Mediaboss Marketing

Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq without the support of the federal opposition parties, whose leaders say they will not back a government motion to join U.S.-led air strikes because past interventions in the region have failed.

In a significant move, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said on Friday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has failed to make the case for Canada to join the U.S.-led combat mission, which includes several other Canadian allies. The party has traditionally supported Canadian military missions while in opposition, although a Liberal government opted not to participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Harpers motion, which should pass easily because the government has a majority of seats in the House of Commons, calls for Canada to join air strikes against Islamic State militants and contribute military assets for six months. Mr. Harper said initial strikes would occur in Iraq but suggested they could expand to Syria if Ottawa has the clear support of that countrys government.

In the House on Friday, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair questioned the value of past interventions in the Middle East and said another war would not put an end to the current conflict. He said Canada should first focus on offering humanitarian relief to people in Iraq and Syria and on strengthening those countries political institutions, a role he suggested Canada was well-positioned to play because of its decision not to participate in the 2003 war in Iraq.

The defeat of the insurgency in Iraq is a goal that the United States has been trying, without success, to achieve since the wrong-headed invasion of 2003, Mr. Mulcair said. All of the horrors unfolding before our eyes are as a result of that failed mission.

Canada has offered financial support to surrounding countries that have taken in refugees and has provided funds to help with food aid to the region, among other measures. The government has also sent 26 troops to offer military advice to security forces in Northern Iraq and sent military equipment such as helmets and body armour.

Mr. Trudeau said the last war in Iraq was based on flawed intelligence and the world is still dealing with the consequences of that mistake. Rather than joining the U.S.-led combat mission, Mr. Trudeau said he believes Canada could make a stronger contribution through other means, such as providing airlifts and medical support.

Unlike the Prime Minister, Liberals believe that Canada can make a more helpful contribution to the international effort to combat ISIL than a few aging war planes, Mr. Trudeau said, using an earlier acronym for the Islamic State group. Canadians have a lot more to offer than that. We can be resourceful, and there are significant, substantial non-combat roles that Canada can play.

Although the Liberals made the decision to stay out of the 2003 war in Iraq, the party has backed Canadian combat missions in recent decades. Quebec, where the NDP holds most federal seats, is a key political battleground for the Liberals, and polls suggest Quebeckers are among the least likely to back the plan to join the military mission in Iraq.

The opposition parties also raised concerns that the combat mission could involve future strikes against Syria, which NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar warned could aid Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

View post:
NDP, Liberals say they wont support Canadian jets in Iraq

Rice, Peterson NFL Scandals Really About Liberals #39; Plan to Pussify America, Say Rightbloggers
Rice, Peterson NFL Scandals Really About Liberals #39; Plan to Pussify America, Say Rightbloggers.

By: Yu78njg

Go here to see the original:
Rice, Peterson NFL Scandals Really About Liberals' Plan to Pussify America, Say Rightbloggers - Video

GOP Need Senate - Liberals And Women #39;s Issues
Today Brian talks about US Elections, Trudeau supports Reproductive rights, Gun owners Rights. U.S. Sen. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., told a group of township officials from Montgomery Count that...

By: Right Edition | Your Conservative Right Wing News Website Blog

Read the original:
GOP Need Senate - Liberals And Women's Issues - Video

Ive said it before, and Im hardly alone. Many have observed it. Liberals revere tolerance. They practically worship it. Its like a religion to them. Well, now comes a study that supports the point.

A new survey by Pew Research finds that when it comes to teaching children, liberals place a far higher priority on teaching tolerance than teaching religion. That liberals do this in schools is abundantly clear, but they apparently do it in their homes as well.

In this, Pew finds, liberals are the opposite of conservatives. The starkest ideological differences [between liberals and conservatives] are over the importance of teaching religious faith, reports Pew. Among those who have consistently conservative attitudes across a range of political values, 81 percent think it is especially important for children to be taught religious faith. Among those with consistently liberal views, just 26 percent rate the teaching of religious faith as especially important, and only 11 percent regard it as among the most important child-rearing qualities.

Moreover, finds the survey, a staggering 88 percent of consistently liberal Americans list tolerance as their most important value in teaching their children.

While this data is significant, its also limited. It depends first and foremost on how one defines tolerance, and especially how liberals professing tolerance define tolerance.

I believe, in general, that liberals are not actually tolerant. Liberals tolerate only what they what want to tolerate. They tolerate things they agree withwhich, of course, isnt tolerance. Tolerance is about accepting the often-difficult differences between you and someone you strongly disagree with, and respecting that persons right to an opposing point of view. Obviously, thats not liberalism. This could be demonstrated multiple ways, but consider two salient examples pervasive in daily headlines: liberals behavior regarding same-sex marriage and abortion.

Liberals are relentless in denouncing, demonizing, boycotting, attacking, picketing, prosecuting, suing, fining, and even threatening to jail people who disagree with them on same-sex marriage. If your family owns a barn in New York (or elsewhere) and declines to rent it to a gay couple for a wedding ceremony, because such an arrangement violates your religious beliefs and freedom, liberals will fine you $13,000. If youre Elaine Photography in New Mexico and beg not to photograph a same-sex wedding, liberals will sue you. If you are the Kleins in Oregon and plead not to make a cake for a same-sex ceremony, you will be picketed, hauled before state commissions, and have your livelihood ruined by liberals. If you are Jack Phillips, a baker in Colorado, or a florist in any number of states, who likewise prefers not to service same-sex events, you will be threatened with imprisonment. If you are the owner of Chick-fil-A or other businesses, and you dare admit that youre against redefining marriage because you believe your God says you cant, liberals literally will assert at your death that Jesus is going to send you to hell. I could go on and on with such examples: Mozilla, Craig James, the owner of Barilla pasta, the governor of Arizona, etc., etc., etc.

Liberals refuse to tolerate those who refuse to redefine marriage.

As for abortion, liberals not only refuse to respect your opposition; they insist you pay for their abortions. From Hobby Lobby to the Little Sisters of the Poor, theyre making you pay. If you dont, you will be fined mightily.

I could go on and on with other examples from other issues. Look at how liberals run the universities, the training grounds for their missionaries of diversity. The faculty at these colleges are 80-90 percent liberal, and conservatives are not only marginalized but often barred from speaking on campus or angrily protested by these self-professing champions of free speech and open-mindedness.

See the original post here:
KENGOR: The liberal religion of Tolerance

In an essay recently published on the conservative news website WorldNetDaily, Ted Nugent railed against liberalism for being the "root cause" of inner-city "black violence" violence in America.

"A plague of black violence has infested our inner cities, yet our national propaganda ministry has chosen to ignore the gory details of this plague, as do so many of our politicians," he wrote.

More Ted Nugent Shows Canceled by Indian Tribe

Nugent also criticized the media for not reporting the races, socioeconomic classes or educational histories of the two "thugs" in Ferguson, Mo. who shot a police officer recently while he was investigating a break-in. Nugent made his own guesses based on nonspecific "crime stats in Ferguson and elsewhere," as well as probably commonly held stereotypes. He called them, "Just a random Nuge hunch."

"Instead, they focus on 'gun-related' violence, supposed lax gun laws and their redundant litany of mindless excuse-making instead of the raw data," he continued. "They seldom if ever cut to heart of the matter. ... Liberalism and their insane cult of denial is the root cause of this plague of violence."

Ted Nugent Apologizes for Obama 'Subhuman Mongrel' Comments

Nugent -- who earlier this year called President Obama a "subhuman mongrel" -- goes on to blame liberalism for wasting $20 trillion into "Fedzillas welfare crack programs over the past 50 years." But it has only increased poverty, he wrote, and created a "permanent voting block out of black Americans."

He also quoted black conservative network Project 21 spokesman Christopher Arps' statements that the War on Poverty has "arguably destroyed the black nuclear family," citing drastic decreases in children born to married two-parent families between 1964 and 2008. Naturally The Nuge, too, denied to mention everything else that's happened to contribute to this issue over that entire 44 years.

"Burn this into your cerebral cortex," he wrote towards his essay's end. "The two greatest sins a government can impose on its citizens are to 1) provide for them, because it destroys their souls by creating dependency instead of self-reliance, and 2) take the sweat, hard work and equity of one man and give it to another (e.g., spread the wealth around)."

Read the original post:
Ted Nugent Rails on Liberals, 'Thugs,' 'Welfare Crack' in Rightist Essay