Mediaboss Marketing

People have been struggling to pay their bills and support their families as costs continue to skyrocket. Now Canadians are taking another hit to their budgets clawbacks on the Canada Child Benefit (CCB) by over $600 per family.

By clawing back the support these families count on, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are punishing people who lost their jobs during a global pandemic. This is beyond inappropriate. Families rely on the CCB to help them make ends meet and cover the growing cost of their mortgages, groceries and gas for their cars. These clawbacks will be devastating, particularly for mothers with multiple children who will see the largest reductions.

People need help right now. But instead of being there for families, the Liberals keep choosing to make things harder for them while supporting ultra-rich companies. Huge grocery chains, oil and gas companies and big box stores are making a fortune off of hardworking people by taking advantage of global crises to justify sky-high prices. The Liberals aren't taking action to address this corporate greed or make the ultra-rich pay their fair share. If that wasn't bad enough the federal government is actively making cuts to families funds.

Forcing families to shoulder the burden of increasing prices alone while cutting their income is irresponsible and wrong. New Democrats know that in hard times our government should be helping people, not protecting the profits of the rich. Thats why weve been urging the Liberals to make big oil and gas companies and grocery chains pay their fair share and to redistribute this money to Canadian families.

New Democrats will fight for you and your family by pushing the government to stop the clawback and add $500 to every Canada Child Benefit to get more money in people's pockets.

Visit link:
NDP urges the Liberals to stop punishing hardworking families - New Democratic Party

Haldimand-Norfolk MP and Conservative Party leadership candidate Dr. Leslyn Lewis released a statement yesterday going after both the Liberal Party and legacy medias racist narratives about minority Canadians. Dr. Lewis when she calls what these groups do racist is referring to the way they view minority voters as a block that all vote the same.

Of course, the Liberal Party and left-wing legacy media project that minority voters in Canada are natural left-wingers, which also has the racist undertone of implying that minority voters need government social programs in order to prosper.

In her email, Dr. Lewis stated:

The media attention that Patrick Brown received was all about how he was going to deliver the ethnic vote to the Conservative Party, as if he alone could speak for them. As if there is a them a single block of ethnic voters who need to be rescued because they were victimized by a white system and only a progressive-leaning white man can rescue them.

As someone who grew up in a community filled with new Canadians and many visible minorities, let me say that I am not a victim in need of a political saviour, nor are the hard-working visible minorities of this great country.

Dr. Lewis then goes on to state how gross she thinks it is that the media thinks that minority voters can be passed between politicians, as if they are drones who only vote for who they are ordered to.

Dr. Lewis continues, saying:

When the media and even people within our own party treat minorities as a single voting block it is a shocking display of identity politics and frankly, the kind of racism that is antithetical to our conservative values of freedom, merit and hard work.

Patrick Brown could not deliver the ethnic vote. He was free, as all of us leadership candidates are, to make an appeal to the conservative values that they have. But they did not belong to him.

The fact that the media assumes that Patrick Brown can now bequeath unto Jean Charest this so-called ethnic vote is the epitome of the colonial thinking that they claim to hate. The oppressed minority with the white saviour narrative that keeps us begging for a seat at the table rather than being judged by our abilities.

She then goes on to cite specific instances of supposedly tolerant people like Joe Biden or those in the Canadian legacy media treating black voters and politicans differently depending on if they are on the right or the left.

Dr. Lewis mentions Biden specifically saying that black Americans who vote for Donald Trump in 2020 aint black as rather racist shaming tactic, which implies real black Americans can only be Democrats.

Dr. Lewis then ends her email off by stating:

Can I deliver the so-called ethnic vote to our party in the next election? I have done so in the past, and I can do it again. But not because I fit some checkbox. Because I treat people like everyone else. There are individuals all across Canada who come from many different backgrounds and I am able to connect with them on an authentic values level.

And by breaking out of the racist narratives the Liberals and their friends in the media perpetrate we can build a truly inclusive party that represents everyone. I believe in a Canada where people are judged by the content of their character and that is what I will continue to fight for.

This emailed statement was not the only time Dr. Leslyn Lewis has called out left-wing racism in the recent past. Just a couple of weeks ago Dr. Lewis also slammed Liberal MP Anthony Housefather for making racist comments about US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for his position on American Constitutional law after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Here is the original post:
Leslyn Lewis Slams The Liberals And Media For Pushing "racist narratives" About Minority Voters | - The Paradise News

The federal government is proposing to use an industry-specific cap-and-trade system or a modified carbon pricing system to set a ceiling for emissions from the oil and gas sector and drive them down almost 40 per cent by the end of this decade.

The two options are contained in a discussion paper Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault will publish Monday. It is the first glimpse Canadians are getting of how the Liberals expect to implement the oil and gas emissions cap promised in last year's election.

The oil and gas industry accounts for more than one-quarter of Canada's total emissions 179 million tonnes in 2020, or about what an average car would emit driving around the equator more than 17 million times.

Our award-winning journalists bring you the news that impacts you, Canada, and the world. Don't miss out.

"We simply cannot ignore the fact that the oil and gas sector is Canada's biggest emitter," Guilbeault said in April during a House of Commons committee meeting studying the proposed emissions cap on oil and gas.

What Guilbeault didn't say then, and what the discussion paper doesn't say now, is what the specific emissions cap will be. It's supposed to start at "current levels" which going by the data that was available when that promise was made would mean 2019 levels, or 203.5 million tonnes.

Background documents and government sources suggest the cap for 2030 will be very close to the one proposed in the new national Emissions Reduction Plan in March 110 million tonnes. That's a 46 per cent cut from 2019 levels, and 32 per cent over 2005.

Canada is aiming to cut emissions across all sectors 40 to 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.

The oil and gas sector has not had emissions that low since 1992. In the last three decades, as production of gas, conventional oil and oilsands soared, emissions from the sector have risen 83 per cent. Overall emissions in Canada are about 23 per cent higher over the same time period.

Input on the options to manage the cap will be accepted until Sept. 21 with Guilbeault aiming to unveil the final plan early in 2023.

The first proposed option involves a new cap-and-trade system on the oil and gas sector in isolation. The total emissions allowed would be divided into individual allowances which will be allocated to specific companies mainly through an auction.

Companies that don't buy enough allowances to cover their emissions will have to buy allowance credits from other oil and gas companies that bought more than they need.

The funds raised from the auction would be recycled to programs that help the sector cut emissions.

The second option would modify the industrial carbon price already applied to the oil and gas sector, possibly by hiking the price itself if needed, but with the aim of ensuring the emissions from the oil and gas industry itself fall by limiting the trading of carbon credits to the sector.

Companies can currently reduce the carbon price they pay by buying credits from others that produce less than their emissions limit. The modified plan would allow them only to buy credits from other oil and gas companies, not from other industries.

Most of Canada's oil and gas producers are already cutting emissions due to other regulations and a desire to become a cleaner, more competitive option for global customers.

That has been the Conservative party's position on the industry for years using cleaner Canadian fossil fuels to displace dirtier ones produced elsewhere.

The industry has work to do, particularly on the oil side, where Canada's heavier oils require more energy to extract from the ground than in places like Saudi Arabia. While oilsands emissions per barrel of oil, known as the emissions intensity, is down about 30 per cent since 1990, it's still higher than many global competitors.

The Oil Sands Pathway Alliance, with six of the biggest oilsands companies on board, is aiming to get emissions to net zero by 2050, mainly through carbon capture and storage projects that trap greenhouse gases before they go into the atmosphere and then store them back underground.

The alliance, whose member companies account for 95 per cent of oilsands production, released a plan this spring aiming to cut 22 million tonnes of emissions from 2019 levels by 2030.

Company leaders have said they're not opposed to a cap, but insist it must be realistic and based on consultations with industry about what is feasible. Anything more than that would likely drive production cuts and job losses, they have argued.

But the Alliance and government remain far apart on some fundamental issues, such as determining where current emission levels actually stand. The most recent national inventory report says oilsands production and processing emissions were 83 million tonnes in 2019, but the Alliance pegs the figure at 68 million.

A government official, speaking on background because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said if the cap on emissions for the oil and gas sector comes in higher than the Emissions Reduction Plan, it will force other industries to cut more than their share or Canada won't meet its 2030 targets.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 17, 2022.

Here is the original post:
Liberals offer first glimpse into long-promised oil and gas emissions cap - Canada's National Observer

The left-wing takeover of American elite universities is a very old story. In 1951, a young William F. Buckley Jr. created a sensation with God and Man at Yale, his first book, which documented the largely socialist and atheist worldview that even then prevailed in the classrooms of the Ivy League institution from which he had just graduated.

In much of American academia today, that worldview no longer merely prevails. It overpowers. It is pervasive, aggressive, and deeply intolerant. Half a century after Buckleys debut, an even younger conservative graduating from another prominent university Ben Shapiro of the University of California Los Angeles published his first book, Brainwashed, which picked up where Buckley had left off. I have seen firsthand the leftist brainwashing occurring on campus on a daily basis, wrote Shapiro. Under higher educations facade of objectivity lies a grave and overpowering bias.

That was in 2004. The imbalance Shapiro described then is even more pronounced now. It seems almost superfluous to document the phenomenon, but documentation continues to be compiled. In surveys of college faculty members by the Higher Education Research Institute over several decades, liberals have always outnumbered moderates and conservatives. That is especially the case in New England, as Sarah Lawrence College political scientist Samuel Abrams noted in a 2016 New York Times column:

Get Weekend Reads from Ideas

A weekly newsletter from the Boston Globe Ideas section, forged at the intersection of 'what if' and 'why not.'

In 1989, the number of liberals compared with conservatives on college campuses was about 2 to 1 nationwide; that figure was almost 5 to 1 for New England schools. By 2014, the national figure was 6 to 1; for those teaching in New England, the figure was 28 to 1. . . . If you are looking for an ideologically balanced education, dont put New England at the top of your list.

And definitely dont put Harvard on your list.

The Harvard Crimson reported last week that 82 percent of Harvards faculty of arts and sciences characterize their political leanings as liberal or very liberal. By contrast, only 1 percent of respondents stated they are conservative, and no respondents identified as very conservative. Compared to the rest of the country, New Englands 28-to-1 lopsided liberal faculty dominance may appear wildly out of whack. But it is a model of evenhandedness compared to the 82-to-1 slant among the Harvard professoriate.

Moreover, reports the Crimson, thats the way most Harvard instructors like it. When asked whether they would support increasing ideological diversity among faculty by hiring more conservative-leaning professors, only a quarter of respondents were in support, the paper reported.

From time to time in the world of higher education, proposals are floated to actively increase the share of faculty members whose outlook is more conservative. A few years ago, an Iowa lawmaker drafted legislation to require public colleges in his state to ensure that liberal and conservative faculty members be hired in equal numbers. The University of Colorado at Boulder has an endowed visiting professorship in Conservative Thought and Policy. The conservative activist David Horowitz for several years promoted an Academic Bill of Rights, lobbying state legislatures to pass measures barring universities from (among other things) hiring, promoting, or terminating professors based on their political beliefs.

I am skeptical of such efforts. The steady leftward march of academias most prestigious institutions is a genuine problem, but it isnt one that can be solved by tokenism or litmus tests, or by involving the government in hiring decisions. Frankly, I doubt that it can be solved at all other than perhaps by building up new institutions of higher education a worthy process, but one that, even in the best of circumstances, will take many years to succeed.

Harvards 82-to-1 faculty ratio of liberals to conservatives makes a mockery of the universitys avowed commitment to diversity. A handsome page on its website declares that Harvards commitment to diversity in all forms my italics is rooted in our fundamental belief that engaging with unfamiliar ideas, perspectives, cultures, and people creates the conditions for dramatic and meaningful growth.

Those fine words arent true, of course. Everyone knows that Harvard has no desire to uphold diversity in all forms. Like other institutions that go out of their way to trumpet their embrace of diversity the media, Hollywood, major-league sports Harvard wants its people to be diverse only when measured by the yardsticks that matter least: race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation. But the clash of ideas? A robust competition among worldviews? The exposure of students to compelling arguments that challenge liberal and progressive shibboleths? Thats not what Harvard is interested in. It hasnt been for decades.

Jeff Jacoby is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby. This column is excerpted from the current issue of Arguable, his weekly newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit bitly.com/Arguable.

The rest is here:
What Harvard means by diversity - The Boston Globe

When Roe v. Wade was overturned last Friday, a million hot takes like the following (by a Democratic consultant) hit the internet:

This is an attempt to own pro-life activists by saying: Here is the logical result of your court ruling. How do you like that, cons?!

You see this everywhere. Heres Hollywood actor Ken Olin with the same brilliant OWN:

Most pro-lifers would support all of the above. And so it has been with every single conservative Supreme Court ruling this summer. Prominent liberals who apparently have gone through their whole life never talking to a conservative who cares about abortion, gun rights, school choice, or religious liberty have threatened to give conservatives something they thought conservatives would hate.

Heres a liberal commentator calling for less casual sex to own the cons:

Moving to guns, check out this nakedly racist LA Times column, promoting a trope that I've never seen any real gun-rights advocate embrace.

Or this, by a liberal author with 290,000 Twitter followers.

That gem evoked the typical reply that any conservative knows to give:

Conservatives love school choice. And an Islamic school in Maine might be the most socially conservative and least-woke school in all of Maine. Were supposed to oppose state funding going toward such an institution?

My only objection is that the state, after this current ruling, would only provide this Muslim-school tuition to parents who lack a government-run school in their district. Why limit it there?

Then the libs did it again on Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled that prayer, like other speech, is protected. Here was a typical reaction, this one from a liberal outlet with nearly half a million followers.

So, wait do these people actually think Sam Alito and Amy Coney Barrett would hate the idea of Muslim coaches praying on their own after a football game?

Really, Really American?

Perhaps all of these commentators and operatives are really this ignorant. Perhaps they have never spoken to a pro-lifer about abortion and unwanted pregnancy, to a gun-rights activist about gun ownership, or to a school choice or religious-liberty champion about free exercise and school choice. The other possibility is that these public figures just enjoy stirring up hatred among their followers.

Neither explanation reflects well on any of them. And this, such as it is, is the inherent advantage that conservatives have in the culture wars. We are constantly exposed to the Left's views. They have been shoved down our throats for decades. We know and understand their arguments. Many on the Left are exposed only to caricatures of our views. They can't even conceive of the idea that there are other views.

We know our enemy better than they do.

Continue reading here:
Yes, liberals, please own the cons - Washington Examiner