Rosie DiManno: Cry Me A River, Omar!

 Obviously one of the more reasonable columnists from the Toronto Star, Rosie DiManno has not much sympathy for Omar Khadr.

Omar Khadr would have been a different person with a different father.
So what? So would we all.
There’s no retroactive mercy for felons who’ve grown up with lousy parents, in deranged households, taught wickedly in the ways of the world. That defence doesn’t work for child molesters, rapists and serial killers, many of whom were subjected to horrific mental and physical abuse, scars that never fade.
I see no reason why it should be asserted as an absolving excuse for the crimes to which Khadr has now admitted — because he had the misfortune of being born into an Al Qaeda family.

She goes on to dispel some of  those excuses that the left make for "poor little Omar."   Why anyone would see Omar as an innocent little babe is beyond me especially now when he has confessed to his crimes and feels happy about killing the US soldier whenever he thinks about it. He has absolutely no remorse. That little twerp wouldn't have hesitated if it would have been a Canadian medic instead of an American. He would have thrown that grenade regardless.  How would have the left reacted?  Probably not much different.  That is sad, really sad.  In fact whether left realizes it or not, it's down right dangerous. If you think about it, they tend to coddle and protect terrorists more than innocent citizens and that folks is scary.

Kudos to Rosie DiManno, she  has it spot on:  "Cry me a river, Omar!"

The Toronto Star Must Be in Mourning

 First of all I would like to express my congratulations to the new mayor elect of Toronto. Toronto Star has had a couple of dark days since  the election of an outspoken conservative as the new mayor for the city of Toronto. As Kelly MacParland so eloquently expresses, the Star's man, Smitherman had lost so badly and the Star had woken the next morning to a dark day when they reluctantly  had to declare that Rob Ford was the new mayor, the man they worked so hard to demonize and smear.  Oh that must have been so hard to do.

Monday was a dark day for George Smitherman, who lost badly in his bid to become Toronto mayor. The next day was even darker -- for the liberal Toronto Star, which had become an unapologetic pamphleteer for Smitherman in the weeks leading to the election. On Tuesday, it had to sheepishly report how badly its own propaganda had failed.
In the unhappy recesses of Star headquarters, perplexed editors were forced to accept that the unthinkable had happened: Rob Ford had been elected mayor. The voters of Toronto, who exist in the Star's imagination as a cheerful, "progressive," multicultural group of bicycle-loving, environmentally aware supporters of mushy Canadian liberalism, had cast their votes overwhelming for a man whom Star columnists had smeared as a neanderthal.

Then Kelly calls out the two most rabid Star columnists for their attacks on Ford.  First Heather Mallick with her usual.

 Having decided that personal attacks were fair game, the Star unloaded columnist Heather Mallick on Ford. Here's what she had to say:

"Voting for Ford is like sleeping with someone to get revenge on your spouse. It seems like a good idea at closing time, which is what an election is. Last call, and you neck down your last shot of good cold vodka. 'Sure, whatever,' is what you say to everything said to you. 'I hate streetcars too!' And you leave the lounge of the Empire Hotel on the arm of some big guy. It is Oct. 26, the day after the election, and you wake in a hard, unfamiliar bed. Your eyeballs are congealed chip fat and your contact lenses have gone crispy. Your liver is en route somewhere. You appear to be missing a tooth. And there's something in bed next to you. It is the sweaty, beer-smelling oik from the bar last night."
Poor Heather must have been scraping off the chip fat with both hands Tuesday. Not only is last night's oik in her bed, but the Viagra is just kicking in.

The reaction from Mallick after the election was well expected.

Then MacParland calls out James Travers for his attacks.

Then there was Star columnist James Travers who warned that "Sudden swings that sweep away the status quo are nothing new. But as World War II reminds, the results are often catastrophic." Toronto voters will no doubt wish they'd listened to Travers if Ford starts sending tanks into Brampton and Pickering.

Then this zinger from MacParland

.Evidently not. Ford didn't just win, he overwhelmed the opposition. The paper couldn't even score a victory out in deepest suburbia, where Mississauga's mayor-for-life, 89-year-old Hazel McCallion, was returned with 75% of the vote and spent election night denouncing the Star to anyone who would listen.

Hazel McCallion and Rob Ford, together. Lord knows what image that raises in Heather Mallick's imagination.

No doubt it must be a stunning defeat for the Star. They hate anything conservative and the new mayor, a conservative  campaigned on conservative  values and they are not supposed to resonate with Torontonians. 
This just simply could not happen, after all, Toronto is supposed to be a bastion of left wing latte sipping liberals. They had worked so hard to prevent this man from winning the Mayors chair but was in the end unsuccessful.  This right wing neanderthal was not supposed to win according to the Star. 
Maybe Torontonians are starting to wake from their slumber. Who knows but  let's hope this carries on to the provincial and federal scene.  Way to go Toronto voters! 

Quebec's Tea Party Movement

Quebec's new grassroots right wing small c-conservative tea party like movement was officially launched on the weekend.  The Quebec Freedom Network conference was a sell out weeks ago which is good news. Maxime Bernier Conservative MP from Beauce spoke saying that people in Quebec are fed up with big government.

"For 50 years we have had a big, fat interventionist government in Quebec at the provincial level, and I think people are fed up with that," Maxime Bernier, Conservative MP for Beauce and a speaker at today's event, said in an interview. "They want to have more freedom through less government." Questioning the sustainability of the once sacrosanct "Quebec model," with its generous business subsidies and extensive social services, has become more common. But even the most vocal critics of the status quo recognize that any substantial change is going to take time.

It's a good start at  for Quebec. It remains to be seen whether or not it will be a lasting thing seeing that Quebecer's are pretty fickle. I hope it  will be lasting and that it will spread like wildfire across the country with the public getting fed up with big intrusive government at all levels, speaking out and demanding change.  Look what influence the Tea Party movement in the US is having.  They have been a big influence in the midterm election cycle and are about to elect quite a few tea party candidates to Congress in about 8 days from now. 
We shall wait and see what happens  but I think such a movement can have impact here as well but it's up to us the grassroots.  Watching what's going on in Quebec will be interesting in the coming months, if change can happen there, it can happen anywhere in Canada and  it has to start somewhere.
 

.

Let's Be More Like Britain

We have a $55.6 billion deficit on our hands because of the  stimulus spending during the recession to so call stimulate our economy even though I doubt very much that the stimulus has helped that much to our  recovery.

Now the fight will be on to find solutions to slaying the deficit between the Conservatives and the Libs. The Conservatives have already indicated the corporate tax cuts which is to take affect in January will go ahead. That will leave more money in the  companies' coffers to invest in more capital, hire more employees etc.

The Libs on the other hand want to cancel the corporate tax cuts in order to pay for their social programs like their home care plan. which would be a job killer.  Other than that the deficit reduction plans from both parties are much alike   So it's basically tax and spend Liberals.  There are not very bold intiatives, no big spending cuts, or reduction of the size of government  from either party.  We need to further, much further to slash that deficit and pay down the debt than what either party are proposing.

So why don't we take a page out the the British deficit reduction book?  They are much bolder in their plan.  They plan to slash spending and raise the retirement age from 65 to 66yrs.
They are reducing the size of government by cutting upwards of 490,000 public servants positions over the next four years.

LONDON - Britain said on Wednesday it would cut half a million public sector jobs, raise the retirement age and slash the welfare state as part of the biggest spending cuts in a generation.

This is what we should be doing.  Yeah, some wouldn't like it, it would hurt for a while but it would be good for the country in the long run because a smaller government saves the taxpayer a bundle leaving more money in our pockets.   More money in our pockets leaves us to spend, invest and innovate.  Business in the private sector with more money creates jobs.  That in turn brings in more government revenue believe it or not. t's just good for everyone.

BTW. Has anyone ever heard of the forgotten depression of 1920?  Didn't think so. This is how the US got out of that one very quickly and back into prosperity.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.
Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government’s budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding’s approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third. The Federal Reserve’s activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."2 By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and was only 2.4 percent by 1923.

I encourage you to take the time to watch this video.  It's over 40 minutes long but very informative.  It tells the story of the forgotten 1920's depression.

So we  should have learned something from all of this by now.  Have we? I don't know but what all this has proven  is that big government spending and socialism doesn't work. The bills eventually come due and have to be paid.  Only common sense, true conservatism, personal freedom and responsibility.  The ability to create and invent, and the freedom for business to make a profit. That is what works!

So let's try true conservatism for a change. Let's live within our means. Cut spending, aggressively cut taxes, reduce the size of government, allow for personal freedom and responsiblity and that will spark inovation and creativity then prosperity will come back. It's just as simple as government getting out of the way.

The British  train is finally on the right track. The Canadian train needs catch up and  get on that track before we become a train wreck.  It's just as simple as government getting out of the way.  Not just the federal government but governments at all levels must take the same course.  What are we waiting for?   Let's be more like Britain!

Get Rid of Political Party Subsidies

In a time when we must exercise fiscal restraint, getting rid of political party subsidies is a great idea. Besides why should our hard earned tax dollars go towards forced political donations.  Remember what happened in 2008 when PM Harper and Finance Minister Flaherty suggested that in the fall update?  All hell broke loose. That`s when the coalition of the losers exposed themselves.   A poll taken at that time showed 61% supported getting rid of $1.95 per vote subsidy. And it`s just not the $1.95 per vote subsidy. There are other subsidies too that Brian Lilley from Sun Media emphasizes.

An analysis of taxpayer subsidies to political parties by QMI Agency found that tens of millions of dollars are handed over to political parties each year on top of the $27 million they get through their per-vote subsidy.
“One of the crazy aspects of it is they give themselves a larger tax deduction than charities get,” said Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Gaudet said charities such as hospitals would be considered more important than political parties by most Canadians even if the tax law favours politics over health.
The low-tax crusader is also part of an ongoing campaign to get rid of the $1.95 per vote per year subsidy that each political party gets.
“Political parties should exist solely on their ability to get donations from their supporters,” said Gaudet.
Two years ago the threat of opposition parties losing their per-vote subsidy lead to a revolt and the threat of a coalition. The Harper government backed down over accusations they were simply out to get their political rivals.
Based on an analysis of several years of fundraising numbers, removing the per-vote subsidy would have a crippling effect on the Bloc Quebecois.
A poll taken in late 2008 showed 61% of Canadians agreed with removing the subsidies.
Not everyone agrees though.
NDP Leader Jack Layton has called the Harper government’s threat of removing the per-vote subsidy an “attack on democracy.” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said the opposition parties won’t let the Harper government take away the subsidies.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made clear that he will raise this issue with voters at the next election.

It`s true it would cripple the Bloc. They`re just lazy. They don`t want anything do with the ROC but will gladly take our money.  It would cripple the Liberals as well. They were used to being funded by big money by big corporations and stealing taxpayer money when they're in power (adscam etc). The CPC would be hurt the least. They know how to fund raise by getting small donations from a large number of donors.
The NDP on the other hand back in 2008 could have helped themselves out by siding with the Conservatives which would have basically crippled the Libs instead of being involved with loser coalition.  The public would have supported them.  They would basically be poised to become the official opposition with Jack and Olivia moving into Stornoway.  I guess the possibility of seeing a way to fast track into power by over throwing a duly elected government got in the way.

I`m glad this will be an issue come next election.  How are the opposition parties go on the campaign trail justifying why they should take our money to fund their parties especially in a time when the government should be cutting the deficit?