Mediaboss Marketing

Over 21,000 people have signed a petition demanding EPA administratorScott Pruitt meet with climate change activist and cult childhood television personality, Bill Nye the science guy.

The petition entitled Time to send Scott Pruitt to climate school. Sit down with Bill Nye the Science Guy ASAP! accuses Pruitt of hypocrisy regarding the issue of climate change and aimsto force him to have a sit-down with Nye.

We are sure Bill can get Administrator Pruitt to hear the truth, despite the political contributions from polluters whispering in his ears.

Bill Nye the Science Guy has helped millions wrestle with challenging scientific concepts, the petition states. Sure, most of those folks were kids watching his popular television show, but we are sure Bill can get Administrator Pruitt to hear the truth, despite the political contributions from polluters whispering in his ears.

The petition itself is remarkable, not just for demanding a Cabinet-level official attend a lecture from a former childrens TV personality, but also for its challenged premise as to why Pruitt needs an education on the issue.

After telling his Senate confirmation panel, I do not believe that climate change is a hoax and that Science tells us the climate is changing and human activity in some matter impacts that change, the head of the EPA (you know, the federal agency charged with limiting greenhouse gas pollution) got enough votes to squeak into power, the petition begins.

After he got the job, the petition continues, he went on CNBC and said: I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and theres tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that its a primary contributor to the global warming that we see, referring specifically to the role of CO2 emissions on climate change.

The author of the petition apparently believes that Pruitts comments on CNBC demonstrated hypocrisy or dishonesty in light of his Senate hearing.

What the author and the over 21,000 signatories of the petition miss is someone can believe climate change is real, and that humans play some part in it, while simultaneously holding the opinion that human activity is not the primary cause of climate change. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

Yet the petition maintains that even [Pruitts] agencys website disagrees, stating: Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.

Acontradiction between the statement and comments Pruitt made on CNBC seems missing.

The EPA statement says only that carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change not that it is man-made carbon dioxide that is the primary greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, or indeed that greenhouse gasses are themselves the primary cause of climate change.

Of course, some may find it of questionable value forthe head of one of the largest government agencies to be educated by a man in possession of a single undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering whose only qualifications as a scientist are portraying one in a childrens program. This speaks volumes about the Lefts current credibility.

The petition crossed the 21,000 signature mark just in time for the Trump administrations announcement Tuesday that the president signed a sweeping executive order significantly reversing the Obama administrations environmental regulations and funding of climate change initiatives.

The action Im taking today will eliminate federal overreach, restore economic freedom, and allow our companies and our workers to thrive, compete, and succeed on a level playing field for the first time in a long time, Trump said.

Link:
Liberals Demand Trump EPA Chief 'Sit Down' with Bill Nye - LifeZette

Email a copy of "How Blind College Liberals Help Foster Antisemitism" to a friend

University of Illinois at Chicago. Photo: UIC website.

Ending White Privilege Starts With Ending Jewish Privilege,screamsa flyer being distributed on the Chicago campus of the University of Illinois.

The flyer falsely alleges that 44 percent of Jewish Americans are in the top 1%of earners. The threshold for being in the top 1%is $465,626, and as much as 44% of Jewish Americans would like to have achieved that distinction, they havent. What the flyers authors meantisthat 44% of Jewish Americans earnmore than $100,000 a year.

Although foreign-born Muslims have not yet achieved the success of Jews, they are far more likely to earn more than$50,00-a-year, compared tonative-born Americans. But dont expect their success to be on a leafletdistributed on college campuses.

March 29, 2017 6:52 am

Southeast Asian Muslim immigrants many of them fromPakistanis are known to value education and go into the professions. They abound in medicine, comprising between2.7% and 5%of all US physicians, and in high-paying technical fields. They also bring with them an entrepreneurial spirit. Sound familiar?

Rather than commend Jewish success as something to aspire to, the authors of the flyer view it with contempt because in their demented Marxist view of the world, all gain is ill-gotten and a function of privilege. They dont recognize thata combination of gray matter, hard work and a willingness to take risks also contribute to success.

Yesterday, I visited a 94-year-old friend. He was born in Shanghai, where his family was one of 20 Jewish families who lived there. He spent his early adult years behind barbed wire in a Japanese internment camp. Shortly after the World War II, he came to San Francisco with the clothes on his back, a suitcase, 25 dollars and a letter of introduction to anyone who would bother to read it, attesting to his good character.

He never embraced the role of victim, nor let his life be defined by having been a prisoner of the Japanese. Decades later, he gained a reputation for his conservative and skilled investment acumen, andbecame a financial adviser to some of Asias wealthiest families. He started a successful export/import bank and has owned a variety of businesses.

Was this a consequence of Jewish privilege, or his hard work and intelligence? His formal education ended in hissecond year of high school, but in contrast to the college students who designed the flyer, he had no trouble reading numbers.

Of course, his story was repeated by millions of immigrants of all nations who came to America not to proclaim their victimhood, but to find opportunity. And their success is something that is still valued in the larger world despite what is taught on some college campuses.

The flyer reflects the ideology of anti-Israel student groups and some of their leftist allies, who promoteintersectionality the common bond of all oppressed people. This is an ideology that can bringtogether Muslims who love sharia law and its denigration of women, and rabid feminists who see their problems as a consequence of male privilege. Yes, politics does make for strange bed companions.

And this intersectionality has resulted in an upsurge of antisemitism. Whether it is support for the Jew-bashing Israeli Apartheid Week or theBDS campaign, these initiatives are merely thinly-disguised antisemitic hate fests.

So, it is not surprising that just days after the first flyer was distributed, a second one appeared; this one focused on denying the Holocaust.

The larger issue is not the flyers, nor even their threat to Jews.

The issue is that the flyers reflect a dominant ideology that is inculcated on some collegecampuses to a captive audience in frequently required classes.

In Middle East studies courses, Israel is seen as the one illegitimate state in the world, a last bastion of British imperialism. Obviously, the professors who teach this do not recall that Britain supported the Arabs in Israels 1948 War of Independence. Nor do they ever condemn the true human rights abuses being carried out by dozens of Arab states.

Canards such as Jews control the media and Hollywood are commonplace among leftist professors who spoon-feed their own ideology rather than the facts. If professors were teaching that slavery was a benign institution, there would be such public outcry that universities would not be able to open their doors. But about Jews, almost anything can be said with impunity.

The issue of the flyers is less that they are the product of the twisted minds of some brainwashed students, but that they are the logical outcome of some of what is taught on our campuses.

This article was originally published by The Federalist.

Go here to see the original:
How Blind College Liberals Help Foster Antisemitism | Jewish ... - Algemeiner

The Liberal government will announce legislation next month that will legalizemarijuana in Canada by July 1, 2018.

CBC News has learned that the legislation will be announced during the week of April 10 and will broadly follow the recommendation of a federally appointed task force that was chaired by former liberal Justice Minister Anne McLellan.

Bill Blair, the former Toronto police chief who has been stickhandling the marijuana file for the government, briefed the Liberal caucus on the roll-out plan and the legislation during caucus meetings this weekend, according to a senior government official who spoke to CBC News on condition of anonymity.

Bill Blair, parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, briefed the Liberal caucus on new marijuana legislation, which leaves the provinces to decide how marijuana is distributed and sold, according to a senior government official. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

The federal government will be in charge of making sure the country's marijuana supply is safe and secure and Ottawa will license producers.

But the provinces will have the right to decide how the marijuana is distributed and sold. Provincial governments will also have the right to set price.

While Ottawa will set a minimum age of 18 to buy marijuana, the provinces will have the option of setting a higher age limit if they wish.

As for Canadians who want to grow their own marijuana, they will be limited to four plants per household.

Legalizing marijuana was one of the more controversial promises Justin Trudeau made as he campaigned to become prime minister.

But in their platform the Liberals said it was necessary to "legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana" in order to keep drugs "out of the hands of children, and the profits out of the hands of criminals."

The Liberals had promised to introduce legislation by the Spring of 2017. Announcing the legislationthe week of April 10 willallowthe partyto hit that deadline.

Trudeau referred again to that rough timetable a few weeks agowhen he said the legislation would be introduced before the summer. But at the same time he also warned that it wasn't yet open season for the legal sale of marijuana.

"Until we have a framework to control and regulate marijuana, the current laws apply," Trudeau said in Esquimalt, B.C. on March 1.

That warning became more concrete a week later, when police in Toronto, Vancouver and other cities carried out raids on marijuana dispensaries and charged several people with possession and trafficking, including noted pot advocates Marc and Jodie Emery.

Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana was seen as one of the reasons for the Liberals' strong showing among youth voters in the 2015 election.

But at the NDP's leadership debate in MontrealSunday, which was focused on youth issues, several of the candidates pointed to marijuana legislation as an example of a broken Liberal promise.

Marijuana could be legalized by 2018 Canada Day2:08

"I do not believe Justin Trudeau is going to bring in the legalization of marijuana and as proof that ... we are still seeing, particularly young, Canadians being criminalized by simple possession of marijuana," said B.C. MP Peter Julian.

Originally posted here:
Liberals to announce marijuana will be legal by July 1, 2018 - CBC.ca

posted at 12:41 pm on March 27, 2017 by Jazz Shaw

If you were concerned that the current pandemic of derangement spreading around the nation in response to the election of Donald Trump was fading into the background, fear not. Its alive and well, presented to us yet again by Norm Ornstein at The Atlantic. Continuing a project which he began after 9/11, Ornstein would like to see the rules of succession in the event that we lose a president in some fashion changed. Hes not talking about Donald Trump of course, as hes quick to point out. Certainly not. Perish the thought. This is more of a hypothetical situation where some foreign government is found to have interfered with our elections to the point where the President can no longer be considered legitimate and Congress removes him or her under a rather arcane reading of the 25th Amendment. It could also be applied to disaster situations such as a terror attack which takes out most of the elected leadership, similar to that recent television series, Designated Survivor.

But wait, you might be thinking. Dont we already have a system in place to cover that? Assuming hes still alive, Mike Pence would be sworn in, right? And if he got knocked out as well, wed go to Paul Ryan and so forth on down the line. True, but Ornstein doesnt care for that plan, particularly in the event of a stolen election. Heres why:

Here is the big problem. What if the election was effectively stolen? Under the current presidential succession structure, if Donald Trump were impeached and removed from office, Mike Pence would replace him. But if the election had been stolen, Pences place as president would be no more legitimate than that of Trump. After PencePaul Ryan, the speaker, followed by Orrin Hatch, the president pro tem, followed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. If voters collective desires were subverted by foreign interference and a partys collusion, none would have a legitimate claimespecially since the control of the Senate, at least, would have been affected by the Russian role.

This is a version of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. If Trump, er I mean whoever the President may be, is illegitimate in this fashion then his running mate is as well. Same thing for his cabinet picks I assume. Oh, and just to throw some additional grease on this kitchen fire, the President pro tem is probably illegitimate also because control of the Senate would have been also affected by the Russians. (Im sure Norm meant to say, or whichever country hacked us.)

So what does he propose to do about it? Returning to his commission idea from the early, post-9/11 era, hes drawn up a plan. (Emphasis added)

So the Commission recommended streamlining the line of succession, dropping lower-level Cabinet members, and adding a new category of people deputized as Officers, chosen by the president to be confirmed in the posts by the Senate, representing geographical breadth and presumably policy and even political depth.

Is it just me, or does this solution sound as if its fraught with all of the same problems being cited in the existing system, plus a few more? If these deputized officers were chosen by the President in the aforementioned scenario of an election poisoned by outside interference, how are they any more legitimate than the Vice President or any cabinet members selected by the now tainted president? And at least the Speaker (assuming he or she is also a member of the House, which is not required but has always been the case) and the Senate President pro tem were elected by somebody. These new officers would be as completely insulated from the direct control of the voters as the cabinet members are.

How does this scheme fix anything other than a liberal desire to have a do-over of 2016 and get Trump and all of his people out of office more quickly? Just for the record, I agree with Ornstein that it might be time for a new conversation on how to repopulate the House and the Senate more quickly in the event that they are largely wiped out in a terror attack or natural disaster (Hello, SMOD), and we could even have a public debate over the order of those in line for the top job in the Executive Branch. (Im sure Mike Young is a great guy, but seriously?) But for the most part we have a plan in place and it covers us in the event of all but the most unthinkable attack or catastrophic meteor strike. If you dont want the Vice President in the line of succession, why bother having the office at all?

Original post:
Worried liberals would like to redraw the order of presidential succession - Hot Air

When opposition MPs used procedural tactics to delay last Wednesdays budget for half an hour, it was the parliamentary way of jumping up and down and screaming to get attention. They did it because they want people to notice that the Liberal government might be trying to take away the tools they use to scream for attention.

The nitty-gritty details of the workings of Parliament are eye-glazingly dull, so most people quite rightly ignore them most of the time. But this is one occasion when Canadians should keep watch. The Liberal government has signalled they want to change the rules, extensively, quickly, and possibly without the consent of the other political parties in the House of Commons.

This is no small thing: Its the way laws are made, governments scrutinized, and how much time and capacity will be given over to dissent, or to highlighting mistakes governments make. It is the rush, and the suggestion the Liberals will act unilaterally, that has the oppositions backs up.

When Stephen Harpers Conservative government changed election laws unilaterally with its Fair Elections Act, the Liberals and NDP screamed. Now the Liberals appear intent on changing Parliaments rules in a matter of months.

Related: Liberals new parliamentary reform plan angers Tories, NDP

How would the Liberals have reacted if Mr. Harper had done this? NDP House Leader Murray Rankin asked Friday.

The this in question is changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, the written rules of procedure. Parliamentary rules can be arcane, and there are things that could be updated: The Liberals proposals include some things opposition MPs might eventually support, like electronic voting. The Liberals insist its just a discussion paper but then Liberal MP Scott Simms proposed that a committee report by June 2 on which proposals should be adopted.

Theres a reason to be careful about fixing the Standing Orders. They allow the Commons to more or less work so the majority can pass legislation but the minority have an opportunity to question and point to things they think are wrong often in inconvenient ways, like Wednesdays move to delay the budget.

Theres always a tension. And young governments like Mr. Trudeaus, now 17 months old, get frustrated. The rules give the government most of the power to decide when things will be debated, but the opposition can slow the progress to passage of legislation it doesnt like. Majority governments can force bills to votes, using procedures like time allocation or closure to curtail debate, but they dont like to do it too often, because then they are accused of dictatorial behaviour the Liberals and NDP called Mr. Harper an autocrat when he used those methods.

The Liberals dont want to use those blunt instruments,. And they also promised to make Parliament less about partisan squabbles. So theyve put forward proposals to make the Commons more efficient, including programming, where the Commons sets aside time in advance for debate on each bill.

But its the majority, usually the government, that gets the final say on programming. The opposition fears that that, along with other proposals like eliminating filibusters at committees, would diminish their main parliamentary tool: procedures they can use to occasionally jump up and down and scream for attention. Once in a while, if you have to pull the fire alarm, you want the fire alarm to be there, Mr. Rankin said.

Of course, governments find that annoying. The Liberal government wants to adopt its agenda. Mr. Trudeaus government has a lot of folks focused on policy and politics, but few influential advisors who care deeply about the eye-glazing work of Parliament. Such sages might have warned that seeking rapid changes in Parliaments rules wont lower partisanship, and will create a precedent that might one day be turned on the Liberals.

The Liberals once had such wise heads: the late Jerry Yanover, the partys parliamentary expert, advised government and opposition leaders for decades on outwitting the other side with tactics and when it was unwise to try. Once, when Paul Martin was in power, he confided that he wasnt sure his advice would be taken. Sometimes governments are like teenagers, he said. Theyre physically large, so they think theyre smart, too.

When it comes to reforming the rules, the Liberals should act with more maturity. And on this occasion, Canadians should keep watch on how they do things in Parliament.

Follow Campbell Clark on Twitter: @camrclark

See more here:
Hidden dangers lie in Liberals' proposed parliamentary rule changes - The Globe and Mail