Tom Brokaw, liberal Democrat – Power Line (blog)

In the introduction to Did You Ever See a Dream Walking?, the anthology of conservative thought he edited for publication in 1970, William F. Buckley memorably declared: Blindfold me, spin me about like a top, and I will walk up to the single liberal in the room without zig or zag and find him even if he is hiding behind a flower pot. Which reminds me.

As a young lawyer new to private practice but fresh from a clerkship on the Eighth Circuit, I was asked to work with South Dakota attorney Larry Piersol as local counsel on an appeal pending for one of Larrys clients in that court. Larry worked in private practice in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and was a South Dakotan through and through.

In late 1981 or early 1982 Larry came to town for the oral argument of the appeal in St. Paul. We had Larry over for dinner and got to talking about matters political. Larry had served in the South Dakota House of Representatives as Democratic minority whip and even for a term as majority leader. His success in politics was no accident; he was both likable and intelligent. Indeed, his legal skills and political service resulted in his appointment to the bench as a district judge by Bill Clinton in 1993. (Judge Piersol took senior status in 2009.)

In the course of our conversation Larry told me that he was an old friend of South Dakota native Tom Brokaw. Brokaw, he confided, is an interesting guy. You really cant get a good handle on his politics, he told me.

I disagreed. Hes a liberal, I asserted.

You really cant tell, Larry responded.

I can tell, I said. Hes a liberal.

How could I tell? I cant remember. Im not bragging; its not hard to tell. Bill Buckley would not have had to exert his great analytical powers to find Brokaw out. You can just tell.

If youve heard any of Brokaws brief commentaries served up in recent years as An American Story, or heard him opining on any of the NBC/MSNBC gabfests, you know hes a liberal, and an earnest one at that.

I love the tagline he uses for his American Story commentaries. This is Tom Brokaw reporting, he says. Hes still deep under cover. Its almost funny.

Reading Brokaws New York Times column yesterday about the opportunity he was offered to serve as President Nixons press secretary in late 1969, I thought back to my conversation with Larry. Brokaw writes in the Times column:

White House press secretary to Richard Nixon? I had been raised in a family of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrats. My parents were skeptical about John F. Kennedy, but my wife and I were generational enthusiasts.

I worked hard at keeping personal beliefs out of my work, but there were limits. My first job, in a deeply conservative Omaha newsroom, was a test. Most of my colleagues thought I was a crazed liberal for supporting Medicare and the voting rights and civil rights bills.

Not a crazed liberal, Tom, just a liberal. A decent liberal, a patriotic liberal, but a liberal nevertheless, of the Democrat variety.

This is Scott Johnson reporting.

Read more:

Tom Brokaw, liberal Democrat - Power Line (blog)

Bill Maher And Breitbart Editor Agreed That Liberals Take The Bait, Which Was Confirmed When Liberal Guest…Took … – Townhall

[Warning: Post contains some strong language]

Okayso it wasnt an explosive interview. There wasnt much drama. Nothing was set on fire. And no lives were lost. It was a cordial discussion between two people with opposing views. HBO host Bill Maher invited Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, where the discussion was mostly rooted in both mens support for free speech rights. Maher also said that he cared about the "environment and living" as well, taking a swipe at the conservative movements aversion to supporting policies to combat climate change.

The comedian brought up that both of themwere run out of the Berkley campus, albeit the reaction to Yiannopoulos led to violet protests, $100,000 in property, and an FBI investigation into the matter. Milo later noted that Bill literally is the only good liberal left that respects free speech rights and discusses Islamic extremism honestly.

Milo noted how the Democratic Party and the liberal movement has gone insane, Lena Dunham is the face of the partywhich he notes will only lead to that party getting less votes (one could hope) in future elections.

Lets not pick on fellow HBO stars, said Maher.

Yet, another area they found agreementwas comedy and humor, which has become avictim of the political correctness police. Milo noted that this form of progressivism is wholly authoritarian, hence they must more or less silencehumor because its unpredictable. They hate that.Maher agreed.

And also because when people laugh, they know its true, he said.

As we wrote previously,The Intercepts Jeremy Scahill was booked for Fridays episode of Real Time, but backed outwhen he found out Milo was a guest. Yiannopoulos aptly noted that when you dont show up, you lose the debatewhich drew applause from the audience. Maher had issued a statement defending his booking of Milo, notingthat these anti-free speech antics is one the reasons why liberals will keep losing elections.

And also stop taking the bait, liberals, said Maher. The fact that they all freaked out about this little impish British fag, you fucking schoolgirls. You schoolgirls. Of course, Milo relished this, agreeing with the HBOhostwith chuckles of laughter.Its so ridiculous, he replied.

Yet,Maher and Milo disagreed about theBlack Lives Matter movement, Twitter trolls, and other comedians, namely Sarah Silverman and Amy Schumer, but closed his interview by saying that Mio should get off the Trump train.

For a guy who loves free speech, you picked a weird boyfriend, my friend, said Maher. Milo tried to defend the president, but they were out of time.

During Overtime, which airs online after the show, comedian Larry Wilmore, who was a panel guest, took the bait, telling Milo to go fuck himself over his opinion about Leslie Jones, the star of the disastrous Ghostbusters remake, and for calling him, along with former intelligence operative Malcolm Nance, another guestawful and stupid. Former Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) was the conservative guest for the shows panel, but more or less opted to let Milo, Bill and Larry go at it.

The question that got caused the tension centered on the Breitbart editor going after a transgendered personat a college, who he says fought for the right to use the womens locker room after this person had left the school.

I dont have a problem with it [a biologically born male thinking hes female], but I think women and girls should be protected from having peoplemen who are confused about their sexual identities in their bathrooms, said Milo.

Thats not unreasonable, replied Maher.

So, at the beginning of the show, where Milo and Maher talked about liberals taking the bait, Larry Wilmore tookthe bait.

Read the original post:

Bill Maher And Breitbart Editor Agreed That Liberals Take The Bait, Which Was Confirmed When Liberal Guest...Took ... - Townhall

Talking ‘Islamophobia’ with Liberal MP Jol Lightbound – Macleans.ca

Thousands of Canadians took part in a massive protest against President Trumps travel ban on Muslims during the National Day of Action against Islamophobia and White Supremacy in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on February 04, 2017. (Creative Touch Imaging Ltd./NurPhoto/Getty Images)

Jol Lightbound didnt much want to talk with me last Friday afternoon. But the rookie Liberal MP happened to be on duty in the House, after most MPs have headed home for the weekend, and he agreed to step out of the mostly empty chamber into the almost entirely empty foyer of the Commons. When I told him I wanted to ask him questions about what he had experienced since six Muslim men were shot dead in his riding on Jan. 29, while they were praying in the mosque called the Centre Culturel Islamique de Quebec, Lightbound replied in a flat, fatigued voice that he was sick of talking about it.

We sat down anyway on a stone bench in an alcove off a nearby hallway. Lightbound is a good talker. Everybody had seen that in his TV interviews outside the mosque after the shooting. And he again stood out in the often bitter debate in the House this past week over whats called Motion 103, introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. Many Conservatives opposed the motion on the grounds that the word Islamophobia isnt well defined, and thus the motion might somehow stifle legitimate criticism of Islamic extremism.

RELATED: Liberal MPs, Muslim community face verbal attacks over M-103

Lightbound was first elected MP for the Louis-Hbert riding in 2015. He was born in Toronto, but grew up in Sainte-Foy, where he returned to try his hand at politics following a stint working at the Montral firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, after he graduated from McGill Universitys law school. This is our conversation, edited for length and clarity:

I think its been for me the most challenging weeks of my life. Thats for sure. Not only was our community as a whole in Quebec City, and my riding, affected, I was affected personally. I have friends who go to the mosque; my very good friends mother left 30 minutes before the shooting. So just the shock of it, not just as a politician, but as a human being. It was it was a big shock. And having to deal with all that comes with it. As a politician it was also a challenge for sure.

I think Quebec City, if you look at the statistics, is not as diverse as metropolitan areas like Montreal or Toronto, for instance. But there are neighborhoods, and if you look, youll find that there is great diversity. In my neighborhood where I grew up it was particularly evident. I was raised in an apartment buildingand this is something I said in the Housewith Bosnians, with Muslim friends, Arabs, Asians. So it was very diverse. It was like the UN, my apartment building where I grew up.

Well, I think, on the one hand, I was very pleased by the reaction in my immediate region and in my community. I think weve seen an outpouring of support and solidarity, and people starting to talk to one another and reaching out to one another and focusing on the humanity that unites us, instead of that differences sometimes we get distracted by. Weve seen the vigilsthousands and thousands of people. In my office, weve received countless messages and phone calls of solidarity for the community. So this has been this has been very pleasing to see. Regardless of perhaps the tone of the debate that weve had in the House this week, I still think that some light might shine out of all of this.

RELATED: The Tories approach a point of no return

I was surprised and saddened to some extent that weve had this debate this week in the house about a motion which should have garnered the support of all members, just like it did back in October when the House unanimously condemned Islamophobia. And what sickens me most is there has been such misinformation spread about this motion, which is not a bill and does not restrict free speech. Its more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. I thought for once that we might unite than not have anyone try to use this for political purposes. I think this should rise way above partisan politics.

For sure. In a country where free speech is enshrined in the Charter, we can always have these debates, so long as theyve done in a responsible manner or not so as to spread fear, intolerance, and hatred. The motion isnt in any way, shape or form restricting free speech. So I fail to see why weve had this big argument.

RELATED: In Quebec City, a moment of painful truth

Well, I think for the Muslims in my community and my Muslim friends, theyve told me about this way before Jan. 29, 2017. So this event in Quebec City was a tragedy that occurred, but the problems that theyre facing, they faced for years. What theyve observed is that theyve kind of been taken hostage by a minority who claim to be acting on behalf of Islam but are not. A lot of generalizations have been pushed, sometimes by mainstream media, sometimes on social media, sometimes by politicians. Theyve seen the world change around them for the worse over the years. I think it probably started on 9/11. Weve had all sorts of incidents happen around the world and weve been fed easy answers to complex questions.

When I was thinking about this whole event, and how I think there has been a climate where Muslims face growing ostracization and stigmatization, I reflected on when I was a kid. We didnt see Muslims. We didnt perceive them as such. We saw our friends, our coach, our neighbours. And I think there is a collective reflection to be had on what kind of prejudices weve allowed to take hold within us. The majority of the population is open and tolerant, but we have were not immune to these feelings which weve observed around the western world. Yes, in the U.S., but around the western world.

No. I think for the most part, we won on these values. Prime Minister Trudeau has always been very adamant in his defense of openness and pluralism and tolerance, and we won a majority government. And I think the NDP shares the same values. I can speak for my generation. Im a millennial, and I can see from the support that I get from millennials across Quebec, I think we share an openness to the world.

View post:

Talking 'Islamophobia' with Liberal MP Jol Lightbound - Macleans.ca

Oroville Dam exposes rift between conservative town, coastal liberals – USA TODAY

Happy to return home after after damage to an Oroville Dam spillway in California prompted a massive evacuation, residents remain alert in case they are ordered to leave their homes once again. (Feb. 15) AP

Signs on a fence in Oroville urge residents to support secession and the creation of a new state, the State of Jefferson. Due to northern California's low population, the area has only six state-level representatives, compared to 114 for the southern half of the state, which is home to populous cities like Los Angeles.(Photo: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY)

OROVILLE, Calif. Eldon Hofeling raises his voice over the roar of backhoes, helicopters, tumbling rocks, dump trucks and 750,000 gallons of water rushing past every second.

Its driving me nuts,hesays.

Steps away from his house, hundreds of contractors are struggling to repair the Oroville Dam before the spring rains arrive in earnest. A stream of semi-trailers unloads chunks of rocks, which backhoes then load onto large dump trucks to deliver to weak spots on the other side of the dam. Helicopters chatter overhead every 90 seconds, lifting in even more rocks to shore up the dams top. Diesel engines rumble day and night, contractors bark orders and neighbors wander by to take a look.

Every bedroom window in Hofeling's house looks out over the dam, at what is now a staging area. Contractors told him this repair effort could last weeks.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The mere threat of a dam failurelast weekwas enough to temporarily evacuate about 200,000 people living downstream. And a collapse could cause death and devastation in both the short- and long-term: This reservoir stores water to irrigate downstream farms and provide drinking water for Los Angeles.

Residents here in Oroville, Marysville and Yuba City are now living with the fresh knowledge that maybe this dam isnt as safe as they thought. That fact thatthe water benefits people hundreds of miles away from this danger isreverberating around these conservative communities that see little commongroundwith the far more liberal Californians on the coastand in Silicon Valley.

This isnt just idle talk: One of the first signs heading into Oroville, population 16,000, urges residents to support seceding from California to create a new state of Jefferson. Here in inland California, Gov. Jerry Browns name evokes disgust, and President Donald Trump is seen as the one who really cares. Here, residents distrust a state government they think is all-too-eager to help undocumented immigrants and build a bullet train to serve the rich coastal elites, leaving them with little.

I bet that if they put this effort into building it right the first time, they wouldnt have to do all of this, Hofeling, 66, saysas a backhoe drops rocks into a dump truck, shaking the ground.

Its a refrain voiced time and again in Oroville and the surrounding towns: The liberal, more populated parts of California suck up all the political attention and public dollars, leaving little for the men and women who help grow the nations food, fruits and nuts. That dichotomy has bred a mistrust of state government and a healthy skepticism of federal officials, Trump excepted.

How is it, the people here ask, that state and federal officials didnt seem to have the money to properly fix the dams problems when they were first identified, but have seemingly untold millions available when the crisis finally arrived.

To understand the situation, you have to look more carefully at Californias voting tallies. Statewide, Hillary Clinton clobbered Trump, winning 61% of the popular vote and 4.2 million more votes than Trump. On one hand, this is a state that utterly rejected Trump. On the other hand, because California is so big, theres wide variation in political affiliations.

Eldon Hofeling watches contractors load rocks being used to repair the Oroville Dam. The work continues 24 hours a day, making it hard for Hoteling and his wife to sleep in their own home. "I bet that if they put this effort into building it right the first time, they wouldn't have to do this," he says.(Photo: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY)

The farmers and ranchers of Butte County, surrounding Oroville, live vastly different lives than the millionaires strolling Santa Monicas beaches or riding the Google buses to Mountain View or the Facebook coaches to Menlo Park. Butte County favored Trump in the election 46% to 42%, despite the presence of the more urban and traditionally more liberal Chico within its boundaries. Downstream neighbor Yuba County, home of Yuba City and Marysville, is perhaps a more accurate barometer: It went for Trump at nearly 58%.

In this part of the state, Brown is the bad guy for picking fights with the president over immigration, climate change and national priorities. Trump, in turn, called California out of control and suggested he might try to withhold federal funding, particularly over whether the more liberal coastal cities were acting as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.

As you know, Im very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime. Theres a lot of problems, Trump told Fox News host Bill OReilly. If we have to, well defund. We give tremendous amounts of money to California. California in many ways is out of control, as you know.

Brown, for his part, has lauded Trump for promising to repair the nations roads, bridges and dams, but has also promised to use the states scientists, lawyers and resources to fight the presidents alternative facts.

The bad blood has flowed downstream, from the retired homebuilder who trusts Trump over the locally managed state Division of Water Resources, to the traffic flagger who laughs that liberal environmentalists arent worried about rare fish when their own homes are endangered, to the evacuee who refuses to return home or be quoted by name because she doesnt trust what the government will do with the information.

A rainbow arches above the Feather River where it crosses beneath power lines beneath the Oroville Dam. Workers severed the lines during the flooding fear, worried that a flood could rip out both lines and towers, causing even more damage.(Photo: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY)

Everyonehere, it seems, has a reason to distrust some level of the government. Nowhere was that more evident than when a video showing a National Guard soldier giving out wrong information about the state of the dam and evacuation began ricocheting around social media hours after the evacuation order was lifted. What he said contradicted the official line from dam managers, and the public seemed ready to accept his version over theirs, especially as some Californians already believed dam managers had covered up the extent of repair work conducted in 2009.

Dam managers say theyre making good progress on repairing the damage caused when the reservoir overtopped its emergency spillway, scouring away trees, dirt and boulders. Managers had feared the emergency spillway could collapse, sending a wall of water downstream. That threat has eased, and workers are now shoring up the spillway and removing debris from below the dam.

Still, social media has been filled with rampant rumors and speculation that government officials were misstating the risk for some political gain, and theres skepticism bordering on paranoia that the real story isnt being told by the media or the government.

We have this longstanding history in our country, based on the idea that people control the government, not the other way around, said Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea, who ordered the evacuation and then spent days defending it against critics on both sides of the aisle.

Wading into that political tension are the state and federal emergency-management agencies trying to help.

Basically, theyre like dont mess with us. We dont need youuntil we need you, said Craig Fugate, the head of FEMA under President Obama. You have to understand that level of mistrust. Its not personal.

Fugate said the political dynamic in California mirrors that of many states, from his native Florida to the urban-rural divide of Washington state. The Oroville Dams potential failure could have been the first major test of the relationship between Trump and outspokencritic Brown, who after opposing the president asked him to declare a disaster in Oroville.

An engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers monitors water spilling from the Oroville Dam. The dam is controlled by the California Division of Water Resources, but the Army Corps of Engineers was providing assistance in monitoring and developing repair plans.(Photo: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY)

Without addressing the conflict, Trump quickly approved the request via FEMA, freeing up potentially hundreds of millions of dollars and resources to pay for the repairs that are now disturbing Hofelings days and nights. Ballpark costs for repairs are set at $200 million.

I learned early on that all disasters are local, as all politics are local, Fugate said. You drop your logos and your egos at the door this is not about you, this is not about your ego, your publicity. Its about the people we are serving in a time of need. Because that need is a non-political need.

In Oroville, few people see it that way. Everyone gets run through the lens of politics. Theyre mad about Browns election (Gov. Moonbeam, they remind visitors), his plans for a high-speed train along the coast, and about the meddling of government in the ways they heat their homes, get their electricity and the kinds of cars they drive.

They feel the dams managers only respond to crises and only when they impact Democratic voters on the coast. And theyre heartened that Trump has vowed to rebuild the nations infrastructure on Saturday night at arally in Florida, he called upon Congress to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure package.

For the people beneath the dam, the fact that no Trump-Brown feud materialized is an example of the new presidents munificence. But theyre also well aware that things could have gone very differently here.Its very frustrating, says 23-year police officer and Oroville resident Jeff Wiles, as he watched the emergency repair work with his son. It just irritates you.

Wiles worked several days straight during the evacuation as police officers, sheriffs deputies and the California Highway Patrol emptied the Butte County Jail and then flooded the town with officers to prevent burglaries and looting. Wiles says he looks forward to retirement in a few years, so he can move his family, maybe to Idaho, to be among fellow conservatives. Hes tired, he says, of living in a state so split between Democrats and Republicans.

You tell the president, we dont want anything to do with you, and then you ask for help? Wiles says. At least hes not holding a grudge. I wouldnt blame him if he did.

Silhouetted by the afternoon sun, a civilian version of a military Blackhawk helicopter flies back to a work yard next to the Oroville Dam.(Photo: Trevor Hughes/USA TODAY)

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lk9J4w

Read more from the original source:

Oroville Dam exposes rift between conservative town, coastal liberals - USA TODAY

Anti-Islamophobia debate might define both Liberals and Conservatives – CBC.ca

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"lslamophobiais real," she said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the Liberals are pressing the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to see the original:

Anti-Islamophobia debate might define both Liberals and Conservatives - CBC.ca

Liberal, conservative Jews in US increasingly divided over Trump – Chicago Tribune

The early weeks of the Trump administration have widened divides between liberal and conservative Jews, setting off quarrels over anti-Semitism, Israel and the Holocaust.

Well before the 2016 election, discussion over Israel had become so barbed among Jews that Jewish groups began organizing civility training so relationships and holidays wouldn't be ruined. But those disputes have erupted with a new intensity since Donald Trump won the presidency.

They were on display most prominently this week, during Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first visit to the Trump White House and a pair of news conferences during which the president would not directly address questions about anti-Semitism. On Thursday, in one of the most remarkable moments of a riotous back-and-forth with reporters, Trump shut down a Hasidic reporter from an Orthodox magazine who had taken pains to preface his question by saying he knew Trump wasn't anti-Jewish.

Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish civil rights group that has been highly critical of Trump, called the president's response "mind-boggling."

But Mort Klein, president of the hawkish Zionist Organization of America, who has championed Trump as a great ally of Israel, said Trump must have been frustrated by the "relentless and outrageous allegations" of anti-Semitism against him and his White House strategist Steve Bannon. "If there was a hint of anti-Semitism, I would be at their throat," Klein said.

American Jews have been especially on edge because of a surge of anti-Semitic harassment over the course of the presidential campaign and continuing this year. Last month, Jewish community centers and other institutions in 27 states and Canada received what is being investigated as a coordinated series of telephone bomb threats over a period of days, according to the Secure Community Network, formed by Jewish organizations to protect their institutions.

Many Jewish groups and others had seen animus in the White House statement last month on International Holocaust Remembrance Day that did not mention Jews. The president's aides defended the statement as "inclusive" of all who were killed by the Nazis.

At a news conference with Netanyahu last Wednesday, Trump opened by calling Israel a symbol of "survival in the face of genocide." But when an Israeli reporter asked Trump about the rise in anti-Semitic harassment during the campaign and since his election, he responded by touting his Electoral College total and promising "peace in this country." Netanyahu then took up the question, saying he had known the president, his family and some of his aides for many years and "there is no greater supporter of the Jewish people and the Jewish state than President Donald Trump. I think we should put that to rest."

The response rankled some American Jews. Alana Newhouse, editor-in-chief of Tablet, the online Jewish magazine, addressed the prime minister: "I won't tell you what to be afraid of in your country, and you don't tell me what I should fear in mine."

The next day, a confirmation hearing was held for David Friedman, the combative attorney Trump chose as U.S. envoy to Israel. Friedman, who has deep ties to the Israeli settler movement, had said the Anti-Defamation League sounded like "morons" for accusing Trump of anti-Semitism, and he had called supporters of the dovish pro-Israel lobby J Street "worse than kapos," a reference to Jews who helped the Nazis imprison fellow Jews during the Holocaust.

At the hearing, Friedman apologized for using inflammatory language in the past, and said he regretted not expressing his views of J Street in a more respectful manner. Greenblatt said he had spoken with Friedman about his remarks regarding the ADL and had accepted his apology.

Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, the largest American Jewish movement, said he met for 90 minutes with Friedman at the nominee's request, "He simply wanted to have a conversation directly," Jacobs said in a phone interview. "He knows how offensive it was."

On Friday, Reform Jewish leaders announced they opposed Friedman's nomination, the first time the movement had ever opposed a president's choice for the position. The ZOA's Klein, meanwhile, said Friedman has "the potential to be the greatest U.S. ambassador to Israel ever."

Jewish issues came to the fore again in a remarkable way during Trump's question-and-answer session on Thursday.

The reporter from the Brooklyn-based Orthodox Ami Magazine, Jake Turx, sporting curly sidelocks and a skullcap embroidered with his Twitter handle, rose to ask his question. While Hillary Clinton won 71 percent of the Jewish vote, Orthodox Jews who backed Trump have taken comfort in his support for Israel, his many Jewish friends and advisers, and especially his Orthodox Jewish daughter, Ivanka, who converted, and her husband and close presidential aide Jared Kushner. Turx opened his question to Trump by noting the president was a "zayde" which is Yiddish for grandfather then started to ask about the increased reports of anti-Jewish harassment and hate crimes.

But Trump quickly interrupted, saying "not a fair question," and when Turx tried to continue, said "quiet, quiet, quiet ... I find it repulsive. I hate even the question."

The internal Jewish debate will likely rage on in the coming weeks as Trump's policies on Israel, refugees and immigration take shape.

At Friedman's hearing, three young Jews who belong to the activist group IfNotNow, which opposes Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, stood up to interrupt the proceedings. They shook groggers, or noisemakers, used on the holiday of Purim to drown out the names of enemies of the Jewish people.

Follow this link:

Liberal, conservative Jews in US increasingly divided over Trump - Chicago Tribune

Where’s the liberal outrage over civil liberties in the Flynn case? – Minneapolis Star Tribune

Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, with their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. You can look it up. Their liberal friends in Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was Three Days of the Condor, with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for the clarity of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and WikiLeaks their winged chariot of truth. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats? Donald Trump was elected president, thats what.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trumps now-former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administrations sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. Its as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the Never Trump Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador before Trump was inaugurated president. This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. His conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about.

Whats astounding about this is that news reports on Flynns conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else. They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

The intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks them to damage a president. And liberals who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians are overjoyed. They dont question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence, and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. Its not whether they believe this that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

Why arent liberals more concerned, when once theyd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they werent concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, its all about power, isnt it? And ideals even those that help preserve the republic be damned.

Read the original here:

Where's the liberal outrage over civil liberties in the Flynn case? - Minneapolis Star Tribune

10 Unfortunate Liberal Myths Conservatives Often Believe – Observer

Garbage in, garbage out is how it works with a computer. Its no different with society: Misinformation yields misunderstandings and the adoption of misguided policy, personal and political.

The following are 10 liberal myths even many conservatives believe. How many did you know were commonly accepted fake news, fallacies or false history?

Not according to research. As Peter Schweizer reported in Dont listen to the liberalsRight-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows, relative to conservatives liberals are:

Studies also show liberals are less happy. Any idea why?

Whether its the dystopian 1973 film Soylent Green, Paul Ehrlichs book The Population Bomb or something else, the modern psyche has been infused with Malthusian assumptions about inexorably increasing populations. The reality?

With fertility rates already below replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in approximately 100 nations, demographers say that while global population will reach about nine billion in 2050, it will begin declining quickly thereafter.

According to Pew Research Center, atheists, agnostics and those claiming no particular religion will actually lose population share over the next few decades. For faith begets fecundity: The secular are just not as likely to be fruitful and multiply.

As I demonstrated in 2014 using data from liberal Mother Jones, non-Hispanic whites commit mass murder at just about the rate their population share (currently 62 percent) would suggest. Dont expect this myth to stop being a media meme, though.

Actually, according to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests, reported LifeSite News in 2010.

Its not surprising people assume otherwise, however. Consider: Californias 61 largest newspapers published almost 2,000 stories in the first half of 2002 about the Church scandaland only four about the ongoing public-school scandal.

History says otherwise. Whether the handiwork of Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Tamerlane, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, the Vikings, Hitler or someone else, warfares motivation was virtually always lust for land, wealth, resources, power and/or glorynot religious zeal.

According to Providence College professor Anthony Esolen in this PragerU video, medieval Europeans:

Professor Esolen states that the period was not the Dark Ages but the Brilliant Ages.

While conservatives are generally skeptical of the anthropogenic global-warming thesis, often they dont realize that increased atmospheric CO2 is actually beneficial. Botanists pump the gas into greenhouses because it facilitates plant growth. Why do you think the Mesozoic eras CO2 levelsfive to 10 times todaysyielded lush foliage?

A CO2-rich world is a green world.

On the contrary, the Crusades were actually European wars of survival designed to repel Muslim armies. As Thomas Madden, chair of the History Department at Saint Louis University,put it, the Crusades were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Actually, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution. Rather, the power was declared by the judiciary itself, notably in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court decision.

Since nothing in the Constitution dictates presidents must be constrained by judicial opinions, its not surprising they havent always felt compelled to be: Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln both ignored court rulings during their administrations.

Reality is like a jigsaw puzzle: You cant see the big picture without assembling enough pieces. And with untruths where facts should be, our puzzle remains puzzling at bestand presents a twisted image of ideology at worst.

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke)has written for The Hill, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio.

Continue reading here:

10 Unfortunate Liberal Myths Conservatives Often Believe - Observer

Terri Lovell: Liberal oppression – Santa Clarita Valley Signal

In the liberal mind, your freedom is their oppression. From 60 Hard Truths about Liberals

I dont think Ive ever heard a more accurate description of the liberal mind. It not only encompasses everything they believe, it accurately explains their bizarre behavior.

Why do liberals see your freedom as their oppression? Because everything to them is a zero-sum game. Liberals only win when everyone who opposes them loses.

The Constitution guarantees the rights of individualism and personal freedom. Your God-given rights as an individual are your power. For liberals to satisfy their lust for absolute power, your individual rights must be taken away from you.

The exercise of free speech is a display of individual power. Liberals despise free speech because it is a right they cannot control. If it takes a rioting mob to keep an individual they hate from speaking, and you from hearing it, so be it.

Small, decentralized government is the best protector of individual rights. Your individualism is considered a threat to the liberal goal of centralizing all power under their control. That is why liberals promote the power of the collective over the power of the individual.

Owning a gun is a display of individual power and freedom as well. That is why liberals are forever fighting and restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition.

With individual freedom comes individual responsibility. If liberals were to embrace freedom, they would have to embrace the responsibility that naturally comes with freedom.

When seen as part of the larger collective, liberals are never held accountable for their actions, nor for the actions of those who act on their behalf.

Although most liberal elitists are wealthy, they despise the freedom that ownership of private property and wealth brings to those who consider themselves individualists.

In the mind of a liberal, the only way a conservative could possibly acquire wealth is if it were stolen, or gained by oppressing someone else.

In their quest to transform our country into a collectivist utopia, liberals have taken over the public schools and universities.

They use our innocent children and young adults to expand their own power by teaching them to hate freedom and to despise traditional American values. Instead, students are taught that all our nations problems stem from individualism and the only solution is national collectivism.

Liberal oppressors are relentlessly working to steal and corrupt everything that has made this country the last bastion of freedom on this earth.

Terri Lovell is a lifetime resident of Santa Clarita, a former home school mom, a current College of the Canyons student and a member of a local Republican club.

View original post here:

Terri Lovell: Liberal oppression - Santa Clarita Valley Signal

Victorian Liberals: factional fight exposes deep divisions – The Age

The most controversial figure in the Victorian Liberal Party, Marcus Bastiaan, had his audience enthralled as he thundered about the need for change.

Radiating confidence, and with his past as a bellicose Brighton Grammar debater on display, Bastiaan told his Sydney listeners that the Liberals had been overrun by "lobbyists, political staffers or people who have worked in government the entirety of their careers".

Play Video Don't Play

Play Video Don't Play

Previous slide Next slide

26-year-old Marcus Bastiaan and his outspoken partner Stephanie Ross have torn like a tornado through the Liberals' Victorian branch, aligning with figures such as Michael Kroger along the way.

Play Video Don't Play

One of Melbourne's most notorious mafia figures faces prison and will likely be deported after an old friend he violently tried to extort turned against him.

Play Video Don't Play

CCTV footage shows two black vehicles speeding around a corner near a car park. Courtesy Echo Taskforce detectives.

Play Video Don't Play

Possible getaway car used by one of the two suspects wanted over an armed robbery at an Elsternwick jewellery store in September.

Play Video Don't Play

Virtual reality technology like this will feature in the TAC's new traffic school, dubbed a Road Safety Education Complex, at Melbourne Museum.

Play Video Don't Play

A giant archangel is set to walk the streets of White Night, sending messages of love, understanding and compassion.

Play Video Don't Play

A woman has been freed from a mangled car after a multi-vehicle smash that left two others injured and shut down three lanes of peak-hour inbound traffic on the Monash Freeway on Wednesday morning.

26-year-old Marcus Bastiaan and his outspoken partner Stephanie Ross have torn like a tornado through the Liberals' Victorian branch, aligning with figures such as Michael Kroger along the way.

As Tony Abbott watched at the Octoberforum organised by figures from the Liberals' right wing, Bastiaan said the future of the party founded by Menzies lay in reconnecting with abase "let down by our party's failure to represent them".

Bastiaan fashions himself as the Liberals' new great hope, one of the few in party ranks capable of re-energising disenchanted members by thrusting the party further to the right. Bastiaanalso wants to sweep out state MPs he regards as dead wood. The handsome, wilful 27-year-old has torn like a tornado through the Liberals' Victorian branch, aligning with figures such as Michael Kroger along the way.

As one senior supporter says: "The Liberal party at a state level is a gentlemen's club, Marcus is a brutal operator. Labor are cutthroat, so are the Greens. We need to get tougher; we have to sharpen our spears."

Not everyone is happy. Far from it.

Some senior Victorian Liberals say Bastiaan's campaign to push the party to the right is a Trojan horse. His ultimate mission, critics say, is building an empire while undermining Matthew Guy and Malcolm Turnbull.

More damaging are claims of unethical tactics. His enemies in the party and there are many point to allegedly rampant branch-stacking aimed solely at delivering long-term power and control to the Bastiaan group.

Fairfax Media can reveal that senior party figures are overseeing a confidential vetting committee into Bastiaan'salleged branch-stacking aimed at removing non-genuine members and curtailing his influence. There are also claims that Bastiaan is an ideological wind-sock, prepared to point whatever way the political windsblow.

On Saturday, his partner, ultra-conservative political aspirant Stephanie Ross, 25 -who believes that women who have been raped should be denied abortions-will challenge the oldest man in state parliament, 65-year-old Gary Blackwood, for the safe Warragul-based seat of Narracan. Blackwoodwon Narracan from Labor in 2006 and turned it into a safe seat.

If Ross gets up, it will be the second Bastiaan group figure to win, with James Newbury being pre-selected earlier this year in the seat of Brighton, held by outgoing MP Louise Asher.

Like her partner, Ross believes that too many state MPs are unskilled and out of date. Bastiaan's allies point to the fact that Labor has been in state government for all but four years since 1999, and the Baillieu-Napthine government lasted just one term.

Bastiaan's use of social conservatives to build hisbase have many scared about the damage to the Liberal brand in progressively minded Victoria, with concerns the Bastiaan group's insurgencyis imperillingGuy's hopes of becoming the next premier.

"Theirplan is for Guy to lose the next election and then take over. Guy is furious," says one senior Liberal.

The divisions are coming at a testing time for the party in Victoria.

In an unrelated development, a internal financial dispute has seen business community supremo and fundraising vehicle chairman Hugh Morgan withholding $500,000 from the state branch.

In an extraordinary letter to president Michael Kroger, Mr Morgan says the board of Cormack foundation has identified "fundamental gaps" in the branch's governance.

The governance dispute and the divisions sparked by Bastiaan are spot fires that insiders say risk destabilising the party at a time when the focus should be on exploiting Premier Daniel Andrews' bumpy start to the year.

"We should be focusing on Labor rather than obsessingabout our own internal problems," says an MP.

Twenty-five-year-old Ross hails from a conservative Catholic Church in West Gippsland and has made a name for herself campaigning against abortion.

As the preselection date has drawn closer, so has pressure on her to withdraw from those in the party because of the damage she is causing.

Critics highlight her lack of political, business or life experience. Like Bastiaan,she claims to be focused on returning the party to its members and challenging a parliamentary team that has abandoned its values and lost touch.

To her supporter base, which includes a group from the St Thomas Aquinas community, she has ralliedagainst the Safe Schools program "that is teaching radical gender theory and warped graphic sex education centred around promiscuity".

She has warned Gippsland locals that Australia was "seeing the destruction of religious freedom, free speech, a push towards gay marriage (which won't stop there!) and euthanasia".

"There is a state/nation-wide push to bring conservative politics back into fashion! People like Corey [sic] Bernardi in SA, Andrew Hastie in WA, George Christensen in Qldand Kevin Andrews in Vicare all fighting and need our backing."

Last year, Ross hosted a gala fundraiser for conservative MP Kevin Andrews where the main attraction was former PM Tony Abbott. The Bulleen dinner featured a latin grace and a rendition of God Save the Queen.

She, like her partner Bastiaan, attack Guy's parliamentary team. Most recently, she lashed out at the Coalition's decision to support the Andrews' government ban on fracking and conventional gas exploration.

The Bastiaan camp is privately talking down Ross's chances, perhaps mindful that many senior Liberals are running a furious behind-the-scenes campaign to deny her the prize, fearing Bastiaan would use it as proof positive of his theory that the party's future lies in arresting the decline in membership by proselytising views that resonate with a disaffected base.

But the challenge has sparked fears in the party establishment, with Guy throwing his weight behind Blackwood, pledging a new Warragul hospital (an announcement that would normally be reserved for the election campaign). MPs are lobbying preselectors and the Hawthorn-based shadow Attorney-General John Pesutto will serve as Blackwood's scrutineer.

Bastiaan's ascension from just another wannabe glad-handingoldies at branch meetings to a figure of intense discussion and intrigue across the party has included a familiar rite of passage for many Victorian political aspirants an alliance with veteran Liberal king-maker Michael Kroger.

A federal cabinet member told Fairfax Media that Kroger, who is still regarded as a "political animal of real substance" even by his enemies, believed Bastiaan (currently on the state's powerful administrative committee) would help entrench the veteran's power, not least due to Bastiaan's membership recruiting prowess.

If this is so, Kroger was only half right.

Bastiaan has excelled at recruiting members which equate to votes during key party battles, including those that decide pre-selection but appears not to be wedded to Kroger. Bastiaan is forging his own path, with a focus on seizing greater control at state council.

"It's like Frankenstein's monster. Kroger has lost control," says an observer.

A three-time university dropout, Bastiaan got into business with the aid of his father, dabbling in an antiques dealership while at university, before moving into a software design business.

He nowspends his time leaping betweenan e-commerce start-upandpolitics.

His party operation is under close scrutiny. In the seats held by former treasurer Kim Wells and shadow frontbenchers Nick Wakeling and Heidi Victoria, a vetting committee has been formed to scrutinise the surge in memberships in Melbourne's east that began in the middle of last year but have recently tapered off.

A well-placed source says the committee has identified a small number of members who say they did not pay their party fees or sign the necessary forms. There are many more cases of new members who have no interest in the party beyond casting votes when needed. The vetting committee's work has led to several prospective members being blocked.

The powerful party administrative committee, of which Bastiaan is a member, is aware of branch-stacking claims but has not conducted a formal audit.

With just 12,500 members, many of them "ageing", Kroger has on several occasions publicly praised Bastiaan's work to recruit fresh blood, despite the allegations of branch stacking.

Another supporter, state partyofficer Paul Mitchell, says attacks on Bastiaan are factionally driven.

"Marcus has not just talked about the membership crisis in the Liberal Party, he has gone out and done something about it and the overwhelming majority of party members respect and admire that," he said.

Bastiaan appears to have built his base by making use of membership discounts provided to students and couples. Ultra-conservative churches have also provided a fertile recruiting ground.

"I've had people from different churches approach me and say I've had Marcus ask me to join up. I've got nothing against people who go to church,but this is a blatant stack," says a Liberal MP.

A legitimate recruiter aligned with Bastiaan is medical doctor Ivan Stratov, who once ran for the Family First Party.

A prominent member of the Mormon church, Stratov won't say how many new members he has recruited (there is no suggestion Stratov is doing any branch stacking) or how closely he is working with Bastiaan.

But Stratov says some of Victorian's Mormons "are getting politically aware" and he's encouraging them to sign up. This is being made easier, he says, because of anger over the safe schools program, the push to legalise assisted euthanasia and other progressive policies. For instance, Dr Stratov says there is plenty of support for his views on abortions.

"I wouldn't agree with the vast majority of abortions in this country. I think there arefar too many," he says.

Supporters say concern about the growing influence of ultra-conservative church groups in the party is vastly overstated and servesas a means for underperforming MPs threatened by Bastiaan to create a sense of outrage and unease.

Others see the Bastiaan group's efforts as a genuine "insurgency" that is using conservatives as a rallying point.

Federal Assistant Treasurer and Deakin MP Michael Sukkaris another supporter of Bastiaan.

"The most important take out from the Deakin campaign was the importance of grassroots members and supporters. Modern campaigning is labour intensive andwith ageing and shrinking membership many in the party are grateful of Marcus' efforts to grow the party," Mr Sukkar said.

"I don't seriously believe anybody can seriously argue that Christians can no longer be welcome in the Liberal party."

The Bastiaan group's emergence, championing of right-wing views and divisive nature reflects the battle playing out in federal party ranks, with Abbott and other conservative warriors keeping Turnbull on something of a leash.

Next month, Abbott is the headline guest at a Liberal Party fundraiser organised by Bastiaan.Few doubt Abbott's commitment to long-held conservative values.

But several Liberal MPs say Bastiaan's efforts to portray himself as a conservative warrior is more about political opportunism than any deeply held ideal.

Some Liberals also say thatBastiaanhas privately backed same-sex marriage, a view he wasn't prepared to challenge when quizzed by Fairfax Media.

Blackwood, the group's preselection target, is himself a socially conservative MP and other arch-conservatives including the outspoken Bernie Finn are also in the Bastiaan camps sights.

The risk for Matthew Guy and the party inthe long term is that while conservative views may energise some of the Liberal base and a new generation of members, they won't win an election in Victoria.

The Narracan preselection battle will be a test of Bastiaan's success in organising numbers.

Regardless of whether Stephanie Ross wins or loses, Bastiaan is expected to be appointed vice-president of the state branch in April, a key step to realising his ambition of becoming president.

The most considered political observers say Bastiaan is not the problem.

He's simply using unreconstructed right-wing rhetoric to try to fill a void created by mainstream parties struggling to connect with cynical voters. It's this disconnect that is at the heart of the Bastiaan phenomenon and, to a far greater extent, political movements overseas.Whatever Bastiaan's fortunes, the broader politicalproblem is not going away.

"This is about the failure of mainstream parties to connect. It's not just us but Labor as well," says a senior party stalwart.

Link:

Victorian Liberals: factional fight exposes deep divisions - The Age

Vicious attacks on Ivanka Trump exposes liberal hypocrisy – The Hill (blog)

Ivanka Trump is perhaps the second-most watched person in the White House. The oldest daughter of the President, her position as a policy activist and adviser is unique in presidential history. Working through the ranks to become a clear voice for womens issues, coupled with her considerable business acumen, she should be a respected figure regardless of politics.

Instead, she faces a special scorn from Third Wave feminists and leftists alike (but I repeat myself) for one major reason: being her fathers daughter. One would think that a womans reputation is based on more than her relationship with a man.

Nope, not in 2017.

In many ways, Ivanka is the most self-made Trump: The Georgetown and Wharton graduate worked with a number of outside partners, and then formed her own empire. She used her own platform to advocate for women and equality in the workplace.

Despite her numerous accomplishments, the left has waged war on the first daughter in recent weeks. Why? Because they hate her father. A strong women's rights advocate and outspoken social liberal is being seen through the shadow of a man in her life: Her father, Donald J. Trump.

No feminist would or should judge another womans accomplishments through the prism of their fathers or husbands. Ivanka should be no different.

The social media campaign called #GrabYourWallet, which pressures retailers to drop Ivankas fashion products, was created as a response to Donald TrumpDonald TrumpWhite House denies Flynn replacement pick turned down job over staffing dispute Tillerson staying at sanitarium during G20 meeting: report Chris Wallace: Trump was trying to say 'I'm in charge' MOREs infamous hot mic remark. Ivanka had no involvement in her fathers controversial remarks but liberals have ensured that she will suffer anyways!

#GrabYourWallet successfully pressured Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Jet.com, Gilt, and Shoes.com to stop selling Ivankas line. Sears and Kmart removed her products from their websites, while TJ Maxx instructed its employees to hide her clothing on the sales floor. For many on the left, all things are personal, and fashion must be no exception.

One look at the #GrabYourWallet site, and it hits you: someone took the time to systematically create a Joseph McCarthy-type list of companies and ask if they are, or if they ever have been, a carrier of Ivanka's products. The featured spreadsheet list of retailers is as comprehensive as it is offensive. Contact numbers and emails are next to each company, regarding their current status.

In Venezuela, public employees that signed the recall petition against strongman Nicolas Maduro were fired due to their political beliefs. Its hard to imagine a social media campaign fueled by the same sentiments.

And the attacks on Ivanka extend far beyond just #GrabYourWallet. Google your lite-fare media du jour and youll find enthusiastic hit pieces, ripping Ivanka and her brand. Search her name on Buzzfeed, and youll see a list of articles about her product all unabashedly negative and repetitive. How many Mean Girls gifs articles can one website hold?

The Huffington Post oh-so-helpfully explains to the reader why the Nordstrom scandal is such a big deal. Their line of reasoning? That Donald Trump cant separate himself from his kids business decisions.

Voxs hot take on the situation can be seen through the prism of their profile of Ivanka last July, which expressed surprise that she holds so much influence over her father. Considering her success as an independent businesswoman, this should come as no shock. But Vox edu-tains readers by telling them that her efforts have so far failed to influence her father it then follows with over twenty paragraphs which show her effectiveness in influencing her father. I guess they figured no one reads beyond the first few sentences.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker has described Ivankas honed negotiating and speaking skills as weaponized greatness.

Why the vitriol against Ivanka, far more than against her brothers? Much of it can likely be boiled down to jealousy. Left-leaning journalists and self-proclaimed feminists wont admit it, but she is everything that we all aspire to be: smart, beautiful, and successful.

If Ivanka were anyone elses daughter, she would be praised as a trailblazer. If she were anyone elses daughter, shed probably also be successful with or without Donald Trumps money or influence.

See more here:

Vicious attacks on Ivanka Trump exposes liberal hypocrisy - The Hill (blog)

Can Emmanuel Macron win? Why France is ripe for a liberal resurgence – New Statesman

The French Presidential Election has so far been the election of the third man. On Sunday 5 February, Benot Hamon, a short-lived minister for education under Franois Hollande, became the official candidate of the Socialist party. Much like Franois Fillon in the opposing right-wing Republican primaries, he had entered the race as the distant third. Nevertheless, hebeat the early frontrunner, former Prime Minister Manuel Valls, in the second round of the Socialist primaries, gaining almost 60 per cent of the vote.

This was a triumph of the radical left over the establishment. Hamon had left Valls governmentto protest against what they took to be the governments too pro-business line. When it came to the primaries, he advocated a universal basic income and fully integrating ecological concerns into his programme.

In this two-pronged strategy, too, he followed Fillons lead. The Republican candidate overtook the frontrunners former Prime Minister Alain Jupp and President Nicolas Sarkozy after campaigning on both a highly economically liberal and socially conservative Catholic programme.

Both these victories on the left and right prove an old saying about primaries - they are won at the extremes. But there is another old saying, that general elections are won at the centre.

Emmanuel Macronis the centrist candidate for the Presidential election. He also entered the race as the third man, behind frontrunners Marine Le Pen and Fillon. So can he win?

With an election marked by a high level of unpredictability, there are nevertheless a number of reasons to think so. First there is Macron himself. When he entered the race, many thoughthe would quickly run out of steam, as centrist candidates have in the past, but his "Forward" movement has been highly successful. The crowds it attracts, numbering thousands, are the envy of the other candidates.

Macron's decision to not participate in the French Socialist primaries was also very astute. It means he hasdissociated himself from the toxic legacy of the Hollande Presidency, which has already lead to the downfall of his rival, Valls. Indeed, the fact that Hamon, on the left of the Socialists, won the primary is another boon for him. Centre-left voters who would have supported Valls arenow likely to rally around him.

If the centre-left has opened for Macron, so has the centre-right. Conservative voters who supported the centrist Alain Jupp might be tempted to join him, particularly after the "Penelopegate" scandal that has engulfedFillon (the Republican candidate is facing an investigation over claims he paid his wife nearly 1m for a job she did not do). Previously the favourite to win in the second round of elections in May, Fillon now trailsin the polls behind Macron in third place.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right Front National,is engulfed in her own "fake jobs" scandal concerning her European Parliamentassistant, and she has been sanctioned by the European Parliament which is retaining part of her salary.But it is unlikely that such a scandal will dent her popularity, and she remains well ahead in the polls with 25 per centof first-round voting intentions.

The difference between Le Pen and Fillon is that, as an anti-establishment and anti-European party,the Front National will not suffer from the misuse of public funds from an institution it rejects. Fillon, however, had made a big show of his strong moral principlesin the primaries compared to the "affaires" that continue to plague Jupp and former President Nicolas Sarkozy. Conservative voters put off by Fillon and unwilling to vote for the FN can rally round Macrons economic liberalism instead.

If Macron can make it to the second round of the French Presidential election in May, then he has every chance of becoming Frances next president. Current predictions have him wining over 60 per cent of the second-round vote. But we are not there yet. As a young, intelligent and outside candidate, he remains the receptacle of many peoples longing for a renewal of the political class. But he needs to transform his movements dynamic into hard votes - he lags well behind other candidates when it comes to firm intentions of voting. To do so he must give details of his political programme, which he so far failed to do, and which he is coming under increasing pressure to deliver.

The other threat he faces is the unification of the left with the far-left. If Hamon and the firebrand Jean-Luc Mlanchon could come together to form a common ticket then they could muster up to 25 per cent of the vote, which would propel them to first place in the first round of voting.

What Macron has made clear is that he is pro-European, which starkly marks him out from the other candidates. He is a social, economic and political liberal, and is willing to endorse ideas from across the political spectrum - one of his mottos is that he is neither left nor right. In an age when the political centre has come under intense pressure, maybe a radical centrist is precisely what France needs.

Dr Hugo Drochon is a historian of political thought and an affiliated lecturer at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of the book Nietzsche's Great Politics,published 2016.

See the original post here:

Can Emmanuel Macron win? Why France is ripe for a liberal resurgence - New Statesman

Where Have All the Liberal Democrats Gone? – Townhall

|

Posted: Feb 17, 2017 12:01 AM

What happened to liberal Democrats, and their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. Yeah, you can look it up.

And their liberal friends in liberal Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was "Three Days of the Condor," with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for "the clarity" of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and WikiLeaks was their winged chariot of truth and beauty. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on private citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to them? What happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats?

Donald Trump was elected president, that's what happened to them.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer, and Pence was his superior. Lying to a superior is grounds for court-martial. Or, at least gives pretext for a quick and brutal departure from the Trump White House, which is what happened.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. It's as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk. And Flynn's head, up there above them, is pecked endlessly in the sun.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA and others on multiple occasions, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the "Never Trump" Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador -- before Trump was inaugurated president.

This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It means his conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about. I have a hard time believing Flynn was a traitor. But I don't have a hard time believing that arrogance and foolishness are necessary prerequisites for a hard public fall.

What's astounding about this is that news reports on Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else.

They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

That's what is amazing. That the intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks to damage and weaken a president.

Liberals -- who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians -- are overjoyed. They don't question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence, and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Trump declared his war with American intelligence on his Twitter account and then did so in person as he stood in the White House at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I think he's (Flynn) been treated very, very unfairly by the media -- as I call it, the fake media, in many cases -- and I think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly," Trump said.

"I think in addition to that, from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked," said the president, adding that such leaks were a "criminal action, criminal act."

The president's references to Flynn are awkward and politically self-serving.

But the president's reference to the intelligence community -- in his government -- is an open declaration of war. And it's dangerous.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's not whether they believe it that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

So why aren't liberals more concerned, when once they'd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they weren't concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, it's all about power, isn't it? And ideals -- even those which help keep the republic -- be damned.

Read the original:

Where Have All the Liberal Democrats Gone? - Townhall

The True Origins of the Phrase ‘Bleeding-Heart Liberal’ – Atlas Obscura

Westbrook Pegler with Eleanor Roosevelt. Franklin D. Roosevelt Library/NARA 195810

Westbrook Pegler was extremely good at calling people names. Particularly politicians. In his syndicated newspaper column, he called Franklin D. Roosevelt Moosejaw and mommas boy. Truman was a thin-lipped hater.

Pegler was a bit of hater himself. He didnt like the labor movement, Communists, fascists, Jews, and perhaps most of all, liberals. In one 1938 column, he coined a term for liberals that would eventually come to define conservative scorn for the left. Pegler was the first writer to refer toliberals as bleeding hearts. The context for this then-novel insult? A bill before Congress thataimed tocurb lynching.

Before the 20th century, the phrase bleeding heart was popular in the religious-tinged oratory of 19th century America. Throughout the 1860s, it comes up often in poetry, essays, and political speeches, as an expression of empathy and emotion. I come to you with a bleeding heart, honest and sincere motives, desiring to give you some plain thoughts, said one politician in an 1862 speech. The phrase comes from the religious image of Christs wounded heart, which symbolizes his compassion and love. It was a common enough phrase that London has a Bleeding Heart Yard (featured prominently in the Dickens novel Little Dorrit) which is named after a long-gone sign, once displayed at a local pub, that showed the Sacred Heart.

By the 1930s, though, the phrase had fallen out of common use and Pegler, who one politician called a soul-sick, mud-wallowing gutter scum columnist, recruited it into a new context, as a political insult. He was a master of this art. As a contemporary of his wrote in an academic article on political name-calling, Pegler has coined, or given prominence to, a fair share of unfair words. (Pegler also called the AFL a swollen national racket, economics a side-show science, and Harold Ickes, who ran the Public Works Administration, Donald Duck.)

Pegler first used bleeding heart in a column castigating liberals in Washington for their focus on a bill to provide penalties for lynchings. Pegler wasnt for lynchings, per se, but he argued that they were no longer a problem the federal government should solve: there had only been eight lynchings in 1937, he wrote, and it is obvious that the evil is being cured by local processes. The bill, he thought, was being used as a political bait in crowded northern Negro centers. And here was his conclusion, emphasis ours:

I question the humanitarianism of any professional or semi-pro bleeding heart who clamors that not a single person must be allowed to hunger but would stall the entire legislative program in a fight to ham through a law intended, at the most optimistic figure, to save fourteen lives a year.

Pegler was apparently pleased enough with this use of bleeding heart that he kept it up. He later wrote of professional bleeding hearts who advocated for collective medicine after a woman couldnt find a doctor to help her through labor, and lobbed the insult of bleeding heart Bourn at a rival, left-leaning columnist. By 1940, he had condensed the phrase down to bleeding-heart humanitarians and bleeding-heart liberals.

Peglers usage did not immediately catch on, though. (Perhaps thats because he went on to become so right-wing that he was asked to leave the John Birch Society.) If the New York Times archives is any indication, through the 40s and 50s, bleeding heart was most often used to refer to the flower Lamprocapnos spectabilis, which grows rows of pretty pink blossoms, and occasionally sports.

Bleeding heart wasrevived in a political context in 1954, by another infamous right-winger, Joe McCarthy, who called Edward R. Murrow one of the extreme Left Wing bleeding-heart elements of television and radio. It wasnt until the 1960s that it really started to come into common use, though. In 1963, the satirical columnist Russell Baker put it on a list of political insults: If one is called a phoney, about the only thing he can do is come back with some epithet like, anti-intellectual or bleeding-heart liberalor you must be one of those peace nuts. By the end of the decade, Ronald Reagan, then newly elected governor of California, had picked it up as a way to describe his political trajectory. I was quite the bleeding-heart liberal once, he told Newsweek. By 1970, he was known as a former bleeding heart Democrat.

After that, the phrase was fully ensconced in political short-hand and quickly claimed by liberals as a positive trait. You are called a bleeding heart liberal because you have a heart for the poor, one told the Times. Count me with the bleeding heart liberals, an NAACP lawyer wrote in a letter to the editor.

See the article here:

The True Origins of the Phrase 'Bleeding-Heart Liberal' - Atlas Obscura

Liberals, Tories spar over Islamophobia motion in full-day debate – The Globe and Mail

Members of Parliament spent most of Thursday debating racism and discrimination in Canada as the Liberals and Conservatives battled over a private members motion that condemns Islamophobia.

The Tories introduced their own anti-racism motion in response to Liberal MP Iqra Khalids motion M-103, which calls on the government to condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and to study the issue at the heritage committee and make recommendations.

Conservative MP David Andersons motion doesnt specifically mention Islamophobia, a term the Tories say is not well-defined and could stifle freedom of speech. The House of Commons, including Conservatives, has already unanimously condemned all forms of Islamophobia in an NDP motion last fall, although it wasnt a recorded vote and its unclear how many MPs were in the chamber.

Read more: Muslim leaders urge governments to fight Islamophobia after mosque attack

Konrad Yakabuski: Quebec cant keep politics out of the identity debate

Campbell Clark: Conservative MPs are afraid of Motion 103, and things it cant do

The Conservative motion condemns all forms of systemic racism and discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and other religious communities, which Mr. Anderson said is more inclusive. For procedural reasons, the Conservative motion will be voted upon in the coming days, while the Liberal motion will be dealt with in April.

Heritage Minister Melanie Joly called the Tory version weakened and watered down and said the government would not support it.

The Conservatives have brought this motion forward in a cynical attempt to serve their political purposes and avoid addressing the real issue concerning Islamophobia, she told reporters even before the debate began.

In a speech in the Commons, Ms. Khalid read out some of the 50,000 hate-filled responses she said shes received about her motion, and said shes not backing down on the language used.

I have asked my staff to lock the office behind me, as I now fear for their safety. I have asked them not to answer all phone calls, so they do not hear the insults, threats and unbelievable amounts of hate shouted at them and myself, she said. lslamophobia is real.

Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu told the House she was also the subject of online attacks during the election campaign for being a Christian.

My point is that hate crimes and these attacks are happening across different faiths, she said.

She added that MPs need clarity on the definition of Islamophobia, which she said is different around the world. If I think of myself, I am afraid that if ISIS jihadists came over, they might cut my head off and rape me. Is that Islamophobia? I do not know.

Most Tory leadership hopefuls, including Kellie Leitch, Maxime Bernier, Andrew Scheer, Brad Trost, Chris Alexander, Kevin OLeary and Erin OToole, say they disagree with the wording of Ms. Khalids motion. Michael Chong is the only candidate who said he will support it.

Ms. Leitch, who started a website called Stop M-103, told The Globe and Mail on Wednesday that many Canadians are worried their freedom of speech will be stifled.

Ms. Joly told the Commons it boggles the mind that members who have put their names forward to lead political parties, would try to capitalize on fear and division for their own benefit.

Former Liberal MP and justice minister Irwin Cotler, who put forward an anti-Semitism motion in 2015 using an agreed-upon definition, said the Liberals could change the term Islamophobia to anti-Muslim bigotry in order to get all sides on board.

Has anybody spoken with them about the use of the terminology of anti-Muslim bigotry, which amounts to the same thing but is more specific and does not have what for some is seen to be a confusing term? he told reporters.

Ms. Khalid said Wednesday Islamophobia is the irrational hate of Muslims that leads to discrimination.

The NDP have signaled they would support both motions, but NDP MP Jenny Kwan told the Commons the party also wants Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to denounce U.S. President Donald Trumps immigration ban.

Follow Laura Stone on Twitter: @l_stone

Visit link:

Liberals, Tories spar over Islamophobia motion in full-day debate - The Globe and Mail

Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation – USA TODAY

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch (R) meets with Democratic Sen. Robert Casey on Thursday.(Photo: Win McNamee, Getty Images)

WASHINGTON The first of many liberal public interest groups to delve deeply into Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's record on Thursday called him a "dangerous" choice who consistently favors corporations over workers, women, minorities andpeople with disabilities.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee was announcing a March schedule for Gorsuch's confirmation hearings, the Alliance for Justice issued a 56-page report on the federal appeals court judge that says aconservative ideology pervades his 10 years of opinions and dissents.

The group said the Senate should give "heightened scrutiny" to Gorsuch's nomination because of President Trump's recent attacks on the federal judiciary. Those attacks followeddecisions across the country that blocked Trump'seffort to impose a temporary travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven majority-Muslim countries.

"Judge Gorsuchs view of the Constitution is one that would indeed take our nation backwardto an earlier era, where women, people of color, persons with disabilities, workers, LGBTQ Americans, and those interacting with the criminal justice system have fewer rights and legal protections," the report said.

The analysis likely to be followed by as many as dozens more from conservative as well as liberal public interest groups paints a portrait of a conservative ideologue whose views were formed in college and law school, long before his 2006 confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Read more:

On anniversary of Scalia's death, will his legacy live on in Neil Gorsuch?

Former law clerks herald Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's independence

But it devotes most of its attention to his rulings on the bench, highlighting those it considers to be outside the judicial "mainstream." Prominent among the cases cited are those in which Gorsuch favored the religious rights of corporations and non-profits over women seeking insurance coverage for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act.

"He has placed the rights of corporations over those of other Americans, weakened critical acts of Congress, and advocated for overturning long established legal doctrines that ensure the federal government can properly enforce protections for the American people," the report said.

That's areference to Gorsuch's disdain for aSupreme Courtprecedent granting considerable deference to federal agencies when they interpret vaguely written laws or regulations. It's one area where Gorsuch disagrees with the late Antonin Scalia, the justice he would succeed on the court if confirmed by the Senate.

It is hard to overstate how dangerous Neil Gorsuch would be on the Supreme Court, Daniel Goldberg, legal director at the Alliance for Justice, said.Neil Gorsuchis a judge whos ideologically driven.

Leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that hearings on Gorsuch's nomination willbe held the week of March 20, with the judge appearing on March 21. The hearings are likely to last three or four days, followed by committee and full Senate votes, most likely in April.

That timetable would give Gorsuch an outside chance of being confirmed in time to hear oral arguments later in April the last arguments of the court's 2016 term. Otherwise, he would not sit in on cases until the 2017 term begins in October.

Trump urged Democrats to vote for Gorsuch during hispress conference Thursday but acknowledged that "you may not see that." Without at least eight votes from Democrats, Republicans who control the Senate would have to change the rules to eliminate the current 60-vote hurdle.

"But hell get there one way or the other," Trump said.

Read more:

Analysis: Trump's 80-minute press conference was a spectacle for the ages

The first 100 days of the Trump presidency

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lngZ1X

See more here:

Major liberal group opposes Gorsuch confirmation - USA TODAY

Sportswriting Has Become a Liberal Profession Here’s How It Happened – The Ringer (blog)

Back in the 1930s, you could walk into a press box and find not just a social justice warrior but an actual communist. His name was Lester Rodney, and he wrote sports for the party newspaper, The Daily Worker. Rodneys politics made his life complicated. Writers at respectable outlets like The New York Times would hardly speak to him. But his moral clarity was keener than just about anybodys.

I can do a lot of things you guys cant, Rodney told colleagues, according to his biographer Irwin Silber. I can belt big advertisers, automobile manufacturers, or tobacco companies. You guys cant write anything about the ban against Negro players. I can do that.

Indeed, the segregation of baseballThe Crime of the Big Leagues! the Worker called itwas Rodneys great subject. He was determined to exact justice on the sports page. Rodney pestered owners and managers about their willingness to sign black players and recorded their responses. The pitcher Satchel Paige used Rodneys column to challenge the winners of the World Series to a game against a Negro Leagues all-star team.

When baseballs commissioner, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, ignored Rodneys reporting, Worker headlines taunted him: Can You Read, Judge Landis? When Landis refused to give a statement about the progress of integration, they taunted him again: Can You Talk, Judge Landis? By the time Jackie Robinson integrated baseball in 1947, black ballplayers knew Rodneys was one of the first and loudest voices to rally to their cause. But thanks to Rodneys radioactive politics, he was largely written out of history until his rediscovery a half century later.

Occasionally, Rodney was so committed to being an ideological sportswriter that he tied himself in knots. After a game in the early 50s, a fan at the Polo Grounds got close to Giants manager Leo Durocher, stole his baseball cap, and made off with the prize. If youre sticking up for the oppressed masses on deadline, what do you do with that? According to Roger Kahn, Rodney wrote a column arguing ballplayers were workers and should be granted the use of their tools.

Later, police apprehended the thief. He turned out to be a poor Puerto Rican. At the request of his boss, Rodney then wrote the opposite column, arguing the thief was a victim of capitalism and, thus, had as much right to the cap as Durocher. Such were the headaches of being a lefty in the press box.

In 2017, itd be hard to find a communist covering the Grapefruit League. But its easy to find a sportswriter who is infused with Rodneys passion, his crusading spirit. Today, sportswriting is basically a liberal profession, practiced by liberals who enforce an unapologetically liberal code. As Frank Deford, who joined Sports Illustrated in the 60s, told me, You compare that era to this era, no question we are much more liberal than we ever were before.

In the age of liberal sportswriting, the writers are now far more liberal than the readers. Absolutely I think were to the left of most sports fans, said Craig Calcaterra, who writes for HardballTalk. Its folly for any of us to think were speaking for the common fan.

Of course, labels like liberal and conservative dont translate perfectly to sports. Do you have to be liberal to call Roger Goodell a tool? So maybe its better to put it like this: There was a time when filling your column with liberal ideas on race, class, gender, and labor policy got you dubbed a sociologist. These days, such views are more likely to get you a job.

Donald Trumps election was merely an accelerant for a change that was already sweeping across sportswriting. On issues that divided the big columnists for years, theres now something like a consensus. NCAA amateurism is rotten. The Washington Redskins nickname is more rotten. LGBT athletes ought to be welcomed rather than shunned. Head injuries are the great scandal of the NFL.

A few decades ago, Taylor Branchs line that NCAA amateurism had an unmistakable whiff of the plantation would have been an eye-rollingly hot take. Now, if you turned in a column comparing college football to the institution of slavery, I suspect few editors would try to talk you out of publishing it. But they might ask you to come up with something more original.

As recently as the turn of the century, you could find columnists hanging Alex Rodriguezs $252 million contract around his neck. Nobody much writes about free agency like that anymore. Even a bad contract is usually called a misallocation of resources by a team rather than a manifestation of a ballplayers overweening greed.

In the new world of liberal sportswriting, athletes who dabble in political activism are covered admiringly. Last year, Slates Josh Levin went searching for the voices who were dinging Colin Kaepernick for his national anthem protest. Levin found conservatives like Tomi Lahren and a couple of personalities from FS1. In the old days, such voices would have filled up half the sports columns, easy.

Institutions that made for easy off-day fodder for the writers now get increasing scrutiny. The writer Joe Sheehan has called the Major League Baseball draft a quasi-criminal enterprise that serves the powerful at the expense of the powerless. Lester Rodney would have been proud of that line.

And these are just issues within sports. Look at the way sportswriters tweet about politics now. God bless the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost, Peter King tweeted earlier this week after the papers revealed the Trump administrations web of ties to Russia. Two weeks ago, sportswriters blasted away at Trumps immigration banstaging their own pussy-hat protest within the press box. Last year, Roger Angell came out of the bullpen to endorse Hillary Clinton.

How many sportswriters have you seen on Twitter defending Donald Trump? asked the baseball writer Rob Neyer. I havent seen one. Im sure there must have been a few writers out there who did vote for him, but theres a lot of pressure not to be public about it.

Forget the viability of being a Trump-friendly sportswriter today. Could someone even be a Paul Ryanfriendly sportswriterknocking out their power rankings while tweeting that Obamacare is a failure and the Iran deal was a giveaway of American sovereignty?

In sportswriting, there was once a social and professional price to pay for being a noisy liberal. Now, theres at least a social price to pay for being a conservative. Figuring out how the job changedhow we all became the children of Lester Rodneyis one of the most fascinating questions of our age.

There was always a coven of liberals in sportswriting: Shirley Povich, Dan Parker, Sam Lacy, George Kiseda, Robert Lipsyte, Wells Twombly, and the merry band known as the Chipmunks. As Roger Kahn once wrote, Sports tell anyone who watches intelligently about the times in which we live: about managed news and corporate politics, about race and terror and what the process of aging does to strong men.

But these idealists plied their trade in a media universe almost completely different from our own. The first reason sportswriting became a liberal profession is that the product known as sportswriting has been radically altered from what it was 40, 30, even 20 years ago.

The old liberal sportswriter was a prisoner of daily newspapers. If he wanted to write about politics, he had to do it within the confines of a sports story. You decide whether you think this is a lefty idea or not, said Larry Merchant, who was a columnist at the old (liberal) New York Post. I wrote a story about a horse that had ridden in the Kentucky Derby. Now, it was in service of the national police in riot control in Washington, D.C. To me, thats the most natural story in the world!

Even if a newspaper had a political sports columnist, he was nearly always paired with a second, apolitical columnist, who matched the formers moral crusades with his own rigid attention to balls and strikes.

When you treat sports as a self-contained universe into which the rest of the universe does not intrude, it will inevitably be conservative, said Craig Calcaterra. You defer to the commissioner, to the head coach, to the reserve clauseto the reigning authority.

The internet leveled the barrier between sportswriting and the rest of the universe. It also dropped the neutrality that was practiced by everyone but a handful of columnists. We might have been more liberal than you would have imagined we were, but we didnt bring it in our copy, you know? said Deford. We separated our individual lives from what we wrote because that was what was expected.

This loosening of the prose was hastened along by a technological change. Starting in the 1950s, accounts of games (gamers) became less valuable when fans could watch for themselves on TV. As the game inventory on cable and then DirecTV and then the internet has exploded, gamers are less valuable than ever. Newbie sportswriters have been redeployed. The people who in an earlier generation would be telling us what they saw are telling us what they think instead, said Josh Levin.

The internet transformed sportswriting in another way: It made a local concern into a national one. On one level, this is pure joy: Now everyone gets to read Andy McCullough. But it also meant that reactionary opinions that may have played in St. Louis or Cincinnati are now held up for ridicule by the writers at Deadspin. I suspect a lot of sportswriters who might be right-leaning either get on the train or dont write about politics at all.

You might argue, as Neyer does, that the old sportswriters were probably mostly left-of-center types. But without Twitter, it was difficult for anyone to know this. When I started doing this, in 2003, it felt a little lonely, like I was in a phone booth yelling this stuff, said The Nations Dave Zirin. I didnt know, or have access to, a community of sportswriters who felt similarly.

The changes in the architecture of sportswriting also changed the professions great dilemma. For a century, even sportswriters who had curious minds felt the narcotic pull of the toy department. (It took the carnage of the 68 Democratic National Convention to shock Red Smith into consciousness.) Thenonce wokethe sportswriter faced a second problem: What do I do? Try to sneak politics into my column? Abandon the good salary and Marriott points offered by sportswriting to do real work on the front page?

In the Twitter era, I suspect most sportswriters dont feel this dilemma very keenly or even at all. As the world burns, they turn in their power rankings and then they tweet about Trump.

There were other tractor beams that pulled sportswriting to the left. After a slack period since Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown shuffled off the main stage, weve finally entered the second great age of athlete activism. Youre talking about 50 years of pretty much quiet, said Sandy Padwe, who wrote a column for the Philadelphia Inquirer and later became an editor at Sports Illustrated. The new wave of activism is not like the 60s by any means, Padwe said. But its a hell of an improvement.

Activism smuggles liberalism into sportswritingnot as opinion but as news. Whatever his politics, the sportswriter must report Gregg Popovichs lecture on white privilege; Steph Curry calling Trump an ass; and a handful of the Super Bowlwinning Patriots refusing to go to Trumps White House.

Its not only athlete activism that has rejiggered sportswriting but the athletes increased power. In the 60s, a sportswriter who merely wanted to be a stenographer to the powerful would cozy up to the league commissioner or owner. Nowafter the explosion in player salaries and the voice granted by Twitterthe same power seeker is more likely to cozy up to LeBron James, or his agent. As Lester Rodney would tell you, when youre covering sports from the workers point of view instead of managements, the trade inevitably moves to the left.

Non-sports types like Taylor Branch have given the industry a much-needed noogie. Branchs 2011 article in The Atlantic transformed the crusade against NCAA amateurism from one often neglected in the sports press into one that burned up the New York Times op-ed page. It makes sense that a hometown sports page is not going to get into this, Branch said. Their job is to feed the appetite of the sports fan. This is a fly on their dessert.

Deford told me: I kill myself when I think that when I ran The National neither I nor the bright people on that paper thought we really ought to examine the NCAA. We never said that. We just accepted that. We took it at face value. We should be ashamed of it.

If liberals have a long-standing delusion, its that the presentation of hard data (about everything from climate change to voter fraud) will win the masses to their cause. But within sportswriting, this is actually true. The publication of college football coaches rapidly inflating salaries floated the anti-amateurism crusade. If you know that the NBA signed a $24 billion TV deal with ESPN and Turner, its hard to argue that even Timofey Mozgovs contract is going to bankrupt the league.

Its the accumulation of evidence rather than political change, said Bruce Arthur, who writes a column for the Toronto Star. People just figured it out.

There are chance events too. The fact that Dan Snyder hasnt put many winning Redskins teams on the field has the side effect of undermining support for the teams nicknameIf Snyders for it, people think, how can I not be against it? Similarly, Roger Goodells mishandling of issues like Deflategate suggests that he might be mishandling player safety too.

Donald Trumps election changed sports Twitter into a frisky episode of All In With Chris Hayes. But here, sportswriters are probably being radicalized at roughly the same rate as the rest of the electoratea process that began during George W. Bushs administration and continued apace through the Obama years. If most Democrats you know seem feistier than they did 20 years ago, it follows that sportswriters would too.

Talk to the real lefties within sportswritingLipsyte, Padweand you find theyre skeptical that were witnessing a genuine ideological conversion. Sportswriters rarely touch issues like the antitrust exemption and the flag-waving militarism that drenches pro sports. (See Foxs Super Bowl pregame show for one recent example.) Theres still plenty of PED hysteria, even if its getting better. The idea that league drafts unfairly conscript players to teams feels like an issue thats just starting to get mainstream traction. In 10 years, woke sportswriters will be wondering why our generation didnt talk more about it.

Maybe what were seeing is simply writers plying their trade in a different era. We shouldnt piss on things that are progress and are good, Lipsyte said. But how much of it is really any kind of expression of liberalism? How much is times change and we change with it? Maybe were just standing in the same place but being carried along by the flow.

The Obama administration was a dream time for liberal sportswriters, who had a president who talked about sports like they did. Trumps election caused a convulsion. Lipsyte added, Kaepernick, the manifestos of Melo and LeBron, and the Trumpish tinge to the Patriots and its reaction from players who say they wont go to the White House have to be acknowledged, and once you do that, it feels like left-leaning commentary. Unless, of course, it is.

On November 8, we learned a lot of Americans arent ready to sail into the progressive horizon. In sportswriting, as in politics, there was a backlash that you could see across the media.

First, conservative political writers began grumbling about their sports pages the way they grumble about the front pages. A 2014 American Spectator column sniffed: [The sportswriter] now lies prostrate before a new set of masters: Mimosa-sipping Manhattanites and liberal witch hunters whose sole interest in sports is purging football teams of offensive names, obtaining equal screen-time for females, and celebrating sexual diversity. Equal time and diversitywhat a crock.

Next, other sportswriters took up the critique. The sports media is the most far-left contingent of media that exists in this country, Fox Sports Clay Travis declared last month. In tsk-tsking the writersand the athletes they worshipthe holdouts sounded like the founders of Fox News. Your medias been hijacked!

Those who are sitting out the liberal sportswriting renaissance are as likely to tweak the media as they are to offer competing ideas. This week, when Nike released an Equality ad starring LeBron James and Serena Williams, Jason Whitlock said: all this resist, resist its bogus. Its a campaign. It aint got a damn thing to do with you, the ordinary working man.

Earlier this year, when Ronda Rousey was throttled by Amanda Nunes, Travis said: There were a ton of people in the sports media who wanted Ronda Rousey to be good because it somehow represented their belief that women are better than men. Breitbart approvingly cited the remark.

In a world where liberal sportswriters predominate, theres a second economic opportunity. You create a safe space where sports and politics dont intermingle, where readers arent just excused for not being woke but are rewarded for it. On one of the recent Barstool Rundown TV specials, Dave Portnoy said the immigration protests that were filling airports were probably the no. 1 story for people [who are] not us real-world issues that we dont care at all about.

Then Portnoy cut to footage of a readera Stooliewhod arrived on a flight from Istanbul while the protests were raging. The Stoolie pretended to be a refugee whod made it through customs and marched through the terminal, soaking up the applause of the crowd. If there was ever a more backhanded indictment of sports Twitter, Id love to see it.

What about me? If it hasnt seeped into the preceding paragraphs, Im a liberal sportswriter myself. The new world suits me just fine. Would it be nice to have a David Frum or Ross Douthat of sportswriting, making wrongheaded-but-interesting arguments about NCAA amateurism? Sure. As long as nobody believed them.

If anything has gone haywire in this new world, its the problem of Leo Durochers cap. Writers trying to find the proper, liberal response to new issues wind up tying themselves in knots.

Take the reaction to the Ray Rice video in 2014. There was a hue and cry throughout sportswriting: Something ought to be done! (If there was any criticism, it came from the left: that replays of the elevator video were re-victimizing his then-fiance, Janay.)

Unfortunately, many of the early columns didnt always say who ought to do something or what it should be. Roger Goodell used the groundswell of rage to suspend Rice indefinitely and increase his already-fearsome power over player discipline.

Such imprecision doesnt just empower hardliners like Goodell. A few months after Rices suspension, Adam Silver, the model of a progressive commissioner, used a gray area in his leagues CBA to levy a harsh punishment against a convicted domestic abuser, Jeffery Taylor. Silver attributed his actions to what he called the evolving social consensusmuch of which was crafted in the media.

And theres another liberal ideal at stake here: that criminals whove paid their debt to society ought to have a chance to re-enter it. In 2010, Barack Obama congratulated the owner of the Eagles for giving Michael Vick a job after he was released from prison. Rices bad acts were very different from Vicks. But say Rice got another NFL job after his apology tour. Would a sportswriter have written an encomium to the owner who signed Rice? Should they have? Its an awfully tough question.

I bet old Lester Rodney would have smiled when told the headaches he faced at The Daily Worker are now racking sportswriters from the L.A. Times to SB Nation. For this is what happens when revolutionary ideas become a ruling philosophywhen the former insurgents get the run of the place.

Here is the original post:

Sportswriting Has Become a Liberal Profession Here's How It Happened - The Ringer (blog)

If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is heading for a split – Telegraph.co.uk

Gay marriage and abortion are the prime hot-button issues but others include sex before marriage and the role of women in the clergy. In Lichfield, some wealthy gay donors to the church feel themselves alienated by anattitudewhich forces gay vicars to be celibate and fails to recogniseequal marriage.

The more "traditional" family values may not be something we all buy into, but one of the main tenants of a truly liberal society is that that liberalism cant be forcefully imposed on the people from above. The UK, and more specifically the Church of England, are clearly places of diverse opinion. The question is: how do they all come together?

At present, the worldwide Anglican Communion is undergoing a demographic shift. As the average British churchgoer becomes older and older, much of the growth is coming from socially conservative African countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda.

With the UK and the US increasinglysecular and accepting of gay marriage, the Communion is faced with a dilemma: embrace liberalism and risk alienating many Anglican communities from the developing world or court those same communities and become out-of-step with 21st Western liberal values.

See the rest here:

If the Church of England continues to smother liberal Anglicans, it is heading for a split - Telegraph.co.uk

Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? – Chicago Tribune – Chicago Tribune

What happened to liberal Democrats, and their concerns about civil liberties and government surveillance of American citizens?

Liberals once hated the CIA. And they loved the Russians. Yeah, you can look it up.

And their liberal friends in liberal Hollywood made movie after movie about the dangers of The Deep State and its awesome surveillance powers. One of the best was "Three Days of the Condor," with liberal icon Robert Redford fighting the malevolent CIA boss John Houseman, who longed for "the clarity" of world war.

Years later, Edward Snowden became the liberal demigod and Wikileaks was their winged chariot of truth and beauty. Liberals fretted about the powers of the intelligence community being used on private citizens for political reasons.

So what happened to them? What happened to the ideals of these liberal Democrats?

Donald Trump was elected president, that's what happened to them.

And now you can clearly see the change in them as Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, has become feast for the crows.

Flynn deserves his punishment. Make no mistake about that. He reportedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence about his phone conversations with a Russian ambassador that included discussion of the Obama administration's sanctions against Russia.

As a former general officer, as a former Defense Intelligence Agency boss, Flynn understands the chain of command. There is no lying to a superior officer, and Pence was his superior. Lying to a superior is grounds for court-martial. Or, at least gives pretext for a quick and brutal departure from the Trump White House, which is what happened.

So Flynn is gone, forced to resign, his head high on a spike upon the Democratic Party ramparts.

Democrats jeer at his head up there. It's as if this episode were street theater in olde England, with Punch and Judy entertaining the small folk. And Flynn's head, up there above them, is pecked endlessly in the sun.

But what victory are they celebrating, exactly? And at what cost to the republic?

What would have been bothersome to liberals of old (the pre-Trump kind) is that Flynn may have been targeted for a takedown by the Deep State intelligence operatives liberals once loathed.

Flynn and Trump warred with the intelligence community during the campaign, and Trump called out the CIA and others on multiple occasions, tweeting at them, provoking them.

Most recently, Trump was furious that his private conversations with the Australian prime minister became public and were used as a club to pound him in the pages of the "Never Trump" Washington Post and other establishment newspapers.

The damning news was that there are reportedly transcripts of Flynn speaking with the Russian ambassador before Trump was inaugurated president.

This indicates that Flynn was most likely the subject of a warrant issued by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It means his conversations were recorded. The American public should know what this is about. I have a hard time believing Flynn was a traitor. But I don't have a hard time believing that arrogance and foolishness are necessary prerequisites for a hard public fall.

What's astounding about this is that news reports on Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador also mentioned something else.

They mentioned the existence of many intelligence community sources, and these many intelligence sources presumably read the transcripts and leaked their contents to reporters.

That's what is amazing. That the intelligence community records the conversations of a private citizen and leaks to damage and weaken a president.

Liberals who once prided themselves on being civil libertarians are overjoyed. They don't question their good fortune. They celebrate.

Now Trump is in open, public war with American intelligence and liberals cheer on the intelligence community leakers.

Trump declared his war with American intelligence on his Twitter account and then did so in person as he stood in the White House at a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"I think he's (Flynn) been treated very, very unfairly by the media as I call it, the 'fake media,' in many cases and I think it's really a sad thing that he was treated so badly," Trump said.

"I think in addition to that, from intelligence, papers are being leaked, things are being leaked," said the president, adding that such leaks were a "criminal action, criminal act."

The president's references to Flynn are awkward and politically self-serving.

But the president's reference to the intelligence community in his government is an open declaration of war. And it's dangerous.

Democrats are on the outs, so they love this story about Flynn. It feeds into their belief that Trump is some tool of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin. It's not whether they believe it that matters. What matters is that they see a way to sear this deeply upon the American mind before the 2018 elections.

Democrats will continue to push this theme, even if it means celebrating a possible takedown of administration officials by American intelligence, and the many sources of those reports.

So why aren't liberals more concerned, when once they'd be outraged about authoritarian tactics?

For the same reasons they weren't concerned about presidential overreach when their guy was president, with his imperial pen and his phone.

Because for many Democrats, just like for many Republicans, it's all about power, isn't it? And ideals even those which help keep the republic be damned.

Listen to "The Chicago Way" podcast with John Kass and WGN's Jeff Carlin and guests Sen. Rand Paul and Kristen McQueary at http://www.wgnradio.com/category/wgn-plus/thechicagoway.

jskass@chicagotribune.com

Read more from the original source:

Whatever happened to liberal Democrats, anyway? - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune

‘Liberals will continue to lose’: Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts – Washington Post

Journalist Jeremy Scahill, a frequent panelist on Real Time With Bill Maher, was booked to appear this Friday but canceled after he found out Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos would also be a guest. Yiannopoulos is known for his provocative stories with such headlines as Gay rights have made us dumber, its time to get back in the closet. He was also permanently banned from Twitter last year a feat that takes some doing. Among his transgressions was targeting SNL comedian Leslie Jones, calling her barely literate, and rallying his hundreds of thousands of followers to direct racist, sexist missives to her. (She briefly quit Twitter over the abuse.)

[Just how offensive did Milo Yiannopoulos have to be to get banned from Twitter?]

Scahill, a founding editor of the Intercept, explained himself on Twitter. He took great pains to express his admiration for the producers and writers of the show. He even sang the praises with a few big caveats of host Maher. But he called Yiannopouloss appearance many bridges too far.

He has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes, Scahill wrote. Appearing on Real Time will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign.

Maher responded to Scahills criticism and doubled down on his decision to have the provocateur as a guest.

Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech, Maher said in a statement, according to Entertainment Weekly. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims and he might be nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night.

Maher also addressed Scahills criticism of his views on Islam. My comments on Islam have never veered into vitriol, Maher said.

Scahill isnt the first person to take issue with the way Maher discusses Muslims. During one episode, Ben Affleck attacked the host and panelist Sam Harris for their racist comments about the religion. (Harris called Islam the mother lode of bad ideas.)

Maher, a champion of free speech, often builds his shows around guests with widely varying views to promote lively debate. Earlier this month, he hosted staunch Trump supporter Tomi Lahren alongside Republican strategist Rick Wilson and Missouri Democrat and Afghanistan veteran Jason Kander. Ann Coulter, another specialist in inflammatory rhetoric, has also been a frequent guest.

[Bill Maher hosted conservative Tomi Lahren on Real Time. They were both preaching to their own choirs.]

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a talk by inflammatory Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and put the campus on lockdown after intense protests broke out on Feb. 1. (Video: The Washington Post / Photo: AP)

Yiannopoulos is no stranger to boycotts. Earlier this year he was scheduled to make an appearance at University of California, Berkeley, but violent protests broke out around the campus with demonstrators setting off fireworks and throwing bricks. University police ultimately canceled the event, which in turn prompted President Trump, in an early morning tweet, to threaten to pull the public universitys funding.

So far Yiannopoulos hasnt weighed in on the controversy on Facebook a social media account hes still allowed to have.

Original post:

'Liberals will continue to lose': Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts - Washington Post