Archive for September, 2011

Van Jones, Obama’s former green jobs czar, is promising to start taking back America for the progressive cause. His interview with MSNBC may show that he doesn’t know much about economics but he is serious about leading a counter to the Tea Party.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Following Brad Trost’s decision to speak out on abortion and the Harper government’s decision to now fund the International Planned Parenthood Federation, two more MPs are speaking up.

Fellow Sakatchewan Conservative Maurice Vellacott has issued his own statement:

“In this way, IPPF will be using Canadian taxpayer dollars for funding abortions directly or, to use

other deceptive language, they will be „establishing non-pregnancy in the first trimester.

So funding IPPF in these 5 countries contradicts a criterion for Prime Minister‟s Stephen Harper‟s

noble initiative to save the lives of women and children in developing countries.

Even in those countries where abortion is technically illegal, it’s naïve to think that Canadian tax

dollars are not being used to promote abortion. One of IPPF‟s main publicly stated goals is to

aggressively dismantle abortion laws in each country around the globe and have abortion recognized

as a universal human right.”

Meanwhile, Alberta Conservative Leon Benoit has tabled a motion to be debated in the House taking aim at Planned Parenthood’s founder, a known racist and eugenicist.

M-268 — September 29, 2011 — Mr. Benoit (Vegreville–Wainwright) — That, in the opinion of the House, part of Margaret Sanger’s philosophy constitutes eugenics, and that the House condemn the use of her name by the International Planned Parenthood Federation for the annual Margaret Sanger award.

The Supreme Court couldn’t find a legal reason to let Vancouver’s heroin injection site stay open, so they made one up.
Insite, a function of the pro-drug and government funded Portland Hotel Society in Vancouver, offers drug addicts a place to shoot up heroin in a clean area with clean needles.
The claim is that it saves lives but that was not the question the Supreme Court was to settle.
The court was asked to determine whether the federal government was within its powers to deny an exemption to Insite, an exemption that would allow them to operate without being charged.
First the court looked at the issue of competing jurisdictions and division of powers laid out in the constitution. They found that the prohibition of drugs like heroin constitutes “valid exercises of the criminal law power.”
Next the court looked at whether Insite and the provinces could be exempted from the controlled drugs and substances act and the answer was no.
They looked at whether an argument on interjurisdictional immunity would work and again said nope, that won’t overturn the criminal code prohibitions.
In fact, the court dismissed every argument that the prohibition of drugs was constitutionally invalid.
Then it got into the Charter arguments.
Oh, here’s the good stuff, surely this must violate someone’s rights.
Not really.
“I am unable to conclude that the claimants have shown that the prohibition on trafficking in s. 5(1) of the CDSA constitutes a limitation of their s. 7 rights to life and security of the person.”
So if the federal government prohibiting drugs like heroin is constitutional, there is no division of powers issue and the law does not violate the s. 7 Charter rights of the clients or workers of Insite then how do the robed geniuses on the Supreme Court rule that the heroin shooting gallery can stay open.
And here is where we get into mental gymnastics, or perhaps Yoga, yoga is so cool these days just like supporting a government back facility that lets you shoot heroin into your arm is cool these days.
The court claims that the decision of the Minister not to allow an exemption to Insite violates the Charter rights of those involved.
Prohibiting the drugs does not but apparently exercising policy discretion, set out in a law the court has just upheld is a breach of the Charter.
What?
The ruling states that:
“[136] The Minister made a decision not to extend the exemption from the application of the federal drug laws to Insite. The effect of that decision, but for the trial judge’s interim order, would have been to prevent injection drug users from accessing the health services offered by Insite, threatening the health and indeed the lives of the potential clients.”
The court has already ruled that the prohibition against drugs like heroin is constitutiuonally valid, that it does not infringe a Charter right.
So how do they then jump to the conclusion that the decision not to let Insite operate outside of the law is a Charter violation?
Well because Insite was already operating.
The court has said we cannot put this genie back in the bottle.
Now the court could have handed this back to the Minister for reconsideration, after all the decision does say the Minister has the discretion to hand out or revoke exemptions.
But no, that wouldn’t do, a politician might make a decision and our judicial masters won’t have that will they.
The decision actually says “this remedy would be inadequate” because “These claimants would be cast back into the application process they have tried and failed at, and made to await the Minister’s decision based on a reconsideration of the same facts. Litigation might break out anew.”
Judges complain when politicians will not make policy decisions and so do I. too often political leaders throw tough decisions to the court so they can use decisions as a shield.
In this case a tough decision was made and the court threw it out anyway.
What is truly annoying though is that they barely hide that this is not a legal argument for keeping Insite open it is a sociologist’s argument and that is not what the court was asked to do here.
They were asked to rule on a question of law. They failed.
And that’s the Byline.

He was welcomed with placards, banners and denunciations; called a war criminal by a sitting member of Parliament, a member of the official opposition no less.

There were calls for his arrest. Vile protesters attempted to shut down his speech in Vancouver, shouting obscenities at those who tried to walk through their human blockade.

I have a different reaction to Dick Cheney than the people outside and the unthinking mumblings of those in the Media Party.

I say, thank God for Dick Cheney.

Play a thought experiment with me, especially all of you people that hate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Imagine they had lost the election in 2000 and Al Gore and Joe Lieberman were in charge when 9-11 hit.

There is no doubt the attack would have happened.

Islamic fascists don’t care if Americans elect Democrats or Republicans, to them all Americans, all Canadians for that matter, are infidels to be destroyed.

So if Bush and Cheney had lost in 2000, those attacks would still have happened.

Would we have been better off with Al Gore in charge?

Joe Lieberman I have some faith in, but Al Gore is a man of pomp, not substance. The entirety of Western civilization might still be in a full blown fetal position if we had to rely on Al Gore to see us through the days following 9-11.

As you will hear in the interview, and can read in his book In My Time, Cheney was uniquely prepared to handle the immediate crisis when there were still planes in the sky and it was unclear what the exact threat was.

He doesn’t say that; I do.

Cheney had been in Washington since 1969, working in the Nixon administration. He worked for President Ford as Chief of Staff, then became a five-time congressmen for Wyoming. For most people, that would be one heck of a career but
Cheney went on: becoming Secretary of Defence under the presidency of George Bush Sr.

During that time, Cheney was central to the first Gulf War, the ousting of Manuel Noriega from Panama and the taking of the peace dividend after the Berlin Wall fell.

Dating back to the Cold War, he had been through training on how to make sure the United States ensured the continuity of government, meaning if the president or vice-president were killed the right process was in place to make sure the next in line was safe and secure.

While people in this country may have qualms about waterboarding and sleep deprivation, we need to remember that one of the most well respected human rights experts in the world, Michael Ignatieff, supported sleep deprivation and waterboarding as necessary.

On the specifics of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ignatieff wrote positively even after he had entered Canadian politics.

“I submit that we would not be “waterboarding” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—immersing him in water until he experiences the torment of nearly drowning—if our intelligence operatives did not believe it was necessary to crack open the al Qaeda network that he commanded” – Prospect Magazine April 23, 2006.

To be clear, Ignatieff does call waterboarding torture but says it is necessary, just as he once saw targeted assassinations necessary.

I say that part of the reason that North America has been free from a large scale attack similar to 9-11 is partly because Dick Cheney, and men like him, were there to help make hard choices.

Cheney does not shy away from tough questions. He takes them head on in his book and in this interview.

And that’s the Byline

It is apparently shocking to Wolf Blitzer’s ears but Herman Cain, you may notice he is black as well, tells him there is a reason most blacks in the US vote Democrat.

It is getting really old listening to this claim that millionaires and billionaires pay less in tax than secretaries. First there was the Warren Buffett claim that he paid less than his secretary. Well, he either pays his secretary a fortune, and not a small one, or he was just talking about the tax rate.

Buffett, like the fool in the video below, wants his taxes raised claiming it isn’t fair that his secretary pays less.

The guy in the video below is Doug Edwards, employee #59 at Google and a very wealthy man. He admits to President Obama that he is wealthy enough that he doesn’t have to work anymore. And he wants his taxes raised.

There is a solution, just write a cheque. The US government, like the Canadian government, will accept voluntary increases in your tax paid.

These guys are so well off that they essentially live off of their investments. They do not draw a paycheque like the rest of us, they buy and sell shares and take dividends.

Investment income is taxed at a lower rate as a way to encourage continued investment and keep the economy going. Right now the capital gains tax rate is 15% in the United States. The top income tax bracket is 35% of income with most people paying a 25-28% tax rate.

So does this fool Edwards want to raise the capital gains tax up to 35%?

That wouldn’t do much for investment or job creation.

Obama is playing a charade with this tax rate game and most of the media are letting him get away with it. Just like I said, you can’t trust the consensus media.

It is simple, you can’t trust the media, not the consensus media folks that buy into all the cool kid ideas and then refuse to question their beliefs.

They are not telling you the truth.

Some of you might say, how do we know you are telling the truth Lilley? Fair question. Look into what I say. If you don’t believe me do your own research.

But do it on the other guys as well because they are only telling you part of the story.

I’ll get into some Canadian examples in a moment but let’s look into some American ones first.

You all know that George Bush is a moron that can’t read, speak or think. We know Sarah Palin is a fool and her every gaffe is still played up in the American and Canadian media.

But what about President Barack Obama?

Have you ever seen him claim that he’s visited all 57 states? Has that ever played in constant rotation on Canadian TV? He did that during the campaign, said he had visited all 57 states except one….plus that he had not been to Hawaii and Alaska.

So, a man running for President claims there are 60 states and you don’t hear about it.

What about his comments on the weekend where he said billionaires should pay the same tax rates as Jews, did you hear that?

You didn’t hear that did you, not in the news.

I’ll grant Obama a mistake here. He likely wasn’t attacking Jews, but had someone on the right said that, networks on both sides of the border would be playing that for days.

Have you seen this anywhere else?

It shows that the anointed one has faults so they won’t show it.

They wanted to show you plenty about the oil sands protesters on Monday though.
Greenpeace and the Council of Canadians promised thousands of people would descend on Parliament Hill and engage in civil disobedience. They would show that Canadians reject the evil tar sands.

You saw lots of coverage of that even though they only had a couple of hundred people show up.

Compare that to the March for Life, the biggest annual protest on Parliament Hill. It fills the place and the consensus media either ignores it or gives equal treatment to the few dozen counter-protestors.

It doesn’t end there.

Jack Layton – when we ran the story in the middle of an election about him being caught in a rub and tug, the other media outlets ignored it. Some reporters, not columnists or opinion mongers like me but reporters, played defence for the NDP leader, one stating online that being naked and using wet tissues is common during regular massages. Now that’s a velvet touch to play defence for your side.

We’re seeing more of this on Parliament Hill.

Tuesday morning, while I was flying back from Vancouver, I along with Ezra Levant, became the subject of some discussion among MPs on the Commons Ethics and Access to Information Committee.

They want us to appear before the committee to discuss the CBC’s reluctance to disclose how their $1.1 billion annual subsidy is spent. The other media outlets couldn’t get enough of this. Not the fact that CBC won’t dish on how they spend taxpayer dollars but that Ezra Levant, myself and our boss Pierre Karl Peladeau would be called to appear.

There are now more stories written about this by the consensus media than the fact that the CBC is using taxpayer’s dollars for a court battle to keep its secrets.

Why won’t they tell you that CBC refuses to comply with orders from the federal information commissioner and a federal court judge? Well because they are all in bed with the CBC.

The state broadcaster is the biggest customer of the Canadian Press. The Globe and The Star own the Canadian Press. The National Post relies on sports content from CBC to keep itself and its website alive and CTV’s parent company, Bell Media, just launched a joint bid with CBC for Olympic coverage.

They won’t tell you the state broadcaster is thumbing its nose at taxpayers and refusing a court order because it goes against their financial interests, they could even lose advertising from CBC’s generous ad budget which it uses to keep other media outlets in line.

The rest of the consensus media will all chase a story showing that, horror of horrors, the defence minister took a ride in a military helicopter. If that minister refuses to answer questions it becomes a story for days.

Show that CBC is abusing the law and they don’t make a peep.

Our MPs, paid to look after our tax dollars, are not much better.

If they wanted the CBC to be open, if the government wanted to improve openness, they could tell CBC to obey the federal court order to release the documents to the information commissioner. They could change the leadership of the CBC, they could cut funds.

They won’t. They have told the state broadcaster their budget is safe, they have praised CBC’s work.

New Democrat Charlie Angus is even worse. While he wants to hear from us, he wants to protect CBC. Here’s what he told reporters Tuesday.

” It’s nobody’s public business when decisions are made about journalistic integrity at the CBC.* That’s within the mandate of their business because we’re not allowed to see that in any of the other competitors. So we need an even playing field.”

Angus thinks the CBC should have a level playing field? Is he stupid or is he lying to you because an annual grant of $1.1 billion tilts the playing field greatly but it doesn’t tilt it towards us, it puts every private media outlet in this country at a disadvantage.

If you wanted a level playing field you would either be calling for CBC to be cut or every other media outlet to be taking an annual subsidy.

By the way, we don’t want your money.

The NDP wants to pretend they are sticking up for equality here, they aren’t they are sticky up for their lefty friends.

The Conservatives meanwhile ask you for money while bashing the CBC and then don’t act when they have the chance. They are trying to play you for fools, they are patronizing you.

So are the other media outlets.

If you don’t believe me, look up what I am saying, research it yourself, but they are either lying to you or telling you half truths, they are not telling you the whole truth and that is what you deserve.

The whole truth and nothing but.

And that’s the Byline.

*Hey Charlie, read the freaking court case you are supposedly debating here and find a single instance of the Information Commissioner asking for documents involving journalistic sources. Hint: You won’t find one.

In theory I’m not opposed to the new bill being put forward but I do have some questions. First, here’s the opening of Jessica Murphy’s story for Sun Media.

“OTTAWA – Fear not, flag-waving Canadians — a Tory backbencher is unfurling a law to entrench your right to fly the red and white banner.

“Canadians love and cherish their flag,” Don Valley West MP John Carmichael during a press conference Wednesday. He tabled the National Flag of Canada Act in the House of Commons Tuesday.

Heritage Minister James Moore said the proposed legislation would stop patriotic Canadians from being “stepped on” by overzealous housing authorities and condo boards that try to force them to remove the Maple Leaf decorating their homes.

Offenders could face a fine or up to two years in jail.”

Hmm, up to two years in jail for stopping a flag from flying. How does Julian Fantino feel about spending two years in the slammer? See, a few years ago Fantino arrested Gary McHale for flying the flag at a counter protest for the illegal native occupation in Caledonia. That’s the illegal occupation aided and abetted for six years now by Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Fantino was Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police back then and didn’t want an act as inflammatory as flying the national flag to happen on his watch. So he busted McHale. Have we mentioned that few native protesters have been busted for a whole raft of illegal activity? Often the cops just stood and watched.

Well now that Fantino is a junior cabinet minister in the federal government I wonder what his thoughts are on attempts to stop flag waving?

Good thing Murphy asked him.

“Fantino’s spokesperson said the minister would back the proposed bill.

“The minister has always been strongly supportive of demonstrative patriotism, which our flag represents,” Chris McCluskey said.”

Read the whole thing including Gary McHale’s comments here.

Now I don’t blame Fantino for the whole Caledonia mess. Fantino wasn’t Commissioner when the occupation started that was Gwen Boniface. Acting on what could only be orders from McGuinty to ignore lawlessness, Boniface let things get out of hand.

What Fantino has never explained is why he let things stay as they were rather than enforcing the law equally.

Conservative MP Brad Trost is fed up when it comes to his own government’s decision to fund abortion pusher Planned Parenthood.

Trost blames officials at CIDA for the grant and that is most likely true but so is the fact that CIDA’s minister Bev Oda is hapless. I also highly doubt that the office of the prime minister knew nothing about this move.

It may have happened as Trost lays out here but I doubt it. They must have known something. Then again, they were caught flat-footed when Oda’s officials said they would fund abortion under the guise of Harper’s maternal health plan which states that saving the lives of mothers and babies is its goal.

You can read The Sun story on this at the link and Trost’s full statement below.

Response to Federal Government’s Decision to Fund IPPF

Late in the afternoon of Thursday, September 22nd, I received a phone call from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) about a news story on the CBC that had run earlier in the day. The CBC reported that the federal government had approved funding for the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

A PMO staffer explained to me that the story had not been accurate when it ran, but due to the day’s events, the CBC story was mostly accurate now. Apparently, six staffers in CIDA Minister Bev Oda’s office had been working on a grant to fund IPPF — and one of them decided to leak the story to the CBC.

Rather than deny the story, a decision was made to rush funding to IPPF to the tune of $6 million over three years. (I was told that the funding letter was sent out at 4 pm that afternoon.)

People have asked how funding IPPF squares with the repeated statement that Canada will not fund abortion internationally. The PMO attempts to square this circle by only permitting IPPF funding to go into countries that ban abortion.

Considering that promoting abortion internationally is central to the identity of IPPF, this sort of political hairsplitting only seems to make sense in the Ottawa bubble. This is a position I totally reject.

Since 2006, Conservative MPs have been asking to have IPPF defunded.

In 2006, our request that federal funding for IPPF be stopped was ignored because we asked politely–and behind closed doors.

In 2009, we became more aggressive and began to take our campaign public.

Many, many Conservative MPs pressed the PMO to stop the funds from flowing. Federal funding did stop for a time. Funds allocated to IPPF were considerably reduced. Furthermore, federal grants for IPPF also had more strings attached.

This only happened because of the pressure applied. This was a real victory.

Bureaucrats have fought for years to keep the status quo and continue the funding of the IPPF that was established by the Liberals.

The battle over the IPPF continues.

Pro-Life politicians have been taught a lesson.

The government only responds to Pro-Life issues and concerns when we take an aggressive stance.

We will apply this lesson.

It seems unbelievable but the Catholic Mass is illegal in some parts of Quebec. Peter Stockland from Cardus Centre for Cultural Renewal picks up the story in his Catholic Register column.

“Ridiculous doesn’t begin to describe it. Frightening is a much better place to start for the events that began with an entirely uneventful gathering of a Catholic group on Oct. 4, 2009. Celani is the one in court only because her signature was on a $700 rental contract for the use of two rooms in a city-owned complex called La Maison du Brasseur in the borough of Lachine, just west of downtown Montreal.

About 100 people belonging to a lay Catholic association used the rooms to watch some inspirational videos and have a potluck lunch together. Oh, and horror of horrors, they sang songs and held a Mass behind closed doors. Then everyone went home. End of story. Or so it seemed.

Except that seven months later, in April 2010, Celani received a $144 ticket for having allowed the Mass to take place.”

It’s a shocking story, an assault on religious liberty, freedom of association and a form of aggressive state enforced secularization.

Read the whole piece here…