Serotonin withdrawal.

Turns out I had serotonin withdrawal, due to some mess ups with an anti-depressant I'm on. All good, now. Be back Monday, especially to talk about the new proof that "global warming" is nothing but a sham.

That's it for today.

Something is wrong with me right now. I'm not sure what. I feel mentally and physically fine, completely cognitive, but everything for some reason seems spaced out and dizzying, even when I'm sitting down. Seeing if I can get a doctor appointment today, and I'm heading over to my parents' place so that I'll have people around, just in case. I'll let everyone know what's up when I can.

Update (9:06AM):
My appointment is at 2:45 to see the doctor. Unfortunately, my cognitive abilities seem to be deteriorating, despite my wakefulness.

Update (10:15AM):
I seem to have leveled off, but I'm in a rather rough patch. I have some uncontrollable shaking.

Update (1:31PM):
Feeling a little bit better, but still hazy. Shaking isn't as bad, but having some trouble with mixing up words for some reason. Hard to type these out coherently. Every few words, I put in the wrong word and have to go back and retype the correct word. Also having some problems with spelling.

Report from heavily, heavily, heavily biased group states that radioactive waste is contaminating our water supply.

The Sierra Club of Canada has released a report claiming that our water is being contaminated by radioactive waste. The report itself? Can't find it.

National Post reports...

Nuclear facilities and power plants are contaminating local Canadian food and water with radioactive waste that increases risks of cancer and birth defects, says a new report to be released on Friday.

The report, Tritium on Tap, produced by the Sierra Club of Canada, warned that radioactive emissions from various nuclear plants across the country have more than doubled over the past decade. The figures were based on statistics compiled by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission which measured pollution coming from the plants.

Although Canadian guidelines have suggested that the existing levels of tritium in the water are safe, the report cites recent peer-reviewed studies, including a recent review by the UK's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, that suggest the opposite.

"Once in our body, tritium enters our DNA, fat, proteins and carbohydrates - and that is where it does its damage from close range," said the Sierra Club report. "It is a carcinogen and causes birth defects."

The report noted that other jurisdictions such as the European Union and California have drinking water guidelines for tritium that are hundreds of times stronger than Canada's guidelines. A recent report by the Ontario Drinking Water Advisory Council, released in May, has also suggested more stringent drinking water standards to restrict tritium.

With some radioactive pollution getting into the ground and locally produced food, Mike Buckthought, who wrote the Sierra Club report, said the best solution is to eliminate pollution from nuclear reactors by promoting more renewable forms of energy.

"We need to phase out nuclear power and look for safer alternatives such as wind and solar energy," said Mr. Buckthought, who is the national climate change campaigner for Sierra Club.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has confirmed a "controlled release" of tritium into the Ottawa River from December 2008 to February 2009 but said this leak did not pose any risk to the environment because it respected the existing regulations. However, the Sierra Club said tests of the water done by a lab at the University of Waterloo revealed tritium levels that were five times higher than in water at other locations without any nearby nuclear plants.

Mr. Buckthought said that AECL has also collected about 4.5 tonnes of water contaminated by tritium that leaked from the reactor over the spring and summer. He said it would put the population at risk if this waste is released into the river.

The question is, what would tritium levels five times above normal do to someone?

Don't forget, five times 0.1 is only 0.5.

The parts per million? Again, I can't actually find this report anywhere on the internet.

So the real question is, is that (most likely low) level of tritium enough to harm you? I'll see if my brother an I can track down the video again, but there was one interesting report. A man working in a nuclear plant was showing how nuclear waste is stored in large pools of water, because the water doesn't transmit the radiation. The water had a bit of a green glow to it. To prove that it was safe, this man (a scientist) actually went for a swim in the pool of water. He does this on most tours, apparently. He has never received radiation poisoning.

And a quick look at Sierra Group's website reveals that it is a left wing organization firmly and openly committed to the Liberals.

I don't trust the Liberals because of their open lies and corruption, why would I trust a group that so closely allies themselves with lies and corruption?

Apparently, the thin grey line is more of a massive grey nation.

The Ontario Provincial Police commissioner is openly stating that what the Aboriginal domestic terrorists did to Mr. Brown and his family was perfectly legal.

Threats, kidnapping, intimidation, harassment, vandalism, mischief and theft by native protesters in Caledonia against a family whose house is almost surrounded by the contested site are not valid expressions of a land claims dispute said Julian Fantino, commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police.

Even so, police typically did not pursue criminal charges against the native protesters during the ongoing occupation of land that was to be developed into a residential subdivision, court heard.

Evidence from the commissioner -- the most senior official within the force ostensibly policing the contested 70-acre site and the town of Caledonia within which it sits -- was entered in court on Thursday in a $7-million civil lawsuit.

David Brown, 42, along with his wife, Dana Chatwell, 45, and their son, Dax Chatwell, 18, are suing the OPP and the province for failing to protect them or enforce the law against native protesters around their home.

Court previously heard of dramatic and dangerous incidents of harassment by protesters against the Brown-Chatwell family throughout the occupation, particularly during a month-long siege in 2006 when their home, alone, was trapped inside native barricades that isolated them from the community and police.

On Friday, sworn testimony from Mr. Fantino, taken during pre-trial hearings, was entered into the official court record.

During his testimony he was asked about a litany of complaints made by the family, including threats from natives of bodily harm and threats to burn down or occupy their home.

"If the threats included threats: ‘Your property is next; we're taking over your property' -- not by a somber Confederacy chief but by young people yelling and shouting," asked John Evans, lawyer for the Brown-Chatwell family, "do you agree that that is not an act of asserting a valid native land claim?"

"I do agree," Mr. Fantino answered.

"And it's not an act of peaceful protest?" Mr. Evans continued.

"That's correct," he answered.

"And it's an act of unlawful intimidation?"

"Could be perceived as such and intended as such, yes," Mr. Fantino said.

"And likely to cause fear?"

"Yes."

And when asked if such behaviour by the native protesters was also criminal, Mr. Fantino answered: "In normal circumstances, yes."

Crown lawyer David Feliciant earlier said the allegations in the case "must be understood against the backdrop of the unique character of aboriginal occupations and protests," as well as the recommendations of the Ipperwash Inquiry into the death of a native protester shot by the OPP during a 1995 protest.

Mr. Fantino said, however, that government policy on aboriginal affairs was not the overriding factor in policing the Caledonia dispute.

When asked why OPP officers did not go onto the occupied land to arrest natives believed to be involved in crime he said: "The escalation of conflict and violence and so forth and safety of the officers as well.

"The fallback position always is the lawful use of force as prescribed in the Criminal Code, and that is especially relevant if there is an immediate or an apprehension or a belief that violence would erupt, that people's safety would be put at risk, including police officers of course.

"So that would be the overriding criteria, regardless of what other things might be spoken to or recommended or otherwise flow from even the likes of the Ipperwash inquiry," Mr. Fantino said.

When asked about negotiations between the government and the natives, Mr. Fantino distanced his force from the politics.

"It's got nothing to do with us," he said.

"Nothing to do with the police?" asked Mr. Evans.

"No. Our sole purpose is to preserve the peace to the best of our abilities, and not in any way, shape or form negotiate for land or on behalf of parties or deal with any of that."

Court heard that early in 2007, Mr. Fantino was driven around the perimeter of the site by First Nations members. During his testimony, Mr. Fantino was asked what he learned from the visit.

"It's an expanse of property," he said. "An extremely difficult situation for us to deal with if the situation escalated."

And he agreed that the situation of the Browns was of particular concern given that their home was "almost within."

Mr. Brown was expected to be on the witness stand on Thursday for continued cross-examination. On Wednesday, however, he was twice excused from the stand so he could make a dash for the washroom to vomit.

On Thursday court learned that Mr. Brown's condition had worsened during the night and was seeking medical treatment.

Amidst concerns he might have H1N1 flu -- Ontario Superior Court Justice Thomas Bielby, perhaps only half jokingly, said he might have to issue everyone masks to prevent participants from "dropping like flies" -- court later learned that Mr. Brown had viral gastritis.

The "read-in" evidence of Mr. Fantino was done in the interim before court was adjourned to Monday.

That's right. If you outnumber the police and have guns, you are legally allowed to do anything you want.

Excuse me? Julian Fantino should be locked up for life and have the key thrown away. It is his job to protect law abiding citizens, and he openly stated in court that this was only his job if it didn't endanger the lives of police officers.

There should be a public inquiry, Julian Fantino should be arrested, our federal government should be sending in the RCMP to round up every single last Aboriginal that had even the slightest thing to do with that illegal occupation, and they should be tried with crimes against humanity.

This is a disgrace, for both the Ontario government and Canada's federal government.

I am a law abiding citizen of this country, but now it is on the record that it is not the job of the police to protect us, but let whoever has more fire power win.

I call upon the federal government to do their duty to this country. Arrest the domestic terrorists involved and charge them with crimes against humanity and at the bare minimum, dismiss Julian Fantino and ban him from ever holding a position in law enforcement for life.

I will be bringing this up with Steven Fletcher's office this morning.

Update:
Because I'm not feeling well, I will be unable to attend Mr. Fletcher's office this morning. I will instead make contact with them on Monday, after I'm finished handing in my paperwork to Minto Armour for processing.

Palin-Beck 2012!

Sarah Palin has hinted that if she were to run in 2012, Glenn Beck would be her running partner.

Sarah Palin has suggested Fox News firebrand Glenn Beck could be someone she'd consider as a running mate if she makes a bid for the White House in two years.

"I can envision a couple of different combinations, if ever I were to be in a position to really even seriously consider running for anything in the future, and I'm not there yet," Palin told the conservative news agency Newsmax as she promoted her memoir, "Going Rogue: An American Life."

"But Glenn Beck I have great respect for. He's a hoot. He gets his message across in such a clever way. And he's so bold - I have to respect that. He calls it like he sees it, and he's very, very, very effective."

Palin and Beck have long been admirers of one another, with the former Alaska governor often praising the Fox News host on her Facebook page. A Palin-Beck ticket would be a dream come true for the legion of so-called tea party protesters vehemently opposed to Barack Obama's presidency.

The pair shares a tendency to strike fear into the hearts of their supporters. Palin, for her part, has alleged Obama is aiming to do away with the elderly and infirm with the so-called death panels in his health-care reform overhaul, while Beck has accused the president of being a racist, a socialist and has also drawn parallels between his policies and those of Adolf Hitler.

The Anti-Defamation League has cited Beck, who also has a syndicated radio show, as the "most important mainstream media figure who has repeatedly helped to stoke the fires of anti-government anger."

Palin-Beck in 2012? There's a conservative wet dream!

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario commits act of racism.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (such an ironic name) has committed an act of racism against a white police officer.

Earlier this month, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) awarded $5,000 to a black female newspaper carrier who insisted she had been arrested by police in early 2007 only because of her skin colour.

Early one morning, Sharon Abbott was delivering newspapers to homes in Toronto's west end. Police Sergeant Stephen Ruffino observed her car double-parked outside an apartment. Then he saw her re-enter the vehicle, turn left without signalling, drive without a seatbelt and swerve from side to side. When she got out again, Sgt. Ruffino tried to stop Ms. Abbott and give her a warning, but she failed to stop and identify herself several times. So he briefly scuffled with her, handcuffed her and detained her for 45 minutes.

Although the HRTO found no "conscious" racism on Sgt. Ruffino's part, it nonetheless concluded his actions were motivated by a deep-seated prejudice ... of which he was apparently entirely unaware.

The Tribunal also stated, without substantiation, that white people in authority have "an expectation of docility and compliance" from black people they encounter.

We guess we're behind on the latest politically correct dogma, but hasn't the traditional racist stereotype of blacks depicted them as violent, unpredictable criminals -- which is to say, the very opposite of docile and compliant? The world of official human rights has entered such a surreal la-la-land that its mandarins can't even keep it straight in their heads what stereotypes and prejudices they're supposed to be fighting.

In fact, we'll be honest: Not a single person on this editorial board had ever heard of the "expectation of docility and compliance" that is supposedly rampant in the minds of white people. It's almost like the Human Rights Tribunal... made it up.

Government officials inventing, promoting, and publishing brand new racist stereotypes. Your tax dollars at work, Canada.

Emphasis added.

I seriously mean it when I say that this is a racist attack against whites. It should be quite obvious to all that there was no racism involved on the part of the police officer, and that Ms. Abbott merely cried wolf. The HRTO's racism? They see racism where none exists simply because the charge is against a white person.

Hat tip to Gay and Right.

Jewish group attempting to return to Joseph's tomb.

Joseph was the man who brought the Jews to Egypt. His body was later returned to Canaan. In 2000, the tomb was destroyed by bloodthirsty Arabs.

Now, a group is rightfully seeking to return a Jewish presence to the area.

Nine years after the IDF withdrew from Nablus, a new group was launched on Thursday morning which aims to restore Jewish presence to the Joseph's Tomb compound, in the heart of the West Bank city.

The initiative follows improved security which has led to the army's removal of roadblocks at the entrance to several Palestinian towns, including the Hawara checkpoint at the southern entrance to Nablus.

The group, named Gar'in Shchem, is made up of Judea and Samaria residents, including rabbis and veteran settler leaders.

In October 2000, Israel withdrew from the tomb after a fierce gun battle in which six Palestinians and Border Police Cpl. Madhat Yusef were killed. Within a week, a Palestinian mob ransacked and burned the buildings in the compound, and Eilon Moreh resident Hillel Lieberman, who also held US citizenship, was killed en route tothe tomb . The father of seven was one of the founders and administrators of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Joseph's Tomb, and had wanted to pray there.

Until recently, visits to the tomb were made clandestinely by Breslav Hassidim, against IDF orders. Now, the Yitzhar-based organization Shechem Ehad (shoulder to shoulder) organizes monthly visits tothe tomb.

"It is already nine years since Joseph's Tomb was burned, plundered and abandoned. It's time to remove the shame," read a flyer distributed by Gar'in Shchem on Thursday.

The group aims to get widespread public support for their plan, before setting up a protest tent near the IDF Samaria Division headquarters and finally organizing a march to Nablus.

"There is no longer a security hindrance," said organizers, according to Army Radio. "This is Israeli territory according to every law and we intend to return there at any cost."

Jews have every and all right to return to this sacred area. It is interesting how people defend the Palestinians when the claim that they are barred by Israel from visiting their holy sites (something that doesn't actually happen), but no one says a thing when the Palestinians openly destroy a Jewish holy site.

That's the sad state of the world we live in.

Battle looming in US Senate.

A battle is looming in the US Senate. On the left, we have the Democrats, seeking to further control people. On the right, we have the Republicans, seeking to allow choice and access over taxation and death panels.

After months of maneuvering, the Senate stands at the brink of a historic battle over health care with President Barack Obama and his allies on one side and Republicans, outnumbered but unflinching, on the other.

"Now it's America's turn, and this will not be a short debate," Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, warned after Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled long-awaited legislation Wednesday night to extend coverage to 30 million more Americans and force insurance companies to take all comers.

"Higher premiums, tax increases and Medicare cuts to pay for more government. The American people know that is not reform," McConnell said.

The Congressional Budget Office targets the 10-year cost of the health care bill at $849 billion, funded with new and higher taxes and Medicare cuts that ultimately also would cut the deficit by an estimated $127 billion, bringing the total cost of the legislation to just under $1 trillion.

Reid, D-Nev., wrote the legislation with White House aides during weeks of secretive negotiations, selecting elements from two committee-passed bills with the aim of securing the necessary 60 votes in a Senate debate that will be decisive for Obama's health care agenda.

"From Day One, our goal has been to enact legislation that offers stability and security to those who have insurance and affordable coverage to those who don't, and that lowers costs for families, businesses and governments across the country," Obama said. Reid's bill "meets those principles," the president said.

Aides said the mammoth, 2,074-page bill would reduce deficits by $127 billion over a decade, citing estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. For the first time most Americans would be required to carry health insurance, and the bill would provide hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to help those with lower incomes afford coverage.

...

Democrats hold 58 seats in the Senate and two independents generally vote with them, but several moderate Democrats -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- have yet to commit to allowing debate to begin. Reid met privately with the three before releasing his bill Wednesday, and Nelson later issued a statement strongly suggesting he would support fellow Democrats on the procedural vote.

Landrieu said she wanted more information about the bill before making a final decision, while Lincoln, the only one of the three who faces re-election next year, told reporters, "We'll wait and see."

If this weekend's vote succeeds, it would be followed by weeks -- if not more -- of unpredictable maneuvering on the Senate floor, where Reid and his allies will seek to incorporate changes sought by Democrats and repel attempts by Republicans to defeat the legislation and inflict a significant political defeat on the president.

You know what the saddest thing about this is? It will cover 30 million people (the same as the population of Canada), and probably end up being even more expensive and less efficient.

The Gateway to the West to once again stand tall.

The Friends of Upper Fort Garry have succeeded in beginning to reclaim the area that was once the gateway to the West.

Like a ravenous Godzilla, the jaws of a gigantic crane devoured a bland brick building on Main Street Tuesday, making room for a rich slice of Winnipeg history."This is a great day," said Jerry Gray, chairman of the Friends of Upper Fort Garry, watching the crumbs of 100 Main St. bite the dust.

"The Friends of Upper Fort Garry have been working for close to seven years to demolish this building," said Gray, as another demolition crew levelled the former Petro-Canada station next door.

Now, it's out with the new and in with the old on the stretch of Main Street from Broadway to Assiniboine Avenue, which used to be the gateway to the West.

In 1835, Upper Fort Garry, near the junction of the Assiniboine and Red rivers, became a major hub of the fur trade.

Hudson's Bay Co. governor George Simpson ordered construction of the square, stone-walled fort with walls nearly 80 metres long and five metres high.

The Friends have raised more than $10 million in pledges to reclaim the site of the original Upper Fort Garry for an interpretive centre and heritage park.

Tearing down the modern structures this week will make way for archeologists to look for traces of the old fort. Already, ground-penetrating radar has found some treasures -- under the parking lot's pavement.

"We didn't know how well it would work," said senior archeologist Terry Gibson.

The radar device on wheels has picked up what Quaternary Consultants thinks may be the remains of the governor's house, some of the bastion footings and a stone-lined well.

"I'm surprised that remains were still there," said Gibson. The site of the old fort has been built up and over many times.

All that remains today is the gate and the chunk of land on which it sits. The Hudson's Bay Co. gave it to the city in 1897.

In January, the Friends of Upper Fort Garry will unveil plans for the Main Street site at public open houses.

They took possession of the property in June and once the demolition permits were in place, the wrecking began next to the busy thoroughfare.

"The machine is a controlled method of demolition," said Bob Molter, general manager with Winnipeg's Rakowski Cartage and Wrecking. Rather than a wrecking ball, the enormous jaws of the UHD (Ultra High Demolition) machine take precise bites out of the building, said Molter.

The steel will be recycled and the concrete and bricks will be chewed up on site and spit back into the excavated site as fill, he said.

The interior of the building had already been gutted, with its materials salvaged, said Molter.

I've always been a fan of history, and will likely be joining the public open houses in order to see what will likely be happening with the site. This was part of where Winnipeg began, and was the gateway to the West at one point in history. I live only a few blocks away from the site, and am glad that it is using donations to restore it and do research.

H1N1 vaccines available for all in Manitoba.

The H1N1 vaccines are now available to everyone in Manitoba who wants one. Click here for information on the clinics.

Good news for those of us against drinking and driving.

The rules concerning breathalyzers have been further solidified in Ontario.

Thousands of people with outstanding impaired driving charges in Ontario may face a greater chance of being convicted as a result of a decision issued yesterday by the provincial Court of Appeal.

The court ruled that amendments to the Criminal Code that took effect on July 2, 2008, and make it more difficult to challenge breathalyzer results will also apply to anyone charged before that date if their case is still in the court system.

It is the first provincial Court of Appeal to decide this issue and the ruling could have an impact not only in Ontario, but across the country.

"This issue is an important one: in Ontario there are approximately 3,000 cases in this category," said the appeal court in its 3-0 ruling. "Moreover, there have already been over 50 decisions, going both ways, in the Ontario provincial and superior courts and scores of decisions, again going both ways, in the courts in other provinces in Canada," wrote Justice James MacPherson.

The case involved a Toronto-area man, Samuel Dineley, who was arrested in July 2007, after driving his parents' car home from a nightclub and striking a parked vehicle. Two breath tests produced blood alcohol

readings of .099 and .090, which led to a charge of "over 80" and one of impaired driving.

The Crown asked for an adjournment in the trial until after July 2, 2008, and then tried to apply the new rules to the case.

The amendments require courts to treat breathalyzer results as "conclusive proof " of a blood alcohol reading, unless a defendant can show the machine malfunctioned or was operated improperly. The changes restrict the ability to present a so-called "Carter" or "evidence to the contrary" defence about what the accused was drinking that day.

Ontario Superior Court Justice John Sproat ruled this spring that new impaired driving laws "virtually eliminate a defence" so they could not be applied retroactively. He upheld the acquittal of Mr. Dineley by the provincial court trial judge.

The Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal of Mr. Dineley and ordered a new trial based on the post-July 2008 impaired driving laws. Defence lawyer Paul Burstein said he will likely seek leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The breathalyzer removes all doubt of drinking and driving. The Mythbusters even proved that it is impossible to fool. The fact that it works so well is exactly why it needs to be used; it removes doubt.

The idea that it shouldn't be used because it removes a defense? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it?

Court sides in favour with Nazi collaborator.

Right here in Canada, a court has sided with a Nazi collaborator who's citizenship had been revoked.

The Federal Court of Appeal has ordered the government to reconsider its decision to revoke the citizenship of a former Nazi collaborator, concluding that the federal cabinet must consider his claim that he was conscripted under duress.

The decision, which overturns a 2008 Federal Court ruling, is a victory for Helmut Oberlander, an octogenarian from Waterloo, Ont., who has been fighting his removal from Canada for well over a decade.

The Appeal Court, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the cabinet, which revoked Mr. Oberlander's citizenship two years ago on grounds that he had lied about his Nazi past when he entered Canada after the Second World War, must take into account whether he was forced to join German forces when he was a teenager.

I encourage you to read the rest of the article, but it boils down to something fairly simple: this man collaborated with Nazis, and was on a death squad that was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Jews.

When my Zeda's village was attacked by the Nazis, his family were the only survivors. I don't even know how many of my relatives were slaughtered by the National Socialists. I do know that my Zeda's side of the family is almost non-existent.

If this man were innocent, why did he lie about being a Nazi collaborator? Why didn't he simply come out and say that he had been forced to work for them, but had not participated in any of the killings?

Because of his deliberate attempts to mislead Canada, I have a hard time believing he was forced onto the death squad, and have a hard time believing he didn't kill people.

Sorry, Liberals, but the leaflet ain't false.

The Conservatives have put out a leaflet that has pointed out the Liberal failures when it comes to Israel. The Liberals aren't overly happy about it.

The Harper government and opposition Liberals traded barbs yesterday over taxpayer-funded mailouts that argue over which party is the strongest supporter of Canada's Jewish community.

The dispute started because of a Conservative leaflet, featuring images of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, that has been mailed to homes across Canada and criticizes the Liberals for sending "confusing messages" about their views on defending Israel and fighting terrorism.

But Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler described the mailout as a "scandalous" attempt to create a wedge issue to divide Canadians.

"This is shocking," said Mr. Cotler, following a Liberal caucus meeting. "This is the kind of thing that the Conservative party should really apologize for. This has no place in Canadian politics."

The leaflet is among dozens of mailouts from federal politicians that annually cost millions of dollars from their parliamentary budgets.

It stated the former Liberal government had willingly participated in an international conference promoting anti-Semitism and wanted to delist Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

It also highlighted comments made by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who accused Israel of a war crime for actions taken during a 2006 conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

"This is totally misleading, it's false, it is with stamp of approval of the leader [Harper] on it, and it basically tries to associate the Liberal party with anti-Semitism," said Mr. Cotler, who is Jewish.

While Mr. Ignatieff has apologized for his comments about the 2006 conflict, Mr. Cotler said the Liberal government attended the 2001 conference at the request of Israel, which later praised Canada for denouncing racism at the event. The former justice minister also noted he was in the government when Hezbollah was listed as a terrorist organization.

But Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney defended the leaflet, explaining it was highlighting public statements and actions by Liberals.

"Anyone who's suggesting that [we're calling them anti-Semitic] is being completely over the top and mischievous," said Mr. Kenney after the daily question period in the House of Commons. "These are facts, they are on the record and they are uncomfortable with that."

Mr. Kenney said he didn't know whether the Conservatives were sending the mailouts specifically in regions with large Jewish populations, but the Liberals said it had turned up in Mr. Cotler's Montreal riding, as well as other parts of Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg.

The Conservatives countered that Liberal MPs have used their own parliamentary budgets to send similar messages to Canadian households about Mr. Harper's views on Canada-Israel relations.

One message from the Liberals noted that Mr. Harper has been repeatedly invited to Israel but has not gone.

From what I can see here, some of the leaflet may be misleading, but it isn't false. The Liberal government at the time did walk out of the 2001 conference, and they did go at the request of Israel.

The rest of it, though? Neither misleading, nor false. What also should be highlighted is how the Liberal base perceives Israel. Anything that comes of out of Liberal supporting blog when it comes to Israel is almost always hateful and misleading towards Israel, something that the Liberals really don't seek to combat.

I am, however, disappointed that Harper has not gone to Israel, and hope he does sometime in the near future.

Sponsors no longer responsible for their immigrant relatives in Ontario.

Ontario has officially made it so that those who sponsor relatives to immigrate to Canada can't always be held liable for their relatives.

An Ontario court has ruled in favour of a group of residents who said they should not automatically be made to pay for relatives they sponsored to immigrate to Canada, despite having pledged to do so, in a decision that could have costly implications due to the number of such immigrants who seek social assistance.

The landmark ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal says the provincial government must consider the circumstances of immigrant sponsors and use "case-by-case discretion" when deciding whether to demand sponsors pay back the money their family members collect.

Want to ride on the hard earned money of Canadians? Bring in all your relatives, pledge to take care of them if they go on assistance, then go on assistance yourself! Its a win-win (for you and your relatives)!

This ridiculous ruling will open up the system for high levels of abuse. On top of that, the costs of doing this all on a case-by-case basis will be through the roof.

If only those judges were elected. Then they could be held accountable by the public for this ridiculous ruling. Unfortunately, that isn't the case, and the hard workers in Ontario will be forced to pay for even more lazy people on welfare.

Allegations of abuse against Afghan prisoners: true or false?

A Canadian diplomat is claiming that Canadian soldiers handed over prisoners to the Afghan forces to be tortured.

A senior Canadian diplomat said he was on orders from his Ottawa superiors to leave no paper trail about his allegations that Canada was handing detainees over to Afghan custody where they were allegedly tortured and abused.

Richard Colvin, a top Foreign Affairs official posted in Afghanistan in 2006-07, told a House of Commons committee on Wednesday that the government and the military turned a blind eye to what was happening to their captives once they were surrendered to Afghan control.

Moreover, the government-imposed a "wall of secrecy" after he wrote and distributed reports about the Canadian military routinely and haphazardly handing over prisoners and then failing to follow up on their fate.

"There was certain information that was seen as too hot potato," said Mr. Colvin, who was the political officer at the Canadian-run reconstruction base when troops began handing over prisoners to Afghan authorities three years ago.

Mr. Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Mr. Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

"There was indeed a policy, but behind the military's wall of secrecy, that's exactly what we were doing," said Mr. Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

...

Mr. Colvin also alleged that Rick Hillier, the former defence chief, knew that Afghan detainees were being abused and he turned his back to it.

Margaret Bloodworth, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's national security adviser, was also aware of the issue, said Mr. Colvin, though he acknowledged he never talked to her directly.

...

But Dimitri Soudas, Mr. Harper's chief spokesman, said the Prime Minister's Office did not have enough information to comment on Mr. Colvin's allegations.

"When the government is presented with credible evidence, we act on it. And that's what we did three years ago when we signed the detainee agreement," he said.

Mr. Colvin's credibility was questioned by two Conservative MP's, who said that the diplomat's assertion that virtually all detainees surrendered by Canadians to Afghan control in 2006 and some of 2007 were tortured.

Ontario Tory MP Cheryl Gallant said that Mr. Colvin's allegations "would not hold up in a court of law" and British Columbian MP Jim Abbott accused Mr. Colvin of having no first-hand verification that soldiers handed anyone over to torture, given that the supposedly abused detainees he interviewed did not implicate Canada.

Mr. Colvin maintained that he learned from credible sources that Canadian detainees handed to Afghan control were beaten with power cables, given electrical shock and were sleep deprived in Afghan jails.

"According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured," said Mr. Colvin, who said most of them were insurgent foot soldiers or innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, rather than hard-core Taliban.

He said he first learned of the abuse soon after arriving in Kandahar in the spring of 2006 and that he later saw evidence himself after visiting prisons and seeing torture marks on prisoners.

Canada handed over far more prisoners than either the British or the Dutch and that Canada, unlike its allies, did no follow up on the fate of those they surrendered, Mr. Colvin said.

"We kept hopeless records, and apparently to prevent any scrutiny, the Canadian Forces leadership concealed all this behind walls of secrecy,"he said.

...

Mr. Colvin was called before the House of Commons committee after he filed an affidavit with the Military Police Complaints Commission, alleging that he warned senior government officials and military brass of "serious, imminent and alarming"reports of detainee abuse soon after he arrived in Afghanistan.

The commission's probe into what the military knew and when has been bogged down in legal wrangling and was put on hold last month.

Federal lawyers are trying to block Mr. Colvin from testifying at the public inquiry, citing national security concerns.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, his predecessor Gordon O'Connor, and the prime minister said recently they did not know of Mr. Colvin's reports. Gen. Hillier said he did not recall seeing them.

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said the committee will seek to hear from everyone who has been fingered by Mr. Colvin and whether they informed any cabinet ministers.

In the House of Commons question period on Wednesday, Mr. MacKay was grilled on why it took 18 months for the government to act on allegations of detainee abuse. While sidestepping questions, he repeatedly affirmed that the government in 2007 improved a weak prisoner transfer arrangement that had been implemented by the former Liberal government.

"We received concerns about conditions in Afghan prisons," he said. "As a result, we instituted a more robust system of visitation, we instituted investments to improve those conditions, we instituted a more rigorous process of assisting Afghans with respect to human rights."

It must be noted, when there was proof of abuse, it was under rules of engagement made by the Liberal government. The Conservatives then closed up the loopholes that allowed the abuses to happen.

I'm rather skeptical of this man's accusations. He has no evidence at all. Even if this turns out to be true, people have to realize, we are fighting a war, and so is the new Afghanistan. They will do what they believe is necessary to protect themselves form the Taliban, even if we don't agree with it.

Karzai sworn in, vows to fight corruption.

Karzai has been sworn in as President of Afghanistan and has pledged to fight corruption.

Afghan forces should be ready to take over security in Afghanistan in five years, President Hamid Karzai said at his inauguration on Thursday, and pledged to tackle graft which has left his reputation in tatters.

Mr. Karzai was sworn in as Washington decides whether to send tens of thousands more troops to fight an increasingly unpopular war. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among foreign officials at the ceremony.

Mr. Karzai, 51, also called for a "loya jirga", a traditional grand assembly, which under Afghanistan's constitution can take precedence over all government institutions, including the presidency itself.

His inauguration for his second five-year term came against the backdrop of a rising Taliban insurgency, doubts over his legitimacy after an election tainted by fraud, and complaints his government is riddled with corruption and mismanagement.

"We are determined that by the next five years, Afghan forces are capable of taking the lead in ensuring security and stability across the country," Mr. Karzai said.

He said Afghanistan's security forces should be able to assume responsibility of unstable areas in three years.

U.S. officials say Afghan forces must be able to take over security across the country before foreign troops can leave. There are nearly 110,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, including 68,000 Americans, more than half arriving this year.

Despite an announcement this week that Afghanistan would set up an anti-corruption unit, Ms. Clinton, in her first visit as secretary of state, earlier criticised Mr. Karzai for not taking enough measures to combat graft.

"They've done some work on that, but in our view, not nearly enough to demonstrate a seriousness of purpose to tackle corruption," she told reporters en route to Kabul on Wednesday.

Ms. Clinton said Washington would support the new government but expected serious results in building an "accountable, transparent government".

Mr. Karzai said corruption was a "a very dangerous issue" and pledged to appoint competent and professional ministers.

We will see whether or not Karzai can following through with cleaning up corruption. We should continue to support the mission in Afghanistan, but we should also be sending a warning to Karzai; if he can't do his part to clean up Afghanistan, the aid will have to come to an end. We can't defeat the Taliban only to have it replaced by a corrupt government that has the potential to become what we fought to destroy.

Iceman throws a fit. My response.

Unfortunately, Iceman has continued to throw fits over people being insulted when he calls them delusional, insane, and in need of an exorcism.

This is a discussion board thread on the Blogging Tories site, www.bloggingtories.ca? If you want to kick me off, I am not about to shut up. I have voted Conservative in every election that I have ever voted in. My sisters babysat the children of Mike Harris! Do you really want to create an enemy in me because I am strongly opposed to Sarah Palin being on a Presidential ticket?

Holy shit, give your heads a fucking shake!

His own comment:

You want to block me from the Blogging Tories? That is insane!!! I have been hammering Ignatieff relentlessly since I joined the Team, but disagree about the viability of Palin and I will be banned? This is crazy! If you want to ostracize the center, go ahead. But if your desire is to turn a popular voice against the Conservative Party, do so at your own peril.

My attempted correspondence with him on his blog (since he provides no email address for contact, I have no other choice):

I'm not asking for your banning for your disagreement about Sarah Palin. I am asking for your banning because you:

1. insulted those of us who thought Palin would make a good President,
2. further insulted me personally,
3. refused to apologize for the insults,
4. lied about what happened,
5. continued being uncivil against me personally, despite my attempts to be civil with you,
6. continued to insult me publicly on your blog, as can be seen in your "poem".

All you had to do was recognize that some of us would be insulted when you call us "delusional" for having an opinion. You refused to listen to our side of the story, and continued on your rants, insulting us further. After that, all that was asked from you was an apology. You refused that as well, and continued on with attacking me personally.

I will not be associated with someone who refuses to be civil and decent, which is why I am asking for your removal from the Blogging Tories. I don't know why you care so much, you don't even keep the Blogging Tories blog roll on your website, and I have been forced to temporarily remove it while dealing with your juvenile behaviour.

Now, you are even threatening to turn against the Conservative Party simply because I requested that you don't insult those who have a differing opinion from you when it comes to Palin? That has to be the most juvenile thing I've seen in a while.

I've tried to be civil with you, Iceman, but you continue to insult me from behind a false name, which is why I call you coward. You have a chance to fix this, all you have to do is realize what you did wrong and apologize. If you aren't going to do this, then you will burn the bridge. It shouldn't be a very difficult choice, but unfortunately, on this issue, you seem to be rather incapable of logic and rationality. Its a pity, because I did enjoy reading your blog. Now, I only read it when I've noticed on Blogging Tories that you've said something against me.

You have the power to fix this. Its up to you whether or not you do so.

I am calling for a full boycott of Chapters.

Courtesy of Moose and Squirrel, I found something rather disturbing about Chapters.

Please read the full article and join me in a total boycott of Chapters and its subsidiaries.

The full conversation with Don Martin.

Me:

Mr. Martin,

I think you are mistaken as to who exactly is at fault for the stimulus package that we as Canadian tax payers have to foot the bill for.

As I and many Canadians (but apparently not you) recall, it was the Liberal Party of Canada that stated that if no stimulus were to be issued, then the government would be brought down, forcing Canadians into an election during a recession. This was unpopular amongst Canadians at the time, and the Conservatives could easily have used the opportunity to make greater gains at the polls. Instead, they compromised with the LPC in order to keep Canada functioning. What did that lead us to? A stimulus which helped to grow the deficit. Had the Liberals not pushed for a stimulus package, extra government spending would not have occurred.

So the question is, why do you label Stephen Harper as the new member of the "half-trillion-dollar debt club", when it is quite obvious that without Iggy and Dion, we wouldn't be in this mess?

I await your reply.

Justin Hoffer
The Raging Tory
http://ragingtory.blogspot.com

Don:

Hey Justin
Don't you think the government of the day is responsible for the deficits it incurs? We don't let Chretien off for inheriting Mulroney's spending or Mulroney off for the Trudeau fiscal mess. Nor do we credit Manning for pushing Martin to cut spending. Being PM comes with fiscal accountability for budgets produced by his finance minister. Not sure how you disagree with that premise.
Don

Me:

Mr. Martin

Actually, many Canadians realize that Mulroney inherited a mess and that Chretien merely reaped the rewards of the hard work of the Mulroney government. Your assessment fails to take into account that Harper was strong armed by the Liberals, forced to choose between an election during a recession, or trying to keep the political climate stable.

I notice that your words now are in stark contrast to your words when the stimulus was going through. To quote you:

''...And make no mistake, the deficit splurge was necessary.

If the Conservatives had refused to join a world of bank backing, corporate bailouts and accelerated public works by posting a balance budget devoid of serious stimulus, Mr. Harper would have been a former prime minister this week, having lost a Commons confidence vote on the budget.

Given that Canada’s trying to find steady legs in a world economy of reeling instability,
it’s possible future economists will be forced to give Mr. Harper a higher grade than this current circle of academics.

If nothing else, he deserves full marks for having the flexibility to do what’s required quickly instead of resisting change like some stubborn student who refused to grow up.''

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/01/30/don-martin-reality-hits-harper-in-the-face.aspx

And:

''...The scope of this daunting challenge is best reflected in opposition party calls for more stimulus even before the first loonie of the new fiscal year has been spent,
a demand that Harper has wisely decided to shrug off until he figures out if the first wave of money has had any impact.
...

If you can hold your nose to the concept that Canadian taxpayers are giddily spending money they don’t have now and passing the tab to their kids or grandkids,
the deficit is arguably a necessary evil that will deliver important capital projects that would have been ignored in better times. ''

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/31/don-martin-tomorrow-canada-officially-begins-digging-itself-out-of-the-recession-we-hope.aspx

You, along with the Liberals, demanded a stimulus, one that would create a deficit. How can you put blame on the Conservatives for a mess that both you and the Liberal Party demanded they create?

Justin Hoffer
The Raging Tory
http://ragingtory.blogspot.com

Don:

You'd be hard pressed to read condemnation of the stimulus package into that column and the last people Harper would listen to on fiscal policy are pundits. But there's a cause and effect angle worth noting and the pages on how the Cons or Libs will extract us from this mess are obviously missing. Surprised, frankly, that a Raging Tory isn't raging at all the wild spending your party is unleashing. Even senior ministers are uncomfortable.

Me:

Mr. Martin,

You did not answer my question, but I'll entertain your other statements for now.

While you may or may not be condemning the stimulus package, you are placing blame on Harper for something he didn't want.

While Harper may not listen to pundits, you are leaving out that it was the Liberals who were the main push behind the stimulus, which is what you say caused the deficit, which you claim to be Harper's fault.

What you are also ignoring is that when Canada had a much farther right wing party, aka. the Reform Party, it was incapable of getting the necessary votes to win an election. If Harper goes too far to the right too soon, he will lose all chances of moving Canada to the right and reducing spending, instead of raising taxes. I'm not quite sure why that is so hard to miss.

As for my blog name, it is a shot at the way liberals treat conservatives, not how I act. I attempt to be as civil and sensible as possible, as well as logical.

What seems to me to be both logical and obvious is that Harper was forced by the Liberals to create a stimulus. If Prime Minister Harper had been in a majority position, then your argument would make sense. But, Harper is not in a majority (unlike your other examples), and is therefore forced to compromise. So my question still stands. How can you blame Stephen Harper for a deficit that wouldn't be there had the Liberals not pushed for the stimulus?

Justin Hoffer
The Raging Tory
http://ragingtory.blogspot.com

Don:

In any and all Harper and Flaherty statements, not once have they blamed the deficit on their minority status or Liberal pressure. It's always been about the international economic response. If Harper doesn't blame the Libs, why should I? Or you?

Me:

Mr. Martin,

And what would you say if Harper or Flaherty were to lay blame on the Liberals? Besides that, your current question is still off from one of your own previous statements:

"If the Conservatives had refused to join a world of bank backing, corporate bailouts and accelerated public works by posting a balance budget devoid of serious stimulus, Mr. Harper would have been a former prime minister this week, having lost a Commons confidence vote on the budget."

You yourself previously gave credit for the stimulus to the opposition parties by making the statement that had Harper not agreed to the stimulus, the government would have fallen. So, if you can give credit for the stimulus to the Liberals and other opposition parties, why are you placing the blame for the deficit, caused by the stimulus, forced upon the government by the Liberals, at the feet of Stephen Harper?

Justin Hoffer
The Raging Tory
http://ragingtory.blogspot.com

Don:

I don't sense we'll ever agree on this issue. I'll hold Harper to account for his government decisions and Iggy to account for his if he becomes a PM. Appreciate the feedback though.

Don Martin has failed to answer a very simply question. Since the Liberals are at fault for the stimulus (something Don Martin admitted himself), and the stimulus is at fault for the deficit, then how can Stephen Harper be at fault for the deficit?

The fact is, Stephen Harper can't be at fault, he simply isn't in the logic trial. If Canadians had entrusted the CPC with a majority, I have the distinct impression that the stimulus would not have gone through, and we would have seen a reduction in spending and taxes instead, something that would likely have been far more effective.

So, the debate ends, with the classic liberal "agree to disagree because I can't refute your argument but I refuse to agree with you" ending.

Update:
Don't forget that the Liberals are trying to play both sides of the issue, and the media are rather good at simply pandering to the Liberals. This means that the Conservatives had to pass the stimulus (something they previously promised wouldn't happen). Furthermore, in order to combat the Liberal doublespeak, they had to show that the stimulus was doing something, and so they backed it. Had the Conservatives not publicly backed the stimulus, the Liberals simply would have change their tactics to claiming that everything getting done was their idea and therefore they should be the ones entrusted with running Canada, which would be a much stronger position with Canadians than the flip flops that the Conservatives are currently forcing on them.

Don Martin fails.

Don Martin's reply:

I don't sense we'll ever agree on this issue. I'll hold Harper to account for his government decisions and Iggy to account for his if he becomes a PM. Appreciate the feedback though.

Don Martin has failed to answer a very simply question. Since the Liberals are at fault for the stimulus (something Don Martin admitted himself), and the stimulus is at fault for the deficit, then how can Stephen Harper be at fault for the deficit?

The fact is, Stephen Harper can't be at fault, he simply isn't in the logic trial. If Canadians had entrusted the CPC with a majority, I have the distinct impression that the stimulus would not have gone through, and we would have seen a reduction in spending and taxes instead, something that would likely have been far more effective.

So, the debate ends, with the classic liberal "agree to disagree because I can't refute your argument but I refuse to agree with you" ending.