Today's National Post
Lots of good stuff in there today. Here's some highlights... some good news, then bad news, then good news, then more bad news.
"Harper hints he'll live up to equalization promise"
This is VERY good news... I'd personally be ticked if this commitment was broken. I personally think the media has druming up rumors for the last week, so I'm glad to see Mr. Harper finally pipe up on the issue.
"Blair backs down over gay adoption law"
This is in the print version of the National Post, but I can't find it online. Page A16... Tony Blair faced a Cabinet revolt when he proposed certain protections for Catholic adoption agencies. Perhaps a preview of what's coming down the pipes here in Canada? And you thought the SSM vote was the end of it...
"Liberals confounded by 'one-candle' Harper"
Well, I guess 'the one-candle man' is at least better than 'Mr. Dithers'... Don Martin had a few good thoughts about how Mr. Dion is floundering, but at the same time, the public isn't giving Mr. Harper too much breathing room... but that some are starting to warm to his way of doing things. "The Economist" thinks Mr. Harper is doing a good job... that's the same magazine that started the "Mr. Dithers" tag... remember him?
"Arabs, Muslims to mobilize against the Tories"
This is going to be a problem.
I find it ironic though, how standing up for the right of Israel to exist is automatically considered to be "pro-Israel", and thus assumed to be "anti-Arab". Huh?
When I say I'm "pro-Israel", as they say Mr. Harper is, I understand that to mean that while I disagree with some of the methods they use, I fully support their right to defend their very existance. It seems that some, on the other hand, think that Canada should be "neutral"... when in reality they are saying that we should butt out, and stop condemning the genocidal tendancies of certain groups.
It's real simple... acknowledge Israel's right to exist. So, I ask, if you're not, why AREN'T you "pro-Israel"? And why SHOULDN'T Canada be "pro-Israel"? Disagree with their policies all you want, as I sometimes do, but don't try to say that anyone who stands against terror and genocide is "pro-Israel", and then try to make it out to be a bad thing.
I think this is a case of electoral bullying... and I'm personally afraid it's going to work.
But if it means losing an election to stand up and do the right thing... BRING IT ON. I won't play politics with peoples lives... nor should anyone else.
Oh yea, one more point... notice how few attacks on innocent Israelis have reported lately? Maybe they're doing something right over there. (that, and perhaps the fact that Hammas has been too busy fighting with Fata lately...)
That's it for now. Let the flame wars begin...
"Harper hints he'll live up to equalization promise"
This is VERY good news... I'd personally be ticked if this commitment was broken. I personally think the media has druming up rumors for the last week, so I'm glad to see Mr. Harper finally pipe up on the issue.
"Blair backs down over gay adoption law"
This is in the print version of the National Post, but I can't find it online. Page A16... Tony Blair faced a Cabinet revolt when he proposed certain protections for Catholic adoption agencies. Perhaps a preview of what's coming down the pipes here in Canada? And you thought the SSM vote was the end of it...
"Liberals confounded by 'one-candle' Harper"
Well, I guess 'the one-candle man' is at least better than 'Mr. Dithers'... Don Martin had a few good thoughts about how Mr. Dion is floundering, but at the same time, the public isn't giving Mr. Harper too much breathing room... but that some are starting to warm to his way of doing things. "The Economist" thinks Mr. Harper is doing a good job... that's the same magazine that started the "Mr. Dithers" tag... remember him?
"Arabs, Muslims to mobilize against the Tories"
This is going to be a problem.
I find it ironic though, how standing up for the right of Israel to exist is automatically considered to be "pro-Israel", and thus assumed to be "anti-Arab". Huh?
When I say I'm "pro-Israel", as they say Mr. Harper is, I understand that to mean that while I disagree with some of the methods they use, I fully support their right to defend their very existance. It seems that some, on the other hand, think that Canada should be "neutral"... when in reality they are saying that we should butt out, and stop condemning the genocidal tendancies of certain groups.
It's real simple... acknowledge Israel's right to exist. So, I ask, if you're not, why AREN'T you "pro-Israel"? And why SHOULDN'T Canada be "pro-Israel"? Disagree with their policies all you want, as I sometimes do, but don't try to say that anyone who stands against terror and genocide is "pro-Israel", and then try to make it out to be a bad thing.
I think this is a case of electoral bullying... and I'm personally afraid it's going to work.
But if it means losing an election to stand up and do the right thing... BRING IT ON. I won't play politics with peoples lives... nor should anyone else.
Oh yea, one more point... notice how few attacks on innocent Israelis have reported lately? Maybe they're doing something right over there. (that, and perhaps the fact that Hammas has been too busy fighting with Fata lately...)
That's it for now. Let the flame wars begin...
posted by Christian Conservative @ 10:47 a.m.
2 Comments:
At Thu Jan 25, 01:05:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
I fully expect you to be slagged despite your clear statement that you do not always agree with Israel's policies. But then, a person is not only judged by the company (s)he keeps, but by the enemies (s)he makes. There is absolutely no way we can be neutral with evil.
At Fri Jan 26, 05:48:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Regarding the Catholic adoption agencies,this issue is online at the telegraph,which is a British newspaper. Can read and leave comments there too!. The Weekly Telegraph newspaer, here in Canada also has a article on this issue too.
Post a Comment
<< Home