Mediaboss Marketing

The company that owns one of the countrys largest shipyards was ready to lay off 400 workers to put pressure on Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison if he followed through with plans to delay the development a much-needed supply ship for the Canadian navy.

New emails detailing the high-stakes political drama surrounding the acquisition of the interim naval supply ship, which was at the heart of the controversial suspension earlier this year of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman from his post as the Canadian militarys second-in-command, were released Wednesday after legal action by a group of media organizations including Postmedia.

In November 2015, Brison, the Treasury Board President, was pushing for a review of the plan, approved by the previous Conservative government, to convert a commercial vessel into a naval resupply vessel at Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec. The $670-million deal would see the ship leased to the federal government for a five-year period.

But representatives at Davie and affiliated companies worried a review would delay the project indefinitely and eventually scuttle the program. There was also growing concern that Brison was pushing for the review on behalf of Davies rival Irving Shipbuilding, according to the emails.

Alex Vicefield, head of Inocea, the international shipping conglomerate that owns Davie, was ready to raise the stakes because of Brisons actions. He wrote to company officials and lobbyists that Brisons desire for an independent review was strange since the project had already been reviewed numerous times by independent agencies brought in by the federal government.

Sounds like a delay tactic, Vicefield wrote in a Nov. 19, 2015 email. If it does transpire to be that, I will do a full page plea in the Globe and Mail to Scott Brison asking that this Nova Scotia minister put his regional bias aside for matters of national security. then I will lay off 400 guys next week.

The RCMP alleges Norman provided updates on a Liberal plan to derail the navys interim supply ship program to officials with Davie and other affiliated firms. The RCMP alleges Norman did so in the hope of influencing the government to proceed with the delivery of the vessel.

Norman was suspended from his job as vice-chief of the defence staff in January, after the RCMP executed a search warrant on his home. The force has been investigating Norman for over a year, but no charges have been laid against him.

Normans lawyer, Marie Henein, has released a statement in which the vice-admiral unequivocally denied any wrongdoing. Instead, she said, Norman has been caught in the bureaucratic cross-fire.

The interim supply ship program, known as Project Resolve, is seen by many as being critical to the Royal Canadian Navy since the service has for some time been without the capacity to resupply its warships at sea.

The ship was unveiled in July at Davie and will be available to the navy for operations by the end of the year.

Brisons officials have denied that the ministers request for a review was in any way linked to the Irvings, and Irving Shipbuilding has denied allegations of political meddling.

The ship to be converted under Project Resolve had already been delivered to Davie when James D. Irving, co-chief executive officer of Irving Shipbuilding, wrote a Nov. 17, 2015 letter to procurement minister Judy Foote and defence minister Harjit Sajjan. Irving requested that its proposal for a similar vessel, already rejected by the Conservative government, be re-examined.

After receiving Irvings letter the Liberal government put Project Resolve on hold.

In an email to a naval colleague, Norman complained about what he saw as the blatant politics on the file and what he called Irvings efforts to block Davie. He considered resigning.

Details about the Liberals decision to put Project Resolve on hold, as well as Irvings letter and details of cabinet discussions about the matter, were leaked to the CBC in November 2015. The leak embarrassed the then-new Trudeau government and sparked outrage in Quebec over the potential loss of hundreds of jobs that might result were Davie to lose the ship deal. The Liberals beat a quick retreat and shortly afterwards, Project Resolve went ahead.

But the RCMP was brought in to find whoever had embarrassed the government by leaking information.

In an email to Postmedia on Wednesday, Alex Vicefield provided further details about his original email. At the time, we were already working on the ship as we were under an initial contract. We had around 400 employees onboard. If the project did not proceed, we would have had to lay off those staff.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has suggested that Norman will face trial, prompting concerns among the admirals supporters about whether he will get a fair hearing.

The new documents also include details about a discussion that reportedly took place between former Conservative defence minister Peter MacKay and Brison during a conference in Halifax in November 2015

Spencer Fraser, CEO of Project Resolve, told Vicefield and others that Mackay (sic) really let Brison have it. Our friend said it was quite heated and that Mackay (sic) apologized as he thought he may have hurt the (Royal Canadian Navy) by being so vociferous.

The RCMP alleges that the friend referred to in the email is Norman.

In an earlier email, Fraser noted that Peter McKay (sic) told Brison to get his head out (of) his ass.not sure it helped but at least he did it.

Email: dpugliese@postmedia.com | Twitter:

View original post here:
Shipbuilder was ready to lay off 400 workers to pressure Liberals if they delayed navy project - National Post

Scott Baios politics may trump his acting career.

I dont give a st if I ever work again, Baio,who spokeat the 2016Republican National Convention,sniped to The Hollywood Reporterin an interview released Wednesday. My country comes first. I guess Im just an old, angry, successful white guy who stole everything he has from someone else.

The 56-year-old Brooklyn native remains unfazed by other Hollywood types who regularly slam President Trump, 70, for various policy proposals, includinga border wall with Mexicoandan immigration ban, as well as hisattitudes toward women,the LGBTQ communityandwhite nationalists.

I dont give a st about Hollywood liberals. Theyre gonna hate the guy no matter what, the Charles in Charge star fumed. If he cured cancer, theyd be on him for putting oncologists out of business.

Baio added that his support for Trump has only grown stronger since the POTUS claimed violence came from many sides after Aug. 12 Unite the Right protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, in whichone woman was killedandseveral others injuredwhen a white nationalist drove a car into a sea of counter-protesters.

All this does is help Trump because people have had it. Conservatives in Hollywood have had it, Baio, whosemost recent IMDb creditis from 2014, asserted. We know who Trump is, and we dont believe the propaganda, and I dont think most of the country does, either. The media is almost irrelevant. Its predictable and boring. I want the man to get his agenda through, and everything else is a sideshow.

This article originally appeared in Page Six.

See the article here:
Scott Baio doubles down on Trump support: 'I don't give s--t about Hollywood liberals' - Fox News

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Pittenger asks: Why aren't liberals condemning Black Lives Matter and others? McClatchy Washington Bureau Rep. Robert Pittenger, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, said Tuesday President Donald Trump is getting unfairly blasted for his comments about the deadly Charlottesville rally, arguing that liberals haven't condemned Black Lives Matter and ... White people, here are 10 requests from a Black Lives Matter leaderLouisville Eccentric Observer all 46 news articles »

Read more:
Pittenger asks: Why aren't liberals condemning Black Lives Matter and others? - McClatchy Washington Bureau

The Liberal government has agreed to hold an emergency parliamentary committee hearing on Canada's ability to defend itself against an attack by North Korea, including whether the government should join the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

The Conservatives and NDP called on the House of Commons defence committee to study the North Korean threat amid an escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea. The Liberal members of the committee agreed on Tuesday to hold an emergency meeting on the matter before Parliament resumes on Sept. 18, although an exact date has not been set. The committee will hear from government officials and subject-matter experts on Canada's ability to defend itself and its allies against a North Korean attack.

"Canadians are talking about North Korea and what's been going on and they want to know answers to some of those questions," Liberal committee member Mark Gerretsen said.

Story continues below advertisement

The meeting comes after a series of tit-for-tat threats between the U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump threatened "fire and fury" upon North Korea after Pyongyang conducted two intercontinental ballistic missile tests in July.

The war of words between the United States and the hermit country has reignited a debate over whether Canada should consider joining the American ballistic missile defence (BMD) system a matter that will likely be discussed at the parliamentary hearing.

Video: U.S. pleased by North Korea's restraint: Tillerson (Reuters)

"Given the fact that North Korea has been toying with missiles, I think ballistic missile defence would be something that would most definitely come up," Mr. Gerretsen said.

Former prime minister Paul Martin originally opted not to join the U.S. program in 2005. The Conservatives also refused to join when they were in power from 2006 to 2015. In its recent defence-policy review, the Liberal government said Canada will continue to remain outside of the U.S. anti-ballistic missile program. Mr. Gerretsen said it is time to revisit that position.

"Given the threats that are continuing to emerge in the world and the fact that over the last number of years Canada has not been a participant when the United States is pretty much running the show with respect to missile defence, we should be having an ongoing discussion about what our role should be in that. And I think 10-years plus after the fact is a timely opportunity to have that discussion again."

Mr. Gerretsen said he does not know if other Liberal caucus members share his "personal" views.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office said that while government remains committed to its position on BMD, it noted ballistic missiles are just one of a variety of threats being considered as Canada and the United States work to modernize the North American defence system.

Story continues below advertisement

Story continues below advertisement

"The new [defence] policy commits the Government of Canada to examining, through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] modernization, territorial defence against all perils, including threats from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and other future technologies to provide Canadians with greater security at home," spokesman Jordan Owens said.

The Conservatives said they are waiting to hear from government officials before taking an official position on Canada's involvement in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

"It's up to the government of Canada to make a determination of how best to protect Canadians. And we will wait and see what that position is before we make any recommendations on any future engagement with defence co-operation with the United States and other NATO allies in how we deal with North Korea and other rogue states," said James Bezan, a Conservative committee member.

The NDP opposes Canada's participation in BMD. Foreign affairs critic Hlne Laverdire said Canada should instead focus on encouraging a diplomatic solution through talks with North Korea and allies, notably the U.S.

View post:
Liberals agree to hold emergency meeting on North Korea threat - The Globe and Mail

The Washington Post published a piece today offering a perspective on free speech by history professor Jennifer Delton.Ive read this piece twice now and Im still not sure I follow it. Partly because it seems to be on both sides of the issue and partly because the authors arguments seem self-contradictory at times. The piece opens with a dilemma for college administrators:

Heres the dilemma college presidents face in the fall: Either uphold free speech on campus and risk violent counterprotests, or ban conservative provocateurs and confirm the freedom of speech crisis on campuses.

A few paragraphs later the author writes this:

As college presidents try to figure out whether the First Amendment protects conservatives right to create political spectacle and instigate violence, it might be useful to recall another time when American liberals were forced to sidestep First Amendment absolutism to combat a political foe: the 1940s, when New Deal liberals purged U.S. communists from American political life.

Ive highlighted that phrase because its a cheat. In the first paragraph, the author puts the danger down to violent counterprotests. Thats a reference to the actions of left-wing groups in response to speech, i.e. what we saw at Berkeley. But a few paragraphs later, responsibility has shifted to the right for instigating the violence. Instigating itin what way? Byspeaking?

Once youve made theleap to blame the rights speech for the lefts violence, its only a short hop to the claim that maybe the left should sidestep First Amendment absolutism. Deltons main thrust is that some speech is actually part of a grand conspiracy which justifies treating it differently:

Historians remain divided about the pros and cons of American communism, but most agree that the party often operated in secret and that it was directed and funded by Moscow. Communists denied this, of course, but the partys activities were the basis of Hooks contention that the CPUSA was a conspiracy, and thus not protected by the First Amendment although its ideas were. Hook didnt think thatthe state should ban the Communist Party (which would be unconstitutional and ineffective), but that private citizens and institutions should shun and expose communists, denying them the opportunity to further their political agenda.

Is there a grand conspiracy behind both Milo Yianoppolis and Ben Shapiro speaking on college campuses? These are two individuals who have been publicly at odds with each other for some time. In any case, if we translate Deltons advice to the modern day, she seems to be recommending that progressives treat the rights speech on campus as a conspiracy which thereby justifies doing exactly what the left is already doing, i.e. denying their opponents opportunities to speak. She doesnt use the phrase hate speech to justify this, but the outcome is the same. This next bit may be my favorite though, continuing where the last paragraph left off:

Subsequent liberals (and most of my professors) condemned these anticommunist liberals for opening the door to McCarthyism and Cold War militarism. But given our current political moment and the threat posed by the actions of alt-right provocateurs, Schlesingers and Hooks arguments may bear revisiting.

In short, when liberals did this before it worked out badly, but maybe itll be different this time. Thats not much of a recommendation.

It would be one thing if Delton was simply arguing liberals should continuing doing what theyve been doing on the grounds that the right is responsible for the lefts violence. I think thats very misguided and unfair, indeed its an endorsement of the hecklers veto, but at least its a clear position. But Delton closes her piece by taking another jarring turn. She cites Jonathan Haidt to make the point that, actually, free speech really is under threat on campus from left-wingidentity politics:

At the same time, however, colleges and universities need to recognize that their liberal critics of, say, diversity policies or Title IX excesses are not political foes and should not be subject to censorship or censure. One reason the right has been able to so effectively exploit free speech is because campuses have become places where the free exchange of ideas has been curbed by peer pressure, self-policing and a self-righteous call-out culture, as described by Jonathan Haidt,Jonathan ChaitandMark Lilla. Until university presidents offer real leadership inreconciling the liberal critique of identity politicswith a new generation of diverse students, faculty and staff for whom such politics representprogress, they will be unable to protect their institutions from conservative attacks.

So to sum up her advice tocollege administrators: They should a) prevent the right from speaking to stop left-wingers from responding violently and b) preserve free speech on campus which is genuinely under pressure from left-wing identity politics. If administrators hope to untie that Gordian knot they better bring a sword.

Read the original:
Washington Post perspective: Liberals should stop being free ... - Hot Air