Category: Antistupidity

… has a wee bit to say about our HLCs:

Those of you who read here, know that I have some mixed feelings about La Belle Province. Sometimes, I really, really want to just bitch-slap Quebec, en masse. Other times, I just love the hell outta the little buggers.

This is one of the latter.

On the one hand, they can be like the surly teenager who lives in the basement, demanding to be let do his own thing but refusing to live by the rules of the parents who actually pay the damned bills. On the other hand, they are capable of some astounding antibullshit from time to time. Today’s editorial in the Montreal Gazette is one such example (my emphasis, of course):

The way Canadians and their government deal with refugee claimants is still, as it has long been, an incoherent muddle of exceptions, special pleading, unverifiable claims, activism, confusion and foolishness.

Politically unpalatable though it might be, somebody needs to drain this swamp, and that somebody will have to be the federal government.

Several recent cases illustrate the problem:

U.S. Army Private Joshua Key deserted, came to Canada, and claimed refugee status, saying that in Iraq he had witnessed looting and violations of human rights. His refugee claim was rejected, but a judge allowed him to stay in Canada anyway.

An un-named Colombian denied refugee status in the U.S. said the “r” word here. Despite the fact that Canada and the U.S. have a “safe haven” agreement governing such cases, a Canadian court said he could stay. Last week a higher court overruled this validation of “asylum shopping,” but activist groups are complaining; the case may not be over.

Even when a bogus claimant loses his appeals, he can find a way to stay.

In British Columbia, Laibar Singh, an Indian who entered Canada with false papers, remains holed up in a Sikh temple. After the laborious hearing and appeals process, he was ordered deported from Canada, but ignored the order. In Canada he became ill and is now paralyzed. Immigration officials have been unable to summon the courage to arrest and deport him, even though he moves frequently from one refuge to another.

In Montreal, another failed refugee claimant, Algerian Abdelkader Belaouni, remains holed up in St. Gabriel’s Catholic Church despite an expulsion order, having slipped into Canada after his U.S. visa expired. Here again, immigration officials defer to the medieval superstition that a place of worship should provide immunity from the law.

At least those two say where they are. An alarming 41,000 people ordered deported from this country – many of them criminals – have just vanished.

There are far too many cases such as those mentioned above, and each time a judge, a pastor, or anyone else puts knee-jerk “compassion” above the rule of law, Canada loses something.

Canadians like to think of ourselves as generous and compassionate people, but where can we draw the line between being welcoming and being suckers? If our refugee-determinations come to be based on simply accepting everyone who gets here and wants to stay, what will the consequences be? Do we want to accept deserters into Canada? From the U.S. alone, or from everywhere? If we do that, how can we think of imposing any penalty on deserters from the Canadian Forces?

Do we really want to allow the unpopularity of the Iraq war in Canada to lead us to treat the U.S. armed forces as somehow illegitimate? Even if we did, shouldn’t this be articulated and regulated by Parliament, rather than by anyone with room in his church basement?

Immigration, including refugee policy, must be based on rules, not on individuals. If it’s not based on rules, then it’s not law.

It’s past time for Canadian refugee law to be clarified, improved, and then enforced with determination and vigour.

Yup; sometimes ya just gotta love the li’l French bastards… 😉

Wish I had time to elaborate on this….

SASKATCHEWAN RCMP OFFICER
I find that I have to deprogram every cadet that I train when it comes to CFRO checks and their reliability in regards to officer safety.

It does not matter if a gun is registered, if someone is bent on crime they will use a registered or non-registered gun. If no gun is available, they will use something else.

The gun registry places police officers’ lives at risk. The gun registry offers a false sense of security. The gun registry is making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The gun registry is eating up resources that the RCMP and every other municipal or first nation force desperately need.

Saying that the guns are the problem in this society is like saying pens are the cause of spelling errors, or that cars are the cause of drunk driving, or like saying fast food restaurants are the cause of obesity.

CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT AL KOENIG
Calgary Police Association president Al Koenig is skeptical of the Alberta government’s plan to have people willingly hand over unregistered guns. “To presume that gangsters will hand over their guns, somebody is living in wonderland,” Koenig said.

RETIRED TORONTO POLICE SGT MICHAEL MAYS
Your statement that it is used 5,000 times a day by police is misleading. A check of the registry is done automatically every time an officer is dispatched to an address, wanted or not. From its inception, I was advised not to depend on it to make decisions. It is outdated, inaccurate and completely unreliable. To make a decision at a call based on registry information would be foolish at best and deadly at worst.

SERGEANT BOB COTTINGHAM
Not once, however, during my career do I recall using the gun registry to solve a major crime. Simply put, the vast majority of criminals use firearms which don’t come close to being included in this bureaucratic jumble of information. Letter-writer Wendy Cukier may also be disappointed to know that I observed that most front-line officers have little faith in the gun registry, and see it as another bloated and failed attempt by the former government to appease its constituents.

CPL. MARTIN GAUDET
In dangerous situations, city police preferred to rely on their own information rather than call the registry office in Miramichi. Cpl. Martin Gaudet said officers responding to a potentially dangerous situation always assume there’s a firearm involved. “We don’t check with the registry during a gun-related incident,” he said.

CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT
“Wiping the slate clean and not making responsible gun owners into criminals is a good start,” said association president Al Koenig.

A.B.J. (BEN) BEATTY: 23-YEAR VETERAN OF THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE
I have however been involved in the investigation of countless offences such as robbery, where handguns were the weapon of choice and I must point out Sir, that the firearms registry did not assist in solving one, nor obviously in deterring one. The reasons that the firearms registry is so highly ineffectual are, I believe obvious, but basically it affects the wrong people, law abiding citizens and not criminals.

LEN GRINNELL, RETIRED RCMP STAFF-SARGEANT
I have grave concerns about the reliance on the registry for data which could result in death or injury of a police officer.

My experience has told me that the greatest hazard to police officers is complacence and I found it prudent to continually remind my staff of that fact. Relying on a flawed system for officer safety will eventually lead to a tragedy. It is unfortunate that the CACP did not take the time to consider the consequences of their position and the safety of the men and women they represent.

GILBERT YARD, RETIRED RCMP SUPERINTENDENT
I am appalled at just how much has been spent to date on the firearms registration process. But perhaps even more disturbing is the misplaced focus on legal firearms.

During my 37 years of policing I carried a handgun as a tool of my profession. I was also exposed to a wide cross-section of collectors and target shooters who used, stored and transported their weapons in a legal and responsible manner. They are not the problem. The misdirection of time, effort and funding is unforgivable. I believe that Canadians are much too astute to believe that either Bill C-68 or the proposed handgun legislation is anything other than a waste of time, effort and money. Wasting public funds that could really make a difference in acute justice issues, in my view, borders on criminal activity.

ERIC W. FERGUSON, Retired Chief of Police and RCMP Officer
I was 75 years of age on Dec. 31, 2005. Part of my life’s story was serving 24 years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and four years as Police Chief for the City of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada. For the past six or seven years I have stood by and watched the Liberal Government of Canada mishandle gun control and in the process not save one life, but encouraging criminals to commit more offences and yes, help to turn good honest Canadians into criminals. Now Prime Minister your plan to banish all handguns is real “dumb”.

DENIS COTE, PRESIDENT OF THE QUEBEC MUNICIPAL POLICE FEDERATION:
“How come if you have a ban, you’re not allowed to possess a firearm for 10 years, how come you can allow it for the hunting season?” asked Denis Cote, president of the Quebec municipal police federation. “If you’re a threat for everybody, make sure you’re a threat for all 12 months in a year.”

LEO TONEGUZZI, RETIRED CHIEF OF POLICE:
Mr. Martin, your government promised that the foolhardy gun registration laws you initiated would end the high amount of violence throughout Canada. That plan failed and now to get votes in the greater G.T.A. area you propose an entire ban on all handguns.

Name n/a
“I met with an RCMP officer this week who was told by his superiors to stop sending requests to the gun registry before attending domestic disputes because he ‘was putting his life in danger’. The RCMP officer was told the usual ‘no guns’ response to his query ‘creates a false sense of security’. The young officer was also told that if he ever criticized the gun registry publicly his career would be over,”

AL KOENIG, PRESIDENT OF THE CALGARY POLICE ASSOCIATION:
“The ironic thing is after spending $2-billion-plus trying to register them, the best the government can come up with is to outright ban them — it doesn’t solve the problem,” he said.

JOHN GAYDER, SERVING POLICE OFFICER IN ONTARIO
The registry is great at telling me what LAW ABIDING people duly registered their guns. These were never the people I needed to worry about. I don’t trust the registry because it will never be able to tell me what I need to know about the riskier anti social [expletive deleted] I may potentially be pulling over at 3am. Criminals and kooks DON’T REGISTER their guns.

MURRAY GRISMER, SERVING POLICE OFFICER IN SASKATCHEWAN
As a police officer with 19 years experience, the last thing I am willing to stake my life on is the information contained in the Firearm Registry. Not only is the information unverified and inaccurate, it has little to do with where a firearm is possibly stored or located. Of greater value is the licensing of owners for this at the very least is an indicator of who may potentially have a firearm in their possession; and yet I would still be a fool to risk my life on negative hit to a query of this information. As a police officer who represented the Saskatchewan Association of Police Officers in opposition to the Firearm Registry, I have spoken with police from across Canada who see little or no value in the Registry. Many have gone so far as to question the rational or motive of the Canadian Professional Police association’s continued endorsement of it.

Name n/a
When they went to process my registration for the new firearm they were told that the one I traded in was never registered. Another waste of taxpayers’ money. As a police officer that just confirmed my faith in the current gun registry system and that the current government is doing nothing to protect our members and the general public.

There’s a lot more here.

Bigass hat tip.

Damn!

For those of you that don’t go there much, pop on over to the National Post’s Full Comment blog and get a good look at Tarek Fatah letting Machiavellian maggot Mohamed Elmasry — and “his political apprentice Khurrum Awan” — have it with both barrels. Fatah, for those of you that don’t know, is one of the few Muslims in Canadian media (Salim Mansur is the only other one that I know of) who has absolutely zero tolerance for Islamofascist bullshit.  His basic message: if you have some kind of problem with freedom of speech… don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

When Mohamed Elmasry declared a few years ago that there was more press freedom in Egypt than in Canada, it took me some time and effort to lift my jaw up from the floor. However, since then I have become accustomed to the outlandish statements and claims of the good science professor from Egypt.

Keep on reading here.

I don’t like Obambi. This fact is far from secret. So far, in fact, that it couldn’t get to secret if it took a nickel to go to China. The man — and I think I’m taking a dangerous liberty with that word here — is a buffoon. He makes speeches that vaguely promise the moon but he’d be lucky if he could figure out how to deliver green cheese. He hasn’t accomplished a damned thing in his time in the US Senate and his experience, were it expressed as a fraction, would be written as diddly over squat. And before any of the usual suspects start blabbing about “another inexperienced Senator from Illinois,” let me explain one very, very simple little thing to you:

Even on the best God damned day of his life, Barack still wouldn’t be a match for Abe if Lincoln was coming off a three day drunk. Period. The minute — hell, screw that; the SECOND — that the words “God damn America” came out of his sorry piehole, Lincoln would have fistf*cked Jeremiah Wrong right in the mouth! And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything that you will ever need to know about Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Case closed (not that that’ll keep me from shooting my mouth off some more). Lincoln was a man of principles and integrity who stuck to his guns, even if they were pointed at him; Obambi is a smarmy fop with a messianic complex who twists in the wind of public opinion. Lincoln met adversity head-on; Obambi’s a deer in the headlights. Obama’s chumminess with seditious elements has shown him to be a two-faced little pretty boy; Lincoln (who, let’s be honest, was a less than hansom man) once quipped, in all seriousness, “if I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?” You get the idea.

And you know what? Nothing that I’ve written so far in this post means jack. Not a damned word of it. The reason why is simple: I’m Canadian. I don’t live in the U-S of A and I’m not going to be voting in their election, so whatever the hell I think about Obama or McCain or anyone else doesn’t add up to half a fart in a hurricane. My opinion just plain doesn’t matter.

So, what the hell am I shooting my mouth off for, then? Well, to be honest, I rather like the Yanks. There, I said it. Sure, they piss me off every now and then; the softwood lumber thing is a bit of a longtime burr under my saddle and Ann Coulter’s “lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent” crack made me want to bend her over and ram my Shutthef*ckup Stickâ„¢ up her narrow ass until her ears popped, but for the most part, all the Americans I’ve met have all been the nicest folks. And, contrary to popular belief, a hell of a lot more polite than a lot of Canucks I can think of.

So, I like the Yanks (it’s not as if I were the first, after all). I also understand how democracy works. It needs to be healthy and in order for that to be true, the people need to have faith in it. They need to be able to put some faith into their parties, even if that party is (ugh) the Democrats. That’s why I’m writing this: to help the Dems out. Not because I have any love for them, of course, but if they can improve themselves, then the Republicans will have no choice but to either improve in response or be banished to the political wilderness. The end result will be better for everybody, even for us up here in the Great White North®, seeing as how they’re our biggest trading partners and all.

That’s why I’ve decided to help out the donkeys; and I’m going go do it by explaining…

Why Obama Is Doomed To Lose

Dear Jackasses:

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for him; so many that I’m not even going to bother going into them all here. It doesn’t matter, anyway. None of them are the real reason why he’s going to lose. The real irony of it is, that he would lose anyway and it wouldn’t even be his fault. It would be yours, not his. The man could be the greatest political thinker of the generation and he’d still lose.

It’s because he’s a black Democrat.

There, I said it. It may not sound like a very nice thing to say but it’s still the truth and nothing you can do can escape that. Short of an untimely death (unlikely), John McCain is going to be the next President of the United States of America and there’s nothing that you or I or anyone else can do about it. You picked a losing horse.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you should have gone with Billary. She would have lost because she’s a woman Democrat. But I’m not talking about her, I’m talking about Obama, so let’s get on with it.

Borat Obambi’s going to lose because he’s a black Democrat. He’s not going to lose because he’s a Democrat; ya’ll were dumb enough to re-elect Billy-Bob, weren’t ya? I guess you think that it’s because he’s black, then?

WRONG!

Mark well my words on this one, because I’m speaking as someone who’s on the outside, looking in. I really don’t give a damn who you pick to run your country. I’d like you to be wise in your choices, but it’s really your mess to clean up if you blow it, not mine. In America, anyone can grow up to be President; it’s one of the risks you take. That being said, here’s my opinion, as a neutral party who considers himself a fairly keen observer of where American culture has been heading in my lifetime (and even a little bit before): Sometime in the next 20-24 years (five or six elections), if not sooner, the United States WILL have a President who is a woman… or black… or both. Yes, I have someone in mind and no, I’m not gonna tell you who, so shut the hell up.

You see, little Mr. Bananafanafofama isn’t going to lose because he’s black or because he’s a Democrat. He’s going to lose because he’s black AND a Democrat. That combination is political hemlock in the United States. For what it’s worth, to get back to Billary for a second (last time, I promise): being a woman AND a Democrat has the same effect. You boneheads could find yourselves a balck or female version of friggin’ Eisnehower and you still wouldn’t be able to get them elected.

YOU can’t get a black or a woman elected president. YOU. The only, and I mean ONLY, people that you can get elected are white males, and you’ve got no one but yourselves to blame for that. Not a soul. It’s ALL YOUR FAULT! You’ve been busting your asses for years to shackle yourselves to this anchor and now, you’ve got no God damned business acting surprised at your success. ‘Twas long and strong many elections ago, and you have laboured upon it since; ah, ’tis a ponderous chain, my little Ebenezers…

How did you do this to yourselves, you ask? Why can’t you get such a candidate elected? The answer is simple, and it’s going to make you sick: ANY Presidential candidate that you put forward who isn’t a white guy is going to have affirmative action emanating off of them like a stink that would knock flies off a shitwagon. It’s because you’ve been furiously bending yourselves over every barstool in the joint for decades in a frenzied rush to brand yourselves as The Party Of Affirmative Action®. Congratulations, you have succeeded. Now you’ve painted yourselves into a corner that will take you even longer to get out of than it took you to get into. Nice going.

The problem is that the American public thinks something about affirmative action. They think it and talk amongst themselves about it, but not around Leftbot moonbats (they don’t feel like listening to the bullshit). In their minds, it is a very simple yet factual equation:

[affirmative action] = [inferior quality]

They’ve all seen it. Two candidates apply for a job. One has a good education, fine marks, and years of experience in the field; the other did poorly in school, and has never been able to keep a job. Which one got hired? The one that wasn’t a healthy, white, Christian male, of course. It’s bad enough in the workplace, but do you really want some second-rate token (yeah, you heard me) running the country?? You might, but they sure as hell don’t. And that’s where you’re screwed.

Sure, you may have been able to browbeat Geraldine Ferraro quite soundly but her words should have sounded a warning for you. You were only able to get the result you desired because she could be ganged up on; that’s the only real tool you have. But when an American goes in to that booth to vote, they’re all alone with their conscience. There is NO ONE there to harangue them.

They look at that ballot and ask themselves, “is this the best candidate?” If they have to look at it and ask, “is this the best [insert adjective here] candidate?” … Well then, that’s one adjective too many and you’re screwed. They want the BEST candidate for the job, PERIOD, and they don’t give a damn if he/she’s a three-legged, post-menopausal, transsexual whose family tree can be traced back to when a freed slave ancestor married a Cherokee princess. 🙄 Just as long as that pesky adjective doesn’t get shoved in their faces, they’re fine.

You, on the other hand, have wedged that adjective in there so tightly that there’s no prying it loose. You’ve fastened that millstone around your necks and you’re actually stupid enough to be proud of it. Whether you want to admit it or not, Obumble’s been playing the race card all along… and so have you.  In perhaps trying to atone for your past sins, methinks thou dost protest too much.

Hoisted by your own petard.

I hope you enjoyed our little chat; really, I do. And I hope you walk away just a little bit wiser for it. You do your country no service by setting the bar so low for your competition. Good luck getting your act together.

Until then, I’ll be relaxing up here amongst the beavers and igloos and, a few years from now, when it comes on the television, I’ll kick back and crack a cold Canadian beer (that’s “moonshine” to you) and watch the swearing in of the first black/female President of the United States. Another Republican in the White House, because then they win their party’s nomination, nobody at all will wonder if they deserve it or not.

They won’t have to.

Not a whole buttload of time right now so all I’ll do is just say that there’s some serious chapeau acrobatics to Neo over at HOM for tripping over this before I did. It’s pretty long-winded but it’s TOTALLY worth the read. Every child a dauphin, indeed….

Well, in the words of Vladimir Illych Lenin, who had no children, what is to be done? Not very much, I suspect. When such seismic shifts in the culture as that represented by the rise of Kindergarchy take hold, there isn’t much anyone can do but wait for things to work themselves out. My own hope is that the absurdity of current arrangements will in time be felt, and people will gradually realize the foolishness of continuing to lavish so much painstaking attention on their children. When that time comes, children will be allowed to relax, no longer under threat of suffocation by love from their parents, and grow up more on their own. Only then will parents once again be able to live their own lives, free to concentrate on their work, life’s adult pleasures, and those responsibilities that fall well outside the prison of the permanent kindergarten they have themselves erected and have been forced to live in as hostages.

Check it out. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.