Daily Archives: December 25, 2021

Stephen Kershnars column (Dec. 15) headlined, Left has an advantage with higher learning cited very specific statistics from numerous studies purporting to show the overwhelming preponderance of Democratic vs. Republican professors and administrators in higher education, especially in Ivy League schools and several institutions he refers to as their peers, a situation he clearly finds both alarming and distasteful.

While I do not share his concerns about the political affiliation of these or any other college faculty members, I am truly curious to know how the statistics for these studies were gathered. I doubt very much that it is legal to ask for this information in a job application or interview, or that most applicants would see any necessity to volunteer it.

I was also unaware that political party membership is a matter of public record. If it is, did the researchers for these studies actually comb through voter registration rolls to identify every Republican and Democratic employee of the many colleges cited in Kershnars column? I find this unlikely in the extreme, calling into question the veracity of the studies Kershnar cites and his resulting conclusion that American colleges are some kind of hotbed of liberal indoctrination of todays youth.

I dont know what the college experiences were like for any of this papers other readers, but I dont recall any of my professors ever teaching their courses in a way that attempted to sway my political thinking. Perhaps thats because I graduated from the University of Georgia, rather than any of the elite institutions whose purportedly liberal biases so alarm Kershnar.

Questions of universities political bias aside, I think the important point here is for readers to always question not only sources of information, but the legitimacy of research techniques for any studies cited in them. As a principal of mine once said in reference to a state mandate for reading teachers to use research-based techniques: I can do research in my basement. In other words, not all research or conclusions are equally valid.

Mary Rees is a Dunkirk resident.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See original here:

Conservative column too liberal with numbers | News, Sports, Jobs - Evening Observer

Ive been a puzzle to a lot of my liberal friends. They cant figure me out. Over the years, more than a few of them have said: You cant really be a conservative. And when I ask why they would say that, they tick off a bunch of liberal assumptions about conservatives. I dont seem to be a racist, they tell me, or a homophobe or a sexist or any of the other sins they cavalierly attribute to conservatives. So how, they wonder, could I be a conservative?

My liberal friends may be dense but theyre hardly alone plenty of conservatives make sweeping misjudgments about liberals and other people with whom they disagree, too. But heres the dirty little secret about too many supposedly intelligent liberals: Theyre either clueless or nasty or both. They not only dont like conservatives in particular; they dont like ordinary Americans in general especially if they come from red states such as, say, West Virginia.

We just got proof of that from none other than a member of the New York and Hollywood glitterati, Bette Midler, who slimed the entire state of West Virginia, a state made up of a whole bunch of ordinary Americans, most of whom had the audacity to actually vote for Donald TrumpDonald TrumpHoliday caller to Biden: 'Merry Christmas and let's go Brandon' Biden's muddled trade policy US deserves a 21st Century Supreme Court MORE.

After Sen. Joe ManchinJoe ManchinStanding with Joe Manchin Biden finds uneven footing with Black voters Manchin told White House last week he would back some version of billionaire tax: report MORE (D-W.Va.) said he wouldnt vote for Joe BidenJoe Biden Harris tests negative for COVID-19 after close contact with aide Standing with Joe Manchin Holiday caller to Biden: 'Merry Christmas and let's go Brandon' MOREs multitrillion-dollar, so-called Build Back Better bill, Midler tweeted, He sold us out. He wants us all to be just like his state, West Virginia. Poor, illiterate and strung out.

Before we move on to Midlers non-apology apology, let me point out that West Virginia ranks higher than New York or California when it comes to literacy. There are a lot more people who cant read or write in the places Bette Midler hangs out than in West Virginia. But to Midler, West Virginia is where those hicks live, the ones who are too stupid and too strung out to know whats good for them. What else explains their support for Joe Manchin or Donald Trump, right?

Youd have every right to believe that liberals such as Bette Midler care about your average Joe. Liberals, after all, are always telling us how much they care about ordinary Americans. But a lot of liberal elites would rather walk over shards of broken glass than wash their hands in the same sink as an ordinary American. What Midler managed to do was expose what a headline in the Daily Beast calls an ugly brand of liberal elitism.

When her tweet hit the proverbial fan, she went back on Twitter to announce, I apologize to the good people of WVA for my last outburst. Im just seeing red; #JoeManchin and his whole family are a criminal enterprise. With apologies like that, who needs insults?

A lot of liberals talk and think the way Bette Midler talks and thinks especially when theyre in their safe zone, among friends.

Remember what presidential candidate Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaUS deserves a 21st Century Supreme Court Biden, first lady make Christmas Eve visit to Children's National Hospital Climate, politics demand Biden get tough on auto pollution MORE said in 2008 about working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses? They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who arent like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

He never would make such a condescending statement in public and not only because that kind of talk wouldnt go over well in places he might need to win the election. That kind of elitist observation would have other long-lasting consequences. It would shatter Obamas liberal image. But he was among friends when he spoke about those ordinary, working-class Americans who cling to their guns or religion. He was at a fancy fundraiser in San Francisco, no less and didnt know his comments would get out.

Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonBette Midler is the latest liberal to pretend to care about the 'average Joe' Bill O'Reilly says Trump will run again Members of Congress not running for reelection in 2022 MORE, who was running against Obama at the time, jumped all over him, saying, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America. His remarks are elitist and out of touch.

In case youre wondering, yes, thats the same Hillary Clinton who, in 2016, told her friends, at a fund-raising event in Manhattan that other mecca of American left-wing supposed sophistication that half of Donald Trump supporters fit into a basket of deplorables. And she was worried about Obamas demeaning remarks? She was upset with his elitism? Im not sure what Hillarys strong points are, but self-awareness doesnt appear to be one of them.

As for Bette Midler, youd think that by now she would have closed out her Twitter account. When Trump was running for reelection in 2020 and his wife Melania spoke in the Rose Garden on his behalf, Midler mocked her accent, tweeting, Oh, God. She still can't speak English, before adding, Get that illegal alien off the stage!

Wait a minute! I thought only bigoted conservatives made fun of people who dont speak perfect English. I thought liberals embraced people who came here from another country. And while were on the subject, when did liberals have a problem with illegal aliens?

As an editorial in the New York Post put it, The elite left literally cant conceive of legitimate disagreement: All of America that thinks differently is defective, a bunch of hicks and addicts. Progressives eternal blindness to their own bigotry is a marvel.

And thats precisely why Bette Midlers dopey tweet about West Virginia matters. I mean, who cares what some entertainer thinks? But its what she represents that matters. Its a brand of elite liberal hypocrisy that Midler exposed.

They cant stop telling us how much compassion they have for people less fortunate than the top 1 percent. But their compassion extends only to the less fortunate who agree with them. And when they dont, when they dont share the worldview of so many liberal elites, they see another side of elite liberalism the condescending, bitter side. Its the side the enlightened left usually reserves for talk with their like-minded enlightened friends.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Read more:

Bette Midler is the latest liberal to pretend to care about the 'average Joe' | TheHill - The Hill

(Photo by Xu Jinbai/VCG via Getty Images)

Tax records reveal even more money flowed to liberal dark money groups in the leadup to the 2020 election as their secretive networks funneled millions of dollars into political contributions and spending, a new OpenSecrets analysis finds.

Sixteen Thirty Fund, a liberal dark money group that functions as a hub for sponsoring left-leaning projects, was not only one of the top donors to super PACs during the 2020 election cycle, it was also the biggest funder of other dark money groups steering funds to super PACs spending on 2020 elections. Over the course of the election cycle, Sixteen Thirty Fund routed around $60 million into political committees boosting Democrats in federal races and more than $200 million to other 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations that either spent directly on elections or gave to super PACs during the 2020 election cycle.

Overall, Sixteen Thirty Fund raised nearly $528 million in the two-year election cycle, according to tax returns reviewed by OpenSecrets and first reported by Politico. Its 2020 haul was more than double its prior year fundraising, and more than a hundred times its 2015 revenue of just $5.6 million prior to former President Donald Trump winning the 2016 election.

More than $86.2 million of Sixteen Thirty Funds windfall came from its sister 501(c)(3) group, New Venture Fund, which tax documents show raised over $965 million nearly $1 billion in 2020 from a myriad of anonymous sources.

Since New Venture Fund is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, individual donors can write off their contributions as tax-deductible even though some of the nonprofits money is given to more politically active groups. Both New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund give to an array of groups and causes with a wide range of levels of political activity.

New tax records reviewed by OpenSecrets reveal that New Venture Fund was primarily funded by multimillion dollar donations in 2020 with just eight anonymous donors giving tens of millions of dollars each in 2020 making up the bulk of its fundraising. Two donors gave over $100 million each.

While Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund do not voluntarily disclose donors, some funders have been made public by foundations and other groups giving grants to them. Donors have included nonprofits linked to Swiss billionaire Hansjrg Wyss, Ebay founder Pierre Omidyar and liberal mega-donor George Soros.

As the networks revenue continued to balloon in 2020, so did payments from the network to Arabella Advisors, which runs the groups administration and management.

Arabella Advisors netted more than $45.6 million in 2020 from Sixteen Thirty Fund, New Venture Fund, Hopewell Fund and Windward Fund the four groups at the core of the liberal dark money network. The firm has taken in around $158 million from the four nonprofits since 2015.

More than $113 million of that was routed through New Venture Fund, the highest grossing nonprofit. New Venture Funds payments to Arabella Advisors rose from around $13 million in 2015 and 2016 to nearly $27 million in 2020. Arabella Advisors consistently received more payments from New Venture Fund than any of the networks other nodes, but Sixteen Thirty Funds revenue and contract payments have grown at a much faster rate that its sister 501(c)(3) funds.

The first year Trump was in office was the first year Sixteen Thirty Funds payments to Arabella reached seven figures with $2 million in payments for the year. The following year, Arabellas annual management fees climbed to more than $3.4 million before jumping to $9 million in 2020. Thats up from less than $240,000 in 2015.

Arabella Advisors also received large payments from other groups the firm helps manage.

The North Fund which received more than $20 million in grants from Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund in 2020 paid more than $941,000 to Arabella Advisors in 2020 after reporting no more than $100,000 in payments to any contractor in 2018 or 2019.

While the 501(c)(3) nodes of the network are prohibited from directly engaging in partisan political activity, they can still steer significant sums to 501(c)(4) nonprofits which can become top spenders in their own right, or pass pass millions to super PACs spending on candidates.

New tax returns covering 2020 reveal that the Hopewell Fund gave more than $8 million to Acronym, a liberal dark money group with an affiliated super PAC called PACRONYM. The $8 million grant marks the largest contribution Acronym has received from the dark money network and its first contribution from the Hopewell Fund.

The tax records also show the Hopewell Fund gave another $1 million to Vote Forward, a 501(c)(4) that coordinated 17.6 million handwritten letters sent to voters in 21 states. A study by the Center for Open Science found that campaign boosted targeted voters turnout by 0.8 percentage points, reportedly translating to about 126,000 votes in 21 states.

Hopewell was not the only group in the network to ramp up its giving to groups focused on boosting voter turnout.

Nearly $129 million of Sixteen Thirty Funds 2020 grants went to America Votes, mostly during the final months of the 2020 election.

America Votes brought in $64.7 million during their 2018-2019 fiscal year, which spans from July through June, but raised just $29.4 million from July 2019 through June 2020 according to their most recent tax filings obtained by OpenSecrets indicating that Sixteen Thirty Fund poured at least $100 million into the group after June 2020.

Sixteen Thirty Fund also poured money into politically active dark money groups.

In 2020, Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $10 million to Defending Democracy Together, the top-spending 501(c)(4) dark money group that reported spending to the Federal Election Commission during the 2020 election cycle with more than $15.4 million in spending boosting President Joe Biden or opposing Trump.

Democratic dark money group Future Forward USA Action got more than $15 million in 2020 from Sixteen Thirty Fund. In addition to funding Future Forward USA Action, Sixteen Thirty Fund gave another $7.5 million to the hybrid super PAC affiliated with, and financed by, the dark money group. The hybrid PAC, Future Forward USA, poured around $100 million into ads backing Biden in the final months of the 2020 presidential race as it took $61 million from its dark money arm.

Also in 2020, Sixteen Thirty fund gave $1.5 million to Priorities USAs dark money group and another $4.5 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC funded by the dark money group. The super PAC and dark money group both spent heavily during the 2020 election cycle.

Majority Forward, a dark money group aligned with Democratic Senate leadership that Sixteen Thirty Fund gave $3 million in 2020, poured around $85 million into ads mentioning candidates during the 2020 election cycle and poured millions more into seeding other top 2020 election spenders.

The Democratic leadership-aligned dark money group gave more than $51 million to Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC aligned with Senate Democratic leadership that shares the dark money groups staff and resources, along with millions more to various pop-up groups.

Sixteen Thirty Fund also continued to support a network of pop-up dark money groups that aired issue ads attacking Senate Republicans in swing states throughout 2019 and 2020. During the 2020 election cycle, Sixteen Thirty Fund gave more than $8.7 million to Piedmont Rising in North Carolina, $3.9 million to Advancing AZ in Arizona, $5.8 million to Maine Momentum, $5.6 million to Rocky Mountain Values in Colorado and more than $4.1 million to Iowa Forward.

The North Carolina-based Piedmont Rising received nearly all of its funding through Sixteen Thirty Fund in 2019. And $7 million of its $8 million haul in 2020 came through the fund, new tax returns obtained by OpenSecrets show.

During the 2020 election cycle, Sixteen Thirty Fund also gave $4.9 million to Environment America, which gave about $2.5 million to its affiliated super PAC.

Sixteen Thirty Fund also gave $1 million to the Environmental Defense Action Fund, which gave $6 million to the affiliated EDF Action Votes super PAC during the 2020 election cycle.

The network has also steered $3.2 million to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Center for American Progress 501(c)(4) arm, a significant increase from just $750,000 in 2019.

At least 66 CAP alumni went on to work in the Biden administration, Business Insider reported, earning it a reputation of being part of Bidens administration in waiting along with WestExec Advisors and providing a route for wealthy donors to quietly steer millions of dollars to an organization that effectively functioned as a feeder for the Biden administration.

CAPs 501(c)(4) action fund brought in a total of $27 million in 2020, its biggest haul yet, OpenSecrets analysis of new tax returns found. Four years earlier in 2016, it raised just $7.7 million.

Its 501(c)(3) arm got another $1 million from the network and outraised its prior year with a total annual haul of $50.7 million, slightly less than its all-time high revenue of nearly $51.8 million in 2017, the year Trump took office.

Unlike many politically active nonprofits, CAP partially discloses its donors by posting the names of corporate funders and some individuals on its website. At least four donors giving over $1 million chose to remain anonymous in 2020. And while CAP discloses some of its direct donors, accepting money from Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund hides the ultimate source of funding.

CAP and its action fund did not spend directly on 2020 elections but did steer $4.5 million to the League of Conservation Voters, a 501(c)(4) that gave $15 million to its affiliated LCV Victory Fund super PAC during the 2020 election cycle. Over the course of the two-year 2020 cycle, Sixteen Thirty Fund steered another $7 million to the League of Conservation Voters.

The new tax records also show that Sixteen Thirty was the secret funder behind WorkMoney, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit created in 2020, first reported by Politico.

The union-linked dark money group received nearly $4.7 million from Sixteen Thirty Fund and another $1 million from New Venture Fund in 2020, according to OpenSecrets review of their most recent tax records.

WorkMoney reported around $262,000 in spending on the presidential race and Georgias Senate race but most of its spending during the 2020 election cycle was not disclosed to the FEC.

From March 2020 through the end of that year, WorkMoney spent more than $2.9 million on Facebook ads, mostly targeting swing states.

WorkMoney continued spending millions after the 2020 election cycle, announcing a $2 million digital ad campaign in May 2021 targeting incumbents to promote Democrats social spending bill and Bidens agenda in Congress. The dark money group has spent more than $4.2 million into Facebook ads in 2021, online ads data shows.

In August 2019, OpenSecrets received a $40,000 grant from Media Democracy Fund, which is sponsored by New Venture Fund. The grant helped fund OpenSecrets online political ad databases.

Support Accountability Journalism

OpenSecrets is participating in Newsmatch 2021! Through December 31st, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar, up to $1,000, thanks to our friends at Newsmatch. Support independent journalism today!

At OpenSecrets.org we offer in-depth, money-in-politics stories in the public interest. Whether youre reading about 2020 presidential fundraising, conflicts of interest or dark money influence, we produce this content with a small, but dedicated team. Every donation we receive from users like you goes directly into promoting high-quality data analysis and investigative journalism that you can trust.

Anna is OpenSecrets' investigative researcher. She researches foreign influence as part of the Foreign Lobby Watch Project, tracks political ad data, and investigates "dark money." She holds degrees in political science and psychology from North Carolina State University and a J.D. from the University of the District of Columbia School of Law.

The rest is here:

Liberal 'dark money' groups' revenue soared ahead of 2020 elections - Center for Responsive Politics

The statement in the request for authors in this paper suggested a surprise that no one had tackled the subject of conservative politics. Well, here goes. I have identified two processes, both of which could have a reflection of conservative politics.

The first is the tried and true decision that means you always vote for the same party, as you are a loyal and staunch member of that party, just as your parents, even grandparents, have always been. A definition from Websters dictionary, 1987 edition, simply states that to be conservative is keep from change, to decay; in other words an unwillingness or inclination to change. The decay part, I would presume to be the result of excessive unwillingness to change, no matter what the circumstance or outcome may be.

On the surface, this might be where it ends and you could honestly say that these individuals are definitely conservative. But what happens to the vote when this is the reason an individual is elected? Does it mean that the person who is elected has the same firmness in the desire not to change? Is their an expectation that, because it always was, that it will remain the same? Or, does it open up an opportunity for those elected, and supported, who are far from what you would call conservative, are strong-minded, narrow-minded and just attracted to change that will affect their current or future personal benefit? Is this still to be considered conservative, or perhaps a better description would be dreadful, alarming or even frightening? Have these staunch devotees to the conservative party received what their expectations were? So, when you look at this image, how could it ever be referred to as even slightly conservative seeing that these changes have unimaginably overtaken any vision or choice of being conservativeness.

The second option is referred to a liberal. Websters describes this as generous; open minded; of a political party, favoring changes making towards democracy. This more positive definition leads me to believe that Mr. Webster was a liberal! Most people would describe this party as opposite to the other. However, quite often, you hear comments, if not wishes, that we should go back to the way it used to be. From the prior definition, this sounds a lot like a conservative view. While the views are inclined to be more optimistic in general, many of the same characteristics of the conservative party are the same here. Many vote because this is the party they have always followed, as did their father and so on. Does this mean they should also be identified as conservative? And current change is very obvious when it is compared to the prior party, but taken on its own, isnt a lot of it what has traditionally been demonstrated by a liberal administration of the past? So both parties are in reality both conservative and liberal in some ways. Both have merit and misery. Both have the desire, if not an obsession, to convince and change the other.

So here you are in the middle of it. Divided families, friends and neighbors display signs, endlessly talk politics and create disunity everywhere they land. What is to be found is extremely dedicated (perhaps a better word, stubborn) individuals who are convinced that they are on the right side. It often reaches a point of violence, as happened on several occasions. Those individuals are ready to defend what they believe to unbelievable heights, causing harm and fear in their path. Is this really the way we want to live?

There is a third option. There is a way to govern that includes unity. We hear that word a lot in this new administration, and its intention, I think, is good. But unity cannot be legislated. It cannot be forced or manipulated or manufactured. It only comes from individuals who truly believe it can happen and are willing to do the necessary work it requires to be effective.

The solutions are not simple, but here are some possibilities. Who would you vote for if there were no designation of party affiliation on the ballot? Its kinda like ordering food in a restaurant from a menu with no description and no prices. You want to know that before you order. You might end up with a $50 hamburger, with no cheese.

Its no different in politics. Do you know who you are voting for? What do they promise, what do they believe? Are they for or against what you want? You may end up with a lying bigot, with no cheese as well. Part of the freedom to vote includes the freedom to make decisions. Are you going to make these decisions strictly on the fact that they have identified themselves with a certain party? Are your decisions based on a total lack of information?

Now, about the money. We actually witnessed a miracle this year. I am not sure the amount, but there was a lot, a real lot, of money assigned to the research and creation of the vaccine. The medical experts talked about it taking two to five years to develop a vaccine, but it happened in 10 months. It was because the money was plentiful, and it provided extensive funds that were needed for this research and it proved successful.

Oh, about the money. Have you ever looked at the cost of our elections? More money there than we spent on curing the virus? It would seem so. Someone smarter than me just might figure out that amount, but it must have been a lot. Imagine if a bunch of that money was also applied to medical research what would we cure next?

Bottom line is, do your research! You are smarter than you think, and you dont need someone else to do your thinking for you. Investigate, collect data, evaluate it and then decide. You could just perhaps make a better world by doing it!

Talk to us

Please share your story tips by emailing editor@courierherald.com.

To share your opinion for publication, submit a letter through our website https://www.courierherald.com/submit-letter/. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. (Well only publish your name and hometown.) Please keep letters to 500 words or less.

See original here:

Both political parties are a mix of conservative and liberal values | Education. Appreciation. Action. - Enumclaw Courier-Herald

Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance Randy Boissonnault stands with members of the federal cabinet after a swearing in ceremony at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, on Oct. 26.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press

Western alienation might not be the front-burner issue it once was. But for federal Tourism Minister and associate minister of finance Randy Boissonnault, the most consequential role he holds is likely lone Albertan at the federal cabinet table.

First elected as an MP in 2015, Mr. Boissonnault lost his Edmonton Centre seat in the 2019 election, when Alberta disenchantment with his Liberal Party was so strong that the governing party was shut out of the province completely. However, he was barely out of public life for two years before COVID-19 changed the tone and tenor of politics in his home province.

In the final days of this years federal election campaign, Mr. Boissonnault campaigned as did other Alberta Liberal candidates on the popularity of the federal governments pandemic policies, and by attacking the provinces disastrously slow response to Albertas fourth wave.

Peoples psyche changed, he said of the two years between federal elections, recalling an Edmonton block where a woman identified seven households that were saved by the Canada Emergency Response Benefit program to one of his campaign workers.

There was a lot of heat on the doors in 2019, and none of that in 2021.

On voting day, Mr. Boissonnault bested long-time Conservative rival James Cumming, by 615 votes, and won the job as MP back. He and Calgary Skyviews George Chahal are the two Liberal MPs in the province, still a Conservative Party stronghold.

The pandemic and its effects continue to trump almost any other political or economic issue, and Mr. Boissonnault now says hes keen to work with Jason Kenneys United Conservative Party government on an array of issues. But at some point in 2022, the tension between Alberta and Ottawa will once again be about the evolution of the energy sector and climate policy. Still, Mr. Boissonnault argues the two levels of government are poised to make concrete progress.

Look, my family comes from the oil and gas sector. My dad and brother pulled rocks out of Fort McMurray for 10 years up at the Susan Lake gravel pit, he said in a recent interview.

I talked to dozens of people on the campaign trail and they said to me, We know that theres a change coming. Just make sure its not a switch.

The world is grappling with the contradictory crises of a shortage of fossil fuels this winter and a long list of climate-change weather disasters. At this moment, Canada will be pursuing both a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, and establishing a tax credit for carbon capture utilization and storage, or CCUS. Theyre big files for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, and they will have an outsized impact on Alberta.

Its a delicate balancing act for a federal government: how to significantly reduce and capture emissions, while attracting new green-focused investment, without saddling the industry with rules and levies that will snuff it out decades before other oil-producing countries stop pumping crude.

Alberta got its wish for the inclusion of support for large-scale, industrial carbon capture in the April, 2021, federal budget. But the details are still under development in the leadup to the 2022 budget. A major question remains outstanding: How do you structure a CCUS tax credit that doesnt look like a subsidy for oil and gas (which the federal Liberals have promised will be a thing of the past by 2023), but also still manages to attract private-sector investment?

The Alberta government and the oil industry want billions of dollars in tax incentives for CCUS. To get into the weeds, a key sticking point is whether the credit includes enhanced oil recovery projects. EOR is a process that involves injecting carbon dioxide underground to draw oil or natural gas out of older petroleum reservoirs. While this seems like a counterintuitive process when the goal is reducing emissions, its a powerful incentive for oil companies to put their own money into projects. South of the border, the 45Q tax credit gives companies a deduction for carbon that has been captured and sequestered, and includes enhanced oil recovery projects.

Were very aware of the tax system in the U.S., Mr. Boissonnault said, adding, We dont want to put out in the media what might trigger different investment decisions. But Ill say this: We are actively exploring these issues right now, and we will have a made-in-Canada solution after and through deep consultations with industry.

Mr. Boissonault, who once served as Canadas special adviser to the prime minister on LGBTQ issues, has no qualms about being able to represent the whole province from his perch in Edmonton, even though Albertas two biggest cities often have different political outlooks and economic priorities.

He also suggested hes keen in his second chance in federal politics to bust up outdated stereotypes, mentioning the provinces penchant of electing progressive mayors, including Jyoti Gondek in Calgary and his former Liberal colleague Amarjeet Sohi in Edmonton.

Nobody is expecting Alberta to have a Nobel laureate in virology. And yet we do, he said, referring to Michael Houghton, director of the University of Albertas Li Ka Shing Applied Virology Institute, who was co-recipient of the prize in 2020 for his crucial role in identifying the virus that causes hepatitis C.

And nobody is expecting us to lead the way in capping greenhouse emissions, and have the oil and gas sector come to government and say, Were on a path to net zero. Were ahead of where you are. How do we work on this together? he added.

Its the honour of my life to be minister for all Albertans. Were a diverse bunch.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

See original here:

Opinion: Randy Boissonnault knows he must master a delicate balancing act as the Liberals' 'minister for all Albertans' - The Globe and Mail

Andrew Constance is set to become the Liberal Party candidate in the marginal seat of Gilmore on the New South WalesSouth Coast after three remaining candidates vying for pre-selection have pulled out of the race.

Four candidates, including the Bega MP and former New South Wales Transport Minister, had nominated for pre-selection.

But in an email to the Liberal party state executive, leaked to the ABC, Vincentia businesswoman Jemma Triberequested her nomination for pre-selection be withdrawn.

"Andrew Constance is an outstanding and experienced candidate who would be an incredible representative for our region," she wrote.

"I witnessed this at a recent public meeting regarding the Milton Ulladulla bypass, where I was extremely impressed by his engagement with the community."

Ms Tribe said she would instead seek election in the New South Wales seat of South Coast,being vacated by Shelley Hancock.

Sanctuary Point veteran Stephen Hayes also confirmed on Fridaymorning, he too would bebowing out of the race.

"Having examined the Section 44 constitutional issues in considerable detail with experienced legal advice I would not be able to unwind my business interests in a timely manner ahead of the forthcoming federal election," he said.

"Andrew Constance is an outstanding candidate."

"Andrew and I have agreed to work closely on raising awareness in the community and federally of the need to take a more robust approach to improving our national resilience," Mr Hayes said.

Their withdrawals comehours after Shoalhaven Heads lawyer Paul Ell confirmed in a statement thathe had withdrawn from the contest before a ballot would be held, after winning a seat on Shoalhaven Council.

The 31-year-old, who is also Gilmore's Federal Electoral Conference (FEC) president, had strong backing from local branch members.

On Thursday, he instead endorsed Mr Constance for the marginal seat and denied he had been pushed.

"Absolutely not. And I want to make that abundantly clear that this decision has been mine to make and mine alone," he said.

"It is critical that we have a strong representative for the federal seat of Gilmore.

"My judgement is that the best candidate to win Gilmore is my friend Andrew Constance.

Mr Constance has also received support from Prime MinisterScott Morrison, who previously said he would make a "good member of our team".

Mr Constance said no pressure had been applied to his contenders.

"I was very prepared to have a local preselection and I had been working hard at that for the past month and a half," he said.

"I'm not going to expend any more energy on internal party processes.

"Quite frankly our community have had a gut full of the nature of politics and ultimately we're going to get some great community outcomes and I'm going to be very focused on that."

This year, Gilmore's FEC was promised branch members would be given the opportunity to vote for the party's candidate, after Warren Mundine was controversially parachuted into the role in 2019.

Several party members resigned in the wake of the Prime Minister's decision.

Read the original post:

Andrew Constance set to become Liberal party candidate in marginal Gilmore, after contenders withdraw - ABC News

Unabashed hypocrisy has become a defining feature of the Indian left intelligentsia. The liberals often subject others to higher standards of noble beliefs and virtues while refraining from holding their own to the same rigorous standards. They have a bloated sense of entitlement, stemming from the mistaken belief that they are a cut above the world, with a false sense of the notion that they are exempted from being evaluated by the same token as they use to judge others.

For instance, the left-leaning liberals have gone into overdrive to condemn Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati for the contentious remarks he made at the Haridwar Conclave. Ever prowling for issues to vilify Hindus, the liberals sensed it as a lucrative opportunity to build on their propaganda of vilifying Hindus and reinforcing minority victimhood. By contrast, they have studiously ignored actual hate crimes, like the murder of Kamlesh Tiwari and the Punjab lynching incidents.

The left-leaning brigade has accused Yati and others who attended the Haridwar Conclave of making hate speech designed to whip up genocide against Muslims. Calls for police action have also been made against the attendees. An FIR was also filed in connection with the case. However, the larger aim of the liberals seems to be somehow linking the Centre with the remarks made at the Haridwar Conclave. Several left ideologues have blamed the central government for indulging the leaders, who they claimed have felt emboldened to make the tendentious comments that they did during the Haridwar Conclave.

It is worth noting here that Yati Narsighanand Saraswati has himself been at the centre of a hate campaign directed at him by a section of society. Call for sar tan se juda or his decapitation have steadily grown, with even elected MLAs such as AAP leader Amanatullah Khan making a clarion call for his beheading. But none of the liberals who are today falling over themselves to condemn his speech cared to unequivocally denounce the death threats braved by the Dasna Devi Temple head priest in the past. Instead, they are using Dharma Sansad as yet another opportunity to besmirch the Centre.

Just like the liberals have been muted against the death threats faced by Yati Narsighanand Saraswati, they were also silent about the calls for the decapitation of Hindu Samaj leader Kamlesh Tiwari. No credible effort was taken by the Left intelligentsia to address the hate that was marshalled towards Tiwari, who years later was murdered in cold blood by followers of the murderous Islamist ideology that justified and called for his beheading.

And after Tiwari was ruthlessly murdered by Islamists, many of the liberals who are beating their chest today, demanding action for hate speech at the Haridwar Conclave, showed little concern to condemn his murder or call out the ideology that was responsible for his killing. In fact, an overwhelming number of liberals, including one of the left luminaries, who is the Wests latest damsel in distress in the Indian subcontinent, did not even bother to acknowledge his death, let alone issue an unequivocal condemnation.

Even in recent times, the hypocrisy exhibited by liberals cant be more pronounced. Even as they are outraging over the comments made by Yati Narsighanand Saraswati, they have maintained a stoic silence on the vitriolic speech made by AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi, a video of which has gone viral on social media.

In the speech, AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi said, I want to tell the police. Remember this. Yogi will not be the Chief Minister forever. Modi will not remain the Prime Minister forever. We Muslims are silent because of the times, but remember we will not forget the injustice. We will remember your injustice. Allah, by his powers, will destroy you, Inshallah. We will remember. Times will change. Then who will come to save you? When Yogi will go back to his mutta, when Modi will go to the mountains, then who will come to save you. Remember, we will not forget.

Despite the brazenly communal undertones of Owaisis speech, it did not attract the same intensity of criticism as garnered by the Dharma Sansad in Haridwar. A day after speeches of leaders like Yati Narsinghanand and other Hindu leaders went viral, an FIR wasfiledin Uttarakhand over the speeches that called upon Hindus to collect arms. But in Owaisis case, some liberals even went to the extent of defending the incendiary remarks made by the AIMIM chief, arguing that his speech should not be seen in the same light as the comments made during the Dharma Sansad in Haridwar.

Another instance where the hypocrisy of liberals has been stark is the Punjab lynchings related to sacrilege cases. The country was recently roiled with two horrifying cases of mob lynching that took place in Punjab over allegations of sacrilege. Angry mobs took law into their own hands and lynched two individuals to death on the suspicion of sacrilege, underscoring the abject state of law and order situation in Punjab.

The first incident ofmob lynchinglinked to sacrilege took place inside the sanctum sanctorum of Darbar Sahib on Saturday evening when regular prayers were going on while the other one was related to a Gurdwara in Nizampur village in the Kapurthala district of Punjab where a man was killed on suspicion of committing sacrilege. Punjab CM today said there has been no evidence of sacrilege against the Kapurthala victim. It was also reported that the man was mentally challenged and was seeking food at the Gurudwara when he was lynched to death by a bloodthirsty mob.

These incidents should have shaken the liberal conscience to the core, prompting an unreserved condemnation of the ghastly murders committed in the name of sacrilege. However, as warped as it has become, the moral compass of the liberals did not push them towards condemning the sacrilege incident, instead, they remained tight-lipped about the deaths while decrying sacrilege. Many liberals, Punjab politicians, others were quick to denounce sacrilege but they did not find mobs taking the law into their hands scandalising and alarming enough to call for impartial and thorough probes into the two incidents.

While an FIR against Dharma Sansad took less than 24 hours to be filed, it has been over 5 days since the horrifying lynchings in Punjab and yet no FIR has been registered against the culprits. Apparently, an alleged hate speech has drawn more condemnation than the actual hate crime where two men were lynched to death by mobs on the mere suspicion of sacrilege, of which one case has been dismissed by Punjab CM himself stating that there has been no evidence of the victim committing sacrilege.

Yet, the liberals dont consider lynchings of two men worthy enough of their attention and outrage. There is a deafening silence on the Punjab lynching incidents even as new revelations are being almost on a daily basis, pointing towards a deeper conspiracy to hide what appears as an orchestrated incident of violence carried out under the pretext of sacrilege. However, even then, liberals have not felt the need to direct their ire on hate crime as they remain preoccupied with their campaign against Dharma Sansad.

Earlier yesterday, a high-intensity blast took place in Ludhiana, resulting in the death of two persons. The blast highlighted the precarious condition of security in the state that has been on the boil for over 12 months now since the start of farmers protest in November 2020 that saw the participation of anti-social elements, including Khalistani proponents, and witnessed routine incidents of riots, vandalism, murder, arson, rapes etc. But liberals had then thrown their weight behind the protests even though various criminal activities were reported to have been committed in the name of protests.

As it has been evident now, for liberals, hate speech is more important to outrage upon than the actual instances of hate crimes, insurrection, anarchy and terror incidents. The deaths, the rapes, the murders, the concomitant violence are probably nothing more than casualties suffered in the larger ideological war against the enemies they sorely despise, which in this case, are the Hindus. So they dont mind being hypocritical by placing outsize focus on condemnable comments made during the Dharma Sansad while paying no heed to the much more dangerous hate crime incidents happening across the country.

Read more here:

The ultimate liberal hypocrisy: How the Left outrages over hate speech but turns a blind eye to hate crimes and violence - OpIndia

The Liberal Party in NSW is confident its push to get more women into federal Parliament will succeed after reaching its target for the proportion of female councillors elected in recent local government polls.

Final results of the December 4 council elections released on Thursday show of the 120 Liberals voted in, 48 were women, with significant swings towards the party in many areas where a woman headed the ticket.

Georgia Ryburn, pictured with her five-week-old baby Harvey, is among a wave of women elected to local councils for the Liberals.Credit:Flavio Brancaleone

This almost doubles the percentage of Liberal women elected to 40 per cent, from 21 per cent in 2017, meeting the goal the state division set for local government in 2019.

Its part of a wave of women of all political stripes elected to local governments across the state. Councils including Parramatta, Randwick and Woollahra now have a majority of female councillors.

NSW Liberal Womens Council president Mary-Lou Jarvis, who is also the state divisions vice-president, said achieving the 40 per cent target was the result of four years of methodical and committed work to identify women interested in running, and actively mentoring and supporting them.

Loading

Its the collaborative work of the NSW division and womens council, with men recognising the need for change, she said. Where weve had women standing and leading tickets, weve had swings towards us. It shows ... that where weve got women, we win.

These swings were as high as 10 points in the Hornsby local government area while in Sutherland Shire, a two-point swing in the ward where the ticket was led by Louise Sullivan meant the Liberals got a second candidate elected and gained control of the council.

And in blue-ribbon Woollahra, where Ms Jarvis led the ticket in the Vaucluse ward, the party won a three-point swing to get 63 per cent of the overall vote.

See the article here:

Where weve got women, we win: NSW Liberals aim to replicate local government success at federal level - Sydney Morning Herald