Category Archives: Liberal

Bill Mahertook aim at liberals who couldnt bring themselves to vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election on Friday.

The Real Time host asked the liberal purists who said Clinton was the lesser of two evils how they were feeling now that President Donald Trump had celebrated his landmark first 100 days in office last Saturday.

This isnt about reliving the last election or my great love for Clinton, which never was, but this is about winning the next election, said Maher. And that begins with learning the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy.

After noting how various liberal politicians, activists and commentators had said that either a Trump or Clinton administration would be a disaster, Maher asked whether conservatives would now control the Supreme Court if the just-as-evil-Hillary had won.

Just wait until the 5 to 4 decisions start rolling in, gutting unions, making it harder for minorities to vote, siding with polluters, overturning abortion rights, he said. Then maybe youll join me in saying to the liberal purists, go fuck yourselves with a locally grown organic cucumber.

Check out the full segment above.

View original post here:

Bill Maher Shreds 'Liberal Purists' Who Said Hillary Clinton Was 'Lesser Of Two Evils' - Huffington post (press release) (blog)

Fake news purveyors circulated a story saying former Fox News Channel host Bill O'Reilly had been beaten unconscious in New York on May 4, 2017. (AP photo)

Ousted Fox News host Bill OReilly had already taken a drubbing over sexual harassment allegations, but fake news purveyors then started circulating a false story that hed been beaten unconscious, too.

"Bill OReilly in critical condition after being attacked by tolerant liberals," read a headline on a May 4, 2017, story at DailyUSAUpdate.com. We found the story posted on other websites, as well.

The article was flagged by Facebook users as being potentially fabricated, as part of the social media sites efforts to winnow fake news from users news feeds.

The post which again, is fake said OReilly was buying bagels in New York when three men and two women began complaining about his treatment of women.

OReilly was forced off Fox News Channel on April 19 and lost his show, The OReilly Factor, after multiple reports of sexual harassment. The New York Times had reported the network paid about $13 million to settle claims.

The confrontation turned aggressive when the liberals (as identified in the story) attacked OReilly, dragging him into the street and kicking him until "until he was unconscious and bleeding."

The attackers ran off, the post said, leaving OReilly with four broken ribs and a punctured lung. He possibly suffered "a cardiac event," the story said.

Except none of the details about an attack are true. There is no apparent way to contact DailyUSAUpdate.com administrators, who have hidden the sites registration information.

There were no reports from legitimate media sources that this event occurred, in any case. Surely such an attack would have been widely covered.

The hoax came about a week after other reports that Ted Nugent had been killed in a hunting accident and Sarah Palin had been run off the road and was in a coma.

The fake OReilly story originally came from TheLastLineOfDefense.org, a parody website that has been the source of several fake news stories that weve previously checked.

TheLastLineOfDefense.org publishes bogus posts keyed to topics designed to inflame conservatives. The articles quite often end up being passed around on multiple websites, often without an indication that they are fake.

TheLastLineOfDefense.org doesnt immediately indicate that any of its stories are fake, but its About Us link notes that "all articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney."

And thats what we call this fake report baloney.

Actually, we rate it Pants On Fire!

Here is the original post:

Fake news says Bill O'Reilly beaten unconscious by liberal New Yorkers - PolitiFact (blog)

A local election breakthrough for the Liberal Democrats fuelled by pro-European Union supporters angry about Brexit failed to materialise with overall losses of 37 seats.

Despite the poor showing, the partys vote share increased, prompting the party to claim it could win scores of seats at the general election on June 8.

The news came as the LibDems announced plans to put 1p on income tax to raise an extra 6billion to spend on hospitals and and social care.

Party president Baroness Brinton said the party was breathing down Labour's necks with a projected national vote of 18 per cent, up four per cent, against 27 per cent for Jeremy Corbyn's party.

Party sources said that, if repeated at the general election on June 8, seats from Bath and Cambridge to Cardiff Central and St Albans would fall to the LibDems.

Some forecasts said the party could win as many as 27 seats, treble the partys nine seats in the last parliament.

Lady Brinton said: We have halved the gap on Labour in just one night and scored our best national election result in seven years.

Labour is collapsing and we will stand up for people to provide the strong opposition this country needs.

Continue reading here:

Liberal Democrats pledge to put 1p on income tax to pay for NHS as local election fightback falters - Telegraph.co.uk

Do you believe in hoax after hoax after hoax?

Bryan R.Smith/AFP/Getty Images

A daily roundup of the biggest stories in right-wing media.

Shortly after the presidential election last November, vandals struck a Bean Blossom, Indiana, church, defacing it with graffiti featuring a swastika, along with the phrases Heil Trump and Fag Church. The trouble, as many conservative media sites reported late this week, is that the perpetrator wasnt actually a Trump supporter. To the contrary, it was a liberal member of the congregation.

As Independent Journal Review explained: "Six months later, the culprit has been discovered: the same organist who originally reported the graffiti on the side of the church." That organist, George Nathaniel Stang, reportedly confessed to his actions, claiming that they had been a "false flag" designed to help galvanize resistance to the then newly elected Trump. "Stang admitted to wanting to 'mobilize a movement' but did not expect the national media coverage that the incident received," IJR wrote.

Many outlets stressed Stangs sexuality when discussing the hoax. Gay Choir Director Admits to Spray-Painting Heil Trump Graffiti on His Church After Election, read a headline on Glenn Becks the Blaze. Though the accompanying article also brought up this point, it did so only in passing. The sites commenters, however, focused on it, variously suggesting that it indicated Stangs church was not really a church at all and that since they have a gay choir director, they certainly arent doing everything right, among other observations. Breitbart likewise referred to Stang as a gay activist as well as a Hillary supporter.

In an article titled Yet Another Hate Crime Turns Out to Be a Hoax, the Daily Caller connected the arrest to what it saw as larger trends in the representation of hate crimes. The vandalism was mentioned in 15 articles by [the Washington Post], yet, as of publication time, they have yet to write about Stangs arrest, it reported. Noting that CNN had also not yet published an updated story on the topic, the site stated: "In the wake of Trump's election there has been a surge in reported hate crimes, however, they frequently end up being hoaxes." (In the month after the election alone, the Southern Poverty Law Center recorded 1,094 bias-related incidents. The Daily Caller says that it reported on five hoaxes during that same general time period.)

An opinion survey accompanying the Daily Callers article asked readers whether they Think There Is an Epidemic of Hate Crime Hoaxes in America. Completing the survey automatically enrolls voters in "Daily Caller news updates free of charge."

Several conservative outlets mocked Cher for a series of tweetswhich Fox News website called bizarre and unhingedin which she worried that there would be no support for conditions like asthma, from which she suffers, under the AHCA. Noting, "Cher was an outspoken supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election," that Fox News post mostly took the opportunity to revisit many of her stranger Twitter moments.

Though Cher seemed to be using her own illness as an example (and suggesting that it was just one of many conditions that would be endangered by the bill), Breitbart also wrote that she was "lamenting that the bills signature into law would threaten to cut funding to treat her asthma." Embracing this framing, some of the sites commenters mocked the singer and actress for believing that the government should pay for health care. They weren't alone in that understanding: "Isnt it about time Cher paid her fair share?" asked Gateway Pundit before pointing out that the pop star is "worth $305 million" and suggesting that she will be just fine.

Posts mocking Cher also performed well on Facebook:

Go here to see the original:

Today in Conservative Media: A Liberal False Flag - Slate Magazine (blog)

KSN-TV

Baseball: Maize takes control of regional seeding with win over ... Wichita Eagle Maize and Bishop Carroll improved their outlook for Class 5A regional seeding, as the two Wichita powers took turns beating Liberal in a doubleheader played ... Bishop Carroll and Maize baseball continue strong seasons with ...KSN-TV all 3 news articles »

Continue reading here:

Baseball: Maize takes control of regional seeding with win over ... - Wichita Eagle

By Joanna Smith The Canadian Press

OTTAWA Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised political donors would not get preferential access to his government, and now the Liberals are trying to show they mean it as they revive their high-profile fundraising efforts.

The prime minister will be appearing at the Museum of Fine Arts in Montreal for a federal Liberal party fundraiser Thursday evening, which is unremarkable except for the fact that anyone can go.

Anyone, that is, who has up to $250 to spare for a ticket, wants to give that money to the Liberal Party of Canada, and is not registered to lobby the PMO.

It is a chance for Liberal supporters to get a word or a selfie with the party leader, but it will also be a time when the Liberals can once again rely on their surest bet for topping up the party war chest as they prepare for the next election.

READ MORE:Liberals detail measures to ensure no preferential access at fundraisers

The Liberals brought in a moratorium on fundraising events featuring Trudeau and other ministers earlier this year as they worked to develop new rules in the wake of accusations they were providing preferential access to the prime minister and his cabinet in exchange for dollars from wealthy donors in private homes.

There was a pause on national fundraising events throughout the first quarter while stronger standards for open and transparent fundraising events were being prepared, Liberal party spokesman Braeden Caley said Wednesday.

The new system involves holding fundraisers featuring Trudeau or ministers only in public places, announcing them in advance, allowing the media to attend and disclosing the guest list within the following 45 days.

Some Liberals are pointing to that as one reason for lacklustre fundraising figures in the first three months of this year, when the Conservatives raised nearly twice as much money, from a bigger pool of contributors, even though they are in the midst of a leadership race that could be diverting would-be donations to the party.

READ MORE:Justin Trudeau says he has no problem answering questions from ethics watchdog

Theres a small connection, Caley said when asked whether the lower profile played a role.

According to the latest financial returns the parties filed with Elections Canada, the Liberal party brought in $2.8 million from 31,812 donors in the first quarter of 2017, while the Conservatives received $5.3 million from 42,473 contributors.

The Conservatives also outdid the governing Liberals in the first quarter of 2016, but by a smaller margin, and the red team brought in more than the blue team in the final two quarters of last year.

Caley pointed to the high proportion of donors who gave $200 or less as a sign of a strong grassroots base.

The Liberals are calling on the opposition parties to bring in their own transparency measures.

Soon, they might not have a choice, as the Liberal government promised legislation that would require similar disclosure for events involving party leaders and leadership candidates.

READ MORE:Liberals fundraising indicates a shift from public cynicism: Trudeau

Canadians will know about the events in advance, where they are being held, the cost to attend, and they will know who attended them, Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould said in the House of Commons Monday as she revealed she is ready to move on an item in her mandate letter.

John OLeary, her spokesman, said the government aims to introduce the legislation this spring.

One Liberal source said the legislation will be essentially the same as the measures the party brought in, which would prevent the party having to once again change the way they are doing things.

One significant difference, according to two Liberal sources, will likely be the lack of a requirement to open the events up to the media, as there is recognition of the difficulty with any law aimed at governing the press.

The Conservatives and New Democrats say they do not plan on taking any lessons from the Liberals.

The reality is they werent able to follow their own set of rules the first time, said Conservative MP Blaine Calkins.

New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen said his skepticism stems from the way the Liberals abandoned a firm campaign pledge to change the way Canadians cast their ballots in time for the next election.

I have very, very low trust with this government when it comes to democratic reform, he said.

Continue reading here:

Justin Trudeau to attend public fundraiser as Liberals resume high-profile events - Globalnews.ca

Dear progressive women who think using their sexuality as a weapon in combating sexism: Youre wrong.

Some of you like to be referred to as nasty women as if its a credit to your intellect.

Some of you think that wearing hats that resemble vaginas is a show of solidarity amongst your gender but just because you have a vagina doesnt make you any different from women who usetheir bodies for personal, professional or financial gain, and who are often the verypeople you rail against in secret.

Some of you proudly call yourselves sluts and worse and become offended when others wrongfully agree with you.

Some of you think that feminism entitles you to match the lowest wits of the very men whose actions you lament,lowering yourselves to levels that you claim to abhor.

Heres the thing: Using your sex to fight sexism is meaningless.

Feminism by its very definition is the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. Its got nothing to do with one-upping a man in a beer-drinking contest. Its got nothing to do with parading your female body parts around for all to see and expect no negative reaction.

When did supporting your fellow woman have to become so vulgar?

Since Donald Trump became president (and before, to be fair; but much more as of late, it would seem), women from all walks of life have been coming out of the woodwork in droves, flaunting their assets and using colorful language to highlight their intellectual superiority as if they think its the way to get on par with men.

Women dont need raunchy sexuality to make a point.And they certainly arent taken seriously by those whose respect theyre demanding when the aforementioned actions are the ones they take to prove theyre bigger, better, smarter, faster, and more apt to get ahead in life.

Never before has there been such a divide between what many women consider female empowerment and what it really is.As a result, the actions that some take are setting the movement back decades. What women today are seeing is a watered-down version of feminism, complete with cheap shots intending the world to know that, somehow, genitals and lewd behavior equal dominance and power.

Many feminists use The Feminine Mystique as their female version of a bro bible. But if more women were looking toward Proverbs 31, their interpretation of what it means to be a strong, empowered woman might change, and thus, the world around them.

Proverbs 31:10-31 reads:

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.

She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.

When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.

She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.

Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Isnt that the type of woman youre really aiming to be, despite freeing the nipple, protesting to burn down the White House and organizing things called Slut Walks? Dont you want to be and be seen as noble, hard-working, wise, strong, giving, loving, dignified, beloved and honored? What could be more revered than all of those traits combined?

Heres a newsflash: Many actions of women today are more crass than class, and trying to outdo every action that they despise in order to spite those who do them makes them look foolish and weak.

When women lower themselves to taking the same actions of the dregs of societys opposite sex, theyre not proving Anything you can do, I can do better.

Actually, yes, they are. And is that really the message they want to be sending to their fellow women or the next generation of women wholl inhabit our world?

Hopefully not.

Feminism used to stand for equality, strength, unity and respect.

Somewhere the message got lost in a cloud of crass vulgarities, and it feels like its finally boxed itself into a space where theres no going back.

Excerpt from:

Commentary: Liberal women must stop trying to fight sexism with sexuality - TheBlaze.com

In a region awash in populist, euroskeptic andanti-immigrant sentiments,theCzech Republic has acted as the last bastion of liberal democracy butthat could soon change.

Although Czech President MilosZeman the self-proclaimed "Czech Donald Trump" is and has been notoriously xenophobic, power has lainprimarily in the hands of pro-EUPrime Minister BohuslavSobotka. Sobotka has beenleading the Czech Republic's coalition government as a memberof the center-left Social DemocraticParty since 2014.

But after ongoing conflict surrounding the taxes ofAndrej Babis,the country's finance minister,Sobotkaannounced his resignation on Tuesday.And he says he's taking parliament with him.

"It is unacceptable for the finance minister not to be able to prove the origins of his property," Sobotka said at a news conference. "Especially since he is a member of a government that has built its program on a fight against tax evasion."

Babis is the country's second-richest man. He founded the centrist, anti-corruption ANO (Czech for "yes") Party in 2011. As finance minister, his stated goal was to shake up a corrupt Czech government, using the managerial skills that made him such a successful businessman. As the BBC's Rob Cameron in Prague put it, Babiswanted to "drain the swamp Czech-style."

"Now Mr. Babisfinds himself at the center of a controversy over his own tax affairs," Cameron says."He'sbeen accused of basically buying 55 million euros of tax-free bonds from his own business empire."

With Sobotka's exit, and the country's lawmakers with him, the future of the Czech government is completely up to President Zeman. And it seems no one is certain what he will do.

"He's an unpredictable character," says Cameron.

Cameron says Zemancould do anythingfrom delay Sobotka's resignation,to appoint a new prime minister and caretaker government. But any government established by Zeman would surely stand in stark contrast to the oneled by Sobotka.

Zeman and Babis are both known for euroskeptic rhetoric, leading some to worry that their leadership will invite the creeping populism now common in surrounding countries like Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

"Pro-Russian, euroskeptic governments and politicians. Autocratic, anti-liberal democracy," Cameron says. "Some observers do believe that is what is on the way herein the Czech Republic."

The country is due to hold parliamentary elections in less than six months. Cameron saysBabis and the ANO Party are currently polling at 30 percent, while the Social Democrats are polling at 15 percent.

"One thing is certain [President Zeman] will milk this to the full," says Cameron. "This really puts him in the spotlight and it casts him in the light as a 'power broker' and that's a role he will enjoy very much."

Go here to see the original:

Things just got shaky for the last liberal democracy in Central Europe - PRI

The only people who cant recognize that our nation has a smug liberal problem are smug liberals. Case in point, smug liberal (and television comedienne) Samantha Bee. On Sunday, CNNs Jake Tapper asked Bee to react to a pre-election Ross Douthat column that called out Bee and other late-night comics in part for creating a comedy world of hectoring monologues, full of comedians who are less comics than propagandists liberal explanatory journalists with laugh lines.

Were all familiar with the style. It features the generous use of selective clips from Fox News, copious amounts of mockery, and a quick Wikipedia- and Google-search level of factual understanding. The basic theme is always the same: Look at how corrupt, evil, and stupid our opponents are, look how obviously correct we are, and laugh at my marvelous and clever explanatory talent. Its like sitting through an especially ignorant and heavy-handed Ivy League lecture, complete with the sycophantic crowd lapping up every word.

Bee, the host of TBSs Full Frontal, of course, couldnt see the problem and not only told Tapper that she didnt think there was a smug-liberal problem, she also howlingly added that in her own show, We always err on the side of comedy.

Yep, they sure are hilarious (language warning):

The irony is that at the exact moment when Bee was denying Americas smug-liberal problem, smug liberals were in full meltdown mode over Bret Stephenss first column for New York Times. Stephens is a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist, anti-Trump conservative, and a former columnist for the Wall Street Journal. In his essay for the Times, Stephens had the audacity to gasp address the possibility of scientific uncertainty in the climate-change debate.

Lets be clear about what Stephens actually said. Heres his summary of the current state of climate science:

While the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. Thats especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future.

Heres the translation: Science teaches us that humans have helped cause global warming, but when we try to forecast the extent of the warming and its effects on our lives, the certainty starts to recede. In addition, the activism has gotten ahead of the science. Indeed, Stephens even quotes the New York Times own environmental reporter, Andrew Revkin, who has observed that he saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.

Not only did the hyperbole not fit the science at the time, but Stephens writes censoriously asserting ones moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

As if on cue, parts of liberal Twitter melted down. Stephens was instantly treated as, yes, an imbecile and a deplorable. Not only did the vast majority of commentators ignore his argument, they treated it as beneath contempt. But can anyone actually doubt that climate predictions are uncertain? Does anyone doubt that climate activists rhetoric has far outstripped not just the scientific consensus but even the bounds of good sense? This 2008 Good Morning America report is just too funny not to repost:

Note that GMAs dystopian future with Manhattan sinking under the waves is set in 2015.

Bizarrely, even the commentary calling for Stephenss head inadvertently make his point. For example, David Roberts writes in Vox that the New York Times should not have hired climate change bullshitter Bret Stephens, but buried in the middle of Robertss harangue is this to be sure paragraph:

Of course we are never certain about anything. Of course scientists have been wrong before. And of course climate science especially when it tries to project damages at smaller temporal and geographic scales, like the next several decades is filled with probabilities and uncertainties.

Umm, yes, and thats exactly why we need to ask hard questions about proposed solutions rather than simply accepting environmentalist propaganda at face value.

Liberal dogma is rapidly becoming a secular religion, a faith that conspicuously omits any requirement that one love his enemies. Christians have long struggled to keep one of Christs most difficult commands, but many leftists dont even try. To many, its not even a virtue. Indeed, the same kind of vitriol is a hallmark of the post-religious Right and is part of the explanation for extreme polarization. Post-Christian countries eschew Christian values, including the very values that can and should prevent even the most ardent activists from becoming arrogant...and intolerant.

Yes, there is a smug-liberal problem in America, one that smart liberals recognize. Stephens is right. You dont win converts with mockery. You can sometimes win grudging compliance, but you mainly make enemies especially when your mockery reveals your own ignorance and inconsistency. But as we know, the smug liberal doesnt care. They want to make enemies. After all, how do they measure their own virtue? When the Right rages, they rejoice. The unbelievers deserve their pain.

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Excerpt from:

America's 'Smug-Liberal Problem' - National Review

Contrary to claims from President Trump and Fox News, N.E.A. grants also help rural, not-New York, not-wealthy, Trump-friendly districts.CreditPHOTOGRAPH BY CLARK SCOTT / ALABAMA DANCE FESTIVAL

Last autumn, I had a mischievous fantasy that I would fudge my address as Bartley, Nebraska, or Piedmont, South Dakota, on some grant applications in the hope of boosting my odds for success. If every other writer applying to the Guggenheim or the National Endowment for the Arts lives in Brooklyn, or Silver Lake, wouldnt a rural Zip Code give my application a glimmer of geographic diversity? I offer this small confession because many writers, painters, musicians, and art teachers, suffering the proverbial Stockholm syndrome, have internalized the Republican dogma that established artists in coastal cities are hoarding public and private art funds, in a self-serving parochial loop.

The scholar-in-residence at Fox News, Tucker Carlson, spouts this widespread view. On a recent episode of his eponymous show, Carlson insisted that government agencies like the N.E.A. are welfare for rich, liberal lites, and wondered why taxpayers are subsidizing entertainment for rich people. And Paul Ryan has claimed that the art generated by N.E.A. grants is generally enjoyed by people of higher income levels, making them a wealth transfer from poorer to wealthier citizens.

As has been widely reported, Trumps 2018 budget, America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again, would eliminate the N.E.A. and three other national cultural agencies: the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The combined budgets of these operations make up a negligible part of the total budget: 0.02 per cent. If you are a rich, litist New Yorker posing as a family-values, heartland-loving, frugal populist, however, attacking the N.E.A. seems like just the right thing to do.

Trumps budget director recently punctuated this thinking for reporters. I put myself in the shoes of that steelworker in Ohio, the coal minerthe coal-mining family in West Virginia. The mother of two in Detroit, Mick Mulvaney said, and Im saying, O.K., I have to go ask these folks for money and I have to tell them where Im going to spend it. Can I really go to those folks, look them in the eye, and say, Look, I want to take money from you and I want to give it to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?

Mulvaney might want to ask his former constituents what they think of government arts money. Before Trump appointed him, Mulvaney represented South Carolinas Fifth Congressional District. Trump won this mostly rural and agricultural district by a margin of eighteen percentage points. Grants awarded to that district during Mulvaneys tenure sound rather necessary and impressive. The City of Rock Hill, population 64,555, was awarded fifty thousand dollars to incorporate locally inspired art, design, and installation in public infrastructure projects. Newberry College received nine thousand dollars so that middle- and high-school band students could attend intensive clinics led by college faculty. And the Arts Councils of Rock Hill and York Counties garnered ten thousand dollars for a touring performing-arts series. Theres more, but you get the idea.

In addition to broadsides coming from the right, some artists harbor a cool ambivalence for the N.E.A., too. If you were a Pakistani-American experimental filmmaker, say, completing a video exhibition pondering the digital optics of military surveillance and the U.S. drone program, would you necessarily want the N.E.A.s resources or imprimatur for your work? If you were a Latina painter from the Bronx, completing a triptych illustrating the boom of federal prison construction and mass incarceration, would you necessarily want the N.E.A.s stamp? But to say that the N.E.A. can be a disadvantage for more politicized artists is not to say that the agency is litist and not worth saving. The Alabama Blues project, which preserves blues as a musical art form through education, has been a recurrent N.E.A. grant recipient, much like the Alabama Dance Festival, which features residencies and performances by many troupes across the South, including Contra-Tiempo, a Latino dance theatre company. And the Catawba Cultural Preservation Project, also in Mulvaneys red district, received fifty thousand dollars last year to help Catawba Indian tribal artisans.

Killing the N.E.A. has, of course, long been a cause clbre for so-called budget hawks and social conservatives. But contrary to claims from Trump and Fox News, and to the insecurities of artists, the N.E.A. is not a federal spigot for decadent city lites. Rather, its grant-making effectively spans the country and helps rural, not-New York, not-wealthy, Trump-friendly districts. Despite the decades-long attempts on the right to paint the N.E.A. as rarefied snobbery welching off the state, forty per cent of N.E.A. activity happens in high-poverty areas. Thirty-six per cent of its institutional grants help groups working with disadvantaged populations. And a third of grants serve low-income audiences. The N.E.A. also helps military veterans, a decidedly non-urban lite population. The agency recently added four clinical sites to its existing seven; these sites provide creative-arts therapies for service members, veterans, and families dealing with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

On a per-person, proportional basis, smaller and more rural states, such as Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska, reap bigger benefits from N.E.A. funding than blue-state metropolises. Many rural, poorer areas would be the hardest hit by Trumps elimination of government arts programs. Mind you, that such a disproportionate number of N.E.A. grants per capita get rewarded in Trump-voting districts does not render the N.E.A. worthierof saving; the fact merely points to the conservatives demagoguery and indifference toward government-related successes in their own back yards. The N.E.A. enlivens this countrys theatres, music houses, libraries, veteran halls, and more. While Trump promises to resuscitate our physical infrastructureroads, airports, and bridgeshe angles to gut our cultural infrastructure, by nixing public arts programs.

The N.E.A. was saved in the budget agreement hammered out in Congress this week. But the arts were not on a budget chopping block as a matter of money, of course, but as a matter of faux populism, and as the next iteration of the culture wars. The proposed arts cuts are not an austerity measure; theyre a know-nothing strategy of dominance to undercut humanists, researchers, writers, artists, a thinking public. Removing government support from the arts belongs on a frightening logical continuum of perpetrating disinformation and fake news. The lifelong excuses offered by Trumps circle to cut funding for the arts vex a thinking mind. Before becoming Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, as the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, fired off a letter explaining why he was preparing to slash the budget of the N.E.H., the sister institution ofthe N.E.A. How dare it, Sessions complained, fund the Bridging Cultures program, which distributes books related to Islam to over 900 libraries across the United States. The incensed senator attacked the appropriateness of N.E.H grants tackling big questions that he dismissed. But they are just the questions that anyone living in America, red state or blue, could benefit to ponder. What is belief? What is the meaning of life? Why are bad people bad? and Why do we study the past?

Excerpt from:

The NEA Really Isn't Welfare for Rich, Liberal lites - The New Yorker