Here's the predictions I made at the beginning of the year:
- Harper will still be PM.
- The liberal party will not learn any lessons from the recent past.
- The Bloc will continue to be irrelevant.
- The NDP will continue to chip away at the liberal left wing.
- Harper will get his senate reforms passed.
- Warren Kinsella will have to take up a new career to make ends meet.
- Jane Taber will be given a new desk.
- Some liberal MP's will become a liability for their leader.
- Elizabeth May's political career will come to an end.
- A politician will be doing a perp walk on charges arising from the Adscam investigation.
I'm holding out for number 5 and number ten, number 6 is contentous as Warren will always say he was just a "volunteer" (cough-bs-cough).
I'd definately say 3, 4, 8, and 9 where a big confirmed as we saw many a liberal MP prove to be liabilities (Hedy Fry, Wayne Easter (and his doorknob Warren Kinsella), Carolyn Bennet, Bob Rae, U Dosanj, Mark Holland, and of course who can forget Ruby Dalla. Elizabeth May at the Munk debate make a jackass of herself, the Bloc forget their main platform plank, and Jack Layton moving his party to the center-left dislodging the liberals...of course if they want they can move to the far right...no?
In close, I'll just say that Jane Taber may be due for a move, and an elected senate may be the first order of business once Harper has his senate majority in the new year.
Oh yes and if there is porougation, then the liberals will bring the government down right.
Then there would be an election.
One their leader likely won't survive, which means Iggy will try to avoid one again, which means Harper will still be PM.
I'll post some predicitions for 2010 in the new year, except this one I'll post now. The occupiers of the Douglas estates will do something stupid this year to get attention and will be removed..finally.
Labels: 2009 predictions
Observations at years end
First out of the blocks: the only people talking about porogation of the HoC are liberals, that dog won't hunt. The logic is specious, why porougue when you don't have to? Oh I know you guys still want to accuse in a sub-text type of accussation that you don't really say our troops where complicit in torture of terrorists, but you are.
First they are the enemy, second, we don't make Afghans laws they do, and third if I thought the guy that was just brought in for questioning knew who was planting roadside bombs and landmines how far do you want me to go to get that info...epsecially if it means saving the life of our troops and the people they are trying to protect...the Afghans themselves.
By the way, most of the insurgent terrorists that get captured are not locals, they are foreign fighters that won't stop at simple torture to get their way.
On the flip side of that, if the info gets released to the public, be assured that the Taliban will eagerly await its release to peruse just who revealed some of the info so that they can go instill some retribution on the informant and the troops that captured him.
Next off, the direction of the country. Too bad liberals and CINO's, the country is moving right.
If a so-called liberal like Bob Rae is telling the media that all the liberals have to do is recapture the center ground thats one thing, but if in the next breath he referes to the conservative government as hard right wing, doesn't that admit the center has eitehr shifted right or that the liberals are far left?
Here's the test. Why don't one of you oh-so-smart columnists that want to do our thinking for us ask Mr Rae where in that center ground he see's a liberal high ground (a defendable policy position) and describe how it will appeal to conservative voters.
Next, lets remind Ian Gillespie of the London Free Press that if he's going to attack the current government for being out of touch, he might want to keep Glen Pearson's name out of it as he seems to currently enjoy appearing at photo-ops with Cabinent Ministers making funding announcements (I noticed his wife wasn't present, maybe she was at the LPF giving Ian his talking points).
Copenhagen turned out just as I figured it would, a disaster.
To coin a phrase, proof a da proof that a turd cannot be polished.
Hey Green party, keep Elizabeth May your leader and you will be the next fossil in Canada's political history.
About that support for local tv campaign...perhaps this idea might help.
Rather than p*ss away close to a billion a year on the MTV centric CBC(Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) lets take that money and give it to tv stations that are sole service providers for a local market.
The other option is to just stop funding a so-called public broadcaster that refuses to support the small stations (like they used to), artificially inflates ad costs by competing with private broadcasters, and refuses to control its own costs (hey if a company knows it is getting a billion tax dollars a year and still can't earn enough to meet budget theres a problem).
Finally, lets see how long it takes before one of the undeclared candidates in the unofficial liberal leadership race to get outed. Nothing takes the pressure off the other conteders like the knowledge that their fingerprints won't be on the knife.
I'm guessing thats why Justin Trudeau is not saying much to incur the wrath of Denis Coderre or Martin Cauchon.
Labels: the free lunch crowd at it again
Gilligan strikes again
Yep, Gillligan makes a total arse of himself again with the latest liberal faux pas to blow up in their face.
How so?
Contest is launched on party website to photo-shop the Prime Ministers face on where he'd rather be than Copenhagen.
By the way, lets get one thing straight, the day that Harper is afraid to go somewhere and confront a bunch of spineless pansies that don't understand basic economics and where all that money actually comes from is the day I find myself a cabin in soem remote wilderness.
But I digress.
Contest runs and lets the entrants know that every entry will be reviewed and they will get a chance to pick the finalists.
So what gets to the finals?
Some dip stick puts up the infamous photo of Oswald beig gunned down by Jack Ruby with Harper's face super-imposed over Oswald's.
So what's the message here?
Liberals equate Harper with someone that would assasinate a sitting US president?
No?
Liberals equate Harper with someone that should be blamed for the assassination of Kennedy?
Not that either eh?
Or is it that liberals want to see our PM assassinated...
Hey after the rucus they made over the Chretien face ad, the bar was set, by them.
How is it that Gilligan should be the guy to wear this?
Simple, web content is a party operation that is tied tightly to war room ops, black ops to be precise.
Who is responsible for the clowns that reviewed but still posted this "entry".
That would be the head clown in the war room.
So if Donolo doesn't want to see his boss get dragged down further by the shinanigans of the first mate of the SS Minnow, he might want to maroon him somewhere till after the next election.
I don't expect this advise to get heeded, which is fine by me, I want the liberals to go down in flames.
Keep up the good work Kornflake.
Labels: useful idiots
Why those documents on transfers have to stay secret
Because in that info there will be names and places of Afghan informants that the Taliban would dearly love to discover and use to locate those Afghanis that have been assisting out troops and providing information.
Thats why we don't release that info, for the sake of providing security not only to the troops recieving the info, but the Afghans we are fighting to protect from the Taliban.
Labels: Lest we forget
Of detainee's and terrorist enablers
The contention is that the government is covering that detainees are being tortured once they are handed over to the Afghan forces.
Nobody seems to want to even allude to the circumstances under which these "detainees" came under the control of Canadian forces in the first place.
No the point that is being stressed is that something bad happened and it was because of the current government.
Did the government torture these detainees? Answer, no.
Did the CAF part take in torturing these detainees? Again no.
Did the Canadian government request the detainees be tortured? Three times no.
So why is the government being accused of cover up?
Because the opposition wants to have a scandal to beat the current government with,, nothing more, nothing less.
Because if we really want to dig into this "issue" we shouldn't just look at the time between 2006 - 2007, we need to look into this from the outset of the mission and if any thing changed up to the current day.
Of course then we can call former defence ministers and former prime ministers before the committee to testify about what they knew or should have known.
And we know how well Paul Martin handles being in front of an inquiry judge.
My point is that if the liberals are so sure of a cover up over possible torture, then its possible they knew about it because they where the ones ordering the CAF and the diplomats to keep quite about it well before 2006.
Because this is all about what possibly happened.
To close.
The term detainee sounds pretty mundane and frankly its inaccurate when you consider the individuals the Army captured and under what circumstances. They didn't find these guys by happenstance, they where caught trying to kill coalition forces, you know, the enemy.
That would be the folks that go around torturing their victims without the constraints of the Geneva Convention. The folks that will kidnap and kill their victims, usually videoed and used to intimidate afghans into submission. These are the people the liberals want to protect from torture.
Frankly, if these guys may have been tortured, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them, sort of the same way I feel sorry for any other terrorist that gets caught in the act.
This is all subjective of course, because the whole argument is based on possible torture of the bad guys at the hands of Afghanis that have suffered torture at the hands of these same detainees....remember, subjective opinion.
Labels: eliminate terrorism now
Hebert needs to get outside of the Montreal Toronto corridor more often
Todays missive from Hebert seems to be framed in the pov of that old canard of the two solitudes.
Thats the reason for the title.
Chantal still like most of the closet separatists, that the is legislation existant that makes Quebec an integrial part of any legal construct in the nation.
The truth which she usually alludes to is this time ignored. Used to be that folks bought the unity crisis hook line and sinker....welcome to the internet age....the fact is that Quebec is no longer able to threaten the unity of the country since the coup attempt last year.
The veil is lifted.
So you can try to gin up as much opposition in the guise of a unity crisis all you want. But that execise is likened to the debater that tries to link holocast denial with those that are critical of AGW...you just lost the argument.
Here's the irony.
If Chantal and the rest of the media echo chamber are going to contend that without Canada adopting Quebec's target (and effectively killing the economy of the oil patch) then does it not also follow that all nations (read China, India and Brazil as well as the US) have the same obligations? BTW, I do recall that Harper just visited India and China, what do you suppose was talked about...oh yeah...it wasn't AGW it was the economy.
In closing, there is always a point in time where the next generation gets to replace the current one, its called attrition I believe.
There is a new philosophy developing out there, and the current crop of columnists seem to be stuck in 1967 just fiddling while their rome burns. Chantal needs to understand this.
We don't fear the separatists anymore, they are irrelevant.
We don't listen to the aging hippies anymore, as they have become the establishment they used to protest against.
The crisis mongers don't sway opinion like they used to, now they get mocked.
Welcome to the brave new world Chantal.
Labels: useful idiots
The world is shifting to the right
no matter how much the left and its enablers don't like it.
Mr. Obama is going to have to realize, no matter how much his administration tries to spin it, that the Afghan conflict is now his war.
He's going to have to understand that if he wants to put riders on any troop deployments that telling NATO by phone, or getting Biden the buffoon to be his salesman, won't work. What he will have to do is personally address each government body publicly and directly where his words will be on record. In Canada's case, he will have to speak to a special joint session of Parliament with a request for more troops, or at least another extention. There is no other way.
The libs are useless, and have proven they can't reverse the course they are now on to political oblivion, no "big thinkers conference" (tm), rebranding of the leader v2.0, or faux scandal of the moment is going to change that. The tipping point is that now the NDP is looking and playing the part of the center-left option.
Speaking of the wheels coming off certain accepted maxims....those emails that prove, yes prove, AGW is the hoax we all thought it was, shows that the only thing more pathetic than the so-called scientists that still hold the myth to be settled science, are the media outlets that refuse *cough*CBC*cough* to report it.
Which segue's into the last point about the MSM wanting the government to shakedown cable for a cut in their profits (which will be passed on to the consumer which means its a tax). When cable first started airing your "programming" why didn't you bill them then? Looking at a cost benefit, it would seem cable is giving you guys a wider audience than you would get from just using a transmission tower. Besides, after seeing a youtube video of Mary Walsh pathetic attempt at trying to embarrass Sarah Palin at a book signing, lets do this.
We change the rules so that cable companies are not forced to air local and especially the CBC. Lets give the consumer a real choice, the cable companies set a price per channel, if you want it you pay for it, if you don't want it you don't have to pay for it. Of course this concept being the gorrilla in the room, its not surprising that networks like CBC that benefits from numerous government production subsidies, and aprox. 1 billion in government funding, would try to steer the conversation away from something that would provide the government an accurate metric of the size of the CBC audience. In an industry model where CBC wants to benefit from a user pay system, they don't seem to want the disadvantage of having to provide a competative product which isn't funded by a government bailout year after year.
Lastly, the opposition have proven their lack of accumen by jumping at the chance to find some kind of scandal even to the point of not caring what effect that has on those that put their lives at risk to defend the country. Word of caution to them, karma has a bad habit of biting you on the backside.
