Mediaboss Marketing

OTTAWA The Liberals are moving forward with their signature election promise of a broad-based income tax cut, introducing a motion in parliament that will gradually increase the personal income tax exemption for all but the wealthiest Canadians.

It marks their first policy move in the House of Commons since the election and the first test of how theyll negotiate the new minority parliament situation, as the NDP look to redirect some of the money towards dental care.

Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the move on Monday, giving notice of a motion to raise the Basic Personal Amount the amount of income you can earn before paying taxes to $15,000 by 2023. The benefit will be reduced for those earning more than $150,473, and fully phased out for those in the top bracket (earning above $214,368).

The government estimates 20 million Canadians will benefit from the move, including a further 1.1 million who wont pay any federal income tax. When fully implemented, individuals will save $300 per year on average and families $600 per year. It will cost the federal treasury $3 billion in the 2020/21 fiscal year, rising to $6 billion when fully phased in.

Of course Conservatives always support tax cuts

The change will need to be enshrined in legislation, but for now, the introduction of the ways and means motion allows the Canada Revenue Agency to start administering it effective Jan. 1, 2020.

The Liberals first move after the 2015 election was also to implement a tax-cut campaign promise. But unlike then, this time the Liberals will need help from at least one other party to get it passed in the House of Commons.

We look forward to working with the other parties, Morneau told reporters.

This is the commitment we made to Canadians during the election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau added later in question period. We certainly hope to see support from all sides of the House on this measure.

The most likely ally is the Conservative Party, who had a similar broad-based tax cut in their platform, though the party hasnt yet said how it will vote on this. Asked about the Liberal plan by reporters on Friday, Conservative finance critic Pierre Poilievre acknowledged his party would find it hard to vote against a measure that reduces taxes.

Of course Conservatives always support tax cuts, he told reporters. Its in our DNA. Its who we are.

New Democrats, meanwhile, decided to use the opportunity to pitch their election platforms promise of dental care.

We have a better idea, NDP finance critic Peter Julian told reporters after Morneau announced the motion. He said the Liberals should cap the tax cut to those making $90,000 or less, and use the resultant savings for dental care for the 4.3 million Canadians who dont currently have a plan.

We know that relieves pressure on the healthcare system, and we know that will make a terrific difference in the lives of those families, he said.

NDP ears perked up last week when the Liberals included a mention of dental care in their throne speech. The government is open to new ideas from all parliamentarians, stakeholders, public servants, and Canadians ideas like universal dental care are worth exploring, and I encourage parliament to look into this, said the speech, written by the Prime Ministers Office.

Don Davies, the NDPs health critic, said he was somewhat heartened by the mention, though would have preferred a stronger commitment.

Parliament sits for the rest of this week and then isnt scheduled to return until Jan. 27, 2020. It isnt yet known whether the motion will be voted on before the break.

Email: bplatt@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Follow this link:
Liberals move forward on promised income tax cut, with first phase to start in January - National Post

On December 12, 2019 ABC news reported "Security video confirms that a police shootout in Jersey City, New Jersey, with a pair of rifle-wielding suspects who allegedly killed a detective and three others was part of a rapid series of crimes, including a deliberate attack on a Jewish deli, authorities said."

Rabbi David Niederman, president of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg and North Brooklyn, a Satmar Hasidic group, said that two of the victims killed in the Jersey City Kosher Supermarket were Orthodox Jewish. He identified them as 33-year-old Mindel Ferencz, the wife of the deli owner and mother of five, and 24-year-old Moshe Deutsch, a Yeshiva student...

The suspects were identified as David Anderson, 47, and Francine Graham, 50, Grewel said.

Both Anderson and Graham are believed to be followers of the Black Israelites, a group that espouses hatred toward Jews..."

Dov Hikind, founder or Americans Against Antisemitism wrote "As Jewish bodies were still laying in cold blood after being murdered by terrorists a reporter of Americans Against Antisemitism captured spontaneous anti-Semitic tirades blaming Jews for their own murder and people cheering on!" See video here.

Here are some of the comments from the video:

One bystander says- "I am no blaming nobody / another bystander responds - "I am: I blame the Jews cause we never had a shooting like this until they came. If this had been the other way around they would be kiling us and everybody who is standing right here know that. Cause if this had been the other way around they would be killing us right now. Look how black people act. We can't do it to them? They don't give a f***about us. My children is stuck at school because of Jew Shenanigans. They all the problem because if they ain't come to Jersey City this s***would never go on. People's kids are scared. People's kids are stuck at school. Take that shit somewhere else [referring to dead bodies still there]. [addressing Jewish reporter] It was your kind that did it here right? Yeah, you know. And four you all dead right? Four of your people that were dead right? If they was dead, they got shot dead, that's great! Get the damn Jews the f***out of here. Get these f***Jews, get the Jews out of Jersey City! "

On November 12, 2019 Jweekly.com reported about the rise of African American attacks in New York "On Friday night, surveillance video captured a man throwing a brick through the window of a Hasidic girls school in Crown Heights. On the same night in the Borough Park neighborhood, at least three identifiably Orthodox men were punched by assailants. Also in Borough Park, multiple Orthodox Jews in Borough Park had eggs thrown at them over the weekend.

Antisemitic incidents in the city have increased significantly this year, according to data from the New York Police Department. Through September, there have been 163 reported incidents, up from 108 over the same period last year an increase of 50 percent. Antisemitic incidents make up a majority of reported hate crimes in New York City."

The rise of African American antisemitism is caused by incitement by some important African American community leaders such as Louis Farrakhan. On July 17 1984,Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, a group with tens of thousands of African American followers across America said that "Hitler was a very great man."

On April 16, 2019 Jack Crowe wrote in the National Review "Nation of Islam founder and notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan defended Representative Ilhan Omars glib description of the September 11 attacks Monday by dismissing the attacks as nothing more than a false-flag operation designed to draw the U.S. into Middle Eastern conflicts...The tweet expresses Farrakhans support for Omar, who has received an onslaught of criticism from Republican lawmakers and conservative pundits for using the phrase some people did something to describe the World Trade Center attacks, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.

Farrakhan has previously blamed a cabal of highly placed Jewish government officials for helping to execute the attacks.

There were many Israelis and Zionist Jews in key roles in the 9/11 attacks, he said in 2015."

Omar, who has been accused of making anti-Semitic remarks on numerous occasions since taking office, continued to enjoy the support of fellow freshman representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan..."

On March 25, 2018 Karol Markowitz wrote in the NYPost that Women's March Founders Tamika Mallory,Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez defended Farrakhan "Liberals willful blindness to the anti-Semitism raging on the left is a dangerous game. Recently the national co-chair of the Womens March, Tamika Mallory, attended a Nation of Islam event in which Louis Farrakhan called Jews his enemy and held them responsible for this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out turning men into women and women into men. Mallory had previously posted a photo of herself with Farrakhan and praised him as the GOAT or greatest of all time in her caption. When Mallory finally responded to critics, she cast herself as a victim and defended Farrakhan. Fellow Womens March co-chairs Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez also defended Farrakhan..."

Liberal's refusal to condemn or even to admit African American antisemitism shows that today liberal ideology itself has antisemitic nuances. Deborah Lipstadt wrote in Israel Hayom:"Anti-Semitism from the far-Left tends to be the province of (largely white, but also minorities who are) ultra-progressives who demonize Jews as colonialists and oppressors who shapeshift just enough out of their fair Jewish skin to benefit from white privilege."

(ADL statistics)

Ezequiel Doiny is author of "Obama's assault on Jerusalem's Western Wall"

See more here:
Liberals refuse to admit the rise of African American antisemitism - Arutz Sheva

The argument in favor of arbitrarily revoking the Second Amendment rights of college students, as is done in dozens of states, has ostensibly been rooted in safety concerns.

And it just got a lot weaker.

Two anti-gun professors wrote in the Washington Post that campus-carry laws will invite tragedies on college campuses, not end them. Another liberal professor, writing for the New York Times, warned that when there are more guns around, there is more risk its as simple as that.

The trouble with such predictions is that they tend to be tested as time goes by. And as it turns out, they simply werent true. Students just aren't waging the gun battles that anti-gun activists expected. A new report from the College Fix looked into this narrative, and it came up empty.

When a reporter reached out to numerous universities that permit campus carry, all of the schools that responded confirmed that they have seen no uptick in violence since their respective policies were put in place. Responding colleges included Emporia State University, Dixie State University, and Valdosta State University. Separately, the Texas Tribune has reported that after the Lone Star State implemented campus carry at four-year colleges state-wide, it resulted in no sharp increase in violence or intimidation, and in fact, the following year was quiet and uneventful.

These are just a few examples, but even studies cited favorably by gun control advocates admit that results certainly do not prove that campus carry causes more crime. Essentially, it's now clear that conservatives and libertarians had this one right. Allowing American adults aged 18 to 22 to exercise their Second Amendment rights on public college campuses is a no-brainer, as there are few rights more fundamental than the right to self-defense. Plus, the inconsistent nature of current gun-free campus rules already makes little sense.

The current system in many states bans college students from carrying guns but would allow adults of the same age who do not attend college to carry firearms. This is an arbitrary inconsistency that makes little sense, as there's nothing to suggest that college students are more violent or less responsible than their noncollege peers. So, too, guns are often allowed at high-risk off-campus sites such as fraternity houses, yet barred from the actual campus a glaring inconsistency that makes little sense. And now its officially confirmed that arbitrarily revoking college students Second Amendment rights doesnt even make anyone safer.

Its impossible for blue-state legislators and liberal college administrators to keep justifying their harsh anti-gun policies. That is, unless theyre willing to admit that they just hate the idea of gun rights.

Read this article:
Myth busted: Campus carry never caused that increase in violence liberals predicted - Washington Examiner

Updated December 13, 2019 20:38:11

Scott Morrison is picking up that Australia's devastating, prolonged fires are producing a soured, anti-government mood among many in the community.

It may not be entirely rational for people to turn on politicians in such situations. The actual fighting of the fires, driven primarily at state and local levels, appears to have been efficient.

But the Government has invited anger in terms of the broad debate by being so inactive and partisan about climate change over the years.

Morrison is struggling to navigate his way through these fraught days before Christmas.

He's stressing unity: "I want to reassure Australians, that the country is working together to deal with the firefighting challenge."

He's refusing to meet calls for a national summit or a COAG meeting on the fire effort, but he's highlighting the Federal Government's coordinating activities.

He's placing the most positive spin he can on what Australia is doing on climate change, but all the time emphasising Australian emissions are only a tiny portion of the global total "so any suggestion that the actions of any state or any nation with a contribution to global emissions of that order is directly linked to any weather event, whether here in Australia or anywhere else in the world, is just simply not true".

The fires are putting pressure on the Government by elevating the climate issue and opening new division among Liberals. Only this time, and importantly, the internal wedge is coming from the left rather than the right of the party.

The PM is being pushed to do more, rather than being held back.

Morrison is no longer able to gloss over the climate debate. The big question for the next year or two is whether he will reposition the Government.

As former treasury secretary Ken Henry has argued, "today's catastrophic bushfires, and rapidly vanishing water security, again following years of drought, put the present government in a similar position" to when John Howard moved on climate change in 2006.

"The political economy of late 2019 is looking a lot like late 2006," Henry writes in an article titled"The political economy of climate change".

Morrison is the ultimate pragmatist and so, if he sees it in his interest, he may well be willing to readjust.

Not radically, nor quickly. Just enough, as and when he judges it, to satisfy middle-ground voters.

He did a little of this before the election when he topped up funding for "direct action" and advanced pumped hydro, although some read more into the shift than was there.

This week NSW Liberal Environment Minister Matt Kean bluntly called out his federal colleagues' dancing around the climate-fires link.

"Let's not beat around the bush let's call it for what it is. These bushfires have been caused by extreme weather events, high temperatures, the worst drought in living memory, the exact type of events scientists have been warning us about for decades that would be caused by climate change," said Kean, who is the leader at state level of the moderate faction.

"There has been a lot of talk since the federal election about ending the climate wars. I think that that talk has been misplaced. It's not time to end the climate wars. It's time to win the climate wars."

Kean also notably acknowledged the "leadership" on the climate issue of Malcolm Turnbull (who again prodded the bear on Monday's ABC Q&A).

One federal Liberal says, "for a long time [Kean's line] is where the overwhelming majority of the party has stood [but] nobody was willing to say it. The community is so concerned it has given us the cover to come out and say it".

The MP points to the impact of the issue in Liberal heartland seats in Sydney and Melbourne.

The Federal Government has repeatedly derided the Victorian and Queensland Labor governments for what it argues is their excessive ambition on renewables and emissions reduction. Kean has flagged NSW plans to strengthen its stand. The Federal Government is clearly exposed as the odd player out.

Yet it is the states' targets for renewables that are helping the national effort on emissions reduction, according to figures just released by the environment and energy department in its report"Australia's emissions projections 2019".

Looking at Australia's progress towards its 2030 Paris target of a 26-28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels, which, incidentally, can only be reached via the much-criticised course of carrying over Kyoto credits, the report has revised down its 2018 estimate for projected 2030 emissions.

Reasons for this revision include the boost to the "direct action" fund and "stronger renewables deployment". A factor in the latter was "the inclusion of 50 per cent renewable energy targets in Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory".

The projection is now for Australia to have renewables generating 48 per cent of its electricity by 2030, very close to the Labor policy of 50 per cent of which the Government was so critical.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor's speech at the United Nations COP25 conference in Spain this week showed how, as the inevitable transition to clean energy progresses, the Government is conflicted.

Regardless of years of scepticism about renewables from the federal Coalition, Taylor in Madrid lauded Australia's achievements in this area.

"In Australia, an unprecedented wave of low emissions energy investment is already underway," he boasted.

"Last year, renewable investment was Australia's highest on record at A$14.1 billion, which is world-leading investment given our population. Renewables are now more than 25 per cent of our electricity supply in our National Electricity Market."

Reality is gradually proving stronger than ideology as the energy mix changes, but not entirely.

The debate around a new coal-fired power station goes on.

The Government before the election promised a feasibility study into a possible venture in Queensland, and the Nationals continue to push for action.

If a feasibility study left the way open for a coal-fired station, would the Government be willing to provide any financial help or guarantee for a portion of the energy output? Given the reluctance of private capital, that would likely be the only way it could happen.

There was a certain irony in Anthony Albanese touring coal country in central Queensland this week, given the climate debate.

Visiting Emerald, Rockhampton and Gladstone among other stops, Albanese was beginning his mission to reconcile the strands in Labor's climate messages, after Bill Shorten failed to do so, costing vital Queensland votes.

This week, Albanese has been talking up the domestic transition to renewables, while providing reassurance to the coal areas by declaring the world will continue to want Australian coal for the foreseeable future.

He says the role of government in relation to new coal mines is to make the environmental judgements; if they pass that test, then such projects live or die on their ability to raise private finance. On Adani, he says it has its approval and he's urging it to get on with providing the jobs (the company says it is doing so).

As to a new coal-fired power station: he believes it would not get private finance.

Very aware Shorten was smashed for trying to walk in different shoes on climate and coal when he was in the inner city and in regional Queensland, Albanese is aiming for a story to which he can get a favourable reception all around the country.

That won't be easy. Then nothing is, for anyone, on the climate issue.

Michelle Grattanis a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.

Topics:government-and-politics,politics-and-government,federal-government,federal-parliament,anthony-albanese,scott-morrison,climate-change,pollution-disasters-and-safety,climate-change---disasters,environmental-policy,environment,australia

First posted December 13, 2019 07:25:53

See the original post:
Will devastating bushfires and division among Liberals force Scott Morrison to rethink climate policy? - ABC News

The two groups are at loggerheads - but not on one crucial issue

Earlier this month, a skirmish broke out on the American right between white nationalists and classical liberals. The white nationalists, calling themselves the groyper army (dont ask), have been attending campus events organised by classical liberals in order to ask questions about demographic replacement, US support for Israel and the morality of homosexual acts topics on which the two sides disagree.

Both sides, and most commentators, have emphasised these disagreements. But the most remarkable fact about the controversy may be the one point of absolute agreement: the value of free speech.

By asking edgy questions and taunting the classical liberals for their unwillingness to take them up, the white nationalists appealed to this value, often explicitly. And their appeal was successful. Charlie Kirk, one of the classical-liberal leaders in this fight, was forced to write a conciliatory article declaring his belief in free speech.

We should not shy away from our differences but embrace the dialogue in good faith and with the understanding that the best ideas and the best leaders will win, and the conservative movement will be better off as a result, he wrote.

Nick Fuentes, a leader of the groypers, crowed over the article. Well, I agree!I agree with all of that I agree that we should not shy away from our differences.I agree we should embrace dialogue. And I also agree that the best ideas and the best leaders will win.

It is important to note this agreement because many classical liberals have assumed that the way to defeat white nationalism is to double down on freedom: free trade, free speech, free love. They assume that in the marketplace of ideas (unlike in real markets) bad currency somehow will not drive out good. In a speech denouncing the groypers, Ben Shapiro said: Whathelps America win the culture war is freedom: freedom against a government encroaching on your activities that dont harm anyone else.

Despite what so many well-meaning people believe, an ever more radical insistence on freedom will not defeat white nationalists. For many years, conservatives once the party of censorship and discretion, as men such as Irving Kristol well understood have revelled in provocation (triggering libs), disrupting safe spaces, and advancing an absolute idea of free speech. This shift in emphasis has reflected broader changes in our legal culture. Against longstanding precedent, the First Amendment is now widely seen as a licence for all manner of obscenity.

Conservatives now insist on free speech in large part because they fear being censored. For example, when the Satanic Temple tried to organise a Black Mass at Harvard, Robert Miller, a conservative law professor and a Catholic, wrote an article explaining Why Harvard was right not to ban the Black Mass. Millers argument came down to a concern that a similar sort of ban would one day be turned against Christians.

In 2010, the same concern moved Liberty Counsel, a Christian conservative legal organisation, to file an amicus brief in defence of Westboro Baptists supposed right to shout gay-baiting obscenities at the funerals of fallen soldiers. Today it is the offensive speech of the Phelpses, and tomorrow it could be religious, pro-life or pro-family speech, a press release said.

Underlying these very un-conservative arguments is an assumption that we cannot and should not distinguish between goodand evil, argument and obscenity, truth and falsehood. In contexts not remotely governed by the First Amendment, free speechis invoked against anyone who opposes the spread of evil ideas.

Classical liberals bear some blame for the rise of white nationalists. They spent years decrying censorship and according prestige to edginess and triggering. They defended Black Masses and Westboro Baptists, lest someone someday restrict the Catholic Mass and Southern Baptists. They thus rendered the conservative movement unwilling and unable to call evil evil and good good. One of their most eloquent champions, David French, has said: The fact that a person can get a room in a library and hold a Drag Queen Story Hour and get people to come? Thats one of the blessings of liberty.

Now classical liberals find themselves calling for dialogue with the likes of Nick Fuentes, who uses anti-Semitic slurs (Jewy Jewstein), has described the writer Matt Walsh as a race traitor he hates white people, and says of racial segregation: Even if it was bad, who cares? Once again, classical liberal conceits provide an opening for falsehood. Meanwhile, the alt-right trolls who pride themselves on opposing liberalism appeal to the same liberal conceits as mainstream conservatives.

In order to defeat the white nationalists and anti-Semites, conservatives must become less liberal. Only a conservatism that praises restraint and discretion will have weapons to fight those who are just asking questions about the Holocaust. Only a conservatism that abjures viewpoint neutrality will be able to side with truth against lies.

Conservatives must be ready to say that the freedom to host drag queen story hour is not a blessing of liberty. At the same time, they must be able to say loud and clear that they oppose white nationalists and anti-Semites, especially ones that wrap themselves in Christian garb. Our civilisational inheritance is spiritual, not racial. We were taught by a Jew to love; we were not taught to hate Jews.

Classical liberals have built a conservative movement that valorises dangerous ideas, thereby allowing people whose ideas are dangerous indeed to gain a foothold. That is why in the latest conservative debate, both sides need to lose.

Read the original here:
How classical liberals paved the way for white nationalists - Catholic Herald Online