Next on Liberals’ List for Destruction: Confederate Carvings at Stone Mountain Memorial
Next on Liberals’ List for Destruction: Confederate Carvings at Stone Mountain Memorial
Volunteers last night accused the National Trust of trampling on their rights by making them wear gay pride badges.
Dozens of unpaid guides have quit or refused to work following the diktat to mark 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
At least 75 volunteers at Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk are said to be in revolt over the order, which requires them either to wear the rainbow ID badges or be relegated to backroom jobs.
Update: National Trust backs down on Buggery Endorsement Badges
O Dio …
The two party leaders — Brian Jean of the Wildrose and Jason Kenney of the Progressive Conservatives — are expected to speak to the deal at a news conference later today.
Any deal would still have to be approved by a majority of members in both parties.
The Wildrose has previously said it will need 75 per cent or more of its members to OK the deal while the Progressive Conservatives say they will require a simple majority of 50 per cent plus one.
A group of representatives from both parties has been meeting for the last two months to hammer out a deal.
Daniela Greene travelled to Syria where she was wed to German national Denis Cuspert, who rapped under the moniker Deso Dog in his homeland, before changing his name to Abu Talha al-Almani in Syria.
“I want all of our girls to get interested in science and technology and engineering and math,” Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to Obama, said Wednesday. “And I want our boys to think about teaching in our schools and help shaping the next generation of our young people.”
BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel put up a spirited defense of her leadership Friday, vowing to “fight” for “my vision” of how to deal with the migrant crisis that has stretched Germany’s resources and damaged her standing.
Infighting in Merkel’s ruling coalition and a unilateral decision by her interior minister on asylum policy have raised questions about the chancellor’s leadership, although coalition sources have dismissed speculation of a “putsch” against her.
A poll for television station ZDF on Friday showed that a narrow majority of Germans think Merkel is doing a poor job of handling the crisis.
Critics say her accommodating message in August that “we can do this” — responding to wrenching scenes of migrants and refugees faced with border closures and popular hostility in trying to enter some European Union states — has spurred these groups to pour into Germany in ever-larger numbers, overwhelming the resources of local authorities.
The 61-year-old chancellor struck a defiant tone when interviewed for a ZDF program headlined “What now Frau Merkel?”
In Wednesday’s National Post, Tom Blackwell reminded us that Kirsty Duncan, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s science minister, until very recently stumped for Paolo Zamboni’s always dubious and now all-but-utterly discredited chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) theory of multiple sclerosis, and the so-called “liberation treatment” for that disease. …
What matters more than Duncan’s opinions was her comportment. In a 2011 op-ed co-authored with then-Liberal health critic Ujjal Dosanjh, she decried a panel of researchers convened by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for not including any “experts” in liberation therapy — the dubious and unproven treatment in question. “Yet researchers, who had vehemently spoken out against the liberation procedure, were included in the group,” she complained. …
…Liberals (even evangelical Christian Liberals) are allowed to hold personal views that Conservatives (especially evangelical Christian Conservatives) aren’t. I don’t recall Goodyear publicly urging the government to investigate whether evolution is a fraud. And at no point in the Conservatives’ purported “war on science” do I recall any minister impugning individual scientists’ credibility quite so enthusiastically as Duncan and Dosanjh did in their op-ed (though I may stand to be corrected on that).
Experts say the Trudeau government should have little trouble meeting its self-imposed Jan. 1 deadline to rejig tax brackets as a way to ease the load on middle-income earners.
On the campaign trail, the party worked hard to sell the plan to voters by stating the economy would grow if middle-class Canadians had more cash in their pockets.
The change, however, has raised questions whether the tax increase would produce as much additional revenue as the Liberals expect, or if it would address income inequality.
It would also make Canada’s highest income bracket one of the most heavily taxed in the industrialized world.
The Liberal plan calls for a new 33 per cent rate on Canadians who earn more than $200,000 per year. The existing top bracket of 29 per cent would continue to apply to those earning between $138,586 and $200,000, and 26 per cent for those between $89,401 and $138,586.
The party also promises to cut the rate to 20.5 per cent from 22 per cent for those with a taxable annual income between $44,700 and $89,401. The maximum annual benefit, it says, would be $670 per person for those with earnings at the top of that middle bracket.
Liberal estimates say the change would lift $3 billion worth of tax burden per year off the backs of middle-income earners. That would be counterbalanced by heaping another $3 billion in taxes on those in the highest income bracket.
Looking at the big picture, the overall economic impact remains less than clear.
Experts say the government would likely rake in less revenue by jacking up taxes on the rich, particularly from financially savvy Canadians whose incomes barely qualify for the top bracket.
Rhys Kesselman of Simon Fraser University said earners near that margin would likely become a little more aggressive on tax planning and with their investment arrangements.
“It is more elastic in both tax planning and tax advising, and legal tax avoidance,” Kesselman said of the highest bracket.
Others believe the Liberal plan would only have a limited effect on the economy.
Barely half a million people earn more than $200,000 or more. Even squeezing senior citizens won’t get the revenue PM Trulander expects.
Canadians have voted to be economically screwed over.
From commentator Mona Charen,
Why are so many young women (64 percent of moms under the age of 30) having children out of wedlock? Nowhere is the class divide in America as wide as on the matter of marriage. College-educated men and women are sticking with the traditional order of marriage first and children second. Not only that, but they are far less likely to divorce than their parents’ generation was. Those with only some college or less, by contrast, are much less likely to marry before having children, and much more likely to divorce if they do marry.
McArdle was answering her own question in a sense. She noted that many who have studied the retreat from marriage among the uneducated propose the “working class men are garbage” hypothesis. According to this view, lots of young men are unemployed and playing video games all day. Why would a young woman want to marry such a loser? She’d just be getting another kid.
But as McArdle observes, someone is enabling that behavior on the part of the young man. Someone is providing a roof over his head, putting food in his belly and paying his power bill so that the game console stays on. Is it his parents? Or is it a young woman? If she has a child (possibly his child), she is eligible for a whole panoply of government assistance, including TANF, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, low income home energy assistance, and much more. Thirty years ago, in “Losing Ground,” Charles Murray wondered whether the welfare state was enabling the sort of behavior that isn’t good for people — such as having children out of wedlock. More.
The main reason the welfare state functions that way is that so many former working class jobs have gone to eastern Asia.
Easing the hardship reduces the likelihood that working class citizens will begin to wonder about the progressive policies that enabled that.
It is a stage on the road to permanent progressive government. When prosperity fails, the more traditional citizens will be blamed. Just watch.
What’s 150% MORE likely to kill you than sharks?
“Selfies”! Selfies with sharks is likely up there too.
The latest selfie fatality saw a 66-year-old Japanese tourist die after falling down stairs while attempting to take a photo at the Taj Mahal.
Incidents involving the phenomena are now at a toll of twelve this year, overtaking the eight deaths caused by shark attacks in 2015.
Earlier this year the Russian government launched a campaign to make people understand the perils of snapping selfies in dangerous situations.
An illustrated booklet was issued by the advisors, warning its citizens of dangerous scenarios, including snapping a photo while halfway up an electricity pylon, standing in front of an oncoming train, or while in the company of a wild animal [ED – or while participating in any public anti-Putin demonstration].
According to the ministry, Police officers will also hold extensive selfie-safety lessons at schools.
Official Yelena Alekseyeva made a statement when the leaflet was released and said: “Our booklet reminds you of how to take a safe selfie, so it is not the last one you will ever take.”
As if the case of Rachel Dolezal couldn’t get any sillier, anti-racism activist Tim Wise says that the “black” former NAACP chapter president once “tried to stop him from speaking” at Eastern Washington University because … “white folks can’t speak with any legitimacy to issues of racism.”
This just gets better and better!
Misrepresentative portrayals of Muslims and other minorities will not stop unless newspapers are threatened with sanctions, Mehdi Hasan said yesterday.
The columnist and political director of the Huffington Post UK said the press has proven “singularly unable or unwilling to change the discourse, the tone or the approach” towards Muslims, immigrants and asylum seekers.
Hasan, who was speaking in a personal capacity at a media industry event hosted by Mindshare UK, said: “We’re not going to get change unless there is some sanction, there is some penalty. This is not just about Muslims; it is about all minorities.”
“Therefore you have to ask questions about: does it need to be externally imposed, either by better regulation or via some form of commercial imperative? Though, that requires a separate campaign to get companies to give a damn about this stuff,” Hasan added.
He suggested advertisers would have boycotted newspapers over the publication of certain headlines about Muslims, had they been about other minorities.
In a session titled “The Muslims are coming!”, Hasan presented to a group of media industry figures a slideshow of British newspaper headlines and front pages, which he said ostracised the Muslim community, presenting Muslims as “the other”. Hasan also highlighted the factual inaccuracy of some of the stories and accused newspapers of peddling misinformation…
Comments. though few, are unfavourable. The guy is a real piece of work. This video is recommended: “Mehdi Hasan, senior editor of the New Statesman magazine, attacks non-Muslims and atheists as “kufaar” and says they are like cattle.”
He is no longer at New Statesmen but at Huffington Post UK.
There is one particular thing that illustrates better than anything else the unreasonableness — and some would say gall — of homosexuality activists. It’s not demanding that bakers, shirt printers and wedding planners be party to events and expression deeply contrary to their principles, as offensive as that is. What I speak of is something even more fundamental, something again brought to light by the recent Vatican synod on the family.
As many know, the synod made news with an unwisely released and widely misrepresented mid-term report containing language that the secular media interpreted as signaling Church capitulation on the matter of homosexuality (an excellent article on this by Paul Bois is found here). And when it emerged that the language was the handiwork of just one or two individuals and was roundly rejected by the bishops, melancholia — and Machiavellianism — defined the media. “What a shame it is that the Church rejected the more welcoming tone,” we heard. “We thought tolerance and deference to the times were winning out, but then the voices of prejudice quashed progress.” They thought? Insofar as these leftists think at all, they do it all wrong.
Thousands of Manif pour Tous supporters gathered in Paris and Bordeaux on Sunday (October 5) to march against reported plans to extend medically-assisted pregnancy and surrogate motherhood rights to same-sex couples under an 18-month-old same sex marriage law to which they remain implacably opposed.
Will Stephen Harper send Canada’s troops into combat against a well-organized, well-armed terrorist militia just as Jean Chretien did in Afhganistan?
Harper may indeed ask Canadian Forces personnel to take up arms against the terrorists in Iraq but not without consulting other leaders in the House of Commons or allowing a vote.
Harper made that commitment several times in the House of Commons Tuesday at the same time that NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was doing what opposition leaders ought to do: Press the government on details, including length, scope, and objectives of any military mission to be considered.
No. No to any combat role for Canada against ISIS. This fight is not ours and serves only the interests of terrorist nations. Let Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar and all the rest spill their own blood and waste their own treasure.
Islam should be left alone to consume itself. We have nothing to gain from participation.
Harper should realize that propping up terrorist states wins him no favour from any quarter.