Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.
* On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.
* September 16, 2002 – After a summer of Liberal in-fighting and Jean Chretien being forced to announce his planned retirement date in August, Chretien prorogued Parliament, killing legislation so that he could unveil his legacy agenda.
* According [to] Eddie Goldenberg, Chretien decided to have a Throne Speech just to test the will of the Martinite forces who were trying to push him out early: Chretien was happy. “I like that. It is exactly what we just discussed. Prepare me a statement. But just one more thing,” said the old fox. “I want a Throne Speech in the fall. The government will stand or fall on it. If they want to vote against me on it, then it is the one case in which I will run again.” (Eddie Goldenberg, The Way it Works, p. 380)
* November 12, 2003 – Jean Chretien announced that Parliament was prorogued on the eve of the Liberal leadership convention (so Chretien and Martin didn’t have to sit together in the House of Commons and face a dispute over who was Prime Minister). Martin did not become Prime Minister until December 12, 2003 and Parliament did not resume until February 2, 2004 – almost four months later
And by the way, Chretien prorogued Parliament in November, 2003, to avoid having to face the AG's report on what happened with the Liberal Party and Adscam, and thus allowing Paul Martin to answer for what occurred under Chretien's term as PM.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Always Hire A Professional For Your Advertising
So I'm out Xmas shopping last night, and a van drives by with advertising on the sides and windows. Forget the name of the company, but what jumped out was the writing underneath. On the side window it had info on the product or services they offered. Included in said information was The Therapists Choice. Unfortunatly, when doing the lettering the spacing was off between the letters "e" and "r" in therapists, displaying what appeared to read:
The Rapists Choice.
Might wanna spend the extra cash and get that litho work done by someone qualified next time.
The Rapists Choice.
Might wanna spend the extra cash and get that litho work done by someone qualified next time.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
John Bennett Of Sierra Club Latest Caught In Kyoto Lie
Fresh on the heels of Climategate comes Canada's own John Bennett of the Sierra Club. Caught Bennett on CTV news being interviewed about Copenhagen and Kyoto. In sticking with that fine tradition of fudging facts and figures to enhance the climate-change argument, Bennett stated that only Canada failed to meet the targets it agreed to and said it would meet under Kyoto. Right away I knew he was lying.
Now one would think that these climate alarmists might actually realize that google is our friend, and if they insist on lying they will be quickly called on it.
And with that I give you Exhibit "A". The chart to the right
(courtesy of http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/kyoto-whos-on-target/ ) shows that a number of countries will miss their Kyoto targets. Of course Bennett also stated that all Kyoto signatories will meet targets while forgetting to point out that of the 189 countries signed onto the pact, only 39 actually had targets to reduce emissions, but we'll save that for a future post.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Heather Mallick Is An Embarrassment To Canadians Donate Now To Kick Her Out
And the CBC actually pays this wingnut with Canadian tax dollars?
Charles Adler's rebuke pretty much nails it.
" But I will be happy to throw in 133 dollars, one loony for every Canadian who has fallen in Afghanistan since our mission began there nearly eight years ago. Every one of those Canadians was proud of this country. All of them and all who came before them, fought for your right to say what you please. In honour of them, I would propose to our government that we launch a Heather Mallick in which Canadians coast to coast to coast contribute money to those Canadians too embarrassed to be called Canadian. Getting them out of the country would be the greatest social program in the history of Confederation. This chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Heather, as of today, you are the quintessential definition of weak. One very weak Canadian."
( http://www.charlesadler.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-heather-mallick.html )
I'll match Charles $133. In fact, Mallick can choose the destination of her choice, as long as it's a one-way ticket and it takes her outside of Canada's borders for good, and I'll pay for the flight myself.
Charles Adler's rebuke pretty much nails it.
" But I will be happy to throw in 133 dollars, one loony for every Canadian who has fallen in Afghanistan since our mission began there nearly eight years ago. Every one of those Canadians was proud of this country. All of them and all who came before them, fought for your right to say what you please. In honour of them, I would propose to our government that we launch a Heather Mallick in which Canadians coast to coast to coast contribute money to those Canadians too embarrassed to be called Canadian. Getting them out of the country would be the greatest social program in the history of Confederation. This chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Heather, as of today, you are the quintessential definition of weak. One very weak Canadian."
( http://www.charlesadler.com/2009/12/my-letter-to-heather-mallick.html )
I'll match Charles $133. In fact, Mallick can choose the destination of her choice, as long as it's a one-way ticket and it takes her outside of Canada's borders for good, and I'll pay for the flight myself.
The Canadian Press Thinks Repeatedly = 2
Just another gleaming example of what journalistic integrity has been reduced too. Check out that headline:
"Red Cross repeatedly warned Canada of Afghan prison abuse: documents"
Now read the first line of the story:
"OTTAWA - The International Red Cross met twice with senior Canadian officials in Kandahar to deliver veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails a year before Canada acted to protect detainees."
So in today's math repeatedly means two. And it gets worse. The story states the Red Cross gave dire warnings of torture:
"But the risks were so dire that detainees might be tortured in Afghan jails that the agency felt compelled to alert senior Canadian diplomats and officers in person, say memos made available on a confidential basis to The Canadian Press."
Seems pretty clear cut, right? Nope. It seems a Red Cross spokesperson actually denies the gist of the story, yet the Canadian Press still ran with that headline:
" A spokesman for the International Red Cross played down the face-to-face sessions with Canadian officials.
The agency would "never share confidential information," and the memo and Mendes' comments are "someone's interpretation of the meeting," Bernard Barrett, Red Cross spokesman in Washington, D.C., said in an interview."
Brilliant job by the Canadian Press. Smear the government with a story that actually refutes the headline if one takes the time to read it. You guys must make all journalists so proud.
"Red Cross repeatedly warned Canada of Afghan prison abuse: documents"
Now read the first line of the story:
"OTTAWA - The International Red Cross met twice with senior Canadian officials in Kandahar to deliver veiled but insistent warnings about torture in Afghan jails a year before Canada acted to protect detainees."
So in today's math repeatedly means two. And it gets worse. The story states the Red Cross gave dire warnings of torture:
"But the risks were so dire that detainees might be tortured in Afghan jails that the agency felt compelled to alert senior Canadian diplomats and officers in person, say memos made available on a confidential basis to The Canadian Press."
Seems pretty clear cut, right? Nope. It seems a Red Cross spokesperson actually denies the gist of the story, yet the Canadian Press still ran with that headline:
" A spokesman for the International Red Cross played down the face-to-face sessions with Canadian officials.
The agency would "never share confidential information," and the memo and Mendes' comments are "someone's interpretation of the meeting," Bernard Barrett, Red Cross spokesman in Washington, D.C., said in an interview."
Brilliant job by the Canadian Press. Smear the government with a story that actually refutes the headline if one takes the time to read it. You guys must make all journalists so proud.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Travers Makes Himself Useful
In the OLO War Room, columnist James Travers must have seemed an inspired choice. He can turn a purple phrase with the best of them. He stands foursquare against troops, widows, and orphans. He's for plummies, toffs, and pointyheads. He's short on guts and glory, long on assay. He has an ego as big as the Ritz, and fragile as a Gruyère Soufflé. To receive a document drop on a Matter of National Importance would be sweet validation, which most likely happened under Liberal governments.
So the Ignatieff Liberals—someone in the OLO—got the brilliant idea of having Travers write about a trove of Richard Colvin’s long-sought emails from Kandahar, the same documents three esteemed generals had justlaid wayside with their testimony.
This is a standard bit of hardball damage control. Refute damning facts, testimony, and documents to anyone who might review them with credibility, pass them instead to a compliant journalist—a “high-value third-party,” in PR lingo—who can be counted on to convey their content with opposition-friendly gloss.
Travers did not disappoint. His piece in Saturday’s Star is replete with snide references to the Pm and three generals, who did not spend more than enough time outside the wire for his liking to be able to state the facts. Apparently volunteering to step into the shoes of the highest ranking military personnel ever to be on the front lines in Afghanistan isn’t sufficient for our Liberal leaning scribe.
So the Ignatieff Liberals—someone in the OLO—got the brilliant idea of having Travers write about a trove of Richard Colvin’s long-sought emails from Kandahar, the same documents three esteemed generals had justlaid wayside with their testimony.
This is a standard bit of hardball damage control. Refute damning facts, testimony, and documents to anyone who might review them with credibility, pass them instead to a compliant journalist—a “high-value third-party,” in PR lingo—who can be counted on to convey their content with opposition-friendly gloss.
Travers did not disappoint. His piece in Saturday’s Star is replete with snide references to the Pm and three generals, who did not spend more than enough time outside the wire for his liking to be able to state the facts. Apparently volunteering to step into the shoes of the highest ranking military personnel ever to be on the front lines in Afghanistan isn’t sufficient for our Liberal leaning scribe.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
James Travers Writes His Most Idiotic Column Ever!!!
With Liberals trailing by 10 points in the polls, the Toronto Star and James Travers are having trouble discerning reality from partisan politics. Travers latest editorial can be summed up in one word. PATHETIC. Check out this beauty of a piece:
" It's been a long march into twilight. A country that gave the world Lester Pearson's peacekeeping and Brian Mulroney's stand against apartheid is now struggling with Stephen Harper's apparent blindness to compelling evidence of Afghanistan prisoner abuse.
For all its sound and fury, the counter-attack that politicians, bureaucrats and generals mounted this week was morally weak and legally flimsy. In struggling to sway public opinion, finely parsed denials skidded around the looming conclusion that Canada transferred prisoners into probable torture after being warned by the pre-eminent and most credible victims-of-violence organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross."
Did Travers just infer the testimony of three highly honored and respected generals was flimsy and weak? Wonder how those three esteemed gentleman feel about Travers slight on their reputation. Travers bigger problem is that on the same day he writes this tripe the Globe and Mail runs an editorial on the same subject by Christie Blatchford. It's also worth pointing out that the Globe and Mail was quite critical of the government after Colvine's testimony.
But what sets Blatchfords editorial apart from Travers is that hers is actually based on fact. Take for example Travers reference to the Red Cross, and what the actual facts of Colvine's emails were:
" It seems to have been Mr. Colvin's visit to the provincial prison in Kandahar city on May 16, 2006, that first triggered his concern. But that inspection and an earlier one upon which he relied, made in December of 2005 by the International Committee of the Red Cross, were, in the Afghan context, practically sunny about their findings."
Blatchford goes on to list more facts, all of which are damaging to Travers attempt at smearing the PM. Perhaps Travers should do some research rather than taking notes from the OLO, or whatever it is he supposedly does to glean information for his column. Blatchford actually references testimony from Hillier, which I would suggest to Travers is neither morally weak nor legally flimsy:
"From the start, Canadian soldiers were using gunshot residue tests (this was mentioned by the former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier in his testimony to the committee this week, but the significance of the remark went unnoticed) to sift the wheat from the chaff.
They detained only those who tested positive for GSR (meaning they had recently either fired a weapon or been right beside someone who had), were found with guns or bomb-making parts or near IED strikes or were otherwise highly suspicious, such as well-dressed men carrying large amounts of Pakistani cash.
Mr. Colvin's claim that innocent farmers were being cruelly dispatched to torture suggests he paid scarce attention to the “Taliban by night” phenomenon, whereby the man who farms by day becomes, under cover of darkness, a low-level fighter in the insurgency. Whether he acts out of need or is coerced into fighting with the Taliban, once he begins shooting or planting bombs, for the soldier, he is the enemy."
It's called journalistic integrity Mr. Travers, something you yourself seem to be morally weak on.
" It's been a long march into twilight. A country that gave the world Lester Pearson's peacekeeping and Brian Mulroney's stand against apartheid is now struggling with Stephen Harper's apparent blindness to compelling evidence of Afghanistan prisoner abuse.
For all its sound and fury, the counter-attack that politicians, bureaucrats and generals mounted this week was morally weak and legally flimsy. In struggling to sway public opinion, finely parsed denials skidded around the looming conclusion that Canada transferred prisoners into probable torture after being warned by the pre-eminent and most credible victims-of-violence organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross."
Did Travers just infer the testimony of three highly honored and respected generals was flimsy and weak? Wonder how those three esteemed gentleman feel about Travers slight on their reputation. Travers bigger problem is that on the same day he writes this tripe the Globe and Mail runs an editorial on the same subject by Christie Blatchford. It's also worth pointing out that the Globe and Mail was quite critical of the government after Colvine's testimony.
But what sets Blatchfords editorial apart from Travers is that hers is actually based on fact. Take for example Travers reference to the Red Cross, and what the actual facts of Colvine's emails were:
" It seems to have been Mr. Colvin's visit to the provincial prison in Kandahar city on May 16, 2006, that first triggered his concern. But that inspection and an earlier one upon which he relied, made in December of 2005 by the International Committee of the Red Cross, were, in the Afghan context, practically sunny about their findings."
Blatchford goes on to list more facts, all of which are damaging to Travers attempt at smearing the PM. Perhaps Travers should do some research rather than taking notes from the OLO, or whatever it is he supposedly does to glean information for his column. Blatchford actually references testimony from Hillier, which I would suggest to Travers is neither morally weak nor legally flimsy:
"From the start, Canadian soldiers were using gunshot residue tests (this was mentioned by the former chief of defence staff Rick Hillier in his testimony to the committee this week, but the significance of the remark went unnoticed) to sift the wheat from the chaff.
They detained only those who tested positive for GSR (meaning they had recently either fired a weapon or been right beside someone who had), were found with guns or bomb-making parts or near IED strikes or were otherwise highly suspicious, such as well-dressed men carrying large amounts of Pakistani cash.
Mr. Colvin's claim that innocent farmers were being cruelly dispatched to torture suggests he paid scarce attention to the “Taliban by night” phenomenon, whereby the man who farms by day becomes, under cover of darkness, a low-level fighter in the insurgency. Whether he acts out of need or is coerced into fighting with the Taliban, once he begins shooting or planting bombs, for the soldier, he is the enemy."
It's called journalistic integrity Mr. Travers, something you yourself seem to be morally weak on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)