Quote of the Day

"Liberals . . . creating a Canada without your consent since 1968."

Posted by: kursk at May 27, 2009 11:56 AM

It's in reference to this pretty shocking arrogance from Michael Ignatieff:

Lorne Gunter: The Liberal way with hypocrisy

I LOVE this article by Lorne Gunter! Much of it focuses on the hypocrisy of Liberal party members wrt Ignatieff, but it's the first 2 paragraphs that really hit a chord with me:

What hypocrites the Liberals are. For more than four decades, the Liberal Party of Canada has deliberately confused its policies with our national interest, then labelled as "un-Canadian" anyone who disagreed with them.

Not a fan of government monopoly health care? You're un-Canadian. Not big on easy unemployment benefits, official bilingualism, dismantling our military, beggaring our economy in the name of environmentalism, coddling criminals, huge public debts, activist judges, multiculturalism, foreign investment reviews, national energy policies and so on? Shame on you for being so un-Canadian.

Throughout my adult life, I've been to social gatherings in Vancouver and Victoria and Toronto and Montreal and Sudbury and Ottawa and Kitchener and . . . where I've heard such nonsense spewing out of the mouths of ignorant sheeple who thought it "completely inappropriate" [and un-Canadian] for me to express any ideas that didn't echo those of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Bravo Mr. Gunter, Bravo!

---

Update: You can hear Lorne Gunter discuss his article here @ 7:00.

The Liberal Elitists Join in Dhalla's Attack of Filipino Immigrants

If you'd like to see the opposite of fair & balanced, look at this pro-Dhalla puff piece from CBC News. After reading it, one could only conclude that all 3 Filipino nannies must be lying.

Even worse, is this unbelievable editorial from Don Martin. Here are three key segments:

Ruby Dhalla is the Liberal MP at the epicentre of an incredibly nasty smear campaign as she moves to fight allegations by a pair of Philippine nannies who accuse her of making them work too hard doing menial tasks beyond their job description.

Something doesn’t smell right in having two former nannies step forward a year after they left the Dhalla family’s employment to suddenly complain about conditions that don’t seem unusually onerous for immigrant workers.

To suggest the workers’ alleged mistreatment at being ordered to shovel snow and do cleaning duties at the clinics is all the Brampton MP’s doing is a hard swallow.

I hope that all immigrants are made aware that Don Martin feels it's perfectly fine for them to work 16 hours a day and at much less than the minimum wage.

Folks, the class system is alive and well in Canada, at least in the minds of Liberal elites like Martin!

Britain's Most Shameful Hour

In any social gathering it's usually pretty easy to identify those folks on the Far Left of the political spectrum. Just look for those who [appear to be] the most compassionate and open minded. How will you find them? They will tell you so, repeatedly and loudly!

To see the true spirit of such folks in practice, one needs to go no further than following the banning of Michael Savage from the UK. Yes, he's a loud mouth. Yes, he sometimes says some stupid things. But so what?! To suggest that he's inciting hatred is simply Leftist double-speak for "we don't agree with your opinions".

I find it very strange that in the nation that prides itself on Speaker's Corner, the government is so intent on shutting up people it has ideological differences with.

Too bad that British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to reflect upon other countries (current and historical) that have taken the same course of action as her. The UK, once a glorious beacon to the world, has become a despicable Free Speech Denier. Note: I only use the "D" word to mock the Global Warming zealots of the Left who throw the term around so loosely these days.

Britain still does have democratic elections, don't they? It will be most interesting to see if the good people of the United Kingdom still care about their democracy and freedom enough to toss out these thugs currently in power. If bankrupting their nation and taking away their free speech rights isn't enough, one has to wonder what is!

Finally, make absolutely no mistake that there's a direct correlation with the mindset of Jacqui Smith and her ilk and the "Human Rights" Commissions here in Trudeaupia. It's proof positive why all Canadians must fight these same dark forces wherever and whenever we can!

How Liberal Elites Treat Their Nannies

A shocking story is emerging out of Ontario about how Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla has allegedly treated her nannies.

Just this past weekend, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff went on endlessly about how well women are treated by Liberals. This doesn't seemingly apply to members of his own caucus.

Innocent until proven guilty, but Ms. Dhalla certainly has some explaining to do!

The Psychology Behind the Rampant Media Bias

Debra Saunders has just published an informative article about the left-leaning bias of the mainstream media. Excellent reading!

---

Reflection down Memory Lane:

Pauline Kael, a Manhattan socialite and NY Times writer, reacted to Richard Nixon's landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972 by saying: "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon."

Chapters' Bad Marketing Move

My local Chapters store had these books in their side window. Written by one of Canada's biggest sycophants, look for them to be in the Discount Bin very soon.

Canadian Liberal Arrogance

With this video, move the time slider to 1:20:


There you will hear Michael Ignatieff say: "Mr. Harper, you don't understand Canada!" This coming from a man who has spent most of his adult life in the U.S. and who married a woman from Hungary. I don't hold either of these things against him but what INCREDIBLE ARROGANCE to make such a statement!!!

Incidentally, the reason it got such a thundering applause is because it's emblematic of the attitude of Liberal elites, which in essence is this: "We are Liberals, we are the chosen ones, we know more than the rest of you about everything! And if you DARE to hold other political views then we will ridicule you and crush you. For this country is ours to shape as we think best, for we are the enlightened ones!"

Charles Adler shares his thoughts. So does Kelly McParland.

The Gay Marriage Debate in America

I've rewritten my piece for a predominantly American audience. I'm most interested in all intelligent comments, whether you agree or disagree.

The ongoing gay marriage debate is a perfect example of the tactics used by elites on the Left to change society into their vision of nirvana. The majority of citizens have quite the opposite view of but feel powerless to stop it. The neverending drive toward this nirvana is powered by what Mark Steyn calls the "Drip, Drip, Drip" of slow, incremental, but relentless change.

For the record, I've long felt that:

• Gay couples should have the same financial benefits as heterosexual couples
• Gay marriage is a minor issue for me, personally
• I am not homophobic
• I do not hate gay people
• If given the chance to vote on it, I would vote 'No'
• My reasons do not stem from religion
  

Canada provides an interesting preview of what will likely transpire in America. Gay marriage became legal across Canada on July 20, 2005, via a vote in the federal House of Commons. Prior to this, hundreds of thousands of letters were sent by concerned citizens, beseeching their Members of Parliament to vote 'No'. But they were ignored and the Gay Marriage bill became law.

Now in 2009, the same thing is happening in America. Polls contantly show that the majority of citizens do not support the concept of gay marriage. In fact, even in the very liberal state of California, an actual referendum echoed the same opposition. Is it correct to infer that most Americans are thus misguided ignoramuses, homophobes, and/or religious zealots? Anyone who believes this truly needs to seek the help of a psychologist to cure themselves of such narcicissm.

So, realizing that there's immense opposition to their views, do Left elites give up? Of course not! In their minds, not only are they right on this issue, they're also on a righteous crusade! In point of fact, on every issue the elites on the Left believe their views are both righteous and superior to everyone else's.

So to effect the change they desire, they ridicule and mock anyone who has the "audacity" and "stupidity" to publicly state that marriage laws should not be changed. This is done on news shows, on entertainment shows, in newspaper & magazine articles, in the political & legal arenas, and even at beauty pageants! The messages are three-fold:

1. We will publicly label you a bigot if you dare to disagree with us.
2. The scarlet letter on your forehead will be an "R", because we will loudly make the case that you are the modern-day equivalent of a Racist.
3. We and our like-minded comrades have control of most of the media outlets in the country and you do not.
   

What then happens? Any meaningful debate is silenced; not just a little but absolutely. Average people, knowing that there's nothing to be gained from expressing their opinions out loud and so much to lose, shut their mouths and get on with their lives.

Also - and this is key to the Left's success on every issue - because such changes do not directly & immediately affect the lives of most people, what's to be gained by expending a lot of energy fighting any such issue? Most people then, make what appears to be the best decision at the time and get on with their lives, working hard and paying their taxes. Ironically, these tax dollars then contribute to the next social change down the road which these same taxpayers also disagree with! On & on it goes, like a snowball rolling down a hill.

What's the problem then? Simply this: In the long term, are these incremental changes healthy for our society? I don't particularly want to get slammed for my thoughts about whether there's a causality between promotion of gay marriage and a longterm reduction in [very necessary] population replenishment, but I suspect it may very well be the case.

After opposition to gay marriage is silenced, what do you think will be next? I predict that by no later than 2020, polygamy will be fully legal in Canada; soon after that in the U.S. Based on historical evidence, this will often mean 50+ year old men with multiple teenage wives. Is that a healthy thing for our society?

After the opposition to polygamy is silenced, what do you think will be next? I have several suspicions but will leave it to your imagination to speculate on a few.

Final thoughts:

• Do liberal democratic societies like ours have a built in self-destruction mechanism?
  
• More precisely, if more & more "rights" are assigned to everyone, will that eventually cripple our society?

Queen of the Hypocrites

After you read this then watch this:

The Arrogance of Environmentalists

I came across this editorial in the Calgary Sun. It is both half-baked and extremely disingenuous. I couldn't resist sending the newspaper this letter:

Michael Den Tandt states that Canada must follow Barack Obama's disastrous Cap and Trade policy because "the politics and the math are unavoidable".

Really? An obvious alternative is to just offer our precious oil for sale to other countries. There will immediately be instant takers the world over.

Last year Canadians were given the opportunity to cast their vote on the political views espoused by Stephane Dion and Michael Den Tandt. They were rejected. Vehemently!

The will of the people seems to mean little to their ilk. Neither do they have any real concern for the prosperity and health & welfare of Western Canadians. For without a doubt, should such suicidal economic policies be followed, there will be major negative consequences abound.

Mark Steyn: Would the Boston Globe have covered the original Boston Tea Party?

The original Boston Tea Party was so-called because it took place at Boston Harbor, which I gather is a harbor somewhere in the general vicinity of the Greater Boston area. So there would appear to be what I believe the journalism professors call a "local angle" to Wednesday's re-enactment. Might be useful for a publication losing a million bucks a week and threatened with closure by a parent company that, in one of the worst media acquisitions of all time, paid over $1 billion for a property that barely a decade later is all but worthless.

Full article

Susan Roesgen: Poster Girl for Unethical Journalists Inc.

This is a follow-up video to the earlier one, showing what happened after Roesgen's hit piece. I defy anyone to explain how "Susan Roesgen" and "Ethical Journalist" can be used in the same sentence.


Mark Hemingway shares his thoughts on this despicable "reporter". (That last word has to be in quotes.)

Yet Another Example of What Journalism Has Devolved Into

Susan Roesgen is NOT a reporter. She's a "prime example" of how "journalists" have given up any semblance of impartiality and instead are just de facto spokespeople for the Obama Administration.

I do hope that YouTube lasts for a long, long time because videos like this will be prime exhibits for historians to document the corruption and downfall of the once honorable profession of journalism.

---

I have a suggestion for Saturday Night Live: Do a spoof of her Roesgen in 1776, asking the citizens of the colonies why they were revolting. How difficult would it be to envision her screaming, "What are you protesting for?! The King of England has given you so much!"

---

Update: Here's a subsequent interview with the man, whose name is Norm.

Lawrence Martin: The Vast Right-Wing Media Conspiracy

Not often do I read something that leaves me baffled. But such is the case with the latest mutterings of the Globe & Mail's Lawrence Martin. In what is apparently not satire, he tries to put forward the case that journalism has moved to the RIGHT of the Canadian public. He goes on to make many references to American media outlets that one can only assume he believes the same has occurred in the U.S.

Think about that for a second. Mr. Martin is asserting that journalists in the mainstream media have become more right-wing, more conservative than the average person in the public. Considering that poll after poll after poll of journalists asserts that 98% label themselves as liberal or very liberal, how could he make such an assertion with any sense of credibility? One can only surmise that Martin is working under the old presumption that "if you tell a lie enough times, maybe people will start believing it."

Because of the parrot-like behaviour of so many in the MSM, look for others to recite this now as a fact. It's SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for how the Left operates.

How anyone could watch last year's U.S. Presidential election campaign or Canada's recent Constitutional Crisis and come away believing that there is a RIGHT-wing bias in the media is surely beyond the comprehension of even the most learned psychiatrists the world over!

It's one thing for people to have different political views but to think as Lawrence Martin does takes a special kind of stupid.

The Slow Death of the CBC

The stated mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is to provide a Canadian voice to the media, be it on TV, on the Radio, and on the Internet. Because Canada is made up of over 33 Million people, one would naturally conclude that this publicly supported media giant would be as representative of this population as possible. On this front the CBC is an abject and complete F-A-I-L-U-R-E ! ! !

Over a long period the CBC has essentially devolved into the Toronto Broadcasting Corporation of the Left and Extreme Left. Its news division serves as the proxy PR agents of the federal Liberal and NDP parties.

The fact that no one at the network, save for Rex Murphy periodically, says anything that resonates with Center Right or Far Right Canadians gives the CBC an "F" for both objectivity and meeting its mandate.

I rarely tune into the network anymore but when I do, it simply confirms that nothing has changed, even though promises were made late last year that "they were listening" and "changes would be coming". I've formally complained twice in recent months but it's pointless as the executives at the CBC are absolutely deaf to any criticisms or even mild suggestions.

The recent $65 Million shortfall at the CBC is discussed on SDA here. Plus, Charles Adler discussed the same earlier today with Beryl Wajsman. You can listen to it here, starting at 7:00. Absolutely delicious ear candy!!!

Sarah Palin Speaks Out About The Corrupt MSM

In an interview for the forthcoming documentary "Media Malpractice" Governor Sarah Palin, for the first time at length, takes on the media coverage of her and the 2008 campaign. Historians will look back at the 2008 American Election Campaign and note it as a low point in the once great history of journalism.

The Less Than Subtle Prejudices of the Left

Today, Charles Adler featured a long segment on some recent whiny callers from Alberta who shared the common distinction of hating everything and everyone in Alberta. You can listen to it here (7:00). Such snobs who look down upon people who [apparently] have less education than them annoy & anger me to no end. After listening to the show, I felt compelled to send Adler this letter:

Charles,

Thank you for following up on the calls from the two Albertans who hate everything about Alberta. Listening to them again I was reminded of numerous conversations I've had over the years with such left of centre folks. Such discussions always start out pleasant enough but eventually arrive at some point of contention. Rather than just agreeing to disagree, quite often the Academic Card is pulled out by these individuals, citing what degrees they have, what schools they went to, and thus making it "so obvious" that they know more than I do.

Such people frequently have an undergraduate degree in History or English or Philosophy and are lawyers or teachers or baristas. Yet miraculously their education and "high intelligence" has made them experts at:

• Economics (ex. Obama's stimulus bill is brilliant)
  
• Environmental Modeling (ex. Al Gore knows more about the environment than even God)
  
• Structural Engineering Design (ex. 9/11 was 'obviously' carried out by Bush & Cheney)
  
• Carbon Sequestration (ex. It's so easy to do but those damn oil companies are too greedy)
• Canadian Constitutional Law (ex. It's 'so obvious' that The Coalition is a normal part of our country's electoral history)
  
• The Middle East (ex. Israel is no different than Nazi Germany and Canadian & American soldiers in Afghanistan are no different than Al Qaeda)
  
• Demographics (ex. Canada is so overcrowded that anyone having a baby is damaging Mother Earth)
  

And on & on it goes.

They have convinced themselves that all academics (only of the left-leaning kind, of course) are the most brilliant citizens of the world who we must listen to or face certain peril within just a few years. In their minds, Barack Obama must be a genius because he went to Harvard, Stephane Dion is brilliant but just misunderstood, and Michael Ignatieff represents intelligentsia without compare. When asked how Stephen Harper ranks amongst this crowd, they sidestep it by referring to him as an "Evil Genius".

In their everyday lives they treat anyone without a post-secondary education with disdain. This includes waitresses, shop clerks, cleaning staff, farmers, construction workers, plumbers, etc. In the old days they'd refer to such people as being from the wrong side of the tracks. Nowadays the PC terms include "The NASCAR Crowd" and "Monster Truck Fans". It's the same prejudice though, just disguised in a less forthright package.

They have rebuilt a Class System alright. But what these faux academic snobs don't realize is that they belong to a Class System of the Clueless.

Andrew Breitbart on the Phoneyness of the Hollywood Elites

Well worth a read.

8 Questions for Obama's New Science Guy

It appears that Canada isn't the only country that has truth-challenged talking heads who contribute a disproportionate amount of hot air to the environment. Barack Obama has nominated John Holdren to be Director of the Office of Science Technology Policy. Jeff Jacoby has 8 important questions for him.