Thursday, September 15, 2011

They should have been selling whoppers instead of telling whoppers...

From the Globe & Mail: RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to investigate allegations of fraud and bribery in a PEI immigration program

The federal government is calling in the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency to investigate allegations of fraud and bribery in a PEI immigration program that allowed hundreds of primarily Chinese nationals to buy their way into Canada.
In less than three weeks, Islanders will vote on whether to re-elect Robert Ghiz’s Liberal government. His party is leading in the polls, but has been on the defensive since 2008 because relatives of the Premier, along with cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and several MLAs, benefited financially from the immigrant investor program.

“Although there are clear political motivations behind these allegations – which have been raised repeatedly in the past and shown to have no substance – government will co-operate fully with any formal inquiries into these matters,” Mr. Ghiz said in a statement to The Globe. “I would also note that it is not overly surprising that those making the allegations waited three years to do so, and that their actions coincide with a provincial election.”

While some deals have been confirmed – immigrant investor money went to a Burger King owned by Liberal MLA Bush Dumville that later went bankrupt, and the deputy minister in charge of the file was asked to pay back funds that went to businesses connected to his family – the government has never released a full list of companies that got investments.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Porch Lights For Jack Layton

I just received a facebook invitation to leave my porch lights on for Jack Layton.

Respectfully, I had to decline the invitation. I disagreed with his politics, but how would leaving my porch light on honor his memory? Leaving a light on for an environmentalist makes as much sense as blowing up a local mosque or church to celebrate religious freedom.

Sorry facebook friends, but I think if you really loved Jack Layton, you would at least have paid attention to the things that meant something to him. If you really want to honor him, quit posting his open letter to Canadians to your facebook page and shut the damn computer off instead.

Just sayin'.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Aren't You Glad These Guys Aren't Doing Your Tax Returns?

From the Hill Times:

"The Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission is targeted for a 20 per-cent reduction in its spending, to $4.5-million from $4.7-million"

I don't know if it was the fault of the author, or the special math formula that the NDP use, but cutting a budget from $4.7 million to $4.5 million is not a 20% reduction. It's a 4.26 % reduction.

I predict a series of consecutive strong, stable, national majority conservative governments if this keeps up.

Just saying.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

A page out of history...

Charles Adler sums up the difference between the efforts of Brigitte DePape and the many young Canadians that gave their lives in defence of freedom on the beaches of Normandy 67 years ago:

"Our country took nearly a thousand casualties on D-Day and many times during the five year successful effort to Stop Fascism from having Global Dominion. I am not here today to bury Brigitte the Page. I am here to use her You Tube moment to make the point that 67 years ago thousands of Canadians, most of whom were her age or younger, were prepared to sacrifice themselves to preserve freedom and democracy and those journalists who covered it and analysed didn't need to create a fairy tale, didn't need to spin spin spin."

Read the entire article here: The Blood Red Line in The Sand Between Valour and Vulgar

Monday, May 30, 2011

Testicles on Twitter...

I can almost hear the Liberal radio advertisement now:

"Don't vote Progressive Conservative. You can clearly see they're nuts"

Definately not the old, stodgy stereotype typically associated with conservatives.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

What would Pat Martin say about this?

Over at BC Blue, there's some discussion about the validity of the signatures on NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau’s nomination papers.

From CBC:

"Two people whose names appear on the nomination papers for the NDP's newly elected MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau say they never provided their signatures to support her candidacy.

Radio-Canada reported Wednesday that the signatures of René Young and his wife are on Brosseau's papers, but the couple doesn't remember agreeing to endorse her.

Young says the signature looks like his, but he has no recollection of being asked to support Brosseau's nomination as a candidate in the Quebec riding of Berthier-Maskinongé. He said his wife's name is also on the list but the signature bears no resemblance to hers."

Is Pat Martin going to call out one of his own? It's not like somebody simply inserted the word "not"; it's a forgery of someone's signature supporting this candidates right to represent thousands of constituents in one of the highest offices of the land.

Look out, Ruth Ellen. We all remember how Pat treats women that he thinks are liars or imcompetent. (h/t Crux of the Matter)

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Libby Davies: There She Goes Again...

Just finished watching Libby Davies on CPAC in her first post 2011 election interview. (3:00 - 4:00PM Atlantic time, May 3/2011)

(Watch here at the 1:57 mark)

As usual, she couldn't get through to the end of the broadcast without insulting the host and closing with a cryout to Jesus.

Jack, when you consider your opposition posts, you may want to consider putting this windbag in the back row. Her lack of courtesy and extreme ideology are an ambarrassment to both Canadians and your party.

First The Communists...

...And now the socialists.

From the National Post:
Michael Ignatieff told reporters this morning he is stepping down as Liberal leader and would like to return to “teaching young Canadians.”

It must be quite disheartening to have your ancestors chased out of their country by an uprising of the ordinary citizen, as happened during the Russian Revolution.

A century later, we have Michael Ignatieff defeated due in large part to an uprising of the commoner, the everyday, ordinary, beer drinking Canadian.

There is a bright side in all of this. Michael is passionate about teaching, and he now has the opportunity to focus his efforts on the thing that makes him truly happy. In the end, happiness is what defines success and Michael has every opportunity now to further his own success.

Best wishes from all of us in your future endeavors Michael.

The Canadian Electorate.

That was worth the $300 million

We now have a Conservative majority. We now have an NDP opposition.
Interestingly enough, not only did Quebecers vote for a guy that they could have a beer with, but also a girl that could pour the beer.

The Liberals are reduced to a point where one in every 30 questions will be asked by Wayne Easter in his usual shrill, and the Bloc is toast.

C'est la vie.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Muslim scholars argue bin Laden's sea burial a violation of tradition

From The Globe & Mail: Muslim scholars argue bin Laden's sea burial a violation of tradition

"Muslim clerics Monday said Osama bin Laden's burial at sea was a violation of Islamic tradition that may further provoke militant calls for revenge attacks against U.S. targets.

Although there appears to be some room for debate over the burial — as with many issues within the faith — a wide range of Islamic scholars interpreted it as a humiliating disregard for the standard Muslim practice of placing the body in a grave with the head pointed toward the holy city of Mecca."

Sorry clerics, but I don't think you'll find enough sympathy to fill a thimble from the citizens of any liberal democracy, at least on this planet. If Osama Bin Laden was concerned about his passage to paradise, perhaps he should have given some consideration to the families and friends of the victims of 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks or attempts.

My own personal choice is cremation. Others might choose burial. Those that burned in the twin trade towers weren't given a choice either way.

Just sayin'.

One Less Person Singing Kumbaya

Now that we've all heard the news of the death of Bin Laden, we should consider where Jack Layton will proceed should he assume the office of Prime Minister tomorrow. As if there weren't enough reasons to worry about the NDP winning or hijacking control of parliament on May 2nd, now we have to consider the likes of Libby Davies as a potential Foreign Minister, or Minister of Defence.

Just sayin'.

From Stratfor:

"At this early hour, the only thing possible is speculation on the consequences of bin Laden’s death, and that speculation is inherently flawed. Still, the importance of his death has its consequences. Certainly one consequence will be a sense of triumph in the United States. To others, this will be another false claim by the United States. For others it will be a call to war. We know little beyond what we have been told, but we know it matters."

Read more: Red Alert: Osama bin Laden Killed

Sunday, May 01, 2011

Now I Understand Why Jack Layton Wants To Abolish The Senate...

The Conservatives have 52 Senate Seats. The Liberals have 46 Senate Seats. The NDP have 0 Senate Seats. Good luck trying to pass your bills into law Jack. Jack may get a majority, and he may push all his bills past 3rd reading, but who's going to put them into law?

If the Conservative Party doesn't have a majority and the NDP & BQ form a coalition, how long would it be before the stalemate would send us back to the polls? Could the Governor General use this as a way to deny the reins of power to Jack Layton if he tries to form a coalition?

I'm no political genius; I just pretend to be one on the intertubes. Will someone with some knowledge in this area enlighten me?

Conservative Rally In PEI

Just came back from the rally in Stratford, PE.

The school was packed solid! It was so hot in there I was sweating like a pedophile on a school bus. There were a dozen or so protesters outside, but I think the problem was that they misunderstood when Jack Layton said he needed a hand.

The Prime Minister's remarks were pretty much the same as the other rallies that I've seen, except he looked more confident. I was surprised by the level of energy he displayed considering the difference in time zones and the hour. Judging by the reaction from the crowd, it appears that Wayne Easter is going to have an extremely tough fight if he has any hope of retaining his seat in Malpeque. I'm off to work now; it'll be interesting to see the media commentary on this visit later today.

Update: Here's John Ivison's take on it courtesy of the National Post:

"He took the stage with the bounce of a man who knows he’s going to win, and possibly win big. The feeling in the Tory camp is one of relief that the NDP tide appears to be ebbing, combined with a quiet confidence that vote splits might be enough to give them a majority."

Sometime During The Secret Coalition Talks

"We had to stop the bus to let my friend Jack off.
Now where did you say that massage clinic was?"

Thursday, April 28, 2011

The Accidental Prime Minister Part 2

The average voter on May 2nd:

The average voter on May 3rd:


The Accidental Prime Minister

As we're now facing daily polls of Jack Layton's NDP replacing the Liberal Party of Canada as the official opposition, or Jack accidently being voted in as Prime Minister by legions of eighteen year olds living in their parents' basement, there seems to be some debate about what has caused Michael Ignatieff's poll numbers to do everything but "rise up".

In the Toronto Star, Chantal Hebert writes "To follow the 2011 Liberal election campaign has been like watching a plane crash in slow motion."

Warren Kinsella also outlines some pretty compelling arguments for the demise of the Liberal Party.
"His party’s policies are irrelevant (and contain ingredients that are very bad for you). They have some not-bad policies – and they have some that are plain nutty (like reopening the Constitution, or multiple billions in promises that Jacko doesn’t know how to pay for). But, in the main, his party’s policies don’t matter. Canadians have decided they want to vote for someone they like, not for someone with the best policies. Jack, they like. Harper, especially, they don’t. The policy analysis of many Canadians: Harper and Ignatieff are too right-wing. I’m voting for the only guy who isn’t right wing."

Perhaps this would help explain Michael Ignatieff's meltdown in an interview with the Toronto Star where he said "Jack Layton is “getting a free ride” and telling Conservatives “they can go to hell."
With the stress of likely being held to account for the failings of the previous Liberal governments, now might be an appropriate time for him to light one up, just like in his youth. Curl up and write a good book. What the hell.

For those of you still sitting on the fence with the choice of a safe, stable majority Conservative government or an unsure, weary worn out Liberal Party, just ask yourself one question: "Isn't voting Liberal a lot like betting that the Montreal Canadiens will win the Stanley Cup?"

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Conservative for Abortion

I support a woman's right to abort a Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition.

Outside of that, this subject's like a dead horse pulling a broken wagon, kinda like the one that Michael Ignatieff is trying to ride to a Liberal victory. It doesn't matter how many State Broadcasters say so, resurrecting this isn't going to get Michael Ignatieff elected to the top job.

Could Jack Layton Be The Next Prime Minister?

Reviewing the headline stories today, the upward trending of the NDP campaign could change the outcome of this election in a way that I don't think anyone has thought possible.

Leading headlines today include the following: (h/t Newswatch Canada)

Nik Nanos Sees Wild Ride Ahead

NDP Surges in Quebec

I'm a curious person. Considering that Jack Layton has said quite frequently, and I have every reason to believe him, that he's very open and willing to enter into a coalition with the Liberals, what would happen if his party came second place thereby making his party the Official Opposition?
Would it be too far fetched to see him offer a hand to the Liberal Party to form government with him, backed by the Bloc Quebecois who socially seem to be political twins to the NDP?

Michael Ignatieff has created a very blurry picture of what he would or would not do if his party came in second place to a Conservative minority government. If Michael is tossed from the party and sent back to Harvard, the dying remnants of the Liberal Party may feel they have no choice but to join Jack Layton's NDP if they ever wish to have any grasp of power in their lifetime. We already know where Jack Layton stands on this issue, he has never denied his aspirations of power or the methods he would use to obtain it.

Unless there's a Conservative majority government on May 2, I think we'll be witnessing the rebirth of Bob Rae, the New Democrat and waving goodbye to Bob Rae the Liberal.

OOPS UPDATE: Looks like Sandy beat me to the punch.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Debate Highlights

1) Ignatieff didn't accidentally go to the wrong country and end up at a debate in London, England or in New York City.

2) Harper didn't say "coalition" five hundred times.

3) Ignatieff almost made me spew my Canadian Club when he chided Harper by saying "This isn't a debate".
TV Guide must've lied to me.

4) Layton managed to get Ignatieff to start the old finger-wagging when he was asked about his attendance record in the House of Commons. I thought he was going to give Jack detention.

5) Harper managed to point out to voters that the purchase of the Jet Fighters is not for another 5 to 10 years, or in political terms 7 more election cycles.

6) All parties agreed to ask the Auditor General to release the report early. Apparently, Parliament's broke but the debate studio isn't. Can we fit 308 MPs in there?

Monday, April 11, 2011

A Blessing In Disguise?

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has declared she will wait until after the May 2 election before she releases a controversial audit into how the Harper government spent millions of dollars relating to last year's G8 summit in Ontario.Moreover, she has stressed that despite there being a leaked draft version making its rounds in the public, only her final report — once it is introduced in Parliament — will represent her audit findings and conclusions.She made the declaration in a written statement released Monday afternoon, just hours after news of the leaked report landed like a bombshell in the federal election campaign.

According to an article in today's Vancouver Sun, Auditor General Sheila Fraser is quoted as saying:

"I strongly caution the public to wait until our final report . . . has been tabled in Parliament and made public."

Quick out of the gate are the Liberals begging for the report to be released and the NDP wanting a public inquiry. The Conservative Party itself has also asked for the report to be released. I can understand the Liberals asking for the report to be released, but not the NDP. (we've seen what happened the last time they tried to bluff Stephen Harper)

For the Conservatives, the early release of this report is a win, in three possible ways.

1) It shows that they are transparent and have nothing to hide.

2) The final report is likely to be more factual, and will probably absolve the party of anything illegal. If it's negative, it may not make them look like great money managers on this front, but in that case

3) It'll make them look more credible on their estimates for the purchase of new fighter aircraft after the 2015 election and more credible in their deficit fighting plan and refusal to raise taxes as the Liberals and NDP want to do.

Why would I assume that a negative Auditor General's report would make them look more fiscally responsible in these other areas? Well, if the parliamentary budget officer was able to give the G8 & G20 spending a thumbs up for openess and transparency and accuracy while Sheila Fraser is reporting the opposite, then how can we trust his departments numbers when it comes to predicting the costs of military purchases for 30 years down the road?

Friday, April 08, 2011

The Two-Faced Torpedo Of Truth Tour

I'm actually of the opinion that this 300 Million dollar election is worth every penny. We finally get to see the contrasts to the man who wishes to run our country. As an American, he claims that torture is necessary. As a Canadian, he tells us that it is uncivilized. As an American, he tells us that being an American is not easy. As a Canadian, he promises to make things easy. Just give him a blank cheque; he's here for you. As an American, he acknowedges that there are people who want to kill them and destroy their way of life. As a Canadian, he's willing to do the same to us, if we elect him. As an American, he believes that they should live the way their constitution demands it. As a Canadian, he wants you to believe that he will sidestep our constitution and assume the responsibilities of the provinces for your betterment. If you elect him.

It's not easy being an American. We get that. Unless the Conservative Party under the leadership of Stephen Harper gets elected with a majority government, we will probably discover that it won't be easy being a Canadian. I'm not worried that you didn't come back for me. I'm afraid that you did.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

Nanos Poll Shows Tories Expanding Lead

New poll from Nanos:

CPC 41.3 %
Lib 30.3 %
NDP 16.0 %
BQ 8.5%
GPC 3.7%
Undecided 18.1%

Conservatives: Up.

Everyone else: Not so much

Friday, April 01, 2011

Why We Need More Bulldozer Drivers


On March, 9, 2011 the Speaker of the House of Commons Peter Milliken issued a report declaring two possible charges of contempt of Parliament. The first was against the Minister responsible for the Canadian International Aid Agency (CIDA) Bev Oda. It’s alleged that Oda added the word “not” to a funding memo for an aid agency, resulting in the request being ignored and lied about in testimony before a committee. Milliken also ruled that Cabinet itself could also be in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the cost of its crime policies, and the cost of new F-35 fighter jets. He sent this report to a committee, who on March 21, 2011 ruled that the Harper government was in contempt of Parliament. On March 25, 2011 the finding of contempt led to a motion of non-confidence introduced by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. The NDP and BQ supported them, which resulted in the adjornment of the 40th Parliament of Canada, and made Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government the first to fall on a charge of contempt of Parliament.

Fast forward to the 2011 election campaign. From the Vancouver Sun:

Leader Michael Ignatieff pledged Thursday that a Liberal government's first budget would include a $500-million investment in a cost-shared "early childhood learning and care fund," in partnership with the provinces. ... The annual federal spending would rise to $1 billion by the fourth year of the plan, said Ignatieff, who stopped to draw a picture with a little girl named Mercedes during his visit. "One in five Canadians have access to what Mercedes' got. That's not right," Ignatieff added. "This is going to be a very flexible program, it is a program that we can get started fast and early — as soon as you elect a Liberal government."

When asked to provide the costs to the provinces, Ignatieff couldn't give an answer. After all the showmanship surrounding the contempt hearings, don't you think he should have that information? The argument that he has given for pursuing this election is that the Conservatives couldn't be trusted. He has accused Conservative MP's of lying because they couldn't provide parlaiment with the costs to the provinces for the crime and justice bills, and now he's kicking off his campaign doing the same thing. He's forced a $300,000,000.00 election on us, doesn't he owe it to those of us who will be getting the bill to give us the details? If you judge him by his own standards, then according to the coalition members that dominated the contempt of parlaiment committee meetings, he's either going to be a poor Prime Minister or a bad liar.

Which brings us to the subject of the title. MP Stephen Harper made a commitment to Newfoundland & Labradorians that the federal government would provide loan guarantees for the Churchill Falls project. This would provide millions in economic benefits and taxes to the province to manage its finances, whether it's health care or daycare. Michael is promising money also, which statistically would be less than 2% of the $500,000,000.00 available. That's less than a million dollars. If you're a mother with young children trying to find suitable daycare in Newfoundland & Labrador, you have a good reason to fire up that old bulldozer. You're going to need one, to plough through all the empty, uncosted Liberal promises that are piling up.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Made In The U.S.A.

Does anyone know if there's a Canadian version of this that will be available soon? CBC (coalition broadcasting corporation) has released their online Compass tool that is supposed to tell you who you should vote for according to your selection of the answers offered. Here's the major problem with it: Not only does it tell you by default that you should elect an American to the office of Prime Minister, it does so by presenting American policy platforms as that of Canadian policy platforms. As Canadian taxpayers, shouldn't we demand that the CBC support Canada by using products designed for Canadians instead of products designed for Americans? It looks like we'll have to wait. Sun TV will be starting in Canada in the next few weeks, offering balanced reporting from all sides of the political spectrum.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Truth Or Dare Time

It's time the Conservative Party started telling the truth, and I'm offering my assistance right here. Listening to the opposition coalition spin on things the last several days, I couldn't help but notice the media's complicity (or stupidity) in helping one of the descendants of the tsarist regime of Russia to get elected. (Isn't it ironic? The great Liberal hope for democracy in Canada comes to us via a decendant of the tsarist regime ousted during the Russian revolution of 1917 that was waged in the hopes of bringing freedom to the commoner!) Well, no offence, but I'm not really keen on taking my chances that things will work out for the betterment of the commoner here in Canada. We already know that the Liberals have a track record of promising one thing to gain power and then doing the opposite (even with a majority to fulfill their promises unhindered). There's also the partners in crime, like the guy driving the getaway car and the guy stealing the gas to power it. Jack Layton wants to know why the CPC won't offer families more help now instead of when the deficit is eliminated. In case everyone has developed a case of amnesia, which I doubt most Canadians have, Stephen Harper was forced to make choices that benefited all Canadians when the world-wide recession started to have an adverse effect on Canadian families. Helping Canadians through this struggle resulted in a $56 Billion deficit that has been driven down to $39.5 Billion for the current year. By reducing Canada's deficit to zero, the federal government will be better able to afford social programs in the future. Replacing Canada's Conservative government with a coalition or Liberal government (or regime, by Michael Ignatieff's own words) will hinder this future planning, at least according to Liberal John McCallum. Corporate tax cuts: Michael keeps insisting he would maintain the current tax rate for corporations at 18 %. Could someone please remind Michael that on one of those rare occasions when he showed up to vote (he had the worst attendance record of all those that were so keen on democracy, perhaps he had too much contempt for parlaiment), he lowered the tax rate to 16.5 %? This really needs to be hammered home. There are too many reporters that are letting the lie of a tax break for corporations fall on the Conservatives, when it was widely supported by the opposition coalition in previous budgets. The Liberals want to raise taxes. It's simple; if the media wants to cover this up, then the CPC has to tell people the truth and point them to the proof if they need it. The G20: Michael would especially like to thank Mark Holland for his "tenacious attack" on the government of Canada for its effort at ensuring the safety and security of world dignitaries. Those Liberals are also tenacious at hanging on to that $41 Million dollars of taxypayers money stolen through the Adscam scheme. What happened to the previous Liberal government's promise to get rid of all people associated with that theft? Currently, two thirds of those people have remained or been rehired to get Michael Ignatieff elected to the office of the Prime Minister. So much for ethics and accountability. The Coalition: CPAC has all the proof required to prove that the CPC didn't sign a letter for a coalition, they signed an agreement to force the Liberal government of Paul Martin to work through issues without forcing an election or ursurping power. Family Income Splitting: The opposition coalition talking point is that this won't come into play until the next election. Of course they're going to say that, to acknowledge that this could come into play sooner would be to admit that the Conservative's are better financial planners and that they have a plan to eliminate our deficit. If you live in eastern Canada, in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island, you know what I'm talking about. One of you leaves to go to Alberta to make enough money to pay the bills while the other spouse stays home to look after the children and everything else. It's hell on most families, but without the high income work many families could not get by in these regions. With this item, we know that not only is there a plan for today, there is also a vision for the future. What is the Liberal plan or vision for the future, aside from gaining power and raising taxes? What are the costs of a Liberal - NDP - Bloc coalition? Since they won't provide an honest, detailed estimate of those costs, should we hold them in contempt of voters? Fighter Jets: The coalition opposition keep touting a $30 Billion pricetag for fighter jets, which won't be purchased for another five to seven years if the decision still stands to do so. Regardless of maintenance costs, the replacement costs of the equipment to the airforce is around $5 billion dollars. Maintenance costs will be incurred with any aircraft, and likely moreso with older aircraft. On another note, why is it that the opposition coalition and reporters are so comfortable spouting this figure of $30 Billion when the first purchase isn't due until 2016 at the earliest, yet we hear Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison complain that it's too far down the road to vote for a party promising family income splitting ? What, are people going to stop having kids? This may provide an incentive for families to have more children and certainly our canada pension plan could use some future contributors to keep the plan viable. I'm sure there's more to come, how soon depending on how many more lies are fed to us by the Liberal - NDP - Bloc coalition. They've lied to us once. They'll do it again. It's the Liberal hidden agenda.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Budget B.S.

We are definately going into an election. The olive branch being extended by the NDP is a farce. Let's examine the reasons why we are going into an election first. 1) Liberal reason: Nothing to lose. The Liberal party is at rock-bottom. The media is and always has been 90% in support of the Liberal party, with the exception of a 3 year period when they were too embarrassed, as in the sponsorship scandal, or when it just wasn't "cool", when Stephane Dion was leader. Despite the retoric, the romper-room commiteee hearings, Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne defrauding Canadian taxpayers, Ruby Dhalla's past (and current) troubles, and oh yeah, that little matter of $41,000,000.00 that hasn't yet been repaid to taxpayers regarding Adscam; the media are keen to look past all that and announce the Conservatives dead in the water because of lapses of ethics that have yet to be proven, at least by a non-partisan judge. The Liberals really don't have anything to lose; they've got nothing now and if they don't win this election, they'll at least draw some attention to themselves with a new leader. Perhaps they'll even have a vote for a new leader this time. Wouldn't that be unprecedented! 2) NDP reason: They think we're stupid. It doesn't matter if Jack Layton was bullied into rejecting the budget due to pressure from his members ( perhaps they put the pressure on his wife Olivia Chow, you know how some of them can be ), he had the choice of standing up to his followers and showing them who was boss. It was him that got them this far. I can appreciate his current stalling for more goodies in the budget. It makes perfect sense in his position. As it stands, he's going to lose more than he can gain. I think he believed that the Conservatives would be so desperate to retain power that he could get away with demanding more. He thought wrong. 3) Bloc reason: They want more, and will probably get more regardless of who forms the government. 4) Conservative reason: The other three parties can't keep complaining about the government without either shitting or getting off the pot. Despite all the flame throwing from the opposition, we actually do live in a democracy and unless a government can be brought in with a majority that has a vision for our future and a roadmap to get there, we'll just keep spinning our tires going nowhere. Let's get this over with. Getting back to the point of the post, I know perfectly well that any sane politician couldn't make changes to this budget to accomodate the NDP. If the changes were made, Jack would vote for the budget and then later vote no confidence on an ethics motion. He could then tell his members that the NDP was capable of making change, both on the budget and on whether or not the government can survive if he deems them unethical. There's no choice now but to have an election. I hope this insanity will end and we'll be able to give the conservatives a five-year test run with a majority government.

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Polling Shows Conservatives Are Trusted More Than Liberals

Something else the coalition will be attaching the word "unprecedented" to. From the National Post: Canadians believe political honesty should trump economic recovery as the main issue in the next election but — in a major blow to the Liberals — voters rank the Tories as the best party to deliver a government they can trust. Expect the Liberals and Dippers to start pouring crazy-glue on all that mud they're throwing around, with the hope that it might stick.

Jack Layton Wants To Fix Ottawa

As the NDP launches its pre-election advertising blitz, we have the most recent ad opening with the NDP claiming that Ottawa is broken and Jack Layton saying that only his party can fix it. Fine then. Let's start by helping to square this circle. We've got on one hand what seems to be an angry misogynist Pat Martin, and on the other hand what appears to be an angry knee-capping Thomas Mulcair. You can judge people by their words, or if you choose, by their actions. Let's take a look at their words. NDP deputy leader Mulcair scraps with QMI journalist 'Tom, are you trying to kneecap your leader while he's recovering from a bad hip' asks QMI's Brian Lilley Mr. Mulcair wasn't having it. Turning to face Mr. Lilley, who was parked behind the usual roped barrier put there so reporters don't get too close to MPs at the microphones, he responded: "Well Brian, since I have so much respect for you as a journalist, why don't you tell me what you heard me say that would make you say that, and not something that a Conservative spinmeister would say." Then came this testy exchange, as Mr. Mulcair gestured toward Mr. Lilley with his hands pressed together and then pointed his index finger at Mr. Lilley. Mulcair: "You tell me something that you've heard me say that would lead you to say that? You're the journalist who asked me the question. Tim Powers isn't a journalist, he's a Conservative spinner." Lilley: "Fine. If you went to an election now, the polls say that you would lose seats. Would that be an opportunity for you? Are you angling for leadership? He raises an interesting question and that's what I'm putting to you. You would lose seats. Mulcair: "You, you're a journalist, I'm a Member of Parliament. You have the obligation, if you're going to make a statement like that to point to something that I've said that you can ask your question based on. I'm not going to answer a pure hypothetical from you Brian. I have too much respect for you and you should have a little bit more respect for your own function and ours than to ask questions like that. "So tell me something that I've said that allows you to ask that question, Brian Lilley. Lilley: "Well I can ask whatever question I feel like Tom Mulcair." Mulcair: "Tell me something that I've said that leads to that question. Something that I've done or said. You're a pure, you're asking a purely hypothetical question based on something that comes from a Conservative spinmeister." Lilley: "We ask them all the time." Mulcair: "Tell me something I've said." Lilley: "You've said that an election is likely. You've called for an election." Mulcair: "Show me where I've said that." Lilley: "Well I don't have them in..." Another reporter chimed in, "You can't decide which questions we ask." To which Mr. Mulcair, still focused on Mr. Lilley said: "I've never said, I've never called for an election. You just made that up." Now, that's one of the gentleman who is going to fix Ottawa. Here's another one. If these guys are the Jeckyll and Hyde of the NDP, how would you know who is who? Pat Martin in committee lynching of Bev Oda: Pat Martin: "I have a question for Miss Biggs, Miss Biggs through the chair, do you believe Kairos is an anti-semetic organization?" Miss Biggs: "Well Chair, my....I don't think my opinions are ( answer becomes diluted due to interruption from Mr. Martin ) Pat Martin: "Well I'm asking you the question, you don't have the option....This is the thing, perhaps through the chair you could remind the witnesses that in this parlaimentary Westmin(i)ster parlaiment you do not have the right to ramain silent, and the offsetting right is, what you say can't be used against you. You have to answer the question. It's not optional" These guys don't act like they could fix a sandwich, much less Ottawa. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. You can judge them by their actions. Update: If you've got a really strong stomach, you can get a better glimpse of the unprecedented woman bashing from Sandy at Crux Of The Matter.

Friday, March 18, 2011

The Carson Controversy

In the latest so-called scandal, the coalition opposition is lambasting the federal government for doing what they would have lambasted them for not doing: Calling in the RCMP to investigate allegations regarding the relationship between 66 year old Bruce Carson and 22 year old Michelle McPherson in a water treatment deal between the federal government and H2O Global Group. Here's the story from the advertising wing of the Liberal Party of Canada: Here's the simplest way to explain this for the average Canadian voter:
This is her, on the left, and him on the right.

Using the same mathematical formulas the opposition parties are struggling with to explain their projections for the cost of corporate tax cuts, 65 F-35 next generation stealth fighters, and the so-called 56 Billion deficit that they forgot they forced on the current government (and you the taxpayer), the simple truth looks to most people like he just wanted to see how many times 66 can go into 22.

I think it's a new trend; he's not the only one with a 22 year old girlfriend. Even Tiger's got one!

For anyone to attempt to tie this as an ethics issue to the Prime Minister is laughable. If this is the best you can come up with then you are in dire need of some medication.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

What About Our Hearts And Minds?

Michael Totten has a new article in the New York Post regarding the current uprising in Libya. "As forces loyal to Libya's cruel and de ranged tyrant Moammar Khadafy re conquer one rebel-held city after an other, the Arab League and the Arabic press are calling for a no-fly zone over the country to tip, or at least even, the odds. While I'm inclined to help the Libyans on humanitarian grounds and to advance our own national interests, the American public's appetite is low for intervening on behalf of the rebels -- and it's largely the Arab world's fault." [...] "They might find that if they treated us more like the Kurds do, more of us will be willing to help them in the future -- rather than shun them as hostiles who deserve to be left to their fate. " You can read the entire article here: What About Our Hearts And Minds? Michael also has a new book just released: The Road to Fatima Gate

Here's a book review: Michael Totten is a master carpenter. His work is a long, slow process using only carefully selected quality materials, often acquired with difficulty. In terms of volume, he comes nowhere near the output of many of his colleagues, but what he does produce will stand the test of time because Totten does not seek to tell his readers (or himself) what they want to know – he informs them of what they need to know. [...] The Road to Fatima Gate is essential reading for anyone who wishes to look beyond the trite reporting of Middle East affairs and find out what really makes this region tick. It offers no easy answers, no instant solutions and little comfort or reason for optimism. But then again, that is precisely what makes it an accurate record and analysis of five years in the life of a region which, despite always being in the news, so few know much about. Even more importantly, Totten’s work will provide the reader with an essential basis for the understanding of future events in this region, the mechanisms of which are already in process.