An Absurd Fabrication

With regard to this Chuck Cadman nonsense: someone is lying. Someone is lying badly.

In summary, the accusation is as follows: that the Tories offered Cadman a bribe to vote to bring down the government in the form of a $1 Million insurance policy. The accusation is specific on this point.

This is absurd. As someone with at least a passing familiarity with insurance, I can tell you right here and now that this story is crap. Anyone with half a brain (admittedly, a set of criteria which seemingly excludes much of the Liberal caucus) should be able to see that. Even the Vancouver Sun, which broke the story, admits it today - burying it at the very end of their article:

The cost of the insurance premiums for a man in Cadman's advance state of illness would be prohibitive, insurance specialists said.

"To underwrite a guy with that condition, the premium on a million-dollar policy would be something like $850,000," said Phil Moller, a chartered life underwriter in Toronto.

Not to mention the obvious truth that such a policy would be impossible to hide - and, in fact, would raise all sorts of red flags the moment that it was written.

For that matter, the Tories spent $17 Million in the whole of the 2004 election. Since, obviously, this money wouldn't have been able to come from campaign accounts, where exactly was it supposed to be coming from?

This doesn't make any sense at all. It's hearsay, passed on from a guy who's dead to his wife, who might well have understood. This is an ugly Liberal smear job - using a dead man to launch deliberately unfalsifiable allegations.

Should We Question Obama’s Patriotism?

It is pro forma for conservatives, before attacking some detail of a leftist’s views or background, to declare that, “of course, I don’t question (whoever)’s patriotism.” But, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, we ought to think about dropping the disclaimer.

The conduct and background of Barack Hussein Obama, over a period of years, raise alarming doubts as to the nature of the man and his loyalty to the United States and, more broadly, to Western Civilization. His thin paper trail suggests that he is either a real-life incarnation of Chauncey Gardener – or that he is someone with an agenda playing a very long game. Some of his associations and actions suggest the latter – with all of the danger that implies.

It’s not merely Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag pin. Nor is it his wife’s ridiculous comments that the success of her husband’s campaign allowed her to be proud of America for the first time in her life. The questions which quietly swirl around Obama run deeper – and are far more disturbing – than a few ostentatiously post-nationalist gestures from two confirmed members of the New Class.

These are the fundamental questions of the day:

Who is Barack Hussein Obama?

How was Barack Hussein Obama raised?

What does Barack Hussein Obama believe today?

Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961. His mother was white and his father was black. That’s about as far as you’ll get in most biographical sketches. But that omits some critical details. In particular, his father was a Kenyan. To some degree or another, he was a Moslem. His family today is Islamic. Given the short time that Obama Sr. was involved in the life of Obama Jr., it’s fair to say that his religion is probably immaterial to any discussion of how Obama was raised. What is more significant is that he was connected to the Kenyan Mau-Mau terrorist group. A group which, I might add, also had notable communist ties. Obama’s mother becoming involved with a man connected to a foreign, communist-inspired terrorist group is very suggestive, especially when we step back further.

Obama’s grandparents, even in the 1950’s, attended what the church’s current pastor describes as, “the little red church on the hill.” One of his mother’s high school friends, speaking today, describes her as a, “fellow traveller” – a phrase pregnant with meaning.

To hammer home the point even further – after her first husband left her, Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetero, another man with connections to the far-left, in this case Indonesia’s crypto-communist government.

This is very significant. In a recent interview, Obama said of his mother that, “(t)he values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." If Obama’s mother was a communist or fellow traveller, that means something. This is especially true given that Obama’s mother would appear to be the primary direct influence on him – his father having left at such an early age and his stepfather being barely mentioned by the Senator.

A recent column by Cliff Kincaid revealed another alarming connection. The “Frank” who Obama repeatedly refers to as a mentor in his first biography was, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis – a member of the Communist Party. When you add to this Obama’s own admission of having attended “socialist conferences” a disturbing picture begins to emerge.

Connect the dots. A woman raised as a Red Diaper baby has a child with a member of a communist-related group. She raises a son who is mentored by communists and attends “socialist conferences.” What sort of individual is that background likely to produce?

Remember, all of this occurred in the contest of the Great War between communism and the West. Communism isn’t merely a matter of political disagreement; it’s a matter of loyalty.

But, it gets worse.

After his father left, Obama’s mother married another Moslem. Again, this is a suggestive fact. Obviously, we can’t choose who we fall in love with – but Obama’s mother appears to have had, especially for the day, rather exotic taste. It makes one wonder what circles she was running with.

They went to Indonesia. There, to some degree or another, Barack Hussein Obama was raised as a Moslem. First he went to a Catholic school, where he was reportedly registered as a Moslem. Later, he went to an Islamic school. People recall him going to Mosque for prayers.

Obama says that he’s no longer a Moslem. Fine. I can accept that. But what of his background? Being raised as a Moslem – and having attended an Islamic school – would seem to make him more likely to be sympathetic towards our enemies in the present war. And, given the impossibility of auditing the contents of the human heart, it opens up all sorts of other, even more disturbing, prospects.

Everything which I’ve just stated would be academic – a matter for curiosity – if Obama’s conduct as a man was beyond reproach. We don’t get to choose who our parents are or what they believe. We don’t get to choose what religions we are inducted or not inducted into as children. We don’t get to choose where we are born. These are all matters in which the individual is blameless. We don’t live in a society which subscribes to the idea that he sins of the fathers must be visited upon the sons.

I do not care – nor should any other person – about the nature of Obama’s ancestors, except to the degree that they have plainly shaped the man that we must contend with today. If Obama rejected his ideological heritage – if he were so firmly and absolutely indentified in the public mind as a fervent patriot – there would be no questions to be asked. But that is not the case.

Obama had a choice.

It was Barack Hussein Obama, the man, who chose to serve on the board of a group which calls the creation of the State of Israel a “catastrophe.”

It was Barack Hussein Obama, the man, who chose to associate himself with a known supporter of Jihadist terror.

It was Barack Hussein Obama, the man, who struck up a friendship with another terrorist who plotted to blow up an Army dance and later lamented that he, “hadn’t done enough.”

Some people berate me for calling leftists “traitors” on a regular basis. I say: if the shoe fits…

After all, can it really be simply a coincidence that, in every major war over a span of decades, the majority of the left has been on the side of our enemies? Can we truly call those who, as Barack Obama does, claim that opposing a nation’s war effort and supporting the victory of its enemies a form of patriotism patriotic?

If Barack Hussein Obama, the man, rejected his background – if he denounced those who tried to murder Americans and those who backed them, if he fanatically opposed our enemies, if he worked to defend the West at every turn, then there would be no reason to examine what he was taught as a child. But, since he does not, we have cause for concern. We are now faced with the very real prospect of a President whose worldview has been shaped by some kind of bizarre Islamo-Communist perspective so bizarre and parodic that, under ordinary circumstances, Michael Savage would reject it as extreme.

Obama Vows: I Won't Defend America

"I will not weaponize space."

"I will slow the development of future combat systems."

Ugggg. I can't describe how much I despise what this man and what he stands for.

The Democrats: Butch v. Sissy

In an unusual development, Maureen Down makes some sense today:

And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.

Though, it's not really a paradox - Hillary went in trying to play the role of Mrs. Thatcher. but Democrats are more comfortable with Freddie Mercury (real name, according to Wikipedia: Farrokh Bulsara). If we adopt the leftist view and consider biological sex and gender to be separate concepts, it becomes even more obvious - the Democratic Party is the party of sissy little girls, whatever genitals they might actually have.

She goes on:

Hillary was so busy trying to prove she could be one of the boys — getting on the Armed Services Committee, voting to let W. go to war in Iraq, strong-arming supporters and donors, and trying to out-macho Obama — that she only belatedly realized that many Democratic and independent voters, especially women, were eager to move from hard-power locker-room tactics to a soft-power sewing circle approach.

Less towel-snapping and more towel color coordinating, less steroids and more sensitivity.

Business schools have begun teaching the value of a less autocratic leadership style, with an emphasis on behavior women excel at: reading emotions and social interactions, making eye contact and expressing empathy.

It's quite true. It reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What's the hardest part about registering as a Democrat?
A: Telling your parents that you're gay.

Why I Love John McCain

In contrast with America's weak-kneed Democrats equivocations about Castro - and the Canadian left's positive love affair with the man - John McCain's honesty about Fidel Castro is wonderful, exciting, and refreshing.

"I hope he has the opportunity to meet Karl Marx very soon," McCain told a town-hall style meeting of about 150 people, referring to communist theoretician Marx who died on March 14, 1883.

I'm surprised that more of the nancy-boys who are upset about the remark haven't also taken umbrage at McCain's other implication - namely that Karl Marx has been consigned to Hell for his own crimes against the human race.

Man, I really do love John McCain.

I found this, too:

In an appearance Tuesday night on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," McCain joked that he had brought a gift for Stewart back from a recent trip to Iraq.

"What do you want to start with, the bomb Iran song or the walk through the market in Baghdad?" Stewart asked McCain, referring to two recent controversies involving statements by the Arizona senator.

"I think maybe shopping in Baghdad," McCain responded. "... I had something picked out for you, too a little IED (improvised explosive device) to put on your desk."

On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., demanded in a speech on the House floor that McCain apologize to troops for joking about the explosive devices that are responsible for many of the casualties in Iraq.

"Imagine a presidential candidate making a joke about IEDs when our kids are getting blown up," Murtha said.

"I don't know how to respond to that kind of hysteria," McCain said when asked about Murtha's demand during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday. "When I was in combat and tough situations we used humor all the time, and all I can say to Murtha and others is lighten up and get a life."

Now, that's change I can believe in!

LIberals With Too Much Time on Their Hands...

Watch for something about this to pass by you in the next few days, especially if you happen to - as I do - know a number of Liberals.

Basically, Jason Cherniak claims that some "unnamed source" noticed that a picture of a "shocked woman" on a Tory website and a porn website were identical.  He then goes on to accuse the Conservatives of "stealing from porn sites."

There's only one problem - that's not what happened here at all.  The picture in question wasn't "stolen" - it's a stock photo.  I discovered this fact after roughly thirty seconds of research.  I followed the following simple procedure:

1) Search Google for "stock photos."
2) Pick the first decent-looking site.
3) Search for "shocked woman."

Presto.  Hopefully Mr. Cherniak will rapidly retract and apologize for his accusations.  I'm only barely a Tory - but spreading lies around the internet about how the Conservatives are "stealing from porn sites" is decidedly uncool.

(Hat Tip - I forgot to mention that it was commenter CMJH over at Mr. Cherniak's site who suggested that this was possible).

Idiocracy Sums Up What's Wrong With the World Today

That's pretty much the truth. It's how someone like Barack Hussein Obama has a chance of being elected President. It explains the increasing socialization of our society.

It also explains reality television, MTV, rap music, and any number of other cultural ills.

R. v. Yoshida: The Tale of the Parking Lot

I fought the Queen – and I won. And, in some cases, perhaps you can win too.

A year and a half ago, I was cited for violating Section 144(1)(b) of the B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, which forbids “driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.” In English – I was charged for driving clear across a mostly-empty parking lot on my way to work in the morning. Frankly, I thought it was a stupid ticket. It was a clear August day. It was early in the morning. The sun was out. The section which I cut across was pretty much totally unoccupied. I was travelling at, maybe, thirty. The RCMP Constable claimed that she thought it was closer to forty. I doubt it. I also doubt that, in a span of two hundred or so meters, that the difference between thirty and forty can be reliably attained from simple visual observation.

Anyways, as I said, I was prepared to fight the case out on the merits. I don’t think I did anything wrong – and I mean that in a legal sense, not merely in the sense that I admire Winston Churchill’s habit of driving on the sidewalks when necessary out of his conviction that he was far more important than ordinary people. In particular, I think that I had solid ground for reasonable doubt both because I doubt if the cop would have been able to enumerate the supposed persons that I posed a danger to. As well, it appeared to me that he Constable stopped me by following the exact same path across the parking lot as I did. But, as it turned out, none of that was necessary.

Instead, I prevailed by relying on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yes, in general I’m not a fan of what that document hath wrought but, in this case, it saved me something like $500.

From when I got the ticket, on August 31st, 2006 (quota, anyone?) to the trial, close to eighteen months elapsed. Therefore, I made an application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that my right to be tried within a reasonable time, as contained in Section 11(b) of the Charter had been violated.

This wasn’t a shot in the dark. In R. v. Askov the Supreme Court ruled that a delay of eight to ten months from charge to trial was appropriate and that, as delays extended beyond that point, they become increasingly hard to justify. Further, they ruled that delays resulting from inadequate resources weigh against the Crown. Since, in this case, the only factor (at least that I’m aware of) delaying this case was the lack of institutional resources, these facts tended to weigh in my favour.

However, a few years later, in R. V. Morin the Court raised the burden a little bit – holding that he accused, In order to prevail on an 11(b) motion must demonstrate some sort of prejudice arising out of the delay. In this particular case, I felt that this definitely existed – since there were numerous witnesses to the incident at the time but, by the time a trial was scheduled more than a year later, I couldn’t find anyone with a confident enough recollection of the incident to testify in my defense. Moreover, in a case where detailed facts would have mattered a great deal, any testimony that either the Constable or myself could have offered would have been, for the most part, to recap our own notes from the time of the incident.

Now, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to make frivolous motions. But, I would suggest that the Crown has both a legal and moral obligation to dispose of matters in an orderly and rapid fashion. It should not take a year and a half to deal with an ordinary traffic ticket. If you have one that’s taking that long, I recommend copying my practice and seeking a stay of the charges on the grounds that the delay has violated your rights. After all, it can’t hurt.

In order to properly make the application, I had to write it up and deliver it to the court, to the BC Attorney General, and to the Attorney General of Canada. I’m told that people have done this by fax and ordinary mail but, not wanting to take any chances, I sent mine registered. A few days later, I got a letter from the Department of Justice telling me that they wouldn’t be intervening in the case.

So, today, I went to court for the first time in my life. Frankly, I was a little bit nervous – especially when I found that, while most the traffic cases where scheduled in one courtroom, I was set for another room whose docket was filled with longer-form items. I became even more concerned when I saw that, rather than the RCMP Constable, there was a Crown lawyer to argue the case.

But, when I got up, the Crown Counsel told the Judge that because the combined time of arguing the application and following it with the trial would force the trial to be scheduled for some time even further into the future, the Crown was going to stay the charge. Boom. I won.

The lesson to be had – always stand up for your rights. Don’t bow down before the state, especially when the state is wrong. Perhaps if more people would fight their tickets on a consistent basis and do so using a sound and aggressive strategy, the tactic of using traffic policing as a method for revenue generation would stop working and instead police would be freed up to arrest actual criminals – like the drug gangs waging war upon eachother across the Lower Mainland.

The Post Tells the Real McCain Story

Here's the Washington Post's version of the NYT story I discussed below.  Much closer to the mark.

As I said earlier, the NYT story seems basically to be what they had in December - a boring story about a lobbyist and some piddling campaign donations - sexed up and laced with innuendo.

And,  for those who have difficulty comprehending the English lanugage, I didn't say that I believe Larry Sinclair's claims that he had sex with/did drugs with Barack Obama.  I merely said that his claims, as bizarre as they are, are probably as or more credible than the sub-tabloid trash stunt that the Times attempted with this story.

Times Publishes Absurd McCain Smear, Ignores Obama Rumours

Now that he's the nominee, despite having endorsed him, the New York Times have let loose a hilariously inept attempt to smear Senator McCain.

In summary: In 1999, Senator McCain's aides felt that a lobbyist was being seen IN PUBLIC with the Senator too much.  They told her to back off.  McCain admitted, in private, that this was the right thing to do.

This is the sum total of the allegation, in fact.  However, the Times has tried to sex up the thing by lacing it with innuendo.  For example, they claim that McCain admitted to now-disgruntled aides that he behaved "inappropriately."  Notice the weasel-word.  The Times could have described their actual response, but instead they used a word which could have countless meanings in the hopes that people will grasp onto the worst possible interpretation.

The story is absurd on its face.  If a candidate for President was really having an affair, do you really think that people would notice because his mistress was showing up at TOO MANY FUNDRAISERS?  Ha.

And, apparently, the Times has been working on this story for months.  This is all they've got?  A good sign.

Hell, Larry Sinclair's allegations against Obama (warning: questionable content) that he did drugs with and had gay sex with Obama) are more credible than this nonsense.  Sinclair's even apparently agreed to take a polygraph.

Should We Question Obama's Patriotism?

So, here's what Michelle Obama said the other day:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

Or, in other words, she wasn't proud to be an American up until the point that her husband became a credible candidate for President. 

Given that Obama stopped wearing a flag pin to protest the Iraq War, and doesn't bother to put his hand over his heart for the playing of the national anthem is it alright if we question his patriotism now?

Obama Office Proudly Displays Communist Flag

Newsbusters picks up on this telling detail.

One of Barak Hussein Obama's new offices in Texas is proudly flying a Cuban flag emblazoned with a picture of Che Guevara.

I doubt if we'll see even a single news story about this. The amazing thing isn't merely that someone put it up - but that no one else there seemed to even notice. And people wonder why I describe the Democrat Party as the "party of treason."

Imagine the uproar (the very correct uproar, I need not add) if a Republican office was displaying a Nazi flag with a picture of Adolf Hitler on it. Though, of course, as our friend Jonah Goldberg notes, that would be more appropriate for a Democratic office as well.

Hell, for a Republican comparison, imagine the uproar if some Republican office had a giant picture of Joe McCarthy in it. (Leaving aside the fact that, in all reality, Tailgunner Joe was a stand-up guy).

Delegate Math

These numbers from the Romney camp are self-evident nonsense.

McCain has roughly 720 delegates.

Romney has 256.

There are 963 left to go.

1199 are needed to win the nomination.

That means that McCain needs 471 to win the nomination.

Romney needs 935.

In other words, McCain needs to win 49% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination

Romney would need to win 97% of the remaining delegates.

Or he would need to get the votes of all of Huckabee's delegates and to win 77% of what's left.

This thing is over.

A Khaki Election?

The odds are that we're headed to the polls this year after all.  I'm surprised.  Frankly, as I stated earlier this year, I thought that - having passed up the golden opportunity last fall - the Prime Minister was going to try and make it to the fixed election date.

But, now he says that we're going to have a confidence vote on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan, with the provisio that NATO must increase their support for our troops.  Good on both counts.  We need to remain committed to victory - but it's time for the rest of NATO to get off their asses and start to pull their own weight.  To date, this war - the war which everyone insists that they're dedicated to winning (everyone save the NDP and their seditious friends, that is) - has been fought largely by Canada, the United States, and Britain.

As I outlined last summer, I think that there's a real opportunity here for Harper to try and make a long-term breakthrough.  The Liberal stranglehold on the imagination of this country (the degree to which left-libealism is the default mode of existance) is in large measure due to the degree to which the Liberal Party has, over the last four decades, managed to conflate liberal values with Canadian ones until the point that they are, in the minds of most, one and the same.  Remaining committed to the war will allow the Tories to create an alternative narrative for themselves - in the form of a kind of aggressive Canadian nationalism.

They shouldn't be - and I suppose that the Prime Minister hasn't been - daunted by poll results which show a majority favour the Liberal position.  Remember - the left-wing vote in Canada is now split four ways.  The Tories are going to be strongest not when they are running on issues where there is broad agreement among Canadians (save, for those like crime - where the other parties disagree with the majority of Canadians) but from those where they can grasp onto a strong position held by a large minority of Canadians (in the 40% range).

Remember - because of our electoral system and party configuration, if the Tories can make themselves the party with the absolute loyalty of 38% or so of Canadians, they can make themselves into the government of all of Canada for practically forever.

Liveblogging Super Tuesday

Over at the Western Standard.

Britain Expands Welfare for Mohammadean Polygamists

Do they even want to live? Seriously. How mighty Britannia, which once ruled most of the world has fallen.

The depressing news for today is that the UK has decided that Moslem men with multiple "wives" can collect welfare benefits for each "wife".

There are so many things wrong with that sentence that I don't know whether I should put my fist through the wall or cry or both.

Meanwhile, one in four Britons doesn't know that Winston Churchill was a real person.

God save the Queen.