Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
MSM Math: 6% Conservative Lead Is Dead Heat???
The headline re the latest Ipsos poll: Tories and Liberals still in dead heat: Poll
The story: The Conservatives have the support of 34 per cent of decided voters, down three percentage points from the last poll earlier this month, while the Liberals secured 28 per cent of voters, down one percentage point. The New Democratic Party was in third with 18 per cent of the vote; 10 per cent of Canadians would support the Green party.
The story: The Conservatives have the support of 34 per cent of decided voters, down three percentage points from the last poll earlier this month, while the Liberals secured 28 per cent of voters, down one percentage point. The New Democratic Party was in third with 18 per cent of the vote; 10 per cent of Canadians would support the Green party.
Dan McTeague Replies
Received in my inbox from Liberal MP Dan Mcteague. In fairness to Mr. McTeague I have posted his email to me to allow his statement of the facts to be available to anyone wishing to see.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
March 19, 2010
Paul:
I am contacting you regarding the March 16, 2010 posting on your blog, A CAW Workers Voice Of Reason (located at http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/), entitled: “Questions Raised Over Dan McTeague’s Education Claims”.
The information contained in the posting contains statements that are erroneous and libelous in nature, and I hereby request that you remove it immediately.
For the record, an error did occur in my campaign literature for the 1992 liberal nomination of the then-called Ontario Riding. Regrettably, it went unnoticed for some time. However, corrective action was taken and a full and very public apology was given by me personally in front of my constituents and the media.
I wish now to advise you of some additional facts:
(1). In 1992, the Liberal nomination candidate referred to in the blog did seek the party’s nod for Ontario Riding as did I. He was soundly defeated and subsequently left the Liberal Party. He ran against me in 2006 General Election as a candidate for the Canadian Action Party. Regardless, since 1992, I can assure you that the individual has used every opportunity – whether in front of the electorate, local or national media - to vociferously attack my personal integrity.
(2). On the first day of the 1997 General Election, front page news in the Toronto Sun and on CTV’s National News was devoted to the issue of my academic credentials. I convened a press conference on that day and in front of the national media and the electorate I apologized for any errors made in any campaign materials. The story ran for several days and if anyone actually believes there was “nary a peep” from the national media they are severely mistaken.
(3).The individual in question has continued to attack my character for over fifteen years but he has not stopped with just me. As court documents note, the individual has been involved in numerous legal actions and activities involving over twenty different people.
(4). In February 2005 the individual was deemed a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Ontario. In September 2005, that ruling was upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. As such, the individual was prohibited from undertaking any further legal action against anyone unless first obtaining permission to do so from a Superior Court in Ontario. The individual was also ordered by the courts to pay me substantial awards.
The legal action taken against me that was noted by you was dismissed by the courts. However, there is no reference of that in the blog. Instead, your blog merely states that: “another Liberal candidate for the riding sued McTeague…” This leaves the impression that the candidate in question may have won his case. Moreover, you failed to mention the numerous other court rulings that went against the individual - culminating in the courts deeming him a vexatious litigant and taking away his right to legal redress without prior court approval.
The selective language used in your post can leave the impression that the lawsuit taken against me by that individual was successful. That is not a true reflection of the facts. In addition, I have been advised that the following sentences: “…a Liberal who did in fact falsify his academic credentials.” And “a prominent MP of a sitting government who falsified academic credentials…”, are statements void of substantiating facts and supporting evidence. As such, they are libelous and actionable.
It is my request that you remove the offending posting at the earliest possible opportunity.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
Hon. Dan McTeague, P.C., M.P.
At Mr. McTeagues request, I will delete the blog posting in question. And I will also hope that in the future, members of the opposition parties will hold themselves to the same account, including Mr. McTeague, when trying to smear or sully the reputation of a Conservative MP or candidate.
To take it a step further, Mr. McTeague is free to post here on Rahim Jaffer. It seems members of the Liberal Party , not Mr. McTeague himself,have found Jaffer guilty even though he was not convicted during Question Period a few days ago. Understanding fully Parliamentry Privelage, there is no excuse for the line of questioning from some Liberal MP's.
"Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their “get tough on crime” rhetoric. They always say, “You do the crime, you do the time”. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?"
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
March 19, 2010
Paul:
I am contacting you regarding the March 16, 2010 posting on your blog, A CAW Workers Voice Of Reason (located at http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.com/), entitled: “Questions Raised Over Dan McTeague’s Education Claims”.
The information contained in the posting contains statements that are erroneous and libelous in nature, and I hereby request that you remove it immediately.
For the record, an error did occur in my campaign literature for the 1992 liberal nomination of the then-called Ontario Riding. Regrettably, it went unnoticed for some time. However, corrective action was taken and a full and very public apology was given by me personally in front of my constituents and the media.
I wish now to advise you of some additional facts:
(1). In 1992, the Liberal nomination candidate referred to in the blog did seek the party’s nod for Ontario Riding as did I. He was soundly defeated and subsequently left the Liberal Party. He ran against me in 2006 General Election as a candidate for the Canadian Action Party. Regardless, since 1992, I can assure you that the individual has used every opportunity – whether in front of the electorate, local or national media - to vociferously attack my personal integrity.
(2). On the first day of the 1997 General Election, front page news in the Toronto Sun and on CTV’s National News was devoted to the issue of my academic credentials. I convened a press conference on that day and in front of the national media and the electorate I apologized for any errors made in any campaign materials. The story ran for several days and if anyone actually believes there was “nary a peep” from the national media they are severely mistaken.
(3).The individual in question has continued to attack my character for over fifteen years but he has not stopped with just me. As court documents note, the individual has been involved in numerous legal actions and activities involving over twenty different people.
(4). In February 2005 the individual was deemed a vexatious litigant by the Superior Court of Ontario. In September 2005, that ruling was upheld on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. As such, the individual was prohibited from undertaking any further legal action against anyone unless first obtaining permission to do so from a Superior Court in Ontario. The individual was also ordered by the courts to pay me substantial awards.
The legal action taken against me that was noted by you was dismissed by the courts. However, there is no reference of that in the blog. Instead, your blog merely states that: “another Liberal candidate for the riding sued McTeague…” This leaves the impression that the candidate in question may have won his case. Moreover, you failed to mention the numerous other court rulings that went against the individual - culminating in the courts deeming him a vexatious litigant and taking away his right to legal redress without prior court approval.
The selective language used in your post can leave the impression that the lawsuit taken against me by that individual was successful. That is not a true reflection of the facts. In addition, I have been advised that the following sentences: “…a Liberal who did in fact falsify his academic credentials.” And “a prominent MP of a sitting government who falsified academic credentials…”, are statements void of substantiating facts and supporting evidence. As such, they are libelous and actionable.
It is my request that you remove the offending posting at the earliest possible opportunity.
Govern yourself accordingly.
Sincerely,
Hon. Dan McTeague, P.C., M.P.
At Mr. McTeagues request, I will delete the blog posting in question. And I will also hope that in the future, members of the opposition parties will hold themselves to the same account, including Mr. McTeague, when trying to smear or sully the reputation of a Conservative MP or candidate.
To take it a step further, Mr. McTeague is free to post here on Rahim Jaffer. It seems members of the Liberal Party , not Mr. McTeague himself,have found Jaffer guilty even though he was not convicted during Question Period a few days ago. Understanding fully Parliamentry Privelage, there is no excuse for the line of questioning from some Liberal MP's.
"Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their “get tough on crime” rhetoric. They always say, “You do the crime, you do the time”. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?"
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Is Michael Ignatieff And The Liberal Party Releasing Uncensored Documents For Partisan Gain?
Further to my previous post, it seems more than a coincidence that the two most recent stories to grace the top spot on National Newswatch for a day seem to link back to individuals involved with Michael Ignatieff.
As noted by a commenter at Joanne's blog Blue Like You, Attaran and Ignatieff can be linked back to the Carr Center at Harvard.
And now today's top story at National Newswatch links to another individual with ties to Ignatieff, Wesley Wark, of the Munk Center.
What is most disturbing is that the two individuals claim to have seen uncensored versions of security documents. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but if I were a member of the RCMP I think I would be questioning both individuals and demanding how and who allowed them to see said documents.
As noted by a commenter at Joanne's blog Blue Like You, Attaran and Ignatieff can be linked back to the Carr Center at Harvard.
And now today's top story at National Newswatch links to another individual with ties to Ignatieff, Wesley Wark, of the Munk Center.
What is most disturbing is that the two individuals claim to have seen uncensored versions of security documents. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but if I were a member of the RCMP I think I would be questioning both individuals and demanding how and who allowed them to see said documents.
Attaran And Canadian Press Prove Government Wise Not To Release Sensitive Documents
National Newswatch, the new voice of the Liberal Party of Canada, continues to inadvertently show why the government has worries about releasing military documents that are sensitive to national security.
Let's start with the Attaran story:
"If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said."
So exactly how was Attaran able to see uncensored documents? A university professor has connections to view documents regarding the government and military? More importantly, who passed along the uncensored documents?
Next is the Canadian Press, another bastion of Conservative hating propaganda:
"A copy of the document was obtained by The Canadian Press.
Military police “were involved in that, but they weren't necessarily involved in interviewing or interrogation related issues; that would be (censored) or some other parade that had special training in interrogation.”
Sources familiar with the unedited version say the blanked-out references are to CSIS.
Intelligence expert Wesley Wark says the revelations are disturbing, partly because CSIS would have had no specialized knowledge of how to elicit information from Afghan prisoners.
“I find that stunning,” said Mr. Wark, a historian at the University of Toronto."
OK, so who exactly are the sources? And again, how is it that a university historian is able to see such documents uncensored. Both of the above noted professors have ties to Michael Ignatieff, Attaran at the Carr centre and Wark at the Munk Cente (Professor Wesley K. Wark, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto):
"In 2005, Ignatieff was appointed a senior fellow at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Prior to that, he served as Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University for five years."
Perhaps in the next session of question period, the PM might point out to Ignatieff that the reason the government is apprehensive about releasing sensitive documents is that professors with Liberal ties are blabbing about in the the media the next day.
Let's start with the Attaran story:
"If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.
"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said."
So exactly how was Attaran able to see uncensored documents? A university professor has connections to view documents regarding the government and military? More importantly, who passed along the uncensored documents?
Next is the Canadian Press, another bastion of Conservative hating propaganda:
"A copy of the document was obtained by The Canadian Press.
Military police “were involved in that, but they weren't necessarily involved in interviewing or interrogation related issues; that would be (censored) or some other parade that had special training in interrogation.”
Sources familiar with the unedited version say the blanked-out references are to CSIS.
Intelligence expert Wesley Wark says the revelations are disturbing, partly because CSIS would have had no specialized knowledge of how to elicit information from Afghan prisoners.
“I find that stunning,” said Mr. Wark, a historian at the University of Toronto."
OK, so who exactly are the sources? And again, how is it that a university historian is able to see such documents uncensored. Both of the above noted professors have ties to Michael Ignatieff, Attaran at the Carr centre and Wark at the Munk Cente (Professor Wesley K. Wark, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto):
"In 2005, Ignatieff was appointed a senior fellow at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Prior to that, he served as Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University for five years."
Perhaps in the next session of question period, the PM might point out to Ignatieff that the reason the government is apprehensive about releasing sensitive documents is that professors with Liberal ties are blabbing about in the the media the next day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)