Even Russians are lamenting the decline of American capitalism under the administration of Barack H. Obama. America is losing her true self, liberty is on the decline, government size and power on the increase, and very foundations of its economy are being eroded by bureaucrats and oppressive taxation.
Pravda writes: "First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonald's burger or a Burger King burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America."
God save America from the central planners.
The Strong Conservative Blog
- Strong Conservative
- Toronto
- "People should not fear the government, government should fear the people." - V
2009-05-30
2009-05-29
Canada Will Have a Car Company
Magna International stands poised to buy GM Europe's Opel car division. This will be the first Canadian owned auto producer. GM continues to be an ongoing financial disaster. Despite tens of billions in government bailouts and efforts at restructuring, Chapter 11 bankruptcy is all but inevitable for GM on Monday.
The Globe and Mail reports: "Magna's strategic advantages are not obvious; the Canadian proposal seems to have appealed to the German government because it offered a cash investment and may eliminate fewer German jobs than Fiat's proposal. But Magna has no dealers and no experience in the mass production of cars. Sberbank is a financial player, not a manufacturing expert. "
As Rahm said, never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.
The Globe and Mail reports: "Magna's strategic advantages are not obvious; the Canadian proposal seems to have appealed to the German government because it offered a cash investment and may eliminate fewer German jobs than Fiat's proposal. But Magna has no dealers and no experience in the mass production of cars. Sberbank is a financial player, not a manufacturing expert. "
As Rahm said, never miss an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis.
Giving Obama Credit
In the spirit of fairness, I'll give Obama credit where it's due despite that I oppose almost all other moves he's made economically, militarily, judicially, and politically. That said, Obama announced plans to beef up the United State's ability to defend itself against cyber threats.
Obama, "pledged to make securing the nation's most vital computer networks a top economic and national security priority, broadly detailing the results of 60-day cyber security review that calls for a range of responses to help improve the security of information networks that power the government and the U.S. economy."
Why the US needs another tsar is a different story. The very term just sounds incredibly un-American and authoritarian by nature. In fact, the US has more tsars now of various efforts and initiatives than its ever had before. Then again, the US government is larger, more corrupt, and less accountable than ever before, so I guess the reality is evidence of a correlation.
If only Obama were to put the same emphasis on the threats from ballistic missile proliferation which is clearly spreading as a result of investments and research by Iran and North Korea to deter any military action against them and to hold their neighbors hostage.
Obama, "pledged to make securing the nation's most vital computer networks a top economic and national security priority, broadly detailing the results of 60-day cyber security review that calls for a range of responses to help improve the security of information networks that power the government and the U.S. economy."
Why the US needs another tsar is a different story. The very term just sounds incredibly un-American and authoritarian by nature. In fact, the US has more tsars now of various efforts and initiatives than its ever had before. Then again, the US government is larger, more corrupt, and less accountable than ever before, so I guess the reality is evidence of a correlation.
If only Obama were to put the same emphasis on the threats from ballistic missile proliferation which is clearly spreading as a result of investments and research by Iran and North Korea to deter any military action against them and to hold their neighbors hostage.
2009-05-26
Obama Plays Identity Politics in SCOTUS Pick
Did Obama pick the best qualified person to fill the vacancy on the US Supreme Court? I think a reasoned response to this question is: probably not. Although Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a thoroughly impressive woman who has obviously overcome some incredible difficulties, it is the fact that her background is being so strongly emphasized that calls into question her legal credentials.
I reserve judgment on whether Ms. Sotomayor should be confirmed until after the Senate hearings have taken place. It seems blatantly obvious to me that Obama's pick was not a pick based on my initial sentence, but a pick based purely on political calculation. This does a disservice to Sotomayor, who may be more than sufficiently qualified based on her legal opinions, expertise, and judicial temperament. Nevertheless, based on the President's actions from his nomination until today, every choice, act, and speech has been done in "campaign" mode for re-election and certainly not with the best interests of the nation in mind. This seems apparent because of the numerous reversals by Obama and the wide gap in his current rhetoric to that which he used during the campaign.
That said, I am given pause by a number of Sotomayor's past statements regarding the appeals court being a place where "policy is made" and her emphasis of "empathy". Her past statements give the impression that her belief is that the value of a judicial opinion can be measured by one's race and past experience. This is an indication that in her world, lady justice does not necessarily wear a blindfold while wielding the sword and holding the scales of justice.
I don't recall anyone celebrating Justice Clarence Thomas' rise from poverty to prominence as so many liberal appointees are. In an attempt at balance, allow me to present Justice Thomas, who writes incredible legal opinions despite smear attempts to make him appear as an inferior justice, and his rise from obscurity to the nation's highest court [from Wikipedia].
Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community.[2] His family are descendants of American slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old.[3] After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas' sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.
When Thomas was 7, the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine, in Savannah.[4] Anderson had little formal education, but had built a fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known."[4] When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset.[4] His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."
Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honors student.[5] Raised Roman Catholic (he later attended an Episcopal church with his wife, but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s), Thomas considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, becoming the first black student to attend St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope.[4] He also attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri, briefly. No one in Thomas's family had attended college, and Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary he was one of only "three or four" blacks attending the school.[5] Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary after overhearing a student say, in response to the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Good, I hope the son of a bitch died."[2][6] He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.[4]
At a nun's suggestion, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, where as a sophomore transfer student he had to adjust to a New England atmosphere very different from what he was used to in Savannah.[5] At Holy Cross, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union and once walked out after an incident in which black students were punished while white students were not for committing the same violation.[5] Some of the priests negotiated with the protesting black students to return to school,[5] and Thomas graduated in 1971 with an A.B. cum laude in English literature. Among Thomas's classmates at Holy Cross were future defense attorney Ted Wells and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward P. Jones.[7]
Thomas had a series of deferments from the military draft while in college at Holy Cross. Upon graduation, he was classified as 1-A and received a low lottery number, indicating that he might be drafted to serve in Vietnam. However, Thomas failed his medical exam, reportedly due to curvature of the spine, and was not drafted.[8] Thomas then entered Yale Law School, from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974, graduating towards the middle of his class.[9]
Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating, and potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[10] According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated.
Interestingly, Joe Biden was the point man in the smear machine against Justice Thomas. He said of Thomas, "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white."
Democratic inclusiveness at its finest.
I reserve judgment on whether Ms. Sotomayor should be confirmed until after the Senate hearings have taken place. It seems blatantly obvious to me that Obama's pick was not a pick based on my initial sentence, but a pick based purely on political calculation. This does a disservice to Sotomayor, who may be more than sufficiently qualified based on her legal opinions, expertise, and judicial temperament. Nevertheless, based on the President's actions from his nomination until today, every choice, act, and speech has been done in "campaign" mode for re-election and certainly not with the best interests of the nation in mind. This seems apparent because of the numerous reversals by Obama and the wide gap in his current rhetoric to that which he used during the campaign.
That said, I am given pause by a number of Sotomayor's past statements regarding the appeals court being a place where "policy is made" and her emphasis of "empathy". Her past statements give the impression that her belief is that the value of a judicial opinion can be measured by one's race and past experience. This is an indication that in her world, lady justice does not necessarily wear a blindfold while wielding the sword and holding the scales of justice.
I don't recall anyone celebrating Justice Clarence Thomas' rise from poverty to prominence as so many liberal appointees are. In an attempt at balance, allow me to present Justice Thomas, who writes incredible legal opinions despite smear attempts to make him appear as an inferior justice, and his rise from obscurity to the nation's highest court [from Wikipedia].
Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small, impoverished African American community.[2] His family are descendants of American slaves in the American South. His father left his family when he was two years old.[3] After a house fire left them homeless, Thomas and his younger brother Myers were taken to Savannah, Georgia, where their mother worked as a domestic employee. Thomas' sister Emma stayed behind with relatives in Pin Point.
When Thomas was 7, the family moved in with his maternal grandfather, Myers Anderson, and Anderson's wife, Christine, in Savannah.[4] Anderson had little formal education, but had built a fuel oil business that also sold ice. Thomas calls his grandfather "the greatest man I have ever known."[4] When Thomas was 10, Anderson started taking the family to help at a farm every day from sunrise to sunset.[4] His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance; he would counsel Thomas to "never let the sun catch you in bed."
Thomas was the only black person at his high school in Savannah, where he was an honors student.[5] Raised Roman Catholic (he later attended an Episcopal church with his wife, but returned to the Catholic Church in the late 1990s), Thomas considered entering the priesthood at the age of 16, becoming the first black student to attend St. John Vianney's Minor Seminary (Savannah) on the Isle of Hope.[4] He also attended Conception Seminary College, a Roman Catholic seminary in Missouri, briefly. No one in Thomas's family had attended college, and Thomas has said that during his first year in seminary he was one of only "three or four" blacks attending the school.[5] Thomas told interviewers that he left the seminary after overhearing a student say, in response to the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., "Good, I hope the son of a bitch died."[2][6] He did not think the church did enough to combat racism.[4]
At a nun's suggestion, Thomas attended the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, where as a sophomore transfer student he had to adjust to a New England atmosphere very different from what he was used to in Savannah.[5] At Holy Cross, Thomas helped found the Black Student Union and once walked out after an incident in which black students were punished while white students were not for committing the same violation.[5] Some of the priests negotiated with the protesting black students to return to school,[5] and Thomas graduated in 1971 with an A.B. cum laude in English literature. Among Thomas's classmates at Holy Cross were future defense attorney Ted Wells and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward P. Jones.[7]
Thomas had a series of deferments from the military draft while in college at Holy Cross. Upon graduation, he was classified as 1-A and received a low lottery number, indicating that he might be drafted to serve in Vietnam. However, Thomas failed his medical exam, reportedly due to curvature of the spine, and was not drafted.[8] Thomas then entered Yale Law School, from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974, graduating towards the middle of his class.[9]
Thomas has recollected that his Yale law degree was not taken seriously by law firms to which he applied after graduating, and potential employers assumed he obtained it because of affirmative action policies.[10] According to Thomas, he was "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated.
Interestingly, Joe Biden was the point man in the smear machine against Justice Thomas. He said of Thomas, "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white."
Democratic inclusiveness at its finest.
2009-05-25
Can Colin Powell Shut Up?
It would be one thing if Colin Powell campaigned for Republicans, supported them vocally in the press, came out against a single Democratic policy he disagrees with, or even ran for office. Although Powell claims to be a Republican, he sure doesn't do anything to ever help the party that enabled his success as a Joint Chief, Security Advisor, and Secretary of State.
Quite the contrary, the most moderate Republican to win the GOP primary in decades, John McCain, and Powell stabs him in the back. McCain is the essence of what he wants the GOP to be and Powell supported Obama. It's difficult to contemplate what Powell could have supported in Obama unless his decision was entirely based on race. After all, McCain and Powell are soul mates on moderated Republican policy. They represent the blue-blood, country-club Republican style that Ronald Reagan destroyed through his realism, small government, common sense conservatism.
Colin Powell may have served his country in uniform, and for that he should be congratulated. However, Powell has been nothing but a thorn in the side to the GOP. He's done virtually nothing to help elect strong GOP candidates or guide the party philosophically in the direction he believes best. Instead, he's undermined the party at every turn since 2004 to today.
The GOP could use a lot less of Powell, Frum, McCain, and the moderates and lot more of the Reagan-esque vision it had from people like Kemp, Buckley, Gingrich, and Friedman.
Quite the contrary, the most moderate Republican to win the GOP primary in decades, John McCain, and Powell stabs him in the back. McCain is the essence of what he wants the GOP to be and Powell supported Obama. It's difficult to contemplate what Powell could have supported in Obama unless his decision was entirely based on race. After all, McCain and Powell are soul mates on moderated Republican policy. They represent the blue-blood, country-club Republican style that Ronald Reagan destroyed through his realism, small government, common sense conservatism.
Colin Powell may have served his country in uniform, and for that he should be congratulated. However, Powell has been nothing but a thorn in the side to the GOP. He's done virtually nothing to help elect strong GOP candidates or guide the party philosophically in the direction he believes best. Instead, he's undermined the party at every turn since 2004 to today.
The GOP could use a lot less of Powell, Frum, McCain, and the moderates and lot more of the Reagan-esque vision it had from people like Kemp, Buckley, Gingrich, and Friedman.
North Korea Defies World
Once again, North Korea has provoked the world by detonating a nuclear bomb. The blast is said to be the relative to the Hiroshima bomb used against Japan in WWII. The UN is upset, Obama has voice his concern, and the South Koreans are fuming.Unfortunately for responsible nations, the UN is virtually useless for doing anything constructive in such a situation. The best it can do is arrange a meeting room for various diplomats to shoot the breeze. The UN will not impose sanctions, it won't authorize military action, and North Korea will likely detonate another bomb in the not too distant future.
What North Korea's action will most likely do is accelerate the build up of defensive weapons by South Korea and Japan. You would think that this event might change Obama's mind on the necessity of missile defence, but you'd be wrong. Quite the opposite, Obama's ego will lead him to believe that he can't possibly be wrong and the mere power of his character and speechification will cause Kim Jong Il to see the light.
Dear Leader is never wrong.
2009-05-16
Pelosi's Backpeddle
Nancy Pelosi is back peddling like no one's business. She's changed her statement more times that Perez Hilton changes outfits before going to see Rent with Anderson Cooper. Democrats are fleeing from Pelosi in droves and Leon Panetta has all but thrown her under the bus.Pelosi's problem is somewhat tragic. She was right to condone water boarding in the wake of 9/11. The country was attacked and weakened, no one knew what if another attack was imminent, and the public was demanding action. Her hawkish patriotism of convenience is nothing new for Democrats, but it serves to show that many on the left only act tough when it is politically convenient. They do so not for the good for the country, but because such actions will earn them votes, even in San Francisco.
As Obama conveniently back tracks on Gitmo, it might not be long before the Democrats have to admit that Bush's policies weren't so "misguided" after all. Their criticism that he "shredded the constitution" will look more fitting when applied to Obama's treatment of creditors rights for the auto-bailouts than anything Bush did. The fact is, President Bush, for all his numerous mistakes, appears to have acted very carefully but decisively when considering the options on handling Al Qaeda detainees and other enemy combatants.
As for Pelosi, her days are numbered. Picking fights with the CIA is never a good career move.
2009-05-13
Thought Police in Canada
"Protect Canada, stop the Tamil Tigers." This was a statement that was legally spoken (from all indications) by protesters holding signs and shown as a banner behind a plane circling over Queen's Park in Toronto today. The result? An investigation into a possible hate crime.
Does it sound like hate? Not to me, sounds more like patriotic love of country in opposition to terrorism. Specifically, in opposition to a group declared a terrorist entity by the Canadian government!
What has happened to our government? Our nation? Our values? The above statement is clearly a political statement and thus deserving of the utmost protection by the judiciary, Charter of Rights, and the people. Instead, police are investigating. Are the police investigating who led the charge up the ramp onto the Gardiner Expressway? Are they investigated who committed assault against their fellow officers?
How can the police suppose to know that the people speaking this message have hate in their mind? That is why I use the term "thought police" in my title. The very idea, the very notion of "hate crimes" run counter to the democratic ideals of a free society based on the rule of law.
When a law is broken, the motivation behind it is irrelevant to the crime itself in most instances. The police only need determine that an act and intent existed. Actus reus and mens rea. Hate crimes laws threaten freedom because they criminalize thought. The absurdity is easily illustrated.
How do you distinguish between hate, dislike, intense dislike, mild dislike, love, intense love, intense hate? At what point does dislike become crime when it crosses the line into hate? It is absolutely ridiculous. The motivation behind a crime should be a minor factor in the prosecution of the illegal act. Rather, the intent and act itself should be the central motivation for prosecution.
All hate crimes laws should be abolished as unconstitutional. No government or policeman or state agent can possibly know what is in a person's mind, and frankly criminal acts are criminal acts are criminal acts. They should prosecuted accordingly regardless of what sick motivation existed in the mind of a criminal.
To say "protect Canada, stop the Tamil Tigers" is entirely consistent with Canadian values. And even if it wasn't, and indeed there was hate, there should be no reason why someone can't spout all the hate they want so long as they do not advocate violence. That is the key point. Are we so afraid of making a counter argument to stupidity and ignorance that we must criminalize certain thoughts? Are we that intellectually lazy?
Meanwhile the "protesters" are doing this: "Signs reading "LTTE is our sole representatives" and "LTTE fights for Tamils' right in Sri Lanka," referring to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – widely recognized as a terrorist organization – are prominent across the front lawn of the legislature. Protesters chanted: "What do we want? Permanent cease-fire. When do we want it? Now."
Are they being investigated too?
Does it sound like hate? Not to me, sounds more like patriotic love of country in opposition to terrorism. Specifically, in opposition to a group declared a terrorist entity by the Canadian government!
What has happened to our government? Our nation? Our values? The above statement is clearly a political statement and thus deserving of the utmost protection by the judiciary, Charter of Rights, and the people. Instead, police are investigating. Are the police investigating who led the charge up the ramp onto the Gardiner Expressway? Are they investigated who committed assault against their fellow officers?
How can the police suppose to know that the people speaking this message have hate in their mind? That is why I use the term "thought police" in my title. The very idea, the very notion of "hate crimes" run counter to the democratic ideals of a free society based on the rule of law.
When a law is broken, the motivation behind it is irrelevant to the crime itself in most instances. The police only need determine that an act and intent existed. Actus reus and mens rea. Hate crimes laws threaten freedom because they criminalize thought. The absurdity is easily illustrated.
How do you distinguish between hate, dislike, intense dislike, mild dislike, love, intense love, intense hate? At what point does dislike become crime when it crosses the line into hate? It is absolutely ridiculous. The motivation behind a crime should be a minor factor in the prosecution of the illegal act. Rather, the intent and act itself should be the central motivation for prosecution.
All hate crimes laws should be abolished as unconstitutional. No government or policeman or state agent can possibly know what is in a person's mind, and frankly criminal acts are criminal acts are criminal acts. They should prosecuted accordingly regardless of what sick motivation existed in the mind of a criminal.
To say "protect Canada, stop the Tamil Tigers" is entirely consistent with Canadian values. And even if it wasn't, and indeed there was hate, there should be no reason why someone can't spout all the hate they want so long as they do not advocate violence. That is the key point. Are we so afraid of making a counter argument to stupidity and ignorance that we must criminalize certain thoughts? Are we that intellectually lazy?
Meanwhile the "protesters" are doing this: "Signs reading "LTTE is our sole representatives" and "LTTE fights for Tamils' right in Sri Lanka," referring to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – widely recognized as a terrorist organization – are prominent across the front lawn of the legislature. Protesters chanted: "What do we want? Permanent cease-fire. When do we want it? Now."
Are they being investigated too?
2009-05-12
Klees, I'll Pass
Frank Klees, well he's served his country admirably and I'm sure he's a nice guy. However, I'll pass when it comes to his leadership of the Ontario PC's. I'm not thrilled about any of the candidates to be perfectly honest, but Klees seems especially rouge amongst a party that has suffered enough under leadership of red tories who are basically Liberal-lite.
The moderates might get more favourable reviews by the Toronto Star and even the Globe & Mail. Why am I so hard on Klees you might ask? Well let's take this sentence from his website: "As a Progressive Conservative, Frank believes that: All Ontarians who have the ability to work and contribute to our society should have a government that encourages them to do so."
Not only does Klees use this as his "policy", but he clearly lacks understanding as to the government's role in society for a "conservative". Conservatives believe that government governs best which governs least. Frankly, (no pun intended) it is not the government's job to encourage anyone to work or not work. Individuals are not motivated by government, and if they are it likely to be in a coercive manner. For instance, we are "encouraged" to buy beer from the Beer Store by the government because the government enjoys taxing the hell out of and protecting it's monopoly on alcohol revenue to the detriment of the private sector and individuals. Klees supports this, and I think a few others running for the leadership do too. I do congratulate Mr. Hillier for supporting the privatization of the LCBO. I don't know where Hudak stands, and really Hudak doesn't make clear where he stands on very much.
But Klees' view on the government's role in society is at odds with what conservatives traditionally believe. When conservatives deviate from small government, individualism, and free market principles, they end up with diluted policies that end in failure. Just look at John Tory, Ernie Eaves, Joe Clark, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others.
Sorry Frank, you'd probably make a good cabinet minister, but I'll pass.
The moderates might get more favourable reviews by the Toronto Star and even the Globe & Mail. Why am I so hard on Klees you might ask? Well let's take this sentence from his website: "As a Progressive Conservative, Frank believes that: All Ontarians who have the ability to work and contribute to our society should have a government that encourages them to do so."
Not only does Klees use this as his "policy", but he clearly lacks understanding as to the government's role in society for a "conservative". Conservatives believe that government governs best which governs least. Frankly, (no pun intended) it is not the government's job to encourage anyone to work or not work. Individuals are not motivated by government, and if they are it likely to be in a coercive manner. For instance, we are "encouraged" to buy beer from the Beer Store by the government because the government enjoys taxing the hell out of and protecting it's monopoly on alcohol revenue to the detriment of the private sector and individuals. Klees supports this, and I think a few others running for the leadership do too. I do congratulate Mr. Hillier for supporting the privatization of the LCBO. I don't know where Hudak stands, and really Hudak doesn't make clear where he stands on very much.
But Klees' view on the government's role in society is at odds with what conservatives traditionally believe. When conservatives deviate from small government, individualism, and free market principles, they end up with diluted policies that end in failure. Just look at John Tory, Ernie Eaves, Joe Clark, John McCain, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and others.
Sorry Frank, you'd probably make a good cabinet minister, but I'll pass.
Saudi Cleric: "Ok to Beat Your Wife"
More from the religion of peace... A Saudi judge has ruled that husbands may beat their wives if they spend too much money. This reinforces the disgusting Wahhabist reality that many Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere treat women like property to be used and treated like something owned, rather than an individual.
Of course, the appeasers of Islam and apologists on the left will say that this represents a minority view. However, with Saudi judges also being clerics who have tight control over what is allowed, accepted, and defined as proper theology in Islam, they are arguing against fact and reality.
The Saudi judge didn't stop at over spending though, Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country".
But there's more, "Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband."
Medieval.
Of course, the appeasers of Islam and apologists on the left will say that this represents a minority view. However, with Saudi judges also being clerics who have tight control over what is allowed, accepted, and defined as proper theology in Islam, they are arguing against fact and reality.
The Saudi judge didn't stop at over spending though, Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country".
But there's more, "Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband."
Medieval.
2009-05-11
Canadians of Convenience
Many in the Toronto area are irate at the actions of the Tamil community in Toronto. In an obviously coordinated effort, judging by similar tactics in London and elsewhere in the world, the Tamil community is deliberately breaking the law to push forward their demands on the Canadian government to intervene in the conflict in Sri Lanka.
Why do I use the word irate? Well, most news websites have disabled the comment section for stories relating to the shut down of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto on Sunday evening. What is most disgusting is the blatant contempt that the Tamil community (although not all Tamils of course) have shown for the rule of law.
What makes western civilization great is the notion that we are a nation (or nations) of laws, not men or political parties or groups or "communities". The rule of law means that no one is above the law, that there is no tyranny of the majority, and that each individual is equal before the law. Justice is blind, or at least it's supposed to be. Of course we're not perfect, but we're better than most at protecting the innocent and providing for an equitable justice system.
That the Tamil protesters would wave the flags of the terrorist group the Tigers or LTTE is nothing short of disgusting. This group has used child soldiers, suicide bombers, human shields, and assassinations to accomplish its objectives. That they would now whine for UN intervention or Canadian intercession is comical. This group, the LTTE, has broken every international law relating to war in the books. Their pleas for humanitarian assistance are now difficult to justify considering their bloody history of violence.
Not only that, the Tamil-Canadians, who came to Canada presumably for a better life, to begin anew, and enjoy peace, prosperity, and freedom have brought under question their true motivation for seeking a new home in Canada. It seems, like the situation in Lebanon a few years ago, that many are in fact Canadians of convenience. They have not sworn allegiance to the Queen and Canada, they have not chosen to abide by our laws and customs; rather, their true allegiance is to a terrorist group that has used blood, murder, and death to achieve their aims. While some Tamils have called for peace and reconciliation, a plurality would appear to have chosen the sword.
Torontonians have had enough of the law breaking and inconvenience. This has been exacerbated by the lack of leadership from Mayor Miller, Premier McGuinty, and Chief Blair. Blair should resign for his inability or refusal to enforce the law. He put his own officers at risk by allowing them to be assaulted with no repercussions to the mob. The Tamil protesters were just that, a mob were flagrantly violating the law by entering the freeway.
McGuinty and Miller also share the blame, but they should also demand Blair's resignation. Furthermore, the Tamils may have set a precedent for traffic shutdowns to "protest" their cause while putting other people at risk from not being able to reach hospitals, schools, work, etc.
This cannot continue. We are a nation of laws.
Why do I use the word irate? Well, most news websites have disabled the comment section for stories relating to the shut down of the Gardiner Expressway in Toronto on Sunday evening. What is most disgusting is the blatant contempt that the Tamil community (although not all Tamils of course) have shown for the rule of law.
What makes western civilization great is the notion that we are a nation (or nations) of laws, not men or political parties or groups or "communities". The rule of law means that no one is above the law, that there is no tyranny of the majority, and that each individual is equal before the law. Justice is blind, or at least it's supposed to be. Of course we're not perfect, but we're better than most at protecting the innocent and providing for an equitable justice system.
That the Tamil protesters would wave the flags of the terrorist group the Tigers or LTTE is nothing short of disgusting. This group has used child soldiers, suicide bombers, human shields, and assassinations to accomplish its objectives. That they would now whine for UN intervention or Canadian intercession is comical. This group, the LTTE, has broken every international law relating to war in the books. Their pleas for humanitarian assistance are now difficult to justify considering their bloody history of violence.
Not only that, the Tamil-Canadians, who came to Canada presumably for a better life, to begin anew, and enjoy peace, prosperity, and freedom have brought under question their true motivation for seeking a new home in Canada. It seems, like the situation in Lebanon a few years ago, that many are in fact Canadians of convenience. They have not sworn allegiance to the Queen and Canada, they have not chosen to abide by our laws and customs; rather, their true allegiance is to a terrorist group that has used blood, murder, and death to achieve their aims. While some Tamils have called for peace and reconciliation, a plurality would appear to have chosen the sword.
Torontonians have had enough of the law breaking and inconvenience. This has been exacerbated by the lack of leadership from Mayor Miller, Premier McGuinty, and Chief Blair. Blair should resign for his inability or refusal to enforce the law. He put his own officers at risk by allowing them to be assaulted with no repercussions to the mob. The Tamil protesters were just that, a mob were flagrantly violating the law by entering the freeway.
McGuinty and Miller also share the blame, but they should also demand Blair's resignation. Furthermore, the Tamils may have set a precedent for traffic shutdowns to "protest" their cause while putting other people at risk from not being able to reach hospitals, schools, work, etc.
This cannot continue. We are a nation of laws.
2009-05-09
Choosing Winners
Obama's actions to cure the financial ills of America have largely been about picking winners and losers. This is dangerous to liberty. The video below explains why.
2009-05-07
Obama's Laughable "Cuts"
Barack Obama, peace be upon him, has decided to cut $17 billion from a budget of over $3.5 trillion. That's like taking a spoon full of water from a pool to save a drowning person. America is certainly drowning in debt, whether it be from the government or personal credit card debt. Obama's "meaningful" cuts amount to 0.5% of the entire budget. So while the tax payers genuinely cut back, Obama raises taxes and saddles future generations with a gigantic burden.
"It's as if this were the Gobi Desert or the Sahara Desert and you came along and you took a few pieces of sand," Senator Judd Gregg said. Obama could have got far better results by slashing corporate tax rates to stimulate business. As Reagan and Kennedy proved, cutting tax rates actually generates more tax revenue because it essentially pays dividends from increased economic activity. Not only that, a competitive corporate tax rate of 12-15% would likely result in trillions of dollars returning back to the US that is currently held in foreign jurisdictions by US based companies.
Obama would do well to heed Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek, "We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice”.
Unfortunately for democracy and individual liberty, Obama's actions display an eagerness to control various segments of the economy including health care, banks, the auto sector, and energy. Obama's actions may seem innocent and well intentioned, but Hayek also warned of such controlling actions by the state:
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Amen.
"It's as if this were the Gobi Desert or the Sahara Desert and you came along and you took a few pieces of sand," Senator Judd Gregg said. Obama could have got far better results by slashing corporate tax rates to stimulate business. As Reagan and Kennedy proved, cutting tax rates actually generates more tax revenue because it essentially pays dividends from increased economic activity. Not only that, a competitive corporate tax rate of 12-15% would likely result in trillions of dollars returning back to the US that is currently held in foreign jurisdictions by US based companies.
Obama would do well to heed Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek, "We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice”.
Unfortunately for democracy and individual liberty, Obama's actions display an eagerness to control various segments of the economy including health care, banks, the auto sector, and energy. Obama's actions may seem innocent and well intentioned, but Hayek also warned of such controlling actions by the state:
"Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom."
Amen.
2009-05-06
Obama's Power Grab
Despite that more people have been killed by lightning strikes in the US and Canada than swine flu since the "pandemic", you can be sure Rahm Emmanuel is trying to find a way to use this "crisis" for more opportunities to expand government and consolidate power.
Similarly, the bankruptcy of Chrysler has been used by the White House to subvert the law, increase the power of government at the expense of the individual, and slap private enterprise with costs and penalties.
Robert Robb (bad name), writes:
The Obama administration's proposed restructuring is more than just unjustified, however. It dangerously undermines the rule of law, as explicated so beneficially by Friedrich Hayek in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."
The essence of the rule of law, according to Hayek, is that what the government will do is known to all economic actors in advance. That government will not act arbitrarily in specific circumstances to favor some economic actors over others.
Chrysler has $6.9 billion in secured debt. Under the law, secured lenders have the first claim on the assets of the debtor in the event of non-payment.
The Obama administration is attempting to muscle past this law. Under its proposal, the health care trust of the auto workers' union, an unsecured creditor, would forgive 57 percent of what Chrysler owes it, and receive 55 percent of the company's equity in exchange. The federal government would forgive about a third of what it would loan Chrysler and receive 8 percent of the company's equity. Fiat would pay nothing for its 20 percent initial ownership.
The secured creditors, with the first claim on Chrysler's assets, were asked to forgive 70 percent of what they are owed and receive nothing in equity. When they refused and forced the company into bankruptcy, they were excoriated by Obama - a shameful act by a president who pledged to uphold the law, not make it up as he went along.
The label of Obama as a "socialist" was deemed extreme during the campaign, but his actions since taking power have proven this criticism spot on. The so called "Obama-cons" which is a contradiction in terms should be regretting their decision to support BHO (you know who you are) if you value anything resembling individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets.
The question for Obama is when will this government expansion be enough? Then again, we (conservatives & classical liberals) know that the Leviathan can never be satisfied.
Similarly, the bankruptcy of Chrysler has been used by the White House to subvert the law, increase the power of government at the expense of the individual, and slap private enterprise with costs and penalties.
Robert Robb (bad name), writes:
The Obama administration's proposed restructuring is more than just unjustified, however. It dangerously undermines the rule of law, as explicated so beneficially by Friedrich Hayek in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."
The essence of the rule of law, according to Hayek, is that what the government will do is known to all economic actors in advance. That government will not act arbitrarily in specific circumstances to favor some economic actors over others.
Chrysler has $6.9 billion in secured debt. Under the law, secured lenders have the first claim on the assets of the debtor in the event of non-payment.
The Obama administration is attempting to muscle past this law. Under its proposal, the health care trust of the auto workers' union, an unsecured creditor, would forgive 57 percent of what Chrysler owes it, and receive 55 percent of the company's equity in exchange. The federal government would forgive about a third of what it would loan Chrysler and receive 8 percent of the company's equity. Fiat would pay nothing for its 20 percent initial ownership.
The secured creditors, with the first claim on Chrysler's assets, were asked to forgive 70 percent of what they are owed and receive nothing in equity. When they refused and forced the company into bankruptcy, they were excoriated by Obama - a shameful act by a president who pledged to uphold the law, not make it up as he went along.
The label of Obama as a "socialist" was deemed extreme during the campaign, but his actions since taking power have proven this criticism spot on. The so called "Obama-cons" which is a contradiction in terms should be regretting their decision to support BHO (you know who you are) if you value anything resembling individual liberty, personal responsibility, and free markets.
The question for Obama is when will this government expansion be enough? Then again, we (conservatives & classical liberals) know that the Leviathan can never be satisfied.
2009-05-05
Where's the Beef?
I've reviewed all the candidates running for the leadership of the Ontario PC Party, and I don't know where they stand on anything. There's no substance on any of their sites, few have platforms, and none present concrete plans for their agenda. If they don't have an agenda, we might as well have Ernie Eaves run again.
Disappointed.
All I know so far is that I'm definitely not voting for Frank Klees clearly does not understand what free enterprise is or why personal responsibility is a core conservative value.
As for Elliot, Hudak, and Hillier... where's the beef?
Disappointed.
All I know so far is that I'm definitely not voting for Frank Klees clearly does not understand what free enterprise is or why personal responsibility is a core conservative value.
As for Elliot, Hudak, and Hillier... where's the beef?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)