tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57179332866118333342024-03-13T21:22:51.394-04:00Five by Five<center>Honour is not seemly for a fool.<br/>
It seems that the Western World is polarized between self interest without conscience and a self loathing that blames the Western European tradition for all the ills of the World.<br/>
I think that the truth often lies between the extremes.</center>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-80984498110844140902009-05-18T16:53:00.002-04:002009-05-18T17:20:44.249-04:00Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue | Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online<p>I heard on TV yesterday, in an interview with a Brit journalist with an American socialite, that the world financial crisis is the fault of the USA – as the presenter put it, “you lot”. It has seemed to me from the start that the EU is a fundamentally unstable construct and my observations overseas has been that they have tried to emulate the conspicuous consumption of the Americans without the elevated productivity of the American economy.</p><p>Now, I have finally seen an analysis from within the EU that confirms my beliefs, despite the rhetoric blaming the US for all the ills of the Old World. Apparently:</p><blockquote><p>“Last Friday the European Commission published what were arguably the most catastrophic economic statistics produced by any official institution in the capitalist world since 1945…What these statistics confirmed is that the credit crunch has been a far greater disaster for Germany and most of continental Europe than for the US and Britain. In fact, it is Europe that faces a genuinely unprecedented economic crisis, whereas the recessions in America and Britain are broadly similar in scale to the ones of the past three decades.” </p><p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6308164.ece?&EMC-Bltn=GEQEOA">Europe waits for Germany to come to the rescue Anatole Kaletsky: Economic view - Times Online</a></p></blockquote><p>Essentially, the powerhouses of the EU economy have been buoyed up by bad loans from wealthy Europe to developing Europe. As the fictions of these loans becomes apparent a credit crunch causes crises in many of the European “provinces”. This can usually be dealt with by instituting draconian economic and fiscal policies but that is no longer possible because everyone now uses the common Euro. Unless Germany bails everyone out there will be a crash beyond the memory of everyone alive. The only ones who will be cushioned against it will be Britain because they did not jump headlong into the Euro.</p><p>God bless the Euro-sceptics! and thank goodness someone is willing to speak with honesty. Let’s just hope that those who are trying to scapegoat the USA don’t push for revenge for their failed economy.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-66813852070672600212009-05-12T22:49:00.002-04:002009-05-12T22:50:28.291-04:00Christ's Two Great Commands<p>The Bible is the Word of God: </p><blockquote>Mt 22:36 “[Jesus], which is the great commandment in the law?” And he said to him, ’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”</blockquote><p><a href="http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/christscommands.htm">The</a> only problem is that the Word of God was written by men. Let’s assume that all of the Bible was inspired by God. It was then proclaimed and taught by prophets who were men and who had men’s prejudices and agendas. It was then written down by other men with men’s prejudices and agendas. It was further edited by other men with men’s prejudices and agendas. </p><p>In the end, we have a God who “hates” gay people. </p><p>You know, I don’t think God “hates” gay people. I don’t think God “hates”. I also think that God made gay people the same time he made straight people. I don’t think God screwed up. I think that people who took the Word of God made it say that God “hated” things that were not conducive to the survival of tribes when there was a pressure to increase populations. Gay people don’t normally do that.</p><p>So, how do we figure which parts of the Bible are true expressions of the Word of God? Look at the Two Great Commandments and use them as a filter for the rest of the Bible. Jesus himself gave us the key to this when he articulated the Two Great Commandments. Passages that speak of what and whom God “hates” does not pass that test.</p><p>We are told of a lot of things and people that God “hates”. I believe that Jesus’ words have a very significant consequence to such interpretations.</p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-41227811606932839822009-01-17T11:14:00.002-05:002009-01-17T11:18:13.787-05:00One Small Step for Mankind<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Finally!!! The Canadian Ministry of Justice has been directed to review Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been used to shut down Freedom of Speech for a long time contrary to its intended purpose. Albertan Reverend Stephen Boissoin has a <a href="http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2008/12/mind-boggling-inanity-at-chrc.html">lifetime ban</a> on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality (recall that he is a clergyman supported by scripture). The same post discusses the CHRC's determination that true invective by an Imam is not worthy of censure.<br /><br />The nature of Section 13 is vile. If people feel the need to spout hatred then it should be the obligation of all people to challenge and shame them. To have the State silence them is an act of political and social laziness and drives them underground where they attract the most violent adherents.<br /><br />Cudos to Prime Minister Harper. Let's hope it works out.<br /></div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-38414050326658459652009-01-11T19:04:00.000-05:002009-01-11T20:09:14.243-05:00Democracy in ActionIt has occured to me that an election is, primarily, an opportunity for a people to take responsibility for what is done in their name.
<br>It has often been said about the American hypocracy regarding the election of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Apparently the fact that the Palestinians elected them is supposed to give them legitimacy that overrides their pledge to annihilate Israel. When they declared themselves absolved of all agreements and treaties with Israel the Palestinian people were still supposed to see the benefits that depended on those treaties - like the taxes and tarifs collected by Israel for the PA.
<br>No. When a people elect a terrorist organization that doesn't recognise the right of Israel to exist that doesn't legitimize the Hamas terrorists; it delegitimizes the Palestinian people themselves. They laid down with the dogs and were surprised to find that they have fleas.
<br>I, For one, hope the fleas bite hard and make the Palestinians act like adults next time. I'm not, however, holding my breath.
<br>
<br>Sent from my wireless handheld device / Transmis de mon appareil portableDeep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-54258044660447580412009-01-08T16:08:00.002-05:002009-01-08T20:03:28.622-05:00NO!!!!!! Not the UN!!!<p><span style="font-size:85%;">Bert Raphael, in the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=5425804466044758041">Globe and Mail</a>, praises Lewis MacKenzie for an insane idea:</span></p> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Finally a voice of reason and logic from someone who has been there and knows the facts on the ground: I refer to the article by retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie suggesting that a solution to the Israeli-Hamas war is the deployment of a strong and armed UN force in Gaza (What Is The UN Waiting For? Deploy A Strong Force To Gaza - Jan. 6). If the United Nations gave the force the power to disarm Hamas and ensure that only humanitarian goods and not guns entered Gaza, the current problems would be solved.</span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">I'm not sure what is more dizzyingly ludricous: suggesting that the UN would pass a resolution to protect Israel against Hamas when their man on the ground is <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=5425804466044758041">Richard Falk </a>, or anyone with a memory longer than a week would suggest that the son of Oil-for-food would be a good idea.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=5425804466044758041">MacKenzie notes</a> that:</span></p> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Hamas makes no secret that, aided and abetted by Iran, it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Any idea of a ceasefire in the current fighting leading to a change in Hamas's dedication to Israel's elimination is naive to the extreme. </span></p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">and he is right but what is also extremely naive that an organization that would put 17 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the 47 Member Hunam Rights Council has no true mandate to represent any solution leading to peace in the Middle East and will certainly not make any effort to guarantee the continued existance of Israel. MacKenzie is right on one point and his article would have been adequate if he had left it at:</span></p> <p dir="ltr" align="center">"The UN Security Council and member states should be ashamed."</p> <p><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;"></span> </p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-63493434958649509422009-01-08T15:47:00.001-05:002009-01-08T20:02:10.620-05:00CUPE Ontario Embarasses Themselves Again<p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">Sid Ryan has shown himself, again, to be a true idiot and Arab apologist by <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=6349343495864950942">proposing a ban on Israeli scholars</a> in Ontario Universities.</span></p> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"In response to an appeal from the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees, we are ready to say Israeli academics should not be on our campuses unless they explicitly condemn the university bombing and the assault on Gaza in general," said Sid Ryan, president of CUPE Ontario.</span></p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">He further illustrated his bigotry by making the standard Islamist <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=6349343495864950942">comparison between the Israelis and the Nazis</a> (that one never gets old):</span></p> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;"> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">"Attacking an institution of learning is just beyond the pale," CUPE Ontario president Sid Ryan said last night. "They deliberately targeted an institution of learning. That's what the Nazis did.</span></p> </blockquote> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">What Sid forgot is that the Nazis also banned people from working who did not pledge allegiance to their chosen dogma - which interestingly also included a hatred of Jews. Sid notes that the ban would not include people who were born in Israel and emigrated, just visiting scholars. So, presumably he is not concerned if one of your grandparents on your mother's side was a.... One thing he did not include was if the ban included Israeli Arabs who did not explicitly condemn the university bombing. Hmm...something to think about.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">Sid did eventually did <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=6349343495864950942">apologize for Nazi thing</a>. Apparently, “(i)t was never (his) intention to hurt or cause offence to anyone. (He) was attempting to draw attention to the terrible bombing of a learning institution. (He) got caught up in the emotion and the comparison (he) used was hurtful and completely beyond the pale.” He still wants to ban the Israeli scholars who don't explicitly condemn the <a href="http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-dare-israelis-bomb-mosque.html">Arms Factory Bombing</a>.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">Apparently he still feels it is important for Israel to stop trying to prevent <a href="http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2009/01/proportional-response.html">Hamas trying to push the Jews into the sea</a>. I suppose that is why Sid was awarded the Canadian Arab Federation's Social Justice Award.</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span style="font-size:85%;">I would fight for his right to believe and say that. I do not, however, believe that Sid has the right to be heard or to continue to be supported as the President of CUPE Ontario. It disgusts me that the people who maintain him there have access to our young people and the ability to pollute their minds with their vile invective.</span></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-80859174671407923342009-01-06T19:48:00.001-05:002009-01-08T20:04:14.427-05:00How Dare the Israelis Bomb a Mosque<span style="font-weight: bold;">Because it was a Munitions Depot!!!!</span><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S0psQ1DBkxw&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S0psQ1DBkxw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-11672587979753887412009-01-06T13:41:00.001-05:002009-01-08T20:04:14.429-05:00Islamic University of GazaWhy would the Israelis target an institution of higher learning in a supposed operation against Hamas?<br /><br />This is the type of question asked by Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Akram Habeeb, who tells us "<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">that IUG is an academic institution which embraces a wide spectrum of political affinities</a>".<br /><br />This is where kidnapped Israeli soldier <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">Cpl Gilad Shalit</a> spent months before being relocated. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">Fatah themselves reported</a> that in February 2007 the Palestinian Presidential Guard stormed the university and "confiscated weapons and ammunition. Palestinian TV aired footage of dozens of rocket-propelled grenade launchers, rockets, and assault rifles, as well as thousands of bullets, that Mr. Abbas’s officials said had been found inside the university."<br /><br />Far from the war crime that it has been painted in <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">The Nation</a> with groups of students being hit trying to find a way home from the University (<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Note that "</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday</a></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >" was reported by a </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=5717933286611833334&postID=1167258797975388741">BBC Jounalist in Gaza</a></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" > though reference to that statement seems to have disappeared from the BBC Site</span>) the IUG is an established arms factory and depot and is an obvious military target.<br /><br />And let's talk about that The Nation article by the cretin Richard Falk, but later...Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-25451429648542008032009-01-04T11:19:00.001-05:002009-01-08T20:04:14.430-05:00Proportional Response<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>I have just decided that I need to change my position on "Proportional Response". I have, until now believed that Proportional Response would be a totally irresponsible policy for Israel that would be equivalent to trading death for death until only one side is still standing. I realized today that proportional response is nothing like that and it is reasonable with the following guidelines:<br/><ul><li>Base "proportional" on the inverse of Article 7 of the Hamas Charter (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem): "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."</li><li>End the "proportional response" when the inverse of the Hamas goal (expressed by Hamas leader Fathi Hammad in Gaza on 2 January 2009) is met: "We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity" <br/></li></ul><br/>This was <a href='http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/146476'>expressed well</a> by (nom de plume) Higgs Boson at Daniel Pipes site (responding to Pipes "<a href='http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2008/12/israels-war-on-hamas-a-dozen-thoughts.html'>Israel's War on Hamas: A Dozen Thoughts</a>" as:<br/><blockquote>Proportional Response --<br/><ul><li>Hamas' stated goal : Total destruction of Israel and death of all Jews.</li><li>Israel's stated goal : Total destruction of Hamas</li></ul>/ Q.E.D.</blockquote></div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-20490232379279516552008-12-31T16:19:00.002-05:002009-01-08T20:04:14.430-05:00There is No Such Thing as "Truce" for Israel<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><blockquote>“BY THE time we’re finished, there won’t be a Hamas building left standing in Gaza.”<br /><small>Israel’s deputy chief of staff, General Dan Harel, to a group of mayors from towns close to the Gaza Strip on 29 December 2008 (<a href="http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12845017&fsrc=rss">The Economist</a>)</small><br /></blockquote>There are protests by Palestinian sympathizers, most of them of Palestinian or Arab extraction, around the world against the <a href="http://hmmmmdfsup.blogspot.com/2008/12/israels-response-is-disproportionate.html"><i>disproportionate</i> force employed over the last few days in Gaza</a>. DISPROPORTIONATE?!?!?! What the hell is proportionate to the indiscriminate use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qassam_rocket">Qassam rockets</a> at Israeli towns for years? Every time I have heard a Palestinian or Arab speaker talk of this on the radio the speak of Fireworks being shot into Israel. <b><big>Bullshit</big></b>. Qassam may not be Tomahawk missiles but they are definitely not fireworks.<br />Why would the Israelis agree to a truce with Hamas? Hamas doesn't believe in Truce for any reason other than regrouping and rearming when they are losing. Whenever Israel unilaterally tries to disengage they see a <u>dramatic incease in attacks</u>. <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Qasam_graph2002-2007.svg/800px-Qasam_graph2002-2007.svg.png" alt="The number of Qassam rockets shot from Gaza into israel by month. years 2002 - 2007." style="max-width: 500px;" /><br />Note that the August 2005 Unilateral Disengagement was closely followed by the highest levels of Qassam activity to date and that has been maintained to the present day. What is the incentive for Israel to make concessions or agree to a "truce".<br />No. Israel must rebuff calls for a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLS69391620081231?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews">Gaza Truce</a>. The onus is on Hamas to stop firing rockets as a first step to peace and that is unlikely. The only way that they will have a moment of peace is to drive Hamas into the ground. They will then have to take it upon themselves to keep Hamas down because the rest of the world has shown a distinct lack of resolve to do so.<br /></div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-71084205602494957332008-12-27T11:46:00.001-05:002008-12-27T13:22:19.558-05:00The Loss of Freedom<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>George Jonas has written a <a href='http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/24/george-jonas-censorship-s-sweet-new-frontier.aspx'>piece on the fate of freedom in the West</a> as we transit from a Classic Liberal to a Modern Liberal society. His post is pretty rambling but his warning is clear - we need to protect basic freedoms and beware of the incursion of false "human rights" that are really individual sensibilities that are rammed down the throats of others.<br/>George has managed to escape from two frightful events in his lifetime - the occupation of Hungary by the Soviet Union and marriage to Barbara Amiel. In the first he became painfully aware of the dangers of the unquestionable sensibilities of the moral elite overriding the rights of anyone to question or debate popular myths and what "everyone knows". We are in serious danger of tredding that path with Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The "right" to not be offended masked as being targeted with "Hate Speech" represents a slippery slope to true authoritarian oppression.<br/><a href='http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2008/12/mind-boggling-inanity-at-chrc.html'>I wrote earlier</a> about the Canadian Human Rights Commission inconsistency in a ruling in Montreal recently compared to the gag order issued to Reverend Stephen Boissoin in Alberta. Social misfires, such as statements that offend others, need to be dealt with socially - if someone offends you shun them. But for the State to issue a gag order on otherwise free speech is an abomination in a "free" country. It is only a short step to including criticism of the government as offensive (or "hate") speech. I believe that the argument that homosexuality (or other things) is blasphemous is wrong. I, however, will defend with my life the right of wrong people to say that it is. They may even be right; I only believe that I argue from God's side of this argument.<br/>Just to be clear, the CHRC finding that the writings of imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti do not represent hate speech against identifiable groups is dead wrong. The ruling gagging Reverend Boissoin is also dead wrong. The difference is that imam Al-Hayiti must have the right to argue his hate and that must be vociferously refuted in the same that the view of Reverend Boissoin must be refuted, not gagged.<br/></div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-45783701559048754842008-12-23T11:36:00.000-05:002008-12-27T13:21:31.103-05:00Opposition Doesn't Like Senate Appointments<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>"<a href='http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1106038'>Harper’s Senate appointments called 'obscene'</a>" reports the Juliet O'Neill in the National Post. What she didn't report until well into the story is that the epithet was issued by New Democratic Party MP David Christopherson. To them all Senate appointments are obscene. <br/>The criticism of the appointments is not restricted to the NDP on ideological grounds or by the Liberals on the grounds of lost opportunity. Conservatives have also come out against them on ideological grounds and that is a sad, short sighted position. As idealists both the NDP and the those conservatives have a single-minded view of the governing of the Nation. <br/>The NDP wants to do away with any mechanism of "second thought" so that, at any opportunity they can practise their social experimentation that has always been the goal of Progressivists. This trial and error method, which considers frequent failure as an acceptable means to an utopian dream, is hampered by an Upper Chamber that has to consider the misery that is caused by ill-conceived schemes of social engineering. It must be abolished. In fact, let's make the Canadian Parliament even more unstable and bring in Proporational Representation and give every fringe group control.<br/>The Liberals saw the possibility of scamming 18 seats in the Senate when they were out of power and it made them sick with delight. At least, not being idealists in any sense of the word, they are calm, if disappointed. They can wait and fight another day.<br/>The conservative idealists who think of the appointments as a betrayal are the saddest subset of them all. They are willing to forego the possibility of a duly elected and responsible Senate for decades in order to stick with the ideal of not appointing unelected Senators ahead of a possibly defeat in January. This attitude was well elucidated by Don Martin in his bitter <a href='http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-don-martin-little-bitter.html'>diatribe</a> in the <a href='http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/22/don-martin-harper-appointments-confirm-senate-role-as-payola-heaven.aspx'>National Post</a>:<br/><blockquote>Instead of reforming it, Mr Harper has reconfirmed the Senate as the pigpen for party has-beens, cast-offs, party bagmen and political pals with a couple honorable mentions thrown in to make the Conservative rebalancing project go down a little easier.</blockquote>Now Martin has his own peccadilloes related to Mike Duffy's appointment but this "baby with the bathwater" attitude is why the Reform Party was never able to govern and shouldn't have. <br/>The reason that I have voted Conservative since 2001 is that they approach politics with principles, unlike the Liberals. They don't, however, stick to an ideology and damn practicality just to make themselves feel righteous. When ideologists fail they are able to blame the betrayers and infidels. They are never around to pick up the pieces.</div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-32120674647580273612008-12-23T10:42:00.001-05:002008-12-27T13:20:04.988-05:00Is Don Martin a Little Bitter?<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>Don Martin has made a pretty transparent "always a bridesmaid..." diatribe in his "<a href='http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/12/22/don-martin-harper-appointments-confirm-senate-role-as-payola-heaven.aspx'>Full Comment</a>" article in the National Post regarding Conservative Senators and, in particular, Journalist Senators.<br/>Apparently, <br/><blockquote>"(t)here’s always professional squeamishness when journalists are granted a juicy patronage plum from the government they are paid to objectively cover."</blockquote>Martin goes on to <strike>suggest</strike> state that, <br/><blockquote>"Whether real or imaginary, journalist appointments by government are viewed as the reward for obedient conduct, a perception further tainted by having Mr. Duffy’s appointment lumped in with a trough-full of patronage payoffs for Conservative fundraisers, defeated candidates and party toadies."</blockquote>Mike Duffy is the most - one of the few - balanced journalists in Canadian Broadcasting. This is acknowledged by all parties and for this alone he deserves such an honour. His judgment will be a welcome honour in the Senate. I will comment on the flurry of bitching about the ethics of these appointments in light of Stephen Harper's view on the Senate in <a href='http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2008/12/opposition-doesn-like-senate.html'>another post</a> and Don Martin's comments will figure in that. <br/>It seems to me that Don Martin's greatest real concern about Mike Duffy's appointment is that it did not go to Don Martin.</div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-16183571536510984022008-12-20T20:48:00.003-05:002008-12-27T13:23:18.427-05:00Mind Boggling Inanity at the CHRCThere is not much I can say about the ridiculous decision by the CHRC to reject a complaint filed by Marc LeBuis regarding hate speech from Montreal imam Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Dameus Al-Hayiti against gays, women and Jews that hasn't been said by <a href="http://fieryspiritedzionist.blogspot.com/2008/12/orwellian-and-hypocritical-canadian.html">Firey Spirited Zionist</a>, <a href="http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1569/128/">Mark Steyn</a>, or <a href="http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/chrc-its-ok-to-say-gays-should.html">Ezra Levant</a> except to say that it is wrong to say, as Al-Hayiti says, that:<br /><ul><li>Homosexuality is a "perversion"</li><li>Homosexuals "spread disorder on earth"</li><li>Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"</li><li>"Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded..."</li><li>"It is because of this religion of lies [Christianity], which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery..."</li><li>Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth."</li><li>Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing..."</li></ul>and he should be shunned from polite society for saying these things. I would defend his right to make an ass of himself by saying them - as I would for Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter entitled "<a href="http://canadianpastor.blogspot.com/">Homosexual Agenda Wicked</a>" to the Red Deer Advocate. He received a lifetime ban on speaking in public about his beliefs about homosexuality. Read the letter at the link. It is nothing like the vitriol of Al-Hayiti.<br /><br />So the lesson is, if you are Muslim you have a right to free speech. If you are not, particularly if you are Jewish or Christian beware not to dislodge your gag.<br /><br />Perhaps something positive will come out of it all. <a href="http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/antichrc-momentum-builds-in-qu.html">Ezra Levant reports</a> that support for the repeal of Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is getting louder and wider. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Jennifer Lynch and her band of zealots at CHRC should finally be looking through the classifieds.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-16918058391879522922008-12-09T18:27:00.002-05:002008-12-09T18:40:14.935-05:00Coalition playng Spin-The-Bottle with DemocracyIn the same vane as I posted earlier, the CPC is definitely concerned with the disregard for democratic due process displayed by the Opposition Parties, particularly the Liberals. This from the National Campaign Chair:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">Stéphane Dion has resigned as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and by extension, of the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition. In yet another stunning and unprecedented demonstration of Liberal contempt for our democratic rights, they've decided to appoint a new leader in his place.<br /><br />Not only was the <strong><u>Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition not elected to govern this country</u> </strong>, but the person who would become <strong><u>Canada's Prime Minister wasn't even the leader of a federal party</u> </strong>during the last election and <strong><u>may not even be elected by the Liberal (or any) party's membership</u> </strong>.<br /><br />The Liberals have decided to parachute Michael Ignatieff into the position of Prime Minister, and one thing is clear: <strong><u>Canadians didn't elect this coalition to form a government</u> </strong>, and they most certainly <strong><u>didn't elect Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister</u> </strong>.<br /><br /><strong>The Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition would be a disaster for Canada's economy, and for our democracy.</strong></span></blockquote><strong><br /></strong>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-32631150883263181042008-12-09T10:29:00.000-05:002008-12-09T18:27:46.634-05:00Nobleman vs. Doberman<p>This is actually the title that <a href="">Lawrence Martin</a> used to lambaste Stephen Harper about his difficult times ahead with "Sir Michael" (Ignatieff) at the helm of the Liberal Party. Apparently, "Mr. Ignatieff will move cautiously, easing off on any coalition commitment," and "...cannot probably help but move his party's numbers upward." </p> <p>On the other hand the vile Conservatives will be reduced to "berat(ing) Mr. Ignatieff as an egghead and beat him up for signing the coalition pact. But his being new to politics means the fire-breathing Harper will have less ammunition on which to base cheap attack ads." </p> <p>How about a lack of concern for the discipline of democracy? Having signed on - once you agree it doesn't matter that you were hesitant - to the failed Socialist/Separatist Putsch Mr. Ignatieff is soon to be annointed by a process that is even a step further removed from the elitist procedure that usually governs Liberal conventions. Following the British model of the Parliamentary Party selecting the leader they have effectively shut out the West in the determination of the next leader. </p> <p>Let's not forget that the Putsch was about to appoint Stephane Dion as Prime Minister - about the only thing about which there was significant concensus during the election was that this should NOT happen. It seems that reversing the slowly strengthening support that the Conservatives are building is justification for just about any mechanism besides seeking a democratic mandate. It would seem that this is because that is the path that is least likely to accomplish their rise to power. Does this sound like a story from the Russian Court of Tsar Alexander I? Perhaps that is because that is where his family came into prominence. Michael Georgievitch Ignatieff might be the son of the fifth son of a Russian Count but it would appear that this apple did not fall far from his noble tree.</p> <p>I don't think that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will be starving for issues upon which to criticize the New Liberals.</p> Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-79008408689214412502008-12-08T19:56:00.000-05:002008-12-27T13:23:18.427-05:00What is FreedomWhat does freedom mean in a real context? Most thinkers trace the development of the idea, in modern times, from Thomas Hobbes, through John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and others. These fellows approached freedom from a highly theoretical direction and, with the exception of Hobbes, considered "freedom" to be from Government interference. Only Hobbes considered that freedom might be from an external influence other than the sovereign government and he considered only the threat from a chaotic anarchy.<br />It seems to me that there are numerous agencies who can threaten our freedom and a strong government is as likely to be our protector as our oppressor. That is why it was developed.<br />I will post ideas and arguments here on this subject. I hope for lively debate.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-8108862298794573592008-12-08T18:44:00.000-05:002008-12-08T19:35:53.150-05:00Liberal CollapseI just watched Martha Hall-Findley talking on CTV about the exciting events in the Liberal Party. They have decided that it is too important that they be able to meet the challenge of tearing apart the elected government to elect their next leader by a democratic process. They are going to do the British model of election by the "parliamentary party".
<br>
<br>Of course, as an anti-Liberal, I think I should be celebrating this. There are almost no Liberal MPs from the West so this will further isolate the Libs from the West and make it a truly regional party of Ontario.
<br>
<br>The rhetoric of "Harper is a dictator who will face the wrath of the people" is getting pretty tiresome and is quite contrary to the polls. They suggest that a Harper-led Conservative Party would win a majority if there was an election now. I don't think that would be a likelihood soon. The way the Libs are going I am pretty sure that they would want to assume power without the inconvenience of a general election. They have demonstrated their distaste for that inefficient technique already now, haven't they?
<br>
<br>Sent from my wireless handheld device / Transmis de mon appareil portableDeep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-66325771886373314142008-12-07T21:33:00.002-05:002008-12-08T19:35:53.151-05:00The Failed NDP/Bloc/Liberal PutschIt would seem that, in the interest of getting into government or disrupting the responsible operation of government, Jack Layton and Stephane Dion will stop at nothing.<br />While it is true that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives did not get a majority to govern a few weeks ago they did get, by far the largest number of seats and the country sent the Liberals a resounding message:<br /><blockquote>"We do not want the Liberals in government and we definitely do not want Stephane Dion to be the Prime Minister."</blockquote>Apparently, the three amigos (Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, and Gilles Duceppe) are wiser than the people of Canada and are willing to override the error to put Dion in the chair - not the driver's chair exactly because both Jack and Gilles (I like that) would have veto authority on all government decisions.<br />Really can't blame Duceppe. He is very honest about the fact that he is not in place to look out for the best interests of Canada. Dion is a Dupe who is punch drunk and should be put away in a confortable room to convalesce. Jack Layton is the evil driver behind this one - I'd bet on it. He looked like a teenage boy with his first boner in the news conference where they signed their pact.<br />I read somewhere that Jack Layton is evidence that the Devil exists and is sowing mischief in the world. A truer statement has not frequently been made.<br />Stephen Harper has been criticised for not being cooperative with the Opposition and doing things their way. He is a bully for governing like he has a majority because the Liberals don't have the courage to defeat him. This assumption has been very accurate for quite some time and Harper has been able to work his way through his entire agenda of promises fromt the 2006 Election. For him to govern otherwise would have been to negotiate from a position that was not as strong as he was in. That would be not only stupid but incompetent.<br />Harper was elected because Canadians had had enough of crooked Liberal management and the fiscal policies of the NDP would be utterly disasterous. It would be utterly irresponsible to use policies that he believed to be untenable when he had the option not to. He didn't and he was right.<br />Stephen Harper is the right man to be the Prime Minister of Canada.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-46439777321289020282008-02-22T19:25:00.004-05:002008-02-23T18:09:31.735-05:00The Challenge of KosovoWell, they have done it. And three permanent members of the Security Council have recognized them. Kosovo is one of the worst candidates outside of Africa to become a viable state. It is unbelievable that the disastrous consequences to a world order that depends on nation-state stability are not recognized by these countries upon whom that order depends. The message of such a successful manoeuvre is that every ethnic minority on the planet can declare themselves sovereign with no consideration to their ability to manage as mature states. <a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0208/glick022208.php3">In the case of Kosovo (from Caroline Glick)</a>:<br /><ul><li>Its forty percent unemployment is a function of the absence of proper economic and governing infrastructures.</li><li>In November 2007, a European Commission report detailed the Kosovo Liberation Army's failure to build functioning governing apparatuses. The report noted that "due to a lack of clear political will to fight corruption, and to insufficient legislative and implementing measures, corruption is still widespread... Civil servants are still vulnerable to political interference, corrupt practices and nepotism." Moreover, "Kosovo's public administration remains weak and inefficient."..."The composition of the government anti-corruption council does not sufficiently guarantee its impartiality," and "little progress can be reported in the area of organized crime and combating of trafficking in human beings."</li><li>The prosecution of Albanian war criminals is "hampered by the unwillingness of the local population to testify" against them. This is in part due to the fact that "there is still no specific legislation on witness protection in place."</li><li>In 2006, John Gizzi reported in Human Events that the German intelligence service, BND confirmed that the 2005 bombings in Britain and the 2004 bombings in Spain were organized in Kosovo. Furthermore, "the man at the center of the provision of the explosives in both instances was an Albanian, operating mostly out of Kosovo...who is second ranking leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army, Niam Behzloulzi."</li></ul>As Glick points out, supporters of Kosovo claim that as victims of "genocide," Kosovar Muslims deserve independence. But if the Muslims in Kosovo have been targeted for annihilation by the Serbs, then how is it that they have increased from 48 percent of the population in 1948 to 92 percent today? Indeed, Muslims comprised only 78 percent of the population in 1991, the year before Yugoslavia broke apart. In recent years particularly, it is Kosovo's Serbian Christians, not its Albanian Muslims that are targeted for ethnic cleansing. Since 1999, two-thirds of Kosovo's Serbs - some 250,000 people - have fled the area.<br /><br />There have been clearances and massacres in that area ever since the Ottomans moved into the neighbourhood in 1389, taking over in 1455. What is needed here is a period of healing and normalization, supported by the international community, not a demonstration of the principle of the Wakf, the belief that any land that has been in Muslim hands belongs to Islam into perpetuity. Ask Spain. They know that they are on the Radar for the loonies to re-establish Andalusia. God help us if this goes much further.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-82417896333970650352008-02-21T18:29:00.003-05:002008-12-27T13:23:36.016-05:00The Archbishop of Canterbury Doesn't Get BritainWho would have thought that the Head of the Church of England would fail to understand why people want to live in Britain.<br /><br />I have read a number of stories about the Archbishop Rowan Williams' comments that the adoption of aspects of Shari'a law was "unavoidable". It occurred to me that it was entirely possible that the writers had missed some important contextual aspect of his speech. Then I found a copy of the <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3333953.ece">full text of his lecture on Islamic Law in Britain</a> and got the full blast of his intent. It is a bit of a tough slog as he is quite obtuse in his pseudo-dialectic. I really do not feel that he wants to Islamize Britain but he fundamentally fails to understand why it is Britain is a place that people want to live and want to go to and live.<br /><br />The Archbishop of Isengard, <a href="http://hmmmmdf.blogspot.com/2008/02/canterbury-and-other-tales-from-dark.html">as I have come to think of him</a>, appears to be under the typical Left Wing belief that we in the West have stumbled on a great place to live in a land of milk and honey through no effort of our own or our ancestors. We [that is our ancestors] haven't gone through tremendous difficulties to arrive at a model of society that permits us to live in conditions where even our poor and disadvantaged would be envied as aristocrats by most of the world. It is this ludicrous assumption that leads to the equally banal conclusion that British Common Law as "A" form of Law but it is not the only form of law that should be considered in Britain.<br /><br />What he the other of his ilk of moonbats don't realize is that British legal tradition is the reason that the most successful Western societies are able to advance and foster the dynamic flow of ideas and energy that drove us to the top of the food chain. We are not locked in the 7th century <span style="font-weight: bold;">because</span> we did not limit ourselves to Shari'a based medievalism. The Islamic world regressed from their Golden Age because they reverted to the primitive tribalism that forbids modern interpretations of Shari'a and growth beyond the desert.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. It is not that Shari'a would merit the force of law outside of the dusty oil patch if it modernized. The real basis of the success of the West is that the Law is based on the secular enlightenment principles that moved it forward and permitted the modern liberal democracy. There is not place for a legally binding decision from anywhere other than the legally constituted State. That includes Shari'a Courts, the Orthodox Jews that the good vicar harped on about or any other non-state agency. There is nothing wrong with people freely going to a priest, rabbi, or imam to mediate a disagreement but when the resulting decision becomes legally binding that is Wrong! The province of Ontario rightly came to that conclusion when the same question arose. All religious legally binding arbitration was banned in <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126472943217_26/?hub=TopStories">September 2005</a>.<br /><br />Ontario moves ahead one step. Canterbury's Britain moves two steps back. I thank God that the Archbishop has none of the authority that some of his predecessors had.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-76170845410179637162008-02-15T22:23:00.002-05:002008-02-15T22:42:12.100-05:00Canada's Role in Afghanistan<div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016977.php">Captain's Quarters</a> lauds the French entry to the NATO Combat Mission in Afghanistan and it is nice to see that the French finally have a leader with a soul but the story is more complicated on the Canadian side with the need to have some Opposition support to do the right thing - something that the opposition Liberals and NDP are loath to do. After a comprehensive study by a Liberal Privy Councilor who is now in private life both parties feel it is best to ignore the recommendations and stick to their old rhetoric.<blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"After touring NATO headquarters, Afghanistan and receiving hundreds of submissions, the independent commission (headed by former Liberal Foreign Minister John Manley) created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders." <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=247806">(National Post)</a></span></blockquote><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=247806"></a>It seems that the way should be clear to maintain the mission until the job is finished, except that the current Liberals have a solution based on their polls and an ideology whose goal is to regain power rather than to do an important job right. They are stuck in a fictional paradigm that Canada's military are not war fighters but peacekeepers. They are happy to screw the people of Afghanistan and make a mockery out of the sacrifices of countless service people and their families including 78 soldiers killed in action in order to be seen to be upholding a nonsense notion of Canada's role in the world.<br /><br />Happily disregarding the report, not prepared by some Conservative hack but by one of their own acting in his capacity as a lifetime Privy Councilor, the Liberal Leader Stephane Dion <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=309123">writes to the Prime Minister</a>:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"The Liberal plan is consistent with our long-standing position that Canada's mission in Kandahar must change in February, 2009. It brings clarity to our goals in Afghanistan by placing a greater emphasis on stronger and more disciplined diplomatic efforts, and striking a better balance with respect to the reconstruction and development efforts that will be essential to creating a stable Afghanistan."</span></blockquote>Manley's report recommended that the government get tough on the parts of NATO who have not been carrying their weight against the greatest threat to the Alliance since the fall of the Iron Curtain. It did, however, recommend that Canada continue to fight to maintain their gains. The Liberals feel that the "mission must be about more than the military: There is no<br />exclusively military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan so our<br />efforts must be balanced between defence, diplomacy and development." Clearly we have missed all our opportunities to negotiate a peaceful solution with the nihilist Taliban who, despite their every attempt to destroy all that has been built for the people of Afghanistan, really want to see the development succeed.<br /><br />The NDP under Taliban Jack Layton want to withdraw all Canadian Troops <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/afghanistan/story.html?id=285713">immediately</a> regardless of the disaster that would result for the people of Afghanistan. After all, there can't be a war if we don't fight, right. Jack is the fellow who has consistently cooperated with the Taliban by insisting on surrender and withdrawal every time a Canadian soldier is killed - ensuring the next attack will occur. Without Jack's participation, the IEDs would be worthless. This is, of course, the party that (as the CCF) insisted until 1942 that we pull out of WWII.<br /><br />Why is all this important? Because, without the support or abstinence of one of the Opposition Parties the Government cannot pass a resolution on the future of the mission. The NDP will not play grown-up and the Liberals would rather play politics. The Manley Report brought the French in but the Liberals want us just to switch places with them in the Coward's Section.<br /></div>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-41038401546814236432008-02-15T11:57:00.002-05:002008-02-15T13:58:49.824-05:00Canterbury and Other Tales From the Dark SideI just read Kathleen Parker's article "Canterbury and Other Tales From the Dark Side" in (<a href="http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker021508.php3">JWR</a>). I thought it was spot on. I particularly liked the reference to Mordor:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"One does not have to be anti-Islam to be concerned as radical Islam clashes with Modern Europe. One does have to be blind - or in dangerous denial - not to be concerned that threats and violence from religionists, coupled with incremental accommodations and submissions by the soon-to-be "formerly" dominant culture, are leading to a darker age.<br />Is that the land of Mordor in the distance?"</span></blockquote>This gave me the picture of Rowan Williams as the Archbishop of Isengard. Unfortuately, I don't see a Mithrandir in the wings waiting to rescue the Anglican Communion from this misguided dolt. It is sad, too. I used to like to be an Anglican.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-30595642630951856242008-02-13T21:37:00.003-05:002008-12-27T13:23:18.428-05:00Canadian vs Islamist Values<small><i><blockquote>"There's a widespread belief in the public that people don't want to hear offensive speech all the time. But to some degree, we have to permit it in our society if we're going to have freedom of speech."</blockquote></i></small><br />That was the thought that <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=303895">Richard Bronstein</a> publisher of the <i>Jewish Free Press</i> after he came to an agreement with Syed Soharwardy to withdraw his complaint at the Alberta Human Rights Commission. That perfectly summarizes the whole point that Ezra Levant has been making in his very public dispute with the same commission. The whole point of Levant's defense is that Canadians have a foundational right to free speech within some very limited criminal restrictions.<br /><br />Levant and Bronstein did not try to incite violence and they said nothing slanderous. They did offend some people who think that no-one should criticize Muhammad because Muslims are not supposed to criticize Muhammad. There seems to be a belief, not just in Canada, that ethnic minorities - most often lately this means Muslims - have a right to not be offended. No-one has a right to not be offended. Multiculturalism doesn't mean that Canadians who have been in Canada are required to accommodate everyone else's sensibilities while new arrivals are not required to adjust their expectations to our society.<br /><br />While Soharwardy has now dropped the complaints his <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060212/cartoons_060212?s_name=&no_ads=">comments to the CTV in 2006</a> show how little he understands the paradigm he lives in here in the free West:<br /><p></p><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>Syed Soharwardy of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said publishers of the cartoons should apologize and added that they are abusing freedom of the press.<br />"They have to apologize in the newspaper, and they have to condemn their action, and they have to come to our centre and apologize to our congregation, too," he said.</i></span></blockquote><p>It is Soharwardy who should apologize to Levant, Bronstein, and everyone in Canada who believes in the importance of a constitutional democracy and to whom a Sharia based society would be intolerably offensive existence.<br /></p><p>Levant's oddessy and his brilliant responses to the AHRC can be seen <a href="http://ezralevant.com/">here</a>.<br /></p>Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5717933286611833334.post-22224031360221927022008-02-13T12:32:00.007-05:002008-02-13T13:18:49.882-05:00Danish Solidarity<img alt="Muhammad Cartoon" src="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/pubfiles/jyllandsposten_bombhead.jpg" width="250" align="right" />So here is the item that inspired me to start writing again. The link goes to <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016965.php">Captain's Quarters</a>, one of my favourite sources of information and dialogue on contemporary issues. The issue in this place is the plot to murder Kurt Westergaard, the author of the cartoon at the right. As reported by CNN, Danish papers have <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/">demonstrated solidarity</a> with Westergaard and Jyllands-Posten over the fundamental Western Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.<br /><br />I can't think of anything more important than this issue and the need to defend our society against the constant attacks on the fabric of Western society by the minions of Islamofascism. It will not stop until the world has submitted to the harsh Salafist interpretation of Sharia law. Live and let live is not an option. I have supported this since I first read about the animal furor that occurred in response to the cartoons (see the marker at the sidebar), I use Danish products when I can, and I push the issue whenever I can. I strongly recommend that anyone who values our Western way of life do the same and that anyone who has a forum to do so links to the Captain's Quarters post linked in this title or to the Michelle Malkin post <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/13/mohammed-cartoon-reprint-show-your-solidarity/">here</a>.<br /><br />This really is worth everything that we stand for. Watch in the near future for posts about the Canadian shame at the Alberta Human Rights Commission where <a href="http://ezralevant.com/">Ezra Levant</a>, former publisher of the Western Standard, is defending his right to Free Speech after publishing the Danish Cartoons in the WS.Deep Thoughthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06078048101367257536noreply@blogger.com0