Mediaboss Marketing

Well, the liberals are at it again with their political correctness nonsense. This time they took aim at the 22,000-lb Massive Ordnance Air Blast (aka the Mother of All Bombs), which progressives found offensive. While never been used in the field, its been in service since the Bush administration, so this outrage seems a bit delayed. Second, no one really cares that this bomb was gendered. Its these politically correct antics that will continue to make the Left look abjectly insane and unpalatable. Its part of the speech codes, the lectures on so-called privilege, and safe space authoritarian ethos that only emboldened the forces the helped elect Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. A lot may not have liked Trump, but after being lectured to, among other things, about how calling this 22,000-lb bomb is an example of lethal patriarchy, you would vote for the candidate who shunned this nonsense. And believe me mother of all bombs is a much friendlier term than what we really could call this bomb, give the conflict were in with radical Islamic terrorists.

I really want the media to STOP using the term "mother of all bombs". Offensive.

It's grotesque to call a killing device, the Mother of All Bombs. The #MOAB is the epitome of lethal patriarchy.

#MOAB actually stands for Massive Ordinance Air Burst. Trump is sexist even when referring to bombs. Nice consistency.

i'm not sure what's stupider: dubbing a bomb "mother of all bombs" or calling a bigger bomb "father of all bombs" in response

The U.S. dropped a MOAB on ISIS fighters in Afghanistan, killing nearly 100 of them last week. Some saw this as sending a message to North Koreas Kim Jong-un, who was making preparations for the 105th anniversary of the countrys founder, Kim Il Sung, which also included a possible nuclear weapons test. That didnt happen. A missile test was conducted on Sunday, but it blew up on the platform.

Tillerson Slams Obama Admin For Passing them the 'Buck' on Iran

More here:
Liberals: Saying 'Mother Of All Bombs' Is 'The Epitome Of Lethal ... - Townhall

Every summer in Canada, companies and organizations receive federal grants to help ensure college and university students get an internship. I worked for a pro-life organization that received grants over the summer, but recently, the Liberals started looking into axing these grants for pro-life organizations.

An argument can be made on why these grants shouldnt be given to any company or organization at all.

But thats not what this is about.

Watch as I explain why the Liberals are doing this and where the problem is.

The government shouldnt just fund those they only ideologically agree with. In a free and open society, individuals and groups should have the right to advocate for what they believe.

Its called free speech and expression. At the end of day, if these pro-life groups arent doing anything illegal (and theyre not) they should be able to receive public funding for their student summer internship program.

If they dont, if they are being singled-out for this, then thats discrimination. If pro-life groups or politicians did this to you, Id be staunchly defending your right to advocate and hold your beliefs.

So, do me the favour and dont discriminate against my advocacy and beliefs.

Lets not simply discriminate against ideas, Liberals. Were better than that.

Follow Jay on Twitter at @JayFayza

Read the original here:
Trudeau Liberals consider defunding pro-life summer internships - The Rebel

posted at 4:01 pm on April 19, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

This entire process certainly didnt start with Michael Bloomberg, but he definitely made it famous. The subject at hand is the increasing popularity of soda taxes (or more broadly, sugary drink taxes) as the latest sin tax of choice among liberals. Its been attempted in various places, but one of the more recent ones was enacted in 2015 in the liberal bastion of Berkeley, California. Since going into effect there have definitely been some impacts on the local economy and this piece from Time Magazine attempts to pick out some sweet spots in the data (if youll pardon the pun) as proof that the system is working. Lets see what they came up with.

The researchers looked at whether the tax impacted the buying behaviors of Berkeley residents. They found that one year after the tax took effect, sales of sugar-sweetened drinks fell by close to 10%, and sales of water increased in Berkeley by about 16%. Sales of unsweetened teas, milk and fruit juices also went up, suggesting people were substituting their sugary drinks with healthier alternatives

The findings suggest that even in higher-income communities, a soda tax can impact sales. Popkin predicts that the drops would be even greater in cities and counties with lower-income communities. In Mexico, which passed a similar tax that took effect in 2014, there have been significant declines in the consumption of sugary beverages. Among low-income residents, it dropped by 17% early on.

So since the tax was enacted, sales of all sugar sweetened drinks fell by 10% in the area where the tax was collected. I suppose if we bring the conversation to a dead stop right there you might be led to believe that the effort was effective, eh? But as with so many other metrics in society, the raw numbers dont speak to a host of other factors. Heres one thought Berkeley is a very liberal spot with lots of vegans and other health conscious lifestyle types of folks. Do you suppose that people were just looking for healthier options anyway? The study doesnt tell us if this was a sudden reversal or part of a longer trend.

Heres another factor to consider. When you drive up the price of any goods or services, its true that some people will choose not to spend their money in that fashion. But others may seek a cheaper option. Heres where the report goes completely off the tracks. (Emphasis added)

Another interesting finding in the study was that sales of sugar-sweetened beverages in neighboring cities rose nearly 7%possibly because people may be buying their soda where its cheaper. Yet Popkin says hes skeptical that the number of people in Berkeley would be great enough to increase the rates of other cities substantially, and believes that the higher rates could be partially unrelated.

So you were willing to flatly accept a 10% drop as being attributable to the tax, but youre skeptical that the 7% rise next door could be caused by people buying in bulk where the product is cheaper? Yeah that makes total sense.

Far more likely is that the real drivers for these changers are, to some significant degree, attributable to normal market forces. When you drive up the cost of something people look for other options. That happened in Philadelphia where the city government decided to save the people from themselves with a similar soda tax. The net result seemed to be angry consumers, more people shopping in the nearby county without the tax and, just by the way, the local Pepsi plant laying off a bunch of their workers. Brilliant!

None of this, of course, addresses the underlying problem with this approach. Since when is it the governments job to engage in social engineering experiments using the power of taxation as a cudgel to wield against the citizens? If you honestly believe that soda is a dangerous product unfit for human consumption, then ban it. If the people support your efforts you will be reelected. But if its good enough to be legally sold, then dont pretend youre trying to make people healthier by letting them drink something that you are saying is borderline toxic while actually just filling the city governments coffers with their grocery money. Thats both dishonest and insulting.

Go here to see the original:
Liberals attempt to point to success of soda tax in Berkeley - Hot Air

Globalnews.ca

B.C. Liberals take aim at NDP economics Globalnews.ca VANCOUVER Christy Clark's Liberals are ramping up attacks on the NDP's ability to manage British Columbia's economy, accusing the party of releasing a platform that will cost billions with no way to pay for it. The New Democrats' platform includes ... The politics of the BC Liberal 'troll' truckCBC.ca Latest poll shows Greens taking votes from Liberals, NDPVancouver Sun BC Liberals, NDP spar over Site C damThe Globe and Mail The Province all 102 news articles »

Read more:
B.C. Liberals take aim at NDP economics - Globalnews.ca

Andrew Steele is vice-president at StrategyCorp, Canadas integrated public affairs, communications and management consultancy. He served as senior adviser to Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty

Despite a 14-year run in office, the Ontario Liberals havent had much swagger of late. But that may change. As the government turns the corner on a balanced budget, Ontarians are about to see the government shift into an explicitly small-l liberal groove for the first time in almost a decade.

Cast your mind back. During the Great Recession, Ontarios balanced budgets of 2006 and 2007 gave way to $20-billion-a-year deficits in 2008 and 2009. While the public was hardly clamouring for fiscal discipline in the era of GMs bankruptcy, premier Dalton McGuinty nevertheless made a promise to balance by the year 2017.

The province has since held by that pledge, even after the Liberals chose a new premier, Kathleen Wynne. But fiscal discipline is no longer a key vote driver with the Liberal coalition. While in the mid-00s balanced budgets were the necessary precondition to be seen as competent managers, public opinion subsequently shifted. Today, deficits are no longer anathema.

In fact, the belt-tightening required to balance the budget may have been a large factor in Ms. Wynnes poor postelection polling. Voters elected Kathleen Wynne as a progressive breath of fresh air who would build Ontario up with public spending. Those voters felt a lunch-bag letdown when her first three years with a majority government were spent doing not-so-Liberal things such as managing down labour-cost pressures and selling Hydro One.

With a balanced budget now in the works, the Liberal Premier appears likely to begin governing unbound. Ms. Wynne is now in a position to undertake a much more aggressive agenda in line with the deficits and infrastructure spending of the popular Trudeau Liberals. While that approach will find no friends with National Post editorial writers and Bay Street, it is likely to prove more popular than the austerity of the past decade.

This Great Shift Left will see the end of 10 years of austerity and incrementalism in pursuit of a refashioning of the social compact to help Ontarians prosper in the face of globalized disruption. It is fuelled by the fastest growth in the country in 2017, growth that is expanding the fiscal capacity of the province at the exact time there is renewed permission for spending.

The Ontario government signalled its intention to move to the left over past weeks. Already they have announced:

What is waiting in the wings is even more dramatic:

Shifting left is a smart political strategy for the struggling Liberals.

The NDP has been siphoning left-leaning voters from the Grits on the back of fiscally driven decisions such as the Hydro One privatization and battles with public-sector unions to control costs. Moving left could help the Liberals win back many of these progressive voters.

But the primary threat to the Liberals remains the Conservatives. Since winning the leadership as the darling of social conservatives, Patrick Brown has been removing the Mike Harris-era rough edges off the PC Party. His efforts sparked a backlash among party grassroots with a pledge to implement a carbon tax. All of this is in an effort to remove policy differences between the PCs and Liberals so the next election is fought on time for a change and not over the PCs policy positions.

Shifting left will open up room between the PCs and Liberals, likely too far for the already internally assailed Brown to follow. That will give the Liberals the ability to fight the election on policy, polarize the vote between themselves and the PCs, minimize the NDP vote and make the election a choice instead of a referendum on themselves.

No government looks good measured against perfection. But by shifting left, the Liberals hope they will be measured against Patrick Brown, a more appetizing prospect.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

The rest is here:
Ontario's Liberals take a big step to the left - The Globe and Mail