Category Archives: Liberal

Photos: Moscow 24/Alexander Avilov

Police have charged two employees of the apparatus of the liberal democratic partys embezzlement of youth organizations controlled by the party, reports TASS with reference to the MIA of Russia.

the Accused argued that spending money on the instructions of the son of the party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, but hes from confrontations he refused.

it is Noted that a criminal case under article Fraud was initiated in August 2018. In the case interviewed more than twenty witnesses, conducted searches, seizures, made two forensic accounting to establish the amount of inflicted damage. In the end, the prosecution has charged two employees of the apparatus of the liberal democratic party.

In February, the Deputy Director of the Department of state protection of cultural heritage Ministry of culture, Pavel Mosolov pleaded guilty to embezzlement of budget funds. The official said that he had stolen from the budget more than 20 million rubles.

see also

Detained the Deputy head of the Department of culture Monolouges tax Inspectorate for the southern district of Moscow has sent under house arrest

Read the rest here:

Two employees of the apparatus of the liberal democratic party was charged with stealing money youth organizations - International Law Lawyer News

Though Elizabeth Warrens candidacy is over, its worth remembering a quip that was something of a high point of her run. When asked by the head of a certain Human Rights Campaign what should we say to an old-fashioned supporter who was against gay marriage, Warren was ready with a reply that speaks volumes:

Well, Im going to assume its a guy who said that. That was enough to unleash the laughter. Obviously such a question could only come from a backward male. And Im gonna say, Then just marry one woman. Im cool with that. Encouraged by further applause, Warren did not shrink from piling on the hypothetical Neanderthal: Assuming you can find one.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our politics that such a thoughtless and disrespectful comeback could be considered brilliantly funny and even logically unanswerable. Progressive liberals like Warren resort to ridicule in order to avoid examining their own very questionable assumptions.

Just as Montesquieus Parisians, in his satirical Persian Letters, asked how can one be a Persian? unable to imagine a way of life or worldview other than their own so our liberal establishment, our great purveyors of diversity, cannot conceive any alternative to their extreme liberalism except simple boorishness and stupidity. How can anyone not be cool with the defining away of marriage? I mean, really.

Warrens confident cool is protected by the reigning liberal paradigm, which now indeed defines our default assumptions. It is appropriate that the hypothetical was proposed by a Human Rights lobbyist, since it is our embrace of a worldview framed exclusively by the ethic of human rights that silences all resistance to the disestablishment of real marriage.

According to this worldview, all laws and rule must be justified exclusively in terms of their tendency to facilitate each individuals boundless lifestyle freedom. Law serves rights, and rights are purely human, having no natural or divine basis or purpose. If we accept this premise, then the defense of real marriage is indeed ridiculous, and the very most that can be asked is that we tolerate the irrational faith of those who somehow dont yet see what is obvious.

It is no easy matter to contest a premise that has become obvious, or to recover the meaning of a worldview that yesterday was plain common sense. Once an intuitive grasp of goods not reducible to individual freedom has been lost or suppressed, considerable philosophical effort is needed to see what was not long ago right in front of our eyes.

Why would a persons sexual conduct or marital preferences matter to anyone besides the consenting adults immediately concerned? Why on earth would the act by which children are (or are not) made be of interest to anyone besides the ones engaging in the act? Why have civilized societies always assumed that the wildest and strangest human passion, the eros that stretches us between the most primitive instincts and the sublimest aspirations, needs to be formed, educated and contained under some authority? Much more needs to be said than can be said in a one-liner.

Theres no chance I can unfold this mystery in the space left in this article, but lets pass the mic to a couple of wise men. First, Aurel Kolnai (1900-1973), Hungarian-born political philosopher.

In the area of sexuality, Kolnai writes, Adequate and objective moral experience is intimately linked to a sense of religious mystery a genuine belief in substantial good and evil. The temptation to discard this kind of moral experiences as delusive, neurotic, wayward, and requiring a thorough rationalization (that is, dissolution), is perilously plausible. The category of good and evil of virtue and vice being, as it were, mystically up-rooted here, a process of shrinking and flattening will blight moral life in its entirety, including even its most directly justifiable and useful manifestations.

More recently, French political philosopher Pierre Manent (b. 1949), in his latest book, Natural Law and Human Rights, has warned of the consequences of divorcing human rights from natural law:

The law opening marriage to same-sex couples targets the very meaning of the human order: the point is to require members of society to recognize by word and deed that there is no natural law. Insofar as marriage was the crucial institution of the human world organized according to nature, (homosexual marriage) aims to overturn or abolish this very order. (The consequences), public as well as private, will no doubt be commensurate with the audacity or imprudence of what has been done.

Are you cool with that?

View original post here:

Elizabeth Warren and liberalism ridicule the defense of marriage. Are you cool with that? - Deseret News

The debate over gun rights in Minnesota needs an overhaul, in both tone and content. The phrases shall not be infringed, dont tread on me and molon labe may feel good to write online, or shout during a rally, but they are rather unconvincing to people who arent already in agreement. As gun owners, our first goal should be to respectfully listen to the concerns of our fellow Minnesotans, and respond personally. Additionally, if we want gun rights to be seen as civil rights worth protecting by all (even non-gun owners), we must be positive, approachable ambassadors for the cause.

A wonderful new podcast, Guns Guide to Liberals, can help every one of us become more effective advocates for the Second Amendment. The hosts, Sarah and Jon Hauptman, share insight on how we can use better communication skills to advance the public conversation on guns and gun rights. Instead of seeing proponents of gun control as the enemy, we could change our perspective, recognizing the opportunity to change some of their misconceptions about gun owners. The series challenges us to open their mind as well, and become more inclusive, especially to fellow gun owners.

First, gun owners have to calm down, and learn how to listen more carefully to the arguments of our idealogical opponents. We also need to let go of the urge to win, or turn every conversation on gun rights into a heated political debate, and focus on planting seeds of information. Think about how your words and reactions will impact others; if you get angry, or throw insults, you may reinforce the stereotype of gun owners being unbalanced, potentially dangerous nuts. Sharing your perspective calmly is key; we want to discourage negative reaction, and encourage our conversation partner to reflect on our words.

We cannot expect people to understand our position if they have no previous experience. Quite often, proponents of gun control proposals are well meaning, but lack understanding of how the policies they support will degrade civil rights. Civil rights are for everyone, and this message is far more unifying than making the argument between some gun owners and the rest of society. Im not a person of color, but I still support their rights as human beings; in the same way, we need to emphasize to our fellow Minnesotans that the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment are worth protecting even if one doesnt own firearms or weapons of any kind.

Advocates for gun control are spending a lot of money and effort in our state, which we should be using to our advantage. Our current political climate may be more partisan than ever, but the legislative push for restrictions on gun rights should not be something which divides us. Rather, it is an opportunity for us to start a conversation, and inform others on the consequences of the poor policy proposals within. This isnt a liberal vs conservative fight either; Minnesota is full of gun owners who identify as liberal or independent, and we need to ally together no matter our politics.

If being an activist isnt something you are interested in, or online debates get you hot under the collar, consider helping educate the next generation of gun owners. The DNR is always looking for volunteer firearms safety instructors, and your local school trap teams may be in need of volunteers as well. Supporting gun rights can even be as simple as inviting your friends, family, or neighbors to the range for a day of shooting.

Finally, as women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners, I want to share a few excellent resources for Minnesota ladies. The DC Project, aimed at fighting misinformation with education, is looking for more interested women to join the movement. For new or tentative shooters, Well Armed Women provides a safe, comfortable environment once a month for women to get together at the range. If your area doesnt have a chapter, please consider starting one with a friend.

Danielle Wiener, a stay-at-home mom, has a family cabin in McGregor and lives on a farm in Stacy.

Continued here:

Guns Guide to Liberals | Other Opinions - Aitkin Independent Age

THE lockdown Boris Johnson has ordered is a hideous prospect for any nation, but especially a liberal democracy like ours. But The Sun accepts it could save many thousands of lives.

We are facing the gravest threat since the spectre of Nazi invasion in 1940. It calls for unprecedented temporary restrictions on our freedom.

3

We pray that it works in reducing the spread of Covid-19, though we are unlikely to know for at least a fortnight.

There are early signs it has worked in Italy where daily death rates are falling.

Ours, too, have not soared in the past few days as dramatically as were predicted. But the worst is doubtless yet to come.

It is clear that social distancing alone will not suffice while so many selfishly refuse to take seriously the virus or the Prime Ministers advice.

3

Boris had to turn that into a legally enforceable order though in our view it has been too long coming.

The Sun has largely backed the Downing Street response so far.

It has seemed wrong to obsessively pick holes in the strategy of a new majority Government suddenly engulfed by the biggest global crisis since World War Two.

But there is a shambolic on the hoof feel to it now, to which no one can turn a blind eye.

Boris has been too slow to react, too reluctant to think the unthinkable, too afraid to take the draconian action other world leaders did.

He has rightly deferred to his experts on health and science. But their advice has shifted and seemed contradictory.

And Boriss faith in the public doing the right thing was misplaced.

The negligence of a minority may already have cost lives and helped cripple the NHS.

Last Friday the PM finally shut down schools, pubs, restaurants and leisure facilities only to find crowds of fools flocking to parks, tourist spots, beaches and shops, spreading disease further.

London Mayor Sadiq Khans idiotic and rash decision to close part of the Tube led to jam-packed carriages on those which ran yesterday.

Some passengers were key workers. Others will have been the self-employed with little choice but to travel in. Others may have been compelled to work by unthinking employers.

The lockdown will be gruelling for us all. But we must minimise the viruss spread, the loss of life and give the NHS its best chance of continuing to function.

We must hope its not too late to prevent our losses soaring to hundreds a day.

CORONAVIRUS CRISIS - BE IN THE KNOW

Get the latest coronavirus news, facts and figures from around the world - plus essential advice for you and your family.

To receive our Covid-19 newsletter in your inbox every tea time, sign up here.

To follow us on Facebook, simply 'Like' our Coronavirus page.

CHEL OF A BASHHarry said final goodbye to ex Chelsy Davy at bash after Meg left for Canada

Comment

LEO MCKINSTRYThe arrogant super-rich have no right to spend their way out of virus crisis

Comment

TREVOR KAVANAGHIt's not hoarding that'll get us through coronavirus, it's acts of kindness

Comment

THE SUN SAYSA bunch of irresponsible idiots could cost us all our cherished freedoms

Comment

ALLY ROSSThe BBC ploughed on with charity show - but it's always a Relief when it finishes

IMAGINING no possessions, as John Lennon did, has become easier of late.

But God bless A-list celebs for reminding us, with their inexplicable version of the hippy classic, that they are the least likely people ever to suffer such a fate.

3

God bless Madonna too for calling coronavirus the great equaliser from the rose-petalled bath at her mansion.

Imagine how much grimmer life would look without these ridiculous creatures.

More here:

Boris Johnsons lockdown is a hideous prospect for liberal Britain but its necessary to save THOUSANDS of l - The Sun

Layla Moran has revealed she plans to run for leadership of the Liberal Democrats, saying the party needs to move on from the last decade.

The former teacher, who has been an MP since 2017, would mark a break from the partys years in coalition with the Tories from 2010 to 2015.

Speaking on Skys Ridge on Sunday, the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon said she would put climate change and electoral reform at the heart of her agenda.

I want to lead and empower the Liberal Democrats to fight for this future and to grow our support, so that we can make peoples lives better. I want the party to be in a position to win power within a generation, so that we can bring about the change our country so desperately needs, she said.

Moran, who recently came out as pansexual, has previously been critical of former leader Jo Swinson, saying the 2019 election campaign was arrogant.

She had been expected to run for the leadership in 2019 but withdrew after it emerged she had slapped her then boyfriend in 2013 at the partys conference.

Her rivals are likely to include Ed Davey, the former energy secretary, who is currently acting leader and lost out to Swinson in 2019. The first candidate to declare was Wera Hobhouse, the MP for Bath since 2017, who entered the race saying she wanted a clean break with the coalition era.

Other potential candidates include Daisy Cooper, the St Albans MP, who has only been an MP since December.

See the rest here:

Layla Moran to stand for Liberal Democrat leadership - The Guardian

At the risk of stating the obviousand the even greater risk of stating it a little too obviouslythe most likely reason that Bernie Sanders is losing has nothing to do with his strategy or his toxic followers or Elizabeth Warren refusing to drop out. Its because hes too liberal. Thats it.

Even among Democrats, theres not a majority who identify as liberal, let alone mega liberal. Maybe there will be someday when Millennials and Gen Z take over, but not today.

I know Im a bit of a broken record on this, but the whole Bernie phenomenon is very much a part of the Twitter bubble. Or maybe its just the online blatherer bubble. In any case, I belong to a few progressive listservs and support for Joe Biden in those places is approximately zero. On Twitter, youd think there were no human beings in the country who supported Biden. Even in the more traditional media, theres an assumption that Biden is just sort of a default choice for some people, but that nobody actively likes the guy.

Maybe so. But out in the real world I think theres more grass roots support for Biden than he gets credit for. Its not as loud or as enthusiastic as Sanders or Warren get, but neither is it establishment support, as Bidens weak fundraising shows. Rather, it comes from Bidens experience; his general likability; his optimism; and yes, some Obama coattails. Polls show pretty clearly that its always been there, but it was hidden for a while during the boomlets for other candidates.

I know the red rose crowd doesnt want to hear this, but America is simply not a super liberal country. Even self-identified Democrats arent that liberal. I mean, take a look at who the Democratic nominees have been for the past 30 years: B. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and H. Clinton. Id say this progression shows a party thats becoming more liberal, but its happening damn slowly. Its just not in Bernie territory yet.

And the country as a whole? Hoo boy. Its nowhere even close.

View original post here:

Sometimes the Obvious Thing Is True: Bernie Sanders Is Just Too Liberal - Mother Jones

Cisneros conceded Wednesday morning but struck a defiant tone, saying her race was proof "a brown girl from the border with a whole community behind her could take on the machine."

"This is just the beginning," she said in a statement. "The first thing we had to defeat was the culture of fear and our movement was victorious in proving we're within striking distance of bringing fundamental change to South Texas.

Throughout the campaign, Cisneros knocked Cuellar as Trumps favorite Democrat and made a generational argument against the eight-term incumbent. Taking on Cueller, who opposes abortion rights and once had an A-rating from the National Rifle Association, Cisneros quickly became a cause celebre for the left.

She championed both "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal and notched endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ocasio-Cortez.

"As someone who was also outspent 10 to 1, she can absolutely pull it off. But if she doesn't pull it off, I don't think we've seen the last of her," Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview shortly before the election.

The high-profile endorsements gave Cisneros a national network of grassroots donors and ample earned media, but Cuellar and his supporters maintained that it would not translate into local support in a district that is heavily rural and dependent on oil.

Her near-miss is likely to embolden a score of liberal primary challengers hoping to take out House Democrats, including two later this month. In Illinois, Democrat Marie Newman is making another run at Rep. Dan Lipinski who, like Cuellar, also opposes abortion rights. And in Ohio, Rep. Joyce Beatty faces a stiff challenge from consumer advocate Morgan Harper.

Cuellar, perhaps spooked by the rash of Democratic incumbents who fell last cycle, assembled a formidable campaign apparatus. Former staffers of Joe Crowley, who lost to Ocasio-Cortez, reached out last year to Cuellar's team to offer advice.

While Cisneros raised over $1 million and had sizable help from an EMILYs List affiliate Cuellar still dwarfed her in spending. Buoyed by a massive campaign war chest bolstered by years of uncompetitive races, he dropped $2.3 million as of mid-February and still had $2 million left in the bank for the final stretch.

Cuellars allies said he took the race seriously from the start, deploying television, radio, digital and newspaper ads. The campaign hired paid canvassers in December and said it has knocked on 100,000 doors.

For much of the race, Cuellar scoffed at the idea that Cisneros could gain traction. The campaign polled several times, according to Cuellar strategist Colin Strother, and maintained a strong lead throughout.

Cuellar refused to debate Cisneros during the race but he did blast out negative mailers and one contrast television ad, knocking her as a New York transplant. One mail piece showed a picture of Cisneros in front of the Brooklyn Bridge. (Cisneros was born in Laredo and attended law school in Austin before completing a legal fellowship in Brooklyn.)

His campaign suggested that at least some of his spending was to protect his South Texas brand. The Cuellar family is an institution in Laredo, which makes up a bulk of the electorate. His brother is the Webb County sheriff, and his sister is the countys tax assessor-collector.

Part of Cisneros strategy was to significantly change the electorate, bringing in young and low-propensity voters. She campaigned on college campuses throughout the district.

Establishment forces banded together behind Cuellar. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi both endorsed him and campaigned with him in the district. And he no doubt benefited from a policy change at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that essentially blacklists campaign consultants who work to oust a sitting member of the conference.

His campaign also received support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the oil industry and the conservative Koch network a donor list that Cisneros said was further proof that Cuellar is out of touch with such a Democratic-leaning district.

Cuellar was one of three members who faced credible primary challengers on Tuesday.

In California's Central Valley, Rep. Jim Costa, a fellow Blue Dog Democrat, appeared on track to stave off Fresno City Council Member Esmeralda Soria. He held a 20-point lead over Soria with 100 percent of precincts reporting, though the AP had yet to call the race.

And in North Texas, GOP Rep. Kay Granger easily dispatched primary challenger Chris Putnam, delivering a boon to the GOP establishment as well as the forces within her party working to combat the dwindling ranks of Republican women.

Granger led Putnam, a technology executive backed by the conservative Club for Growth, by 16 points, with 100 percent of precincts reporting.

Three former GOP members attempted comebacks Tuesday night. One has advanced to a primary runoff in May, while the fate of the other two was still uncertain as of Wednesday afternoon.

Former Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) spurned the suburban Dallas seat he lost last cycle to Democrat Colin Allred to run in a Waco-based district 100 miles south that is more GOP-friendly. He notched a spot Tuesday in the May 26 primary runoff, but the AP had not determined his opponent as of Wednesday afternoon.

In a vacant southern California seat, former GOP Rep. Darrell Issa was locked in an intraparty fight for a spot in the general election to replace former Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Issa retired last cycle rather than run for reelection in a neighboring district, which Democrats ultimately flipped by a double-digit margin.

After a bruising race, Issa and fellow Republican Carl DeMaio were still fighting for the second spot in California's protracted vote count. Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar was the top vote-getter, but he will be at a disadvantage in November when the Republican vote is not splintered.

Meanwhile, former GOP Rep. Steve Knight was struggling to advance in the special election for the northern Los Angeles seat he lost last cycle to Democrat Katie Hill, who resigned late last year. Knight currently trails Navy veteran Mike Garcia, though the AP has not called the race. Democratic state Assemblywoman Christy Smith took first place but finished shy of a majority, prompting a May 12 runoff.

National Democrats spent upward of $500,000 in an attempt to nudge Knight into the general election, a sign that they believe Garcia would be a more formidable Republican foe.

Pierce Bush, the latest member of the Bush clan to run for office in Texas, fell short in an open, suburban Houston battleground district on Tuesday. Bush, a nonprofit leader and grandson of George H.W. Bush, failed to qualify for a GOP runoff, finishing behind Fort Bend County Sheriff Troy Nehls and GOP megadonor Kathaleen Wall.

Bush tried to stake out a compassionate-conservative message in a massive 15-candidate field, but he got a late start and struggled somewhat with his family's messy history with President Donald Trump.

The winner of the May 26 runoff will face Democrat Sri Preston Kulkarni, the 2018 nominee for the seat, in the general election to replace retiring Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas).

House Democrats and Republicans tapped nominees in some districts targeted by both parties in November. Army veteran Wesley Hunt and businesswoman Genevieve Collins will take on freshmen Democratic Reps. Lizzie Fletcher and Allred, respectively.

Wendy Davis, the 2014 nominee for governor, will face GOP Rep. Chip Roy in a central Texas district.

And in a safe red seat in the Texas panhandle, Ronny Jackson, Trump's former physician, advanced to a Republican runoff with Josh Winegarner.

Laura Barrn-Lpez contributed to this report.

Read more:

Cuellar edges out liberal challenger in Texas, and other Super Tuesday House results - POLITICO

The recent Delhi riots have shown that liberalism is under threat today. This is the case not only in India but in many countries of the world. The ultra-right is on the ascendant, stridently questioning the relevance of the liberal lobby. In India, liberals are pejoratively dismissed by the ruling establishment and its hangers on as libtards, part of the Khan Market gang or the Lutyens elite.

Uday Deb

Liberals may be under attack, but liberalism, as a worldview, is enduringly relevant to the ethos and civilisational legacy of our country. Its belief in pluralism, respect for all faiths, a just social order, equitable economic progress, tolerance for different opinions, acceptance of dissent, social peace and harmony, a civilised discourse, and avoidance of shrill, extremist views, resonates with the spirit of our Constitution, and the essential idea of India.

But for a variety of reasons, liberals do not capitalise efficiently on the ideological strength of their platform. This comes out clearly in their approach to secularism, and the importance of religion in our country. There is often a selectivity in their opposition to the illiterate aggression of the ultra-right that weakens their credibility and, in fact, strengthens those whom they are opposing.

I believe, for instance, that liberals should have emphatically and unitedly opposed the overruling by the Congress government in 1986 of the Shah Bano judgment. It was a blatant act of minority appeasement for vote bank politics. Equally, liberals should have far more forcefully condemned the purging of the Pandits from Kashmir in the 1990s. Again, the valid condemnation of the open incitement to violence in Delhi by BJP leaders should be accompanied by an equally strong denunciation of the incendiary speech made by AIMIM leader Waris Pathan and others like him.

Secondly, liberals are often confused over the very idea of secularism in the Indian context. I have great respect for Jawaharlal Nehru, but it is unfortunate how much his personal agnosticism influenced by Western notions of modernity, in which overt religious practice was somehow considered anti-secular still holds sway over the liberal landscape. The secularism that is really relevant is that of Mahatma Gandhi, who uninhibitedly immersed himself in all religions, made no secret of his own Hindu piety, and then emerged with the inference that we must respect all faiths.

Liberals must understand that there is no contradiction between an assertion of personal faith and a secular vision. There is no place, therefore, for sterile intellectual sophistry on soft Hindutva. That is an allegation of the ultra-right. Liberals make a fundamental mistake by responding in a manner that seems to put them on the back foot for following their own religion with pride. Their real task is not to be reticent about personal religious belief, but to re-appropriate religion itself from the bigotry, hatred and distortion of the ultra-right.

Thirdly, many liberals are not sufficiently rooted in the culture of the soil. India is a deeply cultural nation. You cannot condemn the deplorable distortion of the use of the slogan Jai Shri Ram unless you have some knowledge of Valmikis Ramayan or Tulsidass Ramcharitmanas, which bring out the maryada purushottam character of Lord Ram as the very epitome of ethical and caring conduct. It is imperative for liberals to have an idea of Kabirs remarkably eclectic vision. It is essential for them to know the sheer wisdom of Thiruvalluvar. It is vital for them to be familiar with the inclusive Sufi tradition, and the many other examples of earthy good sense that is part of our cultural heritage.

Fourthly, liberals are mostly not very good at organised activism on the ground. It is not possible to counter the lumpen ultra-right while sitting in drawing rooms or making the occasional tweet or Facebook post. I am afraid that there is no option for liberals but to wade into the muck to aggressively assert their vision of India. The ultra-right is fanatical and committed, and forever ready to hit the streets. Liberals must respond by taking them on peacefully and strengthen their direct outreach to the masses at large.

Finally, liberals must stop being hopelessly divided in terms of tactics. They are prone to ideological hair-splitting, and of remaining in individual silos of self-righteousness. The ability of identifying the main political opponent, and of subsuming minor differences to jointly oppose it, eludes them. We thus have a cacophony of different voices, saying much the same thing, but none of this translating into an efficacious common front. Extreme left wing ideology often hijacks the entire debate. Unfortunately, responses just peter out at the condemnation and critique stage, with no concrete follow-up, in terms of coordinated political strategy on a pan-India scale.

The time has come for liberals to stop living in an ivory tower of assumed superiority, and take up the battle on the ground. For this, they must consciously rectify past mistakes, and devise a new action plan in the idiom of the people. That plan must have the key elements of credibility, consistency, objectivity, unity and activism. The country is crying out for sanity and decency in the national discourse. Liberalism, however decried, is the right answer to this need, if only it rises effectively to meet this challenge.

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Read the original here:

Where Indian liberals err: We need liberal values badly, but liberals must stop scoring these self-goals - Economic Times

OTTAWA Opposition parties are firing the first major shot across the bow of the Liberal government with a move meant to remind them they didnt win a majority government last fall.

On Monday, the House will vote on a Conservative motion meant to give all of the opposition parties one more opposition day, special days on the House calendar when they control the agenda.

Usually, even in a minority parliament, it is the governing party that decides what bills get debated on which days.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said the Liberals havent adapted to their new minority status.

That motion was specifically a response to what the Liberals have been doing, habitually, over the last couple of months, not quite realizing that theyre in a minority parliament, she said.

With some restrictions, the government decides when opposition days fall in the sitting calendar, and in this case the Liberals decided to put the Conservative opposition day on a Friday, which is a shorter day in the House and also coincides with when many MPs leave Ottawa to return to their ridings.

They were trying to punish us by giving us a Friday, said Bergen. We had to send a signal that they couldnt do that kind of thing.

The Liberals have a strong minority and will be able to pass their budget or any other confidence motion with the help of any one of the three major opposition parties, but on committee votes, motions and private members business, they may not have the control over Parliament they did in the past government.

The motion, which is expected to pass, would give the Bloc, NDP and Conservatives one additional opposition day in the next three sitting weeks and would prevent the government from putting any of them on a Wednesday or a Friday, the two shorter days.

With fewer days left for debate, the government will be forced to slow down its own legislative agenda. The Liberals are trying to pass the new NAFTA agreement through the House and have several other bills they would like to make more progress on.

A minority government, often in Canadian history, has become the time when we achieved the most

Deputy government whip Ginette Petitpas Taylor raised the problem in the House during debates on the Conservative motion.

Let me remind the House that this motion will delay several important bills, such as Bill C-4, the bill to implement the historic trade agreement between our great country, the United States and Mexico, she said during debate on the issue. Let us remember that the United States, Mexico and all premiers want this bill to be passed, and passed quickly.

The Liberals havent announced a budget day yet, but they would have a limited set of options in that three-week window to choose from with the opposition getting so much time.

Bergen said the government should be managing its legislation better and the Conservatives have given them an opportunity to move NAFTA forward.

It is the governments responsibility to manage the business of the House.

Despite having few ideological allies, Bergens motion is one of several the Conservatives have managed to get through the minority parliament.

The first vote in the new parliament was on a Conservative motion to establish a new committee on Canada-China relations that has already led to some difficult headlines for the Liberals. They have also successfully moved to have the Liberals $187-billion infrastructure program audited.

Bergen said the Conservatives are being deliberate in the motions they put forward, aiming to have something achievable with their demands.

We are absolutely looking for motions that can pass and will deliver concrete results, she said. We anticipate now we will have a few more opposition days, so you will see that the motions we put forward are designed to deliver real results.

NDP House leader Peter Julian agrees the government hasnt fully adapted to its new reality.

It took time for the government to understand that it could not just come in and make all the decisions itself, he said.

He said pushing opposition days to the sidelines is the sort of move the Liberal and Conservative majority governments make, but this isnt a majority government.

The government is using the tools that majority governments have and I dont believe that is appropriate, he said. That is historically what both the Harper government and the Trudeau government did, but it is a disregard for Parliament.

We are absolutely looking for motions that can pass and will deliver concrete results

Julian said minority governments have consistently delivered good results for Canadians and he is hopeful this one will be no different, but that is up to the Liberals.

A minority government, often in Canadian history, has become the time when we achieved the most.

As a smaller party, the NDP has received only one opposition day in this parliament so far, though it will get another if Bergens motion passes. It used its one day for a broader goal, calling on the House to support a national dental-care plan.

How the parties make use of the minority parliament is up to them, Julian said, but he believes Canadians will judge the parties on how they use this opportunity. He said the Conservatives are making their own choices, about quick wins, but he is happy to push for something bigger.

Our sense is that there is an appetite from Canadians for building a better country.

In a statement sent after the Posts story was published online, Mark Kennedy, a spokesperson for the government house leader said the Conservatives were playing political games.

They have a track record in recent years of holding Parliament hostage with political tactics and maneuvers, repeatedly obstructing MPs from debating important legislation, said Kennedy.

He said despite the Conservatives complaints now they often scheduled opposition days for Fridays and Wednesdays when they were in power.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have chosen to play political games.

Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com | Twitter:

Read more:

'We had to send a signal': Opposition parties want Liberals to wake up to their minority status - National Post

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Last week, The Washington Times had an inspirational moment. On Thursday, it wrapped this venerable newspaper in a red-inked wrapper and presented readers with an evocative question. In the top half of the wrapper the editors asked boldly:

Tired of being

Lectured,

Mocked,

Lied to?

Now whom do you think The Times we call it the Good Times was alluding to? I think we all know. The question was directed at attendees at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC. Thousands of conservatives were pouring into the area, and the Good Times wanted to greet them in style.

We have all had the same experience every time we step out of the door of our residences. It can be from an Uber driver, from an impudent high school snot who just discovered global warming, from a card carrying left-wing mesmerizer. All such know-it-alls have all the answers to any problem one might present to them. Doubtless, they already have the answer to the coronavirus crisis. His name is Donald Trump.

The left-wingers regularly lecture us, mock us and, of course, lie to us. Their behavior, however, rarely ever stings, because long ago we saw through their hysteria.

Another reason is that they never listen to us anyway. This has been true for many years, ever since liberalism died and the progressives replaced them. There was a day when leading liberals and leading conservatives got together to exchange views. Back in the 1960s Bill Buckley, the leading conservative polemicist of his day and the editor in chief of National Review, would regularly sit down with such figures as The New York Times executive editor Abe Rosenthal to discuss the drift of things in America. It is impossible to convene such social gatherings today.

I know. I tried to convene similar dinners in Washington. It was back in the 1980s. I succeeded for a couple of years on a couple of occasions. Then the liberals simply failed to show up. We went on with our dinners they are called The Saturday Evening Club and I continued to invite liberals. The last Saturday Evening Club attended by a liberal was in 1994 and the liberal was Sen. Pat Moynihan. I had known him for years and often learned from him. After his death it was hopeless.

Frankly, I think that the problem was generational. Pat and I, though a generation apart, shared the same broad values: Tolerance, trust, respect, curiosity and similar goals. Not always the same goals but at least similar goals. Pat admired the mixed economy. I was for free markets. Either way the country would survive. There are no such shared values extant between the likes of me and the socialist Bernie Sanders, who claims he is introducing a revolution to our shores. He does not want America to survive but to be replaced, and he is the frontrunner in the Democratic field.

Last Thursday, I shared my copy of The Washington Times with an attendee from the CPAC meeting, the distinguished political historian Professor Paul Kengor from Grove City College. He immediately grasped the meaning of the newspapers red wrapper. He followed up with a story of an experience that he had just endured at lunch. He was eating sushi at a public restaurant. The seating was rather tight. The table next to him had two women, one from a diversity-training program, the other from a corporation that had hired the first womans services. Paul said, they could not have been more than a foot or two from him. He could hear every word they uttered but they did not care.

It presented no problem for them or for what they wanted to discuss. They gabbled on about white males, about pushing white males aside for minority hiring programs, about women replacing men in the workplace. Paul who is white and a male not transgendered but the real thing said nothing.

America has broken down into two different countries. One lectures us, mocks us and lies to us. It is about to experience four more years of us.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author most recently of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

Continued here:

Liberals persist in lecturing, mocking and lying to conservatives - Washington Times