Friday, October 31, 2008

The Left, Radical Islam and Obama

Warning here.

ht: Canada Free Press

Emphasis mine.
The discussion of Islam, to the extent that is mentioned at all in the campaign, has mostly been limited to a rather inconclusive debate in the blogosphere as to whether Obama is a Muslim or not, and a more substantive, if suppressed by the mainstream media, discussion of Senator Obama’s questionable ties to radical Islamists and anti-Semites. The latter has provided more than enough empirical evidence to at least give a pause to a dispassionate observer as to Obama’s pious assertions of his dedication to the struggle against Islamic extremism and friendship for Israel. Without going into too much detail, these connections include well-documented close ties with Black Panther mentor-turned-radical Muslim and Wahhabi stooge, Khalid al-Mansour (nee Don Warden); Nation of Islam hate-spewing, anti-white racist, Louis Farakhan; Columbia professor and apologist of Palestinian terrorism, Rashid Khalidi; and last, but not least, Salam Ibrahim, an alleged Taliban sympathizer and chairman of the defunct Chicago Shariah-finance company Sunrise Equities, who appears to have absconded with $80 million of his clients’ funds.

What all of these unsavory men have in common, apart from friendship with and admiration for Barack Obama, is their passionate dislike for the United States and their virulent anti-Semitism. This may not prove that Obama himself is an Islamist, an anti-Semite or an anti-American, it but it does show that, throughout his career, he has willingly associated with, and been mentored by, people who are.

As much as this should be an issue of serious concern, the growing nexus between radical Islam and the Left is ultimately of much greater systemic consequence and one that goes far beyond current election considerations to present a palpable threat to the future of this country and Western civilization itself.

It is thus not a huge surprise that a radical Leftist like Barack Obama would find an enthusiastic reception in a party that itself has become socialist in everything but name. And like its fellow-socialist confreres in Europe and elsewhere, it is a party that implicitly rejects individual rights, the free market system and the Judeo-Christian moral order on which they are based in favor of socialist collectivism, multiculturalism and robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul redistributionism. More than anything else, it rejects the imperative to defend those sacrosanct American principles against enemies foreign and domestic, as enshrined in our Constitution, in favor of political correctness, utopian pacifism and appeasement of evil.

Read the whole thing.

And stop doing this:

Liberal Fascism Marches On In Free World: Australia Plans To Censor Internet

Australians to fall under authoritarian state thumb now?

This is disturbing. I just cannot believe it. And I find out about it on Halloween, to boot!

Scary. What the hell?!

Who's in charge in Australia anyway?

The revelations emerge as US tech giants Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and a coalition of human rights and other groups unveiled a code of conduct aimed at safeguarding online freedom of speech and privacy.

The government has declared it will not let internet users opt out of the proposed national internet filter.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy revealed the mandatory censorship to the Senate estimates committee as the Global Network Initiative, bringing together leading companies, human rights organisations, academics and investors, committed the technology firms to "protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users".

Yeah, right. Protect freedom of expression and privacy rights by censoring everyone according to the dictates of none other than the state acting on behalf of corporations, "human rights" groups and God knows who else.

Human Rights Watch has condemned internet censorship, and argued to the US Senate "there is a real danger of a Virtual Curtain dividing the internet, much as the Iron Curtain did during the Cold War, because some governments fear the potential of the internet, (and) want to control it"

It'll be just like in China, in Iran... where there are no human rights whatsoever. It appears that now the Free World's human rights are being eroded by statists, big business, Far-Left "human rights groups" (c'mon, are they really about human rights if they're actually going to deny them?) and who else? Communists? Sexual extremists? Islamofascists? Fascistic atheists? Wealthy, hypersensitive, powerful, imposing, self-labelled "Progressive" elitists like George Soros, the Clintons, the Obamas? Who else is behind the curtain scheming to control the People via thought policing?

I'm reminded of Canada's "human rights" commissions. They were set up to merely mediate in matters of employment and housing in terms of ensuring that peoples' Charter rights were respected, period. But they've illegally, unconstitutionally gone far, far beyond that into the realm of literally forbidding individuals from expressing themselves in ways arbitrarily deemed inconvenient to some, plus their right to a fair trial is wholly ignored, plus they're fined thousands of dollars... this is the nature of the Trojan Horse of "Human Rights" "Protection".

It's a Nazi masquerading as Mother Theresa.

Saying they're "protecting human rights", the Liberal Fascists are no different than the Chinese Communist Party calling their authoritarian regime the "Peoples' Republic" or North Korea calling itself "Democratic".

You know, we CAN'T trust this sort of thing.

Don't believe the elites when they say, "It's for your own good that we'll control you, determine what you can and cannot do; we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the greater good; we believe it's better to spread the wealth...".

It's critical, therefore, that we ferociously oppose this attempted fascism and denial of our human rights by the elites. If we don't, then we'll lose our freedom of expression. I guarantee it; we're just about to step onto the top of the slippery slope; we must step away- far, far away from it NOW!

Sic semper tyrannis!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

"Progressives" Manipulated Mentally Challenged To Vote Obama?

That would be nasty, reprehensible. This is what's supposed to be "progressive"?

SONORA, CA - The California Republican party is asking the secretary of state to investigate an organized voting campaign involving developmentally disabled adults in Tuolumne County.

As many as ten clients of the Thumbs Up! adult care center have already cast absentee ballots under the supervision of center director David Simerley, and nearly all of them were for Barack Obama.


"What kind of people would do this to somebody like that," asked Sam Rascon, who discovered his son had registered and voted only after seeing him with an Obama button last Thursday. "He wouldn't know one candidate from another."

News10 spoke to Michael Rascon at the Thumbs Up! center about the election. When asked which candidate he'd voted for, Rascon answered "the black man." He was unable to remember Obama's name.

I would certainly hope that self-labelled "Progressives" wouldn't do such a nasty, mean thing.

One can't help but wonder about this, especially in light of the shocking hatred we've seen expressed by self-labelled "Progressives" against Sarah Palin, who chose to have a baby who happens to have Down's Syndrome. Is this why "Progressives" hate Mrs. Palin so much, because she loves her son no matter what? Or is it because she's a Christian? Or is it because she's not a so-called "Progressive"? Why do they hate her so much? We don't know- they never said... they just express hatred, period. In fact, I doubt even they know why they're so full of hatred for Mrs. Palin, themselves. Such is the nature of mental affectation by influential, ironically trusted, others.

This is disturbing. It's a lot like what happened to many, many Germans under the Third Reich being manipulated by the Goebbels Big Lie propaganda campaign into simply hating Jewish people... Today's "Progressives" apparently haven't "progressed" as human beings beyond the guillible Germanfolk who were brainwashed by Hitler's incredibly evil ideology being propagated all over the place, everywhere they went... much like we see the brand-new, unknown, untested, mysterious, silver-tongued orator Barack Hussein Obama being propagated by the MSM to the American electorate as America's Savior or whatever equally unbelievable!

One can't help but wonder what kind of people comprise the visible movement self-labelled "Progressive" (meaning, in reality, socialists/communists). Are these people evil? Hateful? I ask because they express such shocking hatred, including the moron who lynched Mrs. Palin in effigy without explaining why on Earth he'd do such a horrible, shocking thing (Really, "It's Halloween" doesn't suffice!).

When I say "visible movement", I'm referring to those prominent "Progressive" folks we see and hear about in the mainstream media, including on the newsmedia, in sitcoms, dramas, movies, etc., as contrasted with ordinary folks who merely allow themselves to be told what to think/believe/how to vote by those de-facto opinion/propaganda-mongers. These opinion/propaganda-mongers include some of the more radical Leftists in the mainstream media (MSM) and amongst celebrities, like actors and talk-show hosts. We've especially been granted the pleasure of hearing the shocking hatred being spewed forth from the collagen-puffed lips of ditzy, wealthy celebrities who, we note, always fail to explain why they say such horrible things about Mrs. Palin.

One cannot avoid the conclusion: Progressives are prejudiced to the extent of being hateful, period!

I just hope the report of "Progressives" manipulating the mentally challenged into voting Obama isn't true. But if it is, they should be exposed and appropriately sanctioned under the law.

More Reports, Concerns About Obama's Ideologically Formative Past Revealed

Story here.

It's sure to unhinge the lurking, trolling zombie-looking, kool-aid swilling Obama followers... they're certain to attack the messenger as...

"Oh, I'm very sorry, buddy, but, you see, WND is not credible because it's not big-money, big-corporation mainstream media, as only mainstream media can ever be believed... what... Dan Rather? CBS? Fake document? Blogger exposed it all? No, no, noooooo! Shut up, you

...(Note that MSMer Dan Rather's infamous, arrogant lie about Bush was debunked, but I have yet to see the Left debunk the inconvenient reports coming from the
non-MSM, so I see no problem in passing on the reports, as fair's fair, and the MSM passes on all kinds of negative "information" about "right-wingers" which they don't prove but which voters take as if fact, so... fair's fair. Sure, on a few occassions, it turns out to be incorrect, but then again, guess what- it also sometimes turns out to be incorrect when the big-money MSM does the reporting! Is your brain feeling a little different right now? Hmm?)

The MSM also uses "sources" as their proof, even though they don't name them.

(Empasis mine)

HONOLULU, Hawaii – The late Marxist activist Frank Marshall Davis, frequently accompanied by young Barack Obama and his grandfather Stanley Armour Dunham, sold marijuana and cocaine from a "Chicago style" hot dog cart Davis operated near his home on Kuhio Avenue in Waikiki in the early 1970s, WND has established.

A credible source, a well-known resident of Honolulu who spoke at length with WND on condition he not be named, disclosed that Davis was the source of drugs consumed by Obama. Davis was also the author of an autobiographical novel boasting of "swinging" and sex with minors, a copy of which WND obtained from Andrew Walden, a resident of the Hawaiian island of Hilo and publisher of the Hawaii Free Press.

This only adds to the long, long list of disturbing associations between Obama and disturbing extremists, associations which should be raising concerns more widely, but which the big-money mainstream media appears to be carefully suppressing for some reason, a reason which begs investigation to determine who's the driving force behind this suppression. After all, the American People have every right to the truth and every right to demand it...

There's also an account of the supposed moment at which Obama had first been made to believe that it's ok to be hateful as long as the color of one's skin is dark enough. Looks to me (and many others) like he still believes it. Couple this information with the inconvenient truth that Obama spent two whole decades attending a "church" pastored by a hateful, racist, anti-American extremist named Wright, only curtailing attendance for political optics after all the inconvenient commentary about such attendance and the hateful pastor.

It sounds as if Obama has been prejudiced by another person... and that he still harbors this prejudice, if one has read his autobiography, which experts have determinded, via handwriting analysis was actually written by Obama's good friend, the known terrorist Ayers...

Here's the disturbing incident, in which it's clear that this radical mentor Davis is said to instill racial hatred and xenophobia into young Barry:

Davis told Obama, "She understands that black people have a reason to hate."

In response, Obama said, "The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment. I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone."

You know, this is pretty much the same way which the disgusting, reprehensible "skinheads" become prejudiced- via being told prejudicial stuff, by folks with whom they'd become comfortable and up to whom they look for guidance, and would easily believe the prejudice-mongering. In this case it's said that he was essentially given guidance by a suspected Communist that he should be hateful just because he's, well, got darker skin than "the others". What's the difference? Prejudice is prejudice; racism is racism; hate is hate, no matter what one's skin color or whatever, and I reject that it can be rationalized, for to rationalize that which is evil is to rationalize, by extension, evil itself, and to do that will infinitely corrupt one's character. In a nutshell, intolerance and xenophobia is not acceptable in the least for anyone and should most definitely especially be openly, publicly, widely discussed in light of a person's seeking political power, and any suspicions that the person might be somehow prejudiced must necessarily be addressed, no matter whom the person might be, no matter what his or her skin color. To ignore such concerns in Obama's case would be no different from ignoring the concerns that were rightly raised and aired about David Duke, who most recently attended Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disgusting Holocaust-denial conference, by the way.

This information only adds to the questions being asked about the mysterious Obama, who appears set to take power over America and Americans, apparently on behalf of seen and unseen others... Yes, the irony of it is that the Democratic Party of which Obama is a member is the party that offshot as its murderous militant wing the dreaded Ku Klux Klan and which even now has a former Klan Grand Kleagle as a sitting Senator representing the Party... Like I say, the Left is a movement of bizarre, inexplicable, scary ironies and contraindications... how can anyone trust the Left, or any Leftists, then, like, say, the mysterious, relatively-unknown, Obama?

It reminds me of the time the reprehensible, disgusting, detestable David Duke tried to become President. Of course, in his case, the MSM had no problem calling him what he is and completely destroying any possibility of him achieving power, and the MSM was right to do that, although it's unfortunate that they refuse to consider the possibility in this case that the candidate in question today might be a racist, too.

The Telegraph of London reported in August that Davis and Stanley Dunham smoked marijuana together and that Obama was first introduced to Davis by Dunham in 1970, when Obama returned from Indonesia.

So what if back then Obama was a kid? Nothing stops kids from associating with and being influenced and prejudiced by older mentors, does it? I don't believe that it's valid, therefore, to dismiss revelations of past disturbing mentor-protege associations involving known or suspected extremists just because someone was a youth and not an adult.
After all, although one certainly can, one doesn't automatically "grow out of" prejudices acquired during one's critical formative years. One can continue, for the rest of one's life, to harbor these prejudices deep down, living a normal life, and these deep-rooted prejudices can always be recalled and brought to the forefront without one even realizing it. In someone like the President of the most powerful nation on Earth, this is potentially dangerous. Hence the urgency of examination of one's past, particularly one's critical formative years, and of any mentors of questionable character, not to mention more recent statements and writings made by the person (many of which are disturbing yet unreported by the big-money Leftist MSM).

In other commentary, this time by David Kupelian (an astonishingly intelligent person whose striking ability to understand and explain the real world astonishes me), author of The Marketing of Evil, a shocking, fully-referenced, true expose of the whole radical Leftist movement, which I've personally read and fully recommend to everyone as an absolute must-read, we consider whether Barack Hussein Obama is a "Manchurian Candidate" (I recently watched the contmporary movie remake and understand what this means; I recommend acquiring the movie and watching it, too, before election day, although I now realize that the remake was heavily rewritten, obviously by contemporary Leftist Hollywood propaganda writers, going from having the entity behind the Candidate being the Communists to being a big corporation, and also using the Iraq conflict as a backdrop, so we'd be best advised to see the original movie as well.). Go here for the discussion.
After all, in past presidential contests, Americans have flatly rejected ultraliberal candidates like McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis – and those guys weren't nearly as radicalized as Obama, who the nonpartisan National Journal rates as having the most left-wing voting record in the entire U.S. Senate – even more so than socialist Bernie Sanders! Moreover, recently it's been proven, despite his campaign's denials, that Obama was indeed a member of the socialist "New Party." And Obama himself confesses that during his college days he intentionally sought out Marxists as friends.

So, how do we explain all this? Why are so many of us eager to turn our nation, the greatest and noblest on earth, over to an angry-at-America, hardcore left-wing "change agent" who will – with the help of a like-minded, Democrat-dominated Congress and a liberal-activist federal judiciary – bring about radical "change" to every area of our lives? Just consider:


In the classic 1962 movie thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," a man was programmed by communist handlers, and then emerged into the public arena as a hero, with a largely manufactured history, large parts of which were either obscured or changed. Then he was planted into a position of great influence, having been programmed to usher in tremendous change at the appointed time.

Barack Obama was programmed for years by his atheist, Muslim father, by the communist sex pervert Frank Marshall Davis, by con man Tony Rezko, by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and others – most of all by black liberation theology screamer Jeremiah Wright. Obama's resume is largely manufactured. There is a total blackout on his college years. His campaign obscures what he did as a "community organizer." All his radical associations are denied or minimized. His miserable legislative record (voting "present" over 100 times to avoid taking a stand), his lack of achievement, his radical views and so on – all have been laundered through the magic of public relations into the near-sacred saga of "The One" who has been sent to serve, and to save, America.

Go ahead, read the rest. It's an absolute must-read!


Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Abortion Survivor Hits Back At Obama

Recently I did this post.

Now for a follow-up, as Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, has made another ad in response to the Obama campaign's hostile, lying response to her original ad asking Obama to support the human rights of people who are born alive despite an attempt to murder them prior to birth.

One cannot help but wonder why Barack Hussein Obama is so hostile towards a woman whose rights he doesn't respect, as, as far as he's concerned, she shouldn't be alive in the first place.

I guess that when it comes to human rights, like the rest of the Left, Barack Hussein Obama picks and chooses according to the principle of convenience. This means that human beings who are deemed inconvenient by the Left are to be dealt with as deemed appropriate by same.

Kind of like the Nazis and the Chinese Communist Party... and like the big human-baby-slaughterhouse corporation "Planned Parenthood", which is racist and was founded by a Nazi, actually...

Yes, ironies abound aplenty here, but when it comes to the Left, irony is the rule rather than the exception...

Obama Would Radically Leftify Courts: Expert

Imagine an America in which a man like Barack Hussein Obama appoints judges based on their compatibility with his agenda, not based on their qualifications and record of doing their job as the U.S. Constitution mandates.

Barack Hussein Obama, if he becomes President of America, will stack the courts with leftist judges to impose his socialistic redistributive agenda, says a legal expert. (Read the whole thing!)

Indeed, those who understand how the real world has been working will understand that, yes, Obama will appoint radical left-wing extremist activists to be judges to make rulings, not based on the Constitution, not on law, not on justice... but based on what he calls "empathy".

"Empathy" is open to interpretation, of course. It could mean anything. Which suits Obama and his socialist comrades just fine, naturally, as they know they can use the word for whatever purpose they see fit.

I'd say that when Obama says "empathy", it means adherence. Adherence to the agenda of the Left, of which Obama would be but a puppet, as opposed to being a leader for all Americans, a leader who does his job as mandated by the Constitution of the United States, period.

What will happen with a radically leftified judicial system in America... will be even more extreme than we've already seen; that is the agenda of Obama, no doubt. I'd hold up the City of San Francisco as an example of what we can see more of... all across America, should Americans make the wrong choice on November 4th and unknowingly make their socialist enemy's puppet their "leader" (de-facto dictator, actually).

You know, speaking of judges and judgement, this is a perfect opportunity to remind everyone of Obama's infamous failure of judgement in choosing his associations.

Below is a graphic representation of just a few examples of Obama's poor judgement:

Barack Hussein Obama demonstrated his "judgement" in his having chosen, amongst others, these... infamous people.

How can Americans ever, therefore, believe that Obama would have any better judgement when it comes time to choose judges? They can't.

Americans don't want a President who would use his personally-selected judges to impose his radical, hidden agenda upon them. It would require bypassing Congress and the Senate; it would be... undemocratic!

SLAPPER Kinsella Continues War Against Levant's Inconvenient Fair Commentary

Scary, nasty guy and Liberal Party propaganda hitman Warren Kinsella, above, and in closeup. Looks like a pleasant, amicable, easy-to-get-along-with, non-hateful fellow, doesn't he? Yep. Mr. Nice, Mr. Non-Hateful, indeed.

Story here. I noticed that in Kinsella's Statement of Claim against Levant, Kinsella doesn't claim that the statements Levant made about him are false. He doesn't deny working for the entity Levant stated he works for. Guess it's true, then, that he works for the entity which Levant so criticizes. Therefore, Levant opined about Kinsella's working for the entity. Guess it struck a sore spot for Kinsella, an inconvenient opinion, some Charter-protected fair comment, which Kinsella nevertheless seeks to silence with a SLAPP suit (Cue the violins!). It's hypocritical of Warren Kinsella alleging that Ezra Levant intended to injure him somehow with his opinion of Kinsella. That it's hypocritical of Kinsella is my fair comment based on my observations of Kinsella's own public behavior and expressions regarding others over the years. And this fair comment is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Just as Kinsella apparently, to me, believes that his opinion that all sorts of innocent folks he's accused of being nasty things such as "racists" and "haters" is protected by the Charter as well. But it appears (Warren, please note that I said "appears", so stay cool, bro; don't blow another gasket) to me that he believes that he should be protected by the Charter but Levant shouldn't. And this is an opinion that I doubt would be ignored by a judge, or by the Canadian People.

Warren again, above left, with a t-shirt rendering commentary about the President of the United States. What does the bottom line say, "terrorist"? Wonder how Warren would feel if someone called him a terrorist? Oh, that's right- ok to call George Bush (or Stephen Harper, just wait 'til Warren goes after him next) whatever you want, but don't dare say anything not-nice about Warren Kinsella, because Warren Kinsella is obviously somehow specially exempt from having to suffer inconvenient, Charter-protected, fair commentary and opinion of others about him based on his behavior! No idea who the other guy is, but he has a weird expression on his face... guess Warren likes being with people who make weird faces like he does.

Why is it supposedly ok for Warren Kinsella to render such commentary, but it's not ok for them to merely issue fair commentary/opinion/criticism based on his behavior?

Since the Nineties, I've witnessed this man on TV, he with a gravely serious countenance, rendering what I believe to be (hey, Warren, please note my indication that this is a statement of belief, not that I allege it as fact, before you get all unhinged and accuse me of making statements that are libellous as opposed to mere opinion of your behavior, like Mr. Levant rendered, mind you; so don't make a fool of yourself) all kinds of outrageous, absurdly, totally false, defamatory, politically and reputationally injurious opinions especially against politicians of conservative orientation, once, most infamously of all, even mocking a Mr. Stockwell Day's religious beliefs, using a stuffed purple dinosaur he brought to a TV studio to be used as a prop. I believe that many folks would consider this behavior to be "hateful". A "Hate crime", it could very well be considered. And a very obviously (he brought the prop to a TV studio in a gym bag with the obvious intent to display it to emphasize his mocking disdain for a person's religious beliefs) premeditated one at that.
No doubt the stunt was intended to harm Mr. Day's electoral prospects, for that was (and appears will be again) Mr. Kinsella's job as Liberal Party propaganda hitman.

What a hypocrite. He thinks it's ok to attack others, no doubt, rendering intentionally hurtful opinion using wording to make it sound as if it's fact and I observe that
he does it with arrogant, entitlist impunity.

But when others render fair commentary/opinion about him, he can't stand it and seeks to shut them up by taking them to court or at least threatening to, but never following through.
He'll call people "racist" without proof, but if anyone were to call him "racist" in precisely the same manner in which he does it to others, he may sue or threaten to sue. What an... asshole of astonishing hypocrisy. And I understand, that, as he indicated in a recent blog post on his website, he's going back to work for the Liberal Party to "render opinion" against the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. What can we expect, then, of a man like Kinsella, in this role? More of the same? Mocking the religious beliefs of JudeoChristians? Calling people "racist" without offering proof? This guy, in my opinion, is scary, scary, scary.

No one need take any lessons, nor criticism from the Grand Ayatollah of Hypocrisy. Otherwise, all sinners would then have to take lessons and criticism from the Devil...

And the Liberal Party is going to be using him as a propagandist, as a political hitman of sorts, to try to make the Canadian Electorate think bad things about the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper. Right? Or what's he going to do for the Liberals, bring them coffee?

The Liberals can have him. He will be yet another liability for them.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Majority Says Cut Spending To Avoid Deficit: Poll

Story here.

ht: National Newswatch

An overwhelming majority of Canadians say Finance Minister Jim Flaherty should slash the federal budget to balance the books, according to a new poll for Canwest News Service and Global National.

Only a handful say Mr. Flaherty should raise taxes to meet any shortfalls as government revenues shrink because of the slowing economy. And just 43 per cent of those surveyed by Ipsos Reid say it's all right with them if Mr. Flaherty decided to run a budget deficit to get the country through a rough economic patch.

John Wright, Ipsos Reid's senior vice-president, said his firm's polling data on consumer confidence and job anxiety indicate that Canadians are not yet seized with any urgency about the economy and do not feel that the economic slowdown has turned into a crisis requiring extreme measures.

"I think there's a disconnect where people are saying it might get really bad, but it's not bad now and I don't think it'll hurt me," Mr. Wright said. "Which means that, so far as the checklist in how they see government proceeding on this front, we haven't reached the point where, yes, it's OK to do deficits. They're saying your checklist is to make sure there's no fat in the system."
Well, I'm part of that majority. There's still plenty (billions of dollars annually) of wasteful (useless Gun Registry, for example) and even harmful spending (HRCs, for example) spending that could be eliminated to more than avoid deficit and, in fact, enable the continuing paydown of the national debt!

This is the Conservative government's cue to cut wasteful spending. Something they should've done already anyway. They have to do it now, obviously!

Mr. Harper, tear down that wasteful wall of useless, harmful spending!

Obama Wants Supreme Court To Impose Redistributive Socialism

Story here. ht: Drudge Report

Obama, talking about the civil rights movement and Supreme Court, says: "I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order [and] as long as I could pay for it I would be OK. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

Calling it one of the "tragedies" of the movement, he added that there was "a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that."


"That is what change means for Barack the redistributor," the Republican said. "It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs."
For the Obamugabe camp's part, a spokesman says:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton dismissed the interview as "a fake news controversy drummed up by the all too common alliance of Fox News, the Drudge Report, and John McCain, who apparently decided to close out his campaign with the same false, desperate attacks that have failed for months."
Yeah, right, sure, Mr. Burton... it's just another of the "smears and lies" propagated by the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy. Oh, yeah, you betcha! Yep, Hillary was right all along! Of bloody course!

That's the best the Obamugabe camp can come up with as an explanation of Barry-O's own spoken words: Another conspiracy theory that the "Righties are out to get them?" Boy, talk about paranoid delusions!

That's how they deal with the inconvenient truth about Obamugabe: They claim conspiracy; they simplistically, unprovingly allege "lies, smears"... Well, it's they who are lying and smearing, by lying about and smearing the Republicans as supposedly engaging in a conspiracy of "lies" and "smears"! Sorry, Obamugabites, but simply saying someone's lying doesn't mean that they are. It's not good enough to respond to the telling of inconvenient truths about your false prophet that they're "lying, smearing". If calling someone a liar makes them a liar, then it'd be enough to call the IPCC a liar to disprove their claim that we're destroying the planet with our use of energy.

It doesn't take a frickin' genius to realize the obvious: Barack Hussein Obamugabe bin Biden is a frickin' socialist! A gosh-darned Marxist, fofecksake! The man wants to take Americans' hard-earned money away and redistribute it!

Severe Voting Irregularities In Liberal-Won Riding: Paper

Story here. ht: Bruce in the comments
SOUTH VANCOUVER - Last week, the LINK reported that Liberal incumbent Ujjal Dosanjh won by only 33 votes over his Conservative challenger Wai Young, who did a bang-up job of delivering majority of the Asian vote as well as Indo-Canadian and mainstream vote. Judicial review of the vote began on Friday morning but given the large number of votes to be counted, the process will not be complete until at least Saturday or Monday, when we will know who the real winner is.

The LINK also reported that there were many irregularities in voting in the riding with one particular poll – which had the maximum of 500 votes to be cast, but allegedly had a final count of more than 900 votes with more than 800 allegedly credited to the Liberal candidate.

One poll:

Maximum of 500 possible legitimate votes.

Votes cast: >900.

Votes for Liberal candidate: >800.

Liberal won the riding by only 33 votes.

Monday, October 27, 2008

OK, Obama, NOW Prove You're American!

Barack Hussein Obama, above, far left (literally as well as spectrally), the mysterious candidate for President of the United States of America, seen with fellow Democrats during the playing of the American national anthem, for which real Americans are expected to stand and place their right hand over their heart (not both hands on their genitals... and, by the way, Obama also refuses to wear the American flag on his lapel!).


In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled
"Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

Well, now it's up to Barack Hussein Obama himself to prove he's constitutionally eligible to run for President.

Why hasn't he? Will he?

Something doesn't seem right here... after all, Obama is aware that many don't believe he's American-born, that he's no more eligible to be President than is Arnold Schwarzenegger, so why on earth hasn't he requested the original birth certificate be released by the State of Hawaii?

, therefore, can Americans trust this man, Obama?

Well, they simply


Last week, during the crucial waning days of the presidential campaign, Obama left for Hawaii to visit his 85-year-old grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who had broken her hip. In such bad shape was she – in spite of the hospital’s sending her home to heal – that Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts, that “I'm still not sure whether she makes it to Election Day.” Filling in for Obama on the campaign trail in Ohio was his wife, Michelle, who told the crowd that granny was doing just fine.

Did Obama have a dual purpose in traveling to Hawaii, the other being to magically produce the birth certificate proving his eligibility to be president? While he’s now back on the campaign trail, he has still failed to produce said certificate!

After a recent article I wrote, My Mother's Birth Certicate – And Obama's, a number of people e-mailed me with’s “proof” of the certificate. But let’s not forget that FactCheck is owned by the Annenberg Foundation, the same foundation that gave millions of dollars to Obama and his unrepentant terrorist pal William Ayers for an “education” project. To me, that makes FactCheck ipso facto the least credible source of factual information.

Infinitely more credible is the research done by, among others, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (, Chicago journalist Andy Martin, (ContrarianCommentary), and author Jerome Corsi (The Obama Nation), who have cast persuasive, data-provided doubt not only that the birth certificate(s) so far produced were blatant forgeries, but that Obama – and his leftwing media lapdogs – have been concealing the fact that he was born in a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, a birth his Kenyan grandmother is on record saying she and Obama’s half-brother and half-sister attended.

What is Obama up to?

Hidden agenda... too many suspicions about this guy, too many evasions...

Spreading The Wealth

So Barack Obama wants to "spread the wealth" amongst Americans.

So he's going to take away Joe the Plumber's hard-earned money and give it to Americans like these...

Police Humor... Just Kiddin' Around, Officer!

Well, there has been quite a few officers recently who have demonstrated that they need to have their hearing checked... obviously, hearing checks should be as mandatory as eyesight checks...

Is that the guy who caught Senator Larry Craig?

Heh... Yes, officer, really; I was just kidding around... honest!

Witness the Shocking Derangement of the Left Towards McCain-Palin

Those Leftists, they're really scary...

You know,
this reminds me of when the Democrats had their militant wing, the Ku Klux Klan, go around lynching Republicans of whatever "color" to get rid of them...

Wouldn't there be a much bigger outrage and uproar if it was Obama who was lynched or burned alive in effigy?

Oh... I see... it is, however, ok to lynch, in effigy, a "white", conservative, Christian woman and to depict an elderly "white" war hero being burned alive, as far as the "artist" is concerned...

The hatefulness of the Far Left knows no boundaries; nothing's too taboo for them- they'll be anything bad/evil if it advances their radically extreme agenda... They're sooo racist, sexist, you name it!

Clearly, this can be considered incitement to deadly violence... the psychotic, hateful, "progressive" "artist" responsible for this so-called "free speech" (is it simply "free speech" to incite murder, or is it a crime?) should be appropriately charged and dealt with. A strong, unmistakable message ought to be sent so as to make it clear that Free World elections are to be free of intimidation and incitement to violence, something the Far Left seems to think is ok...

Saying "It's Halloween, dude, so it's ok" doesn't make it ok.

Shame on the Left... all that brainless, unjustified hatred of which they're full... they simply cannot tolerate anyone who thinks a little differently than they do... so they recommend that someone do something terrible to them???

Leftists are really, really scary! So scary, in fact, that I wouldn't even dress up as one on Halloween!

Looks Like McKenna Won't Run For Lib Leader

Stephen Taylor reports that Frank McKenna, former New Brunswick Premier, is unlikely to run for Liberal leader.

ht: National Newswatch

Well, I would add that a Liberal-connected source of mine said pretty much the same to me, that McKenna has privately already said "no". This was just after the election.

This source of mine also correctly indicated to me that Stephane Dion would indicate his intention to step down during the week that he actually indicated so... before there was any indication in the media to that effect. He also informed me about a private matter regarding the former Liberal MP in my riding before there was any evidence publicly about it. So I place a lot of stock in my source's McKenna information and add it to Taylor's report.

You know, Liberals... they have big mouths, actually, and like to blab even to those who they know are card-carrying Conservatives... well, after all, they're known for their loose lips... except not so much when talking to the MSM, that is. So if you know a connected Liberal who likes to gossip about what's going on in the party, well, that person is a potential gold mine of information that might come in handy sometime... wink, wink, elbow, elbow... Lucky for us Tories, Liberals have a self-control problem...

Looks, therefore, like McKenna, despite all those Liberals desperate for this "star" candidate to enter the running for leader, isn't going to bother.

Why would he? Why would he want to go through unpredictably-many years in the wilderness to attempt to rebuild a party that resists institutional and cultural change anyway? It could very well prove a waste of his time. As it could very well prove a waste of anyone's time.

Dominic LeBlanc? Amateur, without intellect. Bring him on. Harper'll effortlessly sweep the floor with that wild mop of hair on Dom's big head. All Dom's got going for him is his big, foully partisan Librano mouth and the fact that his daddy was a big name in Canadian politics, not that it matters. Of course, Justin Trudeau could be similarly described...

Speaking of Trudeau, really, gimme a break. Sorry, Justy, but I'm afraid that your daddy's performance isn't all that fondly recalled by everyone, particularly in the West and Quebec. So if you would think you could ride the coattails of Daddy to leadership and power, well, if you want to admit that Alberta and Quebec will not be impressed (NEP and getting the Constitution signed by everyone but Quebec, etc.), well... And there's the matter of the defective Charter, which actually proved a Trojan Horse in which the Far Left was able to cheat and lie its way to all sorts of crazy legislative and legal crap, with the judiciary and all that invalid "reading-in", "interpreting" and so on, the unconstitutional judge-made law, you know, just like we see happening in the United States, with their Left-wing radical "judges", too...

Elections Canada Hard on Tories, Going Easy on Liberals

Elections Canada raided Conservative Headquarters and confiscated everything, as if this was, say, Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, who did plenty of stuff to silence and intimidate his opposition. Or like fascist, fake-democracy Russia under Vladimir Putin (never mind his puppet, whatshisname; Putin is in charge).

EC, obviously dominated by Leftists who don't like Conservatives, obviously is being extraordinarily harsh towards them.

But EC is being extraordinarily lenient with the Liberals, excusing them all the time for pretty much everything, bending (or breaking?) the rules to help them.

Nine of the 11 Liberal 2006 leadership contenders still carry hundreds of thousands of dollars in debts, but Elections Canada says they don't have to pay those debts off first if any want to run again for the party's top job.

Their convenient excuse:

"Nothing in the [Canada Elections] Act prevents a leadership contestant of a completed contest to run as a contestant in a new leadership contest," said John Enright, a spokesman for Elections Canada in an interview last week with The Hill Times.

Would they be this flexible towards the Conservatives? Would they come up with a similarly convenient rationalization for them? Well, that's moot, as the Conservatives pay off their debts in time anyway, unlike the Liberals. (Maybe the Liberals shouldn't borrow money in the first place if they can't repay it!)

Apparently EC has been granting unlimited extensions to the Liberals, as it can. How convenient. Who'd expect them to deny an extension to the Liberals? Why have a rule that says the debts have to be repaid by a certain time if unlimited extensions can enable the debts to NEVER be repaid, potentially? Sheesh!

How nice of the EC for the Liberals.

Not so nice they were towards the Conservatives. They went after the Tories for the same stuff that they let the other parties off the hook for. They didn't raid and confiscate the other parties' HQs. Discrimination, definitely.

The Liberals can't pay off their debts because they aren't worthy of donations. And they aren't worthy of donations because they aren't worthy, period. But EC is keeping them on life support anyway. Nice, eh?

Why couldn't they be as flexible, understanding and open-minded towards the Conservatives, rather than having a police raid-confiscation on their HQ with the media suspiciously accompanying them?

Maybe there's too many Left-wing radicals in the state apparatus...

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Liberal Mouthpiece TorStar Conjuring Up Canuck Obama?

Looks like the Liberal-loyal Toronto Star has conducted its profiling exercise and has decided who it would like to be next Liberal leader.

They're trying to create a buzz about a fellow named Michael "Pinball" Clemons.

Well, he sounds like a nice fellow so far. With an impressive list of accomplishments. Like someone you'd like to know.

But I ask why the Toronto (Red) Star has decided to identify as a potential Liberal leader a guy who has so much in common with Barack Obama?

What kind of profiling is the TorStar conducting?

I noticed that there's nothing much in the way of mention of Mr. Clemons's political ideology at all. Except for the fact that he opposes the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Cliche! What, is that all they need to know? What if he was known to have just one "right-wing" position... just one... would the TorStar then consider making him their special media creation? I wonder what his position is on abortion and ssm? Whether he realizes and openly, unshyly agrees that there is a threat to our freedoms from radical, supremacist, imperialist Islam? If he dares state a position clearly, as opposed to vaguely/murkily? Or if he would rather be politically correct? Probably doesn't matter, unless he were to change his mind and try his hand at politics.

That raises questions. Like, doesn't the TorStar care about what the guy's political ideology is at all?

Or do they just want a Canadian Obama, and do they want to be the MSM outlet that creates a whole new myth, legend, messiah, whatever, to parallel the one they see in America?

The Toronto Star just isn't serious, so I don't see how we can take the Toronto Star seriously.

They're just dreaming in that fluff piece. It's not newsworthy, really, as far as I'm concerned.

Why Stubborn Morons Shouldn't Use Navigation Systems In Their Cars

...And Why People Should Also Use Their Brains When Deciding How To Vote!

Above: An aftermarket car navigation system. Mine is exactly like that one.

I'm sure it didn't have anything to do with the fact that the poor motorist is Polish...

Story here.

WARSAW (AFP) - A Polish driver who was too sure of his GPS road navigation device ended up neck-deep in a lake after ignoring road signs warning of a dead-end ahead, Polish police said Friday.

"The man took a road that was closed a year ago when the area was flooded to make an artificial lake serving as a water reservoir -- he ignored three road signs warning of a dead-end," Piotr Smolen, police spokesman in Glubczyce, southern Poland, told AFP Friday.

Must've been a "progressive", y'know, a liberal/leftist. Like somebody who'd vote for Obama.

I recognize this form of mental disorder- I see it in people every bloody day. The problem is that their brains aren't functioning adequately to enable them to avoid such incidents. Geez- what was the guy thinking- that a GPS is infallible, that it couldn't ever make a mistake? Dammit- it doesn't take a frickin' genius to realize that you still have to look at the bloody road, and remember that the device is only a machine, and doesn't know everything. One simply must allow for the potential of error. How could one not? Oh, that's right... if one isn't using their brain... like those Obama voters... who are going to vote to potentially steer America right into a lake!

Funny- once I was experimenting with my own GPS... I instructed it to indicate an alternate route to the airport. Bloody thing took me to a dead end, too, and it was also a lake! It was then that I knew that the devices make mistakes, and made a mental note to remember this point at all times while using the device. Not that I was at all surprised; I fully expected something like this to happen eventually. Unlike some folks, obviously! Why can't some people see such things coming? Why are "progressives" so daft?

That's why these things need to be updated regularly. Of course, even then, they'll still make a mistake sometimes. No problem- just tell 'em you want to go back to where you came from and then try a different route, get directions or use a frickin' map!

Still, those things are the greatest invention since sliced bread. They'll save your sorry, lost ass anytime, as mine did for me many times when I drove to unfamiliar locations... like last Thanksgiving a couple of weeks ago, when the route I was familiar with in another city was closed due to a terrible accident or something and police ordered everyone to detour... well, it was at night, hard to see stuff, and I had no frickin' idea where I was... but I had my GPS, and, yes, it got me back on track... eventually. Sure takes the worry out of driving to new, unfamiliar places!

Oh, of course... yes, I do realize I mentioned leftists and politics. Of course. That's a big part of this blog's purpose, after all- to expose and explain things like this, sometimes by using real-world examples of the mental disorder suffered by folks who don't know what they're doing at the polling booth.

A GPS is like the mainstream media. One cannot count on it too much, can't trust it too much, as it can be misleading, and sometimes very much so. One must use one's brain instead of letting the GPS/MSM tell one what to do, no questions asked...

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Delusional Paul Martin Thinks He's Fiscal Hero

Liberals Paul Martin, r, and Jean Chretien, l.: Lucky bums, 1993-2006

Story here.

ht: National Newswatch

Paul Martin, as Finance Minister under Liberal PM Jean Chretien, did, indeed, happen to preside over a period during which the federal deficit disappeared and turned into a continuing, growing surplus.

But he's delusional if he believes that he himself made it happen, like some kind of hero.

The world was booming. Pretty much everyone else eliminated their deficits too, at least for a while. This made it really easy to grow revenues, as the economy boomed, also helped along by low interest rates and a low dollar, which pretty much had nothing to do with Martin or his government at all. Lucky bums!

Most important cheat of all: They broke their big election promise to "scrap, kill, abolish" the hated GST. That guaranteed massive piles of billions of dollars would pour into the federal coffers and save their cheating, lying asses.

He slashed transfers to the provinces for such things as health care and education. How mean-spirited, eh?

He nearly starved our military, RCMP force, national security, etc... to death.

Never will I forget the time his boss, the mercilessly selfish bully, Chretien, ripped a hundred million dollars from the military's budget to buy two brand new jets for his own use as PM, even though he already had access to a perfectly good jet, plus there was the one mothballed that he could use but didn't- former PM Mulroney's "Cadillac Plane", an Airbus. How do you like that? Disgusting!

He kept taxes too high for too long, and only began to move to reduce them when it appeared that if he didn't, then the conservative opponent (now the Conservative government) would pick up support at the Liberals' expense.

Of course, with all the luck he was still having with the booming worldwide and domestic economy, with the booming surpluses due to high taxes, he could afford to cut taxes a little bit for optics.

Now he's claiming that the Conservative government has screwed up all his supposed "hard work"?
Oh, come on! Listen, Paulie, the whole frickin' world is facing a recession, or worse, and there's nothing either the current government or you or anyone else could do now to change that.

However, Paulie, there IS something that can be done to avoid a deficit, and it does NOT involve raising taxes.
You know, there's billions and billions of dollars of unnecessary spending that have been identified since the Nineties by the Reform Party, and these wasted dollars are still being wasted. So, you know, it will finally be possible politically to look at these wasteful things and slash them. Don't ask me what they are; you know full well what they are, as I'm sure you read, what was it called, the "Waste Report"? (I remember looking at the list of wasteful stuff way back in the Nineties when I attended university and where there was internet access). I believe at the time it was estimated that thirteen billion dollars could be saved without hurting anyone (except whining entitlists and loyal Liberal patronage appointees doing next to nothing of value, of course). Ah, and we still have the Long Gun Registry, which has proven utterly worthless and far too expensive, already having hosed the taxpayers for billions.

Not impressed with your fearmongering and conceit, Paulie.
Now go back to bashing Mr. Chretien. He's responsible for your downfall, after all, as well as the downfall and future in the wilderness of the Liberal Party... if it even survives, a question totally up in the air now, as it would appear that they're flat broke, deeply in the red and probably won't recover...

Oh, well, politics sucks, doesn't it, Paulie?

No pity, though. The Liberals brought it all upon themselves, letting their great luck go to their heads, deluding themselves that it was their "hard work" (bwahahaha) that did it. Sheesh, they fell back-asswards into luck and money... and became so corrupt that they couldn't hide it anymore...

The rest is history. Like, perhaps, the Liberal Party itself. And who in their right mind would want to lead it now? With a virtually nil chance of being Prime Minister in the next election, or even the one after that, etc., if ever.

Canada can't afford to move backwards with Liberals; the days of boom are probably over for good, and they would only make things worse by returning to Trudeaupian socialism to win votes from the unemployed and the refuse-to-works.

We must stay smart, stay the course, do what we can to ride out a recession if it happens, though it's not really being predicted; we can expect more or less zero growth for the next year or so, with growth resuming in 2010...

And thank goodness Canadians rejected the Liberals' Tax On Everything! That could have really hurt!