Rally cry

Mike at Socialist Gulag contacted me yesterday and requested that I help propagate his rally cry to Conservative bloggers. I am happy to provide the link for you, but would temper his zeal with this cautionary note.

CBC Radio yesterday broadcast a telephone interview with Chuck Cadman, during which he said does not take well to arm-twisting and that he's currently entertaining feedback from his constituents. It is therefore vital that all correspondence from outside his constituency exemplify the highest standards of decorum and quality, as Michael has suggested in his post. Mr Cadman may well fire all external correspondence in the trash. Equally plausible is that he would take note of a few insightful emails. One thing is for certain: nastiness and demanding tones will accomplish nothing, so be on your best behaviour.

Godspeed. Spread the word!

UNHRC double standards

Louise Arbour, the UN's high commissioner for human rights, said Thursday there was "considerable merit" to allegations that the United Nations Human Rights Commission was unfair and operated on double standards.   -- CNews

Of course there's "considerable merit." One need only consider one-sidedness of the UNHRC on the Arab-Israeli conflict to draw such conclusions.

She said the UN body also needed more funding and better peer review. "It seems to me this is the root of the problem," said Arbour...

Ms Arbour is an esteemed and obviously intelligent lady, but I consider her diagnosis absolutely incorrect. The root of the problem with the HRC is not the lack of funds or insufficient peer review. It is rather that many of the nations represented there possess a seething hatred of Israel, and the United States by association, and are consequently crippled in their analysis and focus. The thorn buried at the heart of this prodigious pustule is anti-Semitism. Root it out and the putrid infection will subside.

What would it matter?

New Democrat Leader Jack Layton defended his side deal with the prime minister on Thursday, calling on the Conservatives to help pass the revised federal budget before taking Canadians to the polls.   -- Yahoo! News

Would someone please explain the advantage of passing the revised NDP budget prior to bringing down the government? Wouldn't the election of a new government effectively nullify whatever budget is brought before the House at this juncture? Asit stands, the only party to gain anything from approving the NDP budget is the NDP itself. Harper should think twice before inserting a feather in Layton's hat.

Hone the message

The Conservatives have lost their runaway-freight-train momentum and come to a screeching halt, according to the latest poll. Martin's public address and the recent 'coalition' with the NDP seem to have convinced a significant portion of the population that the current government should be given more time, or at least that the Gomery Inquiry should be allowed to complete its work prior to calling an election.

My initial reaction is shock. In Paul Martin's government we have a Prime Minister who is wholly unprincipled, a government without a plan (except remaining in power), a party that colluded with big business in Quebec to launder large sums of taxpayer money and filter portions back into Liberal coffers, and a bungled and ill-advised Quebec Federalist plan that has resulted in the highest support of Quebec separatism to date. Why would Canadians tolerate the corruption of the Liberal Party any further?

One plausible explanation is that Canadians remain scared of the Conservatives, i.e. scared of the unknown. They do not want the overtly Leftist, socialist NDP governing, but at the same time they will not elect a party that they have been led to believe is the American GOP incarnate. Canadians will not elect to federal power a party whom they do not know and cannot trust. Hence they default to the middle and endure the conscienceless flip-flopping of the Liberals.

The Conservative Party must be united and singular in its messages on the issues of the day - health care, education, taxation, equalization, abortion, same-sex marriage - if they expect Canadians to elect them into power. There can be no discrepancy between the Blue Book and the microphone. There can be no variance in the message being proffered by candidates. The only way the Conservatives will unseat the Liberals is if their message is uncompromised, unambiguous and clear.

In this hour lies the opportunity to alter the Canadian political landscape for some time. Liberal incompetence and arrogance have brought us to an election precupice, but only a rock solid platform and clear, consistent delivery of that message will bring victory. The government will fall; of this there is no doubt. In the meantime the Conservatives would do well to concentrate on honing their message. It, and only it, will convince Canadians to give them a mandate to govern.

Fear factor

Fourteen days ago I wrote that the Liberals have yet to kick into fearmongering mode, but that as the election draws closer they would return to their old line that a vote for the Conservative Party is a vote against Canadian values. The Toronto Star confirms this in its latest interview with Desperado.

"... If the Conservatives vote against child care, that's an indication of their values. If the Conservatives vote against climate change, that's an indication of their values. If the Conservatives vote against a budget which is fiscally responsible and which essentially fulfills the government's objectives because in fact what the Conservatives want to do is to play partisan politics with the Bloc Quèbècois, that is the perspective of their objectives," he said.

Canadians know what they're getting with the Liberals, Martin said, because this year's budget laid it out in some detail.

The election is just around the corner.

Update 1:39 PM: More high octane hyperbole.

Justice served

A man in Manitoba who sexually assaulted a five-year-old girl was sentenced to 18 years in prison on Tuesday.

Nicholas Dean Sennie had pleaded guilty last week to aggravated sexual assault after choking and assaulting his girlfriend's five-year-old daughter.   -- CBC

The sentence actually computes to fifteen years because the judge is crediting him with three years already served. Regardless, I think this is a just sentence, especially given that Mr Sennie is a repeat offender.

My only other hope is that for the next fifteen years Mr Sennie's cell chum makes him his personal "squeak toy" and metes out upon him the same brutality he exacted on that poor five year old girl.

Desperado

Desperado, why don't you come to your senses?
You been out ridin' fences for so long now
Oh, you're a hard one
I know that you got your reasons
These things that are pleasin' you
Can hurt you somehow

One minute Martin is making deals with the National Socialist Party, obliging them with corporate tax cuts. The next minute he's telling Harper the cuts are still possible. The man is all over the place like a bad suit. What a tremendous lack of principled leadership, confidence and conviction we are witnessing in the PM. 'Dithers' has become 'Desperado'.

(Image belongs to Fred Chartrand of the Canadian Press and was found in source here.)

Quotes on "the deal"

Stalwart Stephen Harper:

I’m going to wait and see the details, but I gather the deal is price at about $4.6 billion. My first response is that Mr. Martin and Mr. Layton think $4.6 billion of taxpayers’ money is the price to make corruption go away, but I wonder if the taxpayers of Canada are going to think the same thing.

Meticulous Monty Solberg:

And the NDP! If ABC company had stolen $100 million the NDP would go absolutely ape. But when the government and the Liberal Party conspire to steal $100 million the dippers think these are great guys to cut a deal with. Course they think Fidel Castro is the bee's knees too.

Astute Andrew Coyne:

So now we know: there is no price Paul Martin isn't willing to make you pay to save his job. And there is no amount of corruption Jack Layton won't overlook as long as the price is right: at $4.6-billion, it works out to about $250 million per NDP MP. Nineteen sponsorship programs, one for each soul.

Excellent Earl Rae:

Callers were slamming you and your party over the Adscam scandal. This made you squirm. This made you say to the people of Canada: "I didn't have to call the (Gomery) commission. I could have done what most politicians would do -- just try to avoid it ..."
...
What action have you taken, what action are you going to take against the perpetrators who have such disrespect for the people of Canada, and truth and honesty, and the integrity of government, that, through "tons" of advice, they wanted you to "hide this thing," to "put it under the rug?"

Game, set and match.

On immigration and multiculturalism

Salim Mansur of the London Free Press writes about Liberal reliance on the immigrant vote and how they leverage they endear immigrants through multiculturalt policies. He also highlights the pitfalls of such an approach, namely "its loosening effect on national identity, of assisting the forces of fragmentation rather than binding a country already weakened by the politics of regionalism and separatism." It is a timely and interesting read.

Cut to the chase

The political news of morning centers around the "in principle" deal worked out between Layton and Martin, a deal that will reportedly rollback $1.3 billion in corporate tax breaks and reduce projected budget surpluses so as to apportion $4.6 billion for NDP-friendly causes - "affordable housing, cuts to tuition fees and environmental measures".

Many of my BT mates are going to tackle the asininity of the whole arrangement and consider the impact it will have on the NDP and Liberals as we approach a possible election. In short, I continue to believe that this political manoeuver will benefit the NDP while discrediting the Liberals, Paul Martin in particular. I deplore Martin's capitulation on the core economic aspects of the budget. Kyoto is a deadhead that has the potential to sink our economy and place our industries at a distinct disadvantage over their competitors. Corporate tax breaks result in jobs, that ultimately keep more people off EI and welfare and actually contributing to the economy. The deal with Layton introduces long-term economic risk for the mere potential of short-term political gain; Martin is jeopardizing Canada's economy in order to cover his political tush. Ain't nothing laudible 'bout that.

Shifting the focus a bit....

I'm not an economist by any measure, but it seems to me that if one desires to create jobs, reduce reliance on government economic programs and boost the economy, the way to do it is through tax cuts, both corporate and personal. Job creation means more money in the economy instead of government bureaucracy and leads to increased wealth, investment and spending. More people contributing to the economy must mean less people leeching off the State (read other taxpayers), which must in turn free up a considerable amount of money for other programs. An economist can correct me for believing that the government would actually benefit on a large scale by reducing the overall taxation level for both employees and employers.

Why is it that we never hear a promise from the NDP or Liberals to lower federal income tax levels for working Canadians? The Liberals talk big during campaign runs but their budgets never produce any measurable income tax cuts without an associated hike in EI premiums, CPP, or some other area that mitigates any gain that Canadians might see in their net income. The NDP have never brought in a federal budget, but I'm fairly confident that income tax reductions would be the last thing on their list. (During the last electoral campaign Layton openly said he'd consider increasing income taxes to fix health care and the NDP never misses an opportunity to decry the mere suggestion of tax breaks.) Were they ever to hold power they would undoubtedly double corporate tax rates in order to finance their communist style socialist agenda and, if that failed to yield enough unearned cash, would not hesitate to increase the overall income tax level of Canadians. Economy be damned as long as their environmental and social initiatives are instituted, seems to be their mantra.

Nobody is considering tangible income tax reduction. Nobody is talking tax cuts and measures to keep parents home as a solution to the "child care crisis". Nobody is talking about reducing the size and scope of government. Nobody is talking about boosting the economy by placing more money back into the pockets of Canadians. Nobody is talking about reforming the health care system through viable alternatives instead of blindly infusing the broken model with more tax dollars. Nobody except the Conservative Party, that is.

As we tiptoe towards a federal election, we must keep in mind the salient points of each party's platform. Suffice it to say, increased government programs, increased bureaucracy, increased taxation, increased reliance on the State and an increasingly deficient health care system are not what I envision in a "better Canada". The Conservative Party's agenda maps most closely to mine and I shall vote accordingly.

"Nightmares" final installment

Tom at ThePolitic has posted the final installment of his review of the CBC's Passionate Eye "Nightmares" series. We are indebted to him for his efforts.

British jihad

Conservative writers in Britain have of late been alerting the world to the plague of anti-Semitism that is slowly gripping the nation. Melanie Phillips has been most vigilant in exposing this hatred for what it is, and in recent days has authored a number of excellent diary entries on the subject. I encourage you to hasten to her blog and at least read her four part (and continuing) series entitled, "The Anglosphere's jihad". If for some reason you require direct links, see here, here, here and here.

Truth must triumph over lies and hatred, or else the Britain and the Jews that her home are headed for disaster. Indeed, we all are.

Disarmed forces

What a sad state of affairs that our once world-class military infrastructure lies a shambles due to willful government neglect. It is an international embarrassment that we, an industrialized, first world, G8 nation, will not sustain our military through adequate financing. A cruel political charade are the budgetary promises recently laid out by the government, since many - if not most - will never come to fruition.

Canada's armed forces are so underfunded and overstretched that the government's much-lauded budget commitments may not come close to fixing them, suggest documents released to The Canadian Press.
...
"The result is a decaying infrastructure, a depreciating asset base, increasing personnel issues, and a fleet that faces considerable sustainment issues," writes the head of the navy, Vice-Adm. Bruce MacLean.

"I will not be able to deliver the full mandated level of maritime defence readiness and capability delineated in the Defence Plan."   -- Toronto Star

In other words, we are already at critical mass; we are unable to even reach readiness levels for defence, let alone act thereupon. This is ridiculous! Can we for once elect a government that will return funding to our military personnel and refurbish our machinery, and above all, stop the politicizing of military budget numbers?! For heaven's sake....

CSI episode in the making

A man told police he kept his mother's corpse in a basement freezer for more than four years while he collected her Social Security cheques...   -- CNews

Frozen corpse, crazy story about a cat attack, receipt of social security checques, homemade bombs, plethora of guns... a Jerry Bruckheimer dream.

Child murderers

Angele, a single mother in her thirties with two children, thought that abortion was the answer to her circumstances. At almost 23 weeks gestation, she entered the EPOC Clinic in Orlando, Florida. Little did she realize that the next day she would give birth to a live, perfectly healthy boy whom she named Rowan. Cradling Rowan's moving body, her screams for help were ignored by abortion clinic workers while her son took his last breath.   -- LifeSite

Layton's olive branch

Layton is playing shrewd politics with his latest olive branch to the Grits. Layton is a socialist's socialist; nothing would please him more - nor appeal to the socialist element in his base more strongly - than forcing the Libs to overturn corporate tax breaks in return for investment in his dearly beloved social programs. Not only will his supporters applaud him, but perhaps some of the more divergent lefty Liberals will find themselves endeared to his persistence and political savvy.

Layton knows that there is still a possibility that the Libs could flounder even if the NDP throw their weight behind the Grits until Gomery is finished. His public explanation is that he wants to get on with government and, if we are to believe his words, he genuinely believes that Canadians do not want to go to the polls at this point. I also believe he's under no delusions about forming the government at this point in time. So either way his orange-clad booty is covered politically.

Do I disagree with the man? Absolutely. I think this government should be teed up, laces out and punted through the electoral goal posts into the land of Campbellesque oblivion. Moreover I think the foci of his budgetary demands are completely outrageous; shattering pillars of the budget while leaving appended items blowing in the wind (Kyoto, Atlantic Accord, etc.). That said, if you look at it, both those contentious items are politically advantageous to Layton and align perfectly with the NDP platform.

As much as I hate to admit it, Layton stands only to gain from his offering to Paul Martin. I highly doubt that his base will chastise him for this dance with the devil, but rather see the political advantage in it. Here he will only gain.

What infuriates me most is the Liberal position: willing to forsake everything in order to possibly maintain power a little while longer and ram their agenda through. Then again, I probably should have learned by now that the Liberals stand for nothing except power... winning at all costs.

Michael Moore joins the CBC

Well, not really. But judging by their Passionate Eye work of late, "The Power of Nightmares," one is truly caused to wonder if Moore isn't somehow employed behind the scenes. I was going to devote most of my daily blog time to deconstructing the CBC's mockumentary, which equates neoconservatism with Islamic fundamentalism, but shall defer to ThePolitic, who has already expended quite a lot of effort in this regard. (See here and here.)

I do apologize for the deceptive post heading, but it was the first thing that came to mind.

No excuse

Dr. Peter Collins, a Canadian expert in sexually deviant behaviour, offered this assessment of pedophilia during a court hearing:

"With pedophiles, it's a well-ingrained erotic preference. You can treat them, but I'm never going to cure them. Their sexual needs are such that they're going to continue to offend."

So why let them out?   -- Winnipeg Sun

When I read the report of Nicholas Dean Sennie's horrific rape of a five-year-old girl I thought exactly the same. Why should this guy ever be allowed back in society, only to rape another innocent child?

Saudis choose Islamists

Candidates backed by conservative clerics dominated the final stage of Saudi Arabia's landmark municipal elections.... In the kingdom's commercial capital of Jiddah, the seven winning candidates were those whose names appeared on what was dubbed the "golden list" - the picks of fundamentalist clerics.

Why am I not surprised?

Disgusting murderers

If you want to understand my contempt for terrorists and the leftist MSM, who perpetually downplay their atrocious actions by calling them "freedom fighters," "insurgents," "militants," and the like, read the article at Yahoo! news that describes the cold-blooded murder of a survivor of the recently reported helicopter crash. Excerpts:

The video begins with an unseen cameraman breathing heavily and running with the camera toward burning wreckage. Two bodies are visible, one of them severely charred, nearly all its clothes burned away.
...
The scene moves to tall grass, where a man with thinning, gray hair and wearing a blue flight suit is lying on his back, the right side of his head bloody....

"Stand up! Stand up!" the cameraman shouts to him in English.

"I can't, it's broken. Give me a hand," the survivor says in accented English, raising his hands for help. "Give me your hand."

It appears the militants help pull him to his feet.
...
The cameraman tells the crewman, whose face is visible, to step back.
...
The survivor then tries to walk, limping with his back to the insurgents, who say something to him that makes him turn around. He raises his hands to somebody off camera as if gesturing to them to stop what they are about to do.

"Carry out God's verdict," someone is heard saying, and the militants shoot the man at point-blank range, continuing even after he falls to the ground. One gunman shouts, "Allahu akbar!"

Watson distances himself from Vlasek

Paul Watson is trying to distance himself and his beloved Sea Shepherd Conservation Society from Dr Jerry Vlasek. One wonders why Mr Watson is only now trying to distance himself from Vlasek given that Vlasek's comments about assassinating sealers and scientists have been well-known since 2003, and even up to April 20 Watson was defending his colleague.

Seems to me that Watson was only too pleased to have the radical nutbar on board his vessel, eating his food, sharing his sentiments and sitting on the SSCS board of directors; that he was more than willing to drop Vlasek within striking distance of Rendell Genge's sealers; more than willing to see Vlasek physical confront a group of sealers. That is, as long as the public and the media were unaware of Vlasek's radical, murderous inclinations. But now that Vlasek has been publicly exposed for what he is, Watson is backing off and denouncing his colleague.

His denunciation of Vlasek is nothing but politics; an effort to present the SSCS as an innocuous entity in the fight for animal rights. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. They're all in bed together. Were it not so, Vlasek would never have made his way onto the floes via Watson's vessel and Rendell Genge and his family would not be receiving death threats.

Speeches to the nation

What promised to be a night of blogging about Dithers' plea for more time and the corresponding presentations by Harper, Duceppe and Layton turned out to be a night of work on household and extracurricular chores. How goes that old saying... the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Anyway, I watched the CBC version because the interpreter that CTV hired was horrible, now I'd like to share my thoughts on each person's speech.

Martin. On the surface I thought Martin's delivery was excellent and the content persuasive. If I was a liberal fencesitter I would have been persuaded to keep the faith for a while longer. Whoever wrote the PM's speech did an excellent job of stroking sympathic liberal sentiment, as was readily apparent when the CBC did some cross-country interviews at various "town hall" locations. Many were glad that Dithers apologized and were very willing to give him a second chance.

Harper. Harper's immediate demolition of Martin's assertion that this is a national crisis was superb. His salient point is that this is purely a Liberal Party crisis, a crisis that has flowed over into Parliament and arguably stoked separatist sentiment in Quebec. We are here because of Liberal corruption. Period. Harper also did well to point out the hypocrisy and self-servience of the Liberal Party, which stopped the public accounts commission and held the previous election before a single Gomery testimony was heard, and yet today want to postpone an election until Gomery finishes his work. Harper amply demonstrated that this moment was about saving the Liberal's hold on power, nothing more.

Duceppe. Would that this guy were a nationlist! In my mind he shored up an additional 5% of the Quebec vote last night by demonstrating in no uncertain terms that the Liberals are corrupt and concerned only with their own tenuous grasp on power. His line that the Liberals tried to buy Quebecers was raw and powerful. In my opinion, Duceppe will gain the most from last night's performance.

Layton. He was perhaps the best spoken of the night and his message of trying to keep the government afloat will no doubt resonate with those on the left and those that believe this is not the right time for an election. I'm honestly a little surprised at Jack's willingness to frollick in the liberal power bed, though. He basically told the nation and Paul Martin that the NDP will support the Liberals as long as some budgetary items are reworked to fit the NDP's goals and visions; a blind eye to Liberal corruption in return for an NDP fingerprint on certain pieces of legislation and the budget. It seemed to me like a miniature sellout for power and stability. (What ever happened to the "integrity in government" mantra we heard not so long ago?)

All in all it was an interesting night, with the opposition parties positioning themselves for a federal election and the Liberals begging for one more chance. It will be interesting to see if Martin is willing to let Layton NDP-ize the budget in order to keep the government propped up until after Gomery. Indeed the next few weeks should be interesting to say the least. I'm personally of the mindset that we should punt the Liberals now and end the duplicity, corruption and arrogance that has plagued this nations for over 12 years.

Update 10:53 AM: Ouch! Linda Williamson fires Paul Martin. Awesome article.

Update 11:34 AM: BlueMapleLeaf delivers one of the most decisive castigations of Martin I've read thus far. Observe the blatant hypocrisy, says Michael.

Update 2:57 PM: Andrew Coyne's opinion in many ways concurs with mine: Martin's purpose last night was completely self-serving and demonstrated a marked hypocrisy. Drink deep.

Prime time?

Have you considered that Dithers' speech will be conducted at a time when everyone west of Ontario will still be working? Any significance in that? Joel Johannesen drives the matter home:

This whole adscam sponsorship corruption mess is ostensibly about keeping Quebec in confederation (that's the line, anyway — wink wink). So think about it. The liberals can't even wait a couple of hours (at no taxpayer expense!) and make it possible for people in the west coast to watch/listen to the great Liberal poobah make his (self-described) all-important grand speech on a matter of such supposed grave importance to the entire nation?

No deserters here

Tom Hayden, the legendary American activist of the 1960s, is asking Canada to provide a haven for deserters from the U.S. army.   -- CNews

Hayden can take his suggestion and poke it back into his activist cakehole.

He said American soldiers and reservists of today are in the same boat as Vietnam-era draftees and deserters...

Uhhh, no they're not. They're all volunteers. They entered the military of their own accord, accepted the incumbent responsibilities through an oath and are now trying to break that promise.

He said the soldiers are coerced to volunteer for the army by lavish offers of cash and educational benefits.

Again, incorrect. Soldiers are not coerced. Enticed perhaps, yes, but not coerced. The difference being nobody is forcing them to accept duty. As stated above, all choose to enter the service. Besides, any person who believes that life in the army or marines entails nothing but wads of cash and a slick education is either woefully ignorant or downright stupid.

Hayden... said Canada should create a special class of refugees that would allow conscientious objectors and others who don't want to serve in Iraq to seek asylum in Canada

I say we create a special class of deportees: American forces deserters who want to hide from their sworn duties and not face the consequences of their ignobility.

Bend over Hayden, here's your big black boot. Absolutely. No. Deserters. Here.

EU will not condemn Sudan

The withdrawn resolution would have condemned the Sudanese government for indiscriminate attacks on civilians in the Darfur region, diplomats said.
...
African nations have been holding firm to their proposed resolution that refrained from singling out the Sudanese government but only "expresses serious concern" about "the continued violations by all parties."

The commission was supposed to vote on the resolution last week, but the ballot was rescheduled because of behind-the-scenes negotiations to secure a majority to pass it, diplomats said.   -- CNews

Depraved cowards.

180,000 dead, continued acts of gang rape and murder by the Khartoum-backed janjaweed, yet the EU and other nations still cannot bring themselves to condemn the veritable genocide, let alone put people on the ground to stop the slaughter. Instead they issue yet another generic "expression of serious concern"; another useless resolution that is nothing more than a parody of justice.

No wonder I consider the UN and its various branches, like the HRC, to be utterly useless and irrelevant.

Gomery bombshells

On the verge of the PM addressing the nation, these articles about Gomery Inquiry testimony couldn't be more timely. One might say they are bombshells.

• Liberal bombshell. Former organizer says judgeships used as rewards.
• Backing Brault's testimony. Benoît Corbeil, the former director-general of the Liberal Party's office in Montreal says he received tens of thousands of dollars in sponsorship cash.
• $50,000 to Charest Liberals. More testimony from Jean Brault.

SPREAD THE WORD!

Martin's ploy

What will Paul Martin say tonight? Speculation is rampant. My buds in the Blogging Tories have their own predictions. Even The Warren has offered up a few incindiary nuggets. You wanna know what I think Martin is going to say? (You probably don't but you're gonna get it anyway.)

I think Martin will use this time to prop himself up as a person of impeccable moral character based on the fact that he called for the inquiry. Next, he's going to recommend that nothing happen election-wise until the Gomery Inquiry runs its course. Third, and perhaps most importantly, he's going to describe the current state of Parliament and blame the Opposition, but mainly the Conservatives, for hamstringing the minority government. Martin is going to proffer that the Conservatives are to blame for Canada returning to the polls rather than the alleged corruption of the Liberals. This circumventing of media and Parliament to address voters prior to a June election is all about hobbling Harper. It is a last ditch, desparate attempt to salvage some credibility.

Let's hope and pray the nation sees through it.

Do not sell out to liberalism

The Toronto Star has devoted much of today's print to derision of the Catholic Cardinals' choice of Pope, Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI. Tacit admonishment, overt castigation, even fearmongering are evident in practically every piece, as liberaldom laments the election of a "conservative" Pontiff; one who will keep, as opposed to dismantle, the faith. (See here, here and here for examples.)

"Liberal" Catholics - indeed the whole archdiocese of liberaldom - were hoping and praying that the next Pope would be "progressive" and bring "reforms" to the Catholic church. Reform in this case seems to mean twisting or abandoning fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, even the Bible, in an effort to make the religion more "modern" and "acceptable". Shut up about abortion, allow women into the priesthood, endorse contraception, turn a blind eye to fornication, homosexuality, etc.; the list of changes is endless. Inherent in the fulfillment of each demand, however, is step backwards from Biblical truth, ultimately ending in moral relativism. The abandonment of moral standards is part and parcel what constitutes liberal progression.

I could stop here, wish Catholics good luck and move on, but I'd like to take the matter further and give attention to what C. S. Lewis presents in The Abolition of Man. Paraphrasing, Lewis submits that whenever one mentions "progression" as a value statement, the question must immediately be asked -- Towards what are we progressing? And, does that goal contain objective worth? People of all faiths, when considering the request of various liberals in their ranks, would do well to ask similar questions.

The faithful should not forget that, by and large, liberals believe there are no moral absolutes; 'right' and 'wrong' are to be re-evaluated over time and one must adjust one's beliefs according to what is commonly acceptable. Unwillingness to do so is what liberals hypocritically and incorrectly deem "intolerance". To hold an absolute, externally objective set of moral codes, which mankind cannot recast based on their own preferences is abject blasphemy in the church of liberalism. In truth, reforms that run counter to the fundamental truths of a particular faith are not simply suggestions towards beneficial adaptation, rather an invitation (and often a demand) to exchange God's unswerving truth for mankind's current adaptation thereof. Paul described this in Romans as "exchanging the truth for a lie." God calls it idolatry.

That liberals are pounding on the doors of various faith groups both from within and without, however, should come as a surprise to nobody, least of all people of faith. Human proclivity to jettison Godly standards of right and wrong and adopt instead their own shifting code of morals and ethics is nothing new. The reason man's definition slips and slides is that mankind does not possess the ability to fundamentally and inherently determine what is right or wrong; they just feel their way along based on a lie sold by Satan himself millenia ago. Man believes he can be God and rages against the suggestion that this is in fact impossible. Hence the reason mankind has raged against Biblical moral absolutes for time immemorial.

We should not expect anything different in the 21st century. Jesus himself told us that the world would hate us, just like it hated him. A point often lost on liberals is that, while Jesus Christ did not come to condemn the world, neither did he come to bring peace, rather a sword. Jesus Christ never accepted behaviour in contradiction of God's laws; he would not today either. He would not condemn the fornicator or adulterer or homosexual or liar or religious heretic, but the liberal concept of condemnation and Christ's concept thereof are entirely different matters. Jesus always demanded that sinners leave their sinful ways and follow God's law. 21st century liberals consider such judgement to be the very essence of condemnation - deeming someone's personal rights to be objectively wrong - and many would (dare I say) crucify him for it, perhaps not literally but indeed figuratively. One need only look at how opponents of SSM or pro-lifers are treated by liberals to see this in action. But I digress.

As rank and file liberals within and without the Catholic church beat their collective dissident drums in the coming weeks, we would do well to remember the words of Christ on this matter. We must not be like the man who "built his house on shifting sands". Know that the differentiator between the wise and foolish builders is that the wise man put the words of Christ into action. Both heard the truth, but only one followed it. Likewise we must not merely hear the word and refuse to do what it says, which is exactly what liberals worldwide are suggesting peoples of all faiths do. Each time the church surrenders a moral truth to liberalism, a foundation stone is replaced by sand, which not only leaves a weakness where the stone one was, but also undermines the strength of the bordering stones. And this is the end game of the suggested "progressive reforms" that liberals would foist upon the Church: not to strengthen the church, but to eject God's truth from within her and set up man's sandbox of relative morality in its place. That transaction may win favour in the temporal hearts and minds of man, but in the eternal heart and mind of God it will mean only one thing: death.

Jesus asked: "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" The answer is nothing. Never sell out to liberalism.

Kinsella audit

Warren Kinsella recently wrote in his blog that the Blogging Tories, of which I am a part, use their blogs to:

... defame feminists, gay marriage, the United Nations, bilingualism, immigration, anti-tobacco laws, liberals, fluoridation of water, the metric system and the Satanic subliminal pro-Stalinist messages used on episodes of The West Wing

Picking up on a request from Angry in the Great White North, here is my Kinsella Audit.

1. Feminism. Check. Sample.
2. Gay marriage. Check. Sample.
3. The UN. Check. Sample.
4. Bilingualism. Check. Sample. (Not so much about bilingualism as much as Quebec holding Canada by the 'nads.)
5. Immigration. Check. Sample.
6. Anti-tobacco laws. I'm a little ashamed to say I haven't commented on this.
7. Liberals. Check. Hardly a day goes by without some sort of castigation of the Liberal Party and/or liberaldom in general. Sample.
8. Flouridation of water. Nada.
9. The metric system. Nada.
10. Satanic subliminal pro-Stalinist messages used on episodes of The West Wing. Haven't watched the show since starting this blog in 2003. Besides, the government's always Blue.

Not bad; 6/10. Not quite at Angry's level of disdain, but then again he lives in Toronto; it's easy to see how he could be a little more bitter than me. :-)

Booksmart moron and environment terrorist

Apt names for young William Jensen Cottrell, a tree-hugger-terrorist who was convicted yesterday of firebombing scores of SUVs in California and sentenced to eight years in federal prison and ordered to pay $3.5 million in restitution. Here is a young PhD candidate in physics whose arrogance about his environmental views lead him to terrorize regular hard-working Americans. I have to say that I sincerely love American justice.

Normally I wouldn't give a moment's notice to a story like this, let alone post about it here, but there is an interesting thread to this tale that relates to yesterday's post about seal hunter assassination proponent, Dr Jerry Vlasek. If you read the article from whence this post is derived you will notice that Cottrell linked himself with ELF - Earth Liberation Front - a group that finds itself on the FBI's terrorist group list along with Animal Liberation Front, with whom Dr Vlasek identifies.

I point this out only to say that this is an example of how radical and unhinged are the Vlasek types. They rationalize their criminal acts through arrogance and moral superiority, consider destruction of other people's property legitimate and, in Vlasek's case, advocate murder for the sake of their cause.

If the government refuses to deny these crackpots entry into Canadian territory, the RCMP and DFO would do well to pay close attention and protect Canada's hunters and citizens in general.

Prophecy and Benedict XVI

Well done, Cardinals. You have done well to elect a Pope that will maintain the traditional views of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic beliefs or rituals this 30-some Protestant considers rubbish, but on most societal and moral issues I couldn't agree more with the position taken by the Vatican through PJII and now, hopefully, through Benedict XVI.

On April 8 I was tempted to post a link to Hal Lindsey's World Net Daily article "An extraordinary prophecy?," in which he describes the prophecies of St. Malachy, one of which predicted how many Popes would reign prior to the return of Christ. As a miniature and interesting test, I decided to wait until the new Pope was elected before bringing Mr Lindsey's article to the fore. Given Ratzinger's choice of name and his age, I think the fact that an Irish Catholic bishop of the 12th century predicted who he would be might peak some people's interest in a slice of end-time prophecy.

Malachy wrote down... all of the popes from the death of Innocent II until the destruction of the church and the return of Christ. He named exactly 112 popes from that time until the end.
...
Pope No. 110: John Paul II (1978-2005). The prophecy for the 110th pope was "De Labore Solis," which means "from the labor of the sun." John Paul II was born during an eclipse of the sun on May 8, 1920. As the sun rises out of the East, so he came to the Vatican from the east. Wherever on the earth the sun shines, he visited.
...
The prophecy concerning the 111th pope says of him, "Gloria Olivae," which means "the glory of the Olive." Could it be that he will be from the Order of Saint Benedict, also known as the Olivetans?
...
But it is the prophecy of the 112th and last pope that is most fascinating. St. Malachy predicts, "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign "Petrus Romanus" (Peter the Roman), who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

If any of this is true, then I suspect that the 111th pope will not live very long. We are just too close to the final events before Christ's return for him to reign for a long period.

How interesting, then, to read this snippet in today's CNews coverage.

Ratzinger [Benedict XVI] turned 78 on Saturday. His age clearly was a factor among cardinals who favored a "transitional" pope who could skillfully lead the church as it absorbs John Paul II’s legacy, rather than a younger cardinal who could wind up with another long pontificate.

Amazing. Be sure to read Lindsey's initial article and WND's follow-up item. Check back at WND on Friday for Hal Lindsey's regular entry. I figure it will be a doozy.

Seal hunter assassins

"If these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination, and call it political assassination or what have you ... strictly from a fear and intimidation factor, that would be an effective tactic," he said.

"I don't think you'd have to kill, assassinate too many vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection."

Those are the hair-raising words of Dr Jerry Vlasak, long-time board member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and known adherent to terrorist groups like the Animal Liberation Front. Dr Vlasek is the guy who a few days ago got into a scuffle with Rendell Genge's crew on the ice floes in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and ended up with a bloody nose. Mr Genge's personal information was subsequently posted on the Sea Shepherd's website and he and his family received dozens of death threats from deranged animal liberationists not unlike Dr Vlasek.

Given Vlasek's endorsement for murdering scientists, seal hunters and vivisectors in general, I would say Mr Genge is doing well by having the RCMP investigate the threats made against him and his family. We are caused to wonder why this animal terrorist is continually allowed to travel into Canadian waters on craft such as the Farley Mowat alongside fellow "animal rights" freak Paul Watson, and there harass and threaten Canadian citizens operating within the confines and rules of a regulated hunt. Does a hunter have to be assassinated before nutbars like this are disallowed access to our waters or land?

Streamline immigration AND deportation

The latest relaxation in Canada's immigration rules, which Ottawa says is designed to allow immigrants to reunite with their parents and grandparents more easily, is an obvious election precursor. (As is Ottawa's gas tax deal with BC, but I digress.) It pangs me to give any credit to the Reds, but this announcement is impeccably timed and brilliantly tactical.

At the same time, government of any political stripe must be careful to ensure that only people it desires in this country are actually allowed to enter. In this case the government would do well to strengthen the extradition and deportation process along with its plan to relax various immigration clauses. They are equally dysfunctional and deserve similar attention.

In principle I would agree that it is excellent to allow families to reunite, but not if it means joining criminals with the law-abiding, terrorists with the peace-abiding. It is imperative that those intending to make Canada their home understand that a large and swift black boot awaits those who abuse the freedoms we enjoy, support terrorist groups worldwide, who happen to be war criminals, and the like. Similarly we need a government that considers deportation as important as immigration. Currently, it is easier for criminals to find sanctuary here than be deported, and this reality is simply unacceptable.

Remembering Oklahoma City

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Take a moment to honour the memories of those killed and to whisper a prayer for the survivors, families and loved ones who have been robbed through this egregious act.

Delusions of grandeur

Prime Minister Paul Martin said while Canada will recognize the need to satisfy U.S. security demands, Ottawa won't become a "handmaiden" to any superpower.   -- CTV

Another example of how Canadians believe we are greater and more influential in the world than we actually are. Here we have Martin puffing Canada's collective chest towards the Americans when we can't even force a theocratic despotism like Iran to give up the body of Zahra Kazemi. And here, after twelve years of dismantling and starving Canada's military, Martin says we need a stronger, better equipped military. (Well, you don't say?!) But. Not. For. Fighting. Oh no... for building democracies, doncha know?!

The new foreign policy statement will also address Canada's role in helping states build stable democracies, in response to what he called the world's changing demographics....

Those measures, however, need the backing of a stronger, better-equipped and better-staffed military.

"We are going to send Canadian troops abroad," said Martin. "You cannot engage in the kind of robust foreign policy... if all you are going to do is empty moralizing."

Empty moralizing. So succinct is Martin's description of Canada's liberal and limp foreign policy that it hardly requires comment, except to note his misplaced understanding of what a military machine does.

Real militaries depose despots so that democracy can take root. Peacekeepers, on the other hand, enter after the vast majority of the blood has been shed and help to maintain an environment where democracy might possibly flourish. The only reason Iraq is a fledgling democracy today is because military might unseated and unearthed a despot and is continuing to crush an Islamic nutbar insurgency by foreign fighters. Do we even need to mention the fact that Canadian soldiers (except for a couple) are nowhere near that place?

So... who is going to defeat the "bad boys" so that Canadians can deliver democracy to the needy masses? Canada? Really, I welcome the day, but dare not hold my breath in anticipation thereof. Mr Martin mentioned Sudan. Are we to believe that Canada can somehow end the crisis in Darfur given our impotence with the likes of Iran? Are we to believe that Canada would send its military personnel into the heart of that conflict, to stop the genocide that is taking place? Would we actually intervene unilaterally in order to circumvent UN obfuscation and bumbling on the issue? Is it not exponentially more likely that as long as the Liberals hold power Canada will wait until the truly influential and powerful nations of the world risk their men and women for the cause of freedom, that blowhards like Carolyn Parrish and Jack Layton will continue to smugly thumb their noses at the worthwhile efforts of those nations as they pave the way for that good ole Canadian brand of democracy?

Please, Mr Martin. The truth is Canada would do well to be a handmaiden in world politics right now. It would surely be a step up from being Iran's prostitute.

Unspoken truths about C-38

Dr Douglas Farrow brings a rarely spoken and menacing implication of Bill C-38 (SSM) to the fore:

Have you read the fine print in C-38? This bill not only presumes to take power over marriage - a power granted to it by the Supreme Court of Canada in an illicit, ultra vires act of its own. Bill C-38 also presumes to replace in Canadian law the words 'natural parent' and 'natural parent-child relationship' with the words 'legal parent' and 'legal parent-child relationship'. In short, it turns our most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs. It turns every man, woman and child into a chattel of the state.   -- March for Marriage

Canadian media bias

Tom Brodbeck does an excellent job of highlighting how differently Conservatives and Liberals are treated by the nations MSM. His second example:

More than a quarter of Liberal MPs voted against same-sex marriage this past week in the Commons.

Conservatives who vote against same-sex marriage (I'm for same-sex marriage by the way) are painted as narrow-minded, Christian-right extremists.

But when Liberals vote against it, they're just "thoughtful."

It's two-tier reporting.

And it's bogus journalism.

Read the whole thing and commit it to memory as the next federal election dawns up on us.

Census in absence of law

Statistics Canada has revamped its questionnaire for the 2006 census to include same-sex marriages.... The agency has added "same-sex married spouse" to the list of suggested answers to a question about relationships on the new census form, which was approved by cabinet last month and made public Friday.   -- CNews

How is it that "same-sex marriage spouse" can be included on the census when such arrangements still are not recognized at a federal level? Is it mere arrogance or cockiness by Cabinet that the law will pass? Or is this coaxing another horse through the barn door; adding another federal "recognition" to SSM in absence of actual acknowledgement so as to make undoing the rulings of lower courts that much harder?

Itching ears

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, considered a top contender to be the next pope... used his homily at the mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn cardinals and the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute truths.   -- CNews

And that, my friends, it what lies at the heart of every struggle between "traditional" and "liberal" elements of any faith; the tearing down of fundamental truths to suit one's own desires or preferences. Paul warned Timothy about such people:

³For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

I myself am Protestant, Pentecostal to be exact. I pray for my Catholic friends out there that your next Pontiff will be of the same element as PJII - understanding the absolutes of God's truth and not afraid to defend them. Without moral standards, without absolutes, we are like ships without rudders.

Nina Courtepatte

Remember that name. She's the next "Reena Virk". Nina is (or was) a 13-year old aspiring model who was killed by a group of people, two of whom were acquaintances, for reasons yet unknown. She was lured to a golf course by promises of later going to a "party" (some party), and was there bludgeoned to death. Take a moment and remember her family in prayer today and ask that God in his justice will intervene to make sure her killers get earthly justice now... and eternal justice later.

UN video game

... a new video game launched yesterday features [UN] aid workers negotiating with armed rebels and a plane dropping food to starving people.   -- London Free Press

I wonder if they'll issue an adult version where "aid workers" elicit sex from minors in exchange for candy and food, organize paedophilia sex rings and gang rape Balkan women.

Deporting terrorists

Canada and other Western nations have been criticized by Human Rights Watch as "breathtakingly naive or complicit in abuse" for having deported suspected terrorists to nations known to use torture.

Many Canadians would concur with HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth, who says that,

If these suspects are criminals, they should be prosecuted, and if they're not, they should be released. But shipping them off to countries where they'll be tortured is not an acceptable solution.

While few Canadians wish torture on anyone not convicted of terrorist acts, one has to pause to consider the ramifications of what HRW is saying. Some questions spring forth.

First, why should any nation have to host a potential terrorist rather than return him or her to their native land? Why should any nation have to spend taxpayer dollars on lengthy court battles prosecuting criminals for acts that may not have occurred in this country? More importantly, why is the work of HRW centered on those nations that deport persons rather than those nations that continue to torture dissidents?

Julie Hall, the HRW lawyer that authored the report, writes of Canada:

The government reserves the right to return people to risk of torture. That position is so extraordinary, it so clearly departs from Canada's international obligations.   -- CNews

This is precisely where the whole HRW train falls off its uppity little track. It irks me to no end that groups like HRW readily chastise Canada and other democratic, peace-loving, first class nations, rushing to hold them accountable to their "international obligations," yet in their own ironic complicity admit that nations "like Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan and Yemen" continue to use torture, on which they say there is an international ban. (One might argue that, given multitudes of nations continue to torture with no reprise from the UN or any other organization, the "ban" really isn't all that effective.)

The hard questions I would return to HRW are: Why isn't HRW holding those derilict nations accountable? What is HRW doing to force an end to torture in those nations? Would not the logical first step be to bring all forces to bear on those nations that use torture, thereby stopping its occurrence in the first place? That, rather than criticizing free nations that do not implement torture - and haven't for years - while doing nothing conrete to end the known injustices of other lands.

Thus is the moral confusion I perceive at the heart of groups like HRW. It is a safe and easy out to chide free and law-abiding nations and it definitely makes HRW feel good, given that their endeavours to reform human rights abusing countries are utterly futile. In my mind, their insinuations of where abuses truly lie are perversely misplaced. For surely there would be no Julie Hall HRW report were torture truly banned, and that ban enforced in all nations. THAT is the real problem here. HRW would do well to fix it before asking nations to hold terrorists within their peaceful and free borders.

African heterosexual AIDS myth

Go on. Read it.

In the sack with Hamas

A top European Union official held a secret meeting in Gaza with the leaders of Hamas, in spite of EU denials to the contrary, in which he praised the terror organization's work, blamed terrorism on "Israeli occupation," referred to Hamas militants as "freedom fighters" and failed to contradict claims Israel was responsible for the September 11 attacks, according to transcripts of the conversation obtained by WorldNetDaily.   -- WND

Nothing overly new there for anyone that has kept abreast of the EU's rising anti-Semitism or enlisted media sources other than the MSM to try and get the whole picture. It is interesting nonetheless when EU officials align themselves with renowned terrorist groups like Hamas, and it provides good cannon fodder when people say we should align ourselves more with Europe.

Kyoto unpredictability

I had planned to write a lengthy post regarding Ottawa's newly released Kyoto "plan", if you venture to call it that, but will limit my remarks to pointing out that the new number is $10 billion, a full $6 billion more than the amount suggested by the Liberals in their February budget. Truth be known, nobody knows how much this is going to cost the taxpayer nor Canadian industry. Yet we are bombing down the path as if this is an absolute imperative.

The rest I leave to the Financial Post's Terence Corcoran, who does a sublime job of slashing the government's ill-advised approach.

.... What we couldn't appreciate, until it was all assembled yesterday in a single monster document, is the mind-blowing madness behind Kyoto. Only by looking at the whole plan, half-baked though it is, does this mass exercise in collective insanity become clear.

What other words can be used to describe this work? We have bureaucrats and politicians who plan to control the weather for the next 100 years, crazy enough in itself. The weather will be held in check by agencies that count and limit the carbon molecules in the atmosphere. And the carbon molecules will be manipulated by controlling all economic activity in the country, creating a "carbon economy" that will replace the money economy.

Scare tactics already being discussed

Good ole PM Paulie is rallying the troops and ratcheting up his fearmongering machine in preparation for the next federal election. Take this quote in today's G&M:

"Canadians will vote for unity given a choice between the separatists and federalists," he said, according to a source. "We [Liberals] will expose the unholy alliance between the Bloc and the Conservatives."

In the same article,

Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan said she would be "disgusted" if the Tories and Bloc ganged up on the Liberals to force an election at this time.

"The Bloc obviously are committed to separation of Quebec from our country and I just think it's political opportunism to a new level to see the Conservatives and Bloc working together the way they are doing," she said.

Ahh yes, a "disgusting, unholy alliance." As if defrauding Canadians of billions of dollars isn't disgusting. As if partnering with friends of the party to launder tax money isn't unholy. As if, as long as national unity be the end, any and all means are justifiable. As if AdScam - an entirely Liberal bungling - isn't raising Separatist sentiment in Quebec. Conservative Jeff Norquay aptly describes the situation,

"It is true that the future of the federation is in doubt. But it's because the Liberals tried to buy support of Quebecers with dirty money.

"It's the Liberals that have brought discredit to federal institutions in Quebec."

The dishonesty continues as the PM exposes another plank in their campaign of fear - Health Care.

"What is the Conservative agenda?" Martin asked in the Commons. "It is no federal role in health care. It is no Canada Health Act. It is no one saying no to the privatization of health care.

As I commented yesterday, Conservatives better be prepared for the incessant Liberal fear machine, which to date has been pretty silent (co-ordinating messages in the backrooms of Ottawa I figure). Harper had better be able to answer like Mr Norquay, dispel the lies and rumours and keep the focus on Liberal incompetence. There can be no mixed messages on any issues, or that age-old fearful argument of a "hidden agenda" will speedily come to the fore. Though a lame argument it somehow resonates with many Canadians, and they swallow it without question. Priority #1: be clear and consistent; don't give the Liberals duplicit cannon fodder.

Here's to hoping Canadians make them pay at the voting stations.

Update 11:53 AM: Bob MacDonald gives us a history lesson and warns Stepehn Harper to avoid making the same mistake as Robert Stanfield.

Britain - hotbed of anti-Semitism

I've followed Melanie Phillips' diary/blog for months now, after having first read her insights and commentary at FrontPage magazine. Her latest barrage against British anti-Semitism is a story about how British academics have proposed boycotting Israeli academics that do not denounce the policies of the Israel government. In the words of the illustrious Jackie Chiles, "I am disgusted and shagrined." Read it all.

They finally managed to reopen the issue at a conference held last December at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies. The conference, organised by the school's Palestinian Society, was called 'Resisting Israeli Apartheid: Strategies and Principles' and launched a new boycott organisation, the British Committee for Universities in Palestine. This drew up a manifesto calling on academics to break links with Israel by refusing to work with Israeli institutions, referee academic papers, grant applications or attend conferences.

Even before the AUT debates the new boycott call, the Israel Science Foundation, the biggest government funder of Israeli research, has already found itself a victim of the Israel blacklist, receiving two rejections from British academics to review an application. The Guardian reported that an unnamed academic described his 'utmost respect' for the scholar whose grant he was asked to review, but refused on the basis that it was Israeli money and he disapproved of Israel's actions towards the Palestinian people. 'I hope you understand this is nothing personal,' he added.

Is AdScam enough?

I'm in the same boat as Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck, doubting that the Conservatives can pull off an election victory in coming weeks. Call me pessimistic, but I assert that it is presumptuous to assume that corruption - even to the highest level of Liberaldom - will convince Ontario voters that another party would be better. We've had scandal after scandal with the Liberals since 1993; from broken promises to repeal the GST, through HRDC mismanagement, the gun registry and AdScam, to name only a few. Still, Ontarians remain either enamoured with the Liberal Party or actually believe every 'scary' warning Paul Martin throws their way.

Those wishing we'd rush to another federal election would do well to consider one key element that has been missing from the sponsorship mess: the handwashings of Paul Martin via the CBC. We're getting a lot of cannon fodder from the Gomery Inquiry but little in return, which is not to say it won't come, rather that Liberal strategy masters like Warren Kinsella are no doubt getting together for long hours in back rooms to strategize how to smother AdScam and/or divert attention away from it in the electorate.

Don't get me wrong, I hope for a Conservative government. But Conservative supporters have consistently underestimated the power that Paul Martin holds in his very words and mistaken how many people cling to the CBC as their only source of op-ed information. If Martin says he didn't do it or spins their cronyism as relative moral good to keep the country together (ree-ree-ree goes the violin), half of Ontario will believe him, particulary if the Gomery Inquiry hasn't finished and (hopefully) provided irrefutable proof of Liberal corruption. And let's not forget Martin's propensity to demonize Conservatives and the spell that fear casts on urban Ontario.

So there is a heck of a lot of work to do before the Conservatives can step into power. Power is what this is all about, and the Liberals aren't going to relinquish it easily. Conservative supporters would do well to believe a June election would be no cake walk.

May you languish for life

Ellard, 22, showed no emotion when the verdict was read. She faces an automatic life sentence, with the court still to decide how long she will have to serve before being eligible to apply for parole.   -- CBC

May she never get parole. Her premeditation and brutality should exempt her from ever entering society again. Good riddance, Ellard. May you never again freely walk our streets.

"Moderate" Muslim march against terror

A rally bringing together people from multiple religions and races of the Middle East will denounce terrorism and promote freedom and democracy in Washington, D.C., [May 14].   -- WND

This march will be interesting to watch for sure. I have often wondered whether the "moderate" Muslim camp exists and, if so, how big it actually is and why they do not organize national events and to counter the message being sent by their radical brethren, who are most often Wahhabists.

Protesting against Japan, part II

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Tuesday demanded that Tokyo "face up to" its wartime atrocities, after violent protests against controversial Japanese history textbooks spread across China over the weekend.
...
"Only a country that respects history, takes responsibility for past histories and wins over the trust of peoples in Asia and the world at large can take greater responsibilities in the international community," Wen said.   -- CNews

As I wrote yesterday, how audacious and hypocritical that China would criticize Japan for its wartime atrocities when it continuously denies and falsely justifies its present-day abuses. Did Japanese soldiers commit grievous acts during World War II, those not unlike the German SS? Absolutely, and for those acts they should publicly apologize. But to demand this of Japan while turning a blind eye to China's deplorable human rights record is to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

How telling it is that nowhere in the Chinese premier's remarks do we find anything about human rights, democracy, liberty or the like. All we hear about is respect and "winning trust". Well in my mind the first rule of being able to sit at the UN - especially at the Security Council - should be an exemplary current human rights record. The largest blight on the UN are nations that make a practice of trampling the rights of its citizens subjects through despotism, Communism and the like. People shouldn't be concerned that Japan might find its way into the SC; rather that nations like China have a permanent seat and nations like Syria hold a floater from time to time. Until that fundamental disparity is rectified, the UN will have no respect here.

Let slip the dogs of war

Iran rejected Tuesday a Canadian demand for an international team of forensic scientists to examine the corpse of an Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who died in its custody.   -- G&M

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Recall our Ambassador to Iran. Deport the Iranian ambassador. Raze the Iranian embassy, and in its place erect a massive mural of Zahra Kazemi. Will someone in Ottawa please send a message to other nations that you can't murder or torture Canadian citizens in their countries without massive repercussions?!

Empty promises

"... I put in place the Gomery commission, and I can assure you that when the commissioner has reported, I will act immediately against anybody who has transgressed against the public ethic."   -- G&M

Remember this folks. PM Paulie is going to 'act' against any and all who have tarnished the public ethic Liberal Party. What Paulie means by "act" remains to be seen. But let us not forget these types of promises... and let us not believe them to begin with.

Protesting against Japan

Thousands of Chinese smashed windows and threw rocks at the Japanese embassy and ambassador's residence in Beijing on Saturday in protest against Japan's wartime past and its bid for a U.N. Security Council seat.   -- Epoch Times

How ironic and pathetically hypocrotical is this Chinese protest against Japan's wartime past given its current abuses of inalienable human rights. Oh that the democratic world would rise up in protest against China! And let us not forget Tiananmen Square, where political dissidents were crushed by the dozen in 1989.

Speaking of the UN Security Council seat, I say give China the boot and put Japan in its place. After, and only after, China cleans up its human rights travesties should it be allowed an SC seat.

Failure of socialized medicine

For any and all concerned about the public health care system and questioning the viability of the model, Pierre Lemieux's article in the Advocates for Self-Government is timely and excellent. Drink deep. (Hat tip: gullchasedship.)

Filth

Is "art" so important that it must be protected? Even if it kills? Even if it kills, say, little children? In horrific ways? Over and over? Playwright Martin McDonagh, the bad boy of English theater, has put the question in terms that are just about this stark in his new play, "The Pillowman." The play opened last night at Broadway's Booth Theatre.   -- Journal News

For me the answer is a resounding 'no'. Likewise the creation of child pornography or literature describing sex with children (à la John Robin Sharpe) is not art.

Why isn't it art? Well, to me it is not valuable; it offers nothing positive for society; it presents degradation and cruelty, not honour, love and compassion; it is often perverse, ruthless, vile and filthy. The mind that produces these things must be seared to a degree that is beyond the norm, for I cannot understand how or why any normal (and perhaps sane) person would contrive such deplorable imagery. To me it is evidence of a warped mind, not suppressed artistic genius, or the like. Jesus Christ said you know a tree by its fruit, and that it is not the things that go into a body that are make a man unclean but those that come out. When people produce "art" like this, I conclude that they are severely troubled within their heart and mind.

Do these people have the right to express themselves and create their "art"? That's a different matter and a discussion that have not the time to delve into this morning, but on the outset I would have to say 'yes'. McDonagh's play is a private affair insomuch as you have to pay to see it. That someone would pay to be "entertained" but such garbage, however, is disturbing to me. IF John Sharpe can keep his material to himself (and that's a big "if"), then fine. His thoughts are his thoughts, vile though they be. Disseminating that imagery, however, is a crime.

As for artistic merit, it is my honest opinion that these types of works have none. Some readers will beg to differ, but to me there is no good that can come of creating pornographic works or describing cruel tortures and murders of children, even if it is part of a play that investigates how artists could or would be treated in a police state. That is not art. That's junk, fit only for the rubbish pile. And I oppose the use of tax dollars to support it.

Intelligent Design blog

For any and all: leaders of the Intelligent Design movement have a blog. Drink deep. (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost.)

Meet the next Schiavo

an 81-year-old widow, denied nourishment and fluids for nearly two weeks, is clinging to life in a hospice in LaGrange, Ga., while her immediate family fights desperately to save her life before she dies of starvation and dehydration.

Mae Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose nor in a "vegetative state," when Hospice-LaGrange accepted her as a patient about two weeks ago upon the request of her granddaughter, Beth Gaddy, 36, an elementary school teacher.
...
[Gaddy's "justification"]
"Grandmama is old and I think it is time she went home to Jesus," Gaddy told Magouirk's brother and nephew, McLeod and Ken Mullinax. "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and who would want to live with disabilities like these?" -- WND

Are we having fun on the slippery slope yet? WHEEEEEEEE!

Update 04.11.05: Mae Magouirk has been airlifted to a medical centre where she is receiving fluids, nourishment and neurological help. Thank God.

Gas prices

Record-high oil and gasoline prices have spurred calls for another investigation into gas pump prices in Canada.

Jane Savage, executive vice-president of the Canadian Independent Petroleum Marketers Association (CIPMA), said the federal competition watchdog should investigate what is happening to gas prices at the refinery level.   -- G&M

Gas prices at the refinery level are worth looking into, but if Ms Savage is really concerned about gas prices, she should be plastering governments as well. Certainly if government officials are truly concerned about gas prices and the effect they are having on the pocketbooks of Canadians, they should remove the gas tax. When I visit the pumps in Halifax, charts regularly show me that 47% of gasoline price is tax. Think about that. Regular unleaded gas is currently 99.9 c/L. Were the provincial and federal governments not double taxing us at the pumps, the price would be 60.9 c/L (HST included), a substantial cut to say the least.

People are often quick to jump over oil companies about the price of gas. But in my opinion the entities we should be hammering most of all are the provincial and federal governments. Nix the gas tax already.

Ban lifted

The news channels and prints are all headlining the lifting of the publication ban that had been placed on the Gomery Inquiry. As well they should. People will now hear and read aspects of the testimony of Jean Brault that web-enabled Canadians have been privy to for days. Let this be the undoing of the federal Liberals.

Update 10:30 PM: I see BloggingTories has honourably blogrolled Captain's Quarters. In case you still haven't heard, CQ's owner Ed Morrissey is the man who blew the lid of the publication ban and Captain's Quarters is the site whose name - for a few days anyway - went unspoken by many bloggers and media alike.

Update 04.08.05: Some links for the interested reader:
• This G&M article is an excellent summary of Brault's testimony.
• Kathryn May of the Ottawa Citizen lays out the damning allegations.
(More to come.)

What the UN needs

The United Nations (UN) secretary-general Kofi Annan says the conduct of the UN's human rights body is undermining the credibility of the entire organisation.   -- ABC

Mr Annan is correct that the UN's credibility is undermined by the national representation on the UNHRC. Reform definitely has to start somewhere and, while the UNHRC is a good starting point, it is worth noting that the UNHRC is not the only arm that is masochisticly beating the UN. In fact practically every other limb is wailing furiously upon its diseased body.

Mr Annan has the cause-effect relationship reversed. In truth, the UN is not sick because of its HRC; the HRC is sick because the policies and politics that underpin its parent allow it to be deligitimized. He and the world need to realize that the core of the UN itself is sick and in need of drastic, monumental reforms if it is ever going to accomplish anything like that for which it was intended. Bring reform to the General Assembly and Security Council first, then translate those reforms into the various branches. Until the gangrene is cut out of the heart of the thing, fixing a limb or two will accomplish nothing of any lasting quality.

Speech law vs free speech

The trial of David Ahenakew, the Member of the Order of Canada and Native leader who is accused of hate crimes against Jews based on a truly ignorant and caustic "private" rant he gave in 2002, is creating quite a number of questions in my mind that I'd like to offer to you for discussion. Here's an excerpt of the speech for which Ahenakew is being prosecuted:

How do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?... The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe. ... That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the God-damned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries.

Does it make sense to make this man a criminal for demonstrating his patent ignorance and for insinuating that Jews are the blight of the Arab world? I mean, really, is the solution here to make throw this guy in prison for expressing quantifiably wrong opinions? Or might it be to gather him and those who were present at the 2002 meeting together in a room and there present the history of the Third Reich and the facts about World War II and the Holocaust to them? Let debate ensue; let us fundamentally confront the falsehood and lies that have lived in this man for decades with truth, not merely throw him in the clink, his prejudices unchallenged.

Can we expand the topic a little?

How do we even get to debate "hateful" speech like this unless people are allowed to express their opinions in absence of fear of reprisal from the State, which often acts on behalf of easily offended special interest groups that would rather the State use law to counter their offence than personally take up the matter in the media, etc. with calculated written and spoken counterargument? Would it not make more sense to allow people to expose their hate and then be challenged by others without fear that the State is going to punish either?

Take Ahenakew's situation. If he hadn't opened his mouth in 2002, an act for which he is being prosecuted by the State, he would have continued in his ignorance. One might argue based on this Yahoo article that he languishes there still. (Hat tip: Daimnation!.) But at least now there is an opportunity for his views to be confronted with truth, and he himself shamed in the public eye for his meatballism. And to me that is very valuable, arguably more valuable than making him a criminal for his ignorance and hate through law, for it is only through discussion and education that Mr Ahenakew will change his views. Those like him are probably not going to change their views through fear either. I would argue it more likely that this would be accomplished through dialogue. (It's kind of scary, in this regard I sound much like a liberal.)

At a high level, then: Is the solution to "hate speech" the policing and criminalization of that speech, or truly free speech?

Under the former what we really have is politically correct speech, which cannot be free speech. Arguably, using law to suppress unwanted speech gets us nowhere in terms of truly countering and undoing the lies that often underpin hateful dispositions. Hate speech law does not prevent hate; it merely keeps it under wraps so that various people are not offended. The way to combat racism and the like is not through litigated silence but through discussion, debate and relation of fact and truth. Any law that hinges on which current lobby group can force government to "protect them" by making it wrong to express opposing opinions, no matter how true or false, is a bad law as far as I am concerned, for it does more to propagate the very sentiments that it is intended to stifle through proscription.

The latter upholds that everyone is free to speak what they believe and thereto be vigorously challenged by opponents without fear that someone, via the State, is going to make them into criminals for their beliefs, however truly hateful or ignorant they might be. I'm more inclined to believe that this is a better model, for its end is a true reduction in hateful sentiment, not a mere masking thereof.

In essence I feel the way to combat hate speech is with truth speech, not State enforced, politically correct, subjectivist law. We have to be free to talk about moral, societal and historical issues that are divisive, otherwise hate will continue to flourish in men's hearts under the guise of prescribed tolerance.

How do you feel about it?

Playing the separatist card

Scott Brison and the Liberals are back to their tired justifications again this morning, furiously peddling warnings that exposing government corruption and thereupon bringing down the Liberal minority might cater to Quebec separatists by undermining Quebec federalists. In my opinion the ploy is two pronged: an attempt to justify Liberal corruption and the subtle sowing of a policial seed of fear - that a vote for Conservatives is a vote for separatism.

Here, in the wake of breaches of the publication ban and a fine lot of Liberal dirty laundry airing for the world to see, we have the Liberals attempting to justify the laundering of yet untold millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars through a systematic advertising scheme by insisting it was essential and necessary to preserve nation unity. On top of that, they imply that voting for any other party but the one that knowingly robbed them on behalf of Quebec is to devalue Canada and send a message that one would prefer that Quebec secede. Brison's words are nothing short of a calculated pre-emptive strike against the electorate leading up to a possible election. As usual, the Liberal strategy is to avoid the issues and make Canadians afraid of the Conservatives.

Well, this is one Canadian that does not believe the ends justify the means. It is not okay to lie, pilfer, deceive, launder and pillage the tax base. Ever! What the Liberal Party and Mr Brison, by association, have done is an outrage and is morally and ethically deprived. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS WRONG! PERIOD. (Is it even possible for the Liberals to get off their morally smug, arrogant perch for a moment and admit they were wrong?)

Further, Quebec is a province like any other and I'm honestly sick and tired of the Liberal mantra that non-Quebecers must bend over backwards, then forwards, then turn around upside down, then open the national coffers for pillaging and willingly accept government's needless squandering of millions as an apt response to a threat of secession. I have had enough of this relentless servile deference to the demands of Quebec separatists. Either Quebecers want Canada or they do not, but either way the government must stop stealing from taxpayers to counter separatist sentiments! Canada's taxpayers must not be subjugated nor robbed in order to placate various sects in a single province.

And I, for one, do not fear Quebec pulling out and will not be browbeaten into the belief that a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for separation, particularly when the alternative marks a veritable approval for continued corruption, lies and kowtowing to the demands of a single province. If that is what having a unified Canada means, then count me out, or at least count Quebec out. Canada will survive just fine with provinces that actually want to be a part of it.

So, fellow Quebecer reading this post, if you want to work with me in Canada then I am glad, overjoyed even. But if you want to have your own country, I say "adieu, and good luck with that."

Canadian sub sinkhole

Check it out. Upgrades to our fleet of rotting and decrepit subs could cost us an additional $465 million, and our military is already looking for replacements. Smart move I say. The original deal was $900 million, plus one sailor's life, plus unnecessary risk to dozens of other seamen, some of whom are now on stress leave due to life in said rust buckets. In cash alone, $1.365 billion, and where are the they? Tied up in Halifax, that's where, one of them half gutted by fire.

Consider the Australians for a moment. They're spending $5 billion on a new fleet of subs. Yes, brand new; not some previously mothballed fleet with a new coat of paint and a spit shine. Now, would it not have made sense for our government to study that model and invest a little more wisely? As it stands right now, we have decades old second-rate subs with numerous problems - both told and untold - whose cost of maintenance and operation will probably dwarf the $5 billion that Australia is spending for a completely new arsenal.

It's the Canadian way I guess, the positively stupid way.

Defrauding the Grits?

In an extraordinary move... the [Liberal] party has asked the RCMP to "investigate the possibility that the party itself may have been the target of fraud or other harmful acts by certain individuals."   -- Toronto Star

How utterly ludicrous and foul. Those involved in AdScam did not defraud the Liberals; it was the Liberals who defrauded Canadian taxpayers and (allegedly) used that money to fund their own election runs and pay for party staffers. This move by the Liberals to paint themselves as victims reeks to the high heavens. Here's to hoping that the stench of this scandal knocks sufficient numbers of voters off the fence and into the Conservative camp.

Canada will not act for Kazemi

"... we facilitated the coming of the doctor to Canada in order to make it clear to everyone that, in Canada's crusade against Iran and its failure to respect human rights deserves the support of the international community. Along with other members of the international community, we will obtain justice from Iran." -- Pierre Pettigrew, G&M

Which signals to me that the government does not intend to unilaterally mete out punishment on Iran. No Ambassador recalls, no big black boot for Iran's Canadian Ambassador. Nothing, unless the international community moves with us. So if the UN or some other multilateral group of nations will not assist Canada in exacting reprisals against Iran, Kazemi's murder will go effectively unanswered.

Where is the sovereign nation that was once Canada?

Hilarious story

Read this excellent piece about one Captain's quarters at AlsoCanadian.

More info on Gomery

Just got an email from Mr Kohn telling me that more information is now available at the site that shall go unnamed. Meanwhile inquiry officials consider contempt of court charges against any and every one that links to the hallowed blog, whose owner was interviewed tonight by CBC. We are also learning that the publication ban could be lifted as early as Wednesday. Hasten the day I say.

Sizzling

For a few hours today, as Canadians pursued information about the Gomery inquiry and the astounding corruption of the Liberal Party like a pack of rabid wolves after a hare, my site stats went nuts. I remember logging on at around 2PM to SiteMeter and saying, "There has to be some mistake." But alas, the gigantic Everest in the middle of my usual Prairie landscape.

The doors are coming off

A number of people have asked via email how to find the blog that is blowing the doors off the Gomery inquiry. Since major news outlets have published the title of the blog post that started it all, I will give you these simple instructions:

• Read any number of online newspapers. Most of them have enough information to get you there. Globe and Mail, Canoe, Toronto Star, CTV, etc. The list is large.
• Do with it what any savy web browser would do.

Stop our delusion with the UN

Rex Murphy has an excellent article in the Globe and Mail regarding the utter hypocrisy and uselessness of the UN. It is a worthwhile read. Now, don't try getting at it through the G&M website 'cause it's under lock and key; for members only. You can get it through google news Canada by typing "Rex Murphy". The name of the article is Let's delude ourselves no more: The UN is beyond redemption. Have at 'er!

How the United Nations survives its vast hypocrisies is at one with other mysteries: how it survives its ineffectuality (the killings in Darfur continue apace), the sexual scandals of some of its peacekeeping operations, and its sheer chilling incompetence.

It is supposed to be the conscience of the world. Nations defer to its judgments. Canada based its non-participation in the Iraq war on the deliberations of the UN.

Why our country farmed out a moral decision of that magnitude to this inept, useless and corrupt institution is a perplexity that will never be unravelled. There's talk of reforming the UN. The only reform, after oil-for-food, may be to shut it down.

Gomery silence broken

I received an email from one John Kohn today that passed along a link to [DELETED] blog, in particular to an interesting post on the Gomery Inquiry which basically exposes some of the details of the testimony that is currently under a publication ban. I'm gonna take Damian Penny's advice and not link directly to the site but instead provide you the URL - [DELETED] - so you can link to it yourself if you want.

The details are dumbfounding and, if true, should enrage the Canadian electorate to say the least.

Update 04.04.05: Well, apparently even publishing the link to the ethereal blog referenced above could be a violation of the publication ban, hence the "DELETED" where the blog name and URL used to be. But fear not, newsprint is rife with references to the post containing the leaked information so you can easily find your way to the material with a simple google search on the post title. In the meantime, let us now consider how insane it is that the courts can dictate what the public can and cannot know about the corruption of its elected officials and how truly dangerous it is that Canada's press ARE NOT FREE to print the details of the damning testimony. When it is against the law to expose corruption in government and the press are not free to print such information, tyranny is well upon us.

Religious freedom under assault

If you ever had any doubt, read this powerful piece from Chris Kempling, the BC teacher that is being persecuted and prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality. (Hat tip: North Western Winds)

My dictionary says that tolerance is "the disposition to adopt a liberal attitude towards the opinions or acts of others, especially those of other religions or ethnic backgrounds." One would think that tolerance would mean that social liberals would be tolerant about our religious beliefs. In the Newspeak of today, however, tolerance means everyone is obliged to take a liberal attitude towards immoral sexual behaviour, but those who practice that immoral behaviour do not have to tolerate Christian beliefs which oppose such behaviour.

Read it all, for it is good.

Underhanded politics

Is it really too much to ask of the House of Commons that when it votes on the budget that it be voting on the budget? That what gets presented to Parliament isn't just about who gets to blame whom for the next race to the voters?
...
If there is to be a vote on the budget, let it be a vote on the budget, and if Kyoto matters even half as much as Liberals and Rick Mercer are intent on telling us, then let us have the vote on Kyoto all on its own, free of partisan smog and back-room calculations.   -- CBC

As is usually the case with Rex Murphy, I agree wholeheartedly with his point of view on the government's underhanded approach of ramming approval for various contentious pieces of legislation through on the budget fudge-it vote.

One wonders if the staff at the CBC listen to Mr Murphy's radio shows or read his viewpoints, and wishes that they did. From a government organization that regularly proffers left-liberal rhetoric and op-ed as "objective" news, it is refreshing to hear slightly conservative and well-balanced commentary in the form of Rex Murphy's insights. There is one bright light at the CBC.

Droooooool

It took two years and more than 285 programmers, 3-D artists, animators and designers to put together [Ubisoft's latest video game, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory].

At the official launch, Dany Lepage, one of Montreal-based Ubisoft's chief programmers, said the game is significantly sharper than the two previous games, which were rated T for teens and have sold close to 10 million copies since 2001.   -- CP

That's one game I will HAVE to get, especially if it's better than the first two.

Pope John Paul II is dead

al-Reuters and other news agencies are reporting that the Pope has died. As a Protestant I have no special place in my heart for the position of the Pope, but nonetheless I respected PJII for his convictions and forthright declarations on moral issues that came to the fore in his day. Catholics will do well if the Cardinal who nexts assumes the office of Pope possesses the moral clarity and purpose of John Paul II.

Rest in peace, sir.

Update 04.02.05 7:37 AM: Minor mea culpa. The Vatican insists this morning that the Pope is "near death," not cold as ice as al-Reuters headlined around 4 PM yesterday. That said, it looks like he's in life's final stages. So indeed, rest sir, and thank God Michael Schiavo isn't a Cardinal.

All bets are off on humanity

Melanie Phillips has two excellent blog posts on the passing of Terri Schiavo. (See here and here.) An excerpt:

... it is no longer the state of being alive that we recognise as having a primary claim on our human sympathy, but the quality of that life. So vast is our contemporary solipsism and self-regard, so all encompassing is our sanctification of sensation, feeling and self-awareness, that we no longer acknowledge the intrinsic and absolute respect owed to life itself.

If you are not familiar with Ms Phillips' writing then I encourage you to add her 'diary' to your favourites and make a habit of visiting her site. Her conservative British commentary is insightful and informed and - oh yes! - she hammers the crap out of liberals.

Who cares what Khartoum thinks?

Sudan on Friday said the U.N. Security Council was undermining efforts to make peace in the remote Darfur region by voting to send those accused of Darfur war crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"I believe it is unfair, ill-advised and narrow-minded," state minister for foreign affairs, Najeeb al-Kheir Abdul Wahab, told Reuters. "It undermines the government's quest for justice in Darfur through reconciliation."   -- ABC News & al-Reuters

Undermining efforts to make peace? Are we to believe that left alone Khartoum would curtail the activities of the janjaweed, the militia group it armed and off-handedly supports? Reconciliation? Is that what Khartoum now calls its brutal Arabization of Darfur?

You'll find no sympathy here, Mr Abdul Wahab; you and your pan-Arabic, elitist government have had more than enough time to stop the brutality occurring in Darfur. Who cares what you or your government think anymore? I certainly do not. In fact, I'd prefer that a few willing nations raze your government to the ground rather than allow the racism you support through indifference to continue unabated.