Daily Archives: May 8, 2017

In a recent interview, Jake Tapper asked Samantha Bee on CNNs State of the Unionhow she felt being the face of the liberal problem, essentially asking: how does it feel to be the reason Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election?

Tapper was referencing a recent New York Times article where conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, squarely framedSamantha Bee as embodying the the rapid colonization of new cultural territory by an ascendant social liberalism. Generally speaking, Douthat is claiming that the Left, while winning the culture wars as evidenced by an alleged media dominance, the surge in LGBTQA+ acceptance, etc., and relishing in those victories, has turned progressives into smug liberals. Its that smugness, Douthat and others claim, that has created strong counter-liberal-culture that not only rejects liberal ideas, but is willing to accept bad candidates, currently President Trump, to represent their ire against the constant smarter-than-thou attitudes of costal elites.

Theres quite a bit to unpack in those assertions. First, its important to know that Douthat is not the first person to make mention of liberal smugness. Just after the election of President Trump, D.C. conservative veteran Rob Hoffman, was published in Politico making the case for how the Left created Trump, or better said, how the Left created the environment for Trump to win the election. It was based on a similar thesis: The Right has had enough of the liberal smugness that makes it seem as though if youre not Liberal, youre probably racist, xenophobic, sexist, bigoted or all of the above.

Then you have Dave Rubin, once a regular liberal commentator, now doing Prager U. videos on YouTube explaining why he no longer identifies as a progressive liberal. He references statistics revealing how intolerant Liberal college campuses are and how students can now walk out on lectures over trigger warnings.

Rubin, like others, paint the Left these days simply as smug bullies. According to Rubin, if someone or a group finds your language offensive, youre branded a misogynist, bigot, homophobe, or transphobe, and are shunned by the more civilized Leftist society. White men are especially noted for their privileged status, giving the impression that they above everyone else have not earned whatever they have achieved, rather it is the outcome of the historical preference for white male dominance.

Right leaning pundits and commentators have latched on to this idea. The Right has adopted the term oppression olympics, oddly enough a term coined by the Left as response towards White trans-women overshadowing the plights of Black/Brown Muslim lesbians. The exemplary case here being how Caitlyn Jenner managed to highjack the conversation of trans-rights over the large number of minority women who have endured and still endure much harsher treatments from society.

In this term, oppression olympics, the Right has found a quick and snide way to describe a certain one-upmanship among minority groups who, according to the Right, compete with each other to claim most victimized status. The Right appropriately wont accept this dynamic as a political reality framing the Leftist ideology as a race to the bottom. Caught in a cycle of infighting, arguing over who is the oppressor and who is the victim; the Left often come off as their own worst enemy.

David French, senior writer at the National Review, further expanded on Douthats idea of cultural supremacy and said, Liberal dogma is rapidly becoming a secular religion. His assertion comes from his observations regarding the political discussion surrounding the science of climate change. He holds as an examplehow Bret Stephens was tarred and feathered for his piece in the New York Times regarding the uncertainty behind climate change models and how those who point at the uncertainty behind the science are mocked. French highlights that in spite of Stephens being an anti-Trump conservative, he was still lambasted for not only questioning the certainty the Left has over climate change, but also how the Left smugly claims moral superiority over anyone who thinks otherwise.

Rubin, Douthat, and French are not alone in thinking that the Lefts smugness is problematic in the entirety of the political spectrum. There are several on the Left who have joined the growing voices decrying liberal smugness.

Sam Harris, a vocal critic of religion, supporter of raising taxes on the very wealthy, and the decriminalizing of drugs and same-sex marriage, has joined the American Right in decrying how the Left makes excuses for Islam and Islamic terrorism. In a podcast with noted conservative Douglas Murray, Harris supported former conservative presidential candidate Ted Cruzs ideas to accept only Christians versus Muslim refugees during the Syrian refugee crisis, saying the position is not at all xenophobic. Harriss rationale was stated in its entirety for the sake of full context:

Is it crazy to express, as Ted Cruz did, a preference for Christians over Muslims in this process? Of course not. What percentage of Christians will be jihadists or want to live under Sharia law? Zero. And this is a massive, in fact the only, concern when talking about security. We know that some percentage of Muslims will be jihadists inevitably. [.] So it is not mere bigotry or mere xenophobia to express that preference. I hope you understand that I am expressing no sympathy at all with Ted Cruzs politics or with Ted Cruz. But it is totally unhelpful to treat him though he actually is a religious maniac like a bigot on this point. This is a quite reasonable concern to voice.

In making these claims, Harris has pointed out that other Liberals cant sever their feelings for inclusion and tolerance from the very real threat that not only religion, but Islam specifically, poses to civil society. To him, it is in this inability to separate the two that leaves Liberals confused, upset, and irrationally lash out against him.

His remarks came to a head when Harris joined Bill Maher on Mahers show. Maher voiced how Liberals need to stand up for liberal values, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to leave a religion without fear of violence, equality for women, equality for minorities including homosexuals, yet dont stand up for these same values when the need to criticize Islam arises. Harris nodded in approval. Maher alluded to liberal smugness as the reason why the incongruity isnt resolved. That in being smug about their position, other Liberals can all at once claim authority over what is proper to criticize, but remain blind to their own hypocrisy as they call out conservative efforts to suppress criticism of traditional structures.

Bill Maher, comedian and political commentator, recently became the talk of the conservative sphere when remarking on the cancelation of Ann Coulters speech at Berkeley after protests from students. He said, Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech, and now its just the cradle for fucking babies. Maher on many occasions has said that he and many other comedians dont do the college circuit anymore because, liberal college students only want to hear exactly what Liberals want to hear, and they want to shutter [Conservative ideas].

Bill Maher invited Caitlin Flanagan on his show to speak on the suppression of freedom of speech on college campuses. In a 2015 article, Flanagan argued that in college campuses, young people have decided that some subjectsamong them rape and raceare so serious that they shouldnt be fodder for comics, and that the PC police has all but banned the speech of people who disagree with them. She claims that other Liberals making a living off of making light of their sacred subjects of race, class, gender, and many other political minefields are unacceptable and must be shutdown. In a smug and condescending way, Liberals have made themselves the judges of what is proper and cultured and disparage anything that hurts these sensibilities.

An interesting aside here is that liberal students claim that it is their student activities fees paid to the college which are the honorariums paid to invited speakers. Since it is ultimately their money, they are voting with their money whom they would like to hear speak. This is a traditionally conservative position to takevoting with your money. Let the free market of ideas demonstrate which are the ones to be heard and which shall disappear. Yet, it still draws criticism from the Right and the Left doesnt see the irony.

Caitlin Flanagan, a writer for The Atlantic and self proclaimed Liberal, argued how the left-leaning late night show circuit made it possible for the Trump presidency. Her humanizing anecdote regarding an incident when Samantha Bees show ridiculed a young boy for having Nazi hair at the Western Conservative Summit, when in fact he was just a hopeful God-loving child with stage 3 cancer feels like a sharp sting. She says:

Ive thought about that a lotbut Ive also thought a good deal about the boy on Samantha Bees program. I thought about the moment her producer approached the childs mother to sign a release so that the womans young son could be humiliated on television. Was it a satisfying moment, or was it accompanied by a small glint of recognition that embarrassing children is a crappy way to make a living? I thought about the boy waiting eagerly to see himself on television, feeling a surge of pride that hed talked about church and Bible study. And I thought about the moment when he realized that it had all been a trickthat the grown-up who had seemed so nice had only wanted to hurt him.

My God, I thought. What have we become?

Samantha Bee: There Is No Smug Liberal Problem [VIDEO] https://t.co/fqqLdWsE8L pic.twitter.com/7ZQ6sfpJMe

The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 30, 2017

Bee, probably wasnt thinking of that point when she flippantly dismissed Tappers question of whether shes a smug Liberal or that if theres a smug Liberal problem.

Samantha Bee apologized to the child and his family. Her show donated money to the childs GoFundMe account. Yet, as helpful as it is to acknowledge the mistake and attempt to make amends, the whole episode does reek of a patronizing condescension.

Bee, reminiscent of Stewart disciples, such as Noah, Oliver, and others in the late night show circuit, such as Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, and Stephen Colbert have gleefully taken the worst and most glaring of the Right and mockingly tear it down and for the Left to enjoy. These jokes come back in the morning talk circuit and all the while people who espouse those ideas, those beliefs, seethe with anger because they are being disregarded and mocked. Douthat characterizes the whole enterprise as a series of hectoring monologues, where comedians are less comics than propagandists liberal explanatory journalists with laugh lines.

It makes sense that there are media outlets to cater solely to them. If there is anything weve learned about economics is that where theres an unmet mainstream demand, theres bound to be an alternative supply.

Some would argue that wrongheaded points of view are only worthy of mockery, and to position them with any level of respect is placing them in the same vein of validity as those who are obviously correct. In other words, to talk about bad ideas with any respect is to elevate them to an unmerited position.

Yet, who gets to be the judge of what is correct or what has merit? This is the fight that is played out across all media, social and otherwise, every second of every day to the detriment of all.

The Right resents having to endure challenges and changes to their family values, American values, and work ethics. This an important point because it is in how these values were traditionally framed is how we as a nation and western civilization came to be exceptional, as how the Right sees it. Even so its more important to recognize that the Right resents being mocked for holding on to these values. The Right would say, they are lampooning not only what we believe to be right, but also what has made us great, where my family comes from and me. They are making fun of our way of life.

So, why then with all this evidence, is Liberal smugness a myth? Before exploring that, its important to look at the myth of the angry Conservative.

[To be continued in Part 2]

Jose Robledo, Political Correspondent, Lima Charlie News

Jose Robledo is a former Army Staff Sergeant still Army Infantry Officer. After completing two combat tours, to Afghanistan and Iraq, he studied Political Economy at Columbia University, where he successfully led the student initiative to bring back ROTC to the campus.

Lima Charlie provides global news, insight & analysis by military veterans and service members Worldwide.

For up-to-date news, please follow us on twitter at@LimaCharlieNews

See the original post here:

The myth of the smug liberal - Lima Charlie News

The Liberal government is set to begin tackling mandatory minimum sentences this spring, but advocates for reform have been waiting a long time for the promise to play out.

"It's something the government promised long ago and its delivery is overdue," said Eric Gottardi, a Vancouver defence lawyer and past chair of the criminal justice section at the Canadian Bar Association.

"We are all kind of looking forward to it with bated breath."

The Liberal campaign platform was silent on mandatory minimum sentences, but then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tasked Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould with reviewing changes to the criminal justice system and sentencing reforms the previous Conservative government brought in as part of its tough-on-crime agenda.

Many of those changes involved imposing or increasing mandatory minimum penalties for dozens of offences, which critics decried for taking away the ability of judges to use their discretion in handing down a punishment that fits not only the crime, but also the person convicted of committing it.

The push to finally begin introducing legislative amendments on that front came as part of the response to the worsening problem of backlogs in the courts, which took on new urgency after the Supreme Court of Canada last year imposed strict limits on the length time an accused can wait to stand trial.

Changes to bail, preliminary inquiries and the reclassification of offences are other policy areas where the federal government is looking for solutions to that problem.

"Was it a kick in the butt?" Wilson-Raybould said after an April 28 meeting with provincial justice ministers on whether the ruling accelerated plans for reform.

"I think it was a call to action for all of us, absolutely."

Yvon Dandurand, a criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley in Abbotsford, B.C., said the Liberals could bring back some more flexibility to judges by creating special exceptions to some mandatory minimum penalties, an option he outlined in a report provided to the Justice Department last year.

Dandurand said he suspects the coming legislation will include a mix of adding special exceptions to some mandatory minimum sentences while abolishing others.

He said he also thinks, based on what he has heard from Wilson-Raybould and her officials during consultations, that they will go beyond reversing the last decade of changes.

"(They) said this sentencing reform they are contemplating is not just a matter of setting back the clock and changing what has happened during the Conservative government... but going back to principles and more fundamental changes to the sentencing regime that we have," Dandurand said.

The last overhaul of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code happened in 1996.

Conservative MP Rob Nicholson, who spent more than five years as justice minister under former prime minister Stephen Harper, said he does not want the Liberals to touch any of the mandatory minimum penalties.

"We were targeting very serious crimes," including the sexual exploitation of children, said Nicholson, who is now Opposition justice critic.

"If some of them are going to be getting a break in the next couple of weeks here, I mean obviously we'll oppose that."

Conservative MP Rob Nicholson, a former justice minister, said he does not want the Liberals to touch any of the mandatory minimum penalties. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The Supreme Court, however, has already struck down two of the Conservative sentencing reforms last year, including a mandatory minimum penalty of one year behind bars for anyone convicted of a drug offence. That measure was introduced in 2012 as part of an omnibus crime bill.

Alistair MacGregor, the NDP justice critic, said he would like to see the Liberals allow for more judicial discretion in some cases, such as for non-violent offences and first-time offenders, especially if the judge sees hope for rehabilitation.

A federal government source said it is too early to get into detail, but noted Wilson-Raybould was asked to look at all mandatory minimum penalties.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss matters not yet made public, said choosing which ones to amend is a matter of finding a political consensus over what will work.

Trudeau on Supreme Court Ruling on Mandatory Minimum Sentences1:22

Gottardi said he remembers leaving consultations with Wilson-Raybould feeling "buoyed and inspired" by the bold vision and encouragement to think outside the box when it comes to criminal justice reforms.

Now, he said, he suspects the Liberals might end up disappointing him.

"I have the sinking feeling that the reality of politics is quickly seeping in and we will see a much more muted response to mandatory minimum sentences than a lot of us are hoping for," Gottardi said.

That view stems from how much time has passed and the fact that the Liberal government ended up taking a "pretty careful and cautious approach" to legislation on difficult issues such as medically assisted dying and the proposed legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

Barry Stuart, a director with the Smart Justice Network of Canada, said he believes the circle around Wilson-Raybould is open to a "sea change" and he is willing to wait as long as it takes for the federal government to get it right.

"I don't want another quick bandage on the system I'm patient," said Stuart, a retired Yukon judge.

Read more:

Liberals eye changes to mandatory minimum sentences - CBC.ca

If you've lived in British Columbia for your entire life, this article probably isn't for you.

But if you're new to the province, or live elsewhere in Canada, it's a political question you'll inevitably ask: why do people argue over whether the B.C. Liberals are liberals or conservatives?

According toGooglesearch data, the third most common question people ask about the B.C. Liberals is: "Why are conservatives called B.C. Liberals?"and anumber ofcolumns andarticleshave been published on the topic in the last month.

But the reason the B.C. Liberals are an amalgam of people who support the Liberals and Conservatives federally without a fixed ideology in B.C. beyond "free enterprise" has less to do with themand more to do with the NDP.

Because while the names of the parties have changed, B.C. politics have been defined the same way for over 75 years.

"The primary dynamic in B.C. politics goes back to the second World War era," saidDavid Mitchell, a historian who has written multiple books about the province's political history.

The first era of political parties in British Columbia saw the Liberal and Conservative parties trade places in government, much like at the federal level. But when theCo-operative Commonwealth Federation which changed its name to the NDP in 1961 began to rise, the two establishment parties decided to combine forces in a coalition government.

"It was ostensively to have a united war effort, but the reality was the Liberals and Conservatives, the old line parties of that day, bandied together to prevent the CCF ... from forming the government," said Mitchell.

The coalition ruled B.C. from 1941 to 1952, but when itbroke up because of infighting, the Social Credit party under W.A.C. Bennett upended the old order and quickly usurpedthem as the dominant choice for non-NDPsupporters.

Former British Columbia premier Bill Bennett was one of four Social Credit premiers who led B.C. for 36 of 39 years between 1952 and 1991. (The Canadian Press)

"Social Credit then became the small-c coalition of the centre-right,"said Mitchell. "The old Liberals and Conservatives stayed on, but they became minor fringe parties for a couple generations."

First led by W.A.C. Bennett and then by his son Bill, the Social Credit Party ruled B.C. for 36 of the next 39 years.

But by 1991 and with an election looming, the party was mired in scandal, andvoters and businesses who didn't have a home in the NDP began looking for a new option.

"The NDP had come to government in 1991 for the second time, and if not Social Credit, what was going to be the united non-socialist, non-social democratic alternative?" said Mitchell.

Mitchell himself was one 17 MLAs elected under the B.C. Liberal banner in that 1991 election. The formerly fringe party had formally split from the federal organization prior to the election, andbecame the official opposition primarily through the strength of leader Gordon Wilson's campaigning.

WATCH: Gordon Wilson's famous 1991 debate performance

B.C. Elections: 1991: Gordon Wilson's debate triumph3:42

"The Liberals re-emerged as a force in the opposition, but was not yet that vehicle. It took a few years for them to emerge as the single, centre-right alternative," said Mitchell.

It happened over the course of many years for a variety of reasons:the election of Gordon Campbell as leader, the complete collapse of the Social Credit party, and the failure of other options like the Reform Party and Progressive Democratic Alliance to make inroads.

But by 2001 they were the preferred option for all non-NDP voters, and won a historic 77 and 79 seats in B.C.'s legislature.

"The Liberals were anything but Liberal in the large L, centre-left sense ... but it became uniquely in the British Columbia context: necessary to become the single vessel to serve as an alternative to the NDP," said Mitchell.

The party's nameis theLiberals,but they're really the third iteration of what has been the dominant group in B.C. for decades: the sometimes right-wing, sometimes-centrist, always against the NDP, free enterprise party.

It may be why longtime B.C. residents accept the differencewith ease. But it doesn't make it any easier for outsiders to intuitively grasp.

"When people think of Liberals in British Columbia, they need to check their biases about what is a liberal," said Mitchell.

"To be a liberal in B.C. is a very different thing indeed."

Here is the original post:

Why the BC Liberals are sometimes liberal and sometimes not - CBC.ca

PUBLISHED: 19:51 07 May 2017 | UPDATED: 19:51 07 May 2017

Kim Briscoe

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat candidate for the North Norfolk constituency. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY

Archant

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

But the party will strip wealthier pensioners of the winter fuel allowance, at a cost of up to 300 a year to older people.

An estimated 600,000 pensioners with annual incomes above about 45,000 would lose the allowance under the Lib Dem plans, saving the Treasury around 105m.

But the party said all of those receiving the full state pension would enjoy a rise from 122.30 to at least 137.15 a week by 2021, the equivalent of an extra 772 a year.

The manifesto plans have been welcomed by Norman Lamb, former Liberal Democrat MP and prospective parliamentary candidate for North Norfolk, the constituency with the eleventh highest number of pensioners in the country.

Mr Lamb said: The Liberal Democrats are making a clear commitment to older people in Norfolk, unlike the Conservatives who have repeatedly refused to give this guarantee.

The triple lock has succeeded in lifting thousands of pensioners out of poverty, but many are still struggling to get by.

He added: This commitment will ensure older people are able to meet their basic needs and that their living standards will be protected, especially with prices set to rise in the coming years.

The triple lock was a feature of the Liberal Democrat manifesto in 2010 and a key demand in coalition negotiations. Since its introduction in 2010, it has seen pensioner incomes rise faster than average earnings, sparking warnings from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies that it will swallow up an ever greater share of state spending.

A cross-party House of Commons select committee report earlier this year described it as inherently unsustainable and recommended it should not be continued beyond 2020.

Labour has also pledged to retain the triple lock, which guarantees the state pension will rise in line with inflation, average earnings or 2.5pc, whichever is the highest.

But speculation is rife that Conservatives will ditch the guarantee, after Prime Minister Theresa May declined opportunities to confirm it would feature in her manifesto for the June 8 General Election.

A Conservative spokesman said: Because of the strong economy we have delivered, Theresa May and her Conservative team have increased the basic state pension by 1,250.

The real risk to pensions comes from Jeremy Corbyn propped up in a coalition of chaos by the Lib Dems and the SNP.

A Labour Treasury spokesman said: You cant trust the Liberal Democrats.

They broke their promises and would do it again.

Only in September their former leader Nick Clegg called for the triple lock to be dropped.

For a party with so few MPs, they cannot agree with each other on anything, as we saw with tuition fees in the last parliament, you just cannot trust what the Lib Dems say.

See the original post here:

Liberal Democrats promise to protect 'triple lock' for state pensions - Norfolk Eastern Daily Press

A political columnist who voted for then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in last years presidential election has some blunt advice for the twice failed presidential candidate after she announced her intentions this week to remain involved in politics.

Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f up and go away already, wrote Gersh Kuntzman, a columnist at the New York Daily News, in a column earlier this week.

I voted for Clinton on Nov. 8 and thought shed be a good president, he explained. But she lost. And she still wants us to feel bad about that. And, worse, shes still blaming everyone else.

In an interview earlier this week, Clinton said she takes absolute responsibility for her loss to President Donald Trump. But during the same interview, Clinton said she would be president if it werent for a myriad of reasons, such as: Russian meddling and FBI Director James Comey sending a letter to Congress just days before the election.

If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president, she declared.

During the interview, Clinton also announced that she is writing a book about her 2016 loss, which she said is painful to relive.

But Kuntzman disagrees with Clinton adamantly. His column, titled, Hillary Clinton shouldnt be writing a book she should be drafting a long apology to America, lays out the reasons why Clinton lost the election, despite her failure to admit even one.

Boo hoo, he wrote. Simon & Schuster may want Hillary Clinton to write the history, but Im not about to let her re-write it. No one deserves more blame for the election debacle than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to Kuntzman, there are four specific reasons Clinton lost the election: her untrustworthiness, a poorly run campaign, her private email server and her Goldman-Sachs speeches.

On Clintons untrustworthiness, Kuntzman wrote:

Remember her fainting spell at the 9/11 ceremony? Remember how long it took for her to tell the truth? Remember how that reminded every voter in America that Hillary Clintons first instinct is to lie?

Just like she did when she claimed she had taken sniper fire during a First Lady trip to Bosnia. Just as she did when she said she never sent classified documents over her private email server.

Second, Kuntzman hit Clinton for her very poor campaign. Kuntzman said that once Clinton labeled Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, the election was was pretty much over.

Third, Kuntzman cited Clintons decision to use a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state: Its basic. The only reason to set up a private email server and delete some of the emails on it is because you want to hide something from the public. Clinton never provided a good answer to the simple question, Why would you do that?'

Lastly, Clinton can blame her tight relationship with Wall Street as a reason she lost to Trump, according to Kuntzman.

You cant be a prostitute on Wall Street and then go to church on Main Street, he wrote.

The American public does not want a book from Hillary Clinton. It wants an abject apology. And it wants it for free. She got what she deserved: She lost, Kuntzman concluded. Now she needs to shut up and go home.

View post:

Liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton has blunt advice for her: 'Shut ... - TheBlaze.com