Bud, Lynch, Scott, SSM & Slippery Slope, Dingwall, AG Fraser, Unscientific Poll

Bumped up

Liberal Secret

Licia Corbella: Ex-Mint boss dinging us to the bitter end Jan. 17, 06


Search: negotiating , Manitoba Conservative MP Brian Pallister , denying access , Dingwall's disbursements , secret


Pat Lynch, Conservative? or Andy Scott Liberal?

Is the tribe quietly moving in for the kill? Some topics just galvanize them, so the latest unscientific poll follows at the end.

Fredericton's Min. Andy Scott & Same Sex Marriage & Poll

Atlantic and Fredericton representative and purveyor of ACOA / AIF pork Liberal Minister of Indian Affairs and Responsible for the Metis Minister Andy Scott is the one who, in the all-party committee that was studying whether or not to bring same sex marriage to the House of Commons in legislation, cast the deciding vote for SSM. The group had been split 50-50. As chairman of the committee, it was Andy's job to break the tie. He voted to bring same-sex legislation to the House and to make it law. I wonder why he did that when it has been exceedingly divisive, even within his own Liberal Party and government -- another nail in the Liberal coffin and I'm delighted that Mr. Scott hammered it in.

Andy, who is considered to be likeable and delivers the pork to be re-elected, is currently running against Conservative Pat Lynch and two other good people. This completely unscientific poll's results, reported by my contacts, has Pat gaining quietly on Andy. People know their jobs depend on not saying much openly in a university and government grant and jobs town like Fredericton, but the coffee shops and corner stores of Canada are a good place to keep one's ears peeled. Even the least au courant with the news, the ones who are too tired from working to bother with politics, have learned enough to say Begone, you Entitled Liberal Ones. Bring on a Conservative government and its Accountability Act to protect our tax dollars.

Thanks must go to the citizens' heroine Auditor General Sheila Fraser for her part by doing her job well.



Sorry, Mr. Cotler, but I feel "alarmist'

Ah yes, there would be no slippery slope coming out of the government's granting same-sex marriage legislation. Irwin Cotler personally assured Canadians that polygamy would never be an issue. To bring it up politically would be "alarmist'. Well, again, he lied. He was fully aware of the study on legalizing polygamy because it emanated from his own Justice Department. The Department, along with Status of Woman Canada, spent $150,000 to find out that the criminalization of polygamy would probably not withstand a Charter challenge. Especially if homosexuals were granted equal marriage status with heterosexuals. Despite knowing that they were opening a can of worms--why not brother marrying brother?--the government went along with it. In fact, why not brother and sister marrying, so long as they had their tubes tied? It's a very long slope to the bottom here. Besides, more ethnic groups in Canada (which the Liberals count on) believe in polygamy than do in same-sex marriage. Surely the government wouldn't want to cramp the wonderful "diversity" that they define as quintessential Canadianism. Well, only if they turned-off the still potent Anglo vote, that is.

Sharia law nearly gained legal status in Ontario until women (Atwood et al) convinced Premier McGuinty to rethink that idea and Quebec thought for itself on the subject. Maybe its women are less easy to get to go along? Obviously, the Status of Women Canada crowd are not enthused about polygamy either. Now, from my decades-old following of these government-financed womens' groups, I highly suspect that they are not male friendly. Still, next to the Quebecois, and the ethnic vote, women are right up there in the heavy clout department with the Liberals. They too, lean to soft socialism. However, the Muslim-Canadians have pushed for polygamy to be legalized. They oppose homosexual marriage, so why should they be excluded, logically? The Liberals are caught between a rock and a hard place with this conundrum. Then, if polygamy were sanctioned by the Supreme Court, what could Paul Martin do, having obliterated the Notwithstanding Clause? Why the Conservatives are not making an issue out of this study and its conclusions is beyond me. It would make for a lively discussion in the livingrooms of the pro-same-sex marriage folk.

© Bud Talkinghorn



NJC Comments:

I don't have a problem with leftists who are decent like Ed Broadbent who has earned everyone's respect, especially by his pairing with Chuck Cadman so Chuck would not have to rush to the House of Commons to vote during his cancer treatment and before his death last spring. That was such honourable behaviour. Broadbent is decent; he believes in certain things and all of us respect him and know that we need articulation of views from left and right to achieve the best balance. Even I had a close relative who was a CCF candidate, (CCF, Tommy Douglas' precursor to the NDP), one who was principled.

But, to whom is CBC's Susan Murray connected in the Liberal government or bureaucracy, or is she simply a lefty without any principles that would lend her a journalist's balance? Susan is simply harridan vicious. Why? She has taken an absence of some kind from CBC to work for the Liberals, I believe, and she sounds desperate and willing to bend the truth. I listened to her deny what the polls were saying yesterday morning. She might not like the poll results but other polls corroborated that one so she seemed overly desperate. Is some privilege she has acquired in jeopardy? On second thought, let her loose on Canadians who can hear, view and judge whether she deserves to be supported as a taxpayer-paid lackey for the Liberals. I can only hope ...

I know I have been criticized for stating my views as I do, perhaps for my views, but I am neither paid, nor do I make money from this blog. In fact, I have refused any ads because I'm not into consuming so it would be pointless for an advertiser of anything but books and music to place advertisements here.

I fell into blogging because three years ago I learned a few things, facts, along with others' and my own logical conclusions, knowledge that led me to learn even more than I had ever expected and I continued mining the net, digging for understanding. I had hoped to have some influence on those who do not need sweet nor faux-balance, else they become uneasy. No-one has ever accused me of being "nice", so it is impossible for me to change this aspect. Those who like their women nice won't return to this blog anyway. Whenever I tried to round my corners or to even attempt to please my critics, I failed in the next sentence or in the next post ... so I choose to be me and to write what I think. I hope I have had some positive effect in leading people to read more, at least. If not, if Canadians vote for more of the same, I fear for Canada's future.

I am optimistic, however.


Election Night Reminder

Don't forget the wine. For election night, as I watch the returns roll in, I shall have a bottle of chilled champagne--okay, the inexpensive, but still bubbly Spanish variety--to celebrate ... or in which to drown my sorrows. Until then, may I highly recommend hot mulled wine made with home-made plonk? It's the season for cozy and nothing smells better than home-made spice cookies fresh out of the oven ... or wafts of spicy mulled wine floating through the house. See, there is a little Better Homes and Gardens in me ... for those who doubt it. It just has a hard time getting past what I know and believe is important right now, this election and what it means for Canada and Canadians.