scribblet

They have posted another article: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...fe805ec&k=31543 but how do you explain this in the first one: The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect." From this one would think the story is true, so the Post can be forgiven for believeing this. Also, it is not something unexpected from the like of the Iranian leader.

Just think, the liberals of all people questioning someone's integrity. Imagine, Joe Volpe of all people, doing the questioning. Note though that the Liberals never got around to create the office themselves - hmmmm

Does anyone else find this scary, giving the U.N. that kind money - just imagine what they would do with it really. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/lamb020606.htm U.N. plans global socialist rule Henry Lamb Monday, February 6, 2006 At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week, the United Nations Development Program promoted its plan to rule the world through a global socialist economic system. The plan is detailed in a book entitled The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges, published by Oxford University Press. The U.N. plan identifies seven trillion dollars - that's $7,000,000,000,000 - to be taken from developed nations for use by the U.N. to solve all the world's problems. At the heart of the program is a global pollution permit trading scheme, that would produce $3.64 trillion, according to the U.N. This is a glorified version of the emissions trading scheme envisioned in the Kyoto Protocol. Here is a simplified example of how such a scheme would work. The U.N. would establish arbitrary limits on the quantity of pollution each nation could produce. If a nation exceeded the limit, it would have to pay substantial penalties. Or, the polluting nation could purchase “credits” from developing nations that produce less pollution than allowed by the U.N. Either way, money from developed nations is redistributed to developing nations - through the U.N., of course. The U.N. claims that another $2.9 trillion could be realized for developing countries by reducing their borrowing costs, and another $600 billion by linking loan repayments to their economic output. The plan also recommends the creation of a “Chapter 11 bankruptcy” procedure for nations, overseen by the U.N. The U.N. plan would impose the "Tobin Tax" a global tax on foreign currency exchange. When first proposed two decades ago, the estimated yield was $1.5 trillion. Now, the estimate is $2.9 trillion. The U.N. has lusted after this tax for years. opposition by the united states has, so far, prevented its adoption

Another example of liberal arrogance and anti U.S. bias. The hatred of an ally (U.S.) gives one cause for concern. Not to mention the question of their ability (or lack thereof) to put Canada's interests ahead of their bias. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...74-4c094f96631c If anyone could have stood to benefit from the message delivered in Ottawa Thursday by John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, it was quite a few members of the Liberal caucus. Mr. Howard told a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament that Australia "is an unapologetic friend and ally of the United States," and called the U.S. a "remarkable power for good in the world." He went on to warn that those who would prefer the U.S. to have less influence "should be careful what you wish for, because a retreating America will leave a more vulnerable world." It was a sage lesson from the Commonwealth leader, the prime minister of a country with which Canada shares more than just an alliance; we have a fraternal relationship with Australia. Unfortunately, the lesson was not heard by many Liberal MPs, because the Official Opposition, a party with elements of unabashed anti-Americanism, chose to stay away in droves from Mr. Howard's address. There are certain basic courtesies that members of Parliament should extend to visiting world leaders: When the prime minister of one of Canada's closest allies addresses a joint sitting of the Houses of Parliament, it should be a no-brainer for Canadian MPs of all political stripes that attendance is in order. Yet when Mr. Howard spoke to Parliament -- the first time an Australian prime minister has done so since 1944 -- dozens of Opposition Liberal MPs did not trouble to show up. Even former prime minister Paul Martin, who used to pride himself on his diplomatic skills, gave the occasion a pass. The result was a disconcerting number of empty seats, leaving a distinct impression that Canada's Liberals were giving Mr. Howard the cold shoulder. If the no-show MPs stayed away out of principle, rather than merely bad etiquette, then they chose a juvenile way to express their disagreement with Mr. Howard's policies. Yes, Mr. Howard is tough on terrorism and a staunch ally of the U.S. -- positions for which he should be commended, though they may have offended the delicate sensibilities of the Opposition -- but it is still incumbent on Members of Parliament to meet basic standards of civility.

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like. Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing. But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence And that is the shame of it, that there seems to be no end to breaking this cycle, their children are brainwashed from day one, they learn to hate Israel and the West. Not to mention that much violence is Muslim against Muslim. Maybe the question is, how long should we and the U.S. stay in Afghanistan (and Iraq) at what point do we say enough is enough. Do we stay there forever? Do we believe that there can be peace, that if we leave the 'insurgents' will not resume attacks. IMHO there will always be the radical Taliban types who will never accept peace, and will continue to kill to attain their hold and consequently Sharia Law and oppression; democracy is not a concept they embrace.

I thought there was going to be a new moderator ?

It's a chipping action, almost like they were waiting for a caticlyism of sorts to push it all over the edge. So the wheel of orchestration had started. But what is the end gain? Isn't it the elimination of all infidels? And all non-Islams are considered the infidels. Pretty much, the end game is a world wide Caliphate founded on Sharia Law.

Are we suppose to take this seriously; from a blatant heavy pro-right wing blog. I'm sure a left winger can post from left leaning blogs saying how foolish the opinions and actions of Harper and the Conservatives. But of course, some of the extreme right wingers here have the opinion that Harper and the Conservatives can do no wrong, wonder where they bought their rose-coloured glasses. Take it how you like, there where some valid questions. Some of the extreme left wingers here have the opinion that liberals could no wrong, and are entitled to govern in peretuity.

Ambrose has more credibility than most Liberals, if people think the liberals were doing will, why are emissions increasing. The Liberals made grand promises and gave grander speeches while achieving nothing. At least Ambrose has the gumption to tell it like it is; Canada did nothing and cannot achieve Kyoto goals. And why should we pay China or Russia to continue polluting. I'm proud that we finally have a gov't with its head out of the enviromental sand. With Rona Ambrose now in charge, maybe we can find a more sensible and workable solution to the problem. Credibility- the quality, capability or power to elicit belief - something to liberals managed to give the appearance of having, but don't actually have. They made great speeches but achieved nothing, at least Ambrose will try to meet more realistic goals.

Words escape me, separate dress codes for religious minorities..... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...59-fa24f4c66ad4 A colour code for Iran's 'infidels' Amir Taheri, National Post Published: Friday, May 19, 2006 While the Iranian economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for hopefulness is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday. The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially, the young dress. It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean). The new law, drafted during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, had been blocked within the Majlis. That blockage, however, has been removed under pressure from Khatami's successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The new law replaces the one passed in 1982 dealing with women's clothes. That law imposed the hijab and focused on the need to force women to cover their hair in public. The emphasis on the hijab was based on the belief that women's hair emanates an "evil ray" that drives men "into lustful irrationality" and thus causes harm to Islam. The new law cannot come into effect until consensus is reached on what constitutes "authentic Islamic attire."........ -snip- Religious minorities would have their own colour schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes while Christians will be assigned the colour red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the colour of their zonnar. It is not clear what will happen to followers of other religions, including Hindus, Bahais and Buddhists, not to mention plain agnostics and atheists, whose very existence is denied by the Islamic Republic.

The National Post says it better than I could; contrived outrage, how appropriate. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...43-3d7dad43e7d4 Stephen Harper was not required to hold a vote on Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan. He had the authority to extend and expand the mission until February, 2009, without consulting Parliament. Had he done so, however, opposition MPs would have been heaving with collective indignation over the Prime Minister's disrespect for our democratic institutions. As it is, the opposition parties had to contrive another kind of outrage, portraying the vote that narrowly passed 149-145 on Wednesday night as a cynical and partisan trick to force them to choose between sharing culpability for the mission and being labelled spineless and unpatriotic. They complained that they were rushed, that 36 hours' notice for the vote didn't give them enough time to understand what was being asked of them. They wanted briefings, they wanted committee hearings, they wanted consultations with constituents, they wanted elucidation on foreign policy alternatives. This is, of course, nonsense. What they really wanted was another excuse to attack the government. The MPs know perfectly well why Canada is in Afghanistan, and why its commitment must be prolonged. They know that once you start a mission, you have to finish it. They know Canada is there to advance freedom, democracy and human rights, and to ensure that al-Qaeda terrorists, and their Taliban supporters, don't use Afghanistan as a base to launch terrorist attacks worldwide. Finally, they know that both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom -- Canada's two primary partners in southern Afghanistan -- have renewed their commitments. The MPs also know that no amount of debate or consultation would have altered the votes of Bloc Quebecois and NDP members, the former having back-pedalled on their original support for the mission to distinguish themselves from the Tories, who are enjoying a surge of support in Quebec, and the latter having opted to pander to their anti-American base........

Thought this was cute, hope its okay to post some humour. Headlines from the year 2029: Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia, formerly known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language. Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock. Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped. Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage. Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the AmericanTerritory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon). Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels. France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica. Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking. George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036. Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only. 85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss. Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs. Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut. (Hmmmmmmmmm) (I nearly deleted that one ) Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals, violates their civil rights. Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches. New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036. Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts. Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines

Actually, what happened was that once again the forces of political correctness and liberal intolerance hve won out.

Yoking wishfulness to vast expenditure May 16 2006 The gun registry and the Kyoto Protocol are, at least in one respect, twins. They both illustrate the uselessness of piety pretending to be policy, of half thought mixed with full-bore emotion substituting for a rational response to a perceived public problem. -snip And then there's the gun registry. Whatever the gun registry was supposed to do, beyond raising a cloud of vague righteousness that something was being done, what has it specifically done for places like Toronto, say, with its year of the gun? Where real gun crime exists, it almost always is handguns, stolen, smuggled, and unregistered, that are causing havoc. Where's the registry in that picture? And today Sheila Fraser pounded a few dozen more 9-inch nails into the coffin of the gun registry. That other response to a problem which over the five years of its life has been an epic catalogue of unimaginable expense, was going to cost $2 million net and cost $1 billion instead. She told us of computer systems whose costs ballooned, amounts in the tens of millions not recorded, and even more damning, added that the information these wonderful systems so expensively collected can either be (a) incorrect or ( incomplete, and at a press conference that the data cannot be relied on. So it can't be relied on; its information is incomplete or incorrect, and it costs more than the tar sands. Well, not the tar sands. -snip The gun registry accomplished negatives, however, by the bucket load. A cost overrun that yet will make "Ripley's Believe It or Not", antagonized whole swatches of harmless citizens, from duck hunters to farmers, who found themselves hectored and harassed to fill in its unreliable forms, pay its useless fees, or wind up listed as criminals if they did not. -snip- Keep the gun registry? Only if they open a museum for monumental illustrations of how to waste public money. And in that museum, the registry will occupy the same place in public policy that the private sector has long ago given the Edsel. For "The National", I'm Rex Murphy. http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060517.html

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/2006/05/...ate-awards.html Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Afghan Mission Debate Awards -snip- After tabulating the results from audience phone-ins, Chuckercanuck is thrilled to announce the winners of the 2nd Monthly Afghan Mission Debate Awards for the following categories: Pee-Wee Herman Award for Most Embarassing Question Jack Layton can't support a mission extension without first knowing how the mission ties into our foreign policy. aybe you agree with the answer to that question, maybe you don't; but the answer to that question has been given ad nauseum. To pretend the answer is unknown trivializes the debate by abdicating a parliamentarians responsibility to engage fully. A slew of questions can only mask your fear of answering any yourself for so long. Anthony Robbins Award for Grossly Foolish Hyperbole Jack Layton asks if Canada is abandoning its hard-won reputation for peace-keeping in favour of war-making. Canadians, polite to the core, are much too gentle with the NDP. They play recklessly with words like war and peace, using Darfur and Afghanistan to promote an agenda full of hidden premises and ugly consequences. If Capt. Nichola Goddard died in a theatre of war, does this nomenclature diminish the nobility of her sacrifice? I think the NDP answers "yes" to that question without the foggiest clue what the word "war" means. -snip- General Santa Anna Award for Just Not Getting It Withering in their dithering, the Liberals could not commit to any position and left it to a free vote. They could easily have won the Ralph Ellison Award for Invisibility: as the former government, they authored this mission; as official opposition, they made no notable contribution to the debate. -snip- Anyway, since so many of my readers love a good conspiracy, here's the one ringing in Chuckercanuck's head: Would it be a coincidence that during the week of the AG report on the gun registry, the Liberal Party is consumed with a unilingual-witch hunt?.........

Talking about the internet, and rather than starting another thread, I'll post this excellent blog here: http://www.jacksnewswatch.info/ Canada comes first! | May 18th, 2006 In the previous post I noted two stories that are out today. Oddly enough they appeared in MacLeans, a magazine not noted for being highly friendly to those of the conservative persuasion. Both stories speak to the new political magic being wrought in Quebec by Stephen Harper and his band of “merry people” (I’m nothing if not politically correct when it comes to gender). No Brian Mulroney this guy! No glibness, no bullshit, no ”silver tongued” promises. Just pure action which drives the opposition to fits of apoplexy - “action” predicated on a belief that Quebecers are exactly like the rest of us with the small difference that they happen to think in French. A belief which assumes that Quebecers want exactly the same things that people from BC to “Newfie” want. An assumption which I have known for some time is entirely correct. Our country was based on the agreed view between the French and the English (after the battle of the Plains of Abraham) that the provinces would “do their thing” and the federal government would do “it’s thing” - never should the power of the “one” intrude upon the “other”. It was a formal settlement (many good people died to realize it) and this new country based everything that it was and “could be” upon it. -snip- Then it happened. The lies and the deceit. Along came the guy with the “rose in his teeth” - a drum banging, breast beating, thieving (he drove us so far into debt our grandkids won’t be able to pay it off - think Bob Rae ‘heavy’) “finger behind the Queen” communist oriented kind of guy - and Canada lost it’s way.’ The “Pied Piper” had arrived. What fools we were (and continue to be) as we followed the “new god” of centralization of power. Canada made over in the image of the Soviet Union (which as we all know is a false god). Canada was never ” that” - and never will be. Trudeau’s ideas were (and remain) a recipe for the formal breakup of this country, which is far to large to govern in such a manner. Two generations have fallen for the bullshit that Trudeau started but finally, after decades of lies, we have an opportunity to look at this situation again.. Harper gives all of us new hope that we can change the picture.

I agree, a male death is no less worthy than a female death. However, it happened at an opportune time for the opposition to use it to political advantage. As for the crap comment about 'war mongering Harper', I guess Martin isn't a warmonger for originally sending them in. Interesting how liberals are going to twist this and turn into a Harper problem. Also interesting is the fact that Martin was missing in action yesterday. To leave now would be cowardice in the face of international terrorism, and of course our soldiers would have died in vain.

Excellent post Argus. The liberals are quite funny, they wanted a vote, then protested when they got one - they needed 'more information'. Right - Graham and other liberals have all the informatio they need, if they didn't, then they were asleep at the switch when in power. This is strictly political games with no thought to the troops or the Afghani people. One MP actually said that the anti U.S. rhetoric helped him to vote yes. The mission there was never a peace mission, it was always to be there as part of a transition team until NATO took over. Guess Martin had to stay away as voting no would have made him a bigger hypocrite then the rest of them.

Tthe U.S. does have to secure their borders, this is interesting, worth a read. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/borderpatrol.asp 3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children. 4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents. ever, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.

This is a great article on gun controllers, or those who wan civilian disarmament. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...ay.asp?aid=7862 What Gun Controllers Don't Want You to Know Written by Howard Nemerov Friday, June 11, 2004 I used to support gun control, meaning civilian disarmament. There was no reason, the rationale went, for a private citizen to own a gun. The only ones who wanted guns had small genitalia, were paranoid crazies, and criminals. All this was assumed, without any empirical or statistical research to base it upon. Due to the influence of one of my clients who is a person of great honor, I began to research the issue of gun control on my own. Having been a college boy who loved library research, I knew how to ferret out fact from fiction. It was interesting to find that the claims of the NRA, John Lott, et al., were easy to verify from neutral or even slightly pro-gun control sources. More ominously, I found that the gun control groups consistently lied or twisted minor factoids taken out of context in their articles. This begged the question: if they are lying to advance their agenda, can we really trust the utopian outcome they promote as true? The Utopian Thesis of Gun Control The philosophy behind gun control is that by limiting access to guns, the public is made a safer place. (1,2) This is a noble undertaking, and all persons of conscience should support this. If it were proven beyond a reasonable doubt that disarming the law-abiding public would enhance public safety, save children’s lives, and enhance or preserve our civil rights, I would be in favor of gun control.

Of course it is, they receive funding from unions, including the teacher's union. At one time they were indirectly receiving gov't funds, not any more. The teacher's union had a link to rabble on their site at one time, I wrote to them and complained providing a link to threads where abuse and foul language were used. They said they would remove the link, havn't checked back lately to see if they did. I don't read all the threads on there, and have to do it before I eat, but from glancing at them lately, the language and abuse seems to have been toned down. Likely because the abusers have gone to their other strike site.

Something like that, but who says Harper wants to change that, maybe you could clairfy.

Skip the first two points and I'm in agreement, I'm certainly hoping for a majority tory gov't, and soon. I'd rather see an elected senate than appointments, but if that cannot be changed, then more conservative Senators to help balance the Senate.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3080 "Majority (54%) Feel Current Gun Registry Should Be Scrapped And Most (56%) Blame Liberal Politicians, Not Bureaucrats (37%), For Bungling. But Majority Of Canadians (67%) Also Support Idea Of Having Some Type Of Gun Registry Put In Place By Harper Government" The first part of the Ipsos poll was buried. The second part was siezed on and misquoted.

This is controversial? Frankly, if the NDP want to pick a fight over this guy, then maybe Harper should accept the challenge. I agree, maybe he should. What he said is the truth, but PC doesn't allow that, or any discussion of those problems. He would have been a valuable assett, and he was going to do it out of a sense of duty to his country - he wasn't being paid for it.