My U.S. gun surprise.

For the first time since I was a child, I took a trip down to Minot North Dakota for a weekend getaway. And to be completely honest, I was completely taken aback at how much I loved it there. Sure I expected to have a good time, but I think I expected Americans to be more... I don't know.... xenophobic maybe? But whatever I expected, I had no encounters this trip to justify anything close to what I had preconceived!

There was a point in our trip where (as an outdoor enthusiast) I went into a local sporting goods store located in the mall, where I happened to walk by the handgun section to notice 3 customers purchasing assorted handguns. I happened to overhear one customer ask what it required, and to my utter shock, the salesperson said "do you have a driver's licence? Then you're all good". The one thing I didn't see during my trip, was any sort of fear, or violence. But it made me realize how the Canadian Government has oppressed the rights of ownership for average Canadians. So needless to say I was a little frustrated with my own Country.

My frustration made me go "off book" in one of the shops we were in, where after some friendly banter between a young saleswomen and my wife and I, I broached the subject of her opinion of conceal and carrying sidearms. Being a 25 year old young lady, I naturally assumed her to be an anti-gun Liberal. Boy did she blow my socks off (funny thing about that statement, we were in a shoe store! lol)! Not only was she pro-gun, SHE had a conceal and carry licence!!! She explained that she had gotten it for protection at 18 when she left home, and then proceeded to ask me about gun laws in Canada.  I have to say I was both so embarrassed and furious at my Countries willful erosion of personal rights that it was getting hard to keep my voice moderate, but I managed to explain all the restrictions, to which she just shook her head and said it seemed "unreal".

Are we too willing up here in Canada to let our Government and it's officials run roughshod over our rights? How did we get to the point that we allow the Government and it's agencies to dictate ownership and self defense right to us? We have gone over the rails, sacrificing personal rights for the appearance of security by Government agencies.

Time to repeal the "do nothing" Gun laws (not all laws do nothing, I believe we should toughen penalties, and laws for crimes committed with a firearm, and allow self defense), to allow Canadians to be free.

A "Gun"undrum.

I've had some discussions in the past with the "anti - gun" crowd, and most of the time it boils down to 1. "why do I need a gun", or 2. "Why are you so scared you feel you have to have a gun"?

Instance number 1. is pretty simple: The desire to own a firearm doesn't have to be based on need, because in a "Free Country" we are allowed to own things that we wish to without the requirement of need.

As for number 2. the question itself is a red herring, because even if I choose to have a firearm for protection, the real fear belongs to those that think you shouldn't have the right to own one, because you owning it is terrifying and somehow untenable to them . The fear of guns is what motivates bad legislation (and bureaucratic re-classifications) which criminalize responsible gun owners. Now there may be instances where fear is a motivating factor in the purchase of a firearm, but I believe most who purchase one for personal protection look at it the same as buying insurance: you hope you never need it, but it's nice to have it if you ever do.

I've jumped through the ownership hoops, not all of which I even disagree with (ie: training, and some licencing), but it has come to the point where non legislators are literally abusing respectful, responsible gun owners with new laws that have NO AFFECT on criminals. Legislation and even worse what has been done by the RCMP to BYPASS legislators to take responsible individuals property away ARE because of fear, and an ACTUAL violation of the rights of ownership within a "Free Society". I should NOT be made a criminal because of something I own, rather than an action that hurts someone else, THAT is an abhorrent abuse of the legal system.

I leave with this thought:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994

You can find more information on Canadian rights to own and bear arms HERE.
You can also check out the Canadian National Firearms Association for more information.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should be able to tell me I can't have it.

Robocalls after the hype.

It appears today that The Chief Electoral Officer from Elections Canada has made a statement on the issue. Here is the letter from Him: CBC Chief Electoral Officers statement. 


So it turns out that crack investigative Journalists who broke this "greatest election fraud in history" story; "Robocalls probe centres on disposable 'burner' cellphone linked to black ops in Guelph riding." May have jumped the gun. 


As it turns out, The Elections Canada Chief Electoral Officer said "Immediately following the 2011 general election, the Commissioner of Canada Elections deployed resources to investigate complaints of fraudulent or improper calls. Since then, over 700 Canadians from across the country have informed us of specific circumstances where they believe similar wrongdoing took place".  This is a far cry from the media hyped number of 31000 which was solicited by The Globe and Mail, and Lead now's website.


Apparently even 700 calls is too many for some people like CBC's Kady O'Malley, but at the same time for others it is smack in the middle of the average.

H/T Stephen Taylor














I did a little quick math after this broke this afternoon, where I calculated the difference and the results.
31000 (Lead now is now claiming over 41000) - 700 = 30300 ROBOSPAM.
700 robocalls at lets say .05 cents (double the bulk as I couldn't find an actual cost, except for HERE. Racknine's site did not seem to have the available info HERE.) would run $35.  Not 3500, just THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS.  Even if it was $100 this could EASILY have been a rogue individual, who could have done it for ANY reason! As opposed to claims of the "Anonymous" source by Glen McGregor and Stephen Maher in this article; "Unlikely a Tory staffer could have acted alone in Pierre Poutine scam: source"


That's what broke today.

Democracy; What's good, is also what's bad about it.

What makes democracies so great is the ability of the will of the people to change that which is unjust. By this I mean Protests for the common good (ie: intergration.). What makes democracies bad is the perversion of protests by lobbyists and activists, who are only interested in getting their way (ie: Quebec students protest tuition increase, and Leadnow's attack to overturn a valid election.)

Taking the 2 examples I give;
1. The student's are mad that they will have to pay more for schooling. Understandable, yet at the same time the costs incurred with providing that education must be adequately covered as well. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/07/student-protest-montreal.html
2. The robocalls scandal has shown a vast separation between even the centralized Tory government and the radical nature of the Left, leading to the media acting as lobbyists/activists on their behalf.  http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/unlikely-a-tory-staffer-could-have-acted-alone-in-pierre-poutine-scam-source/

Now I'm not saying there aren't justifiable reasons to remove a Government from power, but to do so when that Government is actually accomplishing positive goals for a Country shows an ideological desire for power, rather than overall social well being and justice. I also agree that there are times, and ideas, where University students have change the course of countries with positive results. But that is less and less the case when you live in a Country like Canada, which has all the benefits it does to offer. Protests and activism have become about getting your way, not making life better for everyone.

The same thing that makes our democracy great, can be perverted to make it all about self.

How Robocalls play out in the HOC.

I was thinking about how the robocall affair has been playing out in the house of commons this morning.  I find the narrative goes something like this:

Oppositions; "AHA GOTCHA!!"
Government; "Got us doing what, when, where?"
Oppositions; "You tell us!!"
Government; "Well we know that Frank Valeriote broke Election Canada rules, and how about Adam Carroll, will the Parliamentary hearings ever get to interview him?"
Oppositions; "BUT, BUT YOU ARE EVIL CONSERVATIVES!!!

It appears though that illegal tactics are not limited to the "Evil Conservatives", as has been shown by Vikileaks, and admissions of guilt by Frank Valeriote and Bob Rae themselves about robocalls in Guelph.
Now we find out that there may be illegal activities on the part of the NDP in an ethnic riding in Toronto. The CBC tells how both Conservative and Liberal complaints have been "brushed off" by Elections Canada, who should now find themselves under investigations of impropriety. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/03/13/voting-scarborough.html?cmp=rss

H/T Stephen Taylor for coming up with what may be the source of the 31000 complaints to Elections Canada.

Here is a copy of the complete text that would be sent to (as of Mar 2, 2012):
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
William H. Corbett, Commissioner of Elections Canada
Bob Paulson, Commissioner of the RCMP
Nycole Turmel, Leader, New Democratic Party
Bob Rae, Leader, Liberal Party
Louis Plamondon, Parliamentary Leader, Bloc Québécois
Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party

" Dear Prime Minister Harper, Mr Corbett, Mr Paulson, Ms Turmel, Mr Rae, Ms. May and Mr. Plamondon,

I am gravely concerned by the Elections Canada report that has just traced illegal phone calls made during the 2011 federal election to a company that worked for the Conservative Party across the country.

The “robocalls” were apparently designed to stop non-Conservative voters from casting ballots in key ridings by falsely telling voters that the location of their polling stations had changed, causing them to go to the wrong location on election day.

This news casts doubt on the legitimacy of our Government. We need answers now, and real consequences for illegal behaviour that may have determined the outcome of our election.

I demand a full and independent public inquiry, backed by Elections Canada and the RCMP, to expose the facts about the robocall scandal and ensure that the penalty for this election fraud matches the consequences of the crime - including new elections.

We cannot allow individuals to be scapegoated for actions that benefit institutions. We need to lay the foundation for new laws to restore the integrity of Canadian elections."
Found at Lead Now.

Once again I'll say it looks like this is a ploy by the disgruntled opposition parties to try and gain a "Mulligan" (do over) because they just can't stand the thought of a Conservative Government.

Robocalls part ?

As the robocalls "scandal" continues, I decided to add my 2 "non-cents" to the mix. Now although I did receive robocalls during the 2011 Federal election, I have no recollection of what was said, as I'm sure most of the 31000 new complaints don't.  But I sent an obviously phoney complaint to the "paper" soliciting them, in attempt to show them the ridiculous effort they are attempting.

I also noticed the way this "paper" is leading people to submit these complaints quickly, or the nasty Conservatives will "get away with it".

With such an obvious Left bias, I have a hard time calling this anything close to "news".  The Globe and Mail called me soliciting a subscription just a few days ago, and ovbiously my response was "Not friggin likely!"

Touching on some fudged numbers.

I'm going to start by addressing the first issue, which is the right to vote. If you don't exercise that right, then by default you have decided to accept the will of those who do vote, and therefore you are no longer counted in the final decision. I happened to be directed to the Marxist Leninist Party, which was complaining how the Conservatives didn't get a majority of votes.
Some of their numbers went like this;

Voter turn-out of 14,720,580 out of 23,971,740 registered electors or 61.4%

Harper's Conservatives received 5,832,401 votes, representing 24.3% of the eligible voters

Voters who cast their ballots for candidates other than those of the Conservative Party totaled 8,888,179, representing 60.4%

(emphasis mine)

The 2011 election was riddled with cries of how this from basically all opposition parties, who seem to have forgotten what kind of democracy we live in. This is easily explained away: It's called the “First past the post” system. This means that with more than 2 parties running (and sometimes there can be a number of fringe parties that run in Canada), the winner of the most votes OUT OF ALL OF THEM is considered the winner.

If we WERE to have a 2 party system, as it stands right now there would be no Liberal Party, Bloc or Green party in the House of Commons. And in this scenario the total number of voters that voted “anything but Conservative” would actually have a majority Government in Canada. These facts are sadly negligent in arguments from other parties who would rather not see the Conservative's take their rightful place as a Majority Government in the House of Commons.

On to the fraud perpetrated by these particular numbers.

1. If you notice they are counting all voters in the equation, in effort to dilute the percentage of the number of votes received by the Conservative Party.
2. They also inflate the number of those who voted against the Conservative's by clumping votes for ALL the rest of the parties together as if they were a single unit.

It's time for the losing parties to accept the democracy we live in has chosen a Conservative Majority, much like in the past they have chosen other parties in the exact same way.

The future holds 20/20 vision of the past.

I heard it said that History will have 20/20 vision on actions of the past, and this is obviously true. But what will they be saying about the actions we take now? Will they look back and say “Now that person stood for morality and did what was right even in the face of public pressures!”? Or maybe they would even say “Wow that was some pretty bad legislation, just look at the problems it caused for so many of us as we grew up!”?

Now obviously I’m talking about the whole gay marriage agenda here; because I see a future where our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of weak and immoral men (and women), and their self serving legislation. Men and women, who would rather be seen more tolerant than moral, people catering to public whim instead of reasonable values. The unfortunate rub to the situation is that the general populous is exactly the same way, and that is why these tolerant and immoral people retain a place in government.

So the real question is this; are we considering the future ramifications of the legislation we put into law, and are we looking at what future generations will think of this “liberal ideology”? Remember, these future generations will have to live (and when they look back will have lived with) the consequences of the actions we perform today. I foresee these future generations looking back and seeing a society more interested in themselves, than in the children they were responsible for.

What will your legacy be, tolerance or morality?

The most vulnerable in society.

My latest letter to the members of the House of Commons about the truly most vulnerable people in society:


"Dear Members of Parliament,

I would like to address a fallacy being raised in the House of late by the Liberal party concerning the “most vulnerable in society”.

First I must say that while illiteracy is unfortunate, and requires assistance for it is prevention and correction, it does not make someone the most vulnerable of society. Although illiteracy can be a cause of emotional pain for someone unable to read, their simple embarrassment cannot compare to the plight of those that are truly the most vulnerable in society.

The truth is that the most vulnerable in society are children, especially the unborn child who, since the commonplace acceptance of abortion, are subject to the mother’s whim whether it lives or dies. These are the most vulnerable of society, and although I feel sad for those that cannot read or write, I feel heartbroken for the children that were murdered before they even had a chance to live.

It disturbs me how the Liberal party has devalued human life and overvalued illiteracy by confusing the true meaning of being vulnerable. Those in society that are illiterate are fully capable of finding assistance to correct their deficiency, but who does the unborn child turn to when the government they live under doesn’t consider them important or worthy of protection? This is an area that government has failed the truly most vulnerable in society.

Is the murder of innocents justified simply because it is condoned by the government? What about the slaughter of Jews in Germany and Poland? Was that acceptable because the prevailing government believed it to be so, or was it morally wrong no matter what the government at the time believed? We’ve taken away the death penalty for those that deserve to die, and imposed that penalty on a class of people that are completely vulnerable and innocent. Why? We kill children now because they are inconvenient. How selfish our society has become.

It’s up to you all, whether you are a member of the governing party or not, to stand up for all of society. It’s time to change the “Honourable” title given you into something you deserve through your actions. A strong person stands up for themselves; a stronger person stands up for others."

Bob

Liberals continue on like pit bulls

After several days (I believe it is day 5 of the alleged "dog" comment), the Liberals are still pushing for an apology to something they think they heard that might have been inappropriate.

(Boy is that warped, how about some apologies for the income trust scandal, or the adscam boondogle. I think the Liberals should either put up or shut up personally.)

But opinion being set aside we need to understand that human nature is to change memories to suit the desires of the individual: when you take into account the only Liberal desire is to be in power, we should understand where their "facts" are coming from. The Speaker of the House has reviewed this matter twice now, The first time with the official Hansard reports, and the second with video of the period in question. In both of these incidents there was no conclusive evidence that Peter Mackay made any remarks about Stronach being a dog.

So where does that leave us? First off remember that we are dealing with politicians here, and although I have far more respect for the Conservative party than I ever will for the Liberals, I am honest enough with myself to understand that they all play the political games. If it was said it was said, Stronach should deal with it like the man she wants to be (but then Mackay should also apologize). If it wasn't said, are the Liberals willing to apologize for their aggressive attack on Peter Mackay? Further still are the Liberals willing to apologize for recorded comments that were inappropriate? Either way they all need to start living up to the "Honourable" title that precedes there names, it’s not just for show but can actually be a standard for even political lives.

It should by now be pretty obvious to most people that this is political wrangling to try and foster support for the ailing party. I’ve said it before; the Liberals are unscrupulous power mad politicians that will do anything to regain their communistic dominance over Canadians.

Bob

Feminism, sexism and equality don't mix.

First I'm going to start by bluntly saying, if women want to be treated like men they had better forget about “sexist” comments. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be treated like a man, you need to suck it up and take slurs like one. Let’s face facts, what you're really after is an elite status and not equality! There is absolutely no way that you can say on one hand that you want to be treated as equal to men and on the other hand say that you can’t take a comment like a man.

Equality means that you will be treated exactly like men (if that’s your wish) physically, emotionally and verbally. HOWEVER that isn’t what feminazi’s want. What they are after is to be treated like women when it suits them and treated like men when it might benefit them. Well you can’t have it both ways, you either deal with manly things in a manly way or else you get treated like a woman. It’s your choice, but let’s have the lines clearly drawn.

Oh by the way Belinda, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…… I’ve made my feelings well known about Belinda’s immoral actions, and the sheer audacity she has that makes her think she deserves an apology is unbelievable. Has she apologized to Tie Domi’s wife? Whether she believes that she was the issue or not, Leanne Domi obviously sees her as a major contributor to the marital collapse, and that is enough to warrant an apology.

Has she apologized to the Conservative constituents she betrayed by her defection?

Demanding an apology in this situation is just another cheap politically motivated tactic to bolster support of a corrupt and immoral Liberal party. It’s time for the women out there that are supporting her to use their own minds and see this for what it is, instead of being pawns in a political chess game. (For those feminists out there I’ll say it like I would to a guy, get your heads out of your butts and wake up, you boneheads.)

Bob

Judy Sgro, are you deaf and blind?

Yet another Liberal MP came out today to tell us how the PM is using smear campaigns...... WHAT????? I guess it's not liberal policy to watch their own speeches or campaign techniques! If only the Liberals would stop being such hypocrites and start taking responsibility for their own mistakes!

“It is better to have people assume you’re an idiot, rather than open your mouth and prove them right”, this would be a good ideology for the Liberal party to adopt.

Bob

Ignatieff, showing true liberalism.

New possible leader of the liberal party, but the same lack of accountability being shown.

Instead of apologizing for singling out Israel in his allegation of war crimes, front runner for the Liberal leadership Michael Ignatieff decided to take the same old Liberal stance and attack the Conservatives for pointing out his egregious error. It seems that this is modus operandi for Liberals, and since it's worked before, they'll stick to it.

So why didn't he apologize for accusing Israel of war crimes? (Whether or not he now says that both sides committed these crimes, he needs to apologize for singling out one side only.) It goes to show that Liberals speak first and attack the Conservatives later to cover their blunders. Ignatieff even went so far as to accuse the Prime Minister of being power hungry (paraphrased), but looking at Liberal history of doing anything to stay in power this is the pot calling the kettle black!

If there was any irresponsibility in what was said, it falls directly on Michael Ignatieff. Alternately it was very responsible of the Prime Minister to admonish the Liberal hopeful for his obviously one sided view.

Bob

Hey Belinda, truth can NOT be opinion!!!

Background for the title; Belinda Stronach has neglected to either deny or confirm allegations of an adulterous relationship by telling the Toronto Sun "There's been a lot written about me, and I'm not going to comment on those allegations -- whether they're true, they're false or they're somebody's opinion,".

Well Belinda lets look at this logically, if you did have the affair it is true and therefore fact NOT opinion. If you did not have the affair the allegation is then false, also a fact, and therefore again NOT opinion. There is no way that these allegations could be opinion as they are either true or not true and in no way subjective which would make them opinion, so this is obviously a ruse to confuse those out there watching. See where I’m going with this? The most simply conclusion to the reason she would give such a lame excuse is blatantly obvious.

And then we move on to the current leader of the liberal party who said "Canadians are well beyond such judgments. I think Canadians have come to a point in our national life where we recognize that private lives of people are private lives. Unless it impinges on their public duties, it is not relevant to Canadians." What a load of Liberal manure.

Umm excuse me, but moral character SHOULD be important to Canadians, and we NEED to judge the people running our Country by their actions! If you want your private life kept private, become a private citizen. If you want to be in the public spotlight you have to take the good with the bad. The reactions to allegations like this is a good way to judge the character of the person, and when Belinda has taken extreme steps not to deny it you know where her values are. (Not that we didn’t already know she was pro-abortion and anti-family, but this scandal really proves she has true Liberal values.)

Bob

Pro choice, what does it mean?

This is going to be a short post, but hopefully it will make my point. Simply put Pro-choice is Pro-abortion, and pro-abortion is pro-murder.

On the appointment of a more conventional right wing Supreme Court Judge, this is a quote from pro Pro-abortion group who condemned the appointment because of his more "Christian" morals. Carolyn Egan from the abortion rights coalition said, "From what we understand, he [Judge Brown] holds these views himself. I think people should be aware of the views he has and how they could potentially impact on future decisions."

I have to ask about these "future decisions"; if it is wrong to murder your neighbor or even someone who performs abortions, why is it acceptable to murder the most innocent and helpless of us all? Murder is murder, no matter what nomenclature you put it under. So is there really any decision?

It's time for a return to values that protect the innocent and helpless, and not those based in self importance of self gratification.

Justice Brown, congratulations! (It's about time!)

Bob