Archive for: October 2006

Well, it’s official. Ol’ Senate-smackin’ Steve gave the word yesterday and I’m gonna have me a new MP pretty soon (most likely Dianne Haskett ;)). As you might expect, all the usual MSM suspects have popped out to check for their shadows and sound off about the dire fortunes this holds for the Tories, because London’s “such a Liberal bastion.”

There’s just one little problem with that… no Grit seems to want the job so far…:lol:

And a political expert says Harper is taking a “huge risk” calling byelections in London-North-Centre and the Montreal-area riding of Repentigny.

“Byelections are always mini-referenda on the people’s opinion of the government of the day and people are seldom happy with the ruling party,” said Paul Nesbitt-Larking, a political scientist at Huron University College, University of Western Ontario.

Nesbitt-Larking predicts a “very interesting, four-way race” potentially with former city mayor Dianne Haskett running for the Conservatives, the “surging” Green Party’s leader, Elizabeth May, former city councillor Megan Walker for the New Democrats, and an unknown Liberal.

Two prominent local Liberals turned down invitations to seek the nomination, including lawyer Doug Ferguson and Glen Pearson, who ran unsuccessfully for the Grits in London-Fanshawe in January.

City lawyer Laura Tripp, president of the London West Liberal riding association, also declined.

A rumour that federal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay would enter the race was dashed yesterday.

As usual, it’s the weekend and I’m just too damned lazy to complain about anything. So, also as usual, here’s a few somethings to keep everybody occupied before I go off on another rant. Some uplifting, some infuriating, but whatcha gonna do, eh? Can’t have everything go your way. Hope you find them as thought provoking as I did.

Ted Byfield
‘Three-strikes’ law will make streets safer

Michael Coren
She’s no Christian lady

Greg Weston
Federal waste in picture

Christina Blizzard
Feds MIA in Caledonia

Lorrie Goldstein
The real skinny on Bob Rae

Father Thomas Rosica
Remembering the Christian martyrs

Peter Worthington
Tories should reduce capital gains tax

Tom Brodbeck
Health-care fearmongers way off track

Bon apetit 😀

Holy crap! Mind your melons, boys and girls, those pigs are flying and they’re flying low. Damnedest thing I’ve ever seen. Well, second damnedest, actually. It seems that somewhere here in nice, politically correct, lefty-loving Canada, there’s actually a celebrity with his head screwed on straight who isn’t named Stompin’ Tom. I woke up this morning and found this in my email. It seems that, unlike a lot of other celebrities, Bruce “if I had a rocket launcher, some sonofabitch would die” Cockburn isn’t falling for the peacenik propaganda from the Taliban Jack! crowd…

BELLEVILLE, Ont. (CP) — Trying to imagine Bruce Cockburn as a soldier is a bit of a stretch.

But the singer, whose songs strongly condemn war and injustice, says enlisting in the military is something he could consider.

“What would I do if the Taliban invaded Canada?” he said in an interview, staring reflectively at the ceiling of his dressing room before performing at Belleville’s Empire Theatre.

“I’d sign up. I know how to shoot,” Cockburn said with an easy shrug.

Tough words for an avowed peace-loving folkie.

The rest of the article is just as good. I have to say, it’s damned nice to see someone in the public eye without their head up their arse.

Steve Janke, over at AITGWN, has an excellent post on the recent column by James Heath in which he takes Leftists in general, and environmentalists in particular, to task for their hypocritical rantings over Conservative environmental policies. There are also some pretty good observations about the differing motivations and outlooks of the liberal vs. conservative mindsets. It’s interesting stuff.

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that, to the Leftomental crowd, no matter who does what, liberals can do no wrong and conservatives can do no right. As someone who used to volunteer for Greenpeace, I can honestly say that virtually all of what I saw in the “environmental movement” was more about bashing anything and anyone with a conservative bent than it was about “saving the planet.” It’s one of the reasons I never went back.

Well, this is rich. Pure true Grit bullshit at its absolute finest if ever there ever was. After months of dithering, sitting on his hands and basically allowing anarchy a free pass in Caledonia, the waffling wanker from Ottawa South has flung open his piehole to demand that the feds should pick up the tab.

Yup, you read that right. The guy whose utter lack of leadership screwed up a no-brainer law enforcement issue until it became the biggest farce since Bob Rae’s government wants the feds to pick up the tab for his gutlessness and stupidity.

How truly Liberal of him. Can we have an election now, please?

So, just what would Ronald Reagan do if he were around now and having to deal with the terrorist lunatics that currently threaten our way of life? Over at the Brussels Journal, Joshua Trevino has an interesting take on that very question, examining some of the similarities between the threats of Communism and Islamofascism. I can’t say that I agree with everything in the article, but it points out some harsh truths and asks some equally harsh questions that, sooner or later, are going to have to be answered.

It seems that, even in oh-so-tolerant Europe, the tolerance for the malicious stifling of any and all criticism of Islam or frank discussion of it’s impact on Western society is coming to an end.

In dealing with Islamism in the present day, we make the very error that Reagan eschewed with the Communists. We proceed from Islamist premises — namely, that Islam is inherently peaceful; that it is inherently sane; that it is inherently just; and that it is a welcome and benign participant in our post-modern public square. One may not accuse George W. Bush in particular of failing to render a full obeisance on these points. Attendant to this are all manner of details that somehow fall outside the bounds of acceptable discourse in Muslim eyes, and hence in the eyes of any who fear violence. Most recently, we see the shutting-down, by murder and by fire, of any critique or perceived disrespect of the Muslim founder. Reasonable people of any faith may find Muhammed an admirable figure. Or they may examine the historical record and conclude that Muhammed was a violent visionary who slaughtered the defenseless and violated a nine-year old; but state these things in public, and deathly ire stalks the speaker — or, if he is not available, his co-religionists. What victory may we aspire to so long as the most basic freedoms are thus quelled?

Hat’s off to Dave for the heads-up on this.