Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Calgary Grit is all over this one here.
Over at the Gauntlet there is no mincing of words on the subject: Bag of Hammers dumb.
And Prairie Fire is a little sad today.
Red says it as it is.
If this keeps up Iggy may be the only Liberal at his coronation.
Monday, March 30, 2009
From Elections Canada:
This means that anyone intending to be leadership contestant should comply with the Canada Elections Act rules governing leadership contestants from the time they first accept a contribution for a leadership contest or incur a leadership contest expense. Anyone who fails to comply with these rules – from the time they start to collect contributions or incur leadership campaign expenses – will find themselves retroactively in breach of the law once they register as contestants. (highlighting mine)
Now isn't that interesting.
Here is something else that might prove to be important:
"Before a person can register with Elections Canada as a leadership contestant, the registered party must first accept that person as a contestant in the race. An individual who does not obtain the party's acceptance cannot register as a contestant with the Chief Electoral Officer".
So Dominic; since your dear leader has promised that everything about the LPC leadership race will be open and transparent, lets start with something really simple.
On what day did the Liberal Party of Canada accept you as a leadership contestant, and did you pay them the $90,000 fee on that same day or was it on another date?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
From the all powerful Liberal Renewal Committee on one member, one vote:
"Fortunately, a cost-effective and truly democratic method is readily available. The principle of democratic representation can be extended to its ultimate limit by providing a direct vote to every member of the party using currently available technology."
Courtesy of Calgary Grit who added this:
"True...although it is somewhat amusing that many of the members of the Renewal Committee were arguing that this technology wasn't available back when Rae suggested doing something similar to this to pick the next leader..."
Hamas threatens to kidnap more Israeli soldiers.
Read the rest for a Liberals take on the Ignatieff takeover of the LPC.
Friday, March 27, 2009
I think she may be on to something here; after all, the gangs have had such a respect for our existing gun laws that another law will be sure to do make our streets safer.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Full Story here: A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
The U.N. Human Rights Council adopted the non-binding text, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of Islamic states, with a vote of 23 states in favor and 11 against, with 13 abstentions.
"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."
It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."
Unbelievable! Real rights removed from people and given to religions instead. What the hell is going on in the UN?
How was something as insane as this even considered, never mind how it passed a vote with 23 countries in favour and 13 countries who apparently couldn't care less and abstained. When I find out how the countries voted I will post up the list.
So what was Canada's position? (at least currently, I have doubts it would remain the same under a Liberal Government)
A voice of common sense for now, but it did not do any good in the end.
Simply put I think that having Canadians watch the Liberals spending not only their supporters donations but also spending our money taken through income tax and given to the Liberals through mandatory subsidies on a needless leadership convention where the leader is already known and a policy convention that discusses no policy is not going to be a good thing for the Liberals.
The optics on this are going to be terrible and the more coverage the media gives to this pep rally disguised as an honest convention, the more of a bad taste it will leave in the mouths of those Canadians watching. With times being as tight as they are the sight of Liberal partying on our dime on live TV for no reason other than cheerleading is not going to win over much support from anyone, including that from usually Liberal friendly media.
Yes, I said it. Even the left leaning media are going to see that there is no upside for them in mindlessly promoting this big show of Liberal excess at a time that their own audience are going through tough economic times as well as the media themselves losing both revenue and audience in droves.
Since I am not able to tell the future with any great accuracy this is all just pure speculation on my part, but I see little in the way of upside for the Liberals in all of this, and even less so with wall to wall media coverage of what surly will be seen as a waste of time and money by the Liberal Party of Canada and their new leader Micheal Ignatieff. Oh and I don't think the near empty halls and venues are going to help much either.
Whenever covering a protest or rally type event; if the members of the press outnumber the participants it may not be worth the effort covering because the majority of your audience could care less.
And you guys wonder why you are losing both audience and revenue.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Micheal Ignatieff now. Liberals sign off on $3-billion emergency stimulation fund.
Or maybe not. From the above article: “I want to make Parliament work but I don't write blank cheques. That's not what my voters sent me to Parliament to do,” he said less than three hours before Liberals approved the fund.
The Liberals; the only thing that has changed is the name plate on the door of the OLO.
So much for respect.
Shocked? I know I am because I did not think that there could possibly be any outrage for the entertainment industry left after the fallout from the Redeye thing. I mean it was everywhere; first on the blogs, then the papers, and when it had eventually made it onto the television news I thought that there could not be anymore, but I was wrong. Wrong because my fellow citizens have once again proven that the well of outrage towards entertainers seems to never come up dry.
So a big thank you to my fellow citizens for the good work. It is because of you that I can sleep at night knowing of your efforts to keep the entertainers closely monitored for the nasty and evil crime of offending people.
And here I thought that this was the reason why we have HRC's.
Let me close out by quoting a A. Wine who in 1982 said:
"If you see Kay, tell her I need her."
Good night and remember Leave Britney Alone!!! (NSFW)
Monday, March 23, 2009
NDP President Anne McGrath said [Marshall] Ganz stressed the left needs to do a better job of connecting its message with people's values.
"The right-wing has had a real ability to promote particular values such as self-reliance and competition," said McGrath. "We need to be more obvious about what (our) values are," she said. (Ottawa Citizen)
Darcey from DMB nails it with his comment: "How about no self-reliance and no competition?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Her web site.
a recent letter to her supporters.
an interesting bit of commentary found on her website.
after that last link I could not read on any further.
With friends like these........
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Members of the so called progressive left have called upon the Canadian Medical Association and it's provincial counterparts to ban Muslim doctors from practicing medicine in Canada. The general consensus of the left seems to be that a belief in a higher power and the science of medicine cannot coexist together and that Islamic doctors should be banned from practicing in this country for the safety of the Canadian public. Jeffrey Moonbat a spokesman for the left stated "We cannot have doctors that believe that things happen because of the will of Allah while ignoring the science." He added, "A real risk with this type of archaic thinking is that it is possible that an Islamic doctor may not put forth the necessary and expected effort to treat those that get sick or injured because the disease or illness might be Allah's work." "Modern medicine is science based and the will of Allah is not science."
In related news; rumour has it that CUPE Ontario is proposing a motion that Muslim professors be banned from lecturing in the pure sciences on university campuses.
More to come on this story as more information becomes available.
This ladies and gentlemen this is the progressive left in this country again showing their respect for the constitutional rights of others to their beliefs by discriminating against them in their choice of vocations based solely on religious beliefs.
Just the type of thing that human rights commissions in this country were set up investigate and prosecute. It is too bad that HRC's are so busy prosecuting the free speech of Canadians that they ignore very obvious and real violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Micheal Ignatieff: "“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,”
I wonder if the media is going to give Ignatieff a pass on this one too?
Update: Oh how Iggy's tune has changed : Links from Andrew Coyne at Macleans .
Source: "Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats."
Source: "Bloc MPs are duly elected by Québec voters. They are not traitors, they are not the enemies of Canada."
I thought that the Daily Gleaner article was so good it deserves to be reprinted in its entirety.
Read it yourself for a little understanding on just how Ignatieff really thinks and how he used this entire charade as an excuse to seize power of the Liberal Party for his OWN benefit.
SAINT JOHN - Stephen Harper will have to destroy the Liberal Party to keep his job as prime minister, and that's not going to happen, Michael Ignatieff said Friday.
In Saint John for meetings with local business and political leaders, the Liberals' prospective quarterback said that not even banishing Parliament to a seven-week recess will help Harper save his government.
"Mr. Harper's only chance for survival is to split the Liberal Party of Canada," Ignatieff said in his first significant interview since Ottawa's descent into a constitutional crisis.
"He will try to drive a wedge between us, and he will not succeed. Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down."
Ignatieff is the most popular Liberal leadership candidate in a race that includes fellow Ontarian Bob Rae and Beausejour MP Dominic LeBlanc. He arrived in Saint John on Thursday night and was shepherded around the city by former MP Paul Zed, chairman of his 2006 leadership campaign.
"As soon as I left Ottawa, I could feel the stress leaving me with every mile," said Ignatieff, whose great-grandfather, Sir George Parkin, was from Parkindale, near Moncton.
"I can't walk through the airport, go to the supermarket or stop to get a bottle of wine without people saying, 'What is going on?'
"This is a special event in Canadian history."
His ability to govern fading by the minute, Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean on Thursday to prorogue, or temporarily suspend, Parliament. The manoeuvre allowed the embattled prime minister to escape a no-confidence vote that would have scuttled his leadership.
But Ignatieff said nothing will save Harper from that fate. He said a coalition of opposing parties will ultimately topple the Conservatives, who retained a minority government in the Oct. 14 election. The House of Commons is scheduled to re-convene during the last week in January.
"This is an extraordinary situation," said Ignatieff, who lost the last leadership vote to Stephane Dion. "The prime minister has had to go begging the Governor General to get off the hook. But he is the one who got us to where we are today.
"He deliberately provoked the opposition and created a political crisis, and a national unity crisis, and that is unworthy of a prime minister.
"People are furious at him, and they should be."
The son of a Canadian diplomat and the grandson of a Russian count, Ignatieff was a campaign volunteer for Lester B. Pearson in 1965, and three years later was a national youth organizer and party delegate for Pierre Trudeau.
Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats.
"Democracy hinges on there being confidence in the government, and there isn't any at present," Ignatieff said. "In fact, Mr. Harper has managed almost the impossible, by getting parties that disagree on fundamentals to join together.
"But there are limits to what the Liberal Party will allow. The Liberal Party believes in fiscal responsibility and a competitive business environment, but it will never trade away national unity or trade away the authority of government.
"What's outrageous is for a party like ours to seek to end a constitutional impasse caused by Mr. Harper, and to be discredited as traitors. That's terrible. He crossed the line when he did that.
"His rhetoric has to stop, and stop for good."
Animosity has grown between the Conservatives and the Opposition since Harper called a fall election, a year ahead of schedule, in hope of winning a majority. The Tories ended up gaining seats, but in the last two weeks completely lost control of the House of Commons as deadlock devolved into disaster.
Ignatieff said the crisis was triggered by what the Opposition perceived as government attacks on collective bargaining and pay equity, and by a proposition by Harper to do away with financing political parties.
"You can't make a gesture like that and expect to have the co-operation of the House," Ignatieff said. "But that's typical Harper. He tried to jam us and we refused, and it was game over at that point.
"To understand the rage, you have to understand that this is the continuation of a buildup of accumulating resentments. It was a long time coming."
The last straw, Ignatieff said, was when the prime minister failed to announce an economic recovery plan that was to the Opposition's liking.
"We were anxiously awaiting the government's economic stimulus package, and we sat there in stunned disbelief over the absence of any economic stimulus," Ignatieff said. "Like in Sherlock Holmes, when the dog didn't bark, everyone sat around and looked at one another, dumbfounded."
Ignatieff said the coalition has already worked, by forcing Harper to back down on collective bargaining, pay equity for women and on party financing.
"That's pretty good for a week in Parliament," he said.
Educated at the University of Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, Ignatieff's ancestors were among the early settlers in Parkindale, which is in Albert County. His great-grandfather, the founder of the Rhodes Trust, served as a headmaster at schools in Bathurst and Fredericton.
"I've got some New Brunswick in me," he said.
Ignatieff said his constituency office in Toronto received 2,000 e-mails one day this week from Canadians concerned about the current conundrum. He said it can be resolved by a government-run coalition.
"In our system, to govern, a government has to have the confidence of the House," he said. "We have to talk to each other, not past each other, and that isn't happening now. We owe that to the Canadian people.
"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.
"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it.
"We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility."
Funny how all of this has now changed once he got what HE wanted out of it; not for the good of the people of Canada but rather for himself.
If this is not proof that he only cares about what is good for Iggy and that he will say or do anything to achieve his goals, than I do not know what would be.
I do not know about you but I am finding it very hard to figure out just what the major policy positions are of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Taking a look at what Ignatieff has done/said so far has not offered up many clues. On Afghanistan Iggy is for the withdrawal proposal for 2011, but yet when he was talking with Obama he seemed to leave open the idea of extending the mission. On Israel he has been all over the place but seems to have come down on the side of support for Israel, at least that was this week. On the financial crisis, that he used as an excuse to take over the Liberal Party, he has refused to offer up ANY ideas or suggestions to help the situation and instead has been using delaying tactics in passing the budget while at the same time screaming to the media that it is taking too long for the money to flow. ( a real vote getter if I ever heard of one ;) But the topic of this post was not "Ignatieff's policies", but rather "Liberal Policies".
What does the Liberal Party of Canada stand for?
I have been watching for some word about what is going to be discussed policy wise at the upcoming leadership convention, but so far I have not seen much out there. The leadership of Stephane Dion has come and gone and with him I assume that most of his policy positions would be gone as well. (This is only a guess because my search through the media and even among Liberal supporters for hints of what Liberal policy has become has so far proven fruitless and I can't make a call either way.)
I myself would like to see a little more meat on the subject of policy and would hope that the LPC membership remembers that at the convention they not only get to, in a process that would make Kim Jong-il proud, "ratify" the leadership of the anointed one, the LPC delegates also get a chance to decide the policy direction of the party for the next few years.
This is important for any party to do and so far I am surprised by the absence of discussion on this amongst Liberals, but I suspect that the reason for the absence of discussion on the subject is not for a lack of possible directions the party may go, but because Michael Ignatieff has yet to tell the membership just what LPC policy will be, or tell them what to think.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
Yesterday his highness declared that he would not sign the nomination papers of any Liberal candidate who did not maintain a certain level of signed up members as well as a certain number of cash donors; this dictate also includes sitting MP's.
Imagine that. A guy who seized power of the party without the input of the rank and file members and fixed it so he would go unchallenged at the leadership convention has the gall to not only demand that all candidates go out and sign up even more members that he can ignore in this effort to have greater control over the nominations of candidates in 308 ridings across the country overriding the will of those same local members/boards, but also by asking those same members to pay for the privilege of it all happening.
What makes this all even more bizarre are a couple of other interesting facts such as that it is Ignatieff himself who is the biggest reason why there are such low numbers of party members at this time since it was he and his backroom minions that fixed it so there would be no real party convention thereby eliminating the best opportunity a political organization has to sign up 1000s of new members, and the real kicker that the guy who is now demanding that Liberal candidates milk their supporters for more money is the same one that himself did not even donate a single dollar to the party in 2008!
Got that? Iggy is the unilateral decider. He is not the payer; that is what he has you for.
Get out those cheque books you Liberals, as your leader has decreed it, so it must be made to happen.
Another bizarre thing about this all is that I doubt that any TV producer would even consider such a script as it seems to unrealistic for viewer to believe. Yet this is the reality of what the Liberal Party of Canada headed Michael Ignatieff looks like today.
Who would have imagined?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
From the comments of yesterdays poll on whether you think Michael Ignatieff would continue to live in Canada if (when) the Liberals lose the next election.
The entire comment: "What our Anon 2 troll has failed to acknowledge is that while Mr.
Ignatieff is a Canadian, he has demonstrated that his best years have been spent traveling the world instead of investing time in his country of citizenship*.
The international experience and education he has gained does not necessarily make up for the education he has missed here. He may know how Canada fits in to the world picture but does he know what makes Canada itself tick?
Mr. Ignatieff does not know the "clockworks" of our country because he's rarely seen the inside of the clock.
If he can be absent from this country for as long as he has been and expect to come pack and be the PM, then I'm reading a medical textbook and becoming a doctor...self proclaimed and all.
Please bend over and cough.....that will be $78."
*Edited per author.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
If the Liberals lose the next election will Michael Ignatieff stay in Canada or will he and his wife pack up and go back to England or perhaps somewhere else?
Judging by his past history I think he will be gone faster than a paper bag full of money on a table in a Quebec restaurant.
What say you?
I have added a poll to the right side of the blog with this question, but please feel free to post your comments as to why you think he will stay or would go.
Update: Final poll results. Out of 278 votes 264 voted that Iggy would leave if he lost an election. Only 14, or 5% of the total vote, voted that he would remain in Canada.
The people have spoken!
Sunday, March 01, 2009
His latest can be read here: Paradis Libel Notice
Am I missing something here? How is that statement quoted in any way libelous?
Update: There is more than 1 person claiming that the above obscure reference is referring to them.
I Googled the quote as listed in the libel notice since the it made the following claim:
"The words complained of were accurately published by various media sources and therefore constitute a broadcast. The words complained of were picked up by various news wire services and were spread throughout the world on the world wide web."
I got exactly 1 hit! That one hit being Ezra's latest blog post which quotes the libel notice itself.
It has gone viral I tell you, viral!