The Shotgun Blog
« October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007 |Main| November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007 »
Friday, November 09, 2007
Dion's Hypocrisy
Dion pledges to slash poverty rates in Canada if elected PM
Isn't this a huge hypocritical issue for someone whose party's policies have made Canadians poorer through the past few years? And survival of his party is based on the poor. Because Liberals want the poor to be out there so they can manipulate them. Use them as welfare-slaves and blackmail the poor during the elections.
By the way, those 3.4 milion people living in poverty Mr. Dion would like to help if elected PM are not the direct result of more than a decade long Liberal leadership in this great country? At least, I can ask that question.
I am kinda surprised! Are you not?!
Posted by Winston on November 9, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (63) | TrackBack
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Sarkozy in America
Watch French President Sarkozy speech at the US Congress
Read Sarkozy's speech to the Congress in Full [PDF]
link to the original BBC News article
Posted by Winston on November 8, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (132) | TrackBack
Surprising allies in the move to limit abortions
JohnOnLife writes, "There are a surprising number of people who label themselves as pro-choice who are arguing either for fuller information for women, greater emphasis on alternatives to abortion, or for significant restrictions on access to abortion that the majority of Canadian parliamentarians and much of the Canadian media reject at this time."
Who exactly are the public figures in this "surprising number"? Read JohnOnLife's full posting here to find out.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 8, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack
Unbelievable
I went to bed last night depressed that my friend Jeremy Harrison had lost his provincial election in Saskatchewan's Meadow Lake riding by 1%, and I wondered if it was the same vote-rigging that caused him to lose the last federal election by 73 votes. Some of the poll stations in that election had more than 100% turn out, overwhelmingly for -- surprise -- the Liberal candidate.
But this morning it turns out that last night's vote count was wrongly tabulated -- and now Harrison leads by 17 votes.
After his 2006 loss, Harrison had a recount, but didn't pursue the vote-rigging any further. I doubt the NDP will be as magnanimous in their defeat.
Harrison was an excellent MP for his brief term -- very strong on policy. He'll make a great MLA for Saskatchewan, and I would expect him to be appointed to cabinet. Given his strong rapport with Stephen Harper and the Conservative government in Ottawa, Interprovincial Affairs would seem a natural fit.
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
Beijing says "jump", CBC asks "how high?"
The CBC yanked a documentary about the Falun Gong off the air, and says it's going to re-edit the film, because the Chinese embassy called to complain.
Let's do a little thought experiment here.
What would the CBC have done if the U.S. Embassy had told them to yank any of its constant anti-American programming, such as its airing of Fahrenheit 9/11?
What would the CBC have done if the Israeli Embassy had told them to yank some of its anti-Israel programming?
What if the Canadian government had asked the same? Or a corporation, like Wal-Mart?
The CBC wouldn't have obeyed -- it would have turned it into a news story about foreign meddling and censorship.
Just browse through the list of documentaries the CBC has on deck. Half are apolitical. But the ones that are political are overwhelmingly anti-U.S., anti-Israel or anti-corporate.
My favourite bit of reporting is from Colin Freeze's Globe and Mail story. The CBC flack, Jeff Keay, felt it important to point out that:
Jeff, why didn't you just say so! The Chinese censor was a "gentleman"! And he said he was a "cultural consultant" -- not a Communist Party enforcer. "He was very polite."
Well then - nothing to worry about here!
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (96) | TrackBack
Pass the bug spray
Has anybody else noticed the infestation of fiberal gnats lately?
"anon whines... Why do you put a cartridge on your logo?"
well, ms. pink... you might as well ask... "why does a dog lick its balls?" -- the answer, in case you're wondering, is... because it can."
see, as far as i'm aware... you and the cbc don't get to regulate what i, or anyone else, chooses to think... or to do with their lives... just yet anyway.
i can still own a firearm, and yes... still voice my opinion on whatever subjects i choose.
it's called free speech... a concept you're obviously not too familiar with... except when it comes to lashing out like you're doing right here... which, btw... is a right that i fully support.
so head on back out there to fuzzy-bunny, leftbot land... where the nanny-state can take care of all your problems. i sure don't want to bruise your delicate sensibilities with my hurtful, politically incorrect commentary.
fwiw... i'm guessing most of my readership would be insulted that you feel you have to tell them, "what's best for them."
oh yeah... say hi to steffi for me.
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 8, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Harper in full
I attended Prime Minister Stephen Harper's speech and press conference yesterday afternoon in Vancouver and was struck by how astutely he gauged the mood of his Board of Trade audience. For starters, he didn't talk down to the audience from some lofty perch, but rather told the business crowd how important they and the province were to the country.
His pithiest line captured this: "It was our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, who with the Canadian Pacific Railway tied British Columbia to Canada. Through the Asia-Pacific Gateway, environmental leadership and long-overdue reform to Parliament, it will be our mission to tie Canada to British Columbia." Good stuff.
On the policy front, he hit the right button several times. Spontaneous applause followed his enunciation of the Tories' initiatives and policies in the areas of: tax-cuts; a new bilateral air transport agreement with Singapore; protecting and asserting Canadian sovereignty; law and order; and giving B.C. more seats in the House of Commons.
His defence of the Tories' Tackling Violent Crime Act was particularly well-received (no surprise, given the events outlined by Yoshi, below). And this leads me to the following observation: a tough-on-crime policy appears to resonate across demographic lines. Judging by the reaction it received yesterday, it plays just as well in white-collar downtown Vancouver as it does in blue-collar Surrey, where I know it is very popular.
This being the case, it just might be the policy to reignite some of that old populist fire that worked so well for the RPC in B.C. in the early 1990s, but which has cooled since, with the resulting slide in RPC/CA/Cons popularity in the province.
Remember: when Preston Manning and the RPC made their big breakthrough, they attracted voters who jumped directly from the NDP to Reform. Thank populism for that.
MORE: I now see that Barbara Yaffe has devoted her Vancouver Sun column today to the subject of how the Tories are perfectly positioned to benefit from rising concern about gang crime in Vancouver.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 8, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Sixteen years of socialist fog clears from Saskatchewan's skies
The final results are:
|
Posted by Bob Wood on November 7, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
The Vancouver Emergency
So far there year there have been at least nineteen gang-related murders in metropolitan Vancouver. There have been four in the last week. Fifteen people have been killed – in what police characterize as four or possibly five simultaneous gang wars – in the last two months. Events are escalating. A major leader of a criminal syndicate was assassinated outside of his home a few days ago. About a week before that, six people – including two civilians – were brutally slain inside of a Surrey apartment. This is a crisis.
Just the other day, the members of two gangs went tearing down the highway shooting at eachother just a little ways down the road from where I live. This wasn’t Compton or downtown Detroit. They were a more or less adjacent to a Stapes, an Office Depot, a Wendys, a theatre super-complex, a massive grocery store, a Toys-R-Us, a McDonalds, an Ikea, a Chevy dealership, and a park.
This is suburban Vancouver, folks. It isn’t supposed to be this way.
For all of the wrong that he did, Pierre Elliot Trudeau did one singular service to the people of Canada. When the threat of an extended urban terrorist insurgency emerged in the form of the FLQ, he stomped upon it with a level of force which even I approve of. Had the movement been allowed to fester, it is entirely possible that Quebec and Canada might well have suffered the extended horror of an Ulster. Quick and decisive action – marked by the overwhelming use of force against an emerging threat – allowed for Canada to escape from evil. Now, I believe, that the time has come for such force to be used again.
“The supreme function of statesmanship,” said Enoch Powell, “is to provide against preventable evils.” Ladies and Gentlemen – what we are faced with today is just such an evil.
The natural reaction of many Canadians, when faced with evil, is to wring our hands and cry that this is simply not the way things ought to be – and then to more or less leave it at that. The modern Canadian is, by nature, passive and submissively accepting of wrongs of all sizes, shapes, and colours. We cry out that this is unacceptable and then we respond by blaming the guns, or by promising research, or by holding community meetings. The police organize some new task force and the media jumps to some new topic and soon we read in the newspapers or hear on the TV that a tenth of our economy is in the illicit drug trade and that there have been twenty murders and fifty shootings as if that was the way things are supposed to be.
This is Vancouver. This isn’t Detroit or Washington, DC. That means a lot of things to a lot of people. But, most significantly, it means that we lack the geography, the methods, and the systems with which to cope with violence on a mass scale. This violence isn’t – and won’t be – largely restricted to ghettos and other places which might be safely written off. It crosses countless ethnic and cultural lines. When gun battles and assassinations are taking place in front of my grocery store and in our richest neighbourhoods, it becomes impossible for us to adopt the attitude of Apartheid-era white South Africans and brush the whole matter off as simply one of the others merely fouling their own nests. As good as they may be, our police have not the staffing, the equipment, the training, or the experience to deal with a problem on this scale. And, even if they did, the court system is – as we all know – entirely either unwilling or unable to deal sternly with offenders of all sorts. At least in American urban cesspools no one is ever operating with a full bench. The police and the courts here already know who at least half of these thugs are – many of them are awaiting trial on one charge or another. It won’t make any difference. We can hardly expect our judicial overlords to be moved to reconsider their leniency by something as petty as blood soaking the streets.
So, the question remains: what is to be done?
The province and the municipalities are nearly powerless in this regard. Their well-meaning and totally ineffectual proposals for all of this can, I believe, be safely ignored. No life was ever saved by a town hall meeting. But, then again, none – so far as I can recall –was ever taken by one either. The power to act here peculiarly rests upon the Federal Government in Ottawa. It is strange indeed that it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to deal with anarchy in Vancouver and its environs – that would seem to be the proper function of the Mayor of Vancouver and the Premier of British Columbia – but our nation’s unusual constitutional arrangements make that odd state a reality.
Ottawa says, correctly, that its new anti-crime measures will do some good in combating the crime spree. They’re probably right. It will benefit us some to have some criminals in jail rather than practically none. But, I would add, while we could debate for ages whether these measures go far enough none of them offer any prospect of immediate relief. Implementing these laws will take months – and effecting the change in judicial culture and composition in this country which will make these laws actually useful is the work of many years.
And, of course, the foreign origins and ties of these gangs – most of which appear to be ethnic or national in danger – must be addressed. An expedited effort to detain and deport foreign criminals – and then to keep them out of this country – is vital. But, again, that is an extended project. Moreover, the subject is so uncomfortable and taboo that it seems unlikely that any politician who seriously aspires to national office will dare to speak to the issue directly.
So, the narrower question looms: what can be done today?
The spiralling violence is seemingly beyond the ordinary powers of the police – and certainly beyond the imaginations of our courts. Allowed to escalate, the violence will surely result in more deaths – including the deaths of more civilians. We have no idea how far it will go. It is possible that the criminals who are assaulting our city will tire themselves out, slow down, and that that will be that. But it is equally possible – and far more likely – that these criminals, who are fighting for control of the drug trade in a city which is the gateway from Asia to North America, will wage an escalating battle for supremacy in this land of lax laws and laxer enforcement.
We have a choice here. We can either sit and pray for the best – or we can stand up and fight.
The Prime Minister has the legal right to invoke the updated version of the law that Pierre Trudeau used against the FLQ. It’s now called the Emergencies Act.
As a result of a judicial system which sets criminals free and an immigration system which has stocked our fair city with criminals from all over the Earth, a situation has been created that the ordinary legal and criminal processes is clearly incapable of resolving in a rapid and orderly fashion. The police know who many of these gang members are – they know who the leaders are. But they are forced to stand aside and watch as bullets fly and the innocent fall. That can be changed, if we will it.
The Emergencies Act gives the government the power to “designate and secure protected places.” I propose that the Prime Minister avail himself of the powers granted to him under the act and, using those powers, to order all gang members – and again, the police have a fairly good idea as to who many of these people are, where they live, and what gang they are affiliated with – to remove themselves from the protected area. Indeed, my proposal is that the Prime Minister designate the whole of the Province of British Columbia – save for a small and well-guarded camp – as a protected place. Once this legal formality has taken place, all known gang members who do not voluntarily remove themselves from the designated area could then be detained by the authorities and held for as long as possible. Further, once they are detained, the government could look into deporting many of these people as rapidly as possible.
Some will doubtlessly denounce this proposal as a violation of the rights of criminals. And so, perhaps, it is. It has always been my belief that the protection of the public is an immeasurably higher priority than the rights of bloody murderers and, while I recognize that that opinion is not universally shared, I will not apologize for it. As Trudeau said, “it is more important to keep law and order in the society than to be worried about weak-kneed people.”
(Crossposted at adamyoshida.com)
Posted by Yoshi on November 7, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (44) | TrackBack
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Book of the week
As of this week, I'll try to introduce a new book on politics, current affairs or general interests on a weekly basis. This week book is of US Ambassador John Bolton called "Surrender Is Not an Option" which is a neat testimony to the uselessness of the United Nations and US State Department, unfortunately. Loss of John Bolton was a big one for the US and those who care about freedom and security of the western civilization.
KRLA870.com radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt had a 2hr long interview with Ambassador Bolton: Listen to the interview Part One and Part Two
Posted by Winston on November 6, 2007 in Books | Permalink | Comments (80) | TrackBack
Passchendaele
Today is the 90th anniversary of the end of the Battle of Passchendaele. After many months of fighting Allied forces took the town of Passchendaele. Three hundred thousand soldiers lost their lives, including sixteen thousand Canadians during the last few weeks of the battle. Let us not forget those Canadian, British and ANZAC soldiers who lost their lives.
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 6, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack
Voices in the wilderness
What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, B.C. was alive with passionate, well-reasoned debate about the merits of enshrining "affirmative apartheid" in the province, by way of modern-day treaties giving special rights and privileges to aboriginal communities -- rights and privileges that would effectively establish a new order of government.
Some B.C. Liberals were at the forefront of the debate, arguing for equality before the law and against the creation of super-citizens. After the B.C. Liberals' took power, British Columbians voted in 2002, in a mail-in referendum, against the establishment of these de facto nation-states. But, although the results supported the official Liberal line, Gordon Campbell ignored them. In fact, he pulled a full, 180-degree U-turn.
The result is the Tsawwassen treaty, which enshrines many of the special rights the B.C. Liberals used to oppose. Only one brave Liberal MLA has spoken out against the deal, but his speech has done nothing either to deter the government or spark a new public debate.
Except, that is, on the editorial pages of the Tri-City News, where Mary Woo Sims and I debate the issue in our latest Face to Face showdown.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on November 6, 2007 in Aboriginal Issues | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack
This is Not Fair!
An editorial in today’s Toronto Star, entitled Harper’s Gutter Tactics, sounds just like the now famous “This is Not Fair” quote from Stephane Dion.
Basically, the editorial complains that the Conservatives unfairly ran attack ads against the Liberals. Calling the ads “misleading”, The Star complains about Harper’s characterization of Dion as being a weak leader, as being someone who can’t set his priorities, and as someone who might raise the GST if he ever became Prime Minister.
So what? The Conservatives ran the ‘not a leader’ ads months ago, and so far, Dion has done more to prove the ads true than he has done to prove his leadership abilities to Canadians. Sometimes the truth hurts!
Rather than crying about how unfair the attack ads are, perhaps the Liberals should have worked hard to develop their policies and convey them to Canadians. Tell us what you stand for, not what you do not stand for. But instead of showing leadership, Dion and his followers seem to have lived up to Conservative characterizations of him, and Canadians still don’t really know what the Liberals stand for.
The editorial also comes off as rather hypocritical, even for The Star, and Liberals are’t in much of a position to cast shame on anyone else. I would have to give the Liberals the top prize for the most misleading attack ad, thinking back to the Liberal ‘soldiers on our streets’ attack ads that caused so much controversy in the last federal election.
Personally, I think the Liberals and the editors at The Star are just a bit jealous of the Conservatives’ overflowing bank accounts that allow them to run their ads.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 6, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack
Monday, November 05, 2007
What Happened to Alberta and BC?
Seriously, folks – what happened to Alberta and British Columbia? In both provinces the voters elected free enterprise governments and instead they got government by technocrats, devoted to various soft-left pieties.
Apparently the top priorities of the next session of the Alberta Legislature will be allowing for speeding tickets to be issued based upon red light camera photos and banning smoking in public places. Are we talking about Edmonton here or are we talking about Montpellier? A few years ago, we used to admire Albertans for their free-spirited nature. Now, not so much. For all that their rhetoric sometimes offends me – and as much as I wish they had gone further in slashing through the wreckage of a decade of socialism in British Columbia – at least one of the first things that the Liberals did here was to junk the abomination against God and man that is photo radar.
I’ll leave the issue of the obscene great oil cash grab to Ezra and others – to whose superior knowledge I defer. I’ll only say that I often see people –Liberals, NDP’ers, and PC apologists – claim that the Alberta government needs more revenue for “urgently needed infrastructure” or some other such nonsense. I would love for someone to enumerate for me what infrastructure needs cannot be accommodated by the more than $10,000 per capita that the government of Alberta spends each year – or could not have been dealt with by the $7 Billion surplus the government registered last year. Actually, I would really be curious to know – is Ed Stelmach planning on building an Earth-to-Orbit elevator? Because that’s the kind of proposal I could back, the oil companies be damned.
Posted by Yoshi on November 5, 2007 in Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack
How Health Care Ought to Work
1) 8PM yesterday evening, I chip my tooth while having dinner.
2) 9:45AM, I call my dentist from my desk at work and ask for the earliest possible appointment.
3) 11AM, appointment.
4) 11:30AM, dentist presents me with bill for $39 (1/4 of the cost, per my insurance through work).
5) 11:31AM, I pay bill and leave, tooth fixed.
I'd note that was all possible because, in Canada, we have dentistry entirely in the free market. That is to say, it's not part of Medicare. Simple - relatively cheap - quick, and reliable. I'd note that even if I needed a more serious procedure, it would have been done with equal rapidity.
Posted by Yoshi on November 5, 2007 in Canadian Politics | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack
Manning vs. Stelmach?
Preston Manning has continued his criticism of Ed Stelmach's ambush of the oil patch. Here's part of his remarks from yesterday's Question Period interview on CTV:
Manning briefly considered running for the Tory leadership last year; he decided instead to continue building his own think tank. Would he have still done so had he known that Stelmach, and not Jim Dinning or Ted Morton, would have become premier? Or that Stelmach's signature act would be not only the increase of royalties, but the demonization of the oil patch?
It's interesting to watch some of the Alberta media respond to Manning. The Edmonton Sun calls Manning "Presto", and implies that Manning couldn't have won the Tory leadership. But anti-Manning sentiment and name-calling is a Toronto thing -- Manning was always loved in Alberta, and won far more seats here, and had higher poll numbers, than did the provincial Tories, and certainly more than Stelmach. It was good luck for Stelmach that Manning had other things to do.
Waugh correctly points out that royalty rates have changed over the decades -- including under Ernest Manning. Of course they did -- especially since Manning Sr. was premier in the years straddling the 1947 Leduc find. The chief industry argument against Stelmach's changes -- other than the collateral points that Stelmach remains unelected, and that the province already has an $8-billion surplus -- is that these proposed changes are:
1. Based on flawed economic assumptions (like an 88 cent Canadian dollar and 2005 industry costs, to name just two);
2. Rip up existing, written agreements with the oil sands; and
3. Have been entirely conducted in an adversarial, demonizing manner.
That's what Manning means by questioning Stelmach's competence -- if he really did need more money, if he really did feel that Alberta's oil companies weren't paying enough, couldn't he have changed the royalties in a manner that was less destabilizing, demoralizing and destructive to the rule of law and industry confidence?
Manning says it's a competence issue. That's because Manning is diplomatic; Stelmach's foolishness is not an accident or even negligence -- it is a purposeful attempt to play the populist, sack-the-rich card, like Danny Williams did with great success. What Stelmach forgot is that Williams was demonizing foreigners; Stelmach was demonizing his own neighbours in Alberta.
I don't think Manning will enter Alberta politics, but I wish he would -- and I think he would win, big-time -- in Calgary, where he's loved, in Edmonton, where he and his family lived for decades; in the cities and in the rural parts. Unlike Stelmach, Manning is well-known, articulate, and has thought things through. He has a dormant army of volunteers across the province waiting to be called up, and he could raise a war-chest in a week. He wasn't motivated a year ago to lead the Tories.
But would he do what he does best -- start a new party from scratch?
That's the Alberta way. And, in any event, it's a far better prize than taking over a tired, scandal-ridden PC party with a hostile and ideologically vacuous caucus.
Posted by Ezra Levant on November 5, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack
CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY
So, puny mortals... you think you're ready to get up on the porch and play with THE BIG DOG?
(crossposted at halls of macadamia)
Posted by Neo Conservative on November 5, 2007 in Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Sunday, November 04, 2007
How Many Divisions Has the House?
In discussing the question of the distribution of war powers in the United States, this colulmn from George Will throughly misses the point.
Will writes of various means by which the Congress might cut off funding or otherwise attempt to stop or prevent a war and then says that, "All this refutes Rudy Giuliani's recent suggestion that the president might have "the inherent authority to support the troops" even if funding were cut off."
I don't deny that, in a legal and strictly constitutional sense, that Will might well be right - but the question here is not, and has never been, one strictly of law. In an 1861 address to the Congress, Abraham Lincoln asked, "are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?"
The Constitution and the laws are not a suicide pact.
Will - and others - seem to willfully ignore the core question, insofar as any Congressional effort to force an American surrender or otherwise cripple the defense of the United States is concerned. Put simply - how many divisions has the House?
Mark Steyn has earlier discussed the concept of a "cold Civil War" - and a closely related question, one which I have posed in the past, is whether there is a serious danger of that cold war becoming a hot one. This would seem to be one such method. In seeking to force an American defeat in Iraq - or elsewhere in the world - the Democrats in Congress would be provoking a Constitutional crisis. They have no way to force the President to obey their will if the President correctly chooses to ignore orders and decrees which would result in the defeat and humilation of country he is sworn to defend.
Indeed, looking at the approval ratings of the Congress, the more historically-minded members ought to reflect that even the Long Parliament was probably more popular at the end of its days.
Posted by Yoshi on November 4, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Iran's Hostage Crisis
The 4th of November is the anniversary of the illegal take over of the US embassy and its personnel in Tehran by the militant Islamic thugs back in 1979. I am posting this to remind every one of that story . Canadians may even be surprised to find out that some American hostages were rescued by the Canadian embassy and later escaped Iran with the direct help of the Canadian diplomats stationed in the country....
Posted by Winston on November 4, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
Ike: beware the Scientific-Technological elite
How many peaceniks who compulsively quote one sentence out of Ike's farewell address, the one warning about the "military industrial complex", have actually read the whole speech..?
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on November 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack
The Case against Blair Wilson -- The Elections Canada evidence
Blair Wilson is the BC LIberal MP forced to resign from caucus after serious charges were leveled against him. His election spending was called into question, with news reports of a package of evidence delivered to Elections Canada. The evidence includes emails that purport to substantiate the allegations that thousands of dollars was spent by the Liberals but not reported to Elections Canada.
In a series of posts, I'll present the actual documents delivered to Elections Canada for you to review. Come to your own conclusions, and judge whether the case has been made that Blair Wilson, and perhaps others, deliberately cheated to win the riding of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country, formerly held by the Conservatives.
- The Charges (The letter of complaint)
- The Cowrie Street Office (The Cowrie Street evidence)
- The Marine Drive Office (The Marine Drive evidence)
- Printing (The Printing evidence)
- Canada Post (The Canada Post evidence)
- The Umbrellas (The Umbrellas evidence)
- The Coast Reporter (The Coast Reporter evidence)
- The Whistler Question (The Whistler Question evidence)
- Jamey Kramer (The Jamey Kramer evidence)
- Conclusion
Posted by Steve Janke on November 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
The Entitlement of Child Care
When it comes to providing child care for Canadians, Jack Layton and the rest of Canada’s opposition parties want to keep the private sector out of it. Unfortunately for taxpayers, whenever a socialist like Jack Layton or Stephane Dion makes a proposal to limit private sector involvement in something, you know they’re about to waste a huge pile of your money.
Consequently, the NDP have proposed Bill C303.
Here’s a crazy thought, Jack… If this country wants child care, why don’t you ask the parents to provide that care to their own children?
I realize that not every family can afford to have one parent leave their job to raise their children full time. Therefore, outside child care is a necessity for some, but why should the taxpayer provide it? Parents must pay for their children’s clothing, recreation, transportation, food and medicine. They should also pay for any babysitting their children require.
To take the madness a step further, the politicians and special interest groups of the left have found an even higher evil force than the Canadian private corporation. Not only do they want to keep the private sector out, they want to block foreign ownership of child care centres.
First of all, we don’t need some universal state-run “pan-Canadian child care system” to bleed taxpayers dry just to fund something that parents should be paying for themselves.
Second, the groups who are against foreign ownership of child care centres, are the same groups that are constantly complaining that we need more child care spaces. Why should it matter where the owner of a child care centre is from, just as long as they provide the services you’re looking for? We’re not exactly talking about an industry of national security here.
Before the current age of socialist entitlement, Canadians used to be a resourceful people. They would make sacrifices and stay home to raise their children, and the children would grow up just fine. They would make arrangements with family, friends and neighbours to see that their children were properly cared for. Canadians have managed for years to do whatever it takes to care for their children, and they have done it successfully without the taxpayer providing for their every selfish need.
Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state. It is truly scary to think what havoc could happen to this country if the NDP ever got hold of the reins of power.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 4, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (79) | TrackBack
Bin Laden on Iraq: "the darkness has become pitch black"
I'm amazed by the media's ability to ignore what's happening on the ground in Iraq when it fails to suit their agenda. Over at The Corner Victor Davis Hanson compares the turn-around to that which occuered during the summer of 1864.
The comparison is, I believe, an apt one. Some of the similarities, which he doesn't discuss, are worth noting.
1) In the summer of 1864 everyone, including Abraham Lincoln himself, believed that his chances of being re-elected were practically nil.
2) In 1864 the Democrats chose General George B. McClellan as their nomineee - and adopted an extreme anti-war platform which he promptly reupidated.
3) In 1864, as I believe is the case today, the enemy knew that it had no hope of a military victory - and was therefore pinning its hopes upon a political triumph.
Now, we see this from the Long War Journal. It was part of Bin Laden's (or whoever is playing him these days) latest audio tape:
In closing, I tell our people in Iraq, the patient ones garrisoned on the first line of the religion and sanctities of the Muslims: the malice has increased and the darkness has become pitch black, and with the likes of you, nations reinforce themselves and climb summits.
If only our friends in the drive-by media would admit to it with as much candor as the other enemies of the West.
Posted by Yoshi on November 4, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack