Nocrap

As the graduation ceremonies were taking place at the Royal Military College in Kingston, and students mourned the loss of one of their own, (the slain female soldier was a grad herself), they were also thrown into a political battle over the decision to award a respected US General; Anthony Zinni; an hounary doctorate. According to the National Post May 18, 2006: "The Conservative Defence Minister intervened personally to stop the Royal Military College of Canada from awarding an honorary degree tomorrow to a retired American general who has been highly critical of the Bush administration." National Post Article O'Connor claimed that by awarding the degree it would appear that we are taking sides. I'm sure it would have been different if Zinni had praised the Bush administration, but that's for a different thread. My point is that while only 29% of the American people still have faith in Bush's ability to govern and only 38% believe in the US involvement in Iraq, whose side are we really taking? According to a recent Angus-Reid Poll: "More adults in the United States are disappointed with their government’s decision to go to war in Iraq ... 62 per cent of respondents think the conflict was not worth fighting" Link to Angus-Reid Poll Anthony Zinni is an important voice for the American people in getting their message across. He is not a peace activist, but a respected military leader. He is not a Democrat, but actually voted for GW. And while he is not the only US General to oppose the War in Iraq, he took a stand for the American people who oppose Donald Rumsfield's handling of the operation and the misguided intelligence that has done so much damage. Yes O'Connor instead gave the degrees to two Canadian Generals, who I'm sure would have been awarded doctorates if it was felt thet they deserved doctorates. But that is not the point. Turning our backs on Zinni means that we have turned our backs on the majority of Americans. One reporter stated that O'Connor only opened up a pandora's box by strong-arming the school. Normally, I never really pay attention to these things, but it inspired me to research Zinni and others. I found these comments quite revealing from a CBS story: "The more he listened to [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and other administration officials talk about Iraq, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist 'neoconservative' ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. 'The more I saw, the more I thought that this was the product of the neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground.'" Hmmm...Neo-Conservatives...think tanks? Bush will be gone soon and I rather doubt that the Republicans will get back into office, so we have to look beyond the politics to the heart of the matter. My support goes to the 71% of Americans who hate George Bush and the 62% of Americans who are no longer willing to risk the lives of their sons and daughters for an inexcusable and unwinnable war.

I feel the same way about celebs. I have my favourites and will watch most movies they star in, but beyond that I couldn't care less. They are doing a job...entertaining us, and get well paid for it. What they do in their private lives is none of my business or concern. However, with Angelina, I just can't buy her as a Mother Theresa. She is so weird. I saw an interview a few years ago and she was showing off a little bottle that she wore around her neck containing her current husband's or boyfriend's blood. When asked why she did it, she giggled and said "it's (whomever's) blood, then I believe kissed the vial. Don't modern day vampires do something similar? My guess is she'll get bored with this latest adventure soon and move onto something else. Right now she rants at the media, but never misses a good photo-op.

The original article was based on history books written long after the Europeans first 'discovered' what they called the 'New World'. Based on that the implication is that the original settlers of North America stood around with their thumbs up their butts waiting for the 'white man' to come and show them the way. Early images portray the Natives as barely standing erect; in awe of their powerful visitors. Give me a break. In the early days this not so new world, was a business opportunity for Europeans. They set up trading posts and wrangled their own governments for rights to monopoly. However, while they conducted their business they had to ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE FIRST NATIONS. They knew that. 50 Europeans at Port Royal (including my earliest ancestor), conducting business with 10,000 Micmac and Maliseet. 13 Frenchmen at Kebec conducting business with countless original Nations. Who do you think set the laws? It was only about 150 years ago, when England wanted to validate their claims to Canada that the old 'discovered, founded and settled' theory took on a life of it's own. And to imply that scientific breakthroughs were only possible when NA was blessed with the presence of the Europeans. Another misrepresentaion of the facts. The First Nations were further advanced in heath sciences and medicine. They knew the importance of cleanliness at a time when Europeans only bathed twice a year and threw their garbage into the streets. Scientific minds like the druggist Louis Hebert, sacrificed everything for an opportunity to study medicine with the aboriginal people of NA. Their agriculture; fishing and hunting skills, and mastery of the harsh climate kept the first 'settlers' alive in the early years. Most things that set us apart as a culture took root with the orginal occupants: snowshoes, maple syrup, toboggans, democratic government (most of Europe was a Monarchy), hunting, fishing, etc. In Europe at the time, only the nobility could hunt or fish, and only the nobility had any say in governing their country. The aboriginal people studied the solar system (Moose Mountain, Medicine Wheel, etc.), though we only learned of Stonehenge and the Pyramids in school. They provided foot soldiers in most early NA wars including the American Revolutionary Wars and the War of 1812. They were respected as allies by the early Euro-Canadians, and respected as individual nations within the continent. Only recent written history has tried to erase their contributions and entitlements. Sending a lackey to negotiate on behalf of our government or the crown, is inexcusable.

Oh gee. The Fraser Institute, huh? That makes it so credible.

*Insert laugh track* But as usual, when it comes to liberals, the real reason why Mr Fancy Pants™ is foaming at the mouth is this: And Mr Fancy Pants' statements are not outrageous and dangerously duplicitous. As Ann Coulter so famously quipped: Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now. This Ann Coulter quote to defend scrapping Kyoto is pretty extreme, don't you think? Painting anyone concerned with the environment as somehow being unpatriotic supporters of terrorism? What the heck?

I think the senate is an important part of the structure of our government and can act as a watchdog for the House of Commons, where partisan politics play a key role in the passing of most bills. Equal representation for provinces, based on population might be a good start. Elected? I'm not sure about that. More partisan politics?

I'm not that far left either...more centre-left. However, when I point out Harper flaws (egads!); I've been called everything from a Left-Lib Liar to a Liberal hugging socialist; despite the fact that I'm not really a Liberal supporter and detest what they did with our money. However, it is a new era, or so I'm told; so let it go. Harper needs to stand on his own merit, despite what the Republicans advised, and forget what the others did in the past. So far, he has just emulated what got the Liberals into trouble in the first place; so no accountable government in the works. Presenting Morgan; a Reform/Harper/CPC fundraiser with a history of racist remarks and ties to the Fraser Institute; is partisan politics at it's worst. Pitching a fit and suggesting to Canadians that the only way to achieve accountability is by giving him a majority, just made him look silly. I'm thankful everyday that he does have a minority; clearly the only way he will every really be accountable. He has already taken a Totalitarian approach to running our country, so no way should we give him that much power. Can you say Gestapo?

I don't think they'll have to make up much. With limited resources I've been able to link Harper and many of his MP's to some pretty disturbing organizations; not to mention Haliburton and the Carlysle Group. Too bad Mike Moore isn't Canadian because he would have a field day. I do look forward to some pretty explosive W5's and Fifth Estates in the near future though.

Yes, yes and yes. Did anyone see Rona Ambrose on the Mercer Report? She was only asked to tap a tree for maple syrup 'Ewww...I'm the Environmental Minister...I can't hurt a tree'. Of course the major polluting of the Alberta Tar Sands she's fine with. What a disgrace for women everywhere.

Good point, and I apologize for my part in this thread getting out of hand. I think that Harper's team is playing excellent politics right now, and totally taking advantage of the fumbling and leaderless Liberals. However, I still don't trust Harper to support him. You see people like Vellacott and now Morgan regurgitating that old Reform/Alliance perspective, and it makes you wonder just how much Harper is suppressing his team. But still, these machinations don't make up for the Emerson/fortier gaffe. That will come back time and again as the first betrayal. TS...I think I'm going to really like reading your posts and hope you stick around for awhile and not be scared off by right-wing rants. I've found most of them are pretty harmless. However, you speak of former Reform/Alliance and I can assure you that they are anything but former. 55 current CPC MP's belonged to the Reform/Alliance and 55 are new to the CPC, many drawn by the old Reform ideology. Only a handful are tories and three of those Baird, Flaherty ('throw the homeless in jail') and Clements; are outcasts from the scandal ridden Ontario Tories under Mike Harris (who now writes for the Fraser Institute) My NOCRAP stands for No- Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party; though lately I've changed it to No-Canadian Republican Alliance Party; with Harper following George Bush around like a love sick schoolboy. However, I understand how you can lose it now and then. I've been there myself. But your arguments are just and reasonable, so soldier on. As to not naming an alternative to Morgan. It was just another Harper hissy fit. Whenever he gets backed into a corner, he brings up '13 years' or cries, stamps his feet and threatens to leave the schoolyard. aka...showing his true colours. I too think that Morgan's offer to do the job for $ 1.00 a year, makes us somehow beholden. It's more about insuring that the job goes to a CPC friendly candidate than looking for the best person to fulfill the mandate.

Outed as a racist?In what shape or form do Morgan's comments constitute racism? He questioned the validity of "multiculturalism" and he noted troubling issues about gun crime in Toronto and Calgary. He made no bland generalizations. If we cannot discuss this openly, we will get nowhere in dealing with it. I think a majority of Canadians understand that. As to the campaign contributions, they were perfectly legal at the time they were made. Are you going to exclude everyone who ever contributed to a political campaign from being named to a government commission? Ed Broadbent, I believe, contributed to the NDP and (heavens!) sat on several government commissions, including one about accountability. In the case of Morgan, we are talking about one commissioner on on commission. In the case of the Liberals, over 60% of Quebec and Ontario federal judges made contributions to the Liberal Party prior to being named to the bench. Now, you tell me, what is more serious? There is a big difference between contributing to a party and being an ACTIVE FUNDRAISER for a party. This would simply be another example of partisan politics, something Harper himself has spoken out against. Of course that was then - this is now....flip-flop - oh no... personal growth...that's it. For him to imply that he cannot put accountability measures in place uness he has a majority only draws attention to the fact that he is trying to put one over on Canadians, so we should make sure that he is never in a position to pull a fast one. Go NDP!

Normally gender would not make a difference, but she will go down in history as the first Canadian female soldier to lose their life in battle. I expect a great deal of backlash from this and the media will have a field day; especially since it falls at a time when war-mongering Harper has signed on for two more years of following George Bush wherever he leads us. Tragic.

Despite the "free vote Harper"'s claims of allowing his MPs to make their own decisions, to date they have all voted with him, so we can always expect at least 125 votes for any issue he brings up. He won't even let them speak so why would he let them think independantly. However, if the NDP stick together they are tyranical socialists. A bit biased, but then what else is new. Two more years in Afghanistan - soldiers lose - Canadians lose - Hill & Knowlton clients: cha-ching, cha-ching. Just remember that when the Canadian people, who already feel uncomfortable with this war; demand that we no longer put our soldiers in such grave danger to appease the US war machine; we will remember that the NDP tried to bring our soldiers home, but Harper had far too many promises to keep to his campaign contributors, who are enjoying the profits of war; to allow that to happen. Again, the NDP appear to be the only voice of reason and are looking better all the time.

Comparing cars to guns is like comparing apples to oranges. However, since you brought it up; cars are registered to death. When they are involved in an accident in most cases the owner can be traced through the registration of his or her vehicle. That's what the gun registry is for. It makes it easier for law enforcement to track down the gun's owner if the weapon is involved in a crime. Yes, just as many people drive without a license or insurance, many guns are off the black market; but many are not. Most law enforcement agencies like the gun registry and since we are asking them to put their lives on the line, we can surely grant them this request.

The opposition parties were right in not accepting Gwyn Morgan's appointment to any ethics' role, and not because he was outed as a racist, but because he has been a longtime fundraiser for both the Reform Party and later the CPC. He held a fundraiser for Stephen Harper in this last campaign; and himself has donated thousands including $5,100 on May 26, 2005 (see Elections Canada website.). In addition, Encana CEO Michael Chernoff and his wife Dorrine each contributed $ 5,100 on May 20, 2005. You can't have an ethics' watchdog, who is supposed to be non-Partisan and watch all politicians, also act as a cash cow for just one party. His links to the oil companies and the Fraser Institute; or what I like to call the backup singers for CPC policy; again make him unsuitable to answer to the Canadian public. Harper, the Reform Party and now the CPC have too long had their hands in the pockets of Morgan and his buddies and I believe that Harper may now realize that the Morgan nomination was far too transparent and would eventually take another bite out of the PM's behind. Big Oil Buddies

Seems rather convenient that all of this is coming out so soon after the Republicans give Harper advice on how to keep power. Tories get tips on keeping power Elizabeth Thompson, CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette Published: Sunday, May 07, 2006 Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counseled an influential group of Conservatives Saturday. Speaking a day after meeting with Harper, Frank Luntz described the Conservatives as allies of the Republicans and urged them to discredit the Liberals so thoroughly that it will be years before they make it back into power. His appointment of Fortier is a sponsorship scandal in the making, so he'd better be careful "New questions have arisen over Senator Michael Fortier's appointment as minister for public works because he reportedly accepted donor cheques on behalf of the Conservative Party from supporters in Quebec during the election campaign. A senior party fundraiser told the Ottawa Citizen that "one or two" party supporters informed him they had sent donation cheques to Fortier, whose appointment is being widely criticized because he'll be unaccountable to elected MPs in the House of Commons. Fortier was a national co-chairperson of the Conservative election campaign. His acceptance of donor cheques in that role would not have been extraordinary. But because he is now public works minister, which awards $13 billion in procurement contracts annually, it could be sensitive politically for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and complicate existing problems surrounding Fortier's appointment. Harper has campaigned for nearly a decade for an elected Senate. But he not only appointed a senator to cabinet to represent Montreal as the city's political minister, but has also given Fortier, a longtime party organizer, responsibility for the department at the centre of the fundraising scandal that brought down the Liberal government." Fortier Appointment Don't think I won't be watching to see who gets the lucrative contracts. The NDP are looking better all the time.

They covered it on my local television station several weeks ago, including Harper's speech to the people of Gander. Old news, so why are they bringing it up now?

I listen to a radio call-in show that is mostly political and one caller brought up an interesting point. (I don't have a link or need one since it's pretty general and just a little food for thought) He said that Harper's gagging of MP's and tight control on media relations is the fuel that fires investigative reporters. If he refuses to have a working relationship with the media and allows only those who share his views access to his office, the outcasts will hunt down their own story and he may not like what they unearth. I still say this is going to come back to bite him in the rump.

Well said MH. Perhaps if we're going to believe rags like Frank magazine, we should also be quoting the National Enquirer. That would mean that Elvis is indeed alive and is riding around on a spaceship with Marilyn Munroe. Or my favourite headline "Man with two heads gets charged with bigamy". Maybe we need a law that states that any person with two heads cannot get married. Do you think for one minute that if the CPC really believed the rumours they wouldn't be using it to further discredit the Liberals? Even they know it's pure nonsense. However, the thread was whether or not an MP should be trying to discredit the Supreme Court. His comments make you appreciate why Harper likes to keep his socks firmly entrenched in his Caucuses' mouths, but yet another reason why he shouldn't. Canadians don't need to know the sexual orientation of their elected officials but do have a right to know their views on our time honoured institutions. They also have a right to know if the person in charge of an inquiry into Aboriginal Affairs is racist against the very people he is representing. Those are the key issues and have nothing to do with who Bill Graham is sleeping with or even the political views of a Supreme Court Justice. That is not a matter for him to decide or disclose. He is only putting up walls where no walls should be.

Like most Canadians, I would love to see an end to any sessionist talks, and a workable solution to feelings of alienation by Quebec. However, for decades, all governments offer more and more to the province to get elected or stay in power, with or without follow through. The whole thing is a mess. If the CPC can find a workable solution, then I'm onboard; so long as it means the same for all provinces. I wonder how the Bloc will see all this.

But it's getting old after *10 weeks* of Conservative Government? Wow, gotta love the hypocrisy. It's not getting old after ten weeks of CPC government. It's getting old because we've heard nothing but during the campaign. It's getting old because we've heard nothing but since the opening of Parliament. Everytime Harper gets backed into a corner he uses the 'thirteen years card'. Realizing that he is taking advice from a Rebublican pollster to do more of the same only intensifies the realization that the CPC believes that mudslinging is the best way to hold onto power, instead of perhaps thinking that looking out for the good of all Canadians would be a much better approach. Let's not forget that for many of those 13 years, the Liberals were cleaning up the mess left by Mulroney. Now that the Liberals have left the Frat House boys lots of money to gamble with, they're having a ball. I also stand by my disgust of Tom Flanagan and his beliefs toward Canada's First Nations. Calling them only immigrants and implying that they would have been nowhere had the Europeans not stumbled upon them, is pure nonsense. I've ordered First Nations, Second thoughts; and if I find something in there to change my views; I will apologize. However, the bits I've read so far just make my skin crawl. Hmmm....digging up dirt. Harper has almost made it too easy with his appointments of Flaherty, Baird (who also spoke at the Civitas Meeting) and Clement. The NCC took credit for the so-called 'Common Sense Revolution' that brought Mike Harris and his 'Whiz Kids' into power. However, after they whizzed all over us, and scandals forced the resignation of Harris, we were glad to see the end of them. Knowing they are in the federal cabinet, exposing their corruption will be like taking candy from a baby. Personally, I hate that Canadian politics have stooped to this level, but since the CPC now wants to take us down this road, I'm not going unarmed. I've taken a page from Preston Manning's Reform handbook. He advised his people to keep scrapbooks on all their political opponents and to be prepared to use whatever wrongdoings they could to get elected. My book is now 32 pages and counting and I plan to give copies to all political parties next election, including the CPC. Maybe if they realize that they're not as squeaky clean as they like to portray themselves, they'll back off and run a clean campaign, instead of just ducking mudballs.

On election night when I was watching the coverage, the commentators remarked how well the CPC were doing in Quebec. They stated that it might be difficult for Harper to keep his promises to them however, since he had previously stated that any MP winning in that province would be given a cabinet post. I'll see if I can find it anywhere on the web or my newspaper clippings. I do have a photocopy of the Feb 1997 Bulldog which I can scan, since some might question the validity of the quote posted on another website. That has stuck with me for a long time.

I agree that it takes time but let's not forget that it works both ways. I have been hoping that the budget gets passed so that we have another year to expose the radical rightwing groups that are propping up Stephen Harper. This is not Harper bashing, but Harper enlightenment; which turns out to be a very dark place indeed. So while his supporters call his flipflopping, personal growth; his ties to groups like the NCC, Fraser Institute and now the Civitas Society; only validate his so-called 'hidden agenda' proposed by many. This cannot be erased with outlandish 'yes he eats babies and drinks his own blood', screams by the right. These are real and grave concerns with the direction he plans to take our country, and the people he allows into his inner circle. As for the 'thirteen years of Liberal blah, blah, blah..." It's getting old. If you cannot stand on your own merit without simply pouncing on your opponent, then perhaps you don't have much merit to begin with. The election is over and it's Harper's turn to be held under the microscope, since he's the one handling (or mishandling as it seems), our money. He can run and hide from the media all he likes, but he can't 'cut and run' from Canadians. Perhaps those who support his Christian 'values' should ask themselves why God in his infinite wisdom did not give him a majority government. Letting him win a minority was a perfect way to expose his radical ideologies, without allowing him to do too much harm. Just a thought.

Tories get tips on keeping power Elizabeth Thompson, CanWest News Service; Montreal Gazette Published: Sunday, May 07, 2006 Link to Canwest Article "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should do its best over the coming year to dig up embarrassing information on the former Liberal administration and portray it as corrupt, a prominent Republican pollster counseled an influential group of Conservatives Saturday. Speaking a day after meeting with Harper, Frank Luntz described the Conservatives as allies of the Republicans and urged them to discredit the Liberals so thoroughly that it will be years before they make it back into power. The Civitas Society is a low-key, yet influential Conservative group with close ties to Harper. In its last annual report filed with the government, Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie is listed as a director and Brodie attended the group's conference Saturday. Tom Flanagan, a longtime friend of Harper's and his campaign manager for the leadership, is a founder of the group and was also there. Over the course of the weekend, the group will also be discussing euthanasia, judicial activism by the Supreme Court, "the Moral Justification for War,'' electoral reform and the future of Canadian cities." Not another Neo-Conservative group that I have to watch along with the NCC and Fraser Institute. And how reassuring to know that the racist Tom Flanagan is the group's leader: "The second cause for concern for many native leaders is the presence of Tom Flanagan in Stephen Harper's inner circle. Flanagan, a conservative, American-born political science professor at the University of Calgary, is a senior advisor in the Conservative campaign, and is expected to occupy a similar role in a Stephen Harper government. In 2000, he wrote an explosive book called First Nations? Second Thoughts..... Flanagan thinks the long-term solution to their problems might be to allow them to wither away by cutting off their supply of federal cash." Flanagan Link Another Flanagan Link I have always said that Stephen Harper is a Republican at heart but the fact that he is now taking advice from them on how to run his government confirms that he is not only a Republican at heart....but a REPUBLICAN! Long before he used George Bush rhetoric to sell us on the war in Afghanistan, his pandering to the American Republican Party was clear. Why else would an American Republican PR firm take credit for his victory McLaughlin & Associates They list amoung their political success stories both Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper (Canada) and The National Citizen's Coalition (Canada) and not long after the election posted this notice on their website Congrats Link] Even his religous beliefs are firmly entrenched: MacLeans Religous February 20, 2006 The church of Stephen Harper Colin Campbell "His church follows in traditions normally associated with American evangelicalism, a brand of Christianity that has a relatively small following in Canada. In that vein, Harper appears to have more in common with President George W. Bush, a born-again Christian, than with his predecessors. At the East Gate Alliance Church, the hymnals even contain the song America, the Beautiful. "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," Man are we in trouble "

4 out of 10 is not the same as all elected MP's. I did find a link for the February 1997 Bulldog if it works (it's in adobe acrobat) Bulldog "Support in Quebec for secession in the short term is softening but that trend can be expected to reverse over the next five years because of the continuing eaceful ethnic cleansing that is going on." I find the term 'ethnic cleansing' offensive unless it is in the sentence 'the term ethnic cleansing should never be used in a civilized society'. It certainly sent up red flags for me. Other Choice Harperspeak And let's not forget his infamous June 1997 speech when he said of Quebec "For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier. They have not worked". and...."The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things." Link to Speech