"Iffy's" Statement released for the press March 26-2011

(My comments will be bold/Italic, and fittingly in blue below.   Bob.)

Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: The rules of our democracy

POSTED ON MARCH 26, 2011

This election is not just an exercise in democracy, it’s about democracy.  So as we begin the campaign, let’s be clear about the rules. (Just announcing "let me make myself perfectly clear" doesn't actually do anything  if you are not going to explain yourself properly, which even the biased MSM has picked up on.)

Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.  (This seems to be in direct conflict of the signed agreement of the Coalition, where the NDP were offered cabinet positions, and the Bloc could pillage the Nation as they held unprecedented power in Government.)

If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament.   If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.  That is our Constitution.  It is the law of the land. (Pounding in the legitimacy of the coalition attempt previously, and at the same time leaving the door open by saying "Well we said they could do it, so why can't we?)

If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

• We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election.  What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.
• We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition. (Was I the only one who saw good bills go down in flames, simply because the Liberals preferred an election over working with other parties?)
• We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties.   In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option.  However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function. (where was this belief when the coalition tried to take over Parliament?)
• We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. (We? Who exactly? It can be easily said that Iggy unilaterally decided this, and the rest of the party is not bound by it. Names, please, who all agreed to this?  I would like it in writing too. )
• If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did:  to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum.  These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan.  With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.  (This inflated talk is exactly contrary to what we've seen of the Liberals, and is pure bull manure.)

That is my position.  Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:

• Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system? (Iggy's thinking "So in case I choose to form a coalition anyway he can't argue it's illegitimate or not right somehow.")
• Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false? (How do you call someone a liar that is pointing out historical fact, and making valid  projections of possible impending events?)
• Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?  (Well the letter is out there for everyone to see, as is the Liberal coalition signed document. It was clear to me which of the 2 was more damning.)
• Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons? (I actually find this statement particularly egregious, because the charge of contempt was laid at the feet of the opposition parties, which all chomp at the bit for anything to use against their opponent.)
  

Bob

Iggy "makes it perfectly clear".

After all the blustering, scrambling, and double talk, Michael Ignatieff sent out a press report saying that he would not look to form a coalition. (National post article here) (Liberal Press release here). However it still came across as pretty weak and "ambiguous".

At this point a couple of things do remain very clear;
1. Iggy is just starting to realize that he can basically say anything in a campaign (especially so far behind already), as there is no legal ramifications that would force him to fulfill those promises.
2. He was trying to leave the coalition door open. And technically it still is, because his inevitable replacement has made no such commitment/promise.
3. Both minor parties will gladly jump at the chance to "be in Government", because without a Coalition they are limited to being "fringe" parties, with no real chance to Govern alone.

It would be a grave mistake for voters to believe that a Coalition is dead, and for separatists to hold that much power over OUR Country is abhorrent!

Bob

And the rhetoric begins.

I had an interesting conversation with a Liberal that told me I was "railing" at the coalition (two posts ago).  And as much as I was accused of spouting Conservative rhetoric, he spouted Liberal rhetoric even faster.  However I don't think it turned out the way he wanted, because as usual when Liberals start to lose they turn to name calling and slurs just as this poor fellow did.

One of his main argument was that 60% (nicely fudged round up, it's actually 53%) of Canadians didn't vote for Conservative. And even while it's true that a majority of Canadians at 53% DID NOT vote Conservative, in the same respect let's look at the numbers that didn't vote for the other parties.

March 2011 House at dissolution

1. 75% of Canadians DID NOT vote LIBERAL.
2. 89% of Canadians DID NOT vote NDP.
3. 85% of Canadians DID NOT vote Bloc.
4. 100% of Canadians DID NOT vote COALITION!

So by the same equation he use to defend the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, it actually works out worse for the Opposition parties.  But for Canadians in general it's more about tradition than the "legality" of a "Coalition", where traditionally we expect that the winner of the most seats in the House of Commons will be the party that Governs.

As I maintained throughout. if "The Coalition" wants to prove that they have 60% of Canadians support, let them run together under a Coalition Banner and prove that they can make a legitimate Government.

Bob

A letter to the Governor General Sept 2004.

Here is the text from the Letter sent to the Governor General by the leaders of the Opposition parties in 2004.  I'm betting it looks a lot different without any biased media spin on it, which is why you will not find my opinion on it posted here at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob

Could be a fun election on twitter.

I'm a social media type guy, and I post and retweet things on Twitter.  Today I posted a quote from an article (with the link), and a lefty posts to me that I "rails agains a coalition when the CPoC is a coalition of the PCs and Reform formed upon McKay's broken promises. Hypocrites".

I find this funny for 2 reasons;

1. I wasn't railing, just pointing followers to an article (not that I don't or won't rail about the "coalition monkey", but in this instance I wasn't)

2. The reform/PCoC are now one party, and if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc wish to be a coalition then run as such (after all they already have the name "Coalition Monkey Party"), I have no problem with them forming the Government if they win!

Check out the twitter feed.

Kind of funny if you ask me. ;-) 

Bob

Iggy's Regime change ideas.

If the Conservatives happen to only get another Minority Government, you can pretty much guarantee the revival of "The Coalition".  Michael Ignatieff said as much by his blatant avoidance of the question from the media, and his sudden exit (he "fled") from the scrum. The full article HERE.

But he is determined on twitter to follow through. Check it out.

This is definitely his prerogative, but what was the straw that broke the camels back after a year of redrawing his line in the sand? The Harper Government finally had a semi-credible scandal involving possible influence peddling.  But what did the PM do? He called the police on the party alleged of it! Scandal dead.

Bob

"The most vulnerable in society".

One thing that really ticks me off is how Liberals are always INAPPROPRIATELY throwing out the phrase "the most vulnerable in society" for every group they think is not being adequately represented. (Scott Brison & John Mccallum, 10:30 & 10:40am March 24/2011 in the House debate of the budget.)

STOP THIS, IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!!  THE POOR ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! ABORIGINALS ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! UNBORN CHILDREN ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE!

There is one group that are the most vulnerable in society, and that group is under attack thanks to Liberal values of ABORTION!  If the Liberals had any concern for the TRULY most vulnerable in society, ABORTION WOULD BE ILLEGAL! MURDER IS MURDER, NOT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!

There is NO OTHER HUMAN CONDITION that puts us AT THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL MERCY OF ANOTHER!

How Moronic.

Bob

Here's a kicker when the Opposition parties Say "There is no Coalition" or don't talk about it.

CBC has an article that was updated Dec 1st, 2008, which gives the outline of what and why with the Coalition deal. When looking at the "Details" you find that the Coalition is technically still in place, at least within the Liberals and the NDP.  FULL ARTICLE HERE.

The excerpt on the right hand side of the page, just below the picture of the document you will find;
"Details of the deal

The proposed coalition government includes:

• 24 members of cabinet and Dion as prime minister
• 18 Liberal cabinet ministers (including a yet-to-be-named Liberal finance minister)
• 6 NDP cabinet ministers
• 6 NDP parliamentary secretaries
• The 2 caucuses would sit side by side in the House of Commons
• The agreement between the NDP and Liberals would expire on June 30, 2011, unless renewed. The Bloc is only committed to 18 months."

So make note, when you vote Liberal or NDP, you WILL BE voting for "The Coalition!"

Thanks to Joanne at Blue Like You for pointing this out on Twitter.

Bob

If there is an election..

Even if the Conservatives hoped for it, this will be an election forced by "The Coalition."

However watching Question Period after the March 23rd Conservative budget, I notice that surprisingly enough something is missing.  What's missing is Conservatives "Hedging their bets" in case the Budget actually passes.  What I mean is that the appearance is such that despite all the allegations that they put forward a budget to force an election, it seems that they would honestly rather see the House pass this budget rather than go to an election.

I don't think the Government is entirely happy with the budget, which will happen when you have 2 parties pandering for socialist programs, and the Bloc sitting with their hands out like entitled children. I don't think it would have mattered what was in the budget, because it was already decided (whether collectively or independently) by "The Coalition" that it would be defeated.

There is something we can do about it, stop voting for Fringe parties (NDP and Bloc). That would force the Fringe candidates to choose one of the parties that can actually make a difference.

Bob

Blocs block more representatives for growing Provinces

I have to start by saying I don't remember how a Provincial party like the Bloc ever even gained 1 seat in a Federal forum like the House of Commons.  This becomes even more of a concern as I watch the Bloc debate on bill C-12 (Democratic representation), as they are staunchly opposed to allowing the rest of the Country to have adequate and proper representation. Why?  Because with growth in the rest of the Country, and with proportionate representation in the House, it means that The Bloc will have less ability to bully the Government to force them to hand over more money only to Quebec.

I don't think Quebec realizes how much of a bunch of spoiled child this makes them all seem. The bloc will never form a Government, for that matter they never want to. All they really want is to pillage the rest of the Country for their own gain.  The Bloc simply has NO BUSINESS having any seats in a Federal Platform like the House of Commons, because they have NO interest in ANY OTHER Province than their own (which would be better served by electing representatives from one of the 2 major parties that CAN Govern our Country.)

This bill should pass, because it goes directly to equal and proportionate representation for all Canadians.

Bob

A "what the heck?" moment.

Sandy Crux of "Crux of the Matter" blog came across a facebook page, under causes, which has Amnesty International running an "Anti-Harper" campaign (with a donate button and everything!)

What on earth would prompt this? Why would an organization, worthy of respect for assisting with human rights for those that have them oppressed, suddenly "sell" themselves to partisan politics?

One reason could be they need to maintain their base, which is hyper-Liberal College students, by pandering to their ideologies. Although as Sandy points out there may be other nefarious and selfish reasons than just ideology for it. Either way I think they have lost a certain credibility by "choosing sides".

Bob

Quebec freeloading.

Apparently Quebec has some sort of problem with the way the rest of the Country sees them as Freeloaders. I guess if they would learn to not "expect" constant handouts, that perception might change. (And at this point I won't go into how the Bloc has no business in Federal Politics, but maybe some time later.)

Check out the National Post Article HERE. As well as Dr. Roy's BLOG (is that pronounced "Wah", or is it still "Roy" out here in the West? lol)

Bob

Too funny not to share!!

"Michael Ignatieff, truly, is the George Costanza of Canadian Politics" from Hunter Thompson at "Searching for Liberty". :-)

Bob

The facts on Michael Ignatieff's immigrant family.

Royalty always seems to believe they are entitled to power, and when you come from deposed royalty that's what you quest for. Here is a little look at the "poor immigrant" Ignatieff family which came knocking on Canada's door to ease their burdens.

I don't even think this would have become an issue, if Ignatieff hadn't brought it up himself.

Bob

Tory's lead in Honesty polling

Not surprising though after watching the desperate antics of the Coalition trying to build Conservative scandals where there are none.
The Montreal Gazette reports.

And on NDP Pat Martin's ridiculous behaviour in committee; Hunter at Climbing out of the dark, graciously took the time to go through the footage and post some here.

And lastly the Toronto Sun looks to be breaking Michael Ignatieff's "exit plan" to work at the UofT if the whole "Prime Minister" thing doesn't work out.

Bob

Liberals misplaced priorities.

With all the Hubbub from Michael Ignatieff over "how much new justice incentives are going to cost", then promising $180 Million in funding for a recreational facility for Quebec city, it is no wonder we have the level crime that we do. Once again Liberal priorities are misplaced, being more concerned about their own personal advancement than our safety.

Here's the article.

Iggy's Liberal policy: tax you and promise it to Quebec.

It appears that this is what Michael Ignatieff feels it will take to "win" (aka buy) the top spot in Canadian politics. http://bit.ly/dPKMlJ

To me this speaks volumes of the desperation the Liberals must be feeling, especially when they aren't in the position the feel rightly belongs only to them, which is The Government. Thankfully it also screams to everyone at the lengths they will take to make sure they get what they want, and to make sure that you and I pay for it.

I really think this is going to hurt the Liberals even within their own support base. Any rational person sees this for exactly what it is, and how do you support someone willing to pick the pockets of all Canadians to send it to only one Province for a recreational facility? Federal politics revolves around all of Canada and not just Quebec, and any party willing to loot the rest of us for their own gain needs to be sent packing.

Bob

Regina Extension cord bylaw.

I was upset about getting a ticket for a bylaw infraction, and wrote a letter about it to the Leader Post here in Regina Saskatchewan. My letter went like this;
BEWARE! Winter parking on the street means no power for you!
Those of us forced to park on the street overnight in winter are going to need stout vehicles, because in Regina it's actually a ticket-able offense to run an extension cord across a sidewalk to plug your car into! What an absurd bylaw to have, let alone to enforce, in a Saskatchewan winter!

The explanation I received from the Bylaw division was that “it is a trip hazard, and the city would be liable for it”. Now I understand that the city wants to protect itself from liability, but with reasonable measures (such as a bright yellow extension cord, and a contentiously cleaned sidewalk, there should be no reason that even an infirm individual will not recognize and be able to avoid this sometimes very necessary and insignificant “hazard”.

That's not the worst of it unfortunately; my first issue is how the officer (Badge No: C504) decided that rather than come to the house and inform us we were in violation of a city ordinance, and give us the opportunity to comply, he UNPLUGGED the vehicle and THEN wrote the ticket! (Obviously we were home, which of course we would have complied to!) My next issue is that this Officer failed to give a ticket for the EXACT same infraction, to the house right next door to us (not to mention any number of other offences occurring on the street, at the very moment he was issuing my ticket!)

Now of course we all feel like a victim when we get a ticket we don't want (and in this case weren't even aware that it was an infraction), but it's even worse when you are singled out among many of the same infractions occurring in the exact same single block street. If the officer was there to strictly enforce the bylaw (rather than give the person a chance to comply with it), then why was I the only one ticketed for that on my block?

My question is simple; What do you do in winter in Regina to keep your car running, if you have to park on the street?

It's really hard to “heart” Regina with bylaws like this enforced without the application of common sense and common courtesy.

I was also interviewed by CBC, Global, and CTV about this issue, and in an online poll conducted on the CBC article it seems that 85% of the voters agree that this should either not be a law, or the officer should have used judgement on whether or not it was dangerous.

I have started an online petition to start change, located at; PETITION.

I would love to hear ideas on how we can keep pedestrians safe, and at the same time accommodate the necessity of Saskatchewan residents to plug their vehicles in when they must park on the street.

Bob

Yes they are serious too!! And that's what's so scary!

Obviously I don't post a lot on here, because I honestly (and literally) find "career politics" like we have in Canada more often than not petty, stupid and depressingly upsetting no matter which party Governs. I do also find that the majority of idiocy can be found in the left, which include Libs, NDP and most definitely the Bloc.

I'm going to post the opening Question from Michael Ignatieff to the Prime Minister in Question period from October 20th 2010.

"Mr. Speaker, on Monday at Our Lady of Lourdes high school in Guelph, a young student named Diane asked me a question, “We are caring for my grandmother at home. If elected, what would you do to help people who are caring for the sick and elderly at home?” I replied to Diane, “Our answer is the family care plan”. The Conservatives' answer is, “Use your vacation time”.

How can the Prime Minister justify tax breaks for profitable corporations instead of helping families like Diane's?" (transcript here; under "Government priorities".)

My initial thought was "Huh????? You really don't see the need to help keep companies profitable in a recession so that Diane's parents still may have a job which helps them be able to take care of their Grandmother?" (And yes it's a long sentence, but I just don't think with punctuation.)

So the question here is simple, is it easier to tax, or to "un-tax"? Or an even more relevant question would be, Do we want jobs to continue, or are we okay forcing business closures by raising taxes in "tough economic times"?

I like Ignatieff's ideas for monetary support for families caring for sick and disabled, however I also see it as reckless taxation and spending at a time where creating and keeping jobs alive is important for everyone. (Which I believe has been a key issue for the Liberals against the Conservatives in past attacks as well. So this begs the question "what's changed the liberals minds?", has the Government fiscal responsibility turned the tides on the 21st century's great depression enough to make the Liberals feel their pockets are once again full enough to make pricey promises to the public?)

Bob

A short assessment on the reactions to the Federal Budget.

I only have a few short words of assessment on each of the Political Parties after having the latest budget come down.


Conservative;
Tightening belts in your own house is still necessary. Show Canadians which politicians are there for the people over themselves by introducing a pay cut for ALL MP's and Senators.

Liberals;
That's all you have to offer, "we will insist on frequent updates"? Quite posturing and try being there for Canadians with logical, acceptable non partisan ideas and bills.

NDP;
Thank you for choosing to be unsupportive of a stimulus budget before you even see the document, because that means you have no interest in doing what is in anyone's interest but your own advancement.

Bloc;
If you can't think of Canada first, and Quebec as an equal part thereof, you have no place in Canada's House of Commons.


My advice to the average Canadian; KNOW what's going on in politics, because if you don't these politicians will lead you around by a nose ring because of their "snake oil salesman" smooth talking.

Bob

New leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Michael Ignatieff is the newly "crowned" interim leader of the Liberal party. So how was Mr. Ignatieff chosen to lead the Liberal Party? Was it by a democratic vote of all the party members? Not at all, Mr. Ignatieff was hand picked by 800 higher up members (out of approximately 60 000 total). This minority manipulation forced out his only opposition (Mr. Bob Rae) by yet another subversion of democracy, where instead of following common democratic processes of “One member, One vote” which is the BACKBONE of true democracy, the privileged few made the choice for everyone.

These proceedings beg the question; how do Canadians trust a party that holds true democracy in contempt if it gets in the way of them getting into a seat of power?

There is no way anyone can trust the Liberal Party after the clear disregard for the Voice of the Canadian people. This can be easily seen in the fallacy of the “62% majority” for “the coalition”, because “the coalition” didn’t run in the last Canadian election. This “fudging” of the numbers is a pretty obvious attempt to confuse Canadians and justify a non democratic take over of Canadian Parliament. If “the coalition” had run as a valid party on the ballot and won 62%, it would be ONLY THEN which they could be considered as a legitimate Government.

Welcome to Liberal political games.

Bob

How I see the arguments thus far.

The coalition;
1. We can't work with the (duly elected) Government because they don't listen to us.
2. The Government didn't get 60(ish)% of the votes which makes us the Government if we want it.
3. The Government is not working fast enough to get a financial stimulus package together.
4. We do not want public funds taken away from our parties to help us in elections.
5. The Government was ok with the Bloc voting with them in the past.
6. All the Prime Minister wants to do is hold on to his job and doesn't care about those losing theirs.
7. This Government has lost the confidence of this house.
8. The Conservatives attacked woman's equal rights.
9. The Canadian people have lost confidence in this Government and want this Coalition.


The Government;
10. Separatists should not hold a controlling position over any Government of Canada.
11. If you don't have a mandate by the majority of the electorate, you have no right to Govern.


My break down;
1. This is simply an excuse to justify a coalition and grab power in an undemocratic manner.

2. If this is truly the case we will really never see a "Minority" Government again. This is also an excuse to "fudge" the numbers in their favour, none of the individual parties got enough of the vote to form a Government therefore the Majority of votes went to what is supposed to be the Government of Canada.

3. Here is a real kicker. How much time is "the coalition" wasting in their attempts to "steal" control of the Country which they could be using to work with the "duly appointed" Government to further this goal? Instead what they are doing with this "coalition" is prolonging the agony of those that are waiting for the help that the "coalition" says they so urgently need.

4. Wow. Now this seemed to be the catalyst that "broke the camel's back", however it appears that this coalition came together long before anything cam about in the House because something like this doesn't come together over night (let alone in 6 weeks, which makes me think this was in planning even before the election.) Reducing or removing public funds from elections is not only a GREAT idea but a revolutionary and necessary policy, this would reduce the debt load of "average Canadians" thereby making that money available for other programs and incentives like a stimulus package.

5. Well Duh. The Bloc can only vote one of two ways, and if they sided with the Conservatives it is something that is inevitable. HOWEVER to form an allegiance with a non-federal party which is completely based on the dissolution of the Country we all Love is UNCONSCIONABLE!

6. Who is really worrying about their own political advancement here? The logic of argument is invisible, because while the coalition tries to take the power unscrupulously which they couldn't get legitimately they are neglecting the very people they are saying they want to protect! They are so focused on the rhetoric that they are fighting for the economy, that they are missing the damage they are causing through an unstable Government in Canada.

7. The problem here is that even though the House says they have lost confidence in the Government, the PEOPLE gave a CLEAR indication of who they thought was most suitable to run our Country at this time. The way I see the "coalition" formation was not simply because they had lost confidence in the Government, but as a backdoor way to steal the power they were too weak to take during a legitimate election. The timing really says it all, they didn't even wait until a budget was tabled before they said that they wanted to take over as a "coalition".

8. I didn't catch all the hubub behind this one, but this seems like an inflammatory accusation to create bad press rather than a legitimate problem for a 21st century Government.

9. The ONLY way that the "coalition" can use this argument with any validity is if they were to take their "coalition" party to the people of Canada in another election. If they use this without winning a majority election they have no right to say this or use this as an argument in any way!


10. This is pretty self explanatory; to have a Non federal, separatist, anti-Canadian group propping up a Government through an agreement, you open yourself up to manipulation and blackmailing by them to further their agenda to break up our Nation. (Personally I think for those in Quebec who want to separate, feel free to buy a ticket to France and separate yourselves from us. Quebec is Canadian property, and you are Canadian citizens.)

11. Even though this coalition is "technically" legal, no self respecting Canadian would stand by for a coalition giving the balance of power to a non federal, separatist party. And if this "coalition" wants to be the legitimate Government of Canada, we need to go back to the polls with a new "coalition" party to replace Liberal, NDP and Bloc.

Don't Steal My Vote!!

Disgustedly,
Bob

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the government listens.
Alastair Farrugia."

Why to NOT support the latest "Coalition of the willing"

A very succinct, well thought out, and rational opposition to support the Lib, NDP and BLOC coalition.

"I think the mudslinging may be a result of the passion and anger generated by the Coalition option.
I for one can think of a number of reason's not to support it.
1) Canada has been, for the past number of years, a G20 leader in the Banking and Economic Policy Issues, which is evidenced by the "Canada last in - first out" results on the Global Downturn. Canada has been seen to be the example of prudent fiscal managment and policy and now, with the recent Coalition attempts, will not longer be the leading example. It will not make sense to the Markets, or our G7 & G20 friends, for us to change course when we are seen as the best at the helm. The number of stimulus packages introduced in the US have not resulted in the desired result and the prudent approach would see that Canada first knows what the new Administration in the USA is preparing to do, for any Governmental approaches to combat a world economic downturn, have to be implimented by the entire world economy or esle you are left with the "leaky bucket" syndrome. IE If there are holes in the bucket you can not pour the water(funds) in to fill the bucket.
2) The people of Canada have not had a chance to endorse the Coalition Spending & Economic Strategy. The details and costs of the Coalition Plan are unknown to the Canadian public and letting a plan go ahead without a clear endorsement from the people is not good for Canada and the democratic process. None of the Opposition Parties have campaigned on any of the Plan that they propose. Only the Convervatives are doing exactly what they said they would do.
3) Canada would be seen by the world as an embarassment and a backwards nation with a Separatist party being named within the governing body. This I fear will lead to further alienation of the West and the bolstering of the western separatist movement as well.
4) The non confidence motion is not substantially different then the Throne Speech that was passed in the house and therefore points to motivation of the Opposition Parties, which is to say, not in the best interests of Canada, but in the best interests of self.
5) All the CFA's and Economists agree that there is no amount of money that would fix and/or bail-out the auto industry and therefore the "Stimulus" package is not good for Canada.
6) The current Conservative Government is following standard operating procedures to first look internal for cost savings and then timed stimulus to gain the best effect. The GDP results released yesterday show that Canada's earlier(over the last 3 years) economic policies have helped Canada calm the storm that is facing the rest of the globe. This storm has affected the rest of the globe up to 14 months earlier, and much deeper than it is affecting our economy and thus it is prudent to not to change the captain at the helm right before his experience is needed most.
IF the coalition does proceed, and I hope and pray it does not, I suspect that the next election will result in the NDP getting wiped out and the bloc gaining even more seats from the Liberals in Quebec. The worst case scenario is that after the Liberals have set a precedent with joining with the Bloc, and again alienating the West, is that the Conservatives join with the Bloc to separate the Western Provinces and Quebec from Canada."

(Unknown author)


Bravo,
Bob

The newest "Coalition of the willing"

This new "coalition of the willing"; None of these parties were voted into a government position, and even though the Conservatives may not have the confidence of the House, it is even more obvious that the the Canadian people don't have confidence in the parties that do not form the Government. The ONLY people that have the right to choose which party will make up the Government are the Canadian voters. I know most people don't want to go to another election, but this should be the only way that the Government changes hands. (An excerpt from a letter I wrote to CBC politics).

Well how about them apples, a coalition government.

I'm curious how do those that voted Bloc and NDP feel about having your votes count as Liberal?

I'm confused.

I just Heard Dion speak about cutting taxes on profits to companies, and "Jack O Layton" has in his ads that he will "Reward companies to keep jobs here". Isn't that the same as "putting money on the board room table"?

What got me was the hypocrisy of Layton when he said that very statement in one of his attack ads, and I'm asking myself how stupid does Layton think Canadians are? (Check it out ) At least we know that Elizabeth May thinks Canadians are stupid, but Layton is saying the same thing when he thinks we can't see through ridiculous ads. Hey Jack O Layton, stop trying to "Trick or treat" people!

Another note on May, ask yourself why the Liberals have "chosen" not to run a candidate in her riding to oppose her? Hmmm Do we see a little under the table collusion going on here? Looks pretty obvious to me.

As for Dion, is this guy for real? Watching him talk to his supporters is a joke, all they can do is attack The Conservatives because their platform and their leader are both as "weak as water". He keeps talking about how wrong everything Harper does is, but gives minimal to no information on what he'll do. This after He specifically said he was "going to take the high road" in this campaign... Guess that wasn't working out so well for him so he dropped it like he'll drop his campaign promises.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Halloween elections.

What really put a scare into my 15 year old this Halloween season, he told me, was "Jack O' Layton". This from a 15 year old who has been watching the election hype on TV (and both debates).

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Who writes these things for the Party leaders anyway?

I think I need to point out that "Don't worry, be Happy" comes directly from Bob McFarrin's 1980's one hit wonder song title. I wonder if the Liberals are paying royalties on the stealing of that phrase, or if that minimal plagiarism is ok? I mean every time a Liberal says this they look like they are reading from a script because they don't have the intelligence to think for themselves (which is my opinion of most Liberals anyway, but talk about confirmation.)

And then I have to mention Jack Layton's sweater jokes........ Maybe Jack should change his name to "Lameton"? Could you look any more ridiculous? But then that's really all he has to offer for a platform aside from huge spending promises that make no sense at all. And then I look at what the world will think of Canada should Taliban Jack get his way and pull our troops without finishing as much as they can... Can you say "Pansy"? Support our troops in the right way, just increasing humanitarian funds (which will go to fund the Taliban and not the people) when we can spend that same money with practical help that is already in place (our troops).

I think what makes me the most disgusted with the minor leaders is that they are so busy attacking each other, rather than taking the high road of outlining their own policies and reasons for them, that we don't really know what Layton and Dion stand for. May is easy because they are primarily just a special interest party much like the "pot" party.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).

Political rhetoric vs political honesty.

I just finished watching an interview by Suhana Meharchand with the Conservative candidate Lisa Raitt (in Halton) and Liberal candidate Kirsty Duncan (riding unknown), where Suhana asked specifically "where there was a weakness" in each candidates own parties. I was completely dismayed at Kirsty's attack on the Conservatives as her answer to the weakness in her own party, and this from someone who said she taught "ethics". Although Lisa took time toexpress how she has been accepted into the Conservatives caucus, she did actually answer the question, where Kirsty answered by trying to take a shot at Conservatives rather than answer the question about the weakness in her party.

(Maybe that's because the weakness itself is the Leader of the party, or the policy of taking in taxes just to "give" them back(???), or maybe it's the weak kneed approach to crime and criminals, or maybe it's the amount of money they are going to spend on new social programs for artists and students which will be taken from the new taxes he's going to impose.)

I just don't get it though, Kirsty honestly looked like she had her head firmly planted where the sun doesn't shine, when it came to actively criticizing her own parties failings, and in my opinion this is the most prevelent attitude with Liberals and their supporters. I have no misgivings that my party of choice has everything all together; on the contrary I am more than willing to look at the problems and point them out, and if you can't (or won't) do that the simple fact is that you can't get any better.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Danny "Whiny" Williams.

Here's someone that truly embodies political behaviour at it's most vile, This Premiere didn't get everything he wanted from the Federal Government and is now campaigning against his own Conservative party (although federally and not yet provincially).

I think the thing that bothers me most about "Whiny" Williams is that he has the audacity to TELL people how they should vote because that's what HE wants!!!! I have no problem with people expressing their opinions on who and why they would vote one way or another, and I respect their right to have, express and act accordingly. I do have a problem however when someone tells others they should vote one way or another (and this is especially inappropriate when it comes from someone placed in a position to represent people that may not agree with his position).

I think this campaign has the potential to backfire on him, but it's not only that, it could severely affect the people he is supposed to be representing in Newfoundland and Labrador! Does this guy really think he's going to get anything better from another party climbing to power? Is he being paid by another party for this anti Conservative campaign? Or is it something as simple as "I didn't get what I want, so I'm gonna stamp my feet and yell and scream till I get it"? (And I am presuming the latter, which is what prompted my nickname for him, but who really knows.)

Honestly if he were my Premiere, he would know exactly where I stand and so would everyone I was able to speak to.

This guy makes Newfoundlanders look like selfish little children, and I feel sorry for the people that he is supposed to be representing.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Elizabeth May, and what she thinks of Canadians. Hey May, aren't you Canadian?

Wow, I don't get around the "blogosphere" much but after Mike Duffy mentioned this on Friday I had to check it out and hear for myself. I don't often visit partisan sites like "Buckdog" because I find them much like some religious extremists out there, but with the shear amount of information available , and the mainstream media doing their level best to lead Canadians by manipulating stories and headlines, I may have to check out more sites just to find important items like this (even though most of it is the same old rhetoric).

Listen to Ms May's view of Canadians for yourself.

Thanks to Buckdog for the heads up.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Leader's debate.

With Elizabeth May now being allowed into the Leader's debate, I have to wonder what criteria is standard for allocation of a position in it?

Not that I have any major problem with her being there, but I'm wondering now if the qualifications to participate are low enough to allow other national parties like the Marijuanna party (which I should point out is a single issue party as well) leader a spot at the debate? I mean if we set the standards to where you don't have to have a sitting MP to be allowed in to the debate, nor do you require a platform that encompasses all aspects of Canadian society, should we not then invite all of the national parties to have their leader at the debate to represent them?

However critically I must say that after May did everything just short of actually saying she would be voting Liberal, this appears to me to be nothing more than a ploy to have a dual Liberal voice on the panel to combat a weak Liberal leader with a bad political policy (Green shift plan).

On a final note I have to correct The Green party leader when she said that it was the "outcry" of the people which changed whether she was allowed in the debate or not, it was her own outcry of "discrimination" because she's a woman that changed the outcome. I guess she is a true politician, she'll say or do anything to get what she wants. (Sounds very much like very young children too doesn't it.)

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

The Liberal "Green Shift" plan revealed!

It's pretty much just as the name implies;

They are going to LIBERALLY try and SHIFT the GREEN from your wallet into theirs!

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

McCain / Palin vs Obama / ?

Where do I get my McCain / Palin lawn sign? I love the fact that there is not only a woman running for VP but obviously a woman of character and morals, something which is sadly missing from a majority of politicians today.

I just wish that more people valued character and morals over smooth talk and personal gain, and this includes not only politicians, but every single person on this planet.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

For Green Party supporters.

For those of you out there that questioned PM Harper when he said that Elizabeth May (loosely quoted, not verbatim but the meaning is unchanged) shouldn't be in the debate because she would eventually show her support for the Liberals by endorsing them.

Check it out for yourself.

The record clearly states that May is nothing more than a Liberal in disguise, so voting Green means voting Liberal.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

Sask Party takes the lead...

After hearing ridiculous statements telecast like "My Baba taught me to support her party" (not an exact quote, but it is an accurate reflection of what the young man said) from a future voter in Saskatchewan, I am really concerned about the voters which will follow suit and vote "like they've always done" without actually thinking about what is best for our province.

This is the one problem I have with democracy, which is, to put it bluntly, that some people are too stupid to vote.

The simple fact is that most people don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and, whether this is because of being too busy or just too lazy, I have to tell you that it is YOUR responsibility NOT JUST TO VOTE but TO KNOW HOW TO VOTE. Sure voting is simple; make a little X on the ballot form, but are you voting because you know what that person and/or party stand for, or because it's easy and "that's how you've always voted"? There is no more STUPID way to vote in my opinion (unless of course you vote based on what a party did 50 years ago instead of looking and what they are currently doing).

It's about using common sense, and taking the time to KNOW what's going on and who would do the best job for you and your province (or for that matter even your country)!

Congratulations, Sask Party! We expect great things and some of us will be watching closely.

How did YOUR MP vote?

Here are the results of the vote to reopen the same sex marriage debate.

The one thing I feel compelled to say is this: Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that we should. What I mean is just because the government can say that gays are "married", does not mean that it is either right or appropriate to do so. Human beings are capable of horrendous atrocities, but just because we have the ability to do these things, should we do them? The same applies to moral standards, just because we can say that "everything is acceptable" does not mean we should. Right will always be right, and I for one will never recognized the fallacy of "gay marriage".

Bob

*Results taken from Hansard on the official House of Commons website.
_____________________________________________
(Those in favour of reopening the same sex marriage debate)

YEAS

Members
----------
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Batters
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonin
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Carrie
Casson
Clement
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Doyle
Dykstra
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lee
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKenzie
Malhi
Mark
Mayes
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Petit
Poilievre
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Ritz
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Steckle
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Wappel
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Yelich

Total: -- 123
___________________________________________
(Those opposed to reopening the same sex marriage debate)

NAYS

Members
----------
Alghabra
André
Angus
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Baird
Barbot
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Blaikie
Blais
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrier
Casey
Chamberlain
Chan
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ignatieff
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Nash
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Picard
Plamondon
Prentice
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Turner
Valley
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed

Total: -- 175

PAIRED

Members
Galipeau
Loubier

Total: -- 2

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

Items not conducive to sleep.

As I was trying to sleep my mind kept mulling over today’s session of “Question Period” in the House of Commons (hence the title of the post), and two things kept jumping out at me that the Liberal opposition kept mentioning.

The first and foremost of these things was how they kept using the term “most vulnerable in society” in reference to those less fortunate in our country. I think that the Liberal’s have no idea what this phrase means or how to use it, simply because they fail to recognize that in 13 years of power they have endorsed murdering the truly most vulnerable in society, the unborn. I mean let’s get real, sure there are those among us that can’t read or write, but does this warrant them the moniker of “most vulnerable in society”? Hell NO! (Excuse the expletive, but it was needed for proper emphasis.) The most vulnerable people in society are those that are unable to protect themselves like children, ESPECIALLY those that you don’t even have to face to kill!!!! So while these illiterate masses that the Liberal party keep referring to may be unfortunate, they are NOT the most vulnerable and are fully capable to seek help for and by themselves.

The second point was this new trend in the Liberal ranks of calling the Prime Minister (or the Conservatives in general) “mean spirited” and it’s almost like a party requirement to call them this at least once by every member! But let’s think about this, “mean spirited” doesn’t even come close to what the Liberal’s did even in their last turn “at bat”. I’m talking specifically about taking away the right for children to have a Mother and a Father! Homosexuality is all about self gratification through unnatural sex, not about love or family, so why on earth would any sane and rational person even consider saying that a homosexual couple are “married” or a “family”? I mean first off they cannot have children in the relationship they chose (other than by traditional or conventional means, even IVF requires both male and female reproduction units and is thereby a traditional method), so this disqualifies them as a family to begin with. Secondly the mere act of homosexual sex is a perversion of the natural act, and really for the participant and not for any other purpose than satisfying their lusts. Finally the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the sexual partners they prefer; and since true love seems to come and go with today’s societal values at a whim, one must conclude that homosexuality is about the act and not about love.

I can not fathom how anyone with a conscience could support a party as immoral and objectionable as the Liberal’s. Unless you have no clear idea of what they have done, or how they have eroded Canadian values by bad policy and legislations, you could not support them with a clear conscience. They have attacked family values, supported murder of the truly most vulnerable in society both through abortion and feminist agendas. They have told us that Canadians are too stupid to see through their lies (and they may be right, look at all the people out there that still support them) by favouring their wealthy friends with government contracts and moneys. And they have forgotten what this Country was built on, the values and morals of the people who fought and died for it. Shame on them, and shame on you if you don’t look at the facts before you decide who you’ll support.

It’s a late night, with many thoughts and very little tact available. I believe fully that sometime people need a kick in the pants to get their heads on straight; I hope this was yours.

Bob

Now that this is off my chest, I leave with a few profound quotes to ponder;

“The official's heart must stand at attention before his mind.”
A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

“Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.”
Aristotle

“It is far more honest to be undeservedly ignored than to be honoured without merit.”
Denis Fonvizin

‘The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.”
Edvard Teller

“In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions and every other man is entitled not to listen.”
G. Norman Collie

“It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

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

Government for ALL people.

The Liberal party; yet again the voice of stupidity.

When the Conservatives are trying to fulfill their campaign promises to reduce waste in government, they get accused of axing programs that support equality (In particular I am referring to the de-funding of Status of Women Canada, a feminist, left wing, anti-life, anti-family activist group). I believe that this is a critical and important cut for them to make because NO government should support ANY activist lobbying group, and that is especially true of one that promotes and encourages the SLAUGHTER of innocent unborn children!

What’s worse is that “pro choice” MP’s are even elected to their positions! Because if you think about it logically you would realize that if they have no respect for the life of an innocent unborn child, what respect will they have toward the elderly or for that matter your life or mine?

The only, I repeat THE ONLY activist groups that the government should support are those that respect and encourage the protection of ALL PEOPLE (ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES!) Forgive me for getting a little impassioned here, but most activist groups only care about themselves and not the good of the whole community or society they live in. We have to get over our selfish ways and start to think about the good of everyone over our own desires, and only then will we have a country we can all be proud of. If the activist group is for only one gender, promotes or encourages harm to any persons born or unborn, or is for an “alternate” lifestyle that does not promote a healthy society, they do not deserve Government funding.

In the Toronto Star “Liberal MP Maria Minna (Beaches-East York) said the government can't publicly announce that it is axing Status of Women Canada because it would provoke a public "backlash.”” So ask yourself this, who would the backlash come from? It would come from those who will gain from it. The ones whose agendas would be furthered or pockets would be lined.

Well we know where the liberals (and the mini liberals, aka NDP) stand; they stand for alternate lifestyles, feminism, and killing babies. All of these are designed to destroy family and loosen morals so that everything is acceptable. But everything is not acceptable; we know what is right and what is wrong. However it seems like the only ones who stand up are the ones that are in favour of what is wrong. I say stand up for what you know is right! Pro-choice is WRONG!

Belinda Stronach (and I presume she is speaking of REAL women Canada) said "They should be rejected because they're anti-choice and they're also anti-equal rights. They don't support equality.” But true equal rights encompass the rights of ALL people, even the unborn (which, again, are INNOCENT AND HELPLESS). And if you can’t trust your Government to protect those unable to protect themselves, they SHOULD NOT be in Government! See more on Belinda's murderous agenda here!

The Toronto Star report here, and the Lifesite news report here.

Bob

Liberal monsters in the closet.

The issue of gun control has been in the media once again because of the killing in Québec. I saw an interview where the victim’s father was questioning the Conservatives agenda to dismantle the taxpayer funded boondoggle called the gun registry, asking "why make it easier"? Easier to what though? How would the dismantling of an unnecessary tax burden make it easier? This was not a case of someone taking a hunting rifle out on a killing spree, but a semiautomatic already restricted weapon. Even though my heart goes out to the victim's family, let's take a look at the truth of the situation:

The plain honest truth of the situation is that no registry would have stopped this killing! The weapon used in this offense was a restricted weapon which was covered by its own registry even before the long gun registry initiated by liberals. Gill's weapon of choice was a Beretta CX4, a 9 mm semiautomatic assault weapon, something which, as I've already pointed out, was restricted prior to the gun registry and required a background check to purchase and a permit to carry out of the owner’s house.

The problem is not "guns": After all the truth is, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". We need to look at the motivation behind the shooting in Québec, and not just react with a knee jerk of "we need more gun control legislation". What we truly need is for parents to be proactive in the raising of children and teaching them appropriate morals and family values, thereby strengthening society’s fabric of community and care for each other instead of the individual.

There is also a dispute on whether violent games should be banned or not, and the problem I have with this was addressed by Prime Minister Steven Harper. If we want to live in a communist regime, then we can start banning books, video games, television programs, media information etc… And then who is it that will be choosing the morals and values that the rest of society has to live by? I'm hoping you see where this all leads. However if we choose to live in a free society, it takes every individual being accountable for his or her own actions! It is a matter of poor and/or weak parenting which is the root cause of a lot of problems society has.

The truth is: Society has created monsters by the liberal values it chooses, and now we have to live with them.