Light blogging warning

Stepping away from the keyboard for a bit, catch up with ya'll real soon.

UPDATE: If you're wondering WHY blogging is light, here's why...

Tories to run on elimination of $30-million dollar policital subsidy in next election

Thanks once again to the "Unthinking Opposition", who have opened the door WIDE OPEN for us to reintroduce this sensible idea.

With the Opposition recently banding together to pass a motion restricting the use of "ten percenters", which they said was an effort to save the taxpayer millions of dollars, the Tories have indicated that they're perfectly willing to go along with the Opposition's idea... IF they're willing to also eliminate the political subsidy.

If you'll recall, this is exactly how I said this one would backfire on the Opposition... another strike for the Liberal Don-OLO.

Just try backing out of that one now guys. I think the Canadian public will support BOTH of these measures, and will link them together as both being "wasteful spending" that should be eliminated. Thanks for your help once again!

Pulling the rug out from under the Liberals

So much for the Liberals getting the Monday morning news cycle out of their conference this weekend... the Tories are about to reintroduce their Senate reform bill in the Senate tomorrow.

Conservatives poised to reintroduce Senate reform
By Tobi Cohen, Canwest News Service
March 28, 2010 6:00 PM

OTTAWA — The Conservatives are set to reintroduce a Senate-reform bill Monday that would limit the number of years a Senator can serve in the upper chamber.

A senior government official confirmed the plan Sunday but wouldn’t say whether the single eight-year term proposed last May — the last time the bill was tabled in the Senate — remains the magic number.

“As you know, Canadians have consistently and overwhelmingly stated they want Senate reform,” the source said.

“We will be introducing legislation to modernize the Senate by limiting the terms of Senators.”

Carbon Tax II suggested at Liberal 150

Remember that pesky Carbon Tax? You know, the one first suggested by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in the 2006 Liberal Leadership race, and then put forward as the cornerstone of Dion's disasterous 2008 election campaign? Well, guess what? IT'S BACK!!! The idea has been raised again at the Liberal 150 conference, going on right now in Montreal.

The chill came in the afternoon, when panelists, egged on by former Toronto Star columnist David Crane, told the gathering that the most sensible way to green the Canadian economy was to impose a carbon tax.

It was exactly that proposal that many blame for the defeat of the Liberals in the last election. It would be a courageous party, in the 'Yes Minister' sense of the word (i.e., politically suicidal), to propose it again.

How are you marking Earth Hour?

I'm putting gas in my car... You?

Sent from my Blackberry

TVO's Steve Paikin to join the pro-Coulter/Free Speech movement?

I dunno, but after another loony leftist plot sought to derail a taping of his show "The Agenda", I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised. From Paiken's blog:

But just a few minutes into my interview with Minister Duncan, all hell broke loose.

At first, one member of the audience rushed the stage where we were located and began shouting questions at Duncan.

At first, I thought this was simply the act of one rude person, so I tried to interrupt her, assure her that there would be time for questions later, but that this was not the way we were going to do business.

Shortly thereafter, another half dozen protesters joined the first, continued to scream at the minister, and it became abundantly clear that this wasn't a case of a few rude audience members, but rather an orchestrated protest.

They'd cleverly entered the hall with their protest signs hidden under their coats, and blended in nicely.

Even though this had never happened before in ten years of doing programs at the Munk Centre, we actually do have a protocol in place in case something like this WERE to happen. We've just never had to roll it out.

When it was obvious the protesters had no plans to stop, I walked off set to Dan Dunsky, our executive producer, asked him what he wanted to do, and he calmly said, let's go to a break and get this back on track. That's the protocol.

And that's what we did.

Hey Steve... now you know how it feels to be a Conservative in Canada!

The extreme left has gotten completely out of control in this country. They know how to play the revolving-door, slap-on-the-wrist legal system, and they know full well that in our modern day of police-non-intervention, they can get away with pretty much anything short of actual murder. They're amoral thugs, goons, and walk amongst us chanting the mantra of "peace and harmony"... while actively seeking to shout down and repress the views of those with whom they disagree.

It's time for the Government, on all levels, to step in and do something about this. They need to give direction to our police services that it's time to ensure that the few do not have the power to repress the rights of other Canadians. It may even be time for new legislation to curb this real and ongoing threat. Strengthening of tresspassing laws, modification of conspiracy laws to include offences relating to the organizing of law breaking protests. Laws to allow for charges to be pressed against those who insite illegal activity via electronic means such as Facebook.

Now, there will be negative press involved, to be sure. The extremist left has gotten very good at "working the system" in terms of garnering media coverage, filing police complaints, etc. Our police need to know that their Government is going to back them up when it comes to enforcing the law of the land.

It's time to ensure that the far out, lawbreaking advocates of "social justice" get a taste of real justice... the kind that ensures that we really are a "free" society. It's time for the mainstream parties, the Tories, Liberals, and NDP, to strike some form of task force to craft legislation that all parties, and all normal Canadians, can support.

I just don't get what these kids are thinking... the more and more they "succeed" with these thuggish tactics, the more they solidify the position of their opponents... and the support for their opponents only increases! Take me, for example... while I opposed such tactics before, I wasn't as vocal in my opposition. Nor was I particularly supportive of the folks who want to scrap the HRC's... but if these sorts of things are allowed to continue unchecked, I think my positions will be in need of further review.

h/t to Russ Campbell for alerting us all to this fiasco.

"Let's Make it THREE" - MSM getting the same feeling about Iffy

Anyone remember my "Let's Make it THREE" idea from way back in September? As in, let's make sure Ignatieff is the THIRD Liberal leader to never become Prime Minister, following in the footsteps of Blake and Dion?

Well, the Globe's John Ibbitson, in attendance at the Liberal 150 conference this weekend, is wondering the same thought aloud in today's paper...

The party of Laurier and King and Trudeau is weak. Its fortunes have declined in each of the past three elections – from majority government to minority government to opposition to disaster.

Since Edward Blake in the 19th century, no Liberal leader had failed to become prime minister, until Stéphane Dion. The polls suggest Mr. Ignatieff could become Number Three.

The "Remember the good old days?" Liberal 150 Conference

LOL... apparently, the Liberals' "Thinkers Conference" is pretty much a gathering of the "has-beens" of the Liberal Party of Canada. As the NP's Don Martin puts it, "Former leaders and ex-prime ministers, flanked by old cabinet warhorses, senators and senior staff, formed a parade of fading government memories to launch the Liberal's seminal "thinkers" conference here Friday."

A gathering dominated by white-skinned, grey-haired Liberals, an audience along the lines of old Canadian Alliance conventions, is charged with forging policy for a Canada where visible minorities are about to become the majority.

And how can the conference juggle the challenge of retiring baby boomers about to crush the shoulders of the next generation when the advancing age of these attendees is the demographic problem and not the solution?

When they named the conference, I think the intent was to refer to Canada's upcoming anniversary... not to refer to the average age of the invited Liberal attendees.

Best line to sum up the conference... 'I'd bet 90 per cent of those in this audience think a double-double is four shots of single malt Scotch and not a Tim Hortons coffee order'

h/t to Dr. Roy

Concordia votes 72% to LEAVE CFS

Students at Concordia have voted 72% in favour of severing their ties to the increasingly left wing CFS. Score one for the good guys.

The vote to leave the CFS, which both slates had campaigned for, will almost certainly set up a legal battle between the CSU and the CFS, with the CFS claiming the CSU owes them over $1 million and calling the referendum illegal, but tonight was still a victory for the anti-CFS movement. "I'm more than happy about the CFS referendum results," said Osei, who had made leaving the CFS his main campaign point.

Now, let's see if the CFS tries to pull any procedural fast ones.

The OTHER side of the Israel Apartheid Week poster

I'm sure you've all seen this poster from the "supporters" of "Palestine", with their recent "Israeli Apartheid Week"...

So I got to thinking tonight, "Have you ever wondered what's behind the kid?"  You know, how it looks from the chopper pilot's perspective?

When the organizers show some intelectual honesty, and openly condemn the "human sheild" tactics of Hamas, then MAYBE I'll give them a listen.

The context of Coulter's "Camel" comment

Gotta LOVE the media spin, eh? Oh, the heartless right-winger insults a Muslim girl. Anyone care for some context?

Several friends of mine were at the London event, and I had a chance to talk to one of them this evening. And he shed some very interesting light on what really went down that night.

First of all, there's the "UNCUT" version of what actually happened... see it for yourself. Notes follow:


First observation... looks like this girl is reading her question off a Blackberry. Was perhaps she "fed" the question, I wonder?

Second of all, just listen to her tone... she wasn't looking for an answer, she was looking for an argument. The fact of which is backed up thanks to my friend's eye witness account. Apparently this young Muslim girl only showed up for the Q&A session, and didn't even listen to what Ann had to say. Futhermore, I'm told she left immediately after her "camel" comment, and made a bee-line for the cameras. Yea, I'm thinking it was a setup from the get-go... to which of course, Ann was happy to oblige.

Thirdly, it would appear that the "camel" comment wasn't so much directed at her, as it was directed at the rude hecklers who were trying taunt her by shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" Interestingly, she in fact WAS taking the time to answer the questions asked by this young woman, but she was doing so in her own particular manner... deconstructing them bit by bit, and dealing with the incorrect root issues underlying the questions.

For example, the first question was in regards to her comment "we should convert them to Christianity", made shortly after 9/11. She began her answer by correcting the questioner, and giving the full and exact quote, which was "We should bomb their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity". She then methodically detailed her rational for that answer, using the examples of American intervention in Japan at the end of WWII, and in South Korea after the Korean War. She detailed how during the reconstruction phases, a call was made to the Christian church for missionaries, who are well known the world over for our humaitarian work. In fact, many well known and respected aid organizations in the world are in fact Christian founded organizations, who's original (and for some, still is) goal was to spread the Gospel of the love of God for mankind, as expressed in our Lord Jesus Christ.

She then made the second and vitally important statement that defines "genuine" Christian faith... we don't "force" conversions. (and those who do, I submit to you, don't know the Lord whom they claim to profess) This is an important detail to remember in the context of her quote... we OFFER Christianity, we don't "enforce" it. So when she said we should "convert them to Christianity", she wasn't talking about forced conversions. For the record, and to answer a comment from a reader earlier today, I submit to you that THAT is one of the best ways to tell the genuineness of someone's supposed "Christian" faith... we do the preaching and aid part, not the bombing and killing part.

I'll interject here and correct a misconception that many have... the USA and Christianity are NOT synomymous. No matter how much "America" thinks of itself as a "Christian" nation, I've got a news flash for ya... IT'S NOT. So, for the likes of far left readers like Jerry, DON'T go assuming that I link the two together. (I'm actually rather sick and tired of that incorrect linkage, thank you very much... but that's Liberal "hidden agenda" fear and smear for ya, I guess)

Anyway, back to the main point of what she was talking about... she was attempting to tell the audience of the incredible success stories that are today's Japan and Korea. Which were accomplished, in both cases, when the United States "bombed their countries, killed their leaders, and converted (some of) them to Christianity".

Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot... I'm not saying I agree with her premise. I don't, when viewed through the lens of my faith. However, from a strictly "secular" perspective, I can see why some people might agree with it. (now aren't you GLAD that I'm a Christian? LOL...)

While she was continuing to "answer the question", or at least the first part of it, several of the "left" who were in attendance, who only wanted the sound byte I assume, got tired of the history lesson and started shouting "ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!" After about a dozen similarly ideologically aligned detractors in the audience chimed in as well, rudely demanding that she hurry up and fit her answer into a single soundbyte that would fit into their obviously limited attention span, (funny, I thought they were all for logical and reasoned answers... my mistake I guess) she decided to honour their request... she skipped the rest of her answer to the first question, and crafted a witty response directed instead at the hecklers in lieu of a second answer... "What mode of transportation? TAKE A CAMEL."

And of course, at that point, that's the ONLY thing that any of the already ideologically entrenched detractors heard that evening. Who, of course, were more than happy to plead their "offendedness" to the waiting cameras. You know, "Offendedness"... it's a lot like "Truthiness". Whereas Colbert's "Truthiness" is for the Right, likewise "Offendedness" is the bastion of the Left.

So you see? It's all about the context. If it wasn't for the rude appearence of the ever present and easily offended species of "Interruptist Protestest Professionalis", that poor Muslim girl might of gotten an actual answer from the right-wing "hater". Oh well... too bad for them.

Oh, and while we're on that topic... did you know she hates Israel? Not Ann... I mean the other girl.

Yea... I'm thinking it was a set up.

Ottawa Citizen: "The thuggery of student activists"

Great editorial over at the Ottawa Citizen, commenting on a major growing problem that few in the media dare to tackle... the thuggish tactics being employed more frequently, and more successfully, by the far left in Canada.

It's time for some tougher laws.

Mob rules at the U of O
The Ottawa Citizen - March 25, 2010

Ann Coulter's opinions can be obnoxious, offensive and just plain wrong. But she's spot-on about one thing: that the University of Ottawa has shown itself to be a "bush-league" school.

The thuggery of student activists is a growing problem at Canadian campuses, but the spectacle at the University of Ottawa was truly a colossal embarrassment, for both the university and the city. Ottawa is the capital of a G8 country, yet our premier research university is evidently so insecure and insular that a talk-TV pundit from the U.S. represented an intolerable intellectual threat.

We wish we could blame only the students for shaming the university. But the administration was complicit in the successful campaign to shut down Coulter's much publicized talk on campus.

It began when the university's vice-president academic and provost, François Houle, sent Coulter a bizarre e-mail, in which he made it perfectly clear that he detests her polemical style and that she should watch her back, lest she find herself facing "criminal" or "defamation" laws. He told Coulter -- in the most condescending of tones -- that the University of Ottawa has a tradition of "restraint, respect and consideration" and therefore that is why he feels it is necessary to invoke what "may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression."

Can anyone imagine an academic leader from Princeton University writing to a TV personality and saying, essentially: "You know, our students are very sensitive, so please when you visit don't say anything that will make them uncomfortable"? Would the vice-president of Harvard do this? Of course not.

The principal effect of Houle's foolish letter was to empower, albeit unwittingly, the student mob who came out Tuesday night to chase Coulter from campus. After all, Houle in so many words called Coulter a hatemonger and made it plain that her kind was not welcome.

The humiliating episode is a giant gift for a publicity-hound like Coulter. In an interview with a U.S. newspaper that had got wind of the incident, Coulter noted that students at serious universities are too "intellectually proud" to shut down speakers they don't agree with. She visits liberal campuses all the time without fearing for her safety. But at the University of Ottawa, she quipped, "their IQ points-to-teeth ratio must be about 1-to-1."

That smarts, but the University of Ottawa deserves the rebuke.

The shutting down of Ann Coulter is only the latest example of totalitarianism on Canadian campuses. At Concordia University in Montreal, thugs famously prevented Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking. At many campuses, pro-life student groups are harassed and denied official club status. When pro-choice student leaders at Toronto's York University learned that other students had organized a debate over the ethics of abortion, they promptly cancelled it, even though the event had been booked and the flyers printed.

Notice that this ongoing, organized effort to eliminate speech deemed politically unacceptable comes exclusively from the campus left. No one hears of conservative student groups physically interfering with left-wing speakers. A lot of conservative-minded students (and others) were unhappy with the recent Israel Apartheid Week, for example, but no one threatened to assault the organizers or disrupt the event.

We have no love for a buffoonish provocateur like Ann Coulter. It says something about the maturity and calibre of some University of Ottawa students that Coulter is the dignified party in this dispute.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Jane Taber: "Michael Ignatieff enters 'Dion-land'"

OUCH... coming from the Liberal-friendly likes of Jane Taber, that title's gotta sting.

Michael Ignatieff enters 'Dion-land'
Jane Taber

1. From vote debacle to polling woe. Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals are sliding back into Stéphane Dion territory, according to a new EKOS Research poll.

This is not a good set of numbers, especially for the Liberals, pollster Frank Graves says. “After pulling back to parity they seem to be following a slow downward spiral into Dion-land.”

The EKOS poll shows the Conservatives with a clear lead (outside of the margin of error) – 33.3 per cent support of the electorate compared to 27.7 per cent for the Liberals. The NDP have 15.9 per cent; the Bloc is at 9.8 per cent and the Green Party has 10.4 per cent support.

In August, 2008, just before the last federal election was called, Mr. Dion had about 32 per cent support; that number later slid down to 24 per cent during his darkest days.

Dion-land is scary territory for the Liberals and the connotation is even worse. Mr. Ignatieff replaced Mr. Dion in December, 2008, coming in as the party saviour. But with the poor showing in the poll today and the missteps of late (this week’s loss of their own motion on reproductive health), some Liberals may be questioning the leadership change.

Iffy: "You think it's easy to lead Liberals?"

Sorry, but with a pic like this, I just couldn't resist...

"What happened last night?  I dunno... you think it's easy to lead Liberals?"

I'm welcoming submissions for quotes... let's see what you got! Winner gets credit and their quote in a fresh post.

NP's Don Martin on Iggy: "When they pity you in politics, YOU'RE HALFWAY DEAD"

Don Martin at the National Post has penned a rather good review of what last night's Liberal voting fiasco really means... "When they pity you in politics, you're halfway dead."

Don Martin: Ignatieff's so low, even Tories are sympathetic

Stiff competition for the worst misstep of this gaffe-plagued parliamentary session ended with a no-contest loser on Tuesday when amateur miscalculations and aloof behavior backfired on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, sending his bewildered MPs slumping in their seats.

A needlessly provocative Liberal move to sneak abortion back on the agenda, aimed at dividing the Conservatives, actually drove a wedge deep into the Official Opposition. In a result political veterans cannot recall happening for years, if ever, the Liberals were defeated by their own MPs on a motion Mr. Ignatieff had steadfastly maintained was a defining issue. In the words of a senior Liberal MP: "Ouch".

Whatever procedural mixups took place, the damage caused by Liberals rising in person or by proxy to defeat their leader on a rare, firm party position is hard to understate.

Mr. Ignatieff's leadership has been tainted, the Liberal pro-choice policy has been trampled from within and a black-and-white difference with the Conservatives has turned into a foggy shade of grey. Pro-life forces have fired a kill shot at their own leader. How ironic.

More than anything this mess is a stinging indictment of Michael Ignatieff's connection with his own MPs, some who are demoralized at being excluded from this weekend's party think tank, called to ponder a preview of Canada in 2017.

A leader who can't enforce a vote in a minority Parliament with the backing of both opposition partners cannot be taken seriously as someone who will deliver a Liberal vision seven years down the road when, at the rate his performance is deteriorating, he'll be a former Liberal leader.

Iffy to Liberals: "Sorry guys, my bad"

Liberal Leader Ignatieff has fessed up to his caucus, and says the blame for yesterday's bungling in the House belongs to him.

It was not a good day for the party yesterday and for that Mr. Ignatieff said he was sorry. He told his caucus, according to sources, that he can do better as he apologized for the embarrassment caused after Liberals voted against their own motion on the Harper government’s maternal health initiative.

David Akin also posted on today's caucus meeting, with his title quoting a Liberal MP... "We look like fools"

And so the Liberals ended up with some tremendous egg on their face. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to concede as much after emerging from the weekly closed-door meeting with his caucus. "I would have preferred a different result," he wryly observed.

Privately, Liberal MPs said that the 90-minute caucus meeting was not a happy place with MPs directing their frustration at Ignatieff, his staff, and party whip Rodger Cuzner. It would have been Cuzner's job to make sure all of his MPs knew it was a whipped vote and to make sure they were all in their seats and ready to vote "Aye". Ignatieff would not say what punishment would be in store for the Liberal MPs who did not vote the way they were supposed to, saying only that Cuzner would decide on that.

"We look like fools," one Liberal MP said privately.

Just got a leak that the title of the apology speech he gave to his caucus was, "We can do better".

UPDATE: You've GOT to give Don Martin's lastest article a read... "A leader who can't enforce a vote in a minority Parliament with the backing of both opposition partners cannot be taken seriously as someone who will deliver a Liberal vision seven years down the road when, at the rate his performance is deteriorating, he'll be a former Liberal leader."

Iffy leadership in question over yesterday's FIASCO in the House?

Today is not a good day to be a Liberal it would seem...

Ignatieff: dissenters face 'internal discipline'
Last Updated: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - CBC News

Ignatieff's leadership is being questioned over an embarrassing showing Tuesday in the House, where a motion tabled by Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae was defeated in a 144-138 vote.

Iffy's in a real tough spot with this one. In his efforts to score cheap political points and make the Tories look bad, he ended up only exposing some SERIOUS divisions within his own Party. Divisions that have a number of his supporters calling for BLOOD. Not sure how he's going to get out of this jam without some MAJOR grief.

Let's review some of the foaming at the mouth going on over this at the Liblogs, shall we?

Harperbizrro - It is time for those who cannot be 100% Liberals to go to another party. It would be preferable to face a majority Tory caucus and be able to stand for progress at all times, than to have to withstand the bull**** of yesterday.

Arthur Kong - This makes me sick to my stomach. Shame, especially on those Liberals who either didn't show up for the vote, or abstained from voting. (no word on his reaction to those Liberal MP's who voted WITH the Government)

Susan.com - We're Watching, Mr. Ignatieff
It was a whipped vote, and Mr. Ignatieff, we are all watching what you are going to do about John McKay, Paul Szabo, and Dan McTeague. Albina Guarnieri and Gurbax Malhi. I sure don't want to ever vote again for a party that wants to put women back into the dark ages.

Scott Tribe - If you’re going to put forth a whipped motion, and there are still dissenters in the ranks who defy you on what is considered official Liberal policy or an official Liberal position, then that’s unfortunate, and you make sure their actions have consequences.

There's a whole lot of people who want these three KICKED RIGHT OUT OF THE LIBERAL CAUCUS. Who knows if they'd consider crossing the floor, but I doubt it.

Then again, I've always wondered what Dan McTeague is doing over on that side of the House, considering that I supported for and voted for him when I lived in his riding back in 1997. While he's clearly a "progressive" on many issues, I've always thought of him as more of a centrist... as such, I think he could make a home for himself amongst us.

"You think it's easy to cast a vote in the House of Commons?"

LOL... CBC's Rosemary Barton took a shot at the Liberals tonight in her blog post title, spoofing Dion's infamous quote with a post entitled, "You think it's easy to cast a vote in the House of Commons?" You have to read it for yourself... the Liberals started out the day trying to make the Tories look bad, and ended the day looking like "The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight".

Other media outlets are also reporting on the Liberals losing vote tonight, with none of them flattering. The Globe & Mail reports, "Liberals thwart Rae’s reproductive ‘options’ push", while CTV reports it as "Liberals falter as abortion debate flares up".

Kady O'Malley's LiveBlogging report of the vote is none to cheery either... if you're a Liberal.

I just know I'll be falling asleep with a smile on my face tonight.

3 Liberal MP's join Tories to defeat Liberal motion

My hat goes off to Liberal MP's John McKay, Paul Szabo, and Dan McTeague, who stood up against the Liberal motion, which was nothing more than a crass partisan move to reignite the abortion debate in Canada.

I'll also give a measure of credit to Albina Guarnieri, Gurbax Malhi who abstained, and Derek Lee who abstained by remaining outside the chamber during the vote.

More to come...

UPDATED: Lib MP Bennett to stay-at-home moms: "Get a REAL job"

Thanks to reader "Bert", we now have the link to the full story, with the quote in context.

Ms. Guergis' status as one of the few women in high positions in the Harper government and her gender provoked no sympathy from Liberal women in the Commons whose job it is to shadow her actions in Cabinet and her performance in the job.

Ms. Guergis has established three "pillars" as the foundation for her plans to help women—increasing women's security and prosperity, ending violence against women, and enhancing women's leadership and democratic participation—and her record of 75 speeches and appearances since October 2008 suggests she has taken the role seriously. But the opposition says she is focusing on the symptoms of the issues women face, rather than root cause.

"You can have lists as long as your arm," said Ms. Bennett. "Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care; that is the key to their economic independence, to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work."

And what of those women who WANT to stay at home, my dear Ms. Bennett? Who view the task of raising their OWN children to be well adjusted members of society AS their primary "JOB"?

Once again, this quote reveals the contrasts in how Liberals and Conservatives view issues here in Canada. You see, the Liberals typically believe that Canadians NEED the Government to step in with a "One Size Fits All" solution, which typically involves a TON of money and yet another huge bureaucracy, in order to deal with a problem. That is a "STATIST" mindset, one which I firmly REJECT.

Instead, we Conservatives typically believe that Canadians are for the most part capable in solving their own problems, so we instead try to give Canadians the tools they need to make these decisions FOR THEMSELVES.

Of course, there will be those who need additional help, so we should do what we can to help them. But by giving most Canadians the tools they need to help themselves, such as the Universal Child Benefit which helps the MAJORITY of Canadian families, we can then better focus our resources to helping the much smaller number of people who need more help, which will make better use of our resources and stretch our tax dollars that much further.

Ms. Bennett's comments only help to remind Canadians of this difference in VISION between our two parties. Conservatives want to help YOU make your own choices. Liberals want to TELL YOU HOW IT'S GOING TO BE, with even more Government intervention into society, and a massive Government agency that will employ thousands of their supporters, lobbyists, and friends.

UPDATE: The MSM is finally starting to pick up on it.

Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett to Stay-at-home Moms: "Get a REAL job"

No commentary required...

"Women of Canada want to hear about early learning and child care...to be able to get back to school, to get a real job, to be able to go to work." (Hill Times, March 22, 2010)

Looks like "Beer and Popcorn II". And we all know how that one went over with the Canadian electorate.

Searching for the link to the full article, stay tuned.

UPDATE: First confirmation, still looking for a non-firewalled report.

UPDATE II: HERE'S THE LINK, thanks to "Bert".

UofG's CSA takes CFS to court

It's FANTASTIC to see a student government who refuse to be bullied by the thugs who run the CFS.

Despite all the underhanded tactics that the CFS has tried to pull to quash a democratic vote, the University of Guelph's CSA has refused to back down, and has gone to court in order to ensure that their students have the right to vote on whether or not they remain a part of the CFS.

You might recall that I reported the other week that this referendum on the CFS at UofG is supported by the campus clubs of ALL MAJOR PARTIES. Once again, it's GREAT to see students working together for a common and worthwhile goal.

The CFS is in serious trouble... and they know it. There's a serious movement going on at Carleton, in the anti-CFS "We Want Out" campaign. They've also done a fantastic job of compiling a list of over 100 CFS related articles they could find, documenting all the antics of the CFS for everyone to see. Just give a read through a few of the articles, and I pretty much assure you that if you were pro-CFS before, you won't be after reading those articles.

Paul Wells - "Harper's Hard Right Turn"

While I absolutely DESPISE the title, (pretty sure they picked it just to boost sales, and it'll work) I think Paul Wells has written perhaps THE BEST ARTICLE I'VE READ IN AGES regarding the political realignment that's occuring in Canadian politics. Give it a read... NOW.

So based on that article, here's a message to all the fiscally conservative "nervous nellies" that I've seen recently, bemoaning Harper's seemingly non-fiscally-conservative moves, and to those who've been taking pot-shots at the "So Cons"... have patience. This article sums up what I've been trying to say for a while, but haven't been able to find the words. We're NOT trying to foist our views on people... we're trying, just like you, to make a better country FOR EVERYONE.

Harper is pulling Canadian politics back to where the PEOPLE are, slowly, one step at a time. THAT'S why we're winning... because we're winning the "hearts and minds" of Canadians by showing them a vision for Canada that's more in line with their own way of thinking. We're working together as Conservatives for the benefit of those Canadians "who work hard, pay our taxes, and play by the rules". (And of course, I might add, to make sure we help those who can't help themselves... kinda sad that I have to make a special mention of that to all the lefties who think I'm "mean spirited" just because I'm a Conservative)

Yes, my dear Liberals, there always was a "hidden agenda", but it's not what you thought it was, and you've completely missed it by focusing on the little things. You see, we've been seeking to bring Canadian politics back into the mainstream, back into line with the thinking of the "average Canadian", and out of the hands of all the special interest groups that you've relied on for all these years. And we're forcing you further off to the left... which is helping more and more Canadians to realize that you DON'T speak for them anymore.

And guess what? We're succeeding. I think one of your own, Warren Kinsella, put it best, when speaking of Harper... "The longer he's Prime Minister, the longer he's Prime Minister."


UPDATE: I should also mention that it's a fairly timely article from Wells, considering some posts that have been on the Blogging Tories in the last few days. For the record, go easy on RightChick folks... I've seen some rather "Liberal-esque" insults thrown at her, and that's totally NOT COOL. She has SOME valid points, I encourage you to DISCUSS, rather than insult.

Time for a motion of Confidence in the House

I dunno about you, but I'm sick of the games the Opposition is playing in the House. I say it's time to clear the air once and for all (or at least for the next few months), end the political brinksmanship. It's time for the Tories to put a motion before the House:

"Whereas the world is in the midst of an economic crisis, and

Whereas Canada is involved in an armed conflict seeking to eliminate the scourge of terror on behalf of the formerly repressed people Afghanistan,

Be it resolved that in order to deal with these serious issues, the members of this House afirm that we have Confidence in the current Government."

Make it clear to the Opposition that any ammendments will be considered an expression of non-Confidence. It's time to end the games, draw a line in the sand, and ask the Opposition whether or not they have Confidence in the current Government.

Right now, it's all games and shinanigans. "We don't support you or your Budget, but we're going to let it pass." Excuse me? What exactly does that mean?

I'll tell you what it means... "We think you're the wrong guys to run this country, and we hate pretty much everything you do and say... but we're going to let you keep on running the show anyway." Go ahead, try and spin that one... any way you look at it, that's exactly what the Liberals are saying.

I'm sorry, but you CAN'T run a country like that. The Government is having to spend so much time dealing with insanely STUPID Opposition antics that it's taking HUGE amounts of time away from dealing with things like ISSUES. I understand that all parties spend HUNDREDS OF MAN/WOMAN HOURS prepping for 45 minutes known as "Question Period". Can you IMAGINE what they could accomplish if they could spend even half of that time on things that really matter, instead of stupid theatrics for the cameras?

It's stuff like this that makes me sick when it comes to the political system in this country. Mr. Ignatieff, it's time to make up your mind. Either get rid of the Government you apparently LOTHE, or LET THEM ACTUALLY GOVERN.

Because Iggy... YOUR TIME IS UP. Go big, or GO HOME... either back to Boston, or off to France.

Political Subsidy issue to return to the House?

Maybe I wasn't so far off the mark after all... Dimitri Soudas has dropped a hint that the Liberals may have opened the door for us to take another stab at the politial subsidy issue.

"But if the opposition parties are so concerned with saving money, Soudas said, they should support the Conservative’s position to end all political party subsidies, which cost about $25 million a year. He said that would “demonstrate a real commitment” to saving money.

In late 2008, the government tried to introduce legislation ending the per-vote-subsidy of political parties, which sparked the coalition crisis that nearly booted the Conservatives from power."

With the Liberals trying to ban 10%ers under the guise of "saving taxpayers millions of dollars", they may have inadvertantly opened the door to a re-introduction of our efforts to save the taxpayers even more money by eliminating the taxpayer funded politial subsidy altogether.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the House's Internal Board of Economy come back to the House with recomendations for a new bill that eliminates funding for BOTH "ten percenters" AND the per-vote political subsidy. Either that, or they end up deadlocked, with the Liberals and the Bloc opposed, with the Tories and the NDP supporting some reform on both these issues. Because, let's face it... the elimination of the subsidy hurts the Liberals WAY MORE than it hurts the NDP.

This one could end up being yet another instance where the Liberals are too clever by half... or where Iffy again tries to put Harper into "CHECK", while Harper responds with a "Check-mate... shall we go again? How about best 5 out of 7? Oh come on, don't give up now... I know you're down 4 to ZIP, but keep playing... you'll get better. Eventually. Maybe."

CNN aired a thrashing of Obama and the Dems?

Now this is a surprise... a former Bush hater, Jack Cafferty of CNN's "Situation Room", lambasted the Obama Administration and the Democrats for their manouvers in trying to get their Health Care bill passed behind closed doors, thereby shutting out the GOP, and regular Americans, from the process.

See it for yourself, from his rant back in early January... especially where he calls Obama a bold faced "LIAR". (check the 0:33-0:42 marks)

QUOTE: "President Obama hasn't even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in Government. It was all just another LIE that was told in order to get elected."

Liberals give Harper a HUGE opening with 10%ers

So, the Liberals want to ban 10%ers, eh? I say we amend the motion.

Here's their version:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership in reducing government waste by rolling-back its own expenditures on massive amounts of partisan, taxpayer-paid government advertising, ministerial use of government aircraft, the hiring of external “consultants”, and the size of the Cabinet, the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, which together could represent a saving to taxpayers of more than a billion dollars; and to show its own leadership in this regard, the House directs its Board of Internal Economy to take all necessary steps to end immediately the wasteful practice of Members sending mass mailings, known as “ten-percenters”, into ridings other than their own, which could represent another saving to taxpayers of more than $10 million.

AND NOW OUR AMENDMENT:

In addition, this House is also of the opinion that a further savings of $27 million dollars can be immediately realized through the elimination of the per-vote taxpayer funded political subsidy received by all parties. Therefore, this House also directs its Board of Internal Economy to take all necessary steps to end immediately the wasteful and unnecessary subsidy.

h/t for the idea goes to Hat Rocks Cave.

Will "BCer in Toronto" apologise to Guergis?

Liberal blogger "BCer in Toronto" decided to jump on the Guergius bashing bandwagon today. accusing her of lying about her education. (NOTE: To Jeff, I stand corrected. While other blog posts that refer to your post make that accusation, you did not yourself make that claim)

Apparently, the folks at "Eye on the Hill" have already debunked his rumour this story:...

Just in case Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis didn't have enough problems in the aftermath of her hissy fit at the airport in Prince Edward Island, folks in the Twittersphere and blogosphere are now questioning whether she really has that MBA degree that she touts on her website.

A quick call to the University of Alberta confirms that Ms. Guergis is indeed the proud possessor of an MBA degree from that august institution - Class of 2009.

Given that she was named to cabinet in October 2008, that's some pretty impressive multitasking.

Once again, we see a Liberal doing their "best" to try and destroy someone they don't agree with. I must say though, it's gratifying to see it blow up so beautifully in his face though. I wonder if it was someone at Liberal Party HQ who fed him this one, seeking a "third party" to get it out there?

Now, here's the big question though... will BCer do the right thing and apologise for his enormous "pile on" blunder?

UPDATE: Just thinking, this could even be just what the doctor ordered for Helena... you can bet that the Liberals are going to be a little more wary of continuing their baseless attacks on this poor woman after this drive-by smear job blew up. I'd LOVE to find out where he got his info from, and to see if we can trace it right back to Liberal HQ...

UPDATE II: A re-reading of his post clearly shows he did NOT accuse her of lying about her credentials. I do, however, still think it's pretty sad to see Liberals doing their best to destroy this woman. How low we have gone.

Liberal MP's skip vote to protect pensions?

I've heard some folks asking why these 29 Liberal MP's were chosen to have their prorogue extended by skipping the Budget vote. So I did some digging, and may have found a reason for at least 5 of them... perhaps they volunteered for the "NOT GETTING BACK TO WORK" scheme in order to protect their gold plated Parliamentary pensions?

You see, the following 5 Budget skipping Liberal MP's would have lost out on their pensions had the House fallen last week. Two of them are likely just hoping to hold on until the end of June, 2010. They are...

Ruby Dhalla (elligible June 28, 2010)
Brian Murphy (not elligible until Jan 23, 2012)
Joyce Murray (not elligible until Jan 23, 2012)
Mario Silva (elligible June 28, 2010)
Todd Russell (not elligible until May 2011)

Just curious... aren't you?

Prorogue EXTENDED by Ignatieff for 29 MP's

In perhaps the most ironic political twist of the year, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff (despite his demands that MP's be allowed back in the House to "get back to work" during the prorogue) has ORDERED 29 of his Liberal MP's to SKIP WORK INSTEAD, and extend their prorogation by skipping out on any Budget related votes.

UPDATE: Wow, looks like Iffy himself is gonna be skipping out for a few days... remind me again why he wanted back into the House so badly?

Ironic, since he said back when he took over (literally) the Party from Stephane Dion, stating that the Liberals were "done sitting on our hands". (h/t to Alberta Advark for finding this video, see the 1:08 mark) Looks like he's taken a page from the "Not a Leader" playbook, and is ordering 29 of his MP's to sit on their hands by NOT showing up for work.

Even more interesting though, since he had quite the OPPOSITE opinions about "getting to work" on videos like this one here, where he tells reporters at the 0:40 mark, "What I like doing right now is opening the doors of Parliament, continuing to work even if other parties aren't, do our job one step at a time"


Or how about this one, where he says at the 1:59 mark, "and you're here to say, to everyone who has the good fortune to work up there, GET BACK TO WORK!"


Now that he's decided to EXTEND the Prorogue for 29 of his MP's, what's he got to say for himself now?

You might also find the anti-prorogue statments of some of those 29 MP's quite enlightening, now that they've done a 180 degree about face when it comes to "showing up for work", like they accused the Conservatives of not doing back in January.

Ignatieff extends Proroguation for 29 Liberal MP's

After yelling, screaming and shouting to be back in the House of Commons, to deal with and vote on "important issues", Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has personally extended the Prorogue for 29 of his Liberal MP's... more than a third of his entire caucus.

"It's the height of hypocrisy I tells ya," said Joe Canadian, who attended his local anti-prorogue rally. "They told us point blank, to our faces that they NEEDED to be back in the House of Commons to 'Hold Harper to account' and deal with important stuff like the economy. Then when Harper finally lets them back in and asks them to vote on the Budget, they don't even have the dignity bother to showing up."

The names of the MP's on Ignatieff's "Post-Prorogue Extended Vacation Tour" are:

Bagnell, Larry
Bennett, Carolyn
Bevilacqua, Maurizio
Byrne, Gerry
Cannis, John
Coderre, Denis
Cotler, Irwin
Dhalla, Ruby
Duncan, Kirsty
Eyking, Mark
Foote, Judy
Fry, Hedy
Garneau, Marc
Kania, Andrew J.
Karygiannis, Jim
LeBlanc, Dominic
MacAulay, Lawrence
Martin, Keith P.
McTeague, Dan
Murphy, Brian
Murphy, Shawn
Murray, Joyce
Pacetti, Massimo
Patry, Bernard
Regan, Geoff
Sgro, Judy
Silva, Mario
Russell, Todd
Trudeau, Justin

And now ladies and gentlemen, it's time for the Bonus Round!!! Let's take a look at some quotes from some of these MP's over the last while, shall we? (A mega hat tip goes to anyone who can find other killer hypocritical quotes... or even video footage of their rally speeches where they promise to show up for work)

Carolyn Bennett - "Many on the Hill today we saying that this will keep growing .... wait til the Olympics are over and the CONS are STILL not back to work" ("or til after the Throne Speech and Budget, at which time I'll be the one skipping work... ")

Twitter - lib Carolyn Bennett M.D. - "I am proud to be going to work on Jan25... and every day" ("except Budget Day, of course... "The Boss" wants me to cower in a corner that day instead")

Twitter - lib Hedy Fry - "Lib MPs back to work this week, notwithstanding Harper's lock out." ("But I'll won't be at work for the Budget vote, thanks to the Iffy "Avoid an Election at All Costs" lock out")

lib Hedy Fry - "Stephen Harper has shut down Parliament to avoid accountability, but running away from Canadians just wont work" ("but running away works GREAT to avoid getting thrown out of office in an election!")

lib Hedy Fry - Harper is closing down Parliament for the next 2 months in his desperate bid to hide from the Canadian people. What an insult to democracy!" ("But getting told by my leader to hide from Canadians by skipping the Budget vote to avoid an election, well that's just democracy inaction... err, I meant 'in action', sorry")

Ruby Dhalla - "As many of you know, the Prime Minister made a decision to shut down Parliament until March. However my Liberal colleagues and I have still been hard at work on your behalf." ("until the Budget comes up that is, cause I plan on bailing in order to keep my seat and my pension!")

Justin Trudeau (Twitter) - "Marching against prorogation in Mtl. You know it's a good day when even the Communist Party comes out for democracy." 23 January at 12:06 ("cause you know what fans my fam is of those commies...")

Justin Trudeau (Twitter) - "Back to Ottawa for two days of meetings about how best to serve Canadians when the Liberals get back to work on the Hill next week." 19 January at 08:50

Justin Trudeau (Twitter) - "Looking forward to getting back to work on the 25th, Steven Harper wont keep me from working hard in Ottawa for the people of Papineau." 08 January at 18:44 ("But Iffy will when he asks me to skip the Budget vote")

Dan McTeague
"We're going back to work on Monday with or without the government" ("err, scratch that I guess, cause I won't be there for the Budget vote")

Re: Anti-Spam Bill and Prorogue - "I was a little annoyed when I heard that Parliament was going to be prorogued" (but obviously not enough to bother showing up once the House was back in session)

Keith Martin (Twitter) - let us use todays demonstration as just the start of a citizens movement to take back Parliament with the MPs they have sent to serve them" 10:55 PM Jan 23rd via mobile web ("except, of course, for Budget Day... cause Iggy's gonna get us KILLED at the polls if we bring down the House")

Charging for news on the Internet

There's lots of talk these days about papers starting to charge for their articles, AGAIN, seeking to make up for "lost revenues" and such. Here's my take on the issue, which I think it reflected by a lot of bloggers... if it ain't free, we'll just get our news elsewhere. And when we post our stories, we'll just refer our readers to the free version, instead of yours.

It's really that simple. Media organizations have clearly not gotten the message, as many are considering putting up firewalls once again. A big part of the problem is, however, that they're spending MILLIONS of dollars on website redevelopment projects, trying to make their sites the slickest, integrating tons of features and extra content. Quite frankly, that's not what I'm interested in. When I hit a newspaper website, all I want is the article in question. THAT'S IT. I don't go there for the "extras". If I want the "extras", I'll go to somewhere like the CBC's or CTV's websites.

Just to break it down and make it easier for the execs... it's strictly your CONTENT that I want, based on the writing of your particular writers. You pick good journalists who put forward an interesting take on a major story, and I'll likely pick up and re-broadcast YOUR content... instead of the other guys. Or, quite frankly, maybe your idiot of an author, who's moronic screeds I'll forward too. But I'm not interested in any of the other stuff you're trying to provide, SO DON'T BOTHER WASTING YOUR/MY MONEY!!!

As you can see, it's clearly not worked... so just stick to what you're good at. Investigative stores. Series on a particular issue of interest. REPORTING THE NEWS. Opinion and analysis. You know, the kind of thing you did in "the good old days" before the internet. If you stick to that, keep your websites simple, AND KEEP THEM FREE, then your current online ad revenues should at least keep your web operations going. But will it ENHANCE your bottom line? I don't think so... but I pretty much assure you that charging online for your content WILL hurt your bottom line, as readers/bloggers tune you out, and start looking for content elsewhere.

My rant/screed on this one, take it or leave it. But know that if you ignore it, you'll likely be hurting yourself in the long term. That's because today's youth DEMAND that content online be "FREE", and will en mass ignore media organizations that don't follow that dictum. And today's youth WILL be your future subscribers... or your competitors subscribers. You choose.

CANADA Invades the White House Press Briefing

True to his word, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs wore a Team Canada jersey at the beginning of his White House Press Briefing. From the Associated Press YouTube page:

I do think that Dimitri could have had a bit more fun with this and gone one step further... he could have put the number "87" on the jersey!

CFS - a $1.8 million dollar student funded renovation tab?

Was doing some searching online, and I stumbled across this... can anyone make heads or tails of this? It looks to me like a $1.8 MILLION dollar project that was put out to tender to renovate their Ottawa headquarters. What does it look like to you?

Of course this got me curious, and so I did a bit more digging. I found the CFS shown as a "satisfied customer" in a brochure for Cole & Associates, who I guess did a major reno for their spiffy HQ. Anyone know off hand what the tab (paid for with student funds, I'll remind you) for that little project was?

Proposing to spend $1.8 MILLION dollars of student money on renovations to their HQ is a big deal in my books... especially when there's a whole lot of dissatisfaction with their organization, and several schools who want out.

Maybe that's why they're so desperate to stifle any form of dissent as soon as it rears its head... because looks like they need to keep picking the pockets of Canadian students in order to keep up with their "entitlements".

CFS attempting to kill UofG's CFS Referendum

Well, so much for "democracy" from the folks at the CFS. No sooner do I post that previous article about all party support for a referendum on the CFS, do I learn of the CFS-O's attempt to squash it like a bug.

No wonder the UofG's NDP pulled out... the article is reposted here in full...

CFS-O referendum denied to student organizers
Posted by The Ontarion On February - 11 - 2010
Written by Daniel Bitonti

According to the chairperson of the Ontario component of the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS-O), there will be no referendum held at the University of Guelph in March on continued membership in the federation.

In September, Guelph student organizers had circulated a petition requesting a referendum to be held on membership in CFS-O on March 29, 30, 31. According to CFS-O bylaws, the federation must receive a petition initiating a referendum process six months in advance of the referendum date.

The Ontarion confirmed in October that a process server delivered a package to CFS Ontario on Sept. 29, including the petition and a letter from the University registrar verifying the signatures of 10 per cent of the undergraduate student body, a CFS-Ontario de-federating requirement.

But CFS-O bylaws stipulate that petitions must be delivered by registered mail.

Shelly Melanson, CFS-O chairperson, told the Ontarion on Tuesday that the Guelph petitions had arrived by registered mail on Nov. 9.

“Any petition that is going to initiate a referendum process must be received six months prior to the date of the referendum. Because this petition failed to meet the notice provision under Article 5 bylaw 2, the petition is not in order,” said Melanson.

Melanson also explained there had been problems verifying signatures and student numbers on the petition, a problem that currently mirrors the situation with the University of Guelph petitions sent to CFS-National.

In October, Gavin Armstrong, the CSA’s communications and corporate affairs commissioner, told the Ontarion, “that it would be very poor of CFS-Ontario to deny the petition based on the fact that it was served by a process server and not registered mail.”

“We are currently looking into our options and into the bylaws,” Armstrong told the Ontarion on Wednesday.

UPDATE: Looks like it's not the first time that the CFS has used dirty tricks to attempt to stifle any sort of democratic review of a school's membership in their organization.

CFS losing their grip: UoG has all party support for a Referendum on representation by the CFS

It just shows you what our youth can do when they put their heads together, set aside their differences, and take a stand on an issue... TOGETHER.

In last week's "The Ontarion", the University of Guelph's student newspaper, there was a "Letter to the Editor" signed by the political campus clubs of three of the four major parties, calling in part for a referendum on whether or not the CFS will continue to represent the students at the University of Guelph.

Here's the letter:

We the undersigned, as students of the University of Guelph, support democracy. We believe that Students should be allowed to speak and have their voices heard. As such, we have come together to call for a referendum so Students can choose their representation. We demand, in order to gain the support of Students, that the Canadian Federation of Students:

1. Advocate effectively on the issues that matter to Students.
2. Decentralize power.
3. Demonstrate financial and administrative transparency.
4. Take a non-partisan stance during elections.
5. Acknowledge Students’ right to choose through a referendum.
6. Cease unjust litigation of your own Students.

Let Students choose the movement! Let Students Speak!

Guelph Campus Conservatives
University of Guelph Young Liberals
Guelph Campus Greens

I have it on good authority that the NDP campus club had also signed on to the letter, but withdrew their name and support at the last minute before the paper went to print.* I'm thinking someone from the CFS got wind of the letter and "got to them", pressuring them to withdraw their support, or else. (* NOTE: See UPDATE II below)

Here's hoping that this is a start to a real democratic movement in student politics at the University of Guelph... and that the leftist stranglehold will be broken, so that ALL voices can be genuinely heard, and so that REAL debate of the issues can happen in an unrepressive environment of learning.

UPDATE: Turns out that the CFS is attempting to stonewall this referendum on a technicallity... the required paperwork wasn't sent to the CFS by "Registered Mail", and therefore no referendum will be held.

According to CFS-O bylaws, the federation must receive a petition initiating a referendum process six months in advance of the referendum date.

The Ontarion confirmed in October that a process server delivered a package to CFS Ontario on Sept. 29, including the petition and a letter from the University registrar verifying the signatures of 10 per cent of the undergraduate student body, a CFS-Ontario de-federating requirement.

But CFS-O bylaws stipulate that petitions must be delivered by registered mail.

Shelly Melanson, CFS-O chairperson, told the Ontarion on Tuesday that the Guelph petitions had arrived by registered mail on Nov. 9.

“Any petition that is going to initiate a referendum process must be received six months prior to the date of the referendum. Because this petition failed to meet the notice provision under Article 5 bylaw 2, the petition is not in order,” said Melanson.

Looks like they're seriously worried about losing access to all that funding... they see that their losing their grip on the UofG, and are desperately trying to hold on.

Stay tuned, more info as I get it...

UPDATE II: As for the NDP's support, I've been corrected by a source. It turns out that the UofG's NDP did not in fact withdraw because they didn't support the letter, but because they didn't want an endorsement of the letter to be confused with support for withdrawing from the CFS. While they advocate remaining within the CFS and will campaign to that effect in any refurendum, they DO apparently support the idea of allowing the student body to make their determination for themselves. As such, the letter apparently DOES have all party support within the UofG, while they differ on the merits of membership within the CFS itself.

My thoughts on the Jaffer story

With this being the lead story on National Newswatch, I suppose many of you will be curious to hear my thoughts. So here goes...

1) I've said for a long time that I'm a strong supporter of mandatory minimums for violent crimes, not all crimes. (at least not that I can recall offhand)

2) Having said that, I've always felt that there should be room for leniency for first time, non-violent offenders. (Going over my previous posts, however, I can't recall the issue of "first time offenders" having ever come up, so I can't defend this point by simply saying "I've always said that")

3) The folks that are pointing fingers at this "Tory" judge are off base... the charges were withdrawn by the PROVINCE.

4) While I'll grant the fact that the Prosecutor in this case was indeed appointed by the Harris Tories, he's working under the direction of the CURRENT Provincial Government.

5) I'm personally curious as to WHY the drunk driving charge was withdrawn. Of all the charges, that one was to me the most serious. (For reference, I'll refer you to my thoughts from his arrest) Of course, it's easy to armchair quarterback this one, but we weren't there in the courtroom. I would like to hear more about this, because with withdrawal of the drunk driving charge does concern me. Not because of who he is, but because I've always HATED listening to ads on the radio from paralegals who advertise the fact that they'll help you get out of a drunk driving charge. Maybe I'm biased, having lost a friend to a drunk driver when I was a kid. (AC, I still think of you, and can still remember your face even to this day... some 25 years later)

That's all.

God's amazing work in New Brunswick

The following is an amazing personal testimony of what God can do through you, if you're one of His children, and you're willing to let Him do His work through your life. Sorry, no politics today folks. ;-)

My wife and I had the blessing of working with Dave Storey and his family during the summer of 2004. If you've ever wondered about my occasional references to having lived in Fredericton a few years back, this guy is pretty much the sole (soul?) reason why we went out there.

To make a long story short, this video on Dave Storey and the work God is doing through him was recently done by the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. Take a look at this amazing testimony of God's mighty hand at work.



I had the blessing of crossing Dave's path through Luke, a friend of mine who'd moved to Ontario. Anyway, my wife and I headed out with Luke and his girlfriend to NB for a weekend in March of 2004, and met Dave and his wife Lisa then. We immediately felt right at home with them, and connected on a spiritual level in a way that doesn't happen very often.

Dave is a very Godly man, and when he earnestly prays about something, don't be surprised to see it come to pass. Of course I didn't know him all that well back then, but by the end of the weekend, Dave said to us in all seriousness, "You know what? I'm praying that God would bring you guys out here to Fredericton, to join and help out our church here." My response was, "If that's what the Lord wants to happen, then His will be done."

So you know what happened next, right? If you're a true Bible believing Christian, I'm sure you know there's no such thing as a coincidence. You see, God was already at work, answering Dave's prayer. Within about two weeks, I was informed at work that my position was going to be outsourced at the end of April, and that I'd be given a severance package for several months. And do you happen to know who called us the very same evening that we got the news? (remember... there's no such thing as a coincidence) None other than Dave Storey, who opened the conversation something like this... "You guys know what? We're still praying here that the Lord would bring you guys out to Fredericton." And my wife's response earlier that day to the news of me losing my job had been just three words... "So, New Brunswick?"

So, you guessed it... our U-Haul truck was packed on April 30th, and we were on the road to Fredericton, New Brunswick. Without going into all the details, it was during the time we had out there, through much prayer and seeking of the Lord, that Dave and his family heard the call from God for them to move up to Doaktown. Things worked out perfectly for us, as our landlord had just advised us that they'd sold the house we were living in, and we had to move out by the end of the month! So we moved on back to Ontario, where a little while later, the Lord moved several families from our old church (to which we'd returned) to start a new church in another local city, where we now reside in happy fellowship.

Our God is truly an amazing God. And He can do amazing things through you... if you let Him. The video above is an amazing testimony to that fact. Though our time in New Brunswick was short, and didn't appear from a worldly perspective to have had any significant impact for the Kingdom of God, it turned out to be a small part in an amazing work that God was doing. But you couldn't necessarily see that at first if you weren't looking at it from God's perspective. You see, He had BIGGER things in mind, and an ETERNAL perspective on everything, when He chose to send Dave and his family to Doaktown. And He moved in the lives of various individuals, not just ours, spread out over thousands of kilometres, to set the wheels of His plan in motion months in advance.

It's just an awe inspiring blessing to see what God has done through our finite and seemingly insignificant contributions to His Kingdom. Just do what He's asked you to do... no matter how small it may seem to you. Because you just never know what He has in store.