Prentice moved swiftly to condemn the move, summoning the chief executives of both companies to Ottawa to discuss the matter.

On Thursday, the industry minister said he met recently with Bell Canada CEO George Cope, but has yet to have talks with Telus CEO Darren Entwistle.

Prentice knows he doesn’t have a leg to stand on - Telus and Bell can charge whatever they want for the services they provide. However, here comes the threat:

Prentice described the meeting with Cope as a “healthy exchange.” However, he made it clear the government wants the companies to eliminate the charge.

“At the end of the day, the cellular industry currently is an industry where we don’t have heavy regulation . . . That’s something that we’ve tried to maintain in Canada,” said Prentice.

This brings up a number of questions?

• Is the Conservative government going to get into the business of telling private companies what to charge for specific non-essential services?
• Is the Conservative Industry Minister going to continue to demand meetings and threaten companies every time he personally disagrees with their actions?

and finally,

• Is this Conservative government going to act like a real conservative government (one that actually applies conservative economic principles to their policies and or actions), or are they content to be just marginally right of the Liberal Party

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

But the Conservative’s director of communications vehemently denies the holes in the image are bullet holes. In an interview, Ryan Sparrow said they are just holes “like there are in Stéphane Dion’s policies.” And, in apparent unintentional irony, Sparrow framed the criticisms from blogs as Liberal partisans trying to “shoot the messenger.”

“It’s pretty evident Liberals are sensitive about bad policy,” he continued. He also said there are no plans to clear confusion about the holes.

Perhaps Sparrow has never actually seen a bullet hole before? Nevertheless, I’ll say it again, this website - including Sparrow’s comments - are an embarrassment to the party and its membership.

Look at the actual Conservative.ca website - the front page is riddled with childish shots and games aimed at the Liberals, and particular Stephane Dion. The rest of the site is extremely short on substance and high on rhetoric and meaningless platitudes.

How can anyone take this party seriously when they have such a poor website?

Here’s a tip for those of you who are responsible for Conservative.ca, you’re not in the opposition anymore, time to drop the childish taunting (and poor design) and act like the government.

Update: Welcome SDA, wernerpatels.com readers.

Update 2: The graphic was yanked from the front page of Conservative.ca, but it still exists here.

Update 3: Ryan Sparrow’s Comments on Bullet Hole Graphic.

This would appear to pave the way for Donna Cadman to run in Surrey North.  It certainly makes a way for the Conservatives to regain this riding, as the only reason Priddy won the last election was from her long-standing and popular run in both Municipal and Provincial politics.

Interesting development.  I wonder how much it was coloured by her friendship with the Cadman family.

1)The Garth — Got the reception that he deserved for the “Screw the West, We’ll Take the Rest” redux. I hope he doesn’t come back to tell us he’s inclusive the next time a homosexual agenda issue comes up, but if he does, it won’t be the first time he’ll be caught directly lying to Canadians. That last note makes his quote from today all the more amusing (emphasis added):

For writing and acting in defence of my country, for opposing those who put self interests before Canada, for the decisions I have made, and the consequences they have yielded, I regret nothing.

Who knew Turner had such self-hatred?

2) Regarding the most recent evolution post, “Tom” has actually posted alleged proof for macroevolution (the effort is appreciated). Two problems though; First, after being told repeatedly by PZ Myers’ fanboys that we’ve had proof for years, this opening statement from Tom’s article doesn’t sound too compatible (emphasis really added!):

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

So, before June 9th of this year, would Darwinists have happened to have been acting on some level of faith or is the article, written by a well-respected science publication, just wrong and in need of serious correction? Secondly, I’m happy that the bacteria have discovered some new munchies, but as was brushed upon in the definition of a species argument, can we indicate if these lemon-sucking bacteria are in fact a completely different species from their brethren and not just hungrier?

3) I cannot sit by any longer when it comes to Harris-Decima. The Toronto Star’s resident polling firm (that should tell you a lot about their credibility right there!) has been doing weekly polls recently that indicate a trend in which the Harper Government is now on par with dog food in popularity questions they ask. However, their latest butcher job shows over 60% of Canadians preferring massive carbon taxes if

the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

.

That’s a big if to be assuming there, and one that even I would agree with, were I actually polled. However, I thought the article the quote appears in was called Canadians want climate action now, poll suggests, not (oh, I don’t know), Canadians want action now to end addiction to high gas prices, addiction to oil, poll suggests. Oh, The Star…

4)Finally, it’s always cute to see the NDP attempt to orchestrate some sort of public backlash via the government. Of course, what will really happen is that NDP will fail but consumers will take care of themselves by canceling phone plans and the sort. The phone carriers might think that their government-mandated cartel creates a highway robbery scenario, but there are still millions of us non-mobile Canadians who make do just fine without cells, and it’ll stay that way until someone approaches us with a reasonable cell phone plan!

SEE ALSO: Joanne indicates she’ll be first blood if the new texting fees come in; looks like you got a winner here guys! Right From Alberta also noticed an interesting point about the NDP’s petition to stop these fees.

Then they win a Grey Cup for the first time in decades.

Strangely coincidentally, their economy begins to ride a wave of prosperity started in Alberta.  For the first time in decades, Saskatchewan experiences positive population growth.

…and then came Stephane Dion.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

I’m talking of course (see title) about libertarians, or specifically about what libertarians are considered today. While the term could apply to many distinct schools of political thought, including the one that I subscribe to, the libertarian moniker in 2008 refers to one who is adamant about reducing government spending and intervention in the economy, while also subscribing to the secularist interpretation of human rights. I say this, instead of saying that they are “socially liberal” like libertarians like to describe themselves, because I’ve found that description to be a simple matter of opinion and not a quantifiable statement like one’s opinion on government spending levels can be.

As I said above, I consider myself a libertarian, but one of the Lord Acton (a 19th century Catholic and noble) brand, not of the modern rendition. Therefore, it’s fairly safe to say that I typically agree with most modern (secular) libertarians and find their reasoning to be typically sound on fiscal matters. I’ve spoken and debated with many over the years and have observed their frustration at many on The Left who like to believe that the economy is a macro-sized golden goose which you can feed government dollars and have it produce a “just society”. Many have lamented just how emotionally-based liberal arguments are and how they don’t hold up to the real world realities or mathematical proofs that we now know.

As such, it might come as a shock, but I find that libertarians too easily fall into the irrational and overtly emotional impulses of their liberal friends when it comes to the topics of drugs, abortion, marriage and the family’s role in society. In essence, I believe that modern libertarians have to answer a very difficult question which is why they tend to be onside with the likes of the NDP when it comes to issues like this, despite their dramatic opposition to that party’s attitudes in almost every other policy arena. Put another way, if it that if government endorsement of “gay marriage”, aborting fetus lives and marijuana for all is liberty, how did the NDP arrive at these conclusions and for the same reasons expressed at libertarians. Granted, a broken clock is right twice a day, but simple analogies don’t do justice to over a century of political philosophy development; either socialists and liberals are capable of spearheading liberty as they use national kangaroo courts to squash our speech freedoms, or modern libertarianism has gone astray.

After debating many libertarians, I have come to the conclusion that it is it the latter: when it comes to such issues, libertarians have let their angst for authority cloud their judgment and sense of natural order with emotional impulses, thus letting them arrive at the conclusions they do. Otherwise, why is it so well known that a great majority of self-described libertarians are pro-abortion, instead of pro-life? As I inferred above, if libertarians were naturally and neutrally socially liberal, shouldn’t a sizable minority (at the least) arrive at the conclusion that an unborn fetus’ right to life outweighed a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that she played a pretty intimate part in creating? It’s too lopsided to be a simple matter of rights since both sides of the debate have a well-defended right they’re trying to argue in favour of. I hope that one day the libertarians in Canada see this as well, and begin to connect liberalism’s attack on free society with our destructive social policy and not in spite of it!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

What we have after all those caveats is a shift that won’t do an iota to change the habits of Canadians, if the goal is still, in fact, to save ourselves from the sixth element of the periodic table. The fact that Dion is trying to convince us that life will go on normally also demonstrates that the professor didn’t take much chemistry in his undergrad as even the only item that doesn’t require carbon for production, computer software, still requires a bunch of energy that comes from carbon just to run the computers that make the programs. How is this not going to affect us?

Then, of course, we must consider what corporations are going to do. Being nobody’s fool, any industry that pollutes like the steel factories in Hamilton, the auto plants in the GTA or the oil refineries in Alberta, will just find a way to slip their sites south of the border where the environmental lunacy currently hasn’t hit the same heights. Under Stephane Dion’s loophole-ridden Canada, we sell our oil assets to the States, sacrifice jobs that would’ve been created to refine the black gold, then buy it back at a loss for our vehicles that aren’t going anywhere because of said lack of jobs.

So, with that all considered, can we really count on the Liberals to actually follow through with anything? Well, they’re still proposing a tax aren’t they? And since I just spent three paragraphs explaining the glories of this plan, and that your average Canadian voter stops reading after “insiders”, I’d say that Stephane Dion will successfully reduce our carbon pollution by putting the massive CO2 emitters currently in the Liberal caucus out on the street, and ensuring that their successors won’t be blowing so much hot air about a plan too gentle for environmentalists, too harmful for conservatives and too complex for a national party to win voters over on!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Carole James is launching an “Axe the Tax” campaign, attempting to mobilize strong grassroots opposition to the gas tax portion of Gordon Campbell’s greenhouse fighting initiatives.  Initially, it will result in a 2.4 cent per liter gas tax, which is going to rise over time.

Of course, the clarion call of any government introducing a new tax is “it is revenue neutral!”  Of course.  This year.  But in a couple of years, when you need the revenues, that will end.  Because, as always in Canada, there is no legal enforcement mechanism that requires revenues from certain taxes to be dedicated to specific expenditures.  Thus, there is never a guarantee that taxes will stay dedicated to what their proponents say they will be.

But I digress.  The NDP leader is fighting like crazy to keep the Green Party from becoming a legitimate force in provincial politics.  As the strength of the unions begin to wane from the rise of oil and gas (which pays so much in general, they hardly ever have unions) and the descent of the forestry industry, the NDP are seeking to find a new foothold.  They had it in the environmentalist left, but with the Green Party beginning to gain momentum, that is slipping.

Then came Campbell’s green package a few months ago.  In finest political tradition, a ruling party steals the platform right out from under their opponents.  If they take the green path, the Green Party and the NDP have no stick to beat them with.  They were right.  It has forced Carole James to do the unthinkable - engage in a populist ground war against the very people she was courting to buttress NDP support - the uncommitted Green people.  How is she going to at once maintain her party’s environmental policies while fighting against a “carbon tax”?

I agree it must be done.  As opposition leader, this is what she is getting paid to do.  This is a potentially very divisive issue and could very well help her party’s fortunes if played right.  In the vast wilderness that encompasses 9/10ths of this province, there is no greener option than the gas guzzling pickups that ride the gravel roads of rural BC.  Have you seen the axles on the “green” 4×4s?  They are made of pipecleaners!  They may be fine for city slickers who need them to go berry picking in the summer a couple of times, but when you face the winter, the potholes, the ploughs, the washouts, etc. that interior residents face much more routinely, you need something with meat - and that burns gas.

Needless to say, higher gas prices don’t sell well where there isn’t a regular bus route.  And rural citizens generally don’t vote NDP (with the exception of unionized millworkers, who are probably pretty ticked right now as they are all laid off with mill closures).  But if they were told that the NDP were standing up for the gas they have to pour into their tanks, well they may indeed change their tune.

My question is how much the NDP will lose to the Green Party or the Liberals in urban BC to gain the rural gas tax haters?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Crash! Five years ago today, gay marriage became the law of the province – and, I note, no sky has fallen yet, has it? Nope. The Dominion remains strong. Nice piece by Martha here – but it would have been nicer if she had mentioned our mutual former home that largely financed the litigation: McMillan BInch

,

but he obviously didn’t look too hard since the very debate on the issue was enough for a government institution to convict a preacher of thought crimes. Alas, there is that small polygamy matter that Kinsella’s buddy Dalton is letting slide under the rug despite the law as well — and guess what precedent the Muslims are using? (first one to post the answer in the comments wins a prize!*) But ya Warren, if you mean that Church Street hasn’t transformed into Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, then I guess you could say that calling the marriage apple just a plain old fruit (thus, making it less offensive and restrictive) did nothing to our poor old Dominion. Unfortunately for Warren though, life isn’t a political campaign, so he can’t attack ad his opinion into reality.

*-like Warren’s definition of “Catholic”, or “Christian”, terms are subject to change. See store for details.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Citing Flaherty’s remark in February that companies would not want to invest in Ontario because of provincial business taxes, Dion demanded Prime Minister Stephen Harper put someone else in that portfolio.

I had to read down through 2/3 of the article to find that offhand reference as to the basis for firing the Minister of Finance.

Clearly he’s driven the country’s economy into the toilet, daring to speak the truth about high business taxes in Ontario.

Meanwhile, the man who so clearly deserves to be fired is busy pointing out a massive $250 million dollar fund available to encourage GM to redevelop the assembly plant to produce vehicles other than the increasingly shunned large SUV’s that they produced before.

I don’t even get why this is even a Federal issue.  Isn’t it more of a Provincial responsibility?  I don’t recall anyone going to bat federally when all the Skeena Cellulose mills on the Central Coast of BC were going belly up.  I don’t seem to remember any federal leader standing up for other shutdowns of lumber mills, and then shipping the raw timber south of the border for processing.

But somehow Ontario is special.  Ontario deserves to have industries propped up for employment with federal subsidies.

Talk about pandering for votes: Dion for demanding heads to roll on account of economic conditions beyond the control of any level of Canadian government, and Flaherty for scrambling to prop up said car factory, when he doesn’t have anything to say about manufacturing in other provinces.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

First, to understand the blatant hypocrasy and moral inconsistency (or “intellectual dishonesty”, as our seculatarian friends like to say) of the YFS, you need not read the pages of the National Post, Michael Coren’s column, or the Blogging Tories; just head on over to the Federation’s website, where a big red button titled “Denial of Free Speech at McMaster” which links to this — a letter attacking McMaster for banning “Israel Apartheid Week”. That’s right, the YFS which is making national headlines this month for trying to oppress diverse views on its campus, was the same group that was also making headlines back in March for vigorously defending a campaign that wasn’t just about free speech but was also known for a history of violence and harassment of an prominent ethnic group on campus.

This inconsistency might go a long way to explain why, in the months and years ahead, when Canada starts to examine whether a primitive primate can “argue” for human rights, the YFS will probably be there, strongly backing the cause and at the same time oppressing groups which speak out for unborn humans which can also not speak in a court of law but can, unlike chimps, meet the biological argument for species validation in that all non-genetically defective fetuses have the capability of breeding with humans and producing sustainable, fruitful offspring. Save the primates, scourge the people, as it were. Don’t expect facts to get in the way of York’s student leaders or their cheerleaders on The Left as the entire abortion argument for them has long been one about passion and emotion, but not much beyond the principle that guilt-free sexual incidents should be an absolute right that trumps all others.

Their argument, founded around the reality that men can walk away from affairs without the risk of pregnancy while women cannot, betrays this in that their natural conclusion is that women should have the freedoms that men do in this regard, instead of examining whether men should have the responsibilities that women do for a pregnancy instead. Nor does the rights and realities of the growing child become a discussion point during this whole debate either. Wouldn’t you expect more from scholars, charged with examining all aspects of the issue at hand?

Update:Steyn’s insight into the future of abortion, and a small tip ‘o’ hat to the York affair…

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

It is in the hands of climatologists and other related scientists who are highly motivated to look in one direction only because a large number of academic careers has evolved around the idea of man-made global warming. It is, further, in the hands of politicians who maximize the number of votes they seek to get from the electorate. It is also - as a consequence of political decisions - in the hands of bureaucrats of national and more often of international institutions who try to maximize their budgets and years of careers as well regardless the costs, truth and rationality. It is in the hands of rent-seeking businesspeople who are - given the existing policies - interested in the amount of subsidies they are receiving and look for all possible ways to escape the for them often merciless, but for the rest of us very positive, general welfare enhancing functioning of free markets. An entire industry has developed around the funds the firms are getting from the government. [Emphasis mine]

Via: http://gayandright.blogspot.com

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

If Bernier is going to be pre-judged (the prejudice just happened to provide convincing scoring points for his opponents) based on the company he keeps, I would like to see more politicians discard the company they keep — that includes careless employees.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Article II of the constitution states: “No person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

The framers of the constitution didn’t define “natural born citizen.” The phrase was added without any clarifying debate. The Supreme Court has never been asked to definitively settle the issue. And so we are left with a phrase just ambiguous enough to cause controversy.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that a government could calculate the possible revenue generated by a new tax, and reduce other taxes to balance the budget.

But, I do not know of this EVER happening in Canada.  Government always miscalculates and apologizes later.  The reason is that it is expedient to lie to get your way, if your only cost is to apologize after.  It is always easier to get your way then apologize later than it is to suffer the ignominy of not getting your way, even if you were wrong.

Every tax increase ever introduced in Canada has been accompanied by the promise that it will be “revenue-neutral”.  It has never been true.

I defy anyone to prove any assertion of this post wrong.

If there is any way forward, it is the passing first of legislation that forces government to dedicate revenue from certain taxes to certain services.  This needs to be done for every tax in existence on the books.  It is only with accountability for income and expense that this promise can be seriously meant… and kept.

If this was done, then the government may actually become accountable to the people.  But we know that nobody in government wants that.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

A fundamental component of the debate has been ignored so far though and that is whether a tax on the sixth element of the periodic table is really such a good idea after all. For example, I relayed a report late last year on how an obsessive academic from Australia proposed the sick ideal of putting a carbon tax on each baby born into the world and a yearly tax on children for the first years of their lives. As we have our national government apologizing for the Chinese head tax of almost 100 years ago, calling the practice a shameful blemish from our past, eco-liberals are gearing up to add a tax that doesn’t discriminate on race necessarily but on simply existing. The professor was never quite clear on what would happen if families either refused or could not afford to pay the tax, although he was certainly joyous in announcing how this would effectively womens’ (and mens’) right to chose to have their babies (something liberals often love to do except when they know the choice will result in one less life in the world).

On the other end of the age spectrum though, Stephane Dion’s carbon tax threatens the well-being of our society. While details haven’t been offered by many pundits so far, I’m sure more than a few of them have been sharing my imagination of a Conservative attack ad picturing an elderly old lady, huddled in the corner of a dark, snow-squalling room; as the picture pans out from the detailed sadness of this lonely old woman, a caption will read something to the effect that the retired lady wouldn’t afford heat because that nasty Scrooge of a Liberal, Stephane Dion, is taxing coal so high that she can’t afford to keep warm this Christmas/winter. Whether or not we end up seeing an ad like this run, the fact still remains that some fixed-income Canadians will be hit hard by a carbon tax, often in the case where they slaved away their whole lives under an income tax system that punished them when they were making more money. Now they wouldn’t make as much, which should reduce their burden under income tax, but would be sideswiped by the Dion carbon tax at a time in their lives where going out to make more money simply wouldn’t be an option.

Finally, we have to realize just what a ridiculous notion it is for the Liberals to propose that a carbon tax would be tax neutral. Take the mathematical equation ax + by + cz = 100, where a, b, and c are the percentages of total tax that three hypothetical taxpayers, x, y, and z, would pay into the system. If a tax shift were truly neutral (and Canadians have good reason to believe that no political party that proposes a new tax will EVER deliver on the neutrality promise), that 100 would have to stay the same since it represents 100% of the taxes the government collects now.

On the one hand, it may go down for x because he doesn’t buy as much carbon in a year, but z’s burden might go up because she lives on a rural farm where oil heating and a truck are the necessities of a farmer, not the luxury that we might think. Will *big oil* account for some of the z’s out there who will see their tax bill increase? Most definately, but who do you think will pay for it in the end? The fat cat execs who The Left is always telling us about, or the common Canadian who goes to fill up at the pump?

On the other hand, we have to ask just why the Liberal spin doctors are already playing up the tax neutral element of such a carbon tax? After all, either the government isn’t going to be collecting the same amount of money because carbon usage will go down (in which case, we have to ask how Dion plans to fund his national daycare and other new spending projects), or they will and we will be essentially using the same amount of carbon. Thinking further, what isn’t carbon out there? Bread? Wrong. Clothes? Try again. Wood? Look elsewhere. In fact, the only things I can think of off the top of my head are computer chips and software programmes that are downloaded off the internet. Not exactly the bare necessities but I’m sure the tech industry is already thrilled that our government already presumes that we’re pirates and thieves every time we buy a CD/DVD and is itching to get into the flash drive market as well (think of it as a silicon tax — maybe we should just harmonize it with Dion’s carbon tax and have a tax on all IV A elements!).

Ultimately though, if the Liberals are willing to fight for this one in an election, I say go for it. After all, it wouldn’t take long for someone to point out the obvious: if all this environmental posturing we’re doing now is meant to save the Earth and, ultimately, our existence as a species, why would we impose a tax that would be so destructive both to our children and our elderly? Isn’t the point about making our quality of life better? And once the debate is framed that way, Dion’s already ill-advised plan will be toast and we won’t have to hear any more about eco-radicalism, or at least until the summer of 2024 when we have a couple more days over 30 than usual!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

It’s not the concept of rights that conservatives like myself hate; in fact, the United States — a country many of us neo-cons look to favorably — had natural rights embedded in its system far earlier in that country’s history. Rather, what bothers us the most with our rights is that they are so ambiguous and mailable; so much to the point that the courts could actually use the wording of the Charter’s introduction to justify locking up all Italian-Canadians…or rule just about any other reality into being just by a pronouncement. What good are rights if you can’t be certain that they won’t be written out of the Constitution 20 years from now when social culture shifts a tad, or, as today’s ruling demonstrates, the justice system we all depend on for stability is no longer in vogue over on the real estate west of Parliament Hill?

The credibility of today’s ruling isn’t also helped by the strong dissenting opinion of four of the court’s nine sovereigns. Strong language was used by Justice Rothstein in writing on the dissenting opinion, giving hope that this ruling could be overturned with a modest change in the line-up of court judges. Again, even the most partisan individual has to acknowledge that possibility and by extension, that rights are only as good as the ideologues in high courts who defend them!

Unfortunately, any change that may come down the road won’t come soon enough for the victims of violent crimes, or their families, who go on to see their perpetrators go on to receive a Happy Meal sentence, even when the crimes they commit are anything but a “diminished moral blameworthiness” act, as the court would have you believe!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Perhaps the Star, The Chronicle Herald, CTV and the other rags reporting this garbage should team up with the RCMP and go inquire about the relationship between Michael Chamas and former Prime Minister Chretien.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Rae was angered by the generalization for which he says he sees no basis in fact.

-Toronto Star, Saturday May 10, 2008

That quote, and that link, refer to a story by Toronto Star reporter Tonda MacCharles today that suggests that Prime Minister Harper is wrongfully smearing the opposition with an anti-semitic brush. Rae’s charge is quite simply not true, which isn’t shocking to Ontarians who remember his expert opinions on the affairs of government nearly 20 years ago. However, Tonda MacCharles, a journalist, is not presenting a full picture of the situation in her write up and all it takes is a quick Google search to prove it. That’s right! Three MPs, including Bloc MP Giles Duceppe and Montreal Liberal Dennis Coderre marched alongside Hezbollah flags in downtown Montreal back in the summer of 2006 when the Israeli-Lebanon strike was going on those two years ago. The three MPs never publicly denounced their actions and as public representatives, ignored the due diligence that they are expected to practice as such office holders.

That is because Hezbollah is a radical and dangerous group that wants nothing more than they physical obliteration of Israel and all Jews in the world. That’s the sort of allies that the three MPs above-mentioned had on that summer day two years ago and that is why the Prime Minister is accurate in asserting

Canada, under this government, is never going to cater to that kind of opinion. You know, I am disturbed that there are some elements in our political system; there are even some members of Parliament – we saw during a confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah a couple of years back – some that were willing to cater to that kind of opinion.*

So in other words, the Montreal rally was exactly what the Prime Minister was referring to, lest the opposition now suggest that his “blanket statement” could imply other anti-semitic occasions that opposition members indulged in (a Freudian slip, if it comes?). It will come too though as the Montreal event was pretty cut and dry, something that even the most hardened partisan should see if they simply put the shoe on the other foot and tried to imagine Conservatives marching alongside someone holding a “God hates fags” sign…hey, even having an MP holding hands with somebody down the street would even be fair game I guess!

So are the Liberal and Bloc caucuses full of raving “drive ‘em into the sea” anti-semites? Hardly. Are their numbers, however, including those who give legitimacy to an organization that deserves to be destroyed and at the same time associating themselves with a toxic philosophy that the civilized world should not entertain? Absolutely!

*-emphasis added

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So why is everybody focusing on what Hilary will do right now? Well, the cultural side of me likes to think that she’s America’s version of “nobody’s baby”, Shelia Copps; the woman who was able to turn some of the cogs behind the scenes for a while but got shafted when she went for the brass ring herself. In other words, it’s just melodrama right now. Don’t expect Barack Obama to draw too much attention to himself though; doing so will only expediate those tough questions that will eventually come to the eventual Democratic nominee and the man who built his entire campaign around “Yes, we can!” doesn’t come across as much of a policy wonk.

Clinton, for her part, is now just like the NDP; incapable of winning the top prize, guaranteed third place, but still naive enough to think there’s still a shot that she’ll drag down her closest neighbour. How the media doesn’t know or, if they do know, act on this is no longer in the realm of good journalism. It’s Barrack, not Hillary, whose opinions will be debated in the fall; she’s just a sad sideshow now.

Of course, the respectful thing for Clinton to do right now would be to drop out of the race, sparing the world from more of her sob story. She won’t do that though, since she was in it for blood from the get-go, trying to finally establish her decades-long goal of becoming the first three-term president since FDR. If she can’t have the cake, no one in the Democratic Party can, and from here until August, she will be a loadstone around Obama’s neck, dragging him down long enough and far enough to secure a McCain victory in November. If she pulls it off gracefully, something as doubtful as her becoming the 44th President, she gets another chance in 2012; if she fails to make a difference and Obama wins, she won’t have her next shot till 2016. The choice is pretty obvious when you consider the ego of the Senator from New York.

It’s Obama’s story that is really the more important issue right now though. Surely his advisors must be drafting up who his running mate will be already. They can’t and won’t go with Clinton; she’s not a very good second fiddle as I just mentioned. The race has been very divisive though and this is a major problem for Obama. He’ll have to secure a major Clinton supporter whose personality and record would naturally add to the ticket but also symbolize an olive branch to the Clinton faction. The real story also is that while Obama will win the nod, and has performed well over the past year, he is still only running a demographic campaign that is tailored to the Democratic Party — and even at that, he’s only winning within 10% in most of his victories. Break down the numbers further and you begin to see that he’ll definately lock down the black vote come the fall, but then, when hasn’t the Democrat?

Furthermore, his message of hope is only a one-trick pony, good enough to get like-minded people to give him an initial consideration. What happens when he tries to appeal to independents and soft Republicans? What happens as well when his message isn’t reinforced by a primary adversary who practically parrots every left-wing note he sings, but is challenged and attacked by an ideological opposite like McCain? While the Obama campaign has won the battle against Clinton, it really hasn’t demonstrated that it is capable of delivering the war, and that’s why there is such uneasiness in the many quarters of the Democratic Party about his candidacy.

This week’s results aren’t important because of what the Democrats are doing, but what the Republicans aren’t. If the Dems want to follow through on that desire to retake the White House after eight years of GOP control — something history gives them the advantage for — then they’re going to have to smarten up and soon. Personally, as a political observer, I know that Clinton would be a more formidable foe than Obama. Yes, she’s polarizing, screechy, and egocentric, but she can also stand her ground in a debate. Obama? He’s just riding the outsider’s wave right now and when he moves onto the next round, the fact that nothing’s really happened now will come back to haunt him. That’s because the silence you hear is really the GOP, watching, waiting, and taking notes; they’re effective under pressure and the Democrats have been kind enough to spare them three extra months they didn’t need but will aptly use. As soon as the convention ends, if not sooner, the tanks’ll roll out. And that’s why Obama might be better off shifting attention from Clinton after all!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.

Aside from also speaking about our government-imposed unhealthy relationship between employees and employers, Coren got me thinking by phrasing the incident that sparked this whole thing in the way he did:

One employee announced to colleagues that she was a lesbian and began discussing her sexuality. Eventually she was let go. She complained to the Human Rights Commission, which fined Christian Horizons and demanded the change. Demanded, in fact, that they not be Christian.

I hadn’t considered it until reading Coren’s column, but what if we flipped this around and an employee started sharing their Christian faith with colleagues? I doubt it would end up before a HRC. And even if we buy into the secularist axiom that homosexuals are born wired to be homophilic (one that, like all such axioms on fetal tissue, the origins of life and the universe, and climate change conveniently lacks that indisputable proof that axioms usually come with), can the state successfully argue that a believing Christian isn’t just as equally inseparable from their faith and what it makes him or her? Think of the parallels: some people in churches leave to join other religions, and some homosexuals realize they just aren’t homosexuals any longer; both groups claim that their respective affiliations colour everything they do; and both groups have their affiliations protected under the current legal community’s consensus.

It’s an interesting situation: one where a group tasked with going out into all the world to spread their Good News has their constitutionally recognized right to do so repressed, while another had beneficial rights literally penciled into the highest document of the land is allowed to ignore the acronym every employee should know: NSFW (Not Safe For Work). It wasn’t the lesbian woman’s decision to become a lesbian that got her fired, it was her insistence on preaching the news to the rest of her co-workers that did. Curious that, when any Christian who pulled a similar stunt would be out by 3pm, box of belongings in hand. To use Coren’s wording, a sane nation would actually follow it’s own laws and both groups would be able to share away but that would also presume that groups like HRCs would be under the law too, now wouldn’t it?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Oh, and just regarding the actual laws surrounding this whole issue, Andrew had it covered last week.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So when it comes to the case of Waterloo region’s Christian Horizons, the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first, not the other way around. If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up with CH — after all, with a name like Christian Horizons, it’s not like they were hiding a secret agenda or anything! Now we can debate on whether the government has any business funding any philosophically or ethically-biased group (it’s certainly hard not to, and even liberal atheism has certainly gotten its share through causes like the Court Challenges Programme), but we have to start here with the understanding that the government of the day entered into a deal with CH knowing, or responsible for knowing full well that the organization was guided by divine principles; in the private sector, if you partner up with another company and then expect a change, not only do you become a laughing stalk but chances are you’ll also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards. What the crowd who cites CH’s government funding are trying to do is bad business and bad manners, period.

Next, as far as employment laws are concerned, I have to admit that it’s no surprise that John Tory has once again demonstrated that his lust to win seats in Toronto trumps all common sense and principle, not to mention the desire to hang onto that rural rump that his party currently possesses in the legislature. If a company decides to abide under Charter-protected freedoms of religion as it conducts its business, what right does the state have to come in and impose its own morality. If what the company does is bad practice, won’t its reputation get around and the court of public opinion weed out any unwarranted behaviours? Who would want to buy from a reseller who refuses to hire women when they know full-well that a boycott could be right around the corner? Likewise, we expect Christian organizations, Muslim centres and urbane companies to all hire and work according to what their respective entities stand for. If the public tolerates it through their business practices, so what? Or are we actually, finally brave enough to admit that this is just an attempt to impose state-sanctioned atheist secularism into every aspect of society? I didn’t think so.

Much of this will matter very little though as we will once again see a rip-roaring battle ensue where the God-haters and religiophobes of our society once again rise us to defend a separation of church and state concept they barely understand and always reinvent to suite the flavour of the day. Nowhere will be hear of the 500+ years of jurisprudence that has allowed Christian organizations to serve the public good over that period of time and gave Canada, in particular, such bedrock foundations as the Sisters of St. Joseph, the YMCA or Christian Horizions — all of which have, by a desire to serve a higher calling, given us cheaper, wholesome and quality social services than we would’ve had if we just had the state do it all itself from the beginning. Certainly there will not be a mention of that. Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

While the reasons for the union, essentially a private organization unaccountable to voters, to reject such a honey of deal remains unclear at this time, it might be time to eulogize this sort of hostage-victim relationship that the transit workers have enjoyed with the city over the last few decades since it’ll never be sweeter than this again. Combined with an illegal strike in 2006, today’s sudden cancellation of service will likely mark a turn in already sour public temperament after the aforementioned week of learning from the media just how much they had to empty the cupboard this time to appease the already well-compensated workers. As a general rule, you don’t come back to the kid you just stole lunch money again for another sucker punch indulgence. That’s exactly what the TTC has done here, prompting both Comrade Miller and a formerly reluctant Dalton McGuinty to reach a deal legislating back-to-work orders, on top of considering a further provision making the TTC essential service. If that last part is successful (and it should be since paying our taxes to public unions is also an essential service), the TTC will have lost most of the ridiculous bargaining powers it used to hold the 2 million-plus city at bay. The threats of literally shutting down the city will evaporate over night and Toronto might actually be able to keep new contract raises under the rate of inflation.

If, on the other hand, the TTC fights back and takes a page from the teachers unions’ during the Bill Davis years in the 1970s, we’ll enter into an ugly, painful, but necessary stage where the public’s outrage with an out of control union will flare up so quickly that we might actually begin to see private transportation grow to a significant level of business. Fleets of shuttle cars, taxis and other creative means of moving people would remove any necessity for the TTC, which would be relegated to a poor cousin dependent on government honey for survival, and much akin to the CBC today. We might see a Mike Harris-type Premier come along and ask why the TTC’s subway service just couldn’t be privatized like the 407 was nine years ago, since commuters already pay for the TTC as it is.

In short, the TTC is about to be de-clawed, and if it shows any teeth because of the procedure, it might find itself further surgically altered. The TTC’s literally putting all it’s stakes on the line today though. Enjoy the nice Saturday weather and smugness today though, for tomorrow you find out that you’ll get more than you bargained for!

UPDATE: Views from Joanne and Tony, with more to follow I’m sure!

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

So, following this logic, we should also decriminalize murder, seeing as when it is outlawed the cost of a hitman rises, increasing the incentive for someone to kill for money?

I cannot see how anyone can argue that a child is ready to make the kind of choice that would subject them to child pornography, and in almost every case they will be influenced by either their parents, or the pornographer. Granted, perhaps if she was talking about people who are legally children but widely considered old enough to make sexual decisions, (14-17 years old), her position might be slightly more defencible, but still.

I am all for freedom for two consenting adults to do whatever they want behind closed doors. Children aren’t adults, and I doubt they’re consenting.

It doesn’t look like Ruwart will quit the race, despite the increased scrutiny, but it still looks like the Libertarian nominee is going to be ex-Republican representative Bob Barr after this quotation has been brought to light.

Of course, it’s all a moot point, as the LP Candidate has no reasonable shot at the Presidency, but it’s a start. Now if only someone would read “The Audacity of Hope”.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Hillary Clinton is currently written off by almost everyone, including me. She will inevitable finish second to Obama in delegates heading into the convention, regardless of how Pennsylvania and Indiana play out. North Carolina is the other remaining state with any considerable number of delegates, and Obama has that one wrapped up, I’d say. She could carry both of them by 60-40, which is the outside limit to how big she could, I think, and still end up behind him. In the end, Obama took a lot of little contests throughout the race that pretty much won it for him.

However, voters are refusing to listen to the numbers, the pundits, and political experts. They’re still turning out in amazing numbers to vote in a race that’s already “decided”. And lately, they’ve been voting in favour of someone who’s “already lost”.

And lots of the places she’s won are big states that the Dems will have to win in order to have a shot in November. She took the popular vote in Michigan, Florida, Texas, California, New York and and Ohio. She’s won many of the more recent primaries, and she claims to have a lead in the “super-delegates”.

Not only that, but she has more of a chance of swaying moderates than Obama does. He may have a monopoly on charisma, but in a long, drawn out election policies will start to come out, and Clinton is far more a middle of the road democrat. Obama is one of the most liberal sitting-Senators, and even a cursory read of “The Audacity of Hope” would make many conservatives shy away. She has the better organization, has an easier time getting donations from corporate America than he does, and is all around a better campaigner.

Still, for her to win the nomination, she’ll need a lot of super delegates. Now, to get a lot of them shouldn’t be hard. They are, after all, politicians. They’ll want to be on the side that chooses the President, so as to get in his, or her, good graces. So I’d expect that many will wait until the last minute, see how the tide is going, and move en masse to the winner’s circle. And they aren’t going to go against the delegate count. They are humans, they are politicians, and they need to be reelected. That won’t happen if they ignore the will of their constituents.

So even though Hillary may look like a winner, it won’t matter, and I’m one conservative who is sad about that. 

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

Today’s events have given me that something, as a couple of friends and I hopped in my car and spent the day (fittingly “Earth Day”) traveling 2.5 hours to Buffalo to see the movie because the powers that be here in Canada feel us Canucks are too fragile to be introduced to dangerous, untested ideas that aren’t directly from former Democratic VPs or Michael Moore. It was a fine day with pristine weather, and as much as Buffalo isn’t exactly the Emerald City, it also has a certain charm for me dating back to frequent trips with my grandparents during the Reagan/Bush Sr. eras. Plus, entering the States, you feel that while people aren’t as polished, but they (be they Democrats or Republicans) are more sincere and rooted in their national values.

Regarding the Expelled movie, I start off with what I was going to suggest earlier this week had a post actually emerged: it is not about destroying evolution nor was that the purpose (see the video clip for more verification). Instead, the Darwinists, who are so scared about what this movie could do in the court of public opinion that they even attack a small-fry blogger in Ontario for merely showing interest in this movie, have failed to address the question this movie raise on why scientists (those with PhDs and impressive resumes) who discuss Intelligent Design are ostracized. Science is man’s study of nature and being a human construct is prone to faulty theories and conclusions; just as the ancients observed the universe revolving around the Earth, or the enlightenment folks developed sophisticated alchemy charts to explain compounds, so too have many scientists throughout many centuries observed, but come to the wrong conclusions because of their perspectives. Even Einstein’s speed of light barrier is now being treated as a special case these days and that mathematically-postulated equation was only invented within the last century. From a political perspective, I have to warn the Darwinian forces that continuing to ignore the argument that Expelled makes only risks their side’s own peril. Doing so only reinforces the statement Ben Stein has made that Darwinian scientists are not interested in the continuous defence of their conclusions that has been and should be inherent to the work of science.

Next, on the appearances in the movie, I noticed a striking difference between PZ Myers and his buddy, Richard Dawkins. Myers, who in the movie gushes about the day when God is marginalized in our society despite the recognition of North America’s founding fathers (not to mention even the UN’s approval…) of the freedom of religious beliefs (and not just on the weekend PZ!) was far more confident in his opinions, whereas Dawkins, who wrote “The God Delusion” was surprisingly stuttery and uncertain as he spoke. Being a political animal who specializes in electronic media, I did pay careful attention to see when cuts were made in the scene (which could suggest editing and misleading question-answer sets) and at the end of the movie when Dawkins was being interviewed with Stein one-on-one, these cuts did not exist in a way that could’ve edited the detailed answer that Dawkins gave — namely that he could see the possibility of aliens seeding the Earth via some sort of ID that they developed. In other words, Dawkins agreed on camera that ID could have merit…but as long as we’re not including God in the equation. A rather meta-physical assessment for a biology professor to make, yes, but he also failed to explain how the A* I discussed a few weeks ago came into being (remember, nothing + nothing != something!). I would also note that nothing that any of the Darwinists said in the movie, when taken at face value, could be taken out of context; one guy actually suggested that molecules attached themselves to crystals and *poof*, we had life on Earth — you just can’t splice that kind of stuff!

The movie also did deal with the Hitler-Darwin connection, admitting that not every Darwinist will become a Nazi, but suggesting that Darwinism does lend itself nicely to eugenics and the bloodbath that has been many atheistic regimes throughout the 20th century (see current news on China for more details…). Could the Darwinists counter this claim? I don’t know, but that’s only because they haven’t seriously tried yet except to collectively say “nuh-uh”!

Ultimately though, the movie sets up a dangerous potential for those who follow the status quo. If the movie does well and becomes as recognized as Bowling for Columbine did years ago, it will either force the Darwinists to adapt to a new environment wherein they actually offer a credible rebuttal to ID or, poetically, are cast off into the great waste-bin of historical movements no longer among us. This will include a healthy debate with the scientists who openly challenge the doctrine of Darwinian evolution. It will also mean contending with the large number of scientists, teachers and faculty who, though afraid for their careers now, will down the road get the protection of tenure and management, thus bringing a delayed, but more potent threat to Darwinian group-think. Who’ll win in the end? Well, it’s all about the survival of the fittest, right?

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.

So the question that comes to mind for conservatives is twofold: First, can McCain win? And second, perhaps more important, should he?

McCain represents a classical neocon. He tends to be more of a moderate on economic issues, while being a hardline conservative on social issues. While many conservatives would support him simply because of the letter behind his name, I simply cannot do that.

Against Obama, I have a hard time choosing a better candidate. Neither one represents my views, and neither one would make a good President. Obama represents the young, idealistic, far left wing of the Democrats, while McCain represents the old, social conservative wing of the Republicans. For all the noise about him being a maverick, he tends to toe the party line where it counts, and that’s not good.

However, many polls have him at a good pace with Obama, and the math seems to be in his favour. In the present state of American politics, a Democrat cannot win without carrying New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California. Right now Obama is doing poorly in all of those States, and is actually behind McCain in Pennsylvania.

Considering the fact that mere months ago, it was the prevailing view (and in some circles still is) that after Bush, any Democrat can beat any Republican, this current state of events can only be attributed to the fact that Clinton is destroying Obama’s credibility, and support within his own party.

Many of the states that Democrats at one point considered a possiblity, such as the Upper South, are complete write-offs for the Republicans. Obama has no chance there, and McCain will pick them up handily.

Basically, the Dems have only one shot at winning, barring some unforeseen circumstances. They have to hold onto the Kerry states from ‘04, which is possible, and take Ohio. No other states that went for Bush in 2004 are even a remote possibility for them now.

but if I’m McCain, I’m looking at the numbers, and I’m smiling. If he can take all of Bush’s states, which I think is quite possible, then all he has to do is take a state with as small an electoral college as New Hampshire, and he’s got the Presidency. Basically, the smart money is on McCain at this point.

However, is that good for conservatives? I’m going to say no. I want the Democrats to win, and win big. I’m tired of Republicans fighting for votes in the fever swamp known as “Christian values Conservatives”. I want a more libertarian party, with more focus on small government. And that simply cannot happen until the party is shaken up.

GOBAMA.

Sponsored By: Gift Baskets for Men Select or design your own, save money, & impress.