Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Police on scene at the 400 block of Charles Street

UBC professor says marijuana revenue should go towards much-needed social services in B.C.

11 ways to avoid messing up your child

Latest school bus cancellations and delays in the Greater Toronto Area for Dec. 12, 2017

Conservative Rosemarie Falk wins Battlefords-Lloydminster byelection

Child care costs in Canada rising faster than inflation: report

Jury expected to begin deliberations today in Laura Babcock murder trial

Construction to shut down part of Taché Avenue in St. Boniface until spring

Bob Layton Editorial: Asking the right question

Thompson RCMP looking for missing woman

Vancouver taxi expert says he’s not surprised viral video showed driver refusing fare

Losing streak continues for the Vancouver Canucks after falling to Jets on Monday night

Child-care costs in Canada rose faster than inflation in 2017

Gordie Hogg takes hotly-contested South Surrey-White Rock by-election

ISIS’ defeat in Iraq down to Trump, not Obama: Steve Bannon

Winnipeg Jets end three game losing streak against Vancouver Canucks

Monday, December 11, 2017

Alex Pierson: Ontario health care has gone to the dogs

Secondary suite applications to be taken out of Calgary council’s hands

Vancouver approved a condo project, in part, because it had rentals. They cost $5,400/month

Gateway reveals vision for new London casino development

Epic ‘Frozen’-themed decorations draw thousands to Ahuntsic-Cartierville neighbourhooud

Thieves wrap chain around ATM in attempt to steal machine in Strathcona County

Saint John council passes difficult budget while holding the line on taxes

Squamish Nation election brings 8 new faces to council

Roy Moore joined by Steve Bannon at Alabama campaign rally

All 50 States Ranked By How Severe The Winter Is

Not looking forward to a miserable winter? You might live in Minnesota or Michigan.

Those two states top the latest list of the states with the worst winters in the country.

Of course, most of the states are in the far north – Alaska, North Dakota, and Maine also top the list, and the states with the best summers are in the South and the Southwest.

The state with the best winters is the state that almost doesn’t even really have a winter. The average July temperature in Honolulu is 82 degrees and the average temperature in January is 79. The same goes for the average low temperatures: 75 in July and 68 in January. That’s only sweater weather if you’re extremely hot-blooded.

On the continental U.S., my home state of Arizona is listed as the best state for winters – and for the most populous parts of the state, it’s true.

While we’re suffering through stifling heat in the summer (in Phoenix, the low is in the 90s routinely, I’m not kidding), once fall comes we desert dwellers have about seven months where the weather couldn’t be more perfect.

While the Midwest is suffering through feet of snow, Phoenicians and Tucsonans are hiking, biking, and enjoying the outdoors.

It can be a little misleading, though, as the folks at Thrillist point out:

Occasionally, retired Kroger business executives from Ohio and their Pilates-instructor second wives will accidentally move to Flagstaff and get very sad and angry when they realize the average winter temperature is somewhere in the 20s. But most of Arizona offers up that dry desert day heat (it was 88 in Phoenix last week) that is good for arthritis and any lingering guilt about leaving their first wives to deal with their delinquent teenage kids back in Indian Hill.

It’s true: The northern and eastern portions of the state get real winters. The elevation is higher than Denver (Flagstaff is above 7,000 feet) and mountains of snow are common.

Rounding out the list of the best places to spend your summer are California (also misleading, as the state is the size of Italy and weather in Tahoe is quite different than San Diego. But that said, where most people live, the weather is unmatched (if you can put up with the politics).

Colorado is the fourth best place to spend the winter, but for different reasons. It’s sunny, cold, and the winter sports are the top priority. Also – if it’s your thing – Thrillist points out that marijuana is legal there … so there’s that.

Florida is fifth. Beautiful weather, if you can stand the humidity.

Rounding out the top ten best states to live in for the winter are New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

The worst states to live in, in order of just awfulness, are Minnesota, Michigan, Alaska, North Dakota, Maine, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Idaho, Montana, and Massachusetts.

Here’s the full list, from best winters to the worst:

  1. Hawaii
  2. Arizona
  3. California
  4. Colorado
  5. Florida
  6. New Mexico
  7. Louisiana
  8. Texas
  9. Georgia
  10. Alabama
  11. South Carolina
  12. Mississippi
  13. North Carolina
  14. Nevada
  15. Tennessee
  16. Utah
  17. Arkansas
  18. Oklahoma
  19. Virginia
  20. Maryland
  21. Kentucky
  22. West Virginia
  23. Missouri
  24. Kansas
  25. Delaware
  26. Nebraska
  27. New Jersey
  28. Pennsylvania
  29. Vermont
  30. Rhode Island
  31. New York
  32. Connecticut
  33. Washington
  34. Oregon
  35. Indiana
  36. New Hampshire
  37. Ohio
  38. Illinois
  39. Wyoming
  40. Iowa
  41. Massachusetts
  42. Montana
  43. Idaho
  44. Wisconsin
  45. South Dakota
  46. Maine
  47. North Dakota
  48. Alaska
  49. Michigan
  50. Minnesota

What do you think of the list? Where does your state rank? Looking forward to the winter? Stand up and defend yourselves, maniacs! Sound off below!

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2C4XkcH
via IFTTT All 50 States Ranked By How Severe The Winter Is http://bitly.com/2C4XkcH

Exactly Why You Can Never Trust a Hysterical Liberal on Climate

WaPo Accidentally Unmasks The Liberal Climate Change Scam by Seth Connell

The Left is still figuring out how to deal with the fact that President Trump has withdrawn the United States from the 2015 Paris Climate Accords. The fear-mongering about our impending doom at the hands of climate change gone out of our (very limited) control is simply over the top.

The basic argument goes something like this: the need to do something about climate change is so severe that if we do not act now, then global temperatures will continue to rise and will cause more starvation in areas susceptible to climate change (much of it on the African continent, and in other developing nations).

So the best solution is to, apparently, to take hundreds of billions of dollars from industrialized countries’ respective economies, then enact massive new environmental legislation that binds almost the entire globe to standards of efficiency that are difficult for many businesses to maintain while also operating at a sustainable profit margin. But that’s not so much their concern.

With the sense of urgency about the issue, you’d think that all nations signed up for the treaty would do everything they could to get the plan enacted. However, since the United States will not be a part of the treaty for the foreseeable future, it appears that their dedication to the plan may not be as sincere as we thought it, and a recent report in the Washington Post indicates as much.

The headline reads: Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement means other countries will spend less to fight climate change

Immediately, there’s a question that comes to mind. If the U.S. is not a part of the plan, it means that there is a budget shortfall. If there’s a shortfall, more is needed for the plan. So should the other nations signing up for the treaty not be contributing more money to the treaty to make up for that shortage? If the need is so great, the time to step up is now, is it not?

Apparently, the answer is no, as they will be spending less money on the plan since the U.S. is not there. See the disconnect here?

If the United States refuses to finance climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, then industrialized countries will have a hard time keeping their promise to offer $100 billion in climate finance every year from 2020.

These funds would support renewable energy, energy efficiency, forest conservation and other projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The money would also help poorer countries adapt to the consequences of climate change. For example, climate finance could fund levees to protect cities from flooding.

In 2014, the United States offered about $2.7 billion in climate finance, a sum comparable with contributions from Germany and France. With the Trump administration refusing to contribute, other industrialized countries will face great difficulties in putting together enough funds.

If these other nations put together money they had pillaged from their populace’s wallets before Trump, why can they not continue to do so without Trump? If anything, shouldn’t they be aiming to take more of their own constituents’ money in order to fund the scheme?

Apparently, the answer is no. But why is that? If the fund is getting smaller because of American non-participation, that provides all the more imperative to act to stop climate change, does it not?

Or does it?

Everything in these kinds of treaties must be done by force. If it’s done voluntarily through cooperation, it seems to take the fun out of it (for the Left, at least). If they cannot forcibly take money from all countries and then send it to third world dictators who “promise” to enact better climate policies, then apparently there is no point.

Nevermind the fact that many companies have already improved their efficiency and reduced emissions because of the cultural shift in the West. Nope, that’s not good enough; we must do everything by force, by stealing people’s earnings and sending it to dictators (who will then just use it to enrich their own coffers, as they always do).

As Don Surber notes, “We’re the Sugar Daddy.” If the United States is not the Sugar Daddy, other nations seem reluctant to be sending money to the treaty.

What gives here?

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2nQvk9P
via IFTTT Exactly Why You Can Never Trust a Hysterical Liberal on Climate http://bitly.com/2nQvk9P

SAD: What It’s Like Talking To Liberals About Russian Hacking

‘Abuse Hurts’ helps victims move forward

Cartoon Sums Up The Insanity of Liberals’ Climate Hysteria


New Study of Satellite Data Demolishes Global Warming Scam — by Robert Gehl

A new study dares to go where most climate scientists fear to tread: challenging global warming.

It suggests that recent climate data showing an increase in global temperatures has not occurred in the atmosphere in more than two decades.

The research, funded by the federal government, shows that by eliminating the climate effects of two massive volcanic eruptions, there has been virtually no change in the rate of global warming since the early 1990s.

Two scientists at the University of Alabama Huntsville actually predicted these results. John Christy and Richard McNidler said that they predicted decades ago that the climate models that were being used were incorrect.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Removing the disturbance caused by the volcanic eruptions, the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade – the same estimate they made in 1994.

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

The article is sure to be controversial. Christy is a famous climate skeptic and the subject of merciless attacks from the scientific community.

Still, he said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

Many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, The Daily Caller reports, but few have challenged the validity of the models themselves.

Of course, there will be intense scrutiny of Christy and McNidler’s report. It also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

The work of the two has been called “shoddy, biased science” that has been given equal footing to “solid, mainstream science.”

“In reality, there should be an immense credibility gap between the climate contrarians who have been consistently wrong and who deny the inconvenient data, and the mainstream climate scientists whose positions are supported by the full body of scientific evidence,” The Guardian writes.

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2iTlbnb
via IFTTT Cartoon Sums Up The Insanity of Liberals’ Climate Hysteria http://bitly.com/2iTlbnb

Reward offered for safe return of 6 horses stolen from Alberta ranch

‘Man flu’ may be real, Canadian doctor argues

Toronto Public Library board votes to revise room-booking policy after controversial memorial

REVEALED: Army Had Top Secret “Suicide Squad” Ready to Strike The Russians

Red-suited man on a sleigh pushes deer to safety

Astronomers to Check Mysterious Interstellar Object for Signs of Alien Life

Is Calgary facing an outbreak of kennel cough?

Police should stop attending overdose calls, says Vancouver legal advocacy group

Artificial intelligence to change check-in procedures at Edmonton International Airport

Calgary teen says his car was impounded for having dilated pupils: ‘I did nothing wrong’

‘Safe Space’ Versus ‘Real Life’ Brutally Summed Up For Snowflake Libs


Robert Gehl reports that leftists academics are getting the institutions they asked for – safe, coddling, liberal, and a complete lack of intellectual diversity, tolerance, or curiosity.

The latest lambs to the slaughter are the faculty at the University of Oregon.

Last week, the school made it perfectly clear to the teachers that if they so much as offended any student on the subject of race, gender, sexuality, or religion, they would be disciplined.

This is great for whiny students – their subjective measure of what “offends” them can almost certainly be applied to any instructor – especially a particularly difficult one whose course they’re struggling in.

The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh explains:

This time it involved someone making herself up as a black man at a costume party (as it happens, doing so in order to try to send an antiracist message). But according to the university’s logic, a faculty member could be disciplined for displaying the Mohammed cartoons, if it caused enough of a furor. Or a faculty member could be disciplined for suggesting that homosexuality may be immoral or dangerous. Or for stating that biological males who view themselves as female should be viewed as men, not as women. Or for suggesting that there are, on average, biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women.

All such speech at the University of Oregon will risk your being suspended or perhaps even worse. Orthodoxy, enforced on threat of institutional punishment, is what the University of Oregon is now about.

Volokh explains how it all started: at a Halloween party hosted by a tenured professor, Nancy Schurtz.

Shurtz had invited her students, something law professors sometimes do. About a dozen students came, and about a dozen non-students did, too.

Shurtz had told the students that she would be “going as a popular book title”; she didn’t tell the students up front what it was, but the book was the recent (and acclaimed) “Black Man in a White Coat,” a black doctor’s “reflections on race and medicine” (according to the subtitle). Shurtz’s “costume incorporated a white doctor’s lab coat, a stethoscope, black makeup on her face and hands, and a black curly wig resembling an afro.”

The university report states that Shurtz “was inspired by this book and by the author, that she greatly admires [the author] and wanted to honor him, and that she dressed as the book because she finds it reprehensible that there is a shortage of racial diversity, and particularly of black men, in higher education.”

But many people find whites putting on makeup to look black to be offensive. I’m skeptical about the soundness of this view: The university report justifies the view by saying that “Blackface minstrelsy first became nationally popular in the late 1820s when white male performers portrayed African-American characters using burnt cork to blacken their skin” and that “wearing tattered clothes, the performances mocked black behavior, playing racial stereotypes for laughs” — but it doesn’t follow to me that wearing black makeup without mocking black behavior or playing racial stereotypes for laughs should be perceived as offensive. Nonetheless, it is a fact (though one that Shurtz apparently didn’t know) that many people do, rightly or wrongly, view this as offensive.

And this perceived offensiveness yielded a huge uproar at the law school. According to the report, the uproar was partly students’ immediate reaction and partly a result of the administration’s and other faculty members’ discussing the matter extensively at school, including in classes.

Moreover, the report notes that, as part of the uproar, students said things of which the administration disapproved: The report specifically notes that students used “other offensive racially-based terminology during class times in the context of discussing this event and broader racial issues.” It related that “some of the witnesses reported that the students’ reactions to the event were racially insensitive or divisive.” And it apparently viewed such statements as relevant to whether Shurtz’s own speech was properly punished.

So it was a private party at a professor’s home. Students were invited. The party leads to “speech” by people who attend the law school.

So what’s the school to do?

Here’s what they did: they suspended Schurtz, then released a report concluding that, yes, they should have suspended her. Her “speech” was harassment, which violates university policy.

After the lengthly report, they conclude:

“The University does not take issue with the subject matter of Shurtz’s expression, or her viewpoints, but the freedoms under this policy end where prohibited discrimination and/or discriminatory harassment begin.” Actually, to be honest, the university does “take issue with the subject matter of Shurtz’s expression, or her viewpoints,” and concludes that the offensiveness of that subject matter and viewpoints makes it “harassment” and strips it of protection.

Again, contrary to the university’s explicit assurances in its free speech policy, the university report shows that “[t]he belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, and in any other way despicable, detestable, offensive or ‘just plain wrong’” would indeed be viewed as “grounds for its suppression.” Indeed, even the wearing of black makeup is being suppressed on the grounds that it’s seen as “despicable, detestable, offensive or ‘just plain wrong’” (the report stressed that “[a]lmost every student interviewed reported that they knew the costume was ‘not okay’”). The expression of overtly racially offensive opinions would be just as covered by the university report’s logic.

As a result of this nonsense, the following acts of “Expression” are now grounds of termination at the University of Oregon:

  • Sharp criticism of Islam.
  • Claims that homosexuality is immoral.
  • Claims that there are biological differences in aptitude and temperament, on average, between men and women.
  • Rejection of the view that gender identity can be defined by self-perception, as opposed to biology.
  • Harsh condemnation of soldiering (that would be harassment based on “service in the uniformed services” or “veteran status”).
  • Condemnation of people who have children out of wedlock (that would be harassment based on “marital … status” and “family status”).

The left is eating itself.

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2iUuHqp
via IFTTT ‘Safe Space’ Versus ‘Real Life’ Brutally Summed Up For Snowflake Libs http://bitly.com/2iUuHqp

Liberals safely keep seat in federal byelection in Newfoundland

Okanagan forecast

Health warning in the Okanagan for potentially deadly meningitis

Apple snaps up song-recognition app Shazam for estimated $400M

6-year-old Edmonton boy recognized for saving diabetic mother

2 U of S scientists granted access to new Microsoft technology for crop research

Real Reason It’s Hard to Ever Take Liberals Seriously

White House attacks journalists for errors, but Trump has made his fair share of false claims

Chelsea Handler DEMANDS Respect For Women; IMMEDIATELY Does This Next…

Chelsea Handler, host of the Netflix series “Chelsea,” exemplified herself as a hypocrite by lecturing Mike Huckabee about the definition of feminism just before re-tweeting a body shaming video that mocks Huckabee’s daughter, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Handler isn’t backing down from her spew of attacks on the Press Secretary; she called Sanders a “whore” during an interview on December 1st.

“That harlot that they are dressing up and trolloping out every day?” Handler said. “I mean, one day she has no makeup on at all, the next she’s got 6’ long eyelashes, cleavage, and summer whore lipstick all over her face.”

The Daily Caller reported:

Handler, host of the Netflix series “Chelsea,” had some choice words for Huckabee Sanders in an episode titled “Dinner Party: Scandalous.”

Handler ridiculed Sanders’ appearance, calling her a “proper trollop.” She said this during an interview with lawyer Lanny Davis, who served as a special counsel to former President Bill Clinton,

Handler is oddly obsessed with attacking Sanders’ appearances.

According to the Daily Caller, Mike Huckabee responded by saying her remarks were “vile and vulgar.”

“I know you are probably expecting me to be very angry about it truthfully when I read what she said and watched it, I felt sorry for her,” Huckabee continued. “I feel sad for ChelseaHandler. She seems like a very angry and bitter person. She is almost as old as me. This is the part of her life she needs to start mellowing out. She seems to be enraged.”

Handler then switched her attention to Huckabee, lecturing him about supporting and respecting women.

“A feminist is someone who supports other women,” Handler tweeted. “A feminist doesn’t discount other women. Your daughter is not a feminist. You raised a liar.”

She followed that Tweet with a reposted video, saying to “get the ‘Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ look.”

Page Six reports:

Each step of the fake tutorial is accompanied by crude jokes that ridicule – among other things – Sanders’ face, Trump and Republicans.

“Right now my skin is dry, just like Puerto Rico right before that one rainy day they had,” she says before applying moisturizer to her face.

“My face is a big, fat biscuit!” she says as she uses the lotion.

Feimster compares her makeup foundation to the foundation of America: “It’s Republican, it’s strong, and it’s white.”

Feimster also mocks Sanders’ physical appearance by insinuating that she resembles a man.

“I used to not know what foundation was, but our great president was kind enough to take me to a Sephora and he said to the employee, ‘Hey, you see that fellow over here? Make him a woman,” she says.

Not everyone was amused with the video. Many took to Twitter to criticize Handler’s attack of Sanders.

One Twitter user wrote: “Keep it up and everyone will despise you. You are obviously a very unhappy person. Maybe as a modern feminist you should act like a lady for a change.”

Another wrote: “Glad to see how much of a strong feminist you are, by promoting positive body image of other females.”

Despite the backlash, Handler was unfazed by the criticism, replying, “This woman deserves to be taken down. She is pure evil.”

Handler seems to think her Twitter rage will “take down” Sanders. But all she’s managing to do is discredit herself and prove that she is just as “angry and bitter” as Huckabee says.

Chelsea Handler is what she claims to hate.

She has little more than low blows and childish, hateful remarks about weight and makeup at her disposal, though she thinks she can teach the world about “support” for women.

She’s just a common hypocrite.

H/T: The Daily Caller

from The Federalist Papers http://ift.tt/2kmeoCY
via IFTTT Chelsea Handler DEMANDS Respect For Women; IMMEDIATELY Does This Next… http://ift.tt/2kmeoCY

5-foot-long lizard could be to blame for Cobourg house fire

Saskatchewan influenza activity on the rise with experts urging flu vaccine

Calgary Fire Department could lose K-9 unit in budget adjustments

‘Police only parking’ honours memory of fallen Abbotsford Const. John Davidson

Cross-examination of Christopher Garnier to continue Tuesday at Halifax murder trial

Alberta says feds’ marijuana tax revenue plan ‘much better’ than earlier 50-50 share

The federal Liberals had just proposed a $1 per gram tax on pot when it becomes legal in 2018 and suggested it split the tax 50-50 with the provinces.

Ceci wasn’t impressed and vowed to send a letter immediately “on behalf of all the provinces saying that’s unacceptable and we need to get into a room together to work it out.”

Watch below: Alberta Finance Minister Joe Ceci responds to the proposed 50/50 tax revenue split on marijuana between provincial and federal governments.

On Monday, he reiterated the provinces would need resources to handle the bulk of work and costs associated with legalizing marijuana  – from policing to education.

“Provinces will bear the responsibility of the regulations, the risks, the infrastructure to proceed with this federal initiative,” Ceci said.

“Make no mistake, we will do the hard work to protect children and youth and our communities. What we won’t do is foot the bill for the federal government’s campaign promise.”

Federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau announced the new agreement Monday after a day-long meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts.

from http://ift.tt/2klc1QO
via IFTTT Alberta says feds’ marijuana tax revenue plan ‘much better’ than earlier 50-50 share http://ift.tt/2klc1QO

Alberta beef and pork producers hope new deal with China will pay big dividends

Pelosi Calls Trump “Clueless;” Problem is “Smart People” Created a Disaster

In politics, few things go together as commonly as hubris paired with a total lack of self-awareness.

For a beautiful example, consider the following recent comments by Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as reported by Fox News:

“The bigger problem, the thing people need to understand, is that he was utterly unprepared for this,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a New York Times story published this weekend about Trump’s daily routine. “It would be like you or me going into a room and being asked to perform brain surgery. When you have a lack of knowledge as great as his, it can be bewildering.”

Trump’s an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing. How original! This doesn’t mean much coming from Democrats, as “you’re stupid” has been one of their top lines of attack against every new Republican president since Ronald Reagan.

In Trump’s case, though, this one has even gotten traction in various corners of the Right — partly for petty (dare I say “tribal”) reasons such as the various biases and impulses animating #NeverTrump, but admittedly somewhat reinforced by the man’s newness to political office, frequently crude manner of speech, and apparent disinterest in the specifics of various policies.

And yet, despite the worst doomsday predictions of both Left and Right, how has Donald Trump’s first year in the White House turned out? Here’s a handy rundown from Roger Kimball at American Greatness:

But just think about these subjects: illegal immigration (down by more the 60 percent), energy (America is now the world’s biggest producer of energy), unemployment (4 and a bit percent), growth (3 percent for two quarters running), the market (up more than 5,000 points since November 2016), regulation (huge progress in turning back the counterproductive regulatory environment that has stymied American business), consumer confidence (the highest it’s been in a generation), the military (revitalized), taxes (a bracing if imperfect plan wending its way through Congress), Iran (declining to recertify a deal that paved the way for Iran to become a nuclear power).

Even Rich Lowry at the establishmentarian and infamously #NeverTrump National Review recently acknowledged that the Trump Administration’s accomplishments extend far beyond the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court:

Other Excellent Judicial Picks … and a Tax Cut … and Major Deregulatory Actions … and Immigration Enforcement … and the End of the Individual Mandate … and a Roll Back of the HHS Mandate . . . and the reversal of the insane Title IX policy on campus . . . and an exit from the Paris Accords . . . and the avoidance of whatever Hillary would have wrought.

“Trump has governed so far as more of a Republican and conservative than I expected,” Lowry admitted. Indeed, of all the criticisms (real and imagined) to be leveled at the new president, the biggest substantive one would would seem to be that he’s sometimes too similar to previous Republican presidents.

Contrast this early record with what decades of “respectable, intelligent” presidents of both parties have given America:

– a federal debt above $20 trillion and climbing every second, enabled by a political culture that refuses to seriously entertain meaningful spending cuts or program reforms;

– the 2008 financial crisis that wreaked havoc with our economy;

– state governments mismanaged worse than floundering private companies, so hellbent on public employees voting more of the taxpayers’ money into their own pockets that they’re teetering on bankruptcy;

– a judiciary that has in many cases thrown away even the pretense of impartially upholding the Constitution, instead perpetuating legal fictions and openly writing subjective preference into rulings that run roughshod over individual rights, separation of powers, and the powers reserved to the states;

– a military infested with politicized officers and administrators who place radical ideologies and social experiments above the safety of American soldiers and effectiveness at protecting the homeland;

– a bureaucratic culture in which decisions affecting countless aspects of people’s lives are made with no recourse for the impacting, and nonexistent accountability for incompetence or even abuse of power to persecute political enemies and enrich political allies.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

While intelligence is essential for our leaders, their records prove that the political Smart Set is anything but. They may have formal knowledge, but that clearly isn’t enough when they lack guiding moral principles, the intellectual imagination to question the way things have always been done, and the courage of conviction necessary to defy the conventional wisdom of Washington DC — even when that means standing alone.

When all is said and done, proving the intellectual, moral, and political bankruptcy of both parties’ establishments may be Donald Trump’s greatest legacy.

from The Federalist Papers http://ift.tt/2jPe9Rw
via IFTTT Pelosi Calls Trump “Clueless;” Problem is “Smart People” Created a Disaster http://ift.tt/2jPe9Rw

Police arrest 2 people in connection with 2016 homicide of Harsimran Singh Birdi

Comparing Winnipeg’s proposed parking rates to other Canadian cities

‘Bonjour-Hi’ Uber driver stirs controversy

Beluga genome sequenced for 1st time with DNA from whales who died at Vancouver Aquarium

Sask. Finance Minister satisfied with 75 per cent share of marijuana tax revenue

New Brunswick carbon tax will not target consumers

Message Every Whiny Liberal On Social Media Needs To See Right Now

Cartoon Illustrates Brutal Nature of Censorship In 2017

HILARIOUS: Guess What Two Words CNN Now Wants to Ban? — by Regan Pifer

CNN is just wonderful. They always provide me with a wonderful dose of daily humor. I don’t even need to read the comics anymore.

What is today’s daily dose?

CNN, the same news organization that moans about Trump’s “non-stop bashing of the liberal network” and claims that he is “running roughshod over the First Amendment,” now wants to ban words.

Censorship. Banning words. Making speech…illegal.

Right? Is this not hysterical?

By the way, let us read the First Amendment together:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Soooo…President Trump actually isn’t taking away any rights away from CNN.

He is actually exercising his First Amendment rights.

He can critique whatever news source he wants.

CNN isn’t breaking the law. Trump isn’t breaking the law.

The two of them just don’t like each other.

But you know what does keep one from speaking freely?

Banning words.

According to The Daily Wire:

CNN now wants to forget all that stuff about “freedom of speech” (see, that only applies to liberals — anyone else needs to be shut down ASAP).

“Ban the term ‘fake news’,” says the headline of a Sunday post on CNN.com. The story was so weighty it took two people to write it: Hossein Derakhshan, a writer and researcher “on the socio-political impacts of new media technologies,” CNN says, and Claire Wardle, a research fellow at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy […]

[T]he writers think someone somewhere should be policing the news to decide what gets printed and what doesn’t — or at the very least, what we all call said news.

CNN first blames President Trump, then blames the words “fake news” as well as social media.

They write:

We live in a time when our information streams are polluted and there are many different types of information. They move and shift. Some types are visible; others are harder to spot. Some we would all agree are problematic — manipulated images created during a breaking news event, for example, designed to confuse and to hoax. But what about satirical news websites? What about misleading headlines designed solely to drive traffic? We need to rethink our vocabulary.

They then ask “So what can be done? The truth is there are no easy solutions.”

So, I guess we just censor.

That makes sense.

Or maybe, CNN, you stop crying because other news outlets are calling you out on your liberal media brainwashing.

Maybe you expect more from Americans that they will not consume whatever they see (like they have done with you for so long) and actually step back and use critical thinking skills.

No, liberals wouldn’t do that.

They will decide what you see, when you see, and why you see it.

They will police and determine what gets printed.

Yeah, that sounds like freedom to me…

*Scooby-Doo head tilt*

No, not really.

That is taking away Constitutional rights.

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2kmdJ4s
via IFTTT Cartoon Illustrates Brutal Nature of Censorship In 2017 http://bitly.com/2kmdJ4s

Notre-Dame-de-l’Île Perrot resident angry over loss of green space

Public Works preps for the first winter storm of the season in Kingston

Man injured at work site near Edmonton died Friday

Teachers Asking 10 Year Olds If They’re Comfortable With Their Gender

Man charged with sexual assault after disturbing call from Parkhill home

Crooks break into Kelowna therapeutic farm

Prosecutors to appeal the stay on Jamie Bacon’s ‘Surrey Six’ charges

Quebec’s winter tire deadline looms

Sad Cartoon Shows Why Israel Will NEVER Have Peace

U.N. Blackmails Israel: ‘Cut Off The Jews!’ – by Robert Gehl

The UN Human Rights Commission – long a stalwart of anti-Semitism – is trying to blackmail companies into stopping all business in Israel’s “disputed” areas, lest they face a designation as an international human rights abuser.

Their latest target is Israeli telecommunications firm Bezeq, which was sent a letter by the commission accusing them of promoting settlement activity by providing cellphone service in areas that the council claims are Palestinian Territory, The Washington Free Beacon is reporting.

The UNHRC is trying to create a database of companies working within and with Israel in an attempt to blackmail them into not doing business with the Jewish state at all. It’s all part of the global leftist-led “Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions” movement. BDS has been described by US and other officials as inherently anti-Semitic.

Many companies have received letters like this – Bezeq is just the latest.

The UNHRC sent a letter to Bezeq in late September accusing it of “supporting the maintenance and existence of settlements, as well as the “use of nature resources, in particular water and land, for business purposes,” according to a copy of that letter that first circulated on Facebook.

The UNHRC threatens to add Bezeq to its database of companies operating in what it claims are Israeli settlements and the occupied Palestinian territories.

“Bezeq owns approximately 40 real estate properties in the West Bank used for telecommunications infrastructure, and operates antennas throughout the West Bank,” the UNHRC wrote in its letter.”

“Bezeq provides landline, cellular, internet, and cable TV services to residents of settlements in the West Bank,” according to the UNHRC, which considers this activity a violation of its accords.

The membership of the Human Rights Commission includes known human rights abusers, such as Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba.

The United States – also a member of the commission – criticized the creation of a database and said America is not playing along.

“We have made clear our opposition regarding the creation of a database of businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, and we have not participated and will not participate in its creation or contribute to its content,” one official said.

This all came to light when Bezeq’s CEO, Stella Handler, decided not to play along, instead posting the letter and an open response to the UNHRC. She called the process “nothing more than anti-Israel propaganda.”

“Bezeq will continue to protect the rights of all our customers without discrimination. We will continue to provide service to all Israeli citizens without respect to religion, race or gender and we respect their right to choose to live in any part of this land – be it Raanana, Jerusalem, Ariel, Sakhnin or Ma’aleh Adumim.”

Responding to the letter, Handler cited UNHRC statistics vis-à-vis Israel, saying that more than half of the Council’s resolutions since being formed have denounced Israel.

“Since the Council was formed in 2006, 68 decisions have been published denouncing Israel…not North Korea, not Syria, not Sudan, not Yemen. No other country has gotten this sort of attention from the Human Rights Council. The [council’s] anti-Israel bias is so blatant that it has lost any relevance in the world,” Handler wrote.

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2jNOwjS
via IFTTT Sad Cartoon Shows Why Israel Will NEVER Have Peace http://bitly.com/2jNOwjS

Sask. man sentenced for uttering threats toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Greyhound pitches new fund to pay for rural transportation

Top 10 Most Ridiculous Anti-Gun Moments of 2017

The left has come up with some absurd arguments against the second amendment over the past year.

Here’s a look back at some of the most ridiculous.

1. When CBS News just made things up to scare people

“Automatic rounds” are not “perfectly legal,” mainly because they don’t exist.

2: When actor Dave King suggested banning pizza.

Besides apparently making up his “statistic” on the spot, King suggested that banning anything can be justified. What about swimming pools or cars?

3: When this liberal radio host didn’t know anything about guns or the Bible.

Seriously. The First Commandment? If Miami talk show host Grant Stern didn’t know what it was, which he obviously didn’t, it would have taken him mere seconds to look it up.

This clearly shows how little research liberals are willing to do in order to justify their arguments.

4: When this broadcaster forgot about facts

This from somebody whose Twitter bio says he’s an “educator.” But is it really that hard?

Fact-check — false:

5: When Geraldo Rivera inadvertently explained why ignorance promotes fear

In fact, the sale of fully-automatic weapons to civilians has been banned since 1986, suppressors don’t “silence” gunshots like they do in James Bond movies, and the Second Amendment doesn’t “suck.”

Apparently, when you think like a ten year-old, you talk like one too.

6: When New York Times Magazine’s Ana Marie Cox said its easier to buy a gun than vote.

Another fact-checking fail. Some states are pushing to require photo ID for voting, but liberals say that’s oppressive because it costs a whopping eight dollars or so to get an ID.

Never mind the fact that you need an ID and a background check to purchase a gun, and voting is as easy as saying your name.

7: When actress Patricia Arquette forgot that murder is illegal.

Whoa, really?

She is right, of course, but did she actually think she was making a point? If so, what was it?

8: When David Frum claimed that responsible gun owners were a myth.

So one third of Americans are gun totting idiot criminals, are they? Frum must think that a little thing called research is also a myth.

You may recall that David Frum was once a speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, and while he was always a moderate, he used to at least call himself a conservative. Whether or not he still does, it’s clear that these days he considers the liberal media his true home.

9: When CNN tried to explain bump stocks

There’s no bump stock on the rifle CNN displayed in this next example, but there is a grenade launcher. Oops.

CNN works hard to make bump stocks sound worthy of a ban, despite the fact that bump stocks simply bounce the trigger back against the finger, and the same effect can be achieved with a common rubber band.

The liberal mainstream media is notorious for screwing up even the most basic facts about firearms in their coverage of gun stories, but even by their usual standards, this one was incredibly idiotic (ignorance or dishonesty? We report, you decide.).

10: When this US Senator from Hawaii suggested a “new” law.

Just one thing: Lawmakers had the same idea in 1996, and it’s been on the books ever since.

When you have to lie and make things up to scare people, it’s probably because you’re on the wrong side of the argument.

H/T: Bearing Arms

from The Federalist Papers http://bitly.com/2jS5n5l
via IFTTT Top 10 Most Ridiculous Anti-Gun Moments of 2017 http://bitly.com/2jS5n5l

Crown confirms it will appeal Jordan ruling in Van Voorthuizen case

Dog owners continue to speak out about the lack of off-leash parks in Regina

Toronto Uber customer charged $18K for 21-minute ride

Red Scorpion associates charged after RCMP find 448 grams of fentanyl, and much more

No foul play suspected in death at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre

Kelowna robbery suspect caught on camera

Crowd gathers in front of New Brunswick premier’s office to protest health-care privatization

Man sought in hate crime incident aboard Vaughan transit bus: police

Redneck Explains The Difference Between Liberals And Conservatives

Arnold Schwarzenegger slams Trump for pulling U.S. out of Paris climate accord

Police Warn ‘Wipe Down Shopping Carts,” But NOT Because of Germs

As Christmas hamper distribution nears, London Salvation Army issues plea for more toys

BLOG: Global Edmonton wants to spread holiday cheer through your letters to Santa

University of Saskatchewan leading 9 projects to address future water challenges

Blinds can pose strangulation risk for kids — here’s what parents should know

Winnipeg police release image of suspect in November bus assault

Winnipeg transit users rally against proposed fare hike

Why The FBI’s Handling of Mike Flynn is VERY Disturbing

Reality Check: How much do byelections really tell us about Canadian politics?

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Ottawa agrees to give provinces 75% of marijuana tax revenue

Calgary Hitmen help charities donate thousands of teddy bears to deserving children

Truth About The So-Called Middle East “Peace Process” [Cartoon]

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne sues Patrick Brown for defamation

Monday, June 26, 2017

Cake Delivery Online India

Choosing a best and Affordable Florist is really difficult task but we made it really easy for you , no need to search and compare any where .We offer Cake Delivery Online and Flower Delivery Online in India . Giftcarry is India's Well known Florist.We do Flowers, Gifts & Cakes Delivery across all cities of India. We promise a delivery within 4-6 hours across India with FREE shipping!!

Cake Delivery OnlineWe offers same day delivery for finest range of flowers. Order and send flowers to make every occasion special.

Delivering Smiles To Your Loved Ones Across India.


  • Same Day Delivery
  • Mid Night Delivery
  • 100% Fresh Flowers
  • 100% Fresh Cakes
  • 25% OFF
  • Free Delivery
  • Delivery Across all major cities of India
  • Online Card payment N Paytm Accepted
  • custom Orders accepted
  • Photo Cakes Available
  • flower delivery
  • order flowers
  • online flower delivery
  • order flowers online
  • send flowers online
  • flowers for delivery
  • online cake delivery
  • cakes online
  • buy flowers online
  • deliver flowers
  • order cake online
  • send flowers
  • online cake delivery in bangalore
  • cake delivery in bangalore
  • flowers to send
  • online cake
  • flower delivery in bangalore
  • flower bouquet delivery
  • send cake online
  • flowers online
  • flowers to deliver
  • online bouquet delivery
  • flower gift
  • cake delivery online
  • online flowers
  • same day flower delivery
  • online cake delivery bangalore
  • online flower delivery in bangalore
  • flowers online delivery
  • cake online delivery
  • same day delivery flowers
  • same day flowers
  • same day delivery gifts
  • next day flowers
  • flower bouquet online
  • flower delivery bangalore
  • next day delivery flowers
  • flowers delivered today
  • online cake order
  • birthday cake delivery
  • next day flower delivery
  • florist delivery
  • online cake delivery in delhi
  • flowers to order
  • flowers same day delivery
  • roses delivery
  • online delivery of cakes
  • send roses online
  • best flower delivery
  • send flowers today
  • cake order online
  • flowers next day delivery
  • cake delivery in delhi
  • deliver roses
  • send gifts online
  • flowers and cake delivery
  • online gift delivery
  • buy flowers
  • cake delivery
  • delivery of flowers
  • order flowers for delivery
  • rose delivery
  • bouquet delivery
  • cake and flower delivery
  • order birthday cake online
  • online cake and flower delivery
  • flower deliveries
  • flowers online bangalore
  • bouquet online delivery
  • online birthday cake
  • birthday cake online
  • best online flowers
  • flowers and chocolate delivery
  • deliver flowers online
  • online delivery of flowers
  • online flower delivery bangalore
  • birthday flowers
  • cake online order
  • flower gift delivery
  • flowers to be delivered
  • birthday cake online order
  • birthday cake flowers
  • send roses
  • birthday flowers delivery
  • bouquet delivery in bangalore
  • flowers delivered tomorrow
  • online flower delivery in delhi
  • flower delivery same day
  • home delivery flowers
  • fresh flower delivery
  • delivery roses
  • online bouquet delivery in bangalore
  • flower delivery in mumbai
  • deliver flowers today
  • flower shop
  • flower delivery online
  • gift flowers online
  • flower bouquet
  • order roses
  • birthday cake order online