev. Wood greets all the runners. The verger places a "kiss of peace" on the cheek of the winner.

Meanwhile, at 12:15 p.m. the Shriving service begins inside St. Peter and St. Paul. It's the church where the Rev. John Newton wrote "Amazing Grace," while serving as a curate. The reformed ex-slave trader served as the local curate from 1764 to 1780. His pulpit is preserved in the church, and his tomb in the churchyard.

Olney, is also the home of the poet William Cowper. Together with Newton they collaborated on the Olney Hymns, including another popular tune "How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds."

The English way

In Liberal, Steve Leete was raised on pancakes. He was 3 years old in 1950 when his parent's, R.J. and Virginia Leete, sealed the deal with the Vicar of Olney.

"Dad got off the phone discussing setting up the international race with the vicar and the words between the two of them were, 'Let the race begin.' Dad and the vicar made the agreement, but the Jaycees and so many volunteers made it happen."

They scrambled to get the first race off to a start in only two weeks. Even His Majesty 's Consul H. Cotton Minchin, arrived to bestow the the traditional "Kiss of Peace," on Liberal's first winner, Billie Marie Warden. Her time was 1 minute, 18 seconds. She, however, was not as swift as Olney's Florence Callow who closely beat her at 1:10.4.

The competition continued. The next year, Collins sent a recording of the church bells pealing before the start of the race in Olney. They played it over the loud speaker from Liberal's Methodist Church.

In 1968, the Olney church spire was repaired from damage during WWII bombings. Canon Collins sent one of the ornamental crosses to Liberal. Today it is framed at the entrance to Liberal's city hall.

The bonds between the two cities continue to grow through the friendly competition. While R.J. and Virginia made many trips to watch the race in Olney, as did other Liberal residents, Steve, and his wife, Dee, finally watched the race from England in 2013.

"We took the key to the city," Leete said. "And in the church we reaffirmed Liberal's commitment to the race and the tradition and our friendship and our hope to continue for years to come."

Leete said it was very different to observe the celebration from the other shore, where it originated hundreds of years ago.

"In Olney it is so precisely done. So much of their Pancake Day Race is for charity," Leete said. "Liberal is more commercial. Just being in Olney and seeing the S-shaped course on the narrow streets, it's such a different feeling. Here it's a big, big deal. And there they have the race and go back to work but return in the evening for the video call with Liberal."

Leete recalled a British visitor once saying after visiting Liberal during the pancake race, "leave it to the Americans to take a 15-minute race and turn it into a four-day holiday, beauty contest and talent show."

The experience left a wonderful memory for Leete, including hearing "Amazing Grace" being sung where it had been created.

"Amazing Grace! How Sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found;

Was blind, but now I see."

The fact that they were where the idea of the pancake race began hundreds of years ago left him with very strong emotions.

"I would go back again in a second," Leete said.

He described an endearing town, filled with wonderful pubs, a unique market square and genuine people.

"You couldnt find nicer people," he said.

He's also grateful to Liberal for working so hard to keep the competition going 68 years.

Go here to see the original:

A history rich as pancakes: Longstanding English tradition led to Liberal race, collaborations - Hutchinson News

Republican lawmakers across the country have grown wary of holding town hall meetings with constituents.

What's scaring these brave public servants? Paid protesters.

Specifically, paid liberal protesters. (It's a well-known fact that all conservative protesters are volunteer and have legitimate gripes that must be heard.)

Most in the FAKE NEWS media will claim there's no such thing as a paid liberal protester. They'll say people are simply turning out to express frustration over GOP policies and because they don't want to lose their health care and die.

But I'm here to tell you otherwise: Paid liberal protesters totally exist; it's an excellent career choice with surprisingly good benefits; and each protester earns $1,500 a week.

I know that last fact thanks to Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. During last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (it's like Burning Man for people who believe Burning Men should only be allowed to marry Burning Women), LaPierre railed against "full-time" liberal protesters, saying they earn "$1500 a week."

He said: "All share one thing in common: They're angry, they're militant and they're willing to engage in criminal acts to get what they want."

(That's three things in common, but who's counting.)

LaPierre, who earns a measly $1 million a year not caring about gun violence, is clearly upset that a long-haired leftist protester can earn $78,000 a year just for yelling and waving a stupid sign.

Sounds far-fetched, given that such a salary would be more than $20,000 over the median household income in the United States. But I'm telling you, it's the truth.

How do I know? Well, for starters, I read about it on paidliberalprotester.com, a website that I definitely did not create using $1.17 funneled to me via a vast network of leftist organizations funded by billionaire George Soros.

That website clearly says of paid liberal protesting: "It's a thing. And it pays BIG BUCKS!" It even quotes me saying: "A great career choice." And I would never lie to me.

More important than the online evidence is my personal testimony as a man who has built a successful paid protesting career. (Please don't tell my employer, the Chicago Tribune, about this activity as it is forbidden by our ethics policy and would undoubtedly lead to my immediate dismissal. Your discretion is appreciated.)

I won't bore you with the full text of my Paid Liberal Protester Employment Contract, but here are some key excerpts:

"The initial job title of the Employee will be the following: Paid Liberal Protester. The initial job duties the Employee will be expected to perform will be the following: Be angry. Be militant. Engage in criminal acts to get what Employer wants. Cause Republican lawmakers to rush into 'safe spaces' and fear people they used to dismissively refer to as 'sensitive snowflakes.' "

"Compensation paid to the Employee for the services rendered by the Employee as required by this Agreement will include a wage at a rate of $1,500 per week."

"The Employee's primary place of work will be at the following location: Any space where Republican lawmakers are attempting to hold a meeting with 'Constituents.' Employee shall be a 'Constituent' of said lawmaker, but won't count because 'Employee' is a Paid Liberal Protester, as detailed in 'Job Title and Description' and as announced by frightened lawmaker."

"The Employee will be entitled to the following benefits: Retirement Savings Plan in which all Employer wealth is evenly redistributed to 'the workers,' aka 'Employees'; free marijuana; two round-trip flights per-year aboard private jets owned by Employer (George Soros); annual subscription to 'Rhyming Liberal Protest Chants Digest'; comprehensive health insurance plan (no dental); and free tuition to qualifying Liberal Indoctrination Centers (aka 'universities')."

"Employer shall not discriminate against any Employee as long as said Employee is one of the following: an anarchist, a Marxist, a communist or a member in good standing of the left-wing Socialist brigade."

While most people become paid liberal protesters either for the money or the free marijuana, I've found the best benefit is the power that comes with the job.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Cowardville, said Sunday that he won't take part in any town hall meetings because "liberal activists" will "heckle and scream at me."

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Scaredytown, said in a statement that he won't do town hall meetings for now: "Unfortunately, at this time there are groups from the more violent strains of the leftist ideology, some even being paid, who are preying on public town halls to wreak havoc and threaten public safety."

(Worth noting, I recently had "Havoc Wreaker" tattooed on my forehead.)

Even Illinois Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Dontyellatme, has said he prefers to meet with constituents in small groups because some liberal protesters are "following a well-publicized 'playbook' on how best to disrupt and prevent a civil dialogue." That's correct. The playbook is distributed with the employee manual and the black ski mask employees are required to wear while vandalizing.

See what I mean about power? All that and a cushy retirement plan.

Now that's what I call a career.

It's also what I call democracy.

rhuppke@chicagotribune.com

Related articles:

Trump's immigration crackdown is a costly mistake

Can Donald Trump give a serious speech?

Trump and Bannon are out for revenge

The rest is here:

PROOF that liberal protesters are paid - Chicago Tribune

The Liberal party has seen its fair share of nomination battles, and a fresh one is brewing in the Toronto-area riding recently vacated by former immigration minister John McCallum, who stepped down to begin his life as a diplomat.

This fight is being led by Juanita Nathan, a local school board trustee who put her name forward to be the Liberal candidate in Markham-Thornhill.

Nathan said she believes the Liberals are setting up the contest in such a way as to favour one of her rivals: Mary Ng, a senior staffer to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

"I don't think they are following the rules in a very fair and equitable way," Nathan said Monday.

The issue revolves around the cut-off date to register new Liberals an important element of the nomination rules, because it determines who will be allowed to vote Saturday to choose the Liberal candidate in the April 3 byelection.

Nathan said more than 2,000 people she has registered as Liberals are considered ineligible because the party retroactively set the registration cut-off date for Feb. 14 the day before she started entering names into the system.

The Liberals got rid of membership fees last summer, but those interested in taking part in nomination votes are still required to sign up to do so.

Setting a retroactive sign-up deadline is nothing new parties do it routinely in order to prevent would-be candidates from waiting until the last minute and overwhelming officials with paperwork.

But the speed at which the process is unfolding the deadline was set just four days after the call for nominations, at a time when Ng was the only one to have come forward has made Nathan suspicious.

"I never thought there would be such a very, very short cut-off time," she said.

Another candidate, Nadeem Qureshi, shared similar concerns with the Hill Times newspaper. Qureshi confirmed Monday that he is running for the Liberal nomination, but did not otherwise respond to an interview request.

Amanda Alvaro, a spokeswoman for the Ng campaign, said her candidate learned of the deadline on Feb. 20, the same as everyone else.

"Our campaign also lost several hundred registrants," Alvaro said.

She said Ng, who is taking a leave of absence from her position as director of appointments in the Prime Minister's Office, began canvassing the residents of Markham-Thornhill in the days after the party opened the call for nominations on Feb. 10.

Liberal party spokesman Braeden Caley says the retroactive cut-off date was explained in rules that have been available online for months and that candidates are encouraged to turn in their new-member paperwork as early as possible.

"The party undertakes an extraordinary amount of effort to make sure that all of the rules are very openly and clearly communicated at every stage of the process," said Caley.

Jack Siegel, a lawyer who oversaw the approval of Liberal candidates leading up to the 2015 federal election, said the whole point of a retroactive cut-off date is to prevent candidates from overwhelming party resources by submitting names in bulk.

That's why he urged campaigns to turn their names in as soon as they get them.

"It's easy, when something goes wrong and you've made a strategic mistake, to portray yourself as a victim," he said, adding it ends up casting both the party and the successful candidate in a negative light.

Go here to see the original:

Liberals accused of playing favourites in Markham-Thornhill nomination contest - CBC.ca