web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous

Westlake Legal Group Trudeau-2 Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous The Blog Justin Trudeau Election Canada

The Canadian election takes place Monday and just this week there have been at least three distinct pieces with headlines suggesting Trudeau is fighting for his political life. Here’s a bit of the one published today by the Financial Times (the others are at Bloomberg and Yahoo):

That disparity between the soaring rhetoric that powered his sweeping victory in 2015 — “sunny ways” and “doing politics differently” — and his performance over the ensuing four years has come to haunt Mr Trudeau.

“If you set yourself up to be a paragon of virtue and lord it over everyone, you need to continue to be virtuous,” said Lydia Miljan, an associate professor of political science at the University of Windsor, who draws a direct line from Mr Trudeau’s handling of the SNC controversy to his troubles now. “When the mighty fall, they fall hard.”

Mired in two scandals, one professional and one personal, Trudeau has decided his best bet is to run against two people who aren’t in the race: Donald Trump and Doug Ford, the brother of deceased former Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford.

He isn’t running for federal office, but Doug Ford’s name is everywhere in and around Canada’s largest city: in local debates, on doorsteps as candidates canvas and in attack ads…

Ragging on Ford has become Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s favorite pastime.

Last week, he mentioned Ford seven times in about 30 minutes — equaling references to Conservative leader Andrew Scheer — during a campaign stop in Markham, a suburb in the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA. This bellwether battleground has about as many seats in Parliament as the entire province of Alberta, making it key to forming a majority government.

There’s a strategy behind this. Trudeau believes his survival will depend on winning the suburbs around Toronto, areas he won easily four years ago. But his fortunes have declined since then, so now he’s running a campaign trying to frighten Canadians away from voting for his opponent. Another target of that campaign is President Trump:

Trudeau has avoided criticizing the American president, but after weeks of stagnant poll numbers, he embraced the role of Trump’s foil, saying he is the only candidate who can stand up to Trump and “the forces of populism and chaos around the world.”

“The challenge for Trudeau always was trying to keep this big, high-profile, international expectation that he’s Obama’s successor, the progressive hero of the global world,” said Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “With Trump, being the inheritor of Obama’s progressive mantle doesn’t do any good.”

Trudeau got an assist in his role as Obama’s successor this week when Obama himself endorsed him. The Associated Press points out the hint of desperation behind this:

Sensing Trudeau is now in trouble, Barack Obama made an unprecedented endorsement by a former American president, urging Canadians to re-elect Trudeau and describing him as a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change.

Trudeau was asked if he had requested that endorsement and he didn’t deny it. So the desperation didn’t arise with Obama, it’s coming from within Trudeau’s own camp.

So what do the polls say? They have shown a tight race for weeks but today Toronto Sun opinion columnist says Trudeau’s chance of pulling out a win is looking slim:

Looking at all the polling available, Scheer and his Conservatives will win the most seats come Monday.

That includes the latest polling done for the Toronto Sun as part of the DART & Maru/Blue Voice Canada Poll.

Nationally, this poll puts the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals with a four-point lead. DART has Scheer’s party at 33% voter support compared to 29% for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and 21% for Jagmeet Singh’s NDP. The Greens come in at 7% and the People’s Party at 2%.

“The polling suggests a minority parliament for either the Conservatives or the Liberals, dependent on two major factors — voter turnout and geography,” said pollster John Wright, a partner at DART.

Usually the party that wins the most seats forms the government by forming a coalition with one of the smaller parties, but NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has already said he won’t form a government with the conservatives. So there are a lot of wrinkles left to iron out next week, but it appears to be dawning on many people this week that Trudeau is in real trouble. We’ll find out Monday if the experts and the polls were correct. As we saw here in 2016, that’s not always the case.

The post Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Trudeau-2-300x153 Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous The Blog Justin Trudeau Election Canada   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous

Westlake Legal Group Trudeau-2 Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous The Blog Justin Trudeau Election Canada

The Canadian election takes place Monday and just this week there have been at least three distinct pieces with headlines suggesting Trudeau is fighting for his political life. Here’s a bit of the one published today by the Financial Times (the others are at Bloomberg and Yahoo):

That disparity between the soaring rhetoric that powered his sweeping victory in 2015 — “sunny ways” and “doing politics differently” — and his performance over the ensuing four years has come to haunt Mr Trudeau.

“If you set yourself up to be a paragon of virtue and lord it over everyone, you need to continue to be virtuous,” said Lydia Miljan, an associate professor of political science at the University of Windsor, who draws a direct line from Mr Trudeau’s handling of the SNC controversy to his troubles now. “When the mighty fall, they fall hard.”

Mired in two scandals, one professional and one personal, Trudeau has decided his best bet is to run against two people who aren’t in the race: Donald Trump and Doug Ford, the brother of deceased former Mayor of Toronto Rob Ford.

He isn’t running for federal office, but Doug Ford’s name is everywhere in and around Canada’s largest city: in local debates, on doorsteps as candidates canvas and in attack ads…

Ragging on Ford has become Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s favorite pastime.

Last week, he mentioned Ford seven times in about 30 minutes — equaling references to Conservative leader Andrew Scheer — during a campaign stop in Markham, a suburb in the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA. This bellwether battleground has about as many seats in Parliament as the entire province of Alberta, making it key to forming a majority government.

There’s a strategy behind this. Trudeau believes his survival will depend on winning the suburbs around Toronto, areas he won easily four years ago. But his fortunes have declined since then, so now he’s running a campaign trying to frighten Canadians away from voting for his opponent. Another target of that campaign is President Trump:

Trudeau has avoided criticizing the American president, but after weeks of stagnant poll numbers, he embraced the role of Trump’s foil, saying he is the only candidate who can stand up to Trump and “the forces of populism and chaos around the world.”

“The challenge for Trudeau always was trying to keep this big, high-profile, international expectation that he’s Obama’s successor, the progressive hero of the global world,” said Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “With Trump, being the inheritor of Obama’s progressive mantle doesn’t do any good.”

Trudeau got an assist in his role as Obama’s successor this week when Obama himself endorsed him. The Associated Press points out the hint of desperation behind this:

Sensing Trudeau is now in trouble, Barack Obama made an unprecedented endorsement by a former American president, urging Canadians to re-elect Trudeau and describing him as a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change.

Trudeau was asked if he had requested that endorsement and he didn’t deny it. So the desperation didn’t arise with Obama, it’s coming from within Trudeau’s own camp.

So what do the polls say? They have shown a tight race for weeks but today Toronto Sun opinion columnist says Trudeau’s chance of pulling out a win is looking slim:

Looking at all the polling available, Scheer and his Conservatives will win the most seats come Monday.

That includes the latest polling done for the Toronto Sun as part of the DART & Maru/Blue Voice Canada Poll.

Nationally, this poll puts the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals with a four-point lead. DART has Scheer’s party at 33% voter support compared to 29% for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and 21% for Jagmeet Singh’s NDP. The Greens come in at 7% and the People’s Party at 2%.

“The polling suggests a minority parliament for either the Conservatives or the Liberals, dependent on two major factors — voter turnout and geography,” said pollster John Wright, a partner at DART.

Usually the party that wins the most seats forms the government by forming a coalition with one of the smaller parties, but NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has already said he won’t form a government with the conservatives. So there are a lot of wrinkles left to iron out next week, but it appears to be dawning on many people this week that Trudeau is in real trouble. We’ll find out Monday if the experts and the polls were correct. As we saw here in 2016, that’s not always the case.

The post Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Trudeau-2-300x153 Justin Trudeau is in trouble and progressives are nervous The Blog Justin Trudeau Election Canada   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

That British family of border jumpers was probably more than they seemed

Westlake Legal Group CanadaBorder That British family of border jumpers was probably more than they seemed The Blog mystery Illegal Immigration Canada border

When I first heard the story of the Connors family and their involvement with CBP on CNN, I honestly didn’t pay that much attention to it. The British family had allegedly accidentally veered over the Canadian border into the United States and been apprehended. They were turned over to ICE and put in detention, including their three year old child. Some outlets were wringing their hands as usual about the “cruelty of immigration officials” in dealing with this poor family, but it sounded like something that would be sorted out presently.

But now, as more details emerge, things are looking increasingly strange. We’re still not sure what the entire story is, but the Connors are clearly more than they first appeared. For starters, they didn’t “accidentally take a wrong turn.” They were caught on video intentionally driving across a grassy strip between two roads, one on the Canadian side and one in the U.S. And things only got stranger from there. (WaPo)

The family’s attorney, Bridget Cambria, said her clients were driving near the U.S. border south of Vancouver on Oct. 2 when they swerved to avoid an animal and veered into the United States inadvertently. The family members said they were stopped by a U.S. agent, were denied a request to return to Canada, and instead were sent to a family detention center in Pennsylvania, where they are being held pending deportation.

CBP officials disputed the family’s version of events and said the Connors were spotted via video surveillance “slowly and deliberately driving through a ditch onto Boundary Road in Blaine, Washington” between parallel roadways on the U.S. and Canadian sides. The roads are not connected by cross streets, and the only legal way to traverse between the countries is at staffed border stations throughout the region.

Cambria could not immediately be reached Tuesday for comment.

The idea that somebody “swerved to avoid an animal” and wound up in the wrong country was a bit of a stretch to begin with. But as I mentioned above, the story quickly grew even more complicated.

It turns out that the Connors had applied for a travel visa to come to the United States last year but they were denied. The reason for the denial wasn’t provided, but there must have been some disqualifying factor. Generally, applications to visit from Great Britain are approved almost automatically because of our close relationship with them.

Also, taking them to detention was not CBP’s first attempted solution. They initially tried to return them to Canada where they presumably belonged. (In fact, that what the Connors requested.) But the Canadians wouldn’t allow them back in the country. (Again, no reason for the denial was offered.) Next, CPB tried to contact the British embassy to see about sending them home. Their call was not returned.

The next odd detail is that the Connors were found to have $16,000 in cash in their vehicle. That’s not technically illegal if they declared the money when entering the country and people are entitled to spend money on vacation, but that’s one heck of a lot of cash to have in the trunk. You’d think they would be using plastic or at least traveler’s checks.

Finally, CBP threw up their hands and put them in detention while beginning the steps to process them for deportation to England. What else were they supposed to do?

But seriously… what the heck is going on here? The family tried to get a visa but were denied and then they’re found sneaking over the border with a car full of cash. There’s obviously more to this story than meets the eye. And it’s certainly not a case of CBP cruelly mistreating a family as it was originally advertised.

The post That British family of border jumpers was probably more than they seemed appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group CanadaBorder-300x159 That British family of border jumpers was probably more than they seemed The Blog mystery Illegal Immigration Canada border   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

David Gauke: Whatever briefings from Downing Street may claim, an election fought on a No Deal platform would be disastrous

David Gauke is a former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and is MP for South West Hertfordshire.

How much has the Conservative Party changed? To what extent has it moved from being a mainstream, centre-right party containing a broad range of views to being a party overwhelmingly focused on delivering an uncompromising Brexit?

It is a question I have asked myself a lot in recent months. Having fought off a deselection attempt because I opposed a No Deal Brexit, and having lost the Conservative whip because I continued to oppose a No Deal Brexit, it is hard to escape the conclusion that quite a lot of Conservatives disapprove of people who oppose a No Deal Brexit. Has the debate become so rancorous and intolerant that there is no longer a place for the likes of me in the Conservative Party?

The answer to that question is uncertain, but I took some encouragement from the Manchester Party conference.
I admit to attending with some trepidation. My position on Brexit is evidently a minority one within the Party. I have not sought to hide my criticisms of the substance and tone of the Government’s approach to Brexit. And I have not ruled out standing in my constituency as an independent if the whip is not returned. If ever I was going to get a hard time from Party activists, now would be the time.

And yet, at fringe event after fringe event, Party members were courteous and polite. Andrew Gimson generously wrote up my appearance at the ConservativeHome event, but a similar report could have been written for those I did with the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator. Don’t get me wrong: I am not claiming that I won the audiences over to my position – the occasional eye-roll, sigh and shake of the head was detectable – but nor was there anything like the hostility one might expect if, for example, you ever read the comments below one of my ConHome articles.

In truth, the Conservative Party felt – in those fringe meetings, at least – very similar to the party of which I have been a member for 29 years. Sensible, practical, well-meaning and decent.

I also take some encouragement from the apparent, new-found enthusiasm within the Government to reach a deal on Brexit. In previous columns, I have argued that seeking a deal and being willing to compromise is the right approach. That view would appear to be in the ascendant at the time of writing.

Until recently, an alternative approach appeared to be prevailing which seemed determined to crash us out on  October 31 at any cost. I have previously acknowledged the electoral case for this strategy, but in terms of the outcome for the country, it is thoroughly irresponsible. As such, it is also a huge departure from the modern traditions of the Conservative Party.

Let me give seven examples of principles that most Conservatives would support. I would happily sign up to each and every one of them but I struggle to reconcile them with those pursuing a No Deal Brexit at any cost.

  • We believe that living standards can only be raised and public services properly funded if you have a strong economy.

It is the argument that we have to fight at every election when our opponents make great promises but we respond by pointing out that we have to create the wealth in the first place if we properly want to fund the NHS, for example. Yet the overwhelming economic consensus is that No Deal Brexit would result in a sharp contraction in GDP. And before anyone rushes to claim that this is all a re-run of 2016’s ‘Project Fear’, remember our economy is 2.5-3 per cent smaller than it would have been had Remain won.

  • We believe in free trade.

Open markets benefit both our exporters but also our consumers. This has not always been the Conservative position but, thankfully, it has been for some time. And I know that there are plenty of Brexiteers who are sincere free traders and think that Brexit provides great new opportunities for bringing down trade barriers.

Unfortunately, it is simply not true. The Government’s analysis shows the benefit of getting trade deals with all the English-speaking nations and the major emerging economies will be just 0.2 to 0.6 per cent of GDP whereas the loss of access to European markets of a Canada-style free trade agreement (let alone a no deal Brexit) will be 4 to 7 per cent of GDP. The net effect of a No Deal Brexit or even a Canada style FTA will be to make our economy less open and more protectionist.

  • We believe in fiscal responsibility.

This was the battleground of British politics from 2009 to 2015 when we made the case for getting the deficit down. The contraction of the British economy will inevitably result in deteriorating public finances. Add to that a political strategy which focuses on winning the support of traditional Labour voters which has meant that we are almost certainly already breaking our fiscal rules.  Remember when we criticised Labour for more borrowing and more debt?

  • We don’t believe that the Government should bail-out unviable industries or businesses.

As a statement, this sounds like a bit of a throw-back to the 1980s when Margaret Thatcher weaned the country off supporting lame-duck businesses. But what do we think would happen when businesses no longer became viable because of the impact of No Deal? The pressure to provide support ‘in order to deal with the temporary disruption’ will be immense. The Government has already prepared for this with Operation Kingfisher but removing that support will be very difficult politically. There is a risk that our economy will become much more corporatist than any time since the 1970s.

  • We believe in our national institutions – Parliament, the monarchy and the independent judiciary.

This should go without saying but when Number Ten briefs that the next election will be people versus Parliament, that the Prime Minister will ‘dare the Queen to sack him’, that the judiciary is biased and that the Government will not comply with the law, we don’t sound very conservative (to put it mildly).

  • We believe in national security and ensuring that we do all we can to protect our citizens from terrorism.

And yet a ‘source in No 10’ says we will withhold security co-operation from those countries that fail to block an extension. Meanwhile, the former head of MI6 says that our security depends upon co-operation with the EU and that leaving without a deal means we will have to ‘start again with a blank sheet of paper’. In addition, it is hard to see how any ‘no deal’ outcome doesn’t destabilise the Good Friday Agreement one way or another. The Prime Minister, it is reported, is increasingly concerned about the risk of an upsurge in terrorist activities by dissident republican groups.

  • We believe in the United Kingdom.

It is obvious that Brexit is placing a strain on the union. A No Deal Brexit would be likely to result in a border poll in Northern Ireland, especially with Stormont not sitting and some form of direct rule being necessary. As for Scotland, the chaos of a No Deal Brexit provides plenty of ammunition for the separatists.

Not every Conservative voter will agree with every single one of those principles, or my criticisms of a No Deal Brexit. But a Conservative Party that fights a general election with No Deal at its heart must know that it will be pursuing an approach that is such a radical departure from the traditions of the Conservative Party and that it is vulnerable to losing the support of millions of our longstanding supporters.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Little Girl Busts Justin Trudeau With Awkward Question: ‘Why Did You Paint Your Face Brown?’

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-10-at-5.38.23-PM Little Girl Busts Justin Trudeau With Awkward Question: ‘Why Did You Paint Your Face Brown?’ racism Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Canada Allow Media Exception

Screenshot from this video

Liberal Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been making the rounds of media events, trying to make amends, since he became embroiled in a blackface scandal, prior to the election for PM on October 21.

One stop was on the Facebook Watch show, “New Mom, Who Dis?.”

But when the interviewer gave one of the little girls the opportunity to ask him a question, she did. The little girl asked, “Why did you paint your face brown?”

“Ooh! Um, it was something I shouldn’t have done because it hurt people,” Trudeau replied. “Um, it’s not something that you should do and that is something that I learnt. I didn’t know it back then but I know it now, and I’m sorry that I hurt people.”

Noticeably, he failed to answer the “why” part of her question. Nor did he explain why he didn’t know that as a 29 year old man or why he had repeated incidents of blackface including one with his pants apparently stuffed.

The little girl had a follow-up. “But did you paint your nose and your hands brown?”

“Mmm, hmm, yeah,” Trudeau responded affirmatively. “And it was the wrong thing to do.”

Trudeau then gave a lecture.

From Fox News:

“And I had a good conversation with my kids around taking responsibility for my mistakes and making sure that we’re always sticking up for each other and not teasing each other and being respectful towards each other.

“And I’m sorry that I hurt you as well. I’m sorry that I hurt kids who … face teasing and discrimination because of the color of their skin. That’s just not right in this country or anywhere around the world. We all have to work together to make sure that that doesn’t happen.”

As The Post Millennial explained, the show is a pre-taped, written and rehearsed show, which means that the question was likely staged for him to use as another way to explain himself.

But even considering that, the explanation was awkward and fell flat. And lecturing others for something he says he did wrong is just a bit precious.

The post Little Girl Busts Justin Trudeau With Awkward Question: ‘Why Did You Paint Your Face Brown?’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-10-at-5.38.23-PM-300x210 Little Girl Busts Justin Trudeau With Awkward Question: ‘Why Did You Paint Your Face Brown?’ racism Liberal Elitism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Canada Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x232 Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North True North Social Media Morning Briefing Media Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Featured Post Conservatives Canada Election October 21st Canada Andrew Lawton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

Freedom of the press can be attacked anywhere at any time.

Normally when you read a statement like that you would think of places like China, Russia or parts of California that allow some freedom of the press but will crack down on it at a moment’s notice. The one place that most Americans would never think that statement would apply to is…

Canada.

Yeah, that one.

I’m not joking.

The Great White North, the land of Hockey and something called Poutine fries has also become home to some intolerant actions by people who claim to be just peace-loving tolerant souls only trying to get along.

Thanks to a group of Canadian patriots though, it looks like this abhorrent attitude will not be allowed to succeed.

Possibly you recall last month when the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, found himself in a bit of hot water because of his fondness of dressing up in “blackface” almost 20 years ago. Even though back then this was considered acceptable, today’s #WOKE crowd will allow for no acceptions.

This tweet from Time magazine was the beginning of the onslaught for Trudeau.

Enter Andrew Lawton, who works for a media outlet by the name of True North. Andrew is a seasoned veteran of Canadian politics and has dabbled in the goings-on of some of the crazy stuff that our political system has to offer. I met him a number of years ago at some event somewhere ( I’m 50 now so the memory fades) and he was a fellow podcaster so we had some mutual stories to share.

Long story short, the guy is a solid journalist who pulls no punches.

He also has an impressive resume of interviews because of his easy-going style and an impeccable reputation. Just a couple of the names he has talked with are former Canadain Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some guy named…

Justin Trudeau.

The same one that was not so woke just a couple years before.

Well imagine Andrew’s surprise when he applied for credentials to cover Trudeau on the Liberal media tour bus and he was not just given the cold shoulder he was flat out ignored. There is a cost of 8k a week to be on that bus and True North was willing to pay for two weeks to have Andrew on that vehicle right after the blackface controversy.

According to Candice Malcolm who is the Executive Director of the True North this is what happened…

We learned that the Liberals were intentionally blocking us from reporting and refusing to acknowledge True North as a media organization or Andrew Lawton as a journalist. They gave us inconsistent and contradicting reasons, and told Andrew that he needed “accreditation” to join the bus.

Here’s the thing, though, there is no institution in Canada that grants accreditation to journalists. It happens on a case by case basis. In this case, it would be the Liberals themselves who would grant accreditation. And they were refusing — because we weren’t accredited.

This is the equivalent of showing up at the DMV to get a driver’s license and them telling you that they can’t give a license because you’re not a licensed driver — even though you’re an experienced driver!

This is happening IN CANADA!?!?!?! Sacre Bleu!!

Why in the hell is Prime Minster dimples and his party blocking a journalist and his news organization from paying 16,000 Canadian dollars ( Don’t ask me what that is in U.S. money, been a while since I crossed the border) to ride on the bus and maybe get to ask some questions?

Did he pick that attitude up from summers with Fidel Castro?

Thankfully, that did not stop True North and Lawton from pursuing covering this campaign and the bus.

Literally.

According to Malcolm, True North was going to have Lawton follow that bus.

I told them we were not giving up, and that Andrew would follow the tour bus until they let him on. I don’t care if we have to spend every last dollar in True North’s budget, I will personally pay for Andrew, if need be, and he will follow the campaign — by car, train, plane, whatever means necessary — to report the other side of the story for Canadians.

Andrew did just that and the Prime Minister had the cops pull him over according to his boss.

That is when the Prime Minister sent the RCMP to detain Andrew and stop him from following the campaign bus. It was completely out of line — something that happens in a dictatorship not a free country like Canada.

Lawton, who is well known to his colleagues in the press and the staff working for the Prime Minister, was given the heavy hand of having the Canadian Mounties called on him for doing his job. Even though it was a 15-minute delay it was totally unnecessary and what weak-minded politicians and their campaigns do to try and keep their “messaging” on target.

The last hurdle that Andrew and his group had to face was being barred from a Leadership debate being held last Monday, October 7th in English. The Leaders’ Debates Commission handles these types of things and Andrew was denied accreditation to attend this event. Thankfully, they filed in court to remedy the situation.

As Andrew says in a post he did about this at andrewlawton.ca

I applied on September 24th for accreditation – one day after the Government of Canada accreditation portal for the debates opened up. I heard nothing until October 4th, which was the last business day before the Monday debate. The rejection was a mere two sentences long. The reasoning was that True North, in the eyes of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, to which accreditation had somehow been outsourced, is “actively involved in advocacy.”

So we did the only thing we could do by filing for an emergency injunction, which was granted after a hearing of less than 90 minutes, in which the presiding judge not only recognized True North and I as producers of journalism, but also accepted that we would be irreparably harmed, as would Rebel, by exclusion from a debate funded by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians.

The judge delivered his finding at about 4:45pm. Within 15 minutes I was in a car on the way to the debate location, where my press credentials were being printed off.

The good peeps won here.

When Andrew finally was able to get close enough to the Prime Minister to ask him a question he took the opportunity to try and find out what in the hell was going on with trying to limit Freedom of the Press with Trudeau campaign banning “certain” journalists.

Andrew’s question was this…

“This afternoon, a federal court judge ruled that I had a right to be here, to cover this debate as a journalist despite opposition from your Attorney General,” I said to Trudeau in the scrum. “This comes after two weeks of me being kicked out or not being allowed into your campaign rallies. The Conservatives have criticized you for being ‘not as advertised.’ You’ve advertised yourself as a champion of press freedom. Will you take a stand right now sir, as the leader of the Liberal party, and allow me to cover your campaign like every other journalist?”

Trudeau gurgled this response.

“We are a party, and we are a country that respects journalistic rights and who respects the freedom of the press and we will continue to,” Trudeau said.

Oh. Just like you respect all indigenous, black and brown people while slopping black shoe polish on your adorable mug?  How does one say “Actions speak louder than words” in French?

Aside from the fact that Trudeau seems like a guy who would need to google how to pull weeds and watch a video on YouTube to do it, I’m still wondering if this is actually his policy or is it some of the campaign hard heads that wanted to make this an issue. This was an incredibly dumb move on Team Trudeau’s part.

Since when do the self-declared intellects fear words and questions?

I asked Andrew what was the reaction of those in the press after he and True North won a huge victory for Freedom of the Press in Canada.

When I eventually got to the debate media room I had a few people congratulate me privately, which I appreciated. Having worked in media for years now I know a lot of these people. Though the public support from the mainstream media was pretty much nonexistent. There was hardly any coverage of it, and even on Twitter there was very little attention given, despite this ruling ultimately protecting the rights of all Canadian journalists.

The media response to this is quite frankly sad and this event should have never happened. When others in the media became aware that one of their own was being blocked they should have spoken up and demanded it be corrected. They should have been strong advocates for the principle of the press not being interfered with within a political campaign. If any of the Canadian press wants to see how it is done here in the states, here is an article about when a CNN Reporter was banned Fox News backs CNN lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s suspended press pass. ALL the other networks joined that lawsuit to protect a competitor. They wanted FREEDOM OF SPEECH to be protected, regardless of their biases.

Thankfully in the land of Canada today, we have people who are willing to put their reputations, money and time on the line to make sure that the rights are protected of those getting us the story from the bus, the train or anywhere news might be made affecting you. That is critical for any country to have to be able to thrive and succeed.

Lawton v. Canada is a shining example of how to get it done.

Canada is better for it!!

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x232 Freedom Of The Press Is Still Alive In Canada, Thanks To Andrew Lawton And True North True North Social Media Morning Briefing Media Justin Trudeau Front Page Stories Front Page freedom of speech Featured Story Featured Post Conservatives Canada Election October 21st Canada Andrew Lawton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Canadian schoolgirls have a question for Justin Trudeau

Westlake Legal Group jt Canadian schoolgirls have a question for Justin Trudeau Who Dis? The Blog questions Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Canada blackface ‘New Mom

To cleanse the palate, the funniest thing about this is that it must have been the last place where Trudeau expected an uncomfortable moment. It’s a Facebook show called “New Mom, Who Dis?” hosted by a social-media star. Among the hard-hitting questions he got before this one were, “Do you have a dad bod?”

At one point a baby was placed in his arms whereupon the host exclaimed, “I’m sorry, my eggs just dropped.” It’s that sort of “politics” show.

And then things took a turn…

Yes, honey. Even the nose and hands. Everything.

He handled the question well under the circumstances, I have to say. Did he know it was coming? He might have calculated that it would earn him some goodwill with the public to be publicly contrite about his, ah, problem to two adorable little girls.

Either way, it’s not like this was the most embarrassing blackface-related incident involving a liberal Canadian politician this week:

Nearly two weeks ago, Judy Sgro, who is vying for re-election in the riding of Humber River-Black Creek, gave a one-on-one interview with a news organization called GBKM FM. During the interview, she was asked about Trudeau wearing blackface makeup.

“Those in the black community have told me how much more love they have for the prime minister, that he wanted to have a black face. That he took great pride in that, too,” Sgro said. “And that it’s the media that have blown this into something that it shouldn’t be and that they’re very supportive.”

She’s now apologized. I really thought Trudeau might be the first western politician to take a shot at arguing that his youthful experiments with blackface were actually a sign of wokeness, that he was eager to try on brown skin because he identifies so much with those who have it naturally. But no, even a man with impeccable liberal credentials doesn’t dare try to convince the media on that one. A precious few sins are so grave that even having the right politics is no defense. Amazing that this guy is guilty of one of them.

The post Canadian schoolgirls have a question for Justin Trudeau appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group jt-300x159 Canadian schoolgirls have a question for Justin Trudeau Who Dis? The Blog questions Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Canada blackface ‘New Mom   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A conservative outlet in Canada sued for the right to cover a national debate and won

Westlake Legal Group Andrew-Lawton A conservative outlet in Canada sued for the right to cover a national debate and won The Blog Justin Trudeau Canada

Andrew Lawton is a conservative reporter and former radio host who works for a fairly new think tank called True North in Canada. Lawton has recently been denied the right to cover Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s campaign by the Liberal Party. Last week he wrote about his experiences for the Washington Post:

On Sept. 22, I showed up to cover one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s campaign stops in a Toronto suburb on the first day of what was to be a week-long assignment to cover the Liberal campaign. But I wasn’t allowed to board the media bus that takes journalists from stop to stop. I was also barred from entering Trudeau’s press conference. The reason the Liberals provided is that I wasn’t “accredited.”

This was news to me. I’ve been accredited by the Canadian and British governments, by courts in Canada and the United Kingdom, and the Republican National Committee at various points in my career…

The Liberals even had me removed by two police officers from a public rally —for which I had registered and been given an admission wristband — in a stunning overreach that the Liberals apologized for a day later.

At no point have the Liberals explained to me or anyone else what the standard for accreditation is. Just that I and my outlet, True North, don’t meet it.

The situation became more serious last Friday when Lawton was told he would not be allowed to cover a debate between Justin Trudeau and Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. True North and another conservative group called Rebel Media (which was also denied the right to cover the debate) took the government to court today and won.

A federal court judge says Rebel Media and the True North Centre for Public Policy have established that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if denied access to the English-language leaders’ debate taking place in Gatineau, Que., tonight and the French-language debate later this week…

True North said in the documents that the lack of “meaningful feedback” and transparency in the process, combined with the absence of avenues to appeal, make the commission’s decision arbitrary and unreasonable.

It also alleged the decision amounts to “an attempt by the current government to censor and silence media outlets that have provided a platform for Canadians with views inconsistent with its mandate.”

Lawton was tweeting about the case throughout the day and published this video after the win:

He eventually made it inside:

I guess the liberal party will have a harder time shutting him out from now on. As for Justin Trudeau, a new poll judged him both the “most elitist” and the “most hypocritical.” So his attempt to change the subject from blackface hasn’t been completely successful.

The post A conservative outlet in Canada sued for the right to cover a national debate and won appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Andrew-Lawton-300x159 A conservative outlet in Canada sued for the right to cover a national debate and won The Blog Justin Trudeau Canada   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Impeachment Fight May Help a New NAFTA Deal

Westlake Legal Group merlin_149149407_0a6f61d5-8746-484c-9b23-07cd02828074-facebookJumbo Impeachment Fight May Help a New NAFTA Deal United States Politics and Government United States Chamber of Commerce Trump, Donald J Pelosi, Nancy North American Free Trade Agreement Mexico Lighthizer, Robert E Labor and Jobs International Trade and World Market impeachment House Committee on Ways and Means Canada

WASHINGTON — The escalating impeachment drama between Congress and the White House that has all but doomed hopes of most legislative progress this fall has instead enhanced the prospects for approval, within weeks, of one major initiative: a sweeping new trade agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Top lawmakers in both parties and others closely following the talks said that substantial progress had been made in resolving the sticking points, and that a decisive House vote on the accord to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement could occur before Congress departed for Thanksgiving.

The deal may be a rare bright spot in an otherwise dysfunctional dynamic that has taken hold in the capital, and it owes its progress to a coincidence of timing, productive negotiations that have unfolded behind closed doors for months and political necessity for two parties that each has distinct reasons to hope it succeeds.

“We are on a path to yes,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters last week in one of the strongest signals yet that she would put the full weight of her leadership behind passage of the agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Both parties have strong political incentives to approve the trade deal despite deep Democratic skepticism over such pacts after American jobs flowed into Mexico after the ratification of NAFTA in 1993.

For President Trump and Republicans, the agreement is a major priority that could bolster American businesses and help struggling farmers, while showing voters that they have been good stewards of the economy. For Democrats, the accord is a way to give lawmakers from swing districts a broadly popular achievement to show constituents, and a way to counter criticism that they have accomplished little during their time in Washington, which has more often consisted of passing legislation that dies in the Republican-controlled Senate.

That has become even more important now that House Democrats are engaged in an impeachment inquiry that could lead to the president’s ouster. Democrats who represent Republican-leaning districts are facing a potential backlash from Republican and independent voters angry over the Democrats’ emphasis on impeachment, and they are looking for ways to show that they can still produce policies that benefit Americans.

“We are going to demonstrate that simultaneously you can govern,” said Representative Richard E. Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Neal is leading a delegation to Mexico for a meeting on Tuesday with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to seek final assurances over aspects of the trade agreement.

Top Democrats also see the agreement as a vehicle to achieve some major progressive goals that would otherwise be impossible to extract from a Republican administration. Republicans are considering potential sweeteners for Democrats, including a plan to shore up pensions that has been sought by Mr. Neal and labor unions.

House Democrats and Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, have been exchanging proposals and counterproposals for weeks, trying to satisfy demands for labor and environmental guarantees. Both sides say the confidential talks have produced results that are leading to increasing confidence that Ms. Pelosi will put the measure on the floor relatively soon.

“It has been a patient give-and-go, and I think we have moved the ball toward the goal,” Mr. Neal said.

Even Democrats skeptical of a trade deal based on their previous experience said the talks with Mr. Lighthizer, who has built credibility with the lawmakers, had been substantive and helpful.

“We have been having conversations for I think over a year, and the Democrats made very serious, thoughtful proposals around issues that we have been consistent on over the years,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a member of a working group appointed by the speaker to work out Democratic concerns over the agreement.

But Ms. DeLauro, who opposed NAFTA and was an early critic of the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, was not quite ready to sign off.

“We are making headway,” she said. “Our view is that when it is right, we will go. We are not there yet.”

There are substantial issues that could still hold up a final agreement. It is not clear, for instance, how negotiators plan to address Democrats’ objections to a provision that would extend protections to pharmaceutical companies for new products. Democrats argue that such measures could hamper future efforts to enact legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

Democrats say that their main fear is that Mexico will not enforce the provisions of the trade deal in areas such as minimum wage requirements and environmental standards, and that the United States will not be allowed to make inspections to determine whether the agreement is being followed. They were alarmed by news reports of labor department budget cuts in Mexico, a fear the Mexican government has raced to alleviate.

Republicans lobbying for the agreement argue that supporting it should be an easy choice for Democrats who have long criticized NAFTA, since the new version amounts to an update with several far more progressive elements than the existing agreement, such as new minimum pay levels.

Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio and a chief trade negotiator for President George W. Bush, is a leading proponent of the agreement and has been trying to sell Democrats on its merits.

“If you vote no on this, that means you are saying, ‘Let’s go with NAFTA,’ and politically for most Democrats, NAFTA is a four-letter word,” Mr. Portman said in an interview. “I just think logic prevails in the end.”

More than that, some Democrats believe the trade agreement is their best prospect for achieving some bipartisan success in such a highly polarized environment.

“People understand and appreciate that we’re trying to get to yes, and we’re trying to get it right,” Representative Lizzie Fletcher said.

Ms. Fletcher, who represents the Houston area, noted in an interview the number of trade relationships between her district and both countries in the new trade agreement, and said sealing the deal would show that the gridlocked Congress could achieve some consensus.

“People really want to know about how we’re working together and where there’s bipartisan agreement,” she added. “They want to know that we’re trying to solve real problems.”

Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, said the trade deal was a rare consequential measure that could pass the House without falling victim to Republican resistance in the other chamber or in the White House.

“The notable thing about U.S.M.C.A. is that it’s also a priority for the Senate and for the president,” Ms. Spanberger said of the new trade deal. “That hasn’t been the case for some of our most impactful legislation.”

To move the agreement forward, Democrats will need to conclude that it is beneficial enough to them that they are willing to share credit with Mr. Trump over an accomplishment that he will undoubtedly herald in his re-election campaign. Ms. Pelosi, who voted for NAFTA in the House, has told colleagues that she wants to get the new trade agreement approved, and has made clear that she hopes Democrats can separate the impeachment fight and the trade deal.

“They have nothing to do with each other,” Ms. Pelosi said. She added that if the president did not work with Democrats because they questioned his conduct, “then the ball is in his court.”

Despite the priority the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have put on the trade agreement, some concern has arisen in recent days that Mr. Trump, furious over the impeachment showdown, would pull back on the agreement and try to blame Democrats for its collapse, saying they could not get it done because of a single-minded focus on impeachment.

“The Do Nothing Democrats don’t have time to get it done!” Mr. Trump tweeted Thursday about the trade deal.

Ultimately, backers of the agreement believe, the White House will embrace congressional approval of the long-sought agreement as a major victory for the president.

“We are pretty bullish,” said Neil Bradley, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The speaker is saying all the right things, and they are actually making progress in the negotiations.”

“At the end of the day,” he said, “you want to show that impeachment is not the only thing you are focused on.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The day the Conservatives swung behind a Canada-type Brexit

Theresa May’s downfall as Party leader began with the Chequers proposals of the summer before last.  The twin pillars of it were, first, a commitment to treating the UK and EU “as if a combined customs territory” and, second, to a “common rulebook” for goods.

Although “Chequers” envisaged “managed divergence” from the EU, the common rulebook idea suggested high alignment. This last proposal eventually made it into the Political Declaration.  The EU criticised it at the time it was unveiled, and rebuffed the complicated customs proposal altogether.

David Davis resigned – this site eventually published the Alternative White Paper he had been working on – and Boris Johnson followed.  They were the first Brexiteer resignations from May’s Government.  She resigned the following spring.

Johnson has always favoured the “Canada Plus Plus Plus” or “Super Canada” idea set out both in Davis’ draft and elsewhere.  And the combined customs territory scheme was never going to fly.  So it is no surprise that the foundation of his new Brexit plan is getting the UK out of the Customs Union altogether.

A striking aspect of his statement yesterday is that the Conservative Parliamentary Party, plus some of the whipless 21, appears to have waved farewell to high alignment, the Chequers common rulebook proposal, and any variant on EEA membership (Norway-to-Canada; Norway Plus; Common Market 2.0).

Damian Green, David Gauke, Greg Clark, Stephen Hammond: none of these, whether in receipt of the Conservative whip or not, are exactly founder members of the European Research Group.

All spoke; all asked questions of the Prime Minister’s plan; all were about the Northern Ireland dimension.  If yesterday’s proceedings are anything to go by, Tory MPs are now, at the least, willing to tolerate a Canada-type settlement in order to get Brexit delivered and, at most, enthusiastic about the prospect.

If the EU rejects Johnson’s proposals altogether, as seems likely, and he then goes on to win a general election, which is possible, expect them to become the next Government’s EU policy norm.  And it may just be that the EU is willing to engage with them even now.

If instead the Conservatives go into opposition after an election, and Brexit is revoked, the Party will need a new EU policy.  In these circumstances, we think there would be a case for looking anew at EEA membership, but the Party membership is surely more likely to favour a Canada-type approach.

Either way, May’s plan has been dead for some time, and Johnson has now read the funeral rites over it.  That Chequers itself is unmourned shouldn’t pass unnoticed.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com