Harper hits out from the gutter

[hiti]

Harper called hypocrite over usage of jets

PM once accused Liberals of overusing Challengers, but used one to fly to hockey game

Last Updated: Thursday, March 1, 2007 | 12:49 AM ET

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been flying in military jets to Conservative events and even a hockey game — despite having once railed against their use by the previous Liberal government.

Invoices obtained by the Canadian Press show Harper flew Challenger executive jets three times in 2006 — and the Conservatives only fully reimbursed the military for one of the flights, which are estimated to cost more than $2,000 per hour.

Other prime ministers — like Conservative Brian Mulroney and Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin — took Challenger jets to government events and to events on behalf of their respective political parties.

However, opposition politicians were quick to accuse Harper of being a hypocrite on Wednesday, recalling his past comments such as a 2005 jab at Martin and his Liberal government.

"As they pad their expense account and look out the windows of their $11,000 per hour Challenger jet flights to B.C., they think that everything is going pretty well," Harper then said. "They just don't get what real life is like for ordinary Canadians."

According to invoices obtained through the Access to Information Act, Harper and six staff members used a military jet to fly from Ottawa to Moncton, N.B., for a Conservative event on July 26.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/28/jet-harper.html

Steve just has no shame.

[hiti]

CanWest News Service; Vancouver Sun

Published: Wednesday, February 28, 2007

OTTAWA - The Conservative government said Tuesday it takes "very seriously" and is investigating allegations from one of its own MPs that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is breaking the law to fund scientific research.

In a letter delivered to Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn last week, B.C. Tory MP John Cummins claimed the government is refusing to abide by a Federal Court of Appeal decision last year ordering the government to end its practice of using proceeds of industry fish sales to fund research.

Cummins, recently booted off the House of Commons fisheries committee because of his opposition to government policy, said DFO may in fact have committed a criminal act.

Hearn wouldn't comment Tuesday on the substance of the allegations.

http://tinyurl.com/3yn97t

Looks like John Cummins will be joining Garth Turner with Steve's boot print on his backside.

Good excuse for Steve to lose a vote and call an election. He'll be 1 vote short of winning a vote.

[Catchme]

Well, well, well, looks like there is going to be legal action taken against the apologist for the CPC, for more of the typical lies we see coming from them each and every day now.

MP threatens legal action

John Stewart

Feb 28, 2007

Mississauga-Erindale MP Omar Alghabra says he's considering suing a columnist in The National Post who wrote that the MP "stood by mute" when anti-semitic literature attacking Arlene Perly Rae was distributed at the Liberal leadership convention.

Alghabra said that when he saw an e-mail warning delegates that Rae, the wife of leadership candidate Bob Rae, was a member of a Jewish advocacy group, he immediately called the Canadian Jewish Congress to object to the material.

The MP said he criticized the attacks on Rae in an interview with the Canadian Jewish News and later received an unsolicited letter from Canadian Jewish Congress thanking him for his "vigorous condemnation of the anti-semitic attacks against Bob and Arlene Perley Rae."

Alghabra has bemoaned the mud-slinging that has surrounded the debate over the extension of the anti-terrorist provisions, which he and Mississauga's other Liberal MPs opposed last night.

"This is ridiculous," Alghabra said of the personal attacks. "The whole thing, I think, stinks. Over the last week or so, there has been a smear campaign against us (the Liberals). This is really, really reducing politics to the lowest form of nasty allegations that are intended to damage credibility."

http://www.mississauganews.com/mi/news/sto...p-4504741c.html

[Catchme]

Hitler killed his 10's of millions and Stalin his 20's. But how did they get in such complete power. It was by controlling all aspects of government. Does it not seem to you that it probably started with breaking traditions such as setting up an attack on an elected official with information that is questionable at the least.

Firing people on committees who do not do as they are told is a good start to control isn't it.

It is a usenet axium that as soon as someone mention's Hitler you know there won't be any intelligent thought in the conversation so you should just deep six them then and there. That's certainly true in this case.

How about you tell Condi, Cheney and Rumsfeld about the usenet axiom?

"…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

And, please, Madame Secretary, if you are going to make that most implausible, subjective, dubious, ridiculous comparison…If you want to be as far off the mark about the Second World War as, say, the pathetic Holocaust-denier from Iran, Ahmadinejad…

At least get the easily verifiable facts right — the facts whose home through history lie in your own department. "The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?

On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice — and ninety minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the Chief of the Department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier and the Germans simply piled on.

Your predecessors, Dr. Rice, didn't spend a year making up phony evidence and mistaking German balloon-inflating trucks for mobile germ warfare labs.They didn't pretend the world was ending because a tin-pot tyrant couldn't hand over the chemical weapons, it turned out he'd destroyed a decade earlier.

The Germans walked up to the front door of our State Department and said "we're at war." It was in all the papers!

And when that war ended, more than three horrible years later, our troops, and the Russians, were in Berlin. And we stayed, as an occupying force, well in the 1950's. As an occupying force, Madam Secretary!

If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany, to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy.

We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq.

"It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." We already have a subjectively false comparison between Hitler and Saddam.

We already have a historically false comparison between Germany and Iraq.

We already have blissful ignorance by our Secretary of State about how this country got into the war against Hitler.

But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq, that it would be as ridiculous in the Secretary's eyes, as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."

Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do!

We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/26/s...facts-straight/

And the false compares they were speaking of in regards to Hitler and Iraq:

Secretary Rumsfeld thought he could equate those who doubted him, with Nazi appeasers, without reminding anybody that the actual, historical Nazi appeasers in this country in the 1930's, were the Republicans.

Vice President Cheney thought he could talk as if he and he alone knew the 'truth' about Iraq and 9/11, without anyone ever noticing that even the rest of the Administration officially disagreed with him.

[geoffrey]

Looks like John Cummins will be joining Garth Turner with Steve's boot print on his backside.

Good excuse for Steve to lose a vote and call an election. He'll be 1 vote short of winning a vote.

You just don't get it. Parties put members on committees to represent the views of the parties. If you don't agree with the party, your not going to take up their valuable seat on the committee. What is so freaking hard to grasp about that? You don't have your protest members on committee.

The government is investigating this matter anyways... non-issue.

[Catchme]

Looks like John Cummins will be joining Garth Turner with Steve's boot print on his backside.

Good excuse for Steve to lose a vote and call an election. He'll be 1 vote short of winning a vote.

You just don't get it. Parties put members on committees to represent the views of the parties. If you don't agree with the party, your not going to take up their valuable seat on the committee. What is so freaking hard to grasp about that? You don't have your protest members on committee.

The government is investigating this matter anyways... non-issue.

No actually, you do not get it geofery the MP are supposed be there representing Canadians not party views and they are supposed to be dealing in truth not lies and definitely NOT breaking the laws of the land and ignoring court rulings.

From Hitis link:

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision last year involving New Brunswick crab fisherman Jean-Victor Larocque, ordered DFO to stop paying for research with fish. Larocque's lawyer argued Ottawa had no right to use part of his quota for government purposes. The court agreed, accusing the government of "misappropriating" resources, and the decision wasn't appealed.

The federal government, according to its own estimates provided to MPs late last year, would have to come up with an additional $23 million to cover the cost of stock assessment programs now funded by industry using proceeds from fish sales.

Cummins accused the government of effectively ignoring the ruling by pressuring fishermen to give up a share of their profits to fund government research.

"I ask that your department end its illegal and unseemly activities and that adequate funds are made available to finance the science necessary to effectively manage the fishery," he wrote.

It goes to show that some, well 1 CPC MP, actually have their priorities right. and a couple of old PC senators.

Moreover excusing this, is sheer blind partisanship, and if it was the Liberals doing this the CPC and their apologists would be screaming from the roof tops.

[geoffrey]

No actually, you do not get it geofery the MP are supposed be there representing Canadians not party views and they are supposed to be dealing in truth not lies and definitely NOT breaking the laws of the land and ignoring court rulings.

In some ideal land of rainbows and unicorns, your right, they should be representing all Canadians equally.

But in the inherently partisan system Westminster parliament gives us, each party has to represent their views on committe. If your MP's are representing your views, especially the views of the government, that's a big problem.

Having no government voice on a committee is an issue, no?

[Catchme]

No actually, you do not get it geofery the MP are supposed be there representing Canadians not party views and they are supposed to be dealing in truth not lies and definitely NOT breaking the laws of the land and ignoring court rulings.

In some ideal land of rainbows and unicorns, your right, they should be representing all Canadians equally.

But in the inherently partisan system Westminster parliament gives us, each party has to represent their views on committe. If your MP's are representing your views, especially the views of the government, that's a big problem.

Having no government voice on a committee is an issue, no?

It is not an either or situation geoffery, and again you are being extremely partisan if this was the Liberal government ignoring a court order you would be screaming.

And it is not too much to expect our elected offical to respresent us, and suggesting that I live in a fanatsy world for expecting them to do so, it quite the comment. Suggesting that it is okay they do not, and that it is okay that their there to be completely supporting their own agenda even if they are committing treason and breaking the law, is also quite the statement. It is actually advocating a dictatorship.

Why then was everyone furious with the Liberals for ad scam?

[geoffrey]

So your ok with the government having no representation of it's policy in a committee. Can I ask, what the hell is the point of the committee then? They are to debate the direction and specifics of government legislation. If no one on the committee is in favour of the legislation, this would be a problem.

This is also ignoring the last 140 years of tradition on doing this exact thing.

Which court order is being ignored??? I'm so confused by all these claims of illegality and the such.

Why then was everyone furious with the Liberals for ad scam?

Uhhh, because they broke the law and stole our money to finance their election in Quebec... never revealing to us who was elected on the use of stolen money.

[Argus]

What a big, heaping, noxious load of paranoid drivel. What utter crap. This from a diehard supporter of the Liberals! Jean Chretien spent year after year gathering more and more power to he and the unelected people in the PMO, and everyone knew it, and you didn't complain. You just went back to eagerly vote for him year after year. Paul Martin was even more of a control freak, and gathered even more power, and neither of them was the least bit tolerant of anyone in the party who dared to oppose them in the least way. And that didn't bother you a damned either. He gathered such control of the RCMP that he was able to send RCMP officers after Francois Beaudoin to harrass and intimidate him and try to get him arrested - because Beaudoin exposed Chretien's theft of tens of thousands of dollars from the Business Development Bank. And that didn't bother you at all either.

It is a usenet axium that as soon as someone mention's Hitler you know there won't be any intelligent thought in the conversation so you should just deep six them then and there. That's certainly true in this case.

Whether you people want to ignore it or not but the Bush family did back Hitler and we know that Harper backs Bush, it seems as if the American people have come to their senses, I hope the Canadians do to.

And what in God's name does the history of Bush's ancestors have to do with Stephen Harper and Garth Turner? Sometimes I think the anti-Harperites here are so utterly frenzied and fanatic they'll do absolutely anything to weirdly interpret absolutely anything into some kind of deep, dark, paranoid condemnation of him. I can see them banging away at their keyboards, spittle hitting the screen, eyes bulging out, hair standing on end. Sheesh. Get a life. He's a fairly moderate, slightly right of centre politicians.

[Catchme]

Never said a word about not having committee members at all/

Obviously the CPC MP who spoke out about the CPC governemnt committing illegal actions in the Dept of Fisheries and Oceans had issues with his parties policies. As he called them on it, as was linked to prior. and he was removed from the committee for being honest, go figure, eh/!

[Argus]

Harper called hypocrite over usage of jets

PM once accused Liberals of overusing Challengers, but used one to fly to hockey game

Last Updated: Thursday, March 1, 2007 | 12:49 AM ET

CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been flying in military jets to Conservative events and even a hockey game — despite having once railed against their use by the previous Liberal government.

Invoices obtained by the Canadian Press show Harper flew Challenger executive jets three times in 2006 — and the Conservatives only fully reimbursed the military for one of the flights, which are estimated to cost more than $2,000 per hour.

Other prime ministers — like Conservative Brian Mulroney and Liberals Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin — took Challenger jets to government events and to events on behalf of their respective political parties.

However, opposition politicians were quick to accuse Harper of being a hypocrite on Wednesday, recalling his past comments such as a 2005 jab at Martin and his Liberal government.

"As they pad their expense account and look out the windows of their $11,000 per hour Challenger jet flights to B.C., they think that everything is going pretty well," Harper then said. "They just don't get what real life is like for ordinary Canadians."

According to invoices obtained through the Access to Information Act, Harper and six staff members used a military jet to fly from Ottawa to Moncton, N.B., for a Conservative event on July 26.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/28/jet-harper.html

Steve just has no shame.

If that were true he'd be on this site supporting the Liberals and snivelling about every little thing any Conservative does while sobbing and dreaming of the old days - when it was his party doing it, and doing much, much, much more of it too.

[Catchme]

When you take conservatism to the extreme right you end up with fascism. And while Harper isn't a fascist, he could lead there if he is not stopped in his tracks by more moderate conservatives.

You do not know for sure that he isn't, if he could lead there what does that say.

With the Reform/Alliance/PC/CPC ties to neo-nazi Paul Fromm and Zundel,

as astated and shown:

There has been plenty of evidence posted here connecting the CPC and Paul Fromm and even to Zundel and it was not just a stated connection, it was physical placement. Both in this link and this one:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....5&gopid=190596&

Then we have this:

In Canada, the handful of elites who have succeeded in acquiring ownership to Canada's mass-media, and who are linked to the Stephen Harper government, and political elites from other political parties, have seen fit to put a "media block-out". An elite clique has placed an apparent "media block-out" on raising public awareness in Canada, on the "North American Union" (NAU) agenda. The Lou Dobbs presentation has provided the kind of critical exposure of the NAU, which has so far been sabotaged by mass-media elites in Canada, that are linked to NAU advocates in Canada. Silence on the NAU agenda in Canada, stands out as nothing short of the greatest political scandal and conspiracy in Canadian history, and is tantamount to high treason, as defined by Canadian constitutional law.

http://www.bcpolitics.ca/left_spp.htm

They can consistently deny their real agenda, and true actions all they want but it does not make so. There is way too much evidence to the contrary.

[scribblet]

With the Reform/Alliance/PC/CPC ties to neo-nazi Paul Fromm and Zundel,

as astated and shown:

Not true, as stated and as shown

[Shakeyhands]

Uhhh, because they broke the law and stole our money to finance their election in Quebec... never revealing to us who was elected on the use of stolen money.

Ohhhh the Liberal party was found responsible?

[Argus]

Uhhh, because they broke the law and stole our money to finance their election in Quebec... never revealing to us who was elected on the use of stolen money.

Ohhhh the Liberal party was found responsible?

Yes. By the people of Canada.

[Catchme]

With the Reform/Alliance/PC/CPC ties to neo-nazi Paul Fromm and Zundel,

as astated and shown:

Not true, as stated and as shown

Absolutely true as stated and shown here and at the link here contains:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8153&st=75

[scribblet]

I admit I don't read many of your posts at all, but went through that page and saw nothing proving anything.

[Argus]

I admit I don't read many of your posts at all,

And why would anyone, save for the amusement value.

[hiti]

Why then was everyone furious with the Liberals for ad scam?

Uhhh, because they broke the law and stole our money to finance their election in Quebec... never revealing to us who was elected on the use of stolen money.

All those who broke the law have been charged, brought to court and judgment rendered by the legal system. They are in jail, bub and Liberals across Canada are not guilty for the sins of a few. A few who were devoted Torys when Mulroney was in power.

How the h*ll do you think the the former Tory Chuck Guite learned how to skim $$$ off the top except under the tutelage of Lyin Brian?

Speaking of brown envelopes....... what did Brian do with the ones he received for Airbus? And was this the only time? Steve shut down any more probing into these affairs.

[hiti]

More of Steve's lies. His mama must be so proud.

PM's allegation riles Liberals

Goodale livid over patronage charge made against MPs

Mar 02, 2007 04:30 AM

Susan Delacourt

Ottawa Bureau Chief

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared to take some liberty with facts yesterday to allege patronage charges against two Liberal women MPs from Montreal.

In what Liberals are describing as an "un-prime-ministerial" pattern emerging in the heat of partisan debate, Harper accused MP Marlene Jennings of putting her spouse on the Immigration and Refugee Board and alleged that Lucienne Robillard, a former immigration minister, had installed her ex-spouse on the same body.

"We are putting in place a new selection system so we do not have what we had before – like the member for Westmount-Ville-Marie (Robillard) appointing her former husband as a member of the board, like the husband of the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine (Jennings) as a member of the board," Harper said. He repeated the allegation in French, accusing Jennings, too, of making the appointment.

If either were true, it would represent a serious ethics breach, especially on Robillard's part, since she was the minister responsible for the board.

In fact, Robillard's ex-husband, Jacques Lasalle, was appointed to the board in 1990 when Brian Mulroney was prime minister, and Jennings' husband, Luciano del Negro, joined the board in 1996, before his wife was first elected to the Commons in 1997.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/187460

[scribblet]

How the h*ll do you think the the former Tory Chuck Guite learned how to skim $$$ off the top except under the tutelage of Lyin Brian?

Speaking of brown envelopes....... what did Brian do with the ones he received for Airbus? And was this the only time? Steve shut down any more probing into these affairs.

Chuck Guite was nothing but a minor civil servant during Mulroney's time just more hyperbole - and Mulroney has been cleared - but of course you know that

[hiti]

How the h*ll do you think the the former Tory Chuck Guite learned how to skim $$$ off the top except under the tutelage of Lyin Brian?

Speaking of brown envelopes....... what did Brian do with the ones he received for Airbus? And was this the only time? Steve shut down any more probing into these affairs.

Chuck Guite was nothing but a minor civil servant during Mulroney's time just more hyperbole - and Mulroney has been cleared - but of course you know that

He has been cleared? More like a coverup and you know that.

Tory Guite was put in charge of the ad program cause that is what he did for Lyin Brian.

[scribblet]

He has been cleared? More like a coverup and you know that.

Tory Guite was put in charge of the ad program cause that is what he did for Lyin Brian.

All sources I've seen say he's been cleared - who's Tory Guite ?