Daily Archives: November 27, 2021

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A left-wing dark money juggernaut hauled in a jaw-dropping $1.6 billion in cash from anonymous donors to bankroll groups and causes in 2020, tax forms reveal.

The forms further show that the secret money network, managed byWashington, D.C.-based consulting firm Arabella Advisors, pushed an astounding $896 million in contributions and grants to liberal groups last year.

The Arabella-managed network has solidified howDemocratsquietly benefit from massive amounts of anonymous donations as they simultaneously rail against the influence of dark money in the political sphere.

The network's web of groups sits under four Arabella-managed nonprofits: the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Windward Fund and Hopewell Fund.

DEMOCRATS' HR1 ELECTION BILL BOOSTED BY LIBERAL DARK MONEY GROUP FINANCED BY FOREIGN NATIONAL

Each of the funds acts as a fiscal sponsor to other liberal nonprofits, meaning they provide their tax and legal status to the nonprofits housed beneath the funds. This arrangement allows the fiscally sponsored groups to avoid filing tax forms to theIRS, which would shed light on their financials.

The funds do not disclose donors on their tax forms.

"Arabella is proud to work for these nonprofits, providing HR, legal, payroll, and other administrative services," Steve Sampson, spokesperson for Arabella Advisors, told Fox News. "They make their own decisions on their strategy, programmatic work, and fundraising."

The New Venture Fund is the network's largest nonprofit incubator in terms of sheer cash. In 2020, the fund raised $965 million in anonymous contributions, itstax formsshow.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund hauled in$388 million, the Windward Fund raised$158 millionand the Hopewell Fund facilitated$150 millionin secret donations, their respective tax forms show.

The funds funneled a combined $1.6 billion from secret donors in 2020 - a drastic increase of $885 million over what the fundshad raked inthroughout 2019.

The Capital Research Center found the four funds have implemented more than 300 "pop-up" projects to boost Democratic causes and attack Republican initiatives since their inception.

The groups push efforts ranging fromhealth careto climate initiatives, work on state-level advocacy and ballot measures, and spent big last year to defeat formerPresident Trump.

As the Arabella-managed funds garnered astronomical donations last year, they passed large sums of cash to nonprofits in and outside its network.

The New Venture Fund disbursed $447 million in 2020, itstax formsshow. The contributions include $44 million to America Votes, $25 million to the election reform group Center for Tech and Civic Life and $1 million to the Center for American Progress, which has produced dozens ofBiden White Housestaffers.

RON KLAIN, BIDEN'S POWERFUL CHIEF OF STAFF, LEADS WHITE HOUSE RIFE WITH DARK MONEY TIES

"In response to the urgent global and nationwide challenges of 2020, we were proud to work on all major issues in philanthropy last year, including addressing climate change, election security, racial justice, youth empowerment and education, and global health and international development," Lee Bodner, president of the New Venture Fund, told Fox News.

Bodner said the New Venture Fund does not engage in partisan activities or support any political campaigns.

Meanwhile, the Sixteen Thirty Fund provided$325 millionto liberal endeavors, according to tax forms. Its lucrative grants went to groups such as America Votes ($128 million), Defending Democracy Together ($10 million), a Bill Krystol-directed group, and American Bridge 21st Century Foundation ($2.1 million), led by liberal operative David Brock.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund also financed attack ads against President Trump and other Republicans,Politicoreported.

Amy Kurtz, president of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, told Fox News that last year the group "helped progressive changemakers quickly and efficiently launch new initiatives to address existential threats of historic proportion: a global pandemic, a long-overdue reconning with racial justice, and a climate crisis that we are now living month after month."

Kurtz said the fund is dedicated to "reducing the influence of special interest money in politics" and "leveling the playing field for progressives." She added that they support the For the People Act, which calls for tackling dark money.

The Windward Fund, which primarily focuses onenvironmentalinitiatives, pushed$44 millioninto causes, its tax forms show. Despite their primary focus, the fund moved money to voter engagement groups such as the Missouri Organizing and Voter Engagement Collaborative and the National Vote at Home Institute.

"As the effects of climate change continue to impact communities across the United States and world, the Windward Fund incubated and supported a range of water, climate, and environmental initiatives last year," the group told Fox News in a statement.

"We are proud that we connected and supported groups across diverse geographies, sectors, and communities like never before in 2020, enabling them to mobilize efficiently and elevate the voices of those impacted most by the environmental crisis," the Windward Fund said.

The Hopewell Fund funneled$80 millionto Democratic causes in 2020, its tax forms show. Its most significant contribution was $8 million to ACRONYM, a progressive-media group.

Tara McGowan, who led ACRONYM, launcheda new project this year called Good Information, Inc. to counter "fake news" and disinformation. ACRONYM funded Courier Newsroom, which has been called a "fake news" site by watchdogs. Good Information acquired Courier Newsroom as part of its operations.

"The Hopewell Fund is proud of the work we did in 2020 to help make the world a more equitable place through fiscal sponsorship, charitable initiatives, and grant making," the group wrote in a statement to Fox News. "Our work last year helped nonprofit projects address some of the most pressing issues our society is experiencing, including income inequality, civic engagement, and health care access."

LIBERAL DARK MONEY GROUPS DRIVE EFFORTS TO PACK THE SUPREME COURT

Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of the watchdog group Americans for Public Trust, attempted to gather the fund's tax forms in person last week but was escorted out by security.

"No wonder Arabella Advisorscalled securityon Americans for Public Trust when we requested these tax returns," Sutherland told Fox News. "They were delaying the release of documents that would show they funneled over $1 billion to liberal and left wing causes."

"After years of railing on the evils of dark money, all while being bankrolled by a Swiss billionaire, it is clear liberals are the main beneficiary of undisclosed donations," Sutherland said.

A host of influential Democratic donors use the Arabella-managed funds as a conduit to funnel cash to projects, including billionairesGeorge Sorosand Hansjorg Wyss, a Swiss national who said in 2014 he did not hold American citizenship.

The Open Society Policy Center, Soros' advocacy nonprofit, was anearly funderof the judicial advocacy group Demand Justice, which the Sixteen Thirty Fund fiscally sponsored until this year.

Demand Justice has been at the forefront of Republican judicial fights, including pushing back against the nomination of now-Supreme CourtJustice Brett Kavanaugh.

FILE - In this Sept. 27, 2015, file photo, George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management, talks during a television interview for CNN at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. (AP)

Shortly before Demand Justice publicly launched in 2018, Brian Fallon, the group's leader, mingled at an Atlanta Democracy Alliance donor club gathering, which counts Soros as a member. Hewas in attendanceto promote his group, and Soros' donation flowed to the group around that time.

The Democracy Alliance has alsorecommendedthat its members, who largely remain hidden, provide donations to initiatives housed at the Arabella-managed funds in its internal documents.

Sorosaddedmillions more to projects housed at the Sixteen Thirty Fund last year, including the Governing for Impact Action Fund and Trusted Elections Action Fund, an Open Society Foundations database shows.

The Sixteen Thirty Fundalso paidthe Democracy Alliance hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting services in the past.

At least one Arabella Advisors employee, Scott Nielson, its managing director of advocacy,workedwith Soros' nonprofits and the Democracy Alliance before joining the consulting firm.

Meanwhile, Wyss, theSwissbillionaire, is also connected to the Democracy Alliance and is a significant financial backer of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

Between 2016 and early 2020, Wyss directed $135 million into the Sixteen Thirty Fund through the Wyss Foundation's advocacy arm, the Berger Action Fund, the New York Times reported.

LIBERAL DARK MONEY GROUP 1630 FUND'S ELECTION WISHLIST BOOSTED BY SWISS BILLIONAIRE

Another group closely related to the Sixteen Thirty Fund and Wyss is the Hub Project, a behind-the-scenes group that has received millions of dollars from the Wyss Foundation. The Wyss Foundation is one of the top donors to the Hub Project, which has a history of distributing funds from the Sixteen Thirty Fund to state-level groups.

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 01: Former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg (L) and philanthropist Hansjorg Wyss attend Oceana's 2015 New York City benefit at Four Seasons Restaurant on April 1, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Oceana) (Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Oceana)

One of the state-level groups was Floridians for a Fair Democracy, which received $3.95 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund to help restore voting rights for more than a million felons through a ballot initiative in 2018.

Another billionaire, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, disclosed giving $45 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund for a group called the Civic Action Fund last year,Politicoreported.

Arabella Advisors collected large sums from the four funds for administrative, operations and management services in 2020, making it a highly lucrative business.

The tax forms show the New Venture Fund paid nearly$27 millionto Arabella, while the Sixteen Thirty Fund disbursed$9 millionto the firm. The Windward Fund doled out almost$3 millionfor its services, while the Hopewell Fund added$6.6 million to Arabella.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Arabella was paid $45 million between the funds for their management services.

Eric Kessler, a formerBill Clintonappointee and member of the Clinton Global Initiative, is the founder and head of Arabella Advisors.

The rest is here:

Liberal dark money juggernaut raises $1.6 billion to flood left-wing groups with cash, tax forms reveal - Fox News

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks to reporters from the roof of the Canadian Embassy in Washington [Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite]

With the presentation Tuesday of the Speech from the Throne that inaugurates a new session of Canadas parliament, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his minority Liberal government laid out their agenda at the start of their third term in office. Whilst there was much media hype over it being delivered by Canadas first indigenous Governor General and it abounded with vapid election rhetoric, the throne speech made clear the government is moving sharply right. The main thrusts of its program will be austerity and mass infection for workers at home, coupled with militarism and war abroad.

The cutting edge of the Trudeau governments stepped up onslaught on working people is its elimination of the limited pandemic relief provided workers. Late last month, Trudeau announced that the Canada Recovery Benefit, which paid workers a miserly $400 per week if they were unable to work due to COVID-19 restrictions, would be immediately abolished.

In its place, a new benefit is to be introduced that will be available to workers only in the event of an anti-COVID-19 lockdown and limited to just $300 per week. Given that all of Canadas provincial governments have ruled out future lockdowns even as they let the virus run rampant, this effectively means an end to all financial support for workers.

To underscore its determination to deny further financial aid to working people, the Liberal government unveiled even more stringent requirements for the new lockdown benefit this week. According to the bill introduced in parliament Wednesday, the Liberal cabinet will have the power to determine what constitutes a lockdown. As a minimum, workers must be ordered to stay home for 14 straight days by their employer. In addition, the government intends to bar any financial support to unvaccinated workers.

The best way to get the pandemic under control is vaccination, declared the Throne speech. In fact, the Liberal governments reliance on vaccines alone, with virtually all non-pharmaceutical anti-COVID-19 public health measures now withdrawn, has facilitated widespread transmission of the virus.

Reports of the emergence of a new (Omicron) variant in southern Africa that potentially is resistant to existing vaccines underscores just how dangerous is the ruling elites rush to reopen the economy and its class-based opposition to implementing a science-based strategy to eliminate the deadly virus.

Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, the Liberal governments spending cutter-in-chief, summed up the ruling elites callous indifference to the lives and well-being of working people, declaring that the bill establishing the bogus new Canada Worker Lockdown Benefit is the last step in our COVID support programs. It is what I hope and truly believe is the final pivot.

In other words, as a winter wave of infections and death gathers pace, which current developments in Europe suggest could prove to be the worst yet, Trudeaus Liberal government is telling workers, Youre on your own. This is no different from the fascistic let-it-rip pandemic policy pursued by the German establishment, whose political representatives voted this week to declare the COVID-19 emergency over. Freeland and Trudeau would no doubt agree with German Health Minister Jens Spahn, who asserted chillingly that by the end of this winter, people would either be vaccinated, recovered, or dead.

While the Liberal government strips workers of any financial aid so they are forced to return to the labour market to generate profits for big business, the governments support for corporate Canada continues to know no bounds. After transferring over $650 billion to the banks and corporate elite virtually overnight in the early stages of the pandemic, the Liberals made clear that wage and rent subsidies for a wide range of businesses will continue at least until May 2022. These programs have largely functioned throughout the pandemic as slush funds for corporate executives and super-rich shareholders. Canadas 48 billionaires saw their combined wealth shoot up by $78 billion during the pandemics first year.

Under conditions where British Columbia is being devastated by floods in the latest in a series of climate change-driven extreme weather events that have ravaged the countrys West Coast province since June, the Liberals throne speech again made clear that any action they take to mitigate global warming will be entirely subordinate to the profit and geo-political interests of the Canadian elite. It called for Canadian capitalism to seize on the climate change crisis to become a leader in clean tech. By focusing on innovation and good, green jobs, and by working with like-minded countrieswe will build a more resilient, sustainable, and competitive economy, stated the speech. As a country, we want to be leaders in producing the worlds cleanest steel, aluminum, building products, cars, and planes.

The Throne speech underscored that the Trudeau government intends to heed the demands drummed home by Canadas corporate elite in recent months for a pivot to austerity and will dramatically curtail social spending. [W]ith one of the most successful vaccination campaigns in the world, and employment back to pre-pandemic levels, the Government is moving to more targeted support, while prudently managing spending, the speech declared.

Tellingly the government has dropped all talk of incorporating the millions of gig economy and other involuntarily self-employed workers into the Employment Insurance system, meaning they will continue to have no protection against a sudden loss of income.

The main area to which fiscal responsibility and prudence do not apply is military spending. The Trudeau government remains committed to hike military spending by over 70 percent compared to 2017 levels by 2026. But even this vast increase, which amounts to the allocation of more than $12 billion in additional spending each year on weapons of destruction and death, is a mere down payment.

The Throne speech referred to comprehensive plans for an aggressive militarist foreign policy across wide swaths of the globe. A changing world requires adapting and expanding diplomatic engagement, stated the speech. Canada will continue working with key allies and partners, while making deliberate efforts to deepen partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and across the Arctic. Discussions are reportedly ongoing about an expanded deployment of Canadian troops to Ukraine, justified with lurid claims of Russian aggression, although it is NATO that has systematically encircled Russia and ratcheted up tensions.

Coming just five days after Trudeau met with US President Joe Biden and pledged his governments firm support for Washingtons diplomatic, economic, and military offensive against China, the Throne speechs reference to the Indo-Pacific is highly significant. It underlines that Canadas foreign and military policy is being adjusted to conform even more closely with the Pentagons aggressive plans for an all-out conflict with Beijing, which top military commanders have asserted is only a few years off.

Senior foreign policy experts speaking to the right-wing National Post described the Throne speech as offering a new foreign policy direction. Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador to China, told the newspaper, This is not only about bringing India and the Indian Ocean into perhaps greater emphasis in Canadian activities, but Indo-Pacific as a frame is essentially a response to the rise of Chinese influence and power.

On the eve of the federal election campaign, the Trudeau government signed an agreement with the Biden administration to modernize NORAD, the Canada-US aerospace and maritime defence command. This Cold War-era bilateral alliance for continental defence is to be upgraded with the aim of providing Washington and Ottawa first-strike capabilities against rivals like Russia and China and enabling the North American imperialist powers to wage a winnable nuclear war .

The fact that no party, apart from the Socialist Equality Party, raised Canadas NORAD modernization commitment during the election campaign was tacit admission that they all unreservedly support this provocative move. The multibillion-dollar bill for upgrading NORAD is not included in Canadas planned defence spending increases.

To enforce this deeply unpopular agenda of austerity at home and militarism and war abroad, the minority Liberal government can rely on an effective all-party coalition in parliament. Over recent weeks, Jagmeet Singhs New Democrats held secret, high-level talks with the Liberals on concluding a formal confidence-and-supply agreement, under which the social democrats would be committed to propping up the Liberals in parliament for two or more years. Singh bluntly explained why this plan was shelved last week, telling the media that Trudeau could rely on the Conservatives or the Bloc Qubcoisa close ally of Quebecs chauvinist, unabashedly pro-big business CAQ governmentto impose the elimination of COVID-19 supports for workers, and the NDP to secure a majority for other policy items, like the Throne speech.

Outside of parliament, the Trudeau government will rely on an even closer corporatist alliance between government, big business and the trade unions to suppress working-class opposition. As the speech noted with respect to the governments climate change policy, which is in reality a massive government subsidy program to make corporate Canada profitable in the emerging clean energy economy, The Government will bring together provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous communities, as well as labour and the private sector, to tap into global capital and attract investors.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

An online discussion with leading international scientists and workers involved in the fight against COVID-19.

The two-day summit consisted of 22 different sessions on the pandemic, including on airborne transmission, inequities in global vaccine distribution, the effects of Long COVID and the development of new variants of SARS-CoV-2.

Amid the ongoing wave of mass death, governments worldwide are scrapping all remaining measures to contain or slow the spread of COVID-19, with the grotesque mantra that society must learn to live with the virus.

Original post:

Justin Trudeau and Liberals inaugurate third term in officeausterity and mass infection at home, militarism and war abroad - WSWS

Breadcrumb Trail Links

For a Liberal government that has made climate change one of its top priorities, its policies on disaster mitigation have been nothing short of negligent

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Justin Trudeau saw for himself the impact of the atmospheric river that broke rainfall records in British Columbia, leaving dikes breached, homes submerged, highways washed out and livestock drowned.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Another pulse of storms is forecast for this weekend. Well see what God has in store, one resident told Global TV, stoically.

But as distressing as the flooding has been, the lack of preparation for extreme weather in the province has been just as shocking.

Ed Fast, the MP for Abbotsford, one of the worst affected cities, said all levels of government have been aware for years about the potential for flooding but didnt act. We should have seen it coming but nothing substantive was ever done about it, he said.

As a minister in the Harper government, Fast bears his share of the blame for that inertia.

But the Liberals have been in power for the past six years and for a government that has made climate change one of its top priorities, its policies on disaster mitigation have been nothing short of negligent.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This weeks throne speech committed the Liberals to develop Canadas first ever National Adaptation Strategy, prompting a question that begs an answer: Why wasnt such a strategy commissioned after the Fort McMurray fire in 2016 or the spring flooding in Ontario and Quebec in 2017?

What is apparent is that the Liberal government has been almost entirely focused on addressing the politically virtuous battle of reducing emissions, at the expense of the less sexy alleviation of climate changes ramifications.

Resilience has been a victim of ideology. The country has been fractured by debates about carbon pricing, while the far less contentious issue of preparing for floods and fires has been neglected.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Take the update to the governments climate plan in December 2020, which allocated $2.6 billion over seven years to make homes more energy efficient but ignored the issue of flood proofing.

There was a strong push by the Insurance Bureau of Canada to have some of the money directed toward a flood resilience subsidy for sump pumps, window wells and so on which would, in turn, have yielded insurance discounts for homeowners.

However, then Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson did not want to dilute emissions-reduction efforts.

The Insurance Bureau dismissed the resulting strategy as half a plan, arguing it did little to protect Canadians from floods, fires, windstorms and hail.

With 2021 set to be the most expensive year on record for insured damage (surpassing 2016s $5.2 billion), it is in the industrys interests to call on Ottawa to do more. But that doesnt mean its wrong.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

When then Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna requested money for a disaster mitigation fund, she was allocated $1.4 billion over 12 years a fraction of what she asked for. (The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates the country should be spending $5.3 billion a year on adaptive infrastructure.)

Belatedly, the government has shifted course.

A damning new report by the environment commissioner, Jerry DeMarco, said that Canada has been the worst performer in the G7 since the Paris Agreement when it comes to emissions reduction. But he also condemned the governments record on climate resilience, pointing out that 10 per cent of households are at risk of flooding. He said the Liberals should centralize the responsibility for adaptation and other functions from the Environment Department to the Privy Council Office and Finance Canada. It appears that change will now take place, along with the adoption of other Liberal campaign commitments such as funding for the retrofitting of homes to protect against extreme weather, the development of flood maps, and the creation of a national flood insurance program for homeowners at high risk. A taskforce on flood insurance was struck in 2020 by then Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair, and is set to report back next May.

A more serious approach to adaptation is long overdue.

When it comes to global emissions, Canada should live up to its international commitments but it cannot control the amount of greenhouse gases being discharged by China and others.

However, it can do more to help Canadians protect themselves from the depredations of extreme climate.

It is too bad that it has taken Old Testament-style tumults of rain to expunge the misplaced belief that adaptation is a distraction from achieving net-zero emissions.

Email: jivison@postmedia.com | Twitter: IvisonJ

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read this article:

John Ivison: Liberals so focused on carbon taxes, they missed the flood coming in the back door - National Post

If you follow The Guardian Australias overexcited live politics blog and dip in and out of Twitter, this weeks parliamentary sitting have been for the Morrison government what the storming of the Winter Palace was to the Romanovs.

True, things have looked ragged with members of the right rump and today a grandstander from the left crossing the floor and abstaining from voting, not to mention Pauline Hansons bastardry in letting the motion for a Senate inquiry into the ABC get voted down by Labor and the Greens, but the government isnt about to fall on the floor of the House.

No, voters are going to deliver its defeat or so the polls tell us.

And one largely overlooked poll in the News Corp state-based titles suggests that the electorate will not bring down the Morrison government by moving to the populist parties of the right, but by swinging to the ALP.

One reason the poll has been overlooked is that its a first-time outing for a Sydney group called Ergo Strategy, which described itself as a boutique consumer insights consultancy.

So boutique is it that none of the poll wonk community have ever heard of them, but this doesnt mean we should dismiss their findings.

Reliability and credibility is vital to both pollsters and the media outlets that pay for their research.

Good polling doesnt come cheaply. A company the size of News Corp doesnt want to invest in dud work. Being associated with a name poll is good advertising for any market research business. They dont want to stuff up because if it all ends in tears, it ends very badly indeed.

The story of how Kerry Packer personally rang Gary Morgan to tell him he was sacked and to give him a good bollocking after the final Morgan poll in The Bulletin ahead of the 2001 election gave it to Labor is legendary in political circles.

But back to the poll itself. Its pretty clear. Close to a fifth of voters who supported the Coalition at the last election now intend to vote for another party. Another seven per cent dont know.

Ergo Strategy/News Corp Australia

But as the graphic shows, an overwhelming number of those people planning to switch are moving to the ALP, not One Nation or the UAP. The Liberal Democrats dont even rate a mention. And we dont know what sort of independents that two per cent are going to. They could well be the Voices Of types funded by green rich listers.

Its one poll, of course, so all the usual qualifiers apply. And there are two matters that also need pointing out.

First, the polling was carried out between September 10 and 23. Since then, of course, weve seen the anti-vaccine mandate movement grow. That might might have changed more votes.

Secondly, the polling overall shows one in three voters say they are planning to switch parties at the next election.

That indicates were in for a hotly contested and unpredictable time indeed.

Read the original post:

Liberal support is disintegrating but barely going to Hanson, Palmer or the LDP - The Spectator Australia

subscribers-only,

Next Thursday, possibly Friday if debate over religious freedom drags on in the Senate, is probably the last opportunity the federal Liberal Party has to rid itself of a leader in Scott Morrison, increasingly looking like a liability without a road to victory that he is capable of describing. After that, parliament rises for Christmas, then the January holidays, and even if extraordinary measures were taken to reconvene parliament, there would simply not be time enough for a new regime to prepare itself for election. It's not going to happen of course, especially if the so-called incumbency rule, by which a popularly elected prime minister cannot be deposed other than by a two-thirds caucus vote, is treated as the formal requirement. There are party constitutionalists doubtful whether the parliamentary party can bind future meetings of the party, and who observe that a prime minister determined to carry on after losing a majority in caucus would be in an impossible position out in the electorate. Be that as it may, there are no obvious challengers on the horizon, even if a significant number of members, possibly a majority, have little faith in the capacity of Morrison to pull off another election win, with or without the direct intervention of God. Their problem is the fear that any replacement, perhaps Peter Dutton or Josh Frydenberg, would be unlikely to be able to retrieve the party's position, and might well make it worse. Particularly if the deposed Morrison rump - bound to insist even after any sort of defeat - both that they had a winning strategy, and were robbed - were in full-scale revolt, leaking and undermining, and doing their best, in tried and true modern Liberal fashion, to fail to turn the other cheek. It's not simply a matter of now being too late for anything in the nature of a revolt. The party, as much as Morrison himself, committed itself to the sorts of strategies it is now following, even if some now regret it. The personality and style of Morrison has infected the whole government - including most ministers. The sclerosis and the lack of flexibility on general positions is now built-in. Morrison and a number of other ministers are more than ruthless enough to be able to ditch whole areas of policy or practice, and without regard to anything they have said or done in the past about the folly of going by the new path. They have been trashing a perfectly serviceable brand for far too long to be able to simply deploy it again. Scott Morrison, who pitched himself as a salesman, and who seems to be able to convince himself of anything, can't seem to sell a thing anymore. His retainers may have little choice but to nod wisely at whatever he says, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to display conviction, faith, or personal endorsement of what's on offer. They retreat to their constituencies gloomy of the government's chances of galvanising the community, or half of it, around any campaign idea. It may be that Morrison has, with some policies, or recent policy shifts, neutralised some issues which might have actively gone against the government. Let's imagine, for example, that he has done this in vital constituencies with his efforts to establish freedom of religion in legislation - perhaps whether or not he can get the support of parliament and the measures put into law. But his proposals were in any event watered down, and if they received some endorsement from some religious lobbies, they created no great enthusiasm. They may well have mobilised some fresh enemies, particularly among those who - though not hostile to religion - simply do not understand what the threat to it was, where it was coming from, and how freedom of thought is likely to be enhanced by the proposed measures. It has, after all, been the Liberal Party which has long counselled suspicion of entrenched rights, or of legislative efforts to put a hand on the scales when it has come time to balance different rights. It has, after all, been the party which has characterised Labor enthusiasm for the declaration, definition and weaponising of new rights and duties as proof of its addiction to coercion, controls, legislative solutions and intrinsic bossiness. The skirmishes of the past few weeks are not the campaign proper, nor do they necessarily point at the issues around which the electorate will divide. Morrison is rehearsing a few approaches, and a few areas in which, he or his strategists believe, ground could be gained. But he is carefully watching the media, and the public response, and one can be sure that he will drop ideas that do not seem to take. A good example might be with his new-found fondness for electric cars, his initiatives to establish charging points, and his insistence that technological developments in only the past two years had completely transformed the economic equations about the use of the car and the truck. It didn't work. Partly because Morrison is incapable of taking a backward step, or of ever admitting that he was once wrong. Instead, in the usual Morrison style he begins by denying that he ever said anything negative about electric vehicles at all, then, when confronted with clear records showing that he had, he attempts to redefine what he said, to change the emphasis, and to insist that circumstances had radically changed. A bigger man presiding over a U-turn - a John Howard perhaps - might say, "I used to think that. But I have had a closer look at it and changed my mind." And he might even win some professional admiration, either for his willingness to cut and run, or flexibility, or even ruthlessness once it was clear circumstances had changed. He often did, if never with the style or panache of Peter Beattie, then premier of Queensland. Not Morrison. By now, as ever, he has convinced himself that there is no contradiction whatever with anything he has said before, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is calumniating, petty, nit-picking, and seeking to disguise her own moral infirmities. This capacity to examine his own conscience and to acquit himself of misleading conduct because he believed in all of his statements at the time he made them might, in his own mind, persuade him of the purity of his intentions. That does not stop its being a self-delusion, and its exposition a deceit. Here in this vale of tears, it would be called perjury in a court of law, at the very least for not being "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;" as well as for being calculated to deceive. Labor spent a good deal of the parliamentary week seeming to demonstrate that for Morrison, the lie is not the exception but the rule, a practice, presumably learnt from what he would call the Evil One, which is entirely ingrained in his character, particularly when in a campaigning mode with pretences both about where he is coming from and where his opponents are going. The examples Labor chose were well known ones - for example about the staff in Morrison's office lying and misleading about Morrison's whereabouts and presence in Hawaii during the 2019 bushfire crisis. If Morrison stumbled here - and he did, big time, simply because he has not "adjusted" his story to explain facts now generally known - one might have thought him on notice about the tactic, and re-briefing himself for the cases that the opposition was certain to bowl up. Perhaps he is so certain of, and so adamant about his own honesty that his staff were scared. Perhaps he had convinced himself, as he had with other parts of his explanations, that his explanations were credible, and had been accepted as such, at the time they had come to notice. In any event, his performance was cringeworthy. He tried to recover ground, or turn the tables, by purporting to see in the attack Labor's general absence of policies, and its determination to go the low route by tiny semantic quibbles. One only had to see the agony and embarrassment on the faces of his ministers and colleagues that he was doing himself further political self-harm. Scott Morrison is by no means the only chronic liar in politics. He may not even be the worst. There are quite a number, and on the Labor side of politics as well. But what distinguishes his line of bullshit is the way his refusal to admit error, to look back, or to see matters as others see them, is that he insists on digging himself further in, even as he is doing himself further damage. Journalist Sean Kelly, in his book A portrait of Scott Morrison, does a masterly job of attempting to explain this from Morrison's point of view. Twenty years ago, John Howard began to acquire a serious reputation for misleading the public, not least by the exposure of his prevarications in the children overboard affair. His capacity to do it was much enhanced by the immunity of his private office from any external accountability, and by the way Howard so organised his office and style of management that it was almost always impossible to prove that he knew of anything, or had been (orally) briefed. By 2004, opinion polls indicated that the general attack on his credibility - even his honesty - was working. Put bluntly, many people did not believe a word he was saying. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It was thus quite a surprise when Howard announced the 2004 election that he declared that it was about "trust" - about whom the electorate trusted during the term ahead. Surely, some thought, this put his credibility, his honesty with the facts, and the record of his misleading the public right to the fore. But while Labor continued to hammer Howard as an unreliable witness to anything, it did not seem to see the difference between "trust" and "truth-telling". The public had decided that it did not much believe anything Howard said. (They did not much trust most Labor spokespeople either). But they felt that they "knew" Howard. He was a "known quantity" - both in his virtues and his deficits. By contrast the Howard attack on Latham over "trust" was that Latham was an unknown quantity - even, on the basis of what was known, a somewhat broody, unsettled and erratic figure. People had no instinct for what he might do. They should not trust him to do the right thing. The campaign worked, in the sense that Howard won the election with an increased majority. With Scott Morrison this time, Labor is trying not to make the same mistake. They are using evidence of misleading conduct, followed by general slipperiness with the facts and the truth, not only as evidence that he is a chronic liar, but as evidence that he cannot be trusted. That his instincts - and, often, his motives - are wrong. Many of his lies are not so much about objective facts - facts independent of Morrison's existence - but about Morrison spin, explanation, or account of what has occurred. They go, in short, to his moral character, his personality, and a certain narcissistic desire to be at the centre of everything. When his lies unravel, he becomes agitated, not so much as a salesman ruefully recognising that his pitch did not work, but as someone forced to confront some blemish or imperfection. Morrison's weaknesses are by now ingrained, but Labor will ignore, at its peril, his opportunism, his willingness to seize on some sudden Labor stumble - or lie of its own. So far, however, he is searching for a theme. He still has time, unless Labor overwhelms his defences. It is not doing so yet. The opportunity for Labor comes from continued working on the trust angle. This is because Morrison's trust problem is a function of his studied refusal to have an agenda, a vision, a general strategy, or a comprehensive explanation of how things are happening and how events fit in with each other. It's a hole Labor can fill. Morrison has described his political approach as transactional. But he only rarely relates his style of government to broad philosophies of government, unless by reference to simplistic slogans. By contrast, Howard was an explainer, with a generally coherent program. He was agile enough to drop policies which became unpopular; he was often frank about that. But he would immediately attempt to create a fresh narrative that incorporated his new itinerary, still, he would insist, going in the same direction. Morrison's seeming incapacity to describe his favoured destination, his plans, or even his aims - other than in vague terms suggesting that all he wants is the restoration of things to the way they were, mean that persistence with many of his deceptions lacks any point. It bolsters his compulsive secrecy, general refusal to explain, or gives any account. It adds to the perception some have that he believes himself anointed rather than elected, responsible to his deity rather than voters at large. It also reinforces views that he is more about announcements than actual performance, and that his interventions in the body politic are generally late and in reaction to circumstances, rather than in taking charge of events. Down the track, indeed, some will trace the Morrison malaise not to his general untrustworthiness but to his letting events take charge of him, rather than the other way around. Increasingly, the salesman has nothing much to sell but himself, and that, it is becoming evident, is nothing much at all.

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/8WgcxeQ6swJGymJT6BMGEL/c0174943-11dd-4e77-8b2b-520c48431bfe.jpg/r12_433_4987_3244_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

SUBSCRIBER | OPINION

November 26 2021 - 12:00PM

Next Thursday, possibly Friday if debate over religious freedom drags on in the Senate, is probably the last opportunity the federal Liberal Party has to rid itself of a leader in Scott Morrison, increasingly looking like a liability without a road to victory that he is capable of describing. After that, parliament rises for Christmas, then the January holidays, and even if extraordinary measures were taken to reconvene parliament, there would simply not be time enough for a new regime to prepare itself for election.

It's not going to happen of course, especially if the so-called incumbency rule, by which a popularly elected prime minister cannot be deposed other than by a two-thirds caucus vote, is treated as the formal requirement. There are party constitutionalists doubtful whether the parliamentary party can bind future meetings of the party, and who observe that a prime minister determined to carry on after losing a majority in caucus would be in an impossible position out in the electorate.

Be that as it may, there are no obvious challengers on the horizon, even if a significant number of members, possibly a majority, have little faith in the capacity of Morrison to pull off another election win, with or without the direct intervention of God. Their problem is the fear that any replacement, perhaps Peter Dutton or Josh Frydenberg, would be unlikely to be able to retrieve the party's position, and might well make it worse. Particularly if the deposed Morrison rump - bound to insist even after any sort of defeat - both that they had a winning strategy, and were robbed - were in full-scale revolt, leaking and undermining, and doing their best, in tried and true modern Liberal fashion, to fail to turn the other cheek.

It's not simply a matter of now being too late for anything in the nature of a revolt. The party, as much as Morrison himself, committed itself to the sorts of strategies it is now following, even if some now regret it. The personality and style of Morrison has infected the whole government - including most ministers. The sclerosis and the lack of flexibility on general positions is now built-in. Morrison and a number of other ministers are more than ruthless enough to be able to ditch whole areas of policy or practice, and without regard to anything they have said or done in the past about the folly of going by the new path. They have been trashing a perfectly serviceable brand for far too long to be able to simply deploy it again.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. Picture: Dion Georgopoulos

Scott Morrison, who pitched himself as a salesman, and who seems to be able to convince himself of anything, can't seem to sell a thing anymore. His retainers may have little choice but to nod wisely at whatever he says, but they are finding it increasingly difficult to display conviction, faith, or personal endorsement of what's on offer.

They retreat to their constituencies gloomy of the government's chances of galvanising the community, or half of it, around any campaign idea. It may be that Morrison has, with some policies, or recent policy shifts, neutralised some issues which might have actively gone against the government. Let's imagine, for example, that he has done this in vital constituencies with his efforts to establish freedom of religion in legislation - perhaps whether or not he can get the support of parliament and the measures put into law. But his proposals were in any event watered down, and if they received some endorsement from some religious lobbies, they created no great enthusiasm. They may well have mobilised some fresh enemies, particularly among those who - though not hostile to religion - simply do not understand what the threat to it was, where it was coming from, and how freedom of thought is likely to be enhanced by the proposed measures.

It has, after all, been the Liberal Party which has long counselled suspicion of entrenched rights, or of legislative efforts to put a hand on the scales when it has come time to balance different rights. It has, after all, been the party which has characterised Labor enthusiasm for the declaration, definition and weaponising of new rights and duties as proof of its addiction to coercion, controls, legislative solutions and intrinsic bossiness.

The skirmishes of the past few weeks are not the campaign proper, nor do they necessarily point at the issues around which the electorate will divide. Morrison is rehearsing a few approaches, and a few areas in which, he or his strategists believe, ground could be gained. But he is carefully watching the media, and the public response, and one can be sure that he will drop ideas that do not seem to take. A good example might be with his new-found fondness for electric cars, his initiatives to establish charging points, and his insistence that technological developments in only the past two years had completely transformed the economic equations about the use of the car and the truck. It didn't work. Partly because Morrison is incapable of taking a backward step, or of ever admitting that he was once wrong.

Could Peter Dutton do a better job of leading the Liberal Party? Picture: Keegan Carroll

Instead, in the usual Morrison style he begins by denying that he ever said anything negative about electric vehicles at all, then, when confronted with clear records showing that he had, he attempts to redefine what he said, to change the emphasis, and to insist that circumstances had radically changed. A bigger man presiding over a U-turn - a John Howard perhaps - might say, "I used to think that. But I have had a closer look at it and changed my mind." And he might even win some professional admiration, either for his willingness to cut and run, or flexibility, or even ruthlessness once it was clear circumstances had changed. He often did, if never with the style or panache of Peter Beattie, then premier of Queensland.

Not Morrison. By now, as ever, he has convinced himself that there is no contradiction whatever with anything he has said before, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is calumniating, petty, nit-picking, and seeking to disguise her own moral infirmities. This capacity to examine his own conscience and to acquit himself of misleading conduct because he believed in all of his statements at the time he made them might, in his own mind, persuade him of the purity of his intentions. That does not stop its being a self-delusion, and its exposition a deceit. Here in this vale of tears, it would be called perjury in a court of law, at the very least for not being "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;" as well as for being calculated to deceive.

Labor spent a good deal of the parliamentary week seeming to demonstrate that for Morrison, the lie is not the exception but the rule, a practice, presumably learnt from what he would call the Evil One, which is entirely ingrained in his character, particularly when in a campaigning mode with pretences both about where he is coming from and where his opponents are going. The examples Labor chose were well known ones - for example about the staff in Morrison's office lying and misleading about Morrison's whereabouts and presence in Hawaii during the 2019 bushfire crisis. If Morrison stumbled here - and he did, big time, simply because he has not "adjusted" his story to explain facts now generally known - one might have thought him on notice about the tactic, and re-briefing himself for the cases that the opposition was certain to bowl up. Perhaps he is so certain of, and so adamant about his own honesty that his staff were scared. Perhaps he had convinced himself, as he had with other parts of his explanations, that his explanations were credible, and had been accepted as such, at the time they had come to notice. In any event, his performance was cringeworthy. He tried to recover ground, or turn the tables, by purporting to see in the attack Labor's general absence of policies, and its determination to go the low route by tiny semantic quibbles. One only had to see the agony and embarrassment on the faces of his ministers and colleagues that he was doing himself further political self-harm.

Scott Morrison is by no means the only chronic liar in politics. He may not even be the worst. There are quite a number, and on the Labor side of politics as well. But what distinguishes his line of bullshit is the way his refusal to admit error, to look back, or to see matters as others see them, is that he insists on digging himself further in, even as he is doing himself further damage. Journalist Sean Kelly, in his book A portrait of Scott Morrison, does a masterly job of attempting to explain this from Morrison's point of view.

Twenty years ago, John Howard began to acquire a serious reputation for misleading the public, not least by the exposure of his prevarications in the children overboard affair. His capacity to do it was much enhanced by the immunity of his private office from any external accountability, and by the way Howard so organised his office and style of management that it was almost always impossible to prove that he knew of anything, or had been (orally) briefed. By 2004, opinion polls indicated that the general attack on his credibility - even his honesty - was working. Put bluntly, many people did not believe a word he was saying.

It was thus quite a surprise when Howard announced the 2004 election that he declared that it was about "trust" - about whom the electorate trusted during the term ahead. Surely, some thought, this put his credibility, his honesty with the facts, and the record of his misleading the public right to the fore.

But while Labor continued to hammer Howard as an unreliable witness to anything, it did not seem to see the difference between "trust" and "truth-telling". The public had decided that it did not much believe anything Howard said. (They did not much trust most Labor spokespeople either). But they felt that they "knew" Howard. He was a "known quantity" - both in his virtues and his deficits. By contrast the Howard attack on Latham over "trust" was that Latham was an unknown quantity - even, on the basis of what was known, a somewhat broody, unsettled and erratic figure. People had no instinct for what he might do. They should not trust him to do the right thing.

The campaign worked, in the sense that Howard won the election with an increased majority.

With Scott Morrison this time, Labor is trying not to make the same mistake. They are using evidence of misleading conduct, followed by general slipperiness with the facts and the truth, not only as evidence that he is a chronic liar, but as evidence that he cannot be trusted. That his instincts - and, often, his motives - are wrong. Many of his lies are not so much about objective facts - facts independent of Morrison's existence - but about Morrison spin, explanation, or account of what has occurred. They go, in short, to his moral character, his personality, and a certain narcissistic desire to be at the centre of everything. When his lies unravel, he becomes agitated, not so much as a salesman ruefully recognising that his pitch did not work, but as someone forced to confront some blemish or imperfection.

Morrison's weaknesses are by now ingrained, but Labor will ignore, at its peril, his opportunism, his willingness to seize on some sudden Labor stumble - or lie of its own. So far, however, he is searching for a theme. He still has time, unless Labor overwhelms his defences. It is not doing so yet.

The opportunity for Labor comes from continued working on the trust angle. This is because Morrison's trust problem is a function of his studied refusal to have an agenda, a vision, a general strategy, or a comprehensive explanation of how things are happening and how events fit in with each other. It's a hole Labor can fill.

Morrison has described his political approach as transactional. But he only rarely relates his style of government to broad philosophies of government, unless by reference to simplistic slogans. By contrast, Howard was an explainer, with a generally coherent program. He was agile enough to drop policies which became unpopular; he was often frank about that. But he would immediately attempt to create a fresh narrative that incorporated his new itinerary, still, he would insist, going in the same direction.

Morrison's seeming incapacity to describe his favoured destination, his plans, or even his aims - other than in vague terms suggesting that all he wants is the restoration of things to the way they were, mean that persistence with many of his deceptions lacks any point. It bolsters his compulsive secrecy, general refusal to explain, or gives any account. It adds to the perception some have that he believes himself anointed rather than elected, responsible to his deity rather than voters at large. It also reinforces views that he is more about announcements than actual performance, and that his interventions in the body politic are generally late and in reaction to circumstances, rather than in taking charge of events.

Down the track, indeed, some will trace the Morrison malaise not to his general untrustworthiness but to his letting events take charge of him, rather than the other way around. Increasingly, the salesman has nothing much to sell but himself, and that, it is becoming evident, is nothing much at all.

Follow this link:

How Scott Morrison is trashing the Liberal brand - The Canberra Times

Prankster Rob Dobi (who is an illustrator IRL) called into conservative talk show "Life with Liz" in Nashua, New Hampshire to "punk" her and her posse. Although they never caught on, Dobi "slammed" the left with a bit of poetry that included as many punk band names as he could fit in. By the end, Liz and crew, although oblivious to his shenanigans, are laughing hard as they say goodbye to their "Republican" caller. Good times were had by all.

See how many punk bands you can catch by listening. (Or read the transcription below.)

"One of my main problems is I'm a Republican in a fairly liberal area and I feel like everyone is just, like, Against me, so I feel like what we need to do is listen to what our Descendents told us. Because in the past, we Refused to live, like, a Life of Agony. I'm Sick Of It All. Im sick of people thinking we're just aMinor Threat. Enough of that Fugazi. Alot of these people just got Bad Brains, that are Misfits that wave Black Flag and they're practically Anti-Flag. Ithink we need to Converge and help the Youth Of Today because every time you Blink-182 Kids, they goMissing, so I don't think we should be Exploited anymore. We need to Rise Against, or they're going to have to deal with the Fall Out, Boy. I'll let you guys go. I'm going to head out and Catch some Reel Big Fish. [but] not if it tastes Rancid."

[Updated at 8:52am after rereading my transcription and finding a few more bands in there to capitalize! Hope I caught them all this time.]

Via Digg

More here:

Man pranks conservative radio show by naming a ton of punk bands in his liberal bash - Boing Boing

Two of the three main political parties in the Niagara Falls riding now have their candidates set for the 2022 provincial election, while the other is closing in on selecting who will represent them in the June 2 vote.

On Thursday night, New Democrats chose incumbent MPP Wayne Gates to wave the orange banner. He has represented Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, and Niagara-on-the-Lake at Queens Park since 2014. Gates currently serves as the NDPs critic for Workplace Health and Safety, Training, Trades and Apprenticeships, and Auto Strategy.

Gates nominators included Burdett Sisler, a 106-year-old Second World War veteran living in Fort Erie.

Im very proud to represent the people of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, and Fort Erie at Queens Park, and Im grateful for the trust families in the riding have placed in me, said Gates.

Niagara has seen some tough times over the past two years, and as we move forward and recover, well need to tackle the big challenges like affordability, getting our hospital built, and fixing long-term care so our parents and grandparents get the care they deserve. Under the tireless leadership of (Leader) Andrea Horwath, the NDP can form government in 2022 and invest in making Niagara an even better place to live.

Gates first won his seat in 2014 in a byelection after Liberal Kim Craitor resigned before the end of his term. In the byelection, Gates defeated Progressive Conservative runner-up Bart Maves by 1,025 votes. In the general election in June four months later, Gates defeated Maves again by almost 7,500 votes. Gates won the seat for the third time in 2018, defeating Tory candidate Chuck McShane by more than 9,000 votes.

Gates is a former Niagara Falls city councillor and served as a local union president for more than a decade.

Horwath said from the union hall to Queens Park, Gates has always fought to make the lives of working people better.

Wayne has been fighting, throughout the pandemic, to make sure the voices of workers, families and small businesses in Niagara Falls were heard loud and clear, she said.

In 2022, were going to work together to make life better for Niagara families. That means fixing our broken health and long-term care system, investing in public education, and making homes and the cost of living in Niagara more affordable.

In March, the Progressive Conservatives chose Niagara Falls regional Coun. Bob Gale as their candidate.

Gale is serving his second term on regional council. A businessperson, he also served as a Niagara Parks commissioner, when he came to political prominence during a battle to modernize some of the commissions procurement and board policies.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are scheduled to select their candidate Dec. 11.

There are two candidates vying to become the partys representative former Niagara-on-the-Lake town councillor Terry Flynn, and Ashley Waters of Niagara Falls.

Read the original here:

NDP, Progressive Conservatives have provincial candidates for Niagara Falls; Liberal candidate to be announced soon - NiagaraFallsReview.ca