Merry Christmas,

I would like to wish a Merry Christmas to everyone who has stopped by the blog or has followed me on Twitter over the past year. May 2012 be your best year yet!

I know I have posted the following video before, but you can't go wrong with a Canadian classic.

From Canada's own NFB: The Great Toy Robbery.

Nanny Redford. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Do you live in Alberta an call yourself a conservative?  If so, please read the following article from Rick Bell in the Calgary Sun paying particular attention to Premier Alison Redford's own words.

Excerpts: (highlighting mine)

“We know some of the choices people make with respect to tobacco and with respect to alcohol certainly are consumption choices. They also have an impact on quality of life.”

Redford talks about how increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco can be “a public policy tool.”
She says if the province is thinking about health and wellness as more than just putting more beds in hospitals “one of the other things we can say is what are some of the choices we can make in this society that will actually ask people to consider again some of the choices they’re making in their life.”

“Albertans are really sensible. They want to be healthy, they want to be safe and they want government to take some leadership and say: ‘You know what, we’re going to make some choices and these choices are going to be conducive to building a safer and a healthier community...

“I’ve heard Albertans say: ‘We want to have more opportunity to take responsibility for our health. We want you to emphasize wellness. We want to know if we’re a healthy person we’re not going to get penalized in the health care system.’ (BTW: How the hell does bigger gov't give someone the opportunity to take responsibility for their own health, or their 'own' anything for that matter? Total nonsense.)

Pure big government knows what is best for yo, nanny state nonsense that we have heard many times before whenever the government makes a grab for your wallet under the false pretense of helping you. It is the exact same argument that the federal Liberals used when they were trying to impose a carbon tax; it was for our own good and we should smile and thank them for the privilege of paying. Thankfully Canadians saw through the Liberals BS on their carbon tax and my hope is that Albertans will also see through Redford's very liberal like plans for another tax grab even if it is supposedly being done "for our own good".


Today it is smokes and booze but reading Redford's comments it is clear that she will not stop there. It is pretty much a given that all fees/licences/vehicle registration etc WILL be going up under the PC's but given Redford's concern for our money err I mean our health, you can expect that soon it will be taxes on sugary drinks, 'fast' or any high fat food, salt, coffee and on and on, because like all liberals Redford will not stop taxing you or stop telling you what to do because she believes that she knows how you should live your  life better than you do yourself. They can't help themselves.

When a so called conservative premier is talking like this, it really is time for a change because there is nothing at all conservative about Redford or her nanny state ideas.

The worm has turned on media obsession with the Irwin Cotler story

Reprinted from David Akin's blog, a comment from our friend Gabby in QC that totally destroys the MSM narrative on the Cotler story with examples of the media doing the exact same thing.

-------------

Let me begin by saying: my gut feeling is that Mr. Cotler is beginning to mount a campaign for the leadership of the Liberal party.

Now … when I first heard about this story, my reaction was ugh! Why is my party engaging in such dirty tricks? I jumped to that conclusion because I read / heard that people in the Mount Royal riding had received calls actually telling them Mr. Cotler WAS retiring and that there WAS an imminent by-election.
However, in the real call (from the video Mr. Akin posted) I notice the caller says: “Some people are suggesting that the current MP may retire … if you would consider supporting the Conservative party if there’s a by-election.”

• Mr. Cotler’s name is NOT mentioned, so he is not being personally targeted. Given some people’s lack of interest in politics, they may not even know who their MP is.
• “the current MP MAY retire” is not the same as “the current MP IS retiring.”
• “IF you would consider supporting” and “IF there’s a by-election” are hypotheticals, not statements of fact.
So, sorry to say, the reports about the calls were inaccurate. If there have been untruths, it is the way in which some media have portrayed the calls.

Furthermore, the media often engages in rumours, using unnamed sources to lend credence to their articles. In November 2010, Chantal Hebert, Jane Taber, and John Ibbitson all wrote columns about the imminent departure of Peter Mackay to go to a Bay St. law firm. Did Peter Mackay raise that as a question of privilege? No.

In 2008, Mia Rabson “discovered” Vic Toews was about to be appointed to a Court of Queen’s Bench judgeship. Did Vic Toews raise that rumour as a question of privilege in the House? No.
And who can forget the infamous “wafergate” accusations? Did the PM ask the House to look into it? No.
Some may argue that those rumours were not started by a political party so the Cotler issue is not the same.
BUT Mr. Cotler’s main argument is that his job as an MP was hindered by those rumours. Regardless of the source, the rumour was the aggravating factor supposedly hindering his work. Would Mr. Cotler have felt less aggrieved if the calls had been placed by the NDP? Would his work as an MP have suffered less or not at all?

Finally, Andrew Cohen in a column entitled “The smearing of Irwin Cotler”
wrote:
“It is true that Cotler has had doubts about remaining in Parliament, which isn’t unusual for a politician of his age, experience and interests, who now finds himself a backbencher. Even before the Liberals became the third party, Michael Ignatieff had to persuade him to run again this year.”

SO, the rumour that Mr. Cotler was considering leaving politics did not necessarily originate with the Conservatives. Why is Mr. Cotler now making such a big deal out of it? And why are media people like Susan Delacourt, Jennifer Ditchburn, Greg Weston, Evan Solomon, and even the usually fair Bruce Anderson trying to keep this issue alive?

--------

After a solid week of stories from most of the MSM, with the Globe and Mail in particular who seem to have a sick obsession with continuing this non story, come some relevant facts that the media has chosen to ignore.

Their own actions.

WTG Gabby, but don't be surprised if you find yourself named in a letter from Bob Rae to Elections Canada.

Link to John Ibbitson story on Peter MacKay leaving that was published AFTER MacKay himself had said he was not leaving.

And this from the CBC on Vic Toews, who also said he wasn't leaving but yet CBC published the 'reprehensible' rumour anyways and may have violated Toews 'privilege' as an MP, at least according to what the Globe and CBC have been repeatedly saying in their numerous Cotler stories.

Lies the Alberta Government told me.

Lies the Alberta Government told me.

Have you read or heard something like this from a PC Minister, MLA or PCAA hack recently in defence of the very flawed Bill 26:

We are not lowering the limit to 0.05, this is current law, the new law only changes penalties.

It may make for a nice sound bite but the reality is that every one of these statements are outright lies! There is no place at all in existing (before Bill 26) Alberta law where this mythical 0.05 blood alcohol concentration is actually written. It simply does not exist in any of our laws.

Alberta law as it existed before yesterday: Section 89 of the Alberta Traffic Safety Act reads:
(1) If a peace officer reasonably suspects that the driver of a motor vehicle has consumed alcohol or otherwise introduced into the driver’s body any alcohol, drug or other substance in such a quantity so as to affect the driver’s physical or mental ability, the peace officer may require the driver to surrender the driver’s operator’s licence to the peace officer.

0.05 is not there. It never was there. The reality is that the Redford government is in fact setting the limit and writing 0.05 into the law, and no matter how many times that they claim that they are not changing anything, the facts say otherwise. It would be nice if they would at least drop the lies and admit that they are indeed changing the law, but that would get in the way of their attempts to spin the public and admit that they are lying or that they do not know what our exiting laws say. Either way it does not give me much confidence in these people who claim to represent Albertans.


More examples:
Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security Jonathan Denis:  "We are not changing the blood alcohol limits. There already is a .05 legislation if you refer to Section 89 of the Traffic Safety Act"

Justice Minister Verlyn Olson: “This is not being pushed through for political reasons,” Olson said. “We have had a .05 guideline for signs of impairment in Alberta for a long time. That hasn’t changed.

Albertans don't like being lied to.


A quick update: For those that claim blowing a 0.05 on a roadside device is an automatic suspension should really read Section 89 again in particular the following:
5(a) at a place designated by the peace officer, undergoes a test the purpose of which is to show the proportion of alcohol in the driver’s blood, and the result of that test indicates that the proportion of alcohol in the driver’s blood does not exceed 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood... the peace officer shall forthwith return the operator’s licence, if any, to the driver and the disqualification from driving is terminated.


In other words if you challenge the roadside finding of 0.05 on a breathalyzer and blow less than 0.08 you get your drivers licence back immediately. Further proving that any statements about current law being 0.05 is nothing more that a lie designed to hide what the government is actually doing.

Elizabeth May: Canadian MP and delegate of the Government of Papua New Guinea???

Call me crazy but I am having a real hard time with a sitting Member of Parliament from Canada being named as an official government delegate to ANOTHER country, never mind the fact that this is happening while our Canadian House of Commons is currently sitting.

If there is not some kind of rule against this:

Tweet from Green Party MP Elizabeth May.
Amazing. My request to Papua New Guinea came through. I have full credentials as a government delegate - fm PNG. Strong negotiators 4 Kyoto.

there should be!

Where do her loyalties lie? If she can work for a foreign government on this...