On Those "Lefty, Liberal, Multicultural Appeasement Monkeys"

"Apologists For Evil" by Pat Condell

H/t Raph

When Conservatives Attack: On The Left, Telling The Truth Is Called 'Vilification'

Have you ever caught one of those nature programs with the lions stalking unsuspecting zebras on an African savanna? As much as you feel sorry for the poor zebras, you can't help but admire the grace of a predator in action.

I have to admit, those shows have absolutely nothing on this smackdown that Ezra Levant provides Miss Andrea Calver in the following video. The words 'ass' and 'clown' may be involved.

Consider it an early-in-the-week palate cleanser.



(*)

Exit Question: Am I the only person in Canada who didn't know that Michael Coren was British?

Harper Won't Push Obama To Visit The Great White North First

Does anybody else smell a fresh new angle for the Canadian left?

"Oh! Harper hates Obama and won't even set aside his scary hidden agenda to have a friendly meeting with The One, our closest ally, before he goes to stupid Mexico or something. Obviously, Harper is still the enemy of Hope and Change and Christmas and Puppies. Harper still equals Bush!"

Story from CTV:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper won't be pushing his newly elected American counterpart to make Canada his first foreign stop, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Kory Teneycke says Harper doesn't have to be best friends with Barack Obama to have a strong professional relationship with the president-elect.

After all that campaign talk about revisiting NAFTA, I'm not too jazzed about the guy popping over for a visit either. I don't blame the Prime Minister for wanting to put it off as long as possible.

Four Reasons Why I Love David Miller

Reason The First:

Because he betrays the illogic of banning fire arms so eloquently.

"I don't think there is any defence for sport shooters anymore, it's a hobby that creates danger to others. Guns are stolen routinely from so-called legal gun owners and it's time we got those guns out of Toronto." -- David Miller

That's right. "So-called" legal gun-owners are the problem with Toronto. I assume he is drawing on heretofore classified evidence showing that most gun crimes in Toronto are perpetrated by legal gun owners and criminals who have stolen registered guns and not by criminals with unregistered fire arms mostly smuggled from the United States as common sense and all previous data has indicated. I'm sure Miller will be happy to show us this new evidence any day now.

I'll allow commenter Edward Kennedy at Free Dominion to demonstrate just how absurd this logic is:

Right on miller, but following this display of intelligence and logic, let us carry this a bit further, since legitimate owners of cars have them stolen, and since the stolen vehicles often cause accidents, there is no room for driving as legitimate automobile owners are responsible for the injuries and deaths caused by the criminals who steal them. Thus, all automobiles must be banned. After all, cars kill people and there is no defence for auto enthusiasts anymore, the activity creates danger to others.

Reason The Second:

Because he undermines every leftist social movement that he embraces by arguing unbelievably illogically for them.

Aside from the previously mentioned movement to ban fire arms in Canada which he has disgraced so thoroughly and consistently, he has also been extremely helpful in undermining the popular global warming movement which seeks to solve "the greatest crisis facing our generation" by replacing our liberal democracy with a green brand of fascism. Particularly, I'm thinking of his frequent chatter about increasing taxes for downtown parking, as well as other such abuses of his extensive taxation powers, in order to strong-arm Torontonians into abandoning modernity to reduce our carbon footprint.


Reason The Third:

Because he has ensured a Conservative come-back in Toronto in the near future.

Toronto is home to a very special political culture. My personal relationships and experience has taught me that most Torontonians vote the way they do based almost entirely on what is fashionable at the time. The vast middle class has consistently voted Liberal in Toronto because it meant they could drive home in their Hybrid cars and smugly chat with their middle class hybrid-driving friends about how morally superior they are for voting for Trudeau's party and for solving the climate crisis in the process.

Miller's reign of terror has made Torontonians reminisce about the good ol' days under Mel Lastman and, even in the most hopelessly fad-voting circles, it is no longer "cool" to vote Liberal. Since Harper has clawed his way towards the center of the political spectrum as quickly as Dion could abandon it, many Torontonians are sure to, although uncomfortably at first, begin posting blue signs on their lawns.


Reason The Fourth:

Because he's a caricature of himself and makes all leftists look silly by association.

Democratic politics has proven to be largely the result of our visceral reactions to the politicians between which we are supposed to choose. Since most Canadians don't have the time or the interest to truly engage with the issues of an election at a normative level, they make decisions based upon which candidate they intuitively prefer.

In 2006, for example, Paul Martin came off as a snake-oil salesman and a rich power-luster and so stolid Liberals couldn't get over his repugnancy enough to cast ballots for him in numbers necessary to win. Martin bled Liberal support like it was his job because he wasn't likeable. Conversely, Harper, although profoundly unexciting, came off as reasonable and dependable and, consequently, he has and will continue to slowly win converts from the centrist and right-leaning Liberal camp.

David Miller is no longer taken seriously by ANYONE. Accordingly, he has made it gloriously uncomfortable to be associated with the left in Toronto.


For all these reasons, I can now say without any trace of sarcasm that I love David Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You've done all Tories inside and outside of Toronto a big favour.

If You're Really Interested In Rolling Back The Tide of Extremism, Have Yourself Committed

Oh, how brave and noble are today's "progessive" bloggers. I've only waded into the morass of the leftosphere on a handful of occassions and, despite the superfluity of knee-jerk reactionary dreck (which, in all fairness, can be found in spades on our side as well), I must confess that I've found a few sparks of intelligence and wit over there.

Hoping to stumble upon a trenchant little piece from the leftist perspective today, I paid a visit to the Liblogs aggregating website whereupon I chanced to read a post of such staggering insight that my knuckle-draggingly rightist cranium exploded upon reading its words.

The insight was found, in the form of a thoughtful "memo" to Prime Minister Harper regarding some ambiguous and unsourced stiffling of the Canadian military's freedom of speech, on the blog "Rolling Back The Tide of Extremism." The blog's title, incidentally, had me rolling in the ironic aisles for a pleasant 5 or 6 minutes before I could gather myself.

And so I thought I'd share the aforementioned insight with my gentle readership:

Memo to Lardo:

We've checked and, sure enough, you don't pay the public and armed services of Canada, we do. Their job description requires them to work for the best interests of the country, not for the furtherance of your political fortunes.

Look here, you abysmal control freak, take the gags off the public service and the armed forces. If they've got something to say, let us hear it. When we want to hear from you, we'll let you know.

Let's have their opinions, their insights, their considerable experience and invaluable knowledge, not your censored, perverted version of what you would have us believe. You don't have to agree with them and you certainly have every opportunity and the full means of Parliament at your disposal to explain your position when you disagree and choose another path. If you've got a case, make it and, this being a democracy, we'll decide.

You see, Stevie, when you gag the public and armed services, you impose a form of partisan, political censorship on them and on us. That's undemocratic and what's undemocratic in Canada is unpatriotic. You're being unpatriotic and those who shill for you are just as unpatriotic and even those who merely sit on their hands and support you are not one bit better.

Yes! Yes! I've always suspected Stephen Harper didn't personally pay the armed services. Validation at last. And how about that gorgeous line "when we want to hear from you, we'll let you know." I wasn't aware that Prime Ministers were confined to a "dont speak unless spoken to" relationship with the citizenry.

I'm so amused by the left's constant moaning that Harper is somehow undemocratic. When someone takes this position, they're giving you a valuable clue towards an understanding of the Liberal perspective. You see, democracy is "rule by the people" and I, as a leftist and supporter of Canada's Natural Ruling Party, must certainly speak for the people. Consequently, anything Harper says or does is perforce undemocratic. More importantly, don't you see how not voting for the Liberals is unpatriotic now? If "democracy" is "rule by the people," and the Liberals speak for the people of Canada, then voting for the Tories violates the Will of the Canadian People and is tantamount to treason.

Oh, and did you catch that in the last paragraph? He called the Prime Minister of our country "Stevie." The brilliance here is that "Stevie" is an informal epithet and, by applying it to a person for whom appelations are conventionally formal, the nickname belittles without the troublesome responsibility of providing evidence for any criticisms that one might have.

But maybe RBTT does provide evidence. Let's read on, shall we?

Look here chum, we have plenty of reason to be suspicious of you and yours. If you'll do something this egregious when you have only a bare minority government, how underhanded will you be if we ever give you a majority?

Ah! There's that belittling through inappropriately informal appellations again. I just can't get enough of it.

Every now and then, Steve, you can't help but reveal just how deeply you hold the country and the Canadian people in contempt. It's time you showed a little respect, Steve, for Canada, for Parliament and for us lowly Canadians. We're not cattle and we're sure as hell not your serfs either.

Shorter RBTTOE: "Brothers and sisters, please! We need to have more respect for each other. Especially you, Lardo, you fat, knuckle-dragging moron."

At any rate, thanks for the laugh, friend. And, you know, for rolling back that tide of extremism like you do.

Pakistan: Just How Safe Are The Nukes?

I was recently linked a Newsweek article by Graham Allison that raises questions about the safety of Pakistan's nukes. The article suggests that the barriers between terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Pakistan's nuclear technology have been weakening steadily in recent years - and particularly in the wake of former Prime Minister Bhutto's assassination - and that the nightmare scenario of 'The World's Biggest Suicide Bomber' is becoming increasingly possible. This is an issue I've been pushing for some time and Allison does a good job of summarizing the principal concerns.

"As recently as November, Musharraf told reporters that Pakistan's custodial arrangements for nuclear weapons and material are 'the best in the world' and that so long as he is in power 'Pakistan's nuclear weapons will be safe.'"

As I posted earlier, Musharraf is holding on to power by a thread and US politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson and endeavouring to undermine what little control he has left.

Allison points to the real threat of corruption in the Pakistani government as a source of concern:

"The design of Pakistan's nuclear control system creates risks of insider theft. This system addresses first and foremost Pakistan's fear that if India, its archenemy, knew the location of the country's weapons it could launch a pre-emptive attack that eliminated them. The notion that there are sophisticated electronic locks on all Pakistani weapons and that only Musharraf has the codes just isn't credible. Were that the case, an attack that killed Musharraf could eliminate Pakistan's ability to retaliate. Instead, Pakistan has dispersed its weapons and distributed oversight to multiple strategic and security authorities. But these arrangements by necessity increase the likelihood that corrupt officials could successfully divert weapons or materials."

It is no secret that the Pakistani government is riddled with corruption and, even worse, Islamic radical sympathizers. The risk is nothing to scoff at as it stands today. Now remove Musharraf from the situation and you understand just how vulnerable the country is right now. There is exactly one - that's right, one - man standing between al-Qaeda and Pakistani nukes and that is General Musharraf. Hillary's characteristically parochial approach to foreign policy would be absolutely disastrous to the health of Musharraf's regime and, as a result of the instability his failure to retain power or legitimacy in Pakistan would cause, could more than feasibly lead to terrorists packing dirty bombs.

Of greatest concern, of course, is the threat that Pakistan poses to North America. Musharraf's decidedly pro-Western policies have been a crucial element in the US government's avoidance of major conflict with the Islamic state. Without the General at the helm of the country, Pakistan would quickly descend into anarchy and warlordism and it would then become impossible for the West to ignore the threat such a state would pose. Calls for revamped democracy from the leftists in North America are supremely unhelpful, with all this is mind, since democracy in Pakistan would be a death-blow to Musharraf's rule by providing power and legitimacy to socialist and jihadist political parties. The biggest advantage of Musharraf's rule is that his policies do not reflect in any real way the spirit of the people of his country.

As the article explains:

"The larger society [of Pakistan] has a decidedly negative view of the United States. In a 2007 Pew poll, two out of three Pakistanis named the United States as the greatest threat to their country."

Anti-Americanism (and don't think that gets us off the hook, Canada!) has never been stronger in Pakistan and with Bhutto's assassination, anti-Musharraf sentiment is becoming dangerously popular as well. A worrisome combination by any measure.

Those are just the highlights of the article. Read it in its entirety if the subject interests you.