Time to Block the Bloc

 Quebecers should think long and hard about who they want to send to Ottawa. It's been clear that the Bloc and their provincial counterparts the PQ want a weak federal government so they can go forward towards their plan of tearing the country up.

Neil Reynolds of the Globe muses about a real scenario about the real possibility of a PM Gilles Dueceppe. 
if the Bloc becomes the official opposition and Conservatives fall just short of a majority.  It could very well happen.

 The election could produce a Bloc-friendly result in a number of ways. For example, the Bloc could win 60 seats, the Liberals 58 seats, the NDP 40 seats and the Conservatives 150 seats, five short of a majority. The result would surely provoke the greatest political crisis in this country since 1926, when the governor-general (Lord Byng) refused Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King’s request that he dissolve Parliament and call an election, insisting that Conservative leader Arthur Meighen, the leader of the Official Opposition, be invited first to form a government.
If Mr. Duceppe were the leader of the Official Opposition, the Governor-General would be obliged to turn to him as the “second try” party in the House. On what grounds could he not? Mr. Duceppe might well decline the invitation. But the prospect of accepting it would be enormously tempting – if only for the historic irony.

PM Harper says the best way to stop this is a Conservative majority.   Then we must scrap the voter subsidies to the parties. to neuter the Bloc.

 We have to work hard to prevent this from happening by making sure we wake up to a Conservative majority May 3.  It's more than just the coalition of the losers, it's about whether we want a united Canada or not.  So you know what you must do!   Quebecers and others vote Conservative May 2.

Remember this before you cast your ballot,  Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe!!!  Just picture that in your mind! Should set off alarm bells!

A Scary Proposition

How would you like a PM who will not allow our military not to be able to do anything outside of Canada without the authorization of the UN and who quotes Chairman Mao?  John Robson from the Sun says that .Michael Ignatieff is unconnected and cannot be trusted  Read the whole article, it's quite interesting.

 Some conventional journalists ridiculed this newspaper for pointing out that, in the English debate a day earlier, Ignatieff borrowed an image from Chairman Mao to accuse Stephen Harper of opposing democracy. But our point wasn’t that Ignatieff is a Maoist or thinks Harper a ghastly totalitarian. It’s that he considered Canadian democracy and Communist mass murder appropriate topics for a cute, ironic little cultural reference devoid of intellectual substance.
The disquieting feeling many of us have about Ignatieff, and the elitist tribe who find him an attractive leader, is that they are rootless, not so much disloyal to Canada as strangers to the whole idea of patriotism and loyalty. That’s why it’s so troubling that on CSPAN on June 17, 2004, Ignatieff told an American audience, “You have to decide what kind of America you want. It’s your country just as much as it is mine.”
This petty falsehood cheapened American citizenship as well as ours. The United States really is their country, whose anthem brings a tear to their eye and which they or their sons and daughters will die to defend. To Ignatieff it was just a visiting professorship. And he doesn’t grasp the difference. In The Rights Revolution in 2000, he called Canada “the place on earth that, if I needed one, I would call home.” But he doesn’t. And it shows.
He can’t even offer the intellectual’s excuse for political unreliability that he owes higher allegiance as a citizen of the Republic of Truth, given his pattern of inconsistency.
It’s as though the world of ideas is one more place he enjoys visiting but to which he feels no genuine loyalty.
The problem isn’t just that he’s not from around here. He’s not from around anywhere. He’s totally unconnected, to Canada, the truth, his own words or anything else.
You cannot trust such people. They’ll quote Mao and give your foreign policy to the Russians and not even mean it.

 Couple that with Jack Layton and  Gilles Duceppe in the mix.  Down right scary isn't it?   That's exactly what'll happen if we don't elect a Conservative majority on May 2.  If you want security and stability you know what to do.  Let's get off our butts get out there and  work hard otherwise May 3 we might wake up to something  we can't do over.  A Conservative majority is the only solution.

So Lberals Bring in the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin

 Michael Ignatieff can't win on his own so Liberals have brought in Paul Martin and Jean Chretien for the last leg of the campaign.
It's like Charles Adler says in a tweet:
 @charlesadler Charles Adler

by katewerk

Here's a You know it's bad for the Visiting Prof Update- Liberals turning to Paul Martin & Jean Chrétien to rally voters in final stretch

I don't think it's going to work, too many memories.  Adscam,and Paul Martin Canada Steamship Line and tax havens. 

Does Michael Ignatieff Deserve Our Votes?

How come if the Liberal leader misses most votes in the House of Commons than any other MP that he thinks he deserves to be PM? Charles Adler thinks Jack Layton might be  right  in  that if Liberal leader Michael Igantieff  has missed the most votes  he shouldn't get a promotion.

When Jack Layton came in from behind and delivered the head shot about Ignatieff’s low-attendance record at House of Commons votes, it shredded the Liberal spin job.
Layton’s line revealed to voters that Ignatieff wasn’t just a visting professor to Canada. Ignatieff is just visiting when it comes to democracy.
Ignatieff’s typical condescending response was he didn’t require any lessons on democracy from Layton. Iggy would be right about that if only Layton had been wrong about his assertion.
Layton offered the data point — there’s that egghead language again, Iggy’s contagious — of 70%. He said Ignatieff missed 70% of the votes and in the real world when someone misses work 70% of the time, he shouldn’t expect a promotion.
And so here’s Jack Layton, who according to the polls is more trusted by John and Mary Canadian Tire than Michael Ignatieff, saying Ignatieff is not prime minister-worthy because the visiting professor doesn’t even want to visit Parliament Hill.

Is Jack Layton wrong?
Everyone agrees it was a great zinger. It can’t be great if it’s not based on the truth.
Liberal Partisans say it’s not true. Their argument is laughable. Iggy did miss most of those votes. But he was trying to beef up his brand with bus tours and his first visits to those quaint little stores with pedestrian coffee and those greasy little things with the holes in the middle that would never be served at the Ignatieff villa in the south of France.
Speaking of public housing, we know the Ignatieffs can’t stand the thought of living at the opposition residence, Stornoway. If he ever did manage to stage a coalition coup and become PM, would he and his wife hold their noses and “slum” it for a while by moving in to 24 Sussex?
Would they at least visit once in a while for the photo ops?

That should make anyone think twice if they're think about voting for Michael Ignatieff and his Liberals.  Jack Layton has it right "If most Canadians  don't show up for work, they  don't get a promotion" Way to go Jack!

More Want Long Gun Registry Scrapped Than Want the Libs Family Pack

In an Ipsos Reid survey, it seems that scrapping the useless long gun registry is resonating more than the Liberals family pack.

OTTAWA — Few people believe Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will be able to follow through on his "Family Pack" platform promises, results of a new poll suggest.

Findings of the poll, conducted by Ipsos Reid exclusively for Postmedia News and Global National, show just 30 per cent of Canadians agree he will be able to implement his plans.
Only eight per cent of respondents "strongly" agreed, while 22 per cent "somewhat" agreed when polled between April 5-7.
However, it may not be Ignatieff's specific proposals that are the problem.
"(Voters) have lost confidence in government's ability to actually deliver on big promises," said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid.
But while the public sees this as "just another campaign promise," there is still the possibility Ignatieff can change public perception, Bricker added.
"Right now, he neither has the credibility personally, nor does his party, nor do the policy ideas, to really change people's perspectives on whether or not they should give more credence to what this leader and party are saying," he said.
Along with Ignatieff's apparent lack of credibility, the long-gun registry is once again an issue resonating with voters, according to the survey's findings.
Forty-three per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: "When I'm thinking about my vote this time, how my MP voted on the long-gun registry will be an important part of my decision."
Sixteen per cent of respondents said they strongly agreed with the statement.

Oh,oh it  also seems like Iffy and his party have a credibility problem but then again that's what you can expect from the Liberals.  Promise all kinds of lofty pie in the sky stuff that they know will never be fulfilled and never mind how they're going to pay for it. They never follow through anyway. 

Where as you know very well Conservatives make modest achievable  promises that they almost always fulfill unless unforseen circumstances prevent them to do so. 

So the choice is definately clear. 

If you want the long gun registry scrapped, you know how to vote. At least that is acheivable and will save us money. The Liberal family pack on the other hand will cause us to spend more money that we don't have. Conservatives are the ONLY ones committed to scrapping this expensive useless program and.the only way to get it done is to vote for a Conservative majority.