Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Two Press Conferences, Two Futures: Reality vs. Liberal Delusion

Published

11 minute read

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Poilievre lays out a real plan to fight fentanyl and secure Canada’s economy. Carney delivers empty slogans and Trudeau 2.0 talking points.

So let’s talk about two very different press conferences that happened today. One was from Pierre Poilievre, who laid out a serious, detailed plan to crack down on fentanyl traffickers, secure Canada’s borders, and put drug kingpins in prison for life. The other? Mark Carney, the Liberal Party’s unelected golden boy, who stood at a podium, threw out a bunch of vague, focus-grouped slogans, and then told Canadians—with a straight face—that he’s not a politician.

Hold on—HAHAHAHAHA. Let’s just take a second to appreciate how absurd that is.

Mark Carney—the man standing at a podium, announcing his candidacy to lead the Liberal Party, delivering pre-rehearsed political talking points, and desperately trying to sound relatable—is telling you he’s not a politician.

That’s like Justin Trudeau saying he’s not a virtue-signaler. It’s like Joe Biden saying he’s a great public speaker. It’s like CNN saying they just report the news. It’s so obviously untrue that you almost have to admire the sheer arrogance of saying it out loud.

But Carney’s dishonesty didn’t stop there. No, he went on to deliver a speech so full of contradictions, hypocrisy, and Liberal gaslighting that it deserves its own category at the Academy Awards.


Carney’s Fantasy vs. Poilievre’s Reality on the Fentanyl Crisis

Poilievre’s press conference today was dead serious—because the fentanyl crisis is dead serious. He laid out the numbers:

  • 50,000 Canadians dead since 2016. More than all the soldiers we lost in World War II.
  • A super lab in British Columbia capable of producing enough fentanyl to kill 95 million people.
  • 99% of shipping containers coming into Canada go uninspected.

His response? Mandatory life sentences for fentanyl traffickers. 15-year minimums for those caught with smaller amounts. Military-backed border security. 2,000 new CBSA officers to stop fentanyl from coming in at the source.

Now let’s compare that to Carney’s response.

Oh wait—he didn’t have one.

Carney spent his entire press conference talking about “trade diversification” and “economic growth.” Not a single detailed plan for stopping the flow of fentanyl into this country, putting drug traffickers in prison, or protecting Canadian families.

Why? Because the Liberal Party doesn’t actually care about fentanyl. They only started pretending to care because Trump forced them to.

Poilievre called it out perfectly:

“If Donald Trump hadn’t threatened tariffs, Trudeau wouldn’t even be talking about fentanyl.”

And he’s right. Because if Trudeau, Carney, and the Liberals actually cared about fentanyl, they wouldn’t have eliminated mandatory minimums for traffickers with Bill C-5.


Carney’s Laughable “Trade Strategy” vs. Poilievre’s Economic Reality

Carney—who spent most of his career **as an unelected globalist banker—**wants you to believe he has a plan to fix Canada’s economy. His big idea?

“We need to diversify trade away from the U.S.”

Oh, brilliant! Canada should just pivot away from its largest trading partner—the country that buys 75% of our exports—and do business with… who exactly?

China? The same China that’s flooding our country with fentanyl and stealing our intellectual property?

That’s like saying, “I don’t like getting my paycheck from my current job, so I’ll just get paid by a different company!” That’s not how reality works, Mark.

But now Mark Carney wants to diversify trade away from the U.S.? Fascinating. And how exactly does he plan to do that?

Energy East? Oh yeah, you guys killed that. A pipeline that would have let us sell our own oil to our own refineries instead of importing from Saudi Arabia—but nope, too “dirty” for the Liberal climate cult.

Northern Gateway? Oh yeah, canceled that too. That would have gotten Alberta oil to the Pacific, letting us sell to Asia instead of relying on the Americans. But the Liberals shut it down before the first barrel could even roll.

How about LNG exports to Japan? Oh wait—Trudeau’s government said there was “no business case.” Meanwhile, Japan is signing massive deals with Qatar while Canada, sitting on one of the world’s largest gas reserves, does absolutely nothing. Brilliant strategy, Mark.

So what’s the plan here? Sell more maple syrup to Belgium? Hope the French suddenly develop a taste for Tim Hortons coffee? Maybe trade luxury tax credits for electric BMWs? Be serious.

This is the problem with guys like Carney—they live in a world of theoretical trade deals and imaginary supply chains, while the rest of us have to live with reality. And the reality is, Canada depends on the U.S. because Liberal policies have systematically destroyed every alternative.

But sure, Mark. Tell us more about your vision for trade while Canada’s biggest industries are locked out of the global market—because of people like you.

Meanwhile, Poilievre actually acknowledged reality.

“Trump sees weakness, and what does a real estate mogul from New York do when he spots weakness? He pounces.”

This isn’t just about trade. This is about Canada being so economically weak after eight years of Liberal mismanagement that we’re now at the mercy of Trump’s tariffs.

And what did Carney have to say about that? Nothing.


Carney’s Carbon Tax Flip-Flop

And here it is—Carbon Tax 2.0 from Trudeau 2.0.

Mark Carney, the guy who spent years preaching that carbon taxes were the single most powerful tool to fight climate change, is now standing at a podium, pretending he never said that.

“We should eliminate the consumer carbon tax and instead make large polluters pay.”

Oh really? Excuse me? Carney spent his entire career defending carbon taxes, telling struggling Canadians that their skyrocketing gas and heating bills were just part of the “climate transition.” And now, magically, he’s against them?

This isn’t leadership. This is pure, shameless political opportunism.

Let’s get something straight: Mark Carney doesn’t actually care about the carbon tax. What he does care about is winning an election. And right now, even Liberal voters hate the carbon tax. So suddenly, he’s got a new idea—carbon tax for thee, but not for me.

Because, of course, Carney himself never had to pay these taxes. The man made millions as a banker, then made even more at Brookfield Asset Management—a firm that just happens to be heavily invested in fossil fuels. Oh yeah, Carney loved talking about green energy, but when it came to his own paycheck? Fossil fuels were just fine.

This is the classic Liberal formula: They jack up your energy costs, kill your job, and call it a “transition” while making sure their wealthy buddies get exemptions.

Now contrast that with Pierre Poilievre’s response.

Axe the tax.

Yeah, no shit.

While Carney is rebranding the exact same Liberal scam, Poilievre is saying what every Canadian already knows: The carbon tax isn’t saving the planet. It’s just making life unaffordable.

Because here’s the truth: It was never about fighting climate change. It was always about taking your money. And Carney’s latest spin? It’s just the next version of the same scam.


Mark Carney: Trudeau 2.0, Just With a Better Suit

Here’s the bottom line: Poilievre laid out a real plan today—one that actually addresses the fentanyl crisis, border security, and Canada’s economic vulnerabilities.

Carney? He gave a meaningless, bureaucratic speech that could have been written by ChatGPT.

Poilievre talked about real consequences for fentanyl traffickers. Carney didn’t.
Poilievre called out the Liberals’ disastrous economic policies. Carney helped design them.
Poilievre acknowledged Canada’s dependence on the U.S. Carney pretended we could just trade with Europe instead.

And yet, the Liberal Party wants you to believe that Mark Carney is Canada’s next great leader.

Here’s the truth: Carney isn’t new. He isn’t different. He isn’t a “pragmatist.” He’s just Justin Trudeau in a better suit, with a fancier resume, and the exact same failed policies.

And if Canadians fall for this scam, we’ll get four more years of Trudeau-style incompetence—just with a British accent.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Daily Caller

Is Ukraine Peace Deal Doomed Before Zelenskyy And Trump Even Meet At Mar-A-Lago?

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

As Ukraine and the U.S. try one more time to reach agreement on terms for a peace deal to end the war with Russia, questions remain about whether a resolution is still possible after multiple stalled rounds of negotiations.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine is set to meet with President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Sunday to discuss the current proposal for ending the war. The terms and language of the proposed deal have undergone substantial revisions since it was first presented in November, largely due to objections from Ukraine and other European powers.

Despite multiple rounds of peace negotiations fizzling out over the past year, foreign policy and defense experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation that Trump still has a chance to make peace if he can convince Putin that the cost of waging war outweighs the benefits, but that it’s unlikely any of the parties will leave the table satisfied.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“The President’s team sees that stark reality, but also envisions a golden future for Ukraine once the fighting stops—a prosperous, strong, independent nation could rise from the ashes we see today,” Morgan Murphy, former Trump White House official and current Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, told the DCNF. “To get there will take a deal that likely leaves all parties—Ukraine, Russia, and Europe—unhappy when they leave the negotiation table.”

While Russia has signaled some willingness to make compromises, most recently saying it would accept Ukrainian European Union membership, Putin has so far not agreed to any ceasefire in the interim. U.S. officials previously told the DCNF that they resolved “90%” of the issues between Russia and Ukraine in the new deal, but stopped short of elaborating on the outstanding issues.

Zelenskyy expressed cautious optimism about his ongoing talks with Trump’s team in an X post on Christmas Day, but emphasized that a few “sensitive issues” still need to be worked out. While those points of contention weren’t specifically named, Ukraine has long objected to any territorial concessions to Russia and has sought additional security guarantees from the U.S. and European allies.

A number of foreign policy experts, including those who spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation, warn that excessive concessions to Moscow could embolden U.S. adversaries around the world, including China.

“A rushed or weak settlement would do real damage to U.S. national security,” Carrie Filipetti, executive director of the Vandenberg Coalition, told the DCNF. “It would tell Putin that aggression pays and signal to adversaries like China that borders and sovereignty are negotiable. That is not peace, it is an invitation for the next crisis.”

Putin has continued to strike Ukraine relentlessly during ongoing talks, mainly targeting critical energy infrastructure. Despite Putin’s continued push to win militarily in Ukraine, Heather Nauert, a former U.S. State Department spokesperson, told the DCNF that his actions come less from a position of strength and more from desperation to quickly end the war before he is forced to concede.

“While Putin likely still thinks he can win, his actions are those of someone who is increasingly desperate,” Nauert told the DCNF. “With Vladimir Putin, you don’t get peace because you ask nicely; you get peace when he sees he can’t improve his position by continuing to wage his war. History shows that Moscow only takes negotiations seriously when the pressure is real and sustained.”

Despite projecting resolve publicly, Moscow has paid a staggering price for its war in Ukraine, with various estimates putting casualties among Kremlin forces at no fewer than 600,000. Russia has nevertheless made slow but steady gains on the battlefield, including taking the town of Siversk on Tuesday.

Putin’s government expected a short conflict and swift victory after the initial invasion of Ukraine. But Russian forces were repelled decisively in the 2022 assault on Kyiv, leading to multiple counter-offensives from Ukraine and the resulting protracted war.

Ukraine has held its ground at great cost to itself, needing significant support from the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. has spent over $180 billion on Ukraine since the war began in 2022, and Trump recently signed a bill allocating $800 million of support for Ukraine over the next two years.

Ukraine is dead set on gaining better future security guarantees from the U.S. in exchange for any peace, and U.S. officials previously told the DCNF that the new provisions offer guarantees that function similarly to NATO’s Article 5, promising mutual defense if one is attacked.

“I am not sure he can cut that deal without a commitment to Ukraine, by the U.S. and our allies, that we will stand behind them until a satisfactory peace deal can be made,” Bruce Carlson, retired U.S. Air Force general and former director of the National Reconnaissance Office, told the DCNF. “In recent negotiations with the Ukrainians and other allies [Trump] has made some compromises. Now, with a very confident Putin, he will have to re-sell this new and modified deal.”

Continue Reading

Business

Socialism vs. Capitalism

Published on

Stossel TV

By John Stossel

People criticize capitalism. A recent Axios-Generation poll says, “College students prefer socialism to capitalism.”

Why?

Because they believe absurd myths. Like the claim that the Soviet Union “wasn’t real socialism.”

Socialism guru Noam Chomsky tells students that. He says the Soviet Union “was about as remote from socialism as you could imagine.”

Give me a break.

The Soviets made private business illegal.

If that’s not socialism, I’m not sure what is.

“Socialism means abolishing private property and … replacing it with some form of collective ownership,” explains economist Ben Powell. “The Soviet Union had an abundance of that.”

Socialism always fails. Look at Venezuela, the richest country in Latin America about 40 years ago. Now people there face food shortages, poverty, misery and election outcomes the regime ignores.

But Al Jazeera claims Venezuela’s failure has “little to do with socialism, and a lot to do with poor governance … economic policies have failed to adjust to reality.”

“That’s the nature of socialism!” exclaims Powell. “Economic policies fail to adjust to reality. Economic reality evolves every day. Millions of decentralized entrepreneurs and consumers make fine tuning adjustments.”

Political leaders can’t keep up with that.

Still, pundits and politicians tell people, socialism does work — in Scandinavia.

“Mad Money’s Jim Cramer calls Norway “as socialist as they come!”

This too is nonsense.

“Sweden isn’t socialist,” says Powell. “Volvo is a private company. Restaurants, hotels, they’re privately owned.”

Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all free market economies.

Denmark’s former prime minister was so annoyed with economically ignorant Americans like Bernie Sanders calling Scandanavia “socialist,” he came to America to tell Harvard students that his country “is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Powell says young people “hear the preaching of socialism, about equality, but they don’t look on what it actually delivers: poverty, starvation, early death.”

For thousands of years, the world had almost no wealth creation. Then, some countries tried capitalism. That changed everything.

“In the last 20 years, we’ve seen more humans escape extreme poverty than any other time in human history, and that’s because of markets,” says Powell.

Capitalism makes poor people richer.

Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) calls capitalism “slavery by another name.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) claims, “No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.”

That’s another myth.

People think there’s a fixed amount of money. So when someone gets rich, others lose.

But it’s not true. In a free market, the only way entrepreneurs can get rich is by creating new wealth.

Yes, Steve Jobs pocketed billions, but by creating Apple, he gave the rest of us even more. He invented technology that makes all of us better off.

“I hope that we get 100 new super billionaires,” says economist Dan Mitchell, “because that means 100 new people figured out ways to make the rest of our lives better off.”

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocates the opposite: “Let’s abolish billionaires,” he says.

He misses the most important fact about capitalism: it’s voluntary.

“I’m not giving Jeff Bezos any money unless he’s selling me something that I value more than that money,” says Mitchell.

It’s why under capitalism, the poor and middle class get richer, too.

“The economic pie grows,” says Mitchell. “We are much richer than our grandparents.”

When the media say the “middle class is in decline,” they’re technically right, but they don’t understand why it’s shrinking.

“It’s shrinking because more and more people are moving into upper income quintiles,” says Mitchell. “The rich get richer in a capitalist society. But guess what? The rest of us get richer as well.”

I cover more myths about socialism and capitalism in my new video.

Continue Reading

Trending

X