Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Judge allows Elon Musk’s ‘thermonuclear’ lawsuit against Media Matters to proceed

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Elon Musk accuses Media Matters of manufacturing images to falsely accuse his social media platform X of putting advertisers next to Nazi content.

A federal judge has ruled that anti-woke, pro-free-speech tech mogul Elon Musk’s lawsuit against far-left Media Matters for America (MMFA) can proceed, keeping alive a “thermonuclear” challenge to the notorious organization’s practices that could set a major precedent.

Last November, Musk, the Tesla owner whose purchase of Twitter and transformation of it into X has upended left-wing activists’ monopoly on social media speech, filed a lawsuit against MMFA over an article it published accusing accusing Musk of having descended “into white nationalist and antisemitic conspiracy theories,” and “placing ads for major brands like Apple, Bravo (NBCUniversal), IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity (Comcast) next to content that touts Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.”

Musk responded that the article’s images were “manufactured” to create a false impression and “destroy” X. He vowed to launch a “thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters and ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company,” promising to hold accountable the group’s’ “board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them.”

On August 29, Bush-appointed U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Reed O’Connor rejected  MMFA’s bid to have the suit dismissed.

“Plaintiff has provided sufficient allegations to survive dismissal,” he wrote. “Plaintiff has factually alleged: the existence of contracts subject to interference; intentional acts of interference; and proximate causation […] Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Defendants proximately caused their harm. Proximate cause requires proof of both cause-in-fact and foreseeability. Defendants present a compelling alternative version of events to Plaintiff’s. However, the Court will not ‘choose among competing inferences’ at this stage […] Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim of tortious interference with contract.”

Commenting on the ruling, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that “Musk’s lawsuit may be the most defining for our age of advocacy journalism” because it “directly challenges the ability of media outlets to create false narratives to advance a political agenda.”

“The complaint accuses Media Matters of running its manipulation to produce extremely unlikely pairings, such that one toxic match appeared for ‘only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters,’” Turley explained. “In other words, the organization wanted to write a hit piece connecting X to pro-Nazi material and proceeded to artificially create pairings between that material and corporate advertisements. It then ran the story as news.”

“Indeed, two defendant employees of Media Matters did not deny that they were aware of the alleged manipulation and that they were seeking to poison the well for advertisers in order to drain advertising revenues for X,” he added.

Media Matters describes its mission as “comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media,” but conservatives say its true mission is to demonize conservative voices and promote leftist narratives and misinformation. Leftist billionaire George Soros has supported the organization with millions in donations since its birth in 2004, though he did not go public with his support until 2010.

In 2021, Media Matters was one of multiple left-wing groups that took credit for pressuring Facebook to ban LifeSiteNews, based on false claims of “COVID-19 and vaccine disinformation.”

Alberta

Alberta government can soften blow of Ottawa’s capital gains tax hike

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

Several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Earlier this year, the Trudeau government increased the inclusion rate on capital gains over $250,000 for individuals and on all capital gains realized by corporations and trusts. This tax hike will almost surely have a negative impact on investment and entrepreneurship, but the Smith government can lessen the blow in Alberta.

In simple terms, capital is money invested in an asset—e.g. a business, factory, intellectual property, stock or bond—to create economic benefit. A capital gain occurs when that investment is sold for more than its original purchase price.

Prior to the tax hike, half the value of a capital gain (50 per cent) was taxed by the government. Trudeau increased this “inclusion rate” to 66 per cent—and that has real economic consequences.

Why? Because capital gains taxes impose comparatively large costs on the economy by reducing the reward from productive activities such as savings, investment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship, which are essential for strong economic growth. Capital taxes are among the most economically damaging forms of taxation for this very reason—they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest.

Take an entrepreneur, for example, who’s deciding whether or not to risk their own capital to provide (and profit from) a new technology, product or service. The higher the capital gains tax, the lower the potential reward from this investment, which means they will be less inclined to make the investment or perhaps undertake the investment elsewhere (another country, for example) in a more tax-friendly environment. Less investment means less innovation, job creation, wage growth and ultimately lower living standards. In other words, Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike will not only hurt Canadians with capital gains but other Canadians who benefit from the knockoff effects of investment.

Largely due to this problem, several wealthy and successful industrialized countries (Switzerland, New Zealand, Singapore) and several U.S. states (including Texas, Alaska, South Dakota, Wyoming) impose no capital gains taxes. Of course, Alberta competes with these U.S. states for investment.

Previous federal governments also understood the disincentive that comes with capital gains taxes. In 2000, the Liberal government of Jean Chretien meaningfully reduced the tax rate applied to capital gains stating that we must “introduce tax measures that encourage entrepreneurship and risk taking.”

Today, fortunately, the Smith government can take action.

When governments tax your capital gain, they include a share of the gain in your personal income and it is taxed at your personal income tax rate. The Alberta government could simply add a step in the tax return process for Albertans to remove capital gains from the provincial income tax calculation. As a result, the capital gains tax would only apply to the federal portion of your income taxes.

The Alberta government doesn’t have to sit back and accept Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike. Eliminating capital gains taxes from the provincial income tax in Alberta would send a powerful message to potential entrepreneurs, investors and businessowners that the province is open for business—and that benefits all Albertans.

Continue Reading

National

Trudeau’s $9 Million Condo Scandal: Elites Party in New York While Canadians Struggle at Home

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

From The Opposition News Network

By Dan Knight

It’s no secret that Justin Trudeau and his Liberal cronies love to live large. But this latest scandal? It’s a new low, even for them. We’re talking about a $9 million luxury condo—yes, you heard that right—on Billionaire’s Row in New York City, bought for a Trudeau-appointed diplomat while millions of Canadians are barely scraping by.

What’s worse? Trudeau himself seems to be right at the heart of this.

Let’s break down the facts that emerged during Meeting No. 137 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), and you’ll see exactly how Trudeau’s government, under the watchful eye of his loyal minister Mélanie Jolie, pulled this off.

The Timeline of Trudeau’s Elitist Condo Scheme:

1. February 2023: Tom Clark, a former journalist and long-time friend of the Liberal elites, is appointed by Trudeau’s government as Consul General in New York. A cozy appointment, no doubt, for someone with deep ties to the Liberal establishment.

2. April 27, 2023: The Prime Minister himself—yes, Justin Trudeau—drops by Clark’s old New York residence for a dinner. Imagine the wine flowing and the conversation going, all while the rest of Canada is dealing with a collapsing economy, skyrocketing inflation, and an ongoing housing crisis.

3. April 28, 2023: The very next day, Trudeau and Clark are seen together in a motorcade cruising the streets of New York City. What exactly were they discussing? A new condo perhaps? It’s hard to believe that this kind of luxury real estate plan wasn’t at least mentioned during their cozy ride.

4. Spring/Summer 2023: Global Affairs Canada—overseen by Trudeau’s trusted Minister Jolie—suddenly identifies problems with the old residence. That’s right, just a few months after Trudeau’s visit, the decision is made to start looking for a new, more luxurious residence. Coincidence? Hardly.

5. April 17, 2024: An email from Global Affairs states that Tom Clark was instrumental in giving the green light for the purchase of the $9 million condo. The deal is pushed through, and the taxpayer is stuck with the bill.

6. July 12, 2024: The media finally breaks the story about the purchase of the $9 million luxury condo on Billionaire’s Row, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in New York. Public outrage begins to grow as details about this opulent purchase come to light.

7. July 25, 2024: A bogus correction is issued by Global Affairs, claiming that Tom Clark was not involved in the purchase. Conveniently, this correction comes one day after this very committee ordered documents on Clark’s involvement. Sound fishy? It should.

Clark’s Cozy Deal and Trudeau’s Role

Here’s what we know: Trudeau’s government made a $9 million purchase for Tom Clark, a man with deep ties to the Liberals, shortly after Trudeau himself visited Clark’s old residence. Now, emails show Clark was directly involved in the decision to buy the new place, but when he appeared before the committee, he suddenly couldn’t remember any involvement. Instead, he passed the blame onto Global Affairs Canada.

Now, here’s where it gets worse. Documents show that Clark was instrumental in the decision to buy this opulent residence. Emails from within Minister Mélanie Joly’s own department reveal that Clark himself gave the “green light” on the purchase. But when Clark appeared before the committee, he suddenly had a case of selective amnesia, denying any involvement in the decision. According to him, it was all Global Affairs Canada’s doing. He claims he was just an innocent bystander, touring the property “out of curiosity.”

Are we really supposed to believe that? This is a man who, for decades, worked in media and is well-versed in how power operates. The idea that Clark wasn’t aware of the optics or didn’t say a word when shown this mansion is laughable. What’s even more convenient is that a “correction” from Global Affairs magically appeared one day after the committee requested documents about Clark’s involvement. They want us to believe that all of this is just a coincidence, a bureaucratic hiccup. Sure.

But let’s not forget who runs Global Affairs—none other than Minister Mélanie Jolie, one of Trudeau’s closest allies. Jolie has twice appointed Clark to key roles: once as head of an advisory committee recommending appointments to CBC, and then again as Consul General in New York. And it’s Jolie’s department that now seems to be covering for Clark in this scandal, issuing a correction that conveniently contradicts their own internal emails.

So, who’s responsible? The buck stops with Minister Jolie—and ultimately with Justin Trudeau.

The Real Problem: Trudeau’s Elitism and Out-of-Touch Government

While Tom Clark is now enjoying his luxurious $9 million condo—complete with swimming lanes, golf simulators, and some of the most expensive appliances money can buy—ordinary Canadians are lining up at food banks, barely making rent, and trying to survive in Trudeau’s broken economy.

Let’s break down just how absurd this situation is: for this $9 million palace, Clark pays a laughable $1,800 a month. Meanwhile, the actual cost of living in a place like that? Around $42,000 a month. The difference? You, the Canadian taxpayer, are picking up the tab for Clark’s personal playground while you struggle to pay your bills.

And let’s be clear: Clark wasn’t some innocent bystander in this. He toured the condo, saw the luxury, and didn’t once think to say, “Hey, maybe this is too much, especially when people back home can’t even afford to live.” Why? Because this is the Trudeau mindset. The elites deserve the best, and the rest of us? We can pay for it.

Why Jolie Must Testify

This scandal goes straight to the top. Mélanie Jolie must come before the committee and explain how her department managed to spend $9 million on a condo for one of Trudeau’s buddies. She needs to answer for the emails that say Clark was involved, even though they’re now trying to claim he wasn’t. And, most of all, she needs to explain why this government continues to indulge its inner circle while Canadians suffer.

It’s time for real accountability. Trudeau and his ministers cannot continue to dodge these scandals, pretending like they have no part in the decisions being made. Minister Jolie needs to testify, and the Canadian public deserves answers. After all, you’re the ones paying for it.

This isn’t just about one condo; it’s about a government that’s lost touch with reality, that believes it can spend your money however it likes, with no consequences. The Liberals claim to care about the middle class, but when it comes down to it, they’re more interested in living large—and making sure their friends do too.

Minister Jolie, it’s time to step up and explain why you let this happen. Canadians are watching.

You can subscribe for free to The Opposition with Dan Knight, but for the full experience, you’ll need to upgrade your subscription.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Continue Reading

Trending

X