Updated: The Blowfish Effect: Debate Highways, Byways & Roads Not Taken
Caveat: As I wrote on the leaders' debate in English, Dec. 16, 05, I was listening to the television and ideas came up which I inserted; thus this rambles too much but that is life. NJC
Update 1: The deck has been stacked, even before an election
Just below I posted "Taking care of friends: the UN Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette". This update is related.
Even if there is a change in government, Liberal influence will prevail. There are 'plans' with all the right people in place and any new government will find itself subverted from the start, in my opinion.
The news that UN Deputy Secretary Louise Frechette would be taking an appointment with the Centre for International Governance Innovation at Waterloo (University?) led me to check further. There is related information in these random excerpts, mostly subheadings.
FHTR: week of Mar. 27, 05
http://
frosthitstherhubarb.blogspot.com/
2005_03_27_frosthitstherhubarb_archive.html
Daniel Pipes' Speech at U of T, Science for Peace, UN Conference at U of Waterloo, UN Oil for Food Scandal
The letter, authored by a campus organization called Science for Peace
Now, to Science for Peace and where that led
Peace In Outer Space (PIOS) is the Science for Peace group which is actively engaged in opposing the weaponisation of space.
Search: [Universities mentioned] Guelph , Waterloo , McMaster , Pugwash
UN conference in Waterloo March 29, 2005, 570 News staff - 11:17 am
http://
www.570news.com/news/local/article.jsp;jsession
id=HDFADJCGDALL?content=2005
0329_111730_4512
Search: Paul Heinbecker [a former Canadian ambassador to the UN] , Allan Rock, Louise Frechette , Centre for International Governance Innovation
Search: The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), the Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) and Wilfrid Laurier University
Paul Heinbecker, senior distinguished fellow at CIGI and director of Laurier Centre for Global Relations
Mr. Jean Ping, president of the UN General Assembly, and Lord David Hannay, a member of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change
Laurier Centre for Global Relations -- with Canada's former ambassador to the U-N, Paul Heinbecker, senior distinguished fellow at CIGI and director.
The Viessman Research Centre on Modern Europe, The Laurier Centre for Military Strategic and Disarmament Studies, The Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS), the Political Science Department, and the Global Studies program.
UN: President of the General Assembly Mr. Jean Ping, H.E. Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser chairman of the G-77 -- speaking also for China
Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser -- and China
On behalf of the Group of 77 and China -- Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser
the rationalization of the network of United Nations Information Centres
to bridge the digital divide and to place Information and Communications Technologies at the service of development.
[. . . . ] We attach the utmost importance to the information policies and communication strategies
FHTR: week of Feb. 27, 05 -- Note that I misspelled Frechette, adding an 'r' to the name (Frechetter).
http://
frosthitstherhubarb.blogspot.com/2005_02_27_frost
hitstherhubarb_archive.html
Search: UNSCAM -- Canadian connections
CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
"Kofi Annan’s #2 is Canada's Louise Fréchette. Louise Fréchette served under Prime Minister Paul Martin when he held the title of Canada's Minister of Finance."
FOXnEWS.COM - U.S. & World - Annan's #2 Blocks Oil-for-Food Scrutiny
The Blowfish Effect: Debate Designed for 'Huffing and Puffing' artists, not reasoned debate
Paul Martin's integrity
Question: What do you see as Canada's greatest strength?
Paul Martin: "It's people" -- Memory Lane: He jettisoned Canada's people, his crew, who were working on his ship(s) to hire a less expensive crew from elsewhere. CSL does not get its repair work done in Canada but in a shipyard in China. Obviously, it is not the people of Canada the PM values.
Jack Layton: He's smooth, like a used car salesman, soothing and diverting attention from the car's rattle and age. I remember the rattle under an NDP government in Ontario, the state of the finances as debt rose. Economics is not Jack's stronger suit, and his grandiose plans are useless without healthy businesses contributing to a sound economy He doesn't notice the death rattle in Canada, particularly in health care, so Jack Layton makes the 'NDP will give you ... noises' but he seems to lack the ability to cost it out and let the rest of us know. Devising a way to give to every needy or claiming-to-be-needy group without putting the country into deep debt is absent, perhaps to be left for after he is elected. Jack has not yet learned that not everything in Canada is the fault of 'big business'; in fact much that is wrong with Canada is Big Government, which Jack would increase. Jack might soothe you in your homeless shelter or sitting at your hospital bed -- but substance on how he would pay for more, or better, or any care is absent. Talk of how he would fulfil his airy promises would ruin the soothing part of the picture.
The Liberal gift of a fifth column: appointees to the courts, Senate, SCOC, foundations, crown corps, civil service and more
Think of the gift that Jean Chretien left to Paul Martin, the gift that keeps on giving. Then consider that the lies, half-truths, and other chicanery are there to be discovered. There have been jobs handed out and appointments made, now in place for the future, which are a trap for any non-Liberal government. This is a major problem for a serious politician concerned about the good of the whole country and wanting to make needed changes.
A problem for any leader in a debate was to make the cold, hard facts--that is, the reality of the economics--interesting enough that people will listen and understand. Mouthing nice sounding words while ignoring the fact that every promise must be costed out . . . this is where public debates, sound bites and speeches fall short.
The Liberals have lied about the money they took in, the overtaxation, so it is impossible for Canadians to know what is really in the larder until they turf the dissemblers. Even then, so many Liberals have been hired, appointed, parachuted into place in various positions, that I predict they will act as a fifth column resistant to change in the system. Some of them will continue to work for a return of Liberal government. Information will disappear and/or be hidden from a future Conservative, or any other, government. (I remember hearing of the 'shredder'.)
Access to information has favoured the ones with something to hide.
Taking care of friends: the UN Deputy Secretary General Louise Frechette
UN's Louise Frechette to step down -- receives government appointment Edith M. Lederer, Nov. 16, 05
[. . . . ] Jim Balsillie, chair of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, a Canadian international relations and policy research centre, announced that Frechette would join the organization as a distinguished fellow in April. The centre is based in Waterloo, Ont., southwest of Toronto. [home also of the University of Waterloo and Mohammed Elmasry, a prominent founder of CIC, the Canadian arm of CAIR ]
[. . . . ] An exhaustive investigation of the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq, led by former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, criticized the almost total lack of oversight of the program by the secretary general and deputy secretary general. It issued "adverse findings" against Frechette, Annan and Sevan.
. . . Annan, Frechette and others dodging responsibility. . . . of tolerating corruption and doing little to stop Saddam Hussein's manipulations. The powerful UN Security Council was accused of doing much the same.
Meaghan Walker-Williams: "Who Knows Where The Money Is Going" Meaghan Walker-Williams", an "Indigenous Journalist, Entrepreneur, Mother and semi-retired Accountability Activist" - Feb 28th 2003. Somedia Media, posted December 03, 2005
Somena Media is an archive of articles that I have written for The National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, Vancouver Province & The Cowichan Valley Citizen, as well as recent blogging, Podcasts and contributions from invited contributors . . . .
Up until this past month, when I have called Indian Affairs staff in Vancouver, these officials would ask me "Are you calling as a band member or as a member of the press?" When I was calling as a journalist, I would only get the information that they give to other journalists. When I was calling as a band member, they acknowledged I was entitled to more information. That was the policy . It seems things have changed.
It really all began last year, when I was examining the finances of my band. The budget showed that our band received $500,000 (equally from BC and DIA) Treaty Related Measure funds to develop a forest industry. $350,000 was "misappropriated" to the band's sustainable housing program instead. So, I [. . . . ]
I discovered a few months after this column had been written, and sent and circulated to the DIA [ Department of Indian Affairs ], that the Cowichan Tribes Indian Band, within 10 days, had recieved approval from the Regional DIA Offices to spend core-funding money to pay Robert Botterell (the band's lawyer) to threaten to sue myself, the Cowichan Valley Citizen Newspaper, My editor, The Publisher, and the CanWest Media Chain...--- I am blogging this article to let people understand exactly what they are dealing with, when they are dealing with the DIA. If you ever reach a point where you are catching them out in their lies, and fraudulent dealings and so on... they will find a way to stop you.)
Faux indignation
Anyone who gives honest responses, who does not soothe with false or foolhardy promises, who doesn't wax indignant by making a good imitation of a puffed adder or by blowing out passion like a pufferfish, comes across as unfeeling, even perhaps cold. Those who count on courting the poor without ever having to make decisions about how to pay for the promises are adept at the blowfish effect. Canadians love the Martin-Layton promises, it seems. While they have been bought with them for years, I sense a stirring of understanding that they've been had. Note the difference in style: the dissembler's promises, priorities and passion, shorn of the substantive details, as opposed to the reasoned statements of the other leader, a man of reputed integrity, without the the faux passion. I don't know whether Canadians are able to stand truth and the reality yet, so they may vote for more of the same.
In election years, Canadians have responded positively to being bought with promises "over five years", even ten years down the road, and even to outright lies (GST). The decent political candidate who admits something is difficult or not likely possible, that a particular desire would be nice but that it is not a priority, that there are more important aspects to be fixed first, or that something is not at the top of the list of what is necessary right now, has a problem. The media want the empty words, the clucking sounds, the promises, as long as they are delivered with passion and / or charisma--style over substance--and the public obviously have been bought by this for years by Liberal government(s). How sad.
Paul Martin: He huffed and he puffed and he tried to deliver the shiv-to-the-heart sound bite, the one that the media would happily report, but he convinced me only that he cannot be trusted. Paul Martin would not even follow the rules of debate agreed upon by all prior to the debate, as he has not followed the rules in Parliament, where he does not answer the questions asked. He spews generalities and says nothing substantive, except to fall back on his history -- cutting the deficit (on the backs of everyone but PM. He has registered 6 or 9 companies in the Barbados. There must be a reason for doing that, one which benefits him but not those Canadians who have no such opportunity. He kept one tax haven that benefits his (
Not only did the PM make responses that were off topic and flout the rules of debate agreed upon, he also made statements that I suspect were untrue, concerning the Charter and the Conservatives on same sex marriage, as though that were the pre-eminent topic to Canadians. It isn't; it affects relatively few and there are other topics of far greater import. Not all Conservatives think alike; that is why a free vote is the only democratic way to decide contentious issues. One problem for ordinary Canadians is that we don't have the exact fact or piece of information at our fingertips so we rely on the gut response. For me, it is that Paul Martin is a liar who will fall back on any cliche or sentiment to win. We know he is not above playing dirty and thus he loses respect, especially with his so obvious attempt to strike the sound bite blow.
My final response: Paul Martin diminished in stature in my mind.
As expected, post debate, CBC is even now trying to prop the PM by bringing up the sovereignty issue, the one issue the Liberals have played successfully for years. Enough, already.
The media quest for the perfect sound bite
Home runs and same sex marriage
Question: Did anyone hit a home run? Answer: "PM managed to hit a home run." CTV must be easily taken in. Making passionate noise devoid of substance is hardly a home run. Paul Martin, who voted for traditional marriage not that long ago, misled on the same-sex marriage issue and the Charter. PM failed to mention and no-one brought up the fact that Paul Martin demanded that his Cabinet vote for same-sex 'marriage' so, with no free vote for Parliamentarians, it is not clear what they really wanted, if they intended to keep their jobs, from which they could have been turfed by an irate PM. I suspect that there were a few backbenchers who voted for same-sex marriage merely to assure that Martin signed their nomination papers for the next election. Hell hath no fury like a dictatorial P.M. scorned.
Stephen Harper says that if same-sex marriage came up, he would allow a free vote and that he would not use the notwithstanding clause. The Great God Trudeau, along with the most prominent constitutional lawyers, was one of the people who demanded that the notwithstanding clause be added to the Charter so that extreme judicial activism could not be enshrined in law forever.
My question: When did same sex-marriage become a "right", Prime Minister?
Previously, Paul Martin voted to retain traditional marriage as the union of a male and a female (1997 or 1999, I think). He has become a convert to same sex partnerships since then. Now he claims his fealty to this and calls it a Charter right. When one party appoints those who interpret the Charter and law, how do the rest of Canadians trust their decisions on what is in the Charter or what has been written in by these appointees?
The notwithstanding clause
Why does the the Prime Minister treat the nothwithstanding clause as if it were the bad smell in the room? Is he afraid of what might happen to his house of cards, were it to be employed? With that clause in the Charter, when is it to be used, if not to right a wrong, in this case, the failure of allowing the democratic process to take its course. Instead, the order to vote for same sex marriage emanated from this Prime Minister, in his apparent desperation to get the homosexual vote and remain in power . . . a necessity for all his plans, in my opinion. Why was the nothwithstanding clause included in the Charter if it is never to be used? That defies logic.
According to CTV, Stephen Harper "sounded confident but he lacked passion" -- as opposed to Paul Martin who exudes passion, as he does priorities. (It seems false passion to me--but that is only one opinion.) What I noted was that PM's passion was based less on reason than on displaying this passion. He skewed his answers as though something else had been asked or was at issue. He was the same in the debate as he has been in Question Period, that is, full of sound and fury--mouth moving, words emanating--passionately not answering the question asked, saying nothing he hasn't said since he "slew the deficit", but there is a strange disconnect between his passion and his action. He buys votes when and as he needs to but I have the sense that those who pull his chains should talk to him about the connection between language and meaning. Paul Martin, when one scrapes away the huffing and puffing reveals himself as rather vacuous, even rather unintelligent, for he twists the facts in trying to make points . . . but Paul Martin never sounds genuine about anything. I always have the sense that he is extremely afraid. Why? This is a man who is already rich; he has sat in the highest position in the land and yet, he is desperate. Twice, I have seen what I thought were tears in his eyes. Why is this man, this so highly advantaged a man, so afraid? What would he lose if he did not get re-elected? I sense it is more than the position.
When so many topics elicit the Paul Martin blowfish effect, nothing is a priority; it is sound, nothing else. Think about his sound bites:
* "I stand up for Canada" -- Think Barbados and his ship work done in China.
* "It's in the Charter" -- Think Martin's flip flop on this issue.
* Stephen Harper and Conservatives are "scary"-- Which is more scary, Harper or the PM? Consider Martin's ability to bilk Canadian taxpayers of more money than Stephen Harper or most ordinary Canadians have ever made. PM's Prime Ministerial ability to bend truth is unparalleled; consider his avoidance of the taxation that other Canadian businesses normally pay, and yet he claims the rest of us who support less government intervention in our lives are "scary"? Canada can no longer afford the Paul Martin kind of "love" of Canada; it costs too much.
We know he's a plotter and a planner, that he has threads through several networks to push his ideas using taxpayer money (See one example Follow the Yellow--Red--Brick Road #1 to #7) . . . but what else? I sense an integrity deficit, partly based on how he came to power, the rest based on how needy of approval he seems--the pretense that he is "giving" Canadians something when he's using their money to buy them. That is my gut response to a man who must be quite incompetent, considering what he claims he doesn't know. Is he trying to keep a lid on the murky goo that is Liberal government? He would have to be a fool to know nothing. Final assessment: he's a liar or a fool. My guess is the former.
Gilles Duceppe: I have watched this man for a while and I read at least some of what he says in the House. I like him. He has facts and he uses them. He is direct--much less prone to blunderbuss and bafflegab than Canadians are used to--and he uses his research to skewer. He will never be Prime Minister and his only concern is how any issue affects Quebec. It is too bad he weren't pro-Canada. I wish he were not trying to take Quebec out of Confederation because he seems to be a fine MP for his area. Incidentally, I would trust him before I would trust Jack Layton or Paul Martin, but I am not sure why. It is just a gut response when I compare him to the other two, probably. It's the passion without real substance that I can't stand from Paul and Jack. It makes the separatist Gilles Duceppe look good by comparison.
Paul Martin missing the point . . . again "Sponsorship scandal tops French debate", Alexander Panetta
"The sponsorship scandal is an incontestable issue,'' Duceppe said [. . . ]
"Justice (John) Gomery ruled that the Liberal party brought itself into dishonour and that a system of bribes was in place.''
Martin shot back that Duceppe and the Bloc were interested in capitalizing on the scandal only so long as it serves to tear apart the country.
"They want to put an end to this Canada that generations of Canadians and Quebecers have built, this Canada that is the envy of the world.''
[. . . . ] An internal party e-mail the Liberals' Quebec wing mistakenly sent to some reporters this week indicates the party has already written off 45 ridings and feels confident of success in only 10 others.
More commentary: Captain's Quarters concerning the French debate: Canadian Debate Piles On Martin December 16, 2005
Back to the Friday debate
Stephen Harper: He is sober, reasonable -- but how does he or any politician like that explain reasoned policies in a venue designed for specious reasoning? The venue for the kind of politicking designed for impressionable people who don't read and will be told what to think and, in effect, how to vote by a mainstream media who don't do their jobs, don't want to -- except to keep the status quo afloat. Harper walks the plank every time he opens his mouth because the media appear to be hoping for him to fall. The mainstream media will parse everything he utters, searching the entrails for any negatives they can find. Even when they attempt to show balance, it leans more toward supporting the Liberal government, in my opinion (though I may be too biased to judge).
I was impressed with one thing Harper said; he stated that it is not easy to fix some problems when questioners raised an issue (I forget which), expecting the usual type of answer, I suspect. He tried to explain why in the very brief time he was given. I noted that Trina McQueen cut him off smartly whenever he got into substantive plans. Good show for the Liberals, Trina, but bad optics from a moderator who should be and even appear to be fair.
How does television choose its questioners, anyway?
By the way, I noted that Trina McQueen cut Harper off at least five times mid-sentence and yet she was less strict with the others, I thought. It took McQueen a long time to start shutting down windy Jack. Only toward the end did she cut him off -- and Martin maybe once or twice only. I felt she gave Jumping Jack and Gilles Duceppe more chances to answer questions than she gave Harper who actually has a chance of becoming PM, but I like Harper, so I may be unfair in this assessment. Overall, I thought she did a reasonable job, given the format which the media keep telling us is boring. The format does allow us to hear the answers to specific questions, though, questions perhaps the MSM would prefer were clouded in noise by the heat of debate.
Harper has good ideas but he does not have Paul Martin's pufferfish ability, nor Jack's I make my living with my smooth talk ability, that quality that allows him to motormouth about what he would give everyone, except business, of course. Layton presented few, if any, facts and figures but he sounds so generous with other people's money.. People who want something for nothing might be influenced by Jack. The more independent sort, the salt of the earth, won't be; they would rather have the freedom to pursue work with a level playing field, one not sullied by government gerrymandering and handouts to friends. How many of them are left, anyway?
The NDP and integrity
When Jack talks of NDP integrity, he's got a problem named Svend. The NDP's accepting Svend Robinson, admitted thief, as a candidate was an error in judgement. For the NDP, his homosexuality may be a positive in that it brings the homosexual vote; for Parliament, Robinson's theft of a $64,000 ring won't be forgotten in the law-making body of the land. I predict it will be mentioned in the House; read Hansard if Svend gets elected.
Blogs
Saturday after the debate: CBC was in Propping Paul mode again as they mentioned same sex-marriage, as though that were the pre-eminent concern in the land. Also, Scott Feschuk's blog--he works for the PM or did--is praised while Conservative blogs are "like press releases" or policy wonks blogging. Anyway, it is negative about Conservative bloggers. The NDP doesn't seem to feel blogs are important, according to someone.
Some issues left unexplored
According to the MotherCorps, the sparring was over the sponsorship scandal, national unity, and same sex marriage. Of what I heard, many issues remain unexplored. There was no exploration of the extent of the integrity issue -- far more wide-ranging a problem than has been revealed by the Sponsorship scandal alone, and which the media should be exploring, were they not so biased. In the debate, only Gilles Duceppe mentioned the closing of RCMP detachments near the border in Quebec which has important implications for Canadians' security. The media are not pursuing the implications of what Duceppe mentioned, that Quebec has one of the marijuana grow-op areas with great likelihood of cross-border trafficking of marijuana and other goods. No-one else hammered home this issue, the lax security related to our ports and airports, shipping containers, personnel and possible criminal-gang connections to companies involved, for example, at the airports. (See FHTR within the last week for an article on this.)
Omitted or slid over on CBC were topics such as the buying of votes with newly-discovered billions, the buying of natives' votes with hurried agreement(s), the North and the PM's evident plans for development, immigration and refugee policies wildly out of control. Left unexplored is that no Liberal will be held to account for using the dirty money in election campaigns, nor the blatant gift of ministerial positions to those who cross the floor. How do Liberals who work hard, those who are decent people and MP's stand this?
More on traditional vs same sex marriage
CBC keeps repeating what they want voters to remember, apparently, to help Paul Martin and his team. Expect to hear repeated endlessly, the first question (no gerrymandering of the debate there) from the mother of two lesbians asking Harper's position on SSM. Frankly, like many Canadians, I don't care what two males or females do privately as long as they don't hurt others, but like many others, I draw the line at calling their partnerships 'marriage'. Whatever it might be named, it is an effort to regularize an anomaly in nature, two same sex individuals who prefer their own sex. They cannot reproduce, except with the intervention of a third, directly or indirectly, and thus they cannot really contribute to humanity's survival. Whatever they want to call their partnerships, it is not 'marriage'. 'Civil union', perhaps, but not 'marriage', which carries with it history, tradition, expectations and promises to a partner, to children and to the extended family; to the community for the optimal health of the family unit for the offspring, and for the survival of society.
Traditional marriage regularizes reproduction for the long-term good of society, for humanity's renewal and continuity, among other things. Marriage is not simply two people doing as they please, pairing off and being recognized as part of the continuity of humanity under the umbrella of the legal term 'marriage'. The institution of marriage regularizes humanity's interest in this renewal and continuity. Marriage is the institution for the protection of the legal and other interests of the offspring; the official nature of the cermeony celebrates and supports what are the best practices for the offspring that will provide for a healthy society--a male and a female as providers, protectors and role models within the larger society. The family within society has proven to be the best unit for the raising of children; that family unit begins with societal recognition through a marriage ceremony which includes the expression of agreement with the responsibilities that come with it. Admittedly, the promises part is breaking down as marriages fail but, ideally, it is the best situation for children starting in life. Government daycare cannot replace it, nor can the pairing of two members of the same sex perpetuate the human race, however much they might love each other and wish to be part of it. It is the one societal institution requiring two members of the opposite sex to start their own part in society's continuity with their own reproduction.
Why do you want to be Prime Minister?
The "defend the Charter" PM asked "If you can't defend the Charter, why do you want to be Prime Minister? Aside from the fact that the Charter is open to some interpretation and the PM lies about the inclusion of SSM in it, my response would have been: "Paul Martin, because you are incompetent and we can do a better job. Paul Martin demonstrates the Peter Principle. Running a modern state is not flying across the country buying people with their own money. Also, there are aspects that PM conveniently omitted from the range of what Justice Gomery was tasked with investigating, so that investigation is not over, despite Paul's protestations that the Gomery Inquiry was enough, that we should move on. PM is simply lying. More investigation is needed and it could start with the money Canadians have given to CSL, with the dirty money the Liberal Party gave to MP's. Which MP's ran on dirty money? PM is silent on that last one, as Gilles Duceppe reiterated. No Liberal will ever be punished. Those are just a beginning of the reasons to turf Paul Martin. Here are more reasons to toss out him and his government.
Bombardier & the $$$ 'granting' Liberals -- your tax $$$ wasted again
Paul Martin, a look back -- Despite years of massive Canadian taxpayer funding Bombardier snubs Canada for China."
Poverty does not cause crime nor gun violence
The accommodating courts enable that fiction to continue; the government has changed nothing about this.
Soft-on-criminals-and-crime judges have been appointed because that is what the government wants; in fact, justices so I have read, have been instructed to keep as many as possible out of jail. Whatever the facts, the justice system has willingly or otherwise put Canadians in danger so Liberals and NDP'ers may talk of "root causes" and how everyone except the perpetrator is the cause. No, we're not. The following is the result of a judicial ruling notable for plain stupidity. I suppose the judge will continue on the Bench. No accountability with the Liberals nor with their appointees.
François Pepin was under a ten-year court order barring him from possessing firearms. Despite the ban, which dated from 1999, Valérie Gignac's killer had asked for, and was granted, permission to use a gun for hunting during the fall season. -- "Man accused of shooting officer was under firearms ban", CBC, 15 Dec 2005 -- and here
Re: Haroon Siddique hogwash -- in response to an article by Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star entitled "Muslim conspiracy to rule world just nonsense." posted by Toba, CCD, 2005/12/17
Really? Is the idea that Muslims want to restore the caliphate and impose it on the world just a fantasy? [. . . . ]
Tens of millions of Muslims now live behind what they consider to be enemy -- i.e. Infidel lines. They are settling in and attempting to change the societies in which they live. Far from lying low, they are aggressively attacking, using whatever weapons are available -- including, of course, clever exploitation of the rights that those same tolerant states offer as guarantees for its (presumably loyal) citizens.
And yet, despite all the evidence, the Western world continues to refuse to look at the evidence, refuses even to read, and study, what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims -- so similar from Spain to the East Indies, and whether the Infidels subjugated were Jews or Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. No one seems to care what all this would teach us, if only we would pay attention and stop being deliberately distracted students, or still worse, truants who refuse to attend the lessons altogether. [. . . . ]
Naturally, this issue is not the subject of discussion nor debate, but it is on the minds of Canadians. The media will be complicit on keeping the lid on the topic, considered, I expect, to be too explosive; discussion might open the proverbial can of worms . . . perhaps hurt the PM and his team, along with his predecessor.
A discussion of what has been revealed by whistleblowers has been omitted from the debate equation.
FHTR: Week of May 8-13, 05 Assume [. . . . ] after each.
* Jon Grant: Canada Lands -- an article which mentions others
Search: Tony Mignacca , this was systemic , A 1998 internal Canada Lands memo , Michel Couillard , Emmanuel Triassi , Robert Charest - brother of Jean Charest , give $50,000 to the Charest Liberals , less than half its assessed value , "Rene Lepine, a longtime Liberal Party contributor" , Michele Tremblay , Canadian Mint , "Maurizio Creuso, who Gagliano had known since 1983" , Mr. Choo-Choo , "Six days after Grant's first media interview, Chretien"
* Francois Beaudoin: Business Development Bank
The terrifying reign of 'da Boss'
"Accusations foretold sponsorship fiasco -- Same names pop up in complaints. Charges of political interference and cronyism dogged Liberal Party as early as 1998"
Search: "Beaudoin, was an honest public servant who had the courage to say "no" to Chretien" , Michel Vennat and Jean Carle
There are other whistleblowers mentioned:
* Allan Cutler: Public Works
* Cpl. Robert Read: RCMP
Evidence of ex-RCMP Corporal Robert Read before a Parliamentary Committee
* Staff SGt Stenhouse: RCMP
* Selwyn Pieters: IRB
* Brian McAdam: Foreign Service
Whistleblower: New embassy massively over budget
One of the elephants in the room that nobody is noticing: Fighting words, first of a Western Standard three part series Nov. 14, 05 -- The chickens have come home to roost and it is dawning on 70-75% of the population that they have been, effectively, locked out of government jobs because of what started as the effort to be fair to a minority, and it is a minority, no matter what government says. Readers might be interested in what is mentioned about the testing process for employment.
posted by News Junkie Canada at Sunday, December 18, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home