Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Liberals... not just stealing money anymore

Looks like they've moved on from overstuffed brown envelopes (filled with Canadian's hard earned tax dollars), to stealing entire skids of boxes...

When will Canadians clue in? Once a thief, always a thief!

Anyone called the RCMP yet? The documents are clearly marked to be moved... how did Mark Holland come into posession of them? How long did the Liberals have them? There can be no doubt that the Liberals had them in their posession, thanks to their own video of Mark, Marlene, and the documents. And since they clearly had no legal right to them, (as indicated by the Parliament moving stickers clearly placed on the boxes) can they be charged with theft? Invasion of Privacy? What other Criminal Code offences did they commit in their eagerness to score political points?

Here's a statement from their own website... "The Liberal Opposition is currently examining these documents and will turn them over to the RCMP and other relevant officials if further evidence of criminality or breach of ethics rules is found." Excuse me? Who gave you the right to go through those files? Especially considering the overwhelming evidence that you came into posession of those files in an illegal manner! Besides... "if" you were to find any such documents, they would be thrown out of court because they were illegally obtained... and you know it!

Hey, you know what? They loved pulling those files out in front of the media... what's say we get a warrant, invite the cameras back, and let them take some footage of the RCMP escorting Mr. Holland and Ms. Jennings into the back of a cruiser! LOL!

This issue might just gain some traction... posts on the theft so far:
Right On Course
Splatto
Steve Janke
My previous post

Labels: , , , , ,

8 Comments:

  • At Wed Mar 28, 07:53:00 PM EDT, Blogger Steve Janke said…

    Interestingly, the question of who is responsible and who can call Mark Holland out on this brings into focus the little known but very powerful Board of Internal Economy.

     
  • At Wed Mar 28, 08:54:00 PM EDT, Anonymous dirk.blog@gmail.com said…

    "Liberals... not just stealing money anymore"

    and

    "When will Canadians clue in? Once a thief, always a thief!"

    Point 1: There's no proof anyone stole anything.
    Point 2: Not all Liberals are Mark Holland.
    Point 3: Since you market this as a Christian site, I can't resist pointing out that the idea "Once a thief, always a thief!" has no theological backing.


    A few years ago I was watching a TVO show with Allan Gregg, where he was talking about some of the root causes behind why politicians are generally among the most untrusted and reviled people in the country. To paraphrase Allan Gregg:
    "Suppose there are two companies selling hot dogs. They're in competition with each-other for the same consumers and are keen on increasing their market share. Company A produces ads that say Company B's hot dogs contain tainted meat. Company B responds with an ad campaign that says Company A's hot dogs will cause food poisoning. The end-result is that no-one buys hot dogs."
    For as long as I've been following current affairs, many opposing politicians have been slagging each-other.

    Taking Allan Gregg's story a little further, I think that you can learn a lot about a politician's motivations and goals from the degree to which they're interested in defaming and heaping ridicule on their political opponents. I can understand debates involving opposing ideals or positions on issues, but when the debate devolves to "us good, them bad", the game's over, as far as I'm concerned.

    From where I sit, it seems that there are people behind both the Liberal and Conservative parties that are intent on attaining and maintaining power. Nothing more.

     
  • At Wed Mar 28, 09:16:00 PM EDT, Anonymous joe said…

    Dirk

    As a Christian I agree with you that you are right to state that "once a thief always a thief" is not theologically sound. However it is theologically sound to say that he who can be trusted in small matters can be trusted in great. He who can not be trusted in small matters can not be trusted in great.

     
  • At Wed Mar 28, 10:01:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Many very good, and accurate points Dirk.

    Point 1: the stickers on the side of the boxes say they were stolen... they were to be moved by the Parliamentary movers, but were intercepted somehow by the Liberals. Being in posession of goods that do not belong to you, what would you call that?

    Point 3: True... I believe that the genuinely repentant can be saved, and reformed. Mr. Holland has shown no such inclination thus far.

    My take on the whole situation is, however, that we in the CPC want to govern because we have an agenda that will benefit a greater number of Canadians than the various Liberal plans/ideas we've seen for the last few decades.

    From what I've seen over the years, the Liberals are typically interested in power for power's sake. They are the party of "not rocking the boat", not wanting to make hard choices necessary for the betterment of our nation because it might get them tossed our of office. Mr. Harper tends to do things that might not be popular, but are necessary. But if he can score a couple of "points" to keep him in power, so much the better.

    We'd like to get Canadians interested in buying hot dogs again. I wasn't for years, but Mr. Harper's brand of conservatism brought me back into the fold.

     
  • At Wed Mar 28, 10:11:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Actually, turns out a crime may have been committed...

    Parliament of Canada Act
    52.6 (1) The Board has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the by-laws made under subsection 52.5(1).

    http://stevejanke.com/archives/220757.php

     
  • At Wed Mar 28, 10:22:00 PM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    FYI: the above is based on the fact that the authority to move those boxes is vested in the Parliament of Canada Act, and that his posession and use of those documents was unlawful, as they were to be held in trust by the Parliamentary movers... this trust was violated when Mr. Holland, or more accurately the Liberal Party of Canada, came into posession of those documents.

    Basically, the Liberal Party of Canada is showing complete and utter contempt of Parliament, it's rules and regulations. This isn't a case of leaked documents showing up on their doorstep... this is a clear violation of Parliamentary procedure, and they know it.

    Ironically, the head of the Board of Internal Economy (who has juristiction over these matters) is the Speaker of the House, Liberal MP Peter Millikin. It will be interesting to see if he deals with this matter as he should. I have faith in him, as he is very aware of Parliamentary procedure and laws.

     
  • At Thu Mar 29, 09:35:00 AM EDT, Blogger Dirk said…

    Re. the issue with the boxes, there probably was untoward behaviour on the part of Mark Holland et. al.. Everything depends on those yellow stickers on the boxes, I suppose. We'll see how this plays out.

    "From what I've seen over the years, the Liberals are typically interested in power for power's sake."
    Replace "Liberals" with pretty much every major federal party, and the sentence works. Yes, that includes the CPC. Some examples:

    - the Dion attack ads. Why are a bunch of people who market themselves as people with integrity and great leadership qualities spending time ripping Dion?

    - The Rona Ambrose-era Clean Air Act. At the time of it's original unveiling, this was clearly lip-service legislation. Mr. Harper even as much as admitted it was flawed. Ms. Ambrose was taken off the environment file -- apparently because she didn't get the job done, even though she did exactly what she was told to do in delivering what she did. The CPC response to the criticism was "the Liberal leadership candidates also set targets for 2050". That's not leadership.

    - the latest federal budget. This was not a budget Jim Flaherty, the Finance minister for the Ontario Conservatives would have passed. This is also not a budget Stephen Harper, the Reform Party MP, or Stephen Harper, the head of the NCC would have supported. But here we are. Pigs have flown. Based on their recent past, this is not a budget that Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty believe represents "hard choices necessary for the betterment of our nation".

    - The Stockwell Day/Jim Hart payoff allegations. If your party has any integrity, action should be taken. Regardless if this is swept under the rug on account of evidence from the Holland boxes being deemed invalid.

    - income trusts. I've talked about that already on your site.

    I could go on. Yes, there are many examples from the Liberal party. We're probably looking at another one right now. But you seem to need convincing that the CPC is immune from the lust for power that seems to drive so many people involved in politics.

    Am I cynical about our political process? Yep. So why do I still bother? Because I believe there are still good people that do care about affecting positive change for our country. That's the main motiviation behind my voting decisions: I vote primarily for the best person running. Party and leader are almost non-factors for me.

     
  • At Thu Mar 29, 10:27:00 AM EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Congrats Dirk... that was comment number 3400.

    "That's the main motiviation behind my voting decisions: I vote primarily for the best person running. Party and leader are almost non-factors for me."

    That's why I voted Liberal in the 1997 election... the Liberal candidate where I lived was BY FAR the best candidate for my riding.

    I won't vote for someone who isn't up to the job... plain and simple. I'm not the lemming you may think I am. ;-)

     

Post a Comment

<< Home