Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

Support for Wynne Liberals crumbling: Poll – Toronto Sun


Toronto Sun
Support for Wynne Liberals crumbling: Poll
Toronto Sun
Support for Ontario's Liberals is crumbling in the former suburban areas of Toronto, according to a Mainstreet Research poll. While the provincial Liberals command a 42% lead among decided and leaning voters in Toronto, support for them outside the ...
NDP edging BC Liberals slightly in new polliNews880.com

all 3 news articles »

Read more from the original source:
Support for Wynne Liberals crumbling: Poll - Toronto Sun

Abortion funding: Canada’s Liberals will help fill global gap from Trump’s ban – CBC.ca

The federal government is pledging up to $20 million to fund sexual health and family planninginitiativesas part of an international campaign to fill a gap created by President Donald Trump's decision to ban U.S. funding for abortion-related projects.

The money will go to five organizations, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and be spent in the coming 12 months.

In a release, the government says the money will go towards contraceptives, family planning and comprehensive sexuality education, and access to post-abortion care.

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said in a statement that all women have the right to choose whether and when they want to have children, and how many.

A major aid agency said it would welcome any financial help Canada can provide, but warned that if the country is really serious about helping poor women in the developing world, it must increase the overall amount it spends on international aid in the upcoming federal budget.

Lauren Ravon, Oxfam's Canadian director of policy and campaigns, says Canada's decision to take part in Thursday's pledging conference in Brussels known as "She Decides" is a welcome effort.

Bibeau represented Canada at the meeting, where some 50 countries are trying to raise $600 million to fill the shortfall caused by Trump's decision.

One of Trump's first acts as president was to bring back a policy withholding hundreds of millions of dollars per year from groups that perform abortions or provide advice about the procedure.

The ban has been instituted by successive Republican administrations dating back to the Ronald Reagan era in 1984, only to be rolled back by successive Democratic presidents since then.

Trump's order reversed Barack Obama's 2009 decision to restore funding.

The Trudeau government made a similar decision after winning power in 2015 by allowing funding for family planning in projects related to the maternal newborn child health, the signature aid project of the previous Harper government.

The Conservatives also banned funding to abortion-related services, but the Trudeau government lifted that ban while deciding to carry forward with the aid initiative.

The Liberals have not committed to raising Canada's overall aid budget, which stands at less than 0.3 per cent of gross national income. That's significantly less than the 0.7 per cent target that the United Nations has set.

Sharman Stone (left), Australia's ambassador for women and girls, speaks with Afghanistan's minister for women's affairs Alhaj Delbar Nazari at the "She Decides" family planning conference in Brussels Thursday. (Virginia Mayo/Associated Press)

Bibeau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have said it is unlikely Canada can come up with a plan to meet that target because it would involve a massive infusion of new funds into the aid budget, as much as $10 billion.

Ravon said organizations such as Oxfam want to see an overall increase in Canada's aid budget.

"Whatever announcement Minister Bibeau makes is great; there is such a shortfall in funding," she said in an interview. "(But) we're seeing that Canada's aid budget is actually at an almost all-time low.

"One-off announcements are important. But we'd really like to see a major increase in the federal budget for development assistance."

The Liberals are expected to release their latest budget in the coming weeks. Bibeau has overseen the completion of a major review of Canada's development strategy, but has not released it.

Supporting women and girls "will be at the heart" of the new aid strategy, says a summary on her department's website. The government says it held 300 consultations in 65 countries, involving 15,000 people.

Two of the main messages it received was to "apply a feminist lens" to development and raise overall aid spending to 0.7 per cent of gross national income.

Shaughn McArthur, CARE Canada's advocacy and government relations adviser, said agencies such as his are applauding the government's focus on women and girls in the upcoming development review.

"This government has come out very strongly in saying we want to support women and girls," said McArthur.

"And obviously there needs to be a dollar figure associated to that."

Read more here:
Abortion funding: Canada's Liberals will help fill global gap from Trump's ban - CBC.ca

Liberals and Islam – Patheos (blog)

I am very liberal. You should know that about me. But when it comes to Islam I have struggles that set me apart from other liberals. I think for most liberals (and most of my friends) defending Muslims is the same as defending any other minority. We care about people having equality and being safe and having the ability to practice their own beliefs without persecution. We believe in that for everyone (yes even those in the majority, even Christians here and Hindus in India). So I think for my friends, fighting for equality for Muslims in America is straightforward. It fits the philosophy of their life to help everyone of any religion and belief gain equal rights.

Its hard for me to look at Muslims that way because the religion isnt just like any other. The equal rights for all religions assumes all religions are equal. In theory thats true, in theory I believe that, but the beliefs of Islam are completely antithetical to my faith.

In my attempts to be kind to Muslims Ive already been getting back some disrespect for my religion. Its super challenging to defend the rights of those who would ideally like to see my religion disappear. The way I look at the world and the way a Muslim looks at the world are not compatible. Theres almost no overlap, it seems.

Its hard to defend people of a religion that says it is the only true path and all others are sinning against God by not converting to their religion.

I know Christians who dont think Christianity has to be exclusive, who dont take literally the idea that only Jesus leads to God. So it is possible for Christians to be open to sharing the world with people who have different beliefs. But the Islamic statement of faith is that Allah is the only God. Its pretty much the whole basis of the religion.

I dont know how to reconcile that.

My conclusion at the moment is that I can dislike Islam and like Muslims. I can be a friend to Muslims even if I dont like their religion. But can I really? Can I be a friend to those who dont think my faith has any legitimacy?

Are there Muslims who believe in coexisting with other religions? Please speak up and tell me!

What does the ideal future look like? Thats what Im trying to figure out. If we liberals get what we want and there is freedom for everyone to practice their religion and Muslims are no longer discriminated against, what happens then? Do we all live in peace, share our resources, help one another out? Is it possible to have such a world?

I just dont know. I would really like to hear from Muslims about how they envision the future. What do you think it would look like if Muslims were no longer discriminated against in America?

How can Islam coexist with other religions that do not believe in one God separate from his creation?

See more here:
Liberals and Islam - Patheos (blog)

Liberals, What Are You Teaching Your Kids? – American Thinker

Even though Hillary's ad was mostly dishonest (surprise), I do agree with the message that the examples we set are critical to our children's development.

"Role models from an early age are important to children and their development as the models set an example of behavior good or bad and show their influence over others in a way your child will want to emulate." Darlena Cunha, The Influence of Role Models

In other words, kids watch adults and copy their behavior. So what life lessons are we handing down to our youth? Sadly, today's role models are teaching our kids to be bullies, outlaws, babies, and violent anarchists. Our septic media promote only the most reprehensible behavior, the absolute worst examples for our children. For instance:

Behavior: "I'll hunt you down": Today, the powerful entities in our country government, entertainment, corporations, and mainstream media gang up on and bully the Ppesident of the United States. They call him names a joke, phony, fraud, Nazi, fascist, and every version of -phobe. They attack his administration, slow-walk his Cabinet, threaten impeachment, call him mentally incompetent, unhinged, and worse.

And for those who think they'll stand by this president despite the attacks, think again. Tom Brady is hounded by liberals over his friendship with Trump. Celebrities are blacklisted if they offer support. Activist websites openly bully companies to discontinue Trump merchandise. Macy's, Nordstrom's, Burlington, and others have now dropped the Trump label, and the list of capitulating stores is growing.

Lesson: You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target.

Behavior: "I'll say who's boss": In this age of power by any means, Hollywood hits the airwaves to warn the American people that a dictator has taken control, that Americans are in danger of citizen arrest, deportation squads, and internment camps. Amid their wild accusations, they openly urge resistance and the overthrow of our government. Sarah Silverman and ex-Pentagon official Rosa Brooks actually called for a military coup. Madonna brags that she's thought of "blowing up the White House."

Lesson: Fight authority, defy the law, and openly revolt if you don't get your way. You don't like your parent's rules? Refuse to obey. Take them to court. A teacher's too tough? Organize the class to smear him, lie, accuse, defame until you cost that teacher his job.

Behavior: "WAH!": Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer effectively modeled two-year-old behavior when he literally cried over President Trump's executive order and called the president a big meanie.

Then we have the ubiquitous protests clueless toddlers clogging roads and bridges, screaming, Wah! I want the blue one!

Lesson: Good news, kids: you don't have to really grow up. Just buy bigger clothes.

Behavior: "You didn't really win": When Democrats lost the election, they railed that Putin rigged the election to help Trump steal victory from Hillary. When that fake news was put down by facts, they went to Plan B: Hillary really won the election because she won the popular vote. Like a manager who brags that his boxer was winning on points before losing consciousness, the left cling to their new narrative of an alternative definition of victory.

Lesson: You don't have to settle for second place just because you lost. Kick, scream, and accuse the winner of cheating. Spin his win until you've muddied the waters enough to cast doubt on his victory.

Behavior: "You and what army?": Some mayors and governors openly defy federal law to keep their sanctuary havens, then publicly challenge the president to do anything about it. They go on TV and virtually get in the president's face, telling the world criminal aliens are welcome in their cities.

Lesson: You don't have to obey the rules or the law if you don't like it. Just refuse to comply. Steal the goods right in front of a cop; copy your neighbor's answers with the teacher standing over you; beat the crap out of your younger sibling while your parents watch in horror. Then tell all you're going to keep stealing, cheating, and beating, and dare them to stop you.

Behavior: Hulk Smash: Today, images of marching anarchists fill our screens. We're treated to "poor loser riots," the "Trump said bad things" riots, and now the "just because" riots. Even the supposed "peaceful protests" break the law. By blocking roads and bridges, they keep people from picking up their kids or making a flight, and they block emergency vehicles in life-and-death situations.

The non-peaceful protests, aka riots, are the new holy grail of journalism. The press orgasmically loops video of hooded thugs smashing windows, burning cars and buildings, and beating innocent bystanders unconscious.

Reporters then interview empty vessels who righteously claim "self-defense." The Berkeley campus was destroyed because these imbeciles really believe that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects them from opposing views. These geniuses also think the free speech argument is just right-wing propaganda.

The mobocracy violence is supplemented by the left's proxies, who make death threats, call for assassination, and threaten to shut down businesses. Even the designer of the "Make America Great Again" gown worn by Joy Villa at the Grammys drew death threats death threats for making a dress. Zero tolerance.

Lesson: If you don't get your way with bullying and open defiance, trash the place. You don't like what your teacher says? Upend desks, set them on fire, take an axe to the blackboard, and beat up anyone who gets in your way. Your mom grounds you? Smash her big-screen TV and egg her car. It's okay self-defense and all that.

Now, adults take all this with a grain of salt it's politics, it's the left, it's liberals. But kids might get a little fuzzy on the facts.

When the rabid left demands a do-over because Trump "stole the election," the little guys probably wonder if it's true. And when kids are told the dude in the cool black ninja costume setting fire to a building is the good guy, they might pick the wrong superhero.

Or, being children, they probably feel sorry for the sobbing Senator Chuckie and want to know what "meanie" President Trump did to make him cry. And why is President Trump sending all those Mexican mommies away without their kids, and why does he want to blow up the world?

The little darlings can't help themselves. Kids are curious by nature, and these sensational headlines require further exploration, reasonable explanations, and the truth.

So to the unraveling left who can't deal with your loss (including the media), is this bullying, defiance, and violence what you want for your children?

My guess is that leftists want more for their kids. We all do. Most parents want their children to be honest, fair, kind, and unselfish. Parents hope their kids will be humble in victory and gracious in defeat and generous to those less fortunate and, above all, that they'll be happy.

But for children to acquire those traits, they need adults to first model those behaviors. If our media continue to seek out and broadcast the worst of our society, then our kids will grow up with images of anger, hate, anarchy, and violence. If the media stay hell-bent on destroying President Trump, then our children will learn to be defiant, combative, and contemptuous of legal authority.

Like it or not, we are the role models, the people our kids look up to and emulate. Will we give our children a blueprint for misery and failure, or will we give them the tools they need to be happy and successful adults?

For once, Hillary got it right: the children are indeed watching.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton ran an ad called "Role Models." The ad shows small children watching a series of Donald Trump's more controversial moments e.g., the alleged mocking of the disabled reporter and other selective sound bites. Text then flashes on the screen:

Our children are watching What example will we set for them?

Even though Hillary's ad was mostly dishonest (surprise), I do agree with the message that the examples we set are critical to our children's development.

"Role models from an early age are important to children and their development as the models set an example of behavior good or bad and show their influence over others in a way your child will want to emulate." Darlena Cunha, The Influence of Role Models

In other words, kids watch adults and copy their behavior. So what life lessons are we handing down to our youth? Sadly, today's role models are teaching our kids to be bullies, outlaws, babies, and violent anarchists. Our septic media promote only the most reprehensible behavior, the absolute worst examples for our children. For instance:

Behavior: "I'll hunt you down": Today, the powerful entities in our country government, entertainment, corporations, and mainstream media gang up on and bully the Ppesident of the United States. They call him names a joke, phony, fraud, Nazi, fascist, and every version of -phobe. They attack his administration, slow-walk his Cabinet, threaten impeachment, call him mentally incompetent, unhinged, and worse.

And for those who think they'll stand by this president despite the attacks, think again. Tom Brady is hounded by liberals over his friendship with Trump. Celebrities are blacklisted if they offer support. Activist websites openly bully companies to discontinue Trump merchandise. Macy's, Nordstrom's, Burlington, and others have now dropped the Trump label, and the list of capitulating stores is growing.

Lesson: You don't like someone? Stalk him. Trash everything he does. Mock, demean, ridicule, and ostracize this person. For those who still hang with your victim, attack them as well. Harass, threaten, and blackball them until they too turn on your target.

Behavior: "I'll say who's boss": In this age of power by any means, Hollywood hits the airwaves to warn the American people that a dictator has taken control, that Americans are in danger of citizen arrest, deportation squads, and internment camps. Amid their wild accusations, they openly urge resistance and the overthrow of our government. Sarah Silverman and ex-Pentagon official Rosa Brooks actually called for a military coup. Madonna brags that she's thought of "blowing up the White House."

Lesson: Fight authority, defy the law, and openly revolt if you don't get your way. You don't like your parent's rules? Refuse to obey. Take them to court. A teacher's too tough? Organize the class to smear him, lie, accuse, defame until you cost that teacher his job.

Behavior: "WAH!": Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer effectively modeled two-year-old behavior when he literally cried over President Trump's executive order and called the president a big meanie.

Then we have the ubiquitous protests clueless toddlers clogging roads and bridges, screaming, Wah! I want the blue one!

Lesson: Good news, kids: you don't have to really grow up. Just buy bigger clothes.

Behavior: "You didn't really win": When Democrats lost the election, they railed that Putin rigged the election to help Trump steal victory from Hillary. When that fake news was put down by facts, they went to Plan B: Hillary really won the election because she won the popular vote. Like a manager who brags that his boxer was winning on points before losing consciousness, the left cling to their new narrative of an alternative definition of victory.

Lesson: You don't have to settle for second place just because you lost. Kick, scream, and accuse the winner of cheating. Spin his win until you've muddied the waters enough to cast doubt on his victory.

Behavior: "You and what army?": Some mayors and governors openly defy federal law to keep their sanctuary havens, then publicly challenge the president to do anything about it. They go on TV and virtually get in the president's face, telling the world criminal aliens are welcome in their cities.

Lesson: You don't have to obey the rules or the law if you don't like it. Just refuse to comply. Steal the goods right in front of a cop; copy your neighbor's answers with the teacher standing over you; beat the crap out of your younger sibling while your parents watch in horror. Then tell all you're going to keep stealing, cheating, and beating, and dare them to stop you.

Behavior: Hulk Smash: Today, images of marching anarchists fill our screens. We're treated to "poor loser riots," the "Trump said bad things" riots, and now the "just because" riots. Even the supposed "peaceful protests" break the law. By blocking roads and bridges, they keep people from picking up their kids or making a flight, and they block emergency vehicles in life-and-death situations.

The non-peaceful protests, aka riots, are the new holy grail of journalism. The press orgasmically loops video of hooded thugs smashing windows, burning cars and buildings, and beating innocent bystanders unconscious.

Reporters then interview empty vessels who righteously claim "self-defense." The Berkeley campus was destroyed because these imbeciles really believe that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects them from opposing views. These geniuses also think the free speech argument is just right-wing propaganda.

The mobocracy violence is supplemented by the left's proxies, who make death threats, call for assassination, and threaten to shut down businesses. Even the designer of the "Make America Great Again" gown worn by Joy Villa at the Grammys drew death threats death threats for making a dress. Zero tolerance.

Lesson: If you don't get your way with bullying and open defiance, trash the place. You don't like what your teacher says? Upend desks, set them on fire, take an axe to the blackboard, and beat up anyone who gets in your way. Your mom grounds you? Smash her big-screen TV and egg her car. It's okay self-defense and all that.

Now, adults take all this with a grain of salt it's politics, it's the left, it's liberals. But kids might get a little fuzzy on the facts.

When the rabid left demands a do-over because Trump "stole the election," the little guys probably wonder if it's true. And when kids are told the dude in the cool black ninja costume setting fire to a building is the good guy, they might pick the wrong superhero.

Or, being children, they probably feel sorry for the sobbing Senator Chuckie and want to know what "meanie" President Trump did to make him cry. And why is President Trump sending all those Mexican mommies away without their kids, and why does he want to blow up the world?

The little darlings can't help themselves. Kids are curious by nature, and these sensational headlines require further exploration, reasonable explanations, and the truth.

So to the unraveling left who can't deal with your loss (including the media), is this bullying, defiance, and violence what you want for your children?

My guess is that leftists want more for their kids. We all do. Most parents want their children to be honest, fair, kind, and unselfish. Parents hope their kids will be humble in victory and gracious in defeat and generous to those less fortunate and, above all, that they'll be happy.

But for children to acquire those traits, they need adults to first model those behaviors. If our media continue to seek out and broadcast the worst of our society, then our kids will grow up with images of anger, hate, anarchy, and violence. If the media stay hell-bent on destroying President Trump, then our children will learn to be defiant, combative, and contemptuous of legal authority.

Like it or not, we are the role models, the people our kids look up to and emulate. Will we give our children a blueprint for misery and failure, or will we give them the tools they need to be happy and successful adults?

For once, Hillary got it right: the children are indeed watching.

Read the rest here:
Liberals, What Are You Teaching Your Kids? - American Thinker

Liberals Can’t Decide if Trump Is an Autocrat or Anarchist – Reason

The Trump administration's approach to big government seems positively schizophrenic. But then you'd expect that, wouldn't you? The president has no coherent political philosophy. He has a collection of grievances.

So what excuse do his critics have? They haven't sounded much more coherent than he has lately, either.

We are led to understand, from about 9 billion different ominously titled think pieces, that Trump is a brutal authoritarian who is only waiting for the right moment to declare martial law and round up the dissidents. Some of that is good old-fashioned fear-mongeringthe same sort of thing you hear from the right when Democrats are in power. (Remember Obama's "FEMA camps" or the NRA's Wayne LaPierre warning about "jack-booted thugs" during the Clinton administration?)

But there also is some truth to the charge: As noted in this column about a year ago, Trump is perhaps the most maximum of Maximum Leaders the country has seen since FDR. In Roosevelt's defense, at least he was trying to stop the Nazi war machine. Trump has gone to war against Latino fence-jumpers looking for work and members of the media who don't kiss his ring. Not quite the same.

Moreover, Trump is engaged in some rather martial projects, such as a big hike in Pentagon spending and a hugely expensive wall along the southern border. He also wants to hire 5,000 more Border Patrol agents and 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. (And this after the number of border and customs agents already has doubled during the previous two administrations.) Oh, and the president also wants to build a huge tariff wall to stop the Yellow Peril of Chinese products from invading our shores.

Trump's vision of America isn't so much a shining city on a hill as it is a fortified garrison.

At the same time, we are all supposed to recoil from the recent assertion by Trump's Rasputin, Steve Bannon, that the administration aims for the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

Some of the White House's critics seem to be rather fuzzy about exactly what that means, while others seem to think it means "literally dismantling the departments of Education and the EPA and Energy." It's no big secret, though: Georgetown Law's Jonathan Turley explained it clearly when he testified before Congress a little while back. The administrative state is the unaccountable part of the executive branch that has arrogated to itself the functions of the other two branches by (a) cranking out rules far faster than Congress writes laws, and (b) conducting judicial proceedings 10 times as frequently as actual federal judges do.

Policy wonks contend that this has been made possible by excessive judicial deference to executive agencies, and particularly by a Supreme Court decision known as Chevron. Whether Chevron deference is good for America or not is a fair question, but as topics go it's drier than chalk dust.

Still, assume for the sake of argument that Trump's critics are right and he does want to dismantle much of the apparatus of the federal government. (After all, he did say he would like to cut regulations by 75 percent.)

If that's true, then much of the concern about Ein Trump Autokratie goes away. Take the Federal Communications Commission: Trump recently named Ajit Pai its chairman. Pai opposes tight regulatory constraints on the internet, which makes progressives sad. But it also makes autocratic rule harder. If Trump wanted to control the internet, he would have renamed Pai's predecessor, Tom Wheeler, a progressive who favors stringent government oversight.

Likewise, if Trump really were to eliminate the Department of Education, then people who draw devil's horns on pictures of Secretary Betsy DeVos could stop worrying that she would ram school choice down the throats of liberal enclaves. By the same token, shuttering the Department of Energy would make it virtually impossible for the administration to manipulate research or to stop the energy market's shift away from fossil fuels and toward renewables.

Shutting down the EPA also would take a big stick away from Trump's meaty paw. Remember, it was only a few years ago that EPA administrator Alfredo Juan "Al" Armendariz was caught on videotape saying that his philosophy of governance was "kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years." (He later resigned.)

Nor could the EPA do what it tried to do to Mike and Chantell Sackett: Force them to obey a compliance order, or face ruinous fines, without so much as a court hearing. The EPA insisted that its bureaucratic edicts lay beyond the reach of judicial reviewa stance that epitomizes the worst of the administrative state. A unanimous Supreme Court ultimately ruled otherwise.

Granted, it's possible to impose a military junta while leaving the private-sector economy alone. But for real old-fashioned totalitarianism you need a huge, centralized bureaucracy. Liberals who fear right-wing presidents might be wise to keep that in mind.

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Read more here:
Liberals Can't Decide if Trump Is an Autocrat or Anarchist - Reason