Mediaboss Marketing

CNSNews.com (blog)

Levin Warns of the 'Bleak Tyranny' of Liberals, Calls Americans to 'Take on Their Elites' CNSNews.com (blog) Appearing on Tuesday's show, Levin explained how his new book, Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism, warns of the dangerous, destructive principles behind liberalism. It's vitally important to understand what liberal elites ... and more »

Read the original here:
Levin Warns of the 'Bleak Tyranny' of Liberals, Calls Americans to 'Take on Their Elites' - CNSNews.com (blog)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insisted Tuesday that his Liberal government has been keeping its promise to be fiscally responsible and blamed the previous Conservative administration for being at least partly responsible for higher-than-expected deficits.

Trudeau maintained the Liberals remained consistent with their 2015 election commitment to add about $10 billion in new spending for 2016-17, their first full year in office.

He argued, however, that the Liberals had to deal with a baseline deficit of $18 billion after coming to power, even though their Tory predecessors had predicted a balanced budget.

The Tories have long disputed Liberal claims that they left the country in the red at the time of their electoral defeat, which came part way through the 2015-16 fiscal year.

In trying to make his case Tuesday, Trudeau re-ignited the bitter political debate over the post-election state of the public books that raged between Liberals and Tories long after the election.

"We just went from a floor where the budget was balanced, because supposedly the Conservatives had balanced the budget, to what was the reality of our budget of being at about $18 billion in deficit at the end of that first year," Trudeau told a news conference.

"So, we've been consistent with our plan and our approach."

When asked about Trudeau's comments, a spokeswoman for Finance Minister Bill Morneau later said that, when the Liberals formed government, Ottawa's books were facing a baseline deficit of $18.4 billion for 2016-17.

The fiscal impact left behind by the Tories was a $1-billion deficit that affected the bottom line in 2015-16, Chloe Luciani-Girouard wrote in an email.

Earlier this month, Trudeau told Global's West Block that a combination of low oil prices and the "economic situation the Conservatives left us" left the Liberals facing a bigger shortfall than anticipated.

Each party held power for several months in 2015-16, a year marked by economic disappointment primarily linked to the weak global economy and low oil prices.

In fiscal 2015-16, which was partly under the Conservative government and partly under the Liberals, Ottawa ended up posting a deficit of $1 billion. The Harper government had projected a surplus of $1.4 billion for that year.

The Tories blamed the eventual shortfall on fresh spending by the Liberals.

On Tuesday, Tory MP Gerard Deltell pointed to testimony last fall by the parliamentary budget officer. Jean-Denis Frechette told a House of Commons committee that Ottawa would've posted a small surplus in 2015-16 instead of the slim shortfall had it not been for new Liberal spending measures.

Conservative MP Gerard Deltell questions where Trudeau's numbers on the deficit the Liberals inherited came from. "Did he find it in a Cracker Jack (box), or what? Because this is all wrong." (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)

Deltell said he didn't know how Trudeau came up with the $18-billion deficit number.

"Did he find it in a Cracker Jack (box), or what? Because this is all wrong," he said Tuesday in an interview.

Deltell got personal in his criticism, which points to just how sensitive the debate over the Harper government's budgetary legacy has been.

"For me, it's no surprise because the guy said two years ago that the budget balances by itself, which was totally stupid," Deltell said.

"When we talk about numbers, the prime minister is not exactly the best person and the most accurate person in Canada to talk about it."

The Trudeau government has faced repeated attacks for a budgetary outlook that project several years of deficits, including a shortfall of $23 billion for 2016-17 and no timeline to balance the books. The final 2016-17 figures are expected in the fall.

This fiscal year, the Liberal government is predicting a deficit of $28.5 billion, including a $3-billion accounting adjustment for risk.

The Liberals have also been criticized for abandoning fiscal pledges from their election campaign.

They won on a platform that vowed to run annual shortfalls of no more than $10 billion over the first three years of their mandate and to eliminate the deficit by 2019-20.

A federal report, published on the Finance Department website in December, predicted that, barring any policy changes, Ottawa could be on a path filled with annual deficits until at least 2050-51.

On Tuesday, the prime minister refused once again, however, to say when the books would actually be balanced.

"We made the decision ... in the last election that instead of focusing on balancing the books arbitrarily, and at all costs, we would focus on the investments needed to grow the economy," he said, referring to the Liberal plan to run deficits in order to invest billions in areas such as infrastructure.

"We're always going to be fiscally responsible in the decisions we make."

Follow this link:
Liberals meeting fiscal goals, but inherited $18B baseline deficit, Trudeau says - CBC.ca

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch a reactionary who dresses up his cruel views in folksy charms. Above, Gorsuch in the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, protravel ban, anti-gay, antichurch/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Although Gorsuch has barely been on the bench for two months, he has already had an opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time. In each case, he has chosen the most conservative position. On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples the constellation of rights, benefits, and responsibilities that the states have linked to marriage, including birth and death certificates. Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuchs dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas in dissenting from the courts refusal to review a challenge to Californias concealed carry laws. California grants concealed carry permits for good causenamely, a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. Gun advocates challenged this rule, alleging a violation of the Second Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regime, and on Monday, the court declined to reconsider its decision. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vociferously, essentially declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to carry loaded firearms in public. Not even the archconservative Alito joined their bizarre opinion. It appears Gorsuch is eager to strike down almost any law that limits the right to keep and bear arms in any way. If adopted by the court, Gorsuchs theory would effectively bar state and local governments from passing almost any kind of gun safety legislation.

Monday also revealed Gorsuchs deep hostility to the separation of church and state. He joined Chief Justice John Roberts opinion for the court in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that a state may not constitutionally refuse to subsidize houses of worship. The court, joined by Gorsuch, held that, when a state declines to fund a churchs improvement project, it somehow violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her vehement and impressive dissent, Roberts opinion held for the first time that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Roberts decision is especially noteworthy for its complete rejection of originalism: As Sotomayor painstakingly proved, the United States has a rich history of laws preventing the government from directing taxpayer funds to houses of worship. Never before has the court found that these laws somehow interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Gorsuch joined Roberts opinion, although he parted ways with the chief justice when it came to a critical footnote that limited its holding. Trinity Lutheran involved playground resurfacing: The church wanted a state grant for a special rubber substance it wished to pour onto its play area. In a footnote, Roberts wrote that this case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. (Emphasis mine.) Gorsuch, as well as Thomas, rejected this footnote; both justices wrote separately to declare that theyd go further, holding that any disparate treatment of religious organizations likely runs afoul of the Constitution. That seemingly benign statement implies that both justices would force states to funnel more taxpayer money to churches and religious groups. To their minds, the government discriminates against religion when it refuses to subsidize it.

Then, finally, theres the travel ban ruling. In a compromise decision, the justices allowed Trumps executive order to take effect but exempted foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The order gives the Trump administration most of what it wants, while ensuring that individuals with significant ties to the U.S. will not be turned away at the border. Yet Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, opposed this compromise: He wouldve let the travel ban take effect in its entirety, as he believes it to be lawful. So much for the fantasy of Gorsuch standing up to Trump.

When Trump first nominated Gorsuch, I was relieved he hadnt picked an outright lunatic, and I felt cautiously optimistic that Gorsuch might be less of a hard-line conservative than liberals believed. I was wrong. Gorsuch is the worst kind of justice. He is a reactionary who dresses up his cruel, antediluvian views in folksy charm; who professes restraint while espousing extreme, sweeping views; who has no sympathy for vulnerable minorities but believes Christians are being oppressed. And he will guide the course of the law for the next 30 years or more. He is a catastrophe for proponents of civil rights and equal justice. And his influence over the court only stands to grow.

This country is in terrible trouble.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court Breakfast Table - Slate Magazine

OTTAWA The federal government's long-promised counter-radicalization centre is now open, but the appointment of a special adviser to shape a national strategy could be months away.

The government says the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence will provide national leadership, co-ordination and support to stop young people from heading down a dark path.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says the new centre will help society do as much as humanly possible to prevent radicalization to violence before tragedy strikes.

The centre's community resilience fund will put money toward intervention programming and research.

Special adviser to be named in coming months

Officials are launching a call for proposals beginning July 6, and an initial 10 projects have already received money.

In the coming months, a special adviser will be appointed to meet with young people, community leaders and experts across Canada to identify priorities and shape a national strategy on countering radicalization to violence.

The 2016 budget provided $35 million over five years and $10 million annually thereafter to prevent extremism from taking root.

The resilience fund will have $1.4 million available for projects in 2018-19. For 2019-20 and beyond, it will have $7 million each year for existing and new projects.

Visit link:
Liberals Launch Anti-Radicalization Centre Without Special Adviser - Huffington Post Canada

Malcolm Turnbull has told Melbourne radio station 3AW there will be no legislation to legalise same-sex marriage until a plebiscite has been held. Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/AAP

Malcolm Turnbull has killed a push to bring forward a new private members bill on same-sex marriage, saying legislation wont be brought on until there has been a vote of the Australian people.

The prime minister told 3AW on Tuesday the government would not allow a new private members bill to be considered until a plebiscite on the question had been held. That is our position. That is our policy.

There has been open talk around the government for months that moderates have been preparing another legislative sortie on marriage equality. That activity is the backdrop to covertly recorded comments made by Christopher Pyne over the weekend.

Pyne said at a Liberal party function that marriage equality would happen and, I think it might even be sooner than everyone thinks. And your friends in Canberra are working on that outcome.

Pynes indiscretion triggered a fierce backlash from conservatives, and prompted the prime ministerial shutdown on Tuesday.

Turnbull said MPs were entitled to bring forward any matter in the Coalition party room and marriage equality will be considered by the party room in the run-up to the next federal election.

But he said the government had no plans to change the current policy. Im just saying to you that the government has a policy, we have no plans to change it, full stop.

A recent Senate inquiry paved the way for a Coalition private members bill.

Government moderates who have been preparing new legislation believe the Coalitions position on marriage equality must now default to a free vote, because the plebiscite has been defeated, and Tony Abbott said publicly the 44th parliament would be the last to be bound to the plebiscite commitment.

That position is rejected by conservatives. Tasmanian Eric Abetz said on Tuesday morning the plebiscite policy stood, and it was particularly important that cabinet ministers defended party room policy.

Pynes bout of plain speaking on marriage equality, and his declaration that party moderates are in the winners circle has triggered another factional brawl within the government, and the public airing of hostilities.

Abetz took exception to Pyne undermining the governments policy on marriage and his statement of long time support for Turnbull. Pyne told his colleagues at the Liberal party function over the weekend he and the attorney general, George Brandis, had voted for Turnbull in every ballot he had stood in.

What Mr Pyne regrettably did was provide a verbal selfie to the Australian public and I dont think it was a very pretty picture, Abetz said, describing the outburst as divisive and hubristic.

Abetz said cabinet ministers who lost confidence in the party leader were duty bound to report their disloyalty to the leader, and then resign.

With his MPs in open dispute, Turnbull said on Tuesday the party room was very harmonious, very united.

The prime minister said unity was evidenced in the government dealing with difficult issues including schools funding and energy policy. We have come to very solid landings on that.

Asked whether there was bad blood inside the government, Turnbull said the government was united, although he conceded people could rub each other up the wrong way.

Look, people in politics, individuals, get scratchy with each other, and thats human nature. But the fact is the government is delivering.

Asked how he could combat voter disengagement, Turnbull said the antidote was truth-telling and delivery.

Asked by his host Neil Mitchell about impressions that he was a Labor lite prime minister who didnt believe in anything, Turnbull said: These are headlines written by clickbait journalists.

You are better than that, Neil. You are better than that.

Continued here:
Malcolm Turnbull kills off moderate Liberals' push for marriage equality bill - The Guardian