The Thirteenth Step is a Soother

So, addiction researchers at the University of Victoria are suggesting that the price on booze should be raised to curtail the drinking of those working class citizens who pay for it but that governments should give away booze to homeless people.

Seriously... you cannot make this crap up.

Yeah. Because people who are stable enough to hold down jobs, house and clothe them and their families need to be protected from themselves. But people who are addicted, refuse to get help in order to improve their lives and are generally unstable? They need their addictions further enabled.

Is it not glaringly obvious the level of hypocrisy in this two pronged suggestion?

If anybody were to suggest legislating societal changes that would force homeless addicts to deal with their problems, they'd be crucified for insensitivity. But it's fine to legislate societal changes that force the stable amongst us to try and become angels.

I think the University of Victoria should suggest government brings in mandatory soothers for all Canadians. That way the image of our citizenry would finally match their intended reality.

The Communism Tax

You gotta love MoveOn.Org and it's sheer honesty/transparency.

If there's one thing that modern politics has illuminated it is the fact that extremists like to hide in the shadows until the coast is clear and then implement their deepest fantasies as if it should be a self-evident life truth. The most recent example can be found in an enlightening MoveOn article titled Top 5 Problems With The Tax Deal.

(Cue scary music)

Since the age of Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the left has done its best to paint the idea of a Communist threat to the West as laughable and paranoid. McCarthy has become the boogeyman thrown up any time a center, right-of-center or far-right citizen has suggested that certain leftist policies sit in the ranks of Socialist or Communist ideology.

Now, I'm not one to jump around labelling leftists as Commies. In fact, I don't think I've ever accused the far left of secretly being Communists. But the aforementioned MoveOn article really goes to show how far the left has gone in its unabashed audacity to propel extremist ideology. Clearly, the intent on the part of this organization, founded by a leftist-loved billionaire who purposefully destroyed the livelihood of countless working class Britains, is to demonize the wealthy and exalt the perceived suffering and/or inequality of the working class.

(Yeah... the irony is hilarious.)

This attitude alone would be enough to confirm that there certainly is a tinge of Communism to the modern far left. But there is one thing that the far left (and increasingly the supposedly moderate left) has fought for that does more than anything else to reveal Communist ideology. And that thing is the Estate Tax otherwise known as the "Death Tax". There can be no clearer modern example that the left believes the state should own everything than this.

I think it's fair to say that most rational people believe business owners who pay:

• income tax
• sales tax
• property tax
• corporate tax
• payroll tax
• wealth tax
• capital gains tax

...and the myriad other taxes out there over the course of their lives in creating, building and developing something of worth -- such a business -- have already paid their fair share of taxes to acquire that which is rightfully theirs. It was their ingenuity that resulted in the formation of a successful business. The resultant property is theirs. They've contributed to the well-being of others by creating opportunities for those people to earn a living. They worked hard to attain success and they should have every right to leave the fruits of their labour to whomever they choose.

The far left? Ehhhh... not so much.

As much as they try and deny it -- while simultaneously opposing broad-based tax cuts or creating carbon taxes on innovative, industrialized nations -- the far left firmly believes in wealth-redistribution. It's undeniable now. It is their clear and firm belief that those who achieve success in their lives don't really deserve it. No, the people who deserve it are the so-called under-privileged.

(And whether under-privileged by circumstance or by choice, the left really doesn't care because everybody's a victim anyhow.)

The Estate Tax is the clearest piece of evidence demonstrating that the far-left believes the fruits of success belong to the state and that the state can claim ownership over whatever it wants. In fact, the folks over at MoveOn.org have gone so far as to call the government not taking a percentage of the estate of the deceased a "millionaire's bailout".

Think about that for a second. In the eyes of the left, the government not taking your property is equal to the government bailing you out!

Communists believe that the government -- a.k.a. the people -- have rightful ownership and sole determination for the distribution of all property. You don't own a thing; everything belongs to the state. It can only be from that mentality that a person could delude themselves enough to perceive the action of letting your heirs keep that which you have built translate into the government giving these things to your heirs. It's absolutely mind-blowing!

When you combine this with the fact that liberals aren't as generous as tippers or that studies show conservatives to be substantially more charitable than liberals, the hypocrisy is rather appalling. The gimme-gimme attitude of the modern left is just another thing that confirms my belief that conservative attitudes towards economic and financial issues are far more logical -- and ethical -- than anything the left has going for it these days.

They don't have it in themselves to give selflessly when they see somebody in need. They'd rather the government take things on their behalf and redistribute it with them taking the credit in being "progressive" and "caring".

As I said, I'm not one to go around calling leftists Communists. But with open calls for an Estate tax that usurps 55% (read: more than half / the majority share) of those possessions which you would give your spouse, children, friends or whomever you choose, I have a much harder time not seeing a strong Communist element to the modern left.

It's because of this that I believe "Death Tax" isn't quite descriptive enough and there's a much more appropriate name for the Estate tax: the Communism Tax.

China's Increase = Canada's Total

So, it looks like John Baird is once again taking flak from global warming / climate change / climate disruption / [insert next useless term here] critics. Again. Why? Because he happened to say the truth: all the efforts by countries like Canada to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are going to be pointless when placed alongside the increases made by China.

It's completely mind-blowing how climate change alarmists can keep a straight face talking about how there are no other options when it comes to "saving" the planet Earth except to stop our contributions to GHG... and at the same time they try and downplay the dramatic increase of GHG in China.

As if the Earth is going to hold different countries to different standards the way alarmists do.

Let's just look at the CO2 component of the GHG equation. Now, these are 2007 figures but we'll use them just to give an example:

• Canada's total CO2 emissions in 2007 were 557,340 thousand metric tons.
• China's total CO2 emissions in 2007 were 6,538,367 thousand metric tons.

According to the numbers, Canada's emissions decreased by 2% while China's increased by 8%. If we were to apply that figure to the 2007 levels:

• Canada reduced emissions by 11,147 thousand metric tons to 546,193 thousand metric tons
• China increase emissions by 523,069 thousand metric tons to 7,061,436 thousand metric tons

So, basically, the total of all emissions by Canada are barely above just what China increased in terms of GHG emissions. And yet the politico alarmists say that Canada is the problem in this equation?

I think these critics need to start looking at basic mathematics courses.

If China is allowed to do whatever it wants -- as is status quo -- just to maintain present GHG levels, every year a country the size of Canada would have to eliminate all of it's GHG emissions. That's just to maintain present levels. And yet the alarmists claim to want to lower levels back to where they were a couple of decades ago.

John Baird is right and these idiots know it. They don't want to admit it because it usurps their position as some kind of holier-than-thou moral authority. Too bad they don't realize that your average Canadian -- when given the numbers -- are going to see right through this and know that the alarmists are lying about how close to the edge we are.

Climate change skepticism is on the rise. With leaders like this, I wonder why...

Godwin's Law and Canadian politics

It seems that Julian Fantino is under fire for equating the Liberal's tactics to Hitler's with his "Hitler theory". And rightly so. There's no excuse for drawing a comparison between anybody and the Nazis.

Personally, I think that Fantino is suffering from what I call the Michael Jackson theory: surround yourself solely with people who agree with you and you'll lose all grip on reality.

Of course Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals are jumping on this as some great offence deserving of censure. Talk about rich.

Mr. Pot... can I reintroduce you to Mr. Kettle, Liberal MP Derek Lee?

I guess it's okay for one of your own to compare Harper's suspension of parliament to the Nazi burning of the German Reichstag in 1933. No need to censure anybody there, right Iffy?

Perhaps both groups should familiarize themselves with Godwin's Law. This is another example of why people hate politics and thus never switch party allegiances.

Wikileaks as Judge, Jury & Executioner?

With the new deluge of information released recently by Wikileaks, there has been great debate over how much is too much information. A friend of mine actually took issue with the fact that there were reporters who were criticizing the release of information.

Wikileaks appears to have focused more and more on the United States as time has gone on. And while they claim to have received a great deal of information, they themselves have indicated that they have only released portions at a time.

Which begs the question, why? If Wikileaks is so focused on releasing hidden information, then why do they hold back?

The one thing that seems to be lost on many people is the fact that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has an agenda. Wikileaks is like any other group that paints itself as selfless entirely non-self-serving; certainly the mission statement of Wikileaks may indicate one thing but the founders and operatives have their own opinions that they no doubt use Wikileaks to espouse.

One need only look at the released attack video and how it was edited. As has been shown, even the "full" version of the video that Wikileaks released had half an hour of footage edited out, footage that painted the troops in an entirely different light to the story Wikileaks wanted to paint. Clearly Wikileaks is trying to mold the story rather than just release information.

This basically makes Wikileaks the judge, jury and executioner in a trial by wire: showing the public only what it wants to reveal in order for the public to lean towards their own political standing. They claim to value free information but ensure that they only release the information they want while editing out any information that doesn't fit the narrative they want to establish. As such, Wikileaks is deserving of the criticism it has received.

Any organization that reveals information that puts people's lives in danger and sets international diplomacy back by decades but makes sure to edit that information that doesn't further their political goals? Their hardly angels.

Climate Change? SuperGod will stop it!

I just have to shake my head.

First off, I'm a climate change skeptic. The evidence that has been put forth that humans are causing a catastrophic shift in the Earth's climate has more holes than it takes to fill the Albert Hall.

When you have systems that chart sections of Lake Michigan at being well above boiling and of course Michael Mann's "hide the decline" and you have a temperature monitoring system that fails its own basic quality controls, but with the alarmists not even acknowledging it? Sorry, but if somebody can't acknowledge even the most glaring mistakes, they can't be following the scientific method.

And the court of public opinion is swaying away from the alarmists' side to the more rational point of view that the science still needs to be ironed out before we destroy our entire economies chasing a measly 1 degree temperature correction. People are starting to notice how the alarmists' arguments are downright hysterical and that there seems to be a more calm, rational point of view amongst those who aren't really buying into the climate change catastrophe.

And then... we have people like this...

I'm sorry, but what the hell?!? Did I just hear that right? In one breath this guy talks about the "word of God" being infallible while quoting from the Book of Genesis and in the next he's talking about the dinosaurs?

This is why the left and political moderates don't take the skeptical point as seriously as it should. Instead of having scientific discussions to debate scientific issues, we have religious-zealot, government representatives arguing against science with anecdotal creation stories.

It's people like this who drive the whole climate change debate right into the ditch.

MTO Prerequisite: Fail an IQ Test

It kills me how completely mindless the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario is. Bad enough that gridlock in the GTA has gone almost completely unabated over the past three decades, but now we have to deal with the McGuinty Liberals' obsession with high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.

For some reason they feel that giving special privileges to carpooling vehicles is going to solve gridlock unlike, say, building new roads. And perhaps in a perfect world that would happen. Unfortunately it appears they have decided to throw common sense out the window simply because of the connection the term has with Mike Harris.

The final nail in that coffin: the HOV lanes being built on the QEW.

The QEW is probably the one highway most in need of more lanes. Anybody who has driven the QEW during rush hour dreads the next trip. What is basically a twenty minute trip between where Highway 403 connects with the QEW and then breaks off again drags out to a full one hour.

The brilliance of the MTO under Dalton McGuinty thinks that building HOV lanes is going to solve it. And perhaps Westbound the HOV lanes might work. But whoever decided that HOV lanes on the Eastbound QEW really needs their head checked.

The HOV lanes are being installed roughly where the 403 merges with the QEW. That's fine since any traffic using the HOV lanes will have the ability to get on at any time. The problem is that the HOV lane ends where the 403 breaks off of the QEW again.

The HOV lanes are on the North side of the highway.

The 403 exit is on the South side of the highway.

This basically means that any HOV traffic that is to use the 403 will have to cross over four to five lanes of traffic to get to the exit! This is going to have the effect of actually worsening the gridlock beside the Ford plant at the QEW/403 branching.

Seriously... do people have to fail IQ tests to get a job designing the roads for the MTO? I'd really like to see the look on the Minister of Transportation's face when he realizes the complete SNAFU his incompetence has allowed to develop.

U.N. Women: Un-Women indeed

So, the United Nations has decided to streamline their efforts to support the rights of women by creating a new organization called U.N. Women. Documentary filmmaker Ami Horowitz (U.N. Me) has written an excellent analysis on this "it would be humorous if it weren't so tragic" situation.

It amazes me that people still exalt the U.N. as some beacon of civilization. With its consistent impotence in the face of:

• genocide;
• terrorism;
• racism;
• homophobia;
• bigotry; and obviously,
• abuse of women

...while simultaneously being one of the singularly most corrupt organizations in history, the U.N. is long overdue for a good, swift sulfuric-acid enema if it is ever going to amount to anything other than being a cruel joke on the citizens of the Earth.

The Co-opting of Remembrance

Today is a day for reflection.

Reflection on the cost of our freedom. Reflection on the unconditional love of those fellow citizens who stand in the ranks of our military and put themselves on the line for those of us who do not, will not or cannot for ourselves.

And yet there are those amongst us who -- for one reason or another -- can't put self-interest and self-importance aside. Even for one occasion of such importance.

Put simply, they just don't get it.

These are the people who feel the need to co-opt every important message for their own interests. Whether it be animal activists who dilute the merits of our soldier citizens by distributing purple poppies to honor animals that died during war or peace activists who hold such self-importance that they cannot leave well alone by distributing white poppies to promote peace through non-conflict, something I'm sure every Holocaust survivor thanks the maker never happened while they were lined up in the death camps.

These activists clearly don't get it.

Remembrance Day is already about peace. Does the fact that ceremonies and our quiet reflections take place at the moment that the war ended mean nothing? It is already about the lives of all those who served and all that is protected or lost, whether man or beast.

Do these groups need another version of the poppy? Unless they are trying to draw attention to their activism -- which ultimately means they value self-promotion over self-reflection -- the answer is clearly no.

Our soldiers stand on a plane of citizenry that most of us will never quite fathom. Their families know all too well the cost. It is unfortunate that self-centered activists just cannot put their self-interests aside... even for one day.

Perhaps if these activists reflected on exactly what Remembrance Day is, they might just realize that the red poppy already symbolizes what their co-opt poppies are supposed to mean. This lack of understanding only turns their co-opt poppies into a exercise in self-mockery; turning a day of selfless remembrance into a day of selfish ignorance and obliviousness.

Lest we forget... Clearly some of us already have.

Philosophy VS Emotional Reactions

I recently got into a heated discussion about whether hiding one's political leanings is in fact any part of one's political beliefs themselves rather than just an emotional response to the fear of public scrutiny. And it got me thinking.

Is it even possible to both believe that the philosophy one embraces is correct and should be reality but also believe that this philosophy should be hidden?

And I don't mean it should be hidden on a personal level because of one's own discomfort. I mean, hidden on a philosophical level in that the philosophy's very existence is dependent upon it being hidden... kind of like God must be hidden for faith to exist.

It seems to me that possessing political beliefs is completely separate of how one chooses to express those beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are. If one's expression of a belief were an actual part of that political philosophy itself, then we would have to have separate categorizations for:

Closeted/Anonymous

Fair-Weather

Begrudging

Active

Extremist

But we all believe that our political views are correct. That's why it's called a belief. If I believe that a free-market economy is the best solution to global economics, then I'd want to see it enacted. I wouldn't want to see it hidden. And in fact, I can't simultaneously believe that something should be enacted and hidden.

If I believe that a free-market economy is the best solution but I'm afraid to let people know, then anonymity isn't part of that economic belief. It's not part of that political categorization. Anonymity is part of who I am. It's a part of my emotional wiring and my response and is nothing more than the connective tissue between my beliefs and the opposing belief.

Or am I wrong here and it is possible that a person can both believe that something should be enacted while simultaneously believing it should be hidden?

David Miller's Legacy: A Bankrupt City

I was speaking with a friend of mine last night and we were discussing different aspects of the city. With me being kind of centre-right and her being more to the left, we of course have different perspectives. She dreaded the arrival of Rob Ford while I am relieved that we have somebody with a unique and very ambitious plan for Toronto.

However, she took me totally by surprise in suggesting that David Miller had a positive, long term vision of the city and that Toronto is one of the better fiscally managed cities in Canada. She also indicated that Toronto's debt has been managed very well compared to other cities in Canada.

Needless to say, I was dumbfounded. While I didn't want to take her to task over this -- being well aware of the ballooning budget -- I decided to not say anything about the debt level until I could present to her the actual numbers. So, this is what I pulled up.

Toronto - 2003

• Debt: $2.1 Billion
• Annual Budget: $6 Billion

Toronto - 2010

• Debt: $3.1 Billion
• Annual Budget: $9 Billion

In case it doesn't jump out at you right away, these numbers indicate that both the debt level of the city and the annual budget post-Miller is 150% of what it was pre-Miller. And let's not forget that Toronto is now pulling in approximately $750 Million more each year with the new Land Transfer Tax and Vehicle Registration Tax.

And when we compare Toronto to other cities, the picture isn't pretty either. Toronto has the third largest debt per capita of any Canadian city:

1. Montreal = $8,274
2. Calgary = $3,843
3. Toronto = $2,671

This kind of lays to rest any discussion on whether or not Toronto has been well-managed. It's not like David Miller was mayor for 30 years; he was in power for 7. To increase the debt and budget size of the city that significantly in that short of a time... it's almost imperceptible.

David Miller may go down as the most destructive mayor the city of Toronto ever had. One need only look at his spineless approach to unions in capitulating to their each and every wage demand...

...his ridiculous approach to poverty and community housing by giving away property...

...his mindless approach to the homeless in not even trying to figure out who they are, how many there are and coming up with a concise plan based on real numbers...

...his approach to roads in the city that have left businesses in ruins...

...and his complete disregard of the taxpayers' money.

Toronto is in sore shape right now. Thankfully we have somebody who is ready to give the city the shock therapy it so sorely needs. Let's hope that Rob Ford is able to enact the changes he plans. Toronto is on the brink. If Ford can do for Toronto what Rudy Giuliani did for New York, we may enter a new Golden Age for the city. And if anybody has the cojones to do it, it's Rob Ford.

UPDATE * * *

As pointed out in the comments section, my debt figures in the trillions of dollars is incorrect. As it is, I was using figures from the City of Toronto's website in which they quote their figures as being in millions.

The gross outstanding debt in 2010 is 3,063,064 (millions). Clearly, if the base value is in millions, that number becomes $3,063,064,000,000 or roughly $3.063 Trillion. However, Toronto's gross debt is actually $3.063 Billion. That would mean their base value is in the thousands: 3,063,064 (thousands) = $3,063,640,000

I've correct the debt figures back to being in the billions. Surprise, surprise that the City of Toronto's finances are so screwed up that they can't even quote financial figures on their website correctly.

Why my support of Harper is on a razor's edge

I have long believed in Stephen Harper. From the time he was the leader of the Canadian Alliance, I have long held him in the greatest esteem as a brilliant political leader with the intelligence needed to lead Canada away from the mud that the Liberal Party dragged the country into.

Unfortunately, my support is now on a razor's edge. And it all has to do with Julian Fantino.

It is my view that the Conservative Party is as much at fault over the Caledonia catastrophe as any other party. The Harper government has presented itself as a law-and-order party. It has brought in long-needed reforms. It has stood up to the lunacy of the farcical long-gun registry. And yet, it did not have the cojones to stand up to the rampant lawlessness and threats to our fellow citizens that has gone unchecked in Caledonia.

However, the actions taken by Julian Fantino -- from ignoring the rule of law, to blaming and trying to penalize the victims of violence to outrightly threatening the elected officials of Caledonia -- has been the most disgusting and disturbing action taken by a police official I have ever seen. I have nothing but utter contempt for the disrespect and cowardice displayed by Fantino.

The fact that the Conservative Party would welcome Fantino into the fold is like pouring salt on an open wound. In fact, that is exactly what it is. They have rewarded the actions of a man deserving of contempt. While Julian Fantino earned a reputation as a first rate policing leader, he pissed all over that reputation by ignoring his sworn duty and holding himself above the citizens who gave him their trust to do what is right.

As it is, I am at a crossroads. If an election were held today, I would still vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. But there is no way in Hades that I am going to donate to the party now. That money would better serve a victims of violence group than a party who gives a pat on the back to a man like Julian Fantino. And so long as the Conservative Party touts itself as the defender of law-and-order while turning their backs on the citizens of Caledonia, I will certainly not be rewarding their hypocrisy.

Toronto to Ontario to Canada: A Conservative Cascade Effect

The victory of Rob Ford in Toronto's mayoral race certainly changes the political landscape significantly. Having a staunch conservative running the show in one of Canada's most liberal cities is a coup of the highest order. But it is the timing that could prove to be the most promising aspect.

As we all know, October 2011 will mark the next provincial election in Ontario. All signs are pointing towards McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party's demise with a possible takeover by the Tim Hudak lead Progressive Conservatives. The next Canadian federal election is set for October of 2012 though this could be overridden by actions of the official Lame-O-pposition.

It is the annual frequency of these elections that offer a certain degree of promise for supporters of the federal Conservative Party of Canada. If Rob Ford can withstand the obvious resistance he will face from Toronto City Council and build a certain degree of momentum, the changeover of the provincial government to a more conservative government could turn the tide in the options available to Toronto.

There can be little doubt that some of Rob Ford's more ambitious plans would find a louder resonance with a Conservative provincial government over the current Liberal one. And if Rob Ford can build a coalition within City Council to move his agenda forward, combined with both a provincially and federally Conservative atmosphere, Torontonians may in fact see this as a windfall of cooperation between the levels of government that has not been seen for decades.

McGuinty rams heads with Harper. Mike Harris had to ram heads with Chretien and Martin. David Peterson and Bob Rae rammed heads with Mulroney. Bill Davis rammed heads with Trudeau. To have three levels of cooperative, like-minded political ideology between Ford, Hudak and Harper... the promise is certain.

If Hudak takes power and works with both Harper and Ford, it may be possible to destroy the Liberal bastion that is Toronto and shift it forever to the right. Of course, this will all depend on the Harper Conservatives maintaining power until the next scheduled election of October 2012.

If they can do so and at the same time build a coalition of willing participants to change the Toronto landscape, Stephen Harper may be able to secure the majority that has eluded him thus far. If that majority is achieved with the help of a Toronto that begins to see the benefits of conservative principles in governance, there will be nothing stopping Harper from taking back those mandatory government political party subsidies that have been so difficult for Harper to dispose of.

We all know such a change of funding will ruin both the Liberals and the Bloc entirely. But more importantly, without this income, the Liberals may never be able to take Toronto -- or Canada -- back again.

Mayor Rob Ford... yes, it's official!

All I can say is, thank the maker... we have a real fiscal conservative in control in Canada. And in Toronto of all places!

The city needed shock treatment and that's what it got. I certainly am hopeful that Rob Ford surprises everybody and is able to implement his seemingly mountainous platform.

More subways? Yes!

Less streetcars? Double yes!

Respect for drivers? Triple yes!

Councillors being held accountable for both their voting and spending? You better believe it!

And, uh... Mr Miller? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Your legacy has arrived. And his name is Rob Ford.

Google Blocking Blogging Tories?

Somebody mentioned this on another blog and I looked into it myself. Sure enough, Google is blocking access to a few Blogging Tories blogs. Doing a Google search I found they had a harmful site block on:

Blogging Tories

Stephen Taylor

Small Dead Animals

All on the same day. Coincidence? I don't believe in coincidence.

Seems like the official Lame-O-pposition supporters may be engaging in their typically petty games.

Tomorrow is the End... Hallelujah!

Regardless of who becomes Mayor of Toronto tomorrow -- George Smitherman or Rob Ford -- I think the overwhelming majority of Torontonians can breathe a sigh of relief that the David Miller regime will be gone.

It is disturbing to look at Toronto today in comparison to where we were before David Miller took office. The city has become a dump. The roads have become a disaster. The unions have turned the city into their own fiefdom.

And the cost? The yearly city budget is now 50% larger than when Miller took office.

With nothing to show for it.

Not a single monument to the success of David Miller.

Why? Because David Miller is the ultimate failure. The only thing people will think of when David Miller's name is spoke will be the smell of garbage piling up in the streets.

Regardless of whether my favored candidate -- Rob Ford -- wins tomorrow or not, I will be able to smile on Tuesday knowing that David Miller is gone. Hallelujah.

Toronto Mayoral Poll Fabrication?

I have suspected all along that the polls showing George Smitherman running a much closer race to Rob Ford were in some ways being fabricated to change the course of the Toronto Mayoral election. It appears that the Globe & Mail has finally given us some proof that something is afoot.

The Globe & Mail are reporting tonight that the latest Nanos poll -- conducted after Rocco Rossi dropped out -- puts Rob Ford's support at 43.9 percent versus George Smitherman's 40.5% and Joe Pantalone at 15%. According to their numbers, the "lion's share" of Rocco Rossi's supporters have migrated to George Smitherman's camp.

If you will recall, just a week ago, Ipsos-Reid pegged George Smitherman's support at 31% with Rob Ford at 30% thus showing a much tighter race. They even mentioned that if you take into account committed voters, George Smitherman's lead over Rob Ford was in fact 6%.

This is where the possible fabrication starts to reveal itself...

If we take Nanos' indication that most of the Rocco Rossi's support went to George Smitherman and apply it to the numbers from the Ipsos-Reid poll, we should in fact see Rob Ford polling in the low to mid 30% range with Smitherman at 40% at least. And yet Nanos shows that we are absolutely nowhere near that scenario.

Additionally, last week Rob Ford's camp indicated that their own internal numbers had him much closer to the 50% mark than what was being reported by Ipsos-Reid, a fact that NOW Magazine derided with their typical, black tooth grin. And yet, if we are to take Nanos' poll as accurate, it would appear that Ford's internal polling was in fact more reliable than Ipsos-Reid.

Which begs the question: what the hell is going on that the polls would be so ridiculously off the mark?

Let's remember that it was the poll Ipsos-Reid released on September 27th pegging Rob Ford's support at 28% against George Smitherman at 23% that convinced Sarah Thomson to bow out of the race and throw her support behind Smitherman. It was also their polling that convinced Rocco Rossi to drop out this past week.

So, we either have both Nanos and Rob Ford's internal polling being way off or we have Ipsos-Reid being way off.

If in fact Nanos' numbers turn out to be closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Ipsos-Reid conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark. Meanwhile, Nanos' numbers haven't changed much in the past two months. So, if Ipsos-Reid is closer to the mark on election day, we'll know that Nanos conducted two consecutive polls that were completely off the mark.

But they both can't be right. And they all can't be that far off.

Needless to say, I think election day is going to reveal a rat.

Voting Laws Don't Count For Obama

So, it looks like Michelle Obama has stepped in it again.

Bad enough her Marie Antoinette trip to Spain a few months ago and the criticism it brought onto her as somebody above the common folk, now she has to go and break Illinois state voting laws by electioneering within a polling place.

Of course, some people are coming to the defense of this Harvard educated lawyer from Illinois saying that because she's the first lady and is "liked" that she should be cut some slack. Yeah... because you wouldn't expect a lawyer from Illinois who has helped out with her husband's political campaigns to know anything about Illinois law as pertains to political campaigns.

Who are the genius' who think up these excuses? I have some ideas.

But ultimately who really thinks that anybody would go after Michelle Obama for breaking voting laws? After all, we know how well the idea of enforcing voting laws goes with this administration.

Where's that vitriol now Olbermann?

Can we put to rest any doubt at all that Keith Olbermann and MSNBC are complete hypocrites?

Oh, they scream at conservatives commentators who describe a politician as a "whore" and even put the word out there. But when it's an actual politician or his aide -- it has been reported the court transcriber attributed it to J.B. while leftist news organizations are falling in line with saying it was an aide -- calling her a whore, MSNBC has to beep it out of the story.

I doubt we'll hear Olbermann shouting down Jerry Brown over this... no, that would show principle. And Olbermann needs to take anger management courses before he'll show any of that.

(Hat tip to Big Journalism for catching this one.)

I, for one, am having a hard time believing that Jerry Brown himself didn't use the word. If you watch the video from the link above and listen to the audio recording you'll notice that the first time the word "whore" is used, the person's voice is higher pitched and has a little more of a nasal aspect.

But the voice is deeper the second time the word is used and sounds like it is coming from the same person who said, "I am going to use that."

There doesn't seem to be any question that it was Jerry Brown who said, "I am going to use that."

The fallout for this story hasn't even hit yet. But it will be interesting to see who gets in line. We already know that NOW has repeated the hypocritical stance it took with Bill Clinton and has quickly jumped to Brown's side after this.

The level of hypocrisy is simply stunning.

Fortune tellers join the rank of the unemployed

Honestly... who needs a fortune teller to predict the massive political shift in the United States coming this November when you have Gallup?

Yes, folks, it's true. The "summer of recovery" has been such an overwhelming success that US unemployment numbers jumped from 9.3% in August to 10.1%.

I imagine that the Democrats will be inviting Obama out on the campaign trails less and less in the coming weeks. It's not even fun anymore watching the Dems going the way of the Titanic.

Where did all those mayoral polls go to?

Is it just me, or up until last week did we not see about a poll every three or four days on who the next Mayor of Toronto was going to be? Every newspaper was spilling page after page of ink on this poll and that poll... Ipsos-Reid and Nanos seemed to be doing cycles around each other every week. And yet the last poll to be discussed was released on the 26th of September.

And now? Nothing.

Gotta wonder what the next poll is going to say when everybody is keeping their internal numbers to their own chests and the polling firms are quiet. Could there have been a dramatic turn of events? We'll know soon enough.

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Another blogger posted an excellent article in the Globe and Mail titled: Are we sliding into a tyranny of good intentions? The article specifically focuses on democracy in general. However, it segues into another topic as of late.

A few people I know have asked me my opinion on the striking down of certain prostitution laws in Canada. Certainly there has been a great deal of ink spilt on the subject already talking about the morals of society. I got into a very heated debate on the subject on another blog where asking people to point out specific ways that prostitution harms society resulted in me being called 'self-righteous'.

Go figure... I didn't know that asking for evidence of guilt is being self-righteous. I thought it was called due process.

I was even called a moral relativist. And yet believing something to be bad and saying it's none of my business doesn't imply any morally relative position at all. In fact, my morality is absolute as my opinion on prostitution is based on my opinion of government in general: participatory private acts are of NO business to government.

Unfortunately, society has increasingly empowered governments as our caretaker rather than our employee. It amazes me how conservatives complain of the far-left's tendency towards a "nanny-state" and then turn around and cry foul when citizens are given the freedom to choose how they live their own lives.

Prostitution -- like any other actions in the sphere of personal morality -- is in my books not a good thing. Whether by tradition or perception of human value, it is a dirty thing in my mind. And many people hold the same belief. But does that give us the moral right to say that everybody must abide by our personal morality?

Hello, Nanny State.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for our own actions and being models and teachers of moral positivity to shape the world we want, we have once again empowered the government to coerce and threaten others into our own personal spheres of morality. Just like schools that enforce an adoption of certain eating habits, just as governments enforce the adoption of non-smoking for free people in private establishments (BTW: I don't smoke), we have once again deferred personal responsibility and freedom to an every strengthened government fist.

And as one of my favorite musicians, Peter Gabriel, says, "The more we are protected, the more we're trapped within."

Once we give away our self-empowerment, it is nearly impossible to get it back. And then we become slaves to both the rules we adopt and the rules that those we oppose adopt on our behalf.

It's always best to err on the side of personal freedom than totalitarianism.

What if Rob Ford was anti-immigrant?

Since the first debate where Rob Ford questioned the sustainability of Toronto's infrastructure with the population it already held, never mind any further growth, rival candidates and media pundits have been shouting from the roof tops that Rob Ford is anti-immigrant. By extension they have also linked him being anti-immigrant to the idea that he is racist.

Now, anybody who listened to what he said without a preconception that Rob Ford is Satan in disguise and therefore everything he says must be of the most villainous interpretations possible would know that he was not talking about immigration.

But let's say for a second that he was anti-immigrant. The big question from me would be: so what?

I'm a thirty-something, English speaking white male. I grew up in Dufferin County but only moved to the GTA a few years ago. That makes me an immigrant. Could it be gleamed from the interpretation of statements that in fact Rob Ford would be a racist for thinking it was a bad idea for me to move into Toronto with it's problems in infrastructure?

Of course not. Immigration is not about race. It's about population. It's a numbers focused question not a race question. As such, even if Rob Ford was speaking in an anti-immigrant tone, then it could not be considered racist.

Anyone-But-Ford: only if Smitherman folds

It has been the recurring chorus of the ever so unbiased Toronto Star that mayoral candidates Joe Pantalone, Sarah Thomson and Rocco Rossi should drop out of the race and let George Smitherman be the last man standing against Rob Ford. Today they reported that Sarah Thomson is in fact considering dropping out and casting her support behind Rocco Rossi.

The logic behind the Star's reporting is made that much clearer by the fact that Thomson is in fact 3 points ahead of Rossi. Yeah... you figure it out.

Still, the question does remain regarding how the other candidates would best defeat Rob Ford. The Star obviously has not thought this through past their unabashed slobbering over George Smitherman; much of the support for Pantalone, Thomson and Rossi would go to Ford if any of them dropped out.

In fact, as the Toronto Sun reports, 19.3% of voters' second choice is Rob Ford vs 15.3% for Smitherman. This makes it statistically impossible for an Anyone-But-Ford campaign lead by Smitherman to win.

If the other candidates dropping out won't defeat Ford, it seems to me that there is only one solution: George Smitherman should drop out now and lead the way throwing his support behind the most right-wing of the remaining candidates.

King George's camp seems to be the most entrenched ideologically. So, it is unlikely that his supporters would vote for Ford as a second choice. Moving politically left to right -- from him to the next most right-wing candidate beside Ford -- each candidate's supporters would more likely throw their support behind anyone but Ford which isn't true in the opposite direction of politically right to left. As such, if Smitherman and two other candidates dropped out and threw their support against the most right-wing of the remaining candidates, their supporters would likely see that candidate as the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately for them, the closest thing to a right-wing candidate next to Rob Ford happens to be Rocco Rossi who is polling last at 8% of decided voters.

Ultimately, the notion of an Anyone-But-Ford campaign is simply another symptom of the rot in Toronto municipal politics. Any candidate who drops out of the race now to throw their support behind somebody else reveals them to be completely devoid of principle. They have worked hard with their campaign workers, their supporters and presenting their own vision for the city. To fold now shows a complete disregard and disrespect for all of these elements.

I can only imagine how their supporters would react if these so-called "leaders" they were bucking for followed somebody else and drove their campaign off a cliff. I know I wouldn't exactly be appreciative of that. And I can see many campaign supporters voting for Ford just out of spite for the disregard the other candidates are showing them, their ideals, their efforts and the entire notion of democracy.

***UPDATE***

As it turns out -- and I really should have expected as much from the Star -- the poll they put out is in huge disagreement with other polls. Hardly surprising when you look at how the Star is doing everything to skew every aspect of this mayoral contest. As such, their poll has shown a drop from the mid-to-high 40's down to around 39% for Ford.

I guess when you actually have a poll identified as being from "Toronto Star - Angus Reid", you have to know that they are polling for themselves and their ideals. Meanwhile a Nanos poll from the exact same time period shows Rob Ford's mid-to-high 40's lead as being rock solid.

The funny part of this being that the numbers in the Nanos poll -- showing Thomson behind Rossi -- are more in line with the Star's reasoning for Sarah Thomson to concede and throw support behind Rossi!

I guess when you want to pointless badmouth Ford you use your own numbers. But when you want to logically convince Thomson to drop out, you use somebody else's numbers. It's clear that the Star's poll is emotional and the Nanos poll is logical. And that's all you need to know to figure out whose numbers are right.

Unions: an expense in blood and money

I work in franchise development. This basically means that when somebody is interested in starting up their own business, I help them determine whether ours is right for them and they are right for us. It is a unique type of franchise in that it is a consultation franchise so one doesn't need a building, office staff, equipment or overhead.

As a global franchise, people from all over the world approach us for information on how to start up a business. This affords me a fantastic experience in that I speak with people from all over the world.

Last week I had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman from South Africa. This gentleman is a successful owner of two service stations and has operated them for years. At the end of October the leases for his two locations are set to expire. But instead of making efforts to renew the leases and continue on in this business, he has decided to let the leases expire, close down operations and look for another business.

Why? It's very simple: unionization.

South Africa is an extremely unionized country. Since August, the country has been crippled by a massive civil service union strike with workers demanding a wage increase of between 8.6% and 11% as well as up to $190 in housing subsidies.

And with hospital workers being a part of this group, it has gotten so bad that the South African National Defense Force has been called in to protect union workers who have been threatened with violence for defying their union's strike position. Additionally, the hospitals themselves are now serviced by military doctors who are filling in for hospital staff.

South African hospital officials are also claiming that the strike by hospital workers is responsible for up to ten deaths for lack of access to medical aid. As somebody from Toronto, that particular aspect of the strike hits particularly close to home considering our own public sector strike last year and how a man died after slow response by Toronto's EMS.

For the man I spoke with last year, he simply cannot afford to stay in business. He does make a monetary profit through his businesses. But monetary costs aren't the only expenses in life. And the cost in stress versus the monetary returns are simply too great for him to stay in business.

As he mentioned, anybody who runs a business in South Africa is subject to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) of South Africa. This governing body is designed to settle disputes between labor and management. However, as is with so many far-left governing bodies (our Human Rights Commissions, anyone?), it is really just a farcical, rubber-stamp organization where people can claim victimhood with the tribunal going through a facade of a process so they can award the complainants whatever they want.

This man told me that many business owners in South Africa spend a good portion of their year in front of the CCMA tribunals just answering for non-stop complaints. And they're not even legitimate complaints. His own final straw was when an employee of his was caught stealing from him.

The gentleman fired the thieving employee and had him charged by the police. The thief was convicted under the courts for stealing. But the thief then filed a complaint with the CCMA who ruled that the business owner's actions of firing the man were improper. The CCMA forced this business owner to rehire the thief!

This is eerily reminiscent of the wildcat labor strike at Air Canada back in 2005. At the time, Air Canada was taking action against employees who had been swiping time cards for coworkers who either showed up late, left early or didn't come into work at all. The ground crew walked off work for four hours effecting several flights and thousands of passengers. In the end, Air Canada agreed not to take punitive action against these employees so they would come back to work.

Now, this gentleman from South Africa is getting out of business. He's fed up with the bureaucracy of dealing with organizations such as the CCMA and the highly regulated, paper-pushing South African government which makes starting, operating and even ending a business an insanity inducing process. He wants something where he doesn't have to worry about carrying the deadweight of employees who don't want to work or governing bodies who are more interesting in giving workers what they want than what is right or wrong.

It is frustrating to see the attitudes of modern day unions. They claim that they are simply trying to ensure that workers get "fair" pay and conditions. But one would have to be a fool to look at modern unions and actually believe this. It is becoming increasingly clear that modern day unions want equal pay across the board, no matter the position or duties, with workers being free to do whatever they want -- even not showing up -- as long as they can come up with a decent enough excuse.

A few years ago I was debating with somebody who is pro-union whether or not workers should all get the same pay. His logic was that if somebody gets a job and puts in a full day's work, he should get the same pay and benefits as anybody else. I asked him straight-up whether he felt that they should get the same pay as the person who started the business. And he actually said that he did believe they should get the same.

Talk about a true socialist!

It amazes me how far society has come in terms of valuing people's contributions. Somebody who begrudgingly comes to work, punches in at 9 and leaves by 5 on the nose and puts in the bare minimum does not deserve to be rewarded for their efforts the same as somebody who worked hard for years, saved up enough money to build a business, took that high risk investment of starting the business and has now created opportunity for others who wouldn't have a job if it weren't for his/her actions.

The value is not the same in any regard! The business owner is the one taking the risk. The business owner is the one creating a means for others to make a living. Of course the business owner shouldn't take advantage of their workers. But it is the myth of the union mentality that the natural attitude of a business owner is to take advantage of their workers.

Why? It's very simple: that is the only justification for the existence of unions.

But what of the opposite? What about workers taking advantage of their employers? Do we have safeguards to prevent this? Not really. If a worker wants to have their time card swiped while not at work, shouldn't the owner have a say on whether to pay this person for work they never did? If a worker steals from the employer and is even found guilty by a court of law, should the business owner not have the right to keep a thief away from his business?

Union-minded people don't seem to care one bit about morality. It's about money. It always is.

As society becomes more and more aware of the expense that unions exact upon society -- both in blood and money -- it is becoming increasingly hard for society to accept their prima-donna attitudes. One need only look at this year's mayoralty race in the largely leftist city of Toronto to see that people are getting fed up with union power.

People are starting to recognize that the value for service just isn't there and that unions have taken too much control. And it isn't just a local phenomenon. One need only look at Europe's reluctance to assist Greece in the face of their massive debt burden. Greek unions simply don't care where the money is or where it comes from as long as they get what they think they're entitled to. And this hasn't sat very well across the EU. Germany most notably is sick and tired of being the engine of the EU economy while countries like Greece rest on their haunches.

Thankfully with the freedom of news sharing that the internet affords, people are more aware of what is going on in the world around them and why. And as it becomes increasingly difficult for unions and their leftist apologists in the media to argue their points for them, the public is learning the true cost of unionization. And it isn't a pretty picture.

One can only hope that the tide turns and people can build businesses without the fears of being a target for unwarranted oppression from the government and unions. I feel sorry for the gentleman in South Africa I was in talks with. To think a person would build up two businesses and then just walk away out of the frustration of union control... he brings a means to a living for these people and they run him out of town.

It's truly heartbreaking. In the end everybody loses.

Pub owner suing Ford: his lawyer reps Warren Kinsella

We already know that George Foulidis, owner of the Boardwalk Pub in Toronto, is threatening to sue Rob Ford for libel. Ford suggested that the process allowing Foulidis to renew his lease 20 years for $1.5 million less than he originally offered is corrupt. Representing Mr. Foulidis is lawyer Brian Shiller.

NewsTalk 1010 reported today that Brian Shiller also happens to represent somebody very familiar to Conservatives everywhere: Warren Kinsella.

And what is Warren Kinsella happen to be doing these days? Why, he's acting as campaign strategist for Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi.

What a coincidence!

Mind you, NewsTalk 1010 provided further information to say that it was somebody in Rob Ford's camp who recommended Shiller to Foulidis. But still... coincidence? I don't believe in such a thing. Especially not in politics.

If you eliminate coincidence, there are really only three possibilities here:

a) that Rob Ford's team did put Shiller onto Foulidis knowing that it would cast suspicion on both Kinsella and Rossi, thus eating up Rossi's support;

b) that Warren Kinsella and/or Rossi thought this issue could be used as another faux scandal involving Rob Ford in hopes it would drive voters away from Ford and actually were the ones to put Shiller onto Foulidis; or,

c) a third candidate thought they could take both Ford and Rossi down by having the lawyer attack Ford only to have his connections to the Rossi camp be revealed and orchestrated the Shiller/Foulidis connection, thus casting suspicion everywhere.

Mind you, I highly doubt the third scenario could every be true. Considering the limp-noodle antics of the other candidates, such a tactic would be far beyond the pedestrian brains of either them or their strategists.

Whatever way you spin it, Rob Ford is going to come out on top in the end with this story. As Sue-Ann Levy in the Toronto Sun has put it, the attention being given to this issue (a sole-sourced contract that went for $1.5 million less than what the leaser offered) only illuminates the ridiculous nature of how the city of Toronto is being run. And that only further bolsters Rob Ford's message of fiscal ineptitude of city council.

Of course, we must keep in mind that Foulidis hasn't actually launched a lawsuit. He is only threatening to sue Rob Ford. Personally, I can't think of anybody who would use just the threat of a lawsuit to control political news.

All sarcasm intended.

Lost track of how many faces...

It seems farcical.

The Liberals and leftists are wrongly accusing the Conservative government of being cozy with US special interests while they themselves are cozy with US interests. (h/t Coyne)

All this not a stone's throw away from the left embracing and protecting another US special interest group trying to interfere with Canadian politics... with that group lying to do so.

It really begs the question: how does the left stay upright with their feet planted firmly in the mouth of both of their faces?

Who is Rauf to lecture?

I was watching a clip on Fox News (shudder!) with Bill Hemmer discussing Imam Rauf's latest absurdities in telling Americans what is and what isn't holy ground. Hemmer had Dr. Zuhdi Jaffer of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy on the show and he really hit it on the head.

I'll leave it to his own comments as they are so very true:

I have to admit, that is about the best dressing down of Imam Rauf's nonsensical position I've heard yet. Rauf is using Islamophobia as a crutch to avoid having to address radicals within the Muslim faith. As long as he screams Islamophobia, the sheep will follow blindly to the abattoir.

Sure he was just quoting...

It's such an obvious misunderstanding. I mean, quoting something that you aren't agreeing with? Happens all the time.

Seriously.

If I was trying to make a point about the Sun newspapers and I quoted something that instead talked about the people who read the Sun... obviously I wasn't referring to the people. I mean, the quote says nothing about the Sun itself so it's so obvious that we should draw a conclusion about the Sun.

What that conclusion is... who knows? I don't know what's worse: saying (even quoting) something that suggests people are illiterate or believing that people are stupid enough to buy such BS.

Maybe Ian Davey can quote somebody to answer that for us.

The Truthers are still out there...

On my way into work yesterday I was listening to John Oakley on Talk640 and he had a guest who was going to debate any Truther out there. I didn't get to listen to that segment unfortunately as it would have been interesting.

I still can't believe that there are people out there buying the nonsense arguments that suggest 9/11 was an inside job, that the planes weren't planes, that United 93 was shot down, that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives and the lot. Even the most well thought out conspiracy about 9/11 can be explained typically by simple facts.

If you go to YouTube there's actually a great channel with videos that disprove every conspiracy theory you can think of that has been presented to suggest that 9/11 was anything but what we all know it really was. You can check it out here: TheTruthAbout911

But, I typically refer people to a fantastic argument that was made by Penn Jillette on Penn & Teller's Bullshit! whereby he says it like it is: the Watergate break-in disproves it all. After all, if the government couldn't hide a simple hotel break-in, how could they hide a conspiracy involving every single layer of government? Check it out here.

And as I mentioned in a previous posting, if 40,000 top secret documents about the War in Afghanistan can end up on Wikileaks, how is it that we haven't seen a single document indicating any government involvement in 9/11?

Some people need to find themselves something else to devote their time to. Maybe looking for cures to mental diseases?

The Double Standard: Bibles VS Quran

I was doing a little light reading today and it is hard to not see the glaring double standard of both the press and the Muslim world in regards to this week's Quran BBQ brouhaha.

In terms of the Muslim world, I found this great blog posting detailing how Muslims the world over frequently desecrate the Bible. (h/t Planck's Constant) I would like to hear the political and religious leaders of those countries blast the Muslims who carried out such acts.

Fat chance. Surely this is another case of, "Do as I say, not as I do." Muslims have no problem threatening violence if their holy book is burned. The Bible? Meh...

And in terms of the media, I don't remember the media or Obama coming out decrying last year's Halloween Bible Burning in North Carolina. After all, it's such an affront to the religious to desecrate the holy writings. The media would clearly not ignore this one.

Right?

Somehow I can't find a single mention of Obama decrying this clear desecration. I don't see a single article online from MSNBC or CNN that even mentions this. Surprise, surprise.

Where's ACTRA on the censoring of Sun TV?

Last year the arts community -- especially ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists -- came down hard on Stephen Harper's government Bill C-10 which would in part effectively cut funding to artistic endeavors that were contrary to public interests. Some, such as director David Cronenberg, went so far as to call this censorship.

Bill C-10 in no way would prevent artists from creating, displaying or performing their works. It was simply telling them that they would have to get support from other sources. That is not censorship. If it was censorship then the government would effectively have a responsibility to fund all artists on demand.

I'm an artist. And I get it.

But where is ACTRA and all these arts community figures now that Sun TV (erroneously called "Fox News North") is under attack by the media on all sides? Where is the arts community when we have so many people calling for this private, non-public funded news outlet to be prevented access to the airwaves?

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Censorship is not the denial of funding from one source. It is suppression. No artist was being suppressed from performing or creating under Bill C-10. Sure they would have to find alternate sources to create their artistic works at the level of expense that would be optimum. But that's not suppression.

Suppression is when we have the media demanding a voice to be silenced. Suppression is when we have politicians wanting voices to be silenced.

And what has the arts community said against these expressions of desired censorship? Well, I'm more likely to hear the birds chirping outside ACTRA's downtown headquarters while standing beside one of Emirates A-380's when taking off on a runway at Toronto's Pearson airport than hear one of their representatives on TV defending Sun TV's free expression.

Why? Because they aren't the champions against censorship they claim to be.

Hypocrites.

Could the Quran BBQ get any worse? You better believe it!

Earlier today word came down that Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center had backed down from his plans to roast the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. For many people this is a positive development. It certainly was for me.

But you always have to read the fine print. And the whole series of activities that led to Rev. Jones' announcement today stinks.

Rev. Jones met with FBI officials today for half an hour of conversations. About what? Nobody's saying. Not Rev. Jones, not the FBI. Why not?

If the FBI was simply reiterating what everybody else has been saying about intolerance, insensitivity or the threat of violent activities in reaction to Jones' plans, there wouldn't be any reason to be secretive. And that leaves really only two realistic possibilities.

The first is that the FBI was informing Rev. Jones of a potential threat to his own life or other specific parties involved in the book burning. With general threats of violence already known, the only possible violent threats that might sway Jones would be specific, close and personal.

I don't buy it. If there were some eminent threat against Rev. Jones, he would be screaming it to every camera out there as an example that proves his point of view surrounding Islam being a violent religion. He'd want the public to know and the FBI would not be able to stop him.

The other option is that the FBI itself is coercing Rev. Jones into not taking action. This would not surprise me considering the man pulling the FBI's strings -- President Barack Obama -- himself has heavily criticized Rev. Jones' actions and given every indication of what he wants.

What kind of threat the FBI would make is anybody's guess. But the far left has criticized the FBI for supposed pressure tactics going all the way back to the Hoover years. Does it seem likely that the FBI is incapable? Hardly.

Now, some will point out the apparent deal to move the New York Park51 development that Rev. Jones trumpeted first between himself and the Park51 developers -- who denied it -- and later with Florida Imam Muhammad Musri -- who also denied any deal. In the face of both parties denying what Rev. Jones claims, Jones has stated that he was lied to but was still postponing the Quran burning until he can talk to these parties.

But who really believes that Rev. Jones -- who himself has called Islam the devil's religion -- would remain in a holding pattern based on what he has now called a lie only so he can deal with representatives of a religion he clearly has no respect for and in fact has a great hatred towards? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If I was just called a liar on national TV by a person I believe was evil but who I supposedly had a deal with a few seconds ago, I would be fuming! And if I was the type of man Rev. Jones is, I might have burned a Quran right then and there out of spite. But the reaction of Jones tells me that he has other concerns on his plate that lie outside the realm of Muslim representatives that he obviously has no interest in.

Considering that the only other party to put real pressure on him today was the FBI, the process of elimination on whose influence is making the difference is fairly simple. If true, it would be clear that the government -- from the top down -- has focused its sites on this US citizen to prevent him from speaking his mind or performing actions that he has every legal right to do.

The exact opposite of what has happened in New York City in regards to the Park51 development!

The whole thing stinks. The layers of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue is just about enough to make me throw my hands up in the air and scream, "A plague upon both your houses!"

But the completely lack of leadership on the part of Barack Obama and the US government in general is nothing short of pathetic. Seventy percent of Americans don't want to see the Park51 complex developed near Ground Zero. And instead of either bowing to the will of the people or trying to lead them in a different direction -- basically showing a little backbone and standing on principle either way -- Barack Obama has once again shown himself to be the indecisive, non-committal coward that he is.

He could have gotten all of these parties into one room to talk with a snap of his fingers. The complete lack of guidance on this highly divisive issue is the final proof that Barack Obama has absolutely none of the leadership or moral character that it takes to be a leader.

Once again, he votes present.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

It amazes me that some of the same people who recognized the legal right of Muslims to build a mosque (community center... whatever) and said it was simply bad form and insensitive to do so are now defending Rev. Terry Jones and his Quran BBQ this Saturday, September 11th.

What does it say when we recognize the legal and human right of one group to do something while discouraging them not to do so out of sensitivity for others... but then turn right around and do the opposite to another group?

I thought we were better than that. I thought we were able to turn the other cheek. I thought we did unto others what we would have them do unto us.

Rev. Terry Jones (no, not the Monty Python comic) does have a legal right in the United States to burn books. And the left have certainly defended vigorously the right of people to desecrate sacred symbols so we're already well aware that he can do so. The question is, should he?

If you think Muslims should show a little sensitivity and not build near Ground Zero, defending Rev. Jones makes you a two-faced hypocrite. Nothing less.

The Left's guilt in the burning of the Quran

It has been impossible to read the news this week and not come across the asinine antics of Rev. Terry Jones from Florida and his plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Thankfully most people -- including our PM Stephen Harper -- have spoken out against it as both intolerant and just plain stupid when one considers what the obvious reaction of the Muslim world will be.

And of course the left will try and portray this as just another example of how dangerous and bigoted the right is in general.

But let's not hold any illusions here: the left is responsible for this cavalier attitude towards religious symbols in the West.

It wasn't very long ago that artist Andres Serrano introduced the world to his Piss Christ, a picture of a crucifix submerged in his urine, or Chris Ofili rolled out his The Holy Virgin Mary, a mixture of the Virgin Mary, blaxploitation and female genitalia pictures and dung. And some of the more well-known figures in the left-wing community -- such as actress Susan Sarandon -- actually staged protests in defense of this desecration.

Sorry. My mistake. The left calls it art.

But where were the vast numbers of editorials deploring these exhibits? I do remember it being reported. Vilified in the editorials? A handful maybe. Vast amounts of media personalities endlessly talking about how shameful and bigoted an act it was? Not even close.

The media had ample opportunity to show principle in calling out bigots. They had ample opportunity to stand up and say that desecrating sacred articles is not only uncalled for but simply repulsive and inflammatory. Instead, they chose silence. Even though there was an outcry from the Christian community, they remained silent.

And we all know... As you sow so shall you reap.

The actions of Rev Terry Jones are in no doubt deplorable. But make no mistake. This could have been avoided if the political left had done the right thing all along and stood up against bigotry in all forms. The left could have stood with the right in saying that they will not stand for sacred symbols to be treated with disrespect.

For them to point fingers now is a little rich.

Voting Present on World War III

Back when Barack Obama was still only the President Elect, he deemed it appropriate to call Iran's nuclear ambitions exactly as it is: unacceptable. And with nearly two years of talking about, conversing with and discussing in general we're still waiting to see exactly what it is about Iran getting the bomb that is unacceptable to Obama.

Perhaps everything up to Iran having a fully functional, tested and used bomb is acceptable.

But what about Russia?

In recent weeks Russia has decided that it will assist Iran's nuclear ambitions. This in clear understanding of Iran's two-faced "It's for peaceful purposes..." / "We have every right to build nuclear weapons..." stance. There can be no doubt that given the opportunity, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and will have no problem either using them directly or indirectly to target their enemies.

The most obvious side of this is that Israel -- now pretty much alone thanks to Obama -- will be forced to either launch a preemptive attack or in the face of developed nuclear weapons defend itself. In either scenario, Israel comes out looking bad. This gives Russia and all other anti-Israeli countries the perfect chance to come down hard on the Israelis.

But there's one thing on face value that doesn't make sense...

Iran is an Islamic republic which means that it will be first and foremost an ally to Muslim interests. Russia is presently engaged in a longstanding conflict with rebels within Chechnya, a largely Sunni Muslim population. It is no secret that the Muslim population within Chechnya despises Moscow. Even secularist Chechen rebels have been steadily converting to Islam.

Which begs the question... why would Russia arm the friend of it's enemies?

On face value, it makes no sense for Russia to help the Iranians become a nuclear superpower with the ability to launch nuclear attacks either directly or by proxy. One of the clearest targets of the Muslim population would be Russia itself who is responsible for what is perceived as Muslim genocide in Chechnya.

Now it doesn't make sense until you consider the possibility that Russia actually wants to be a target.

Now, I'm the first to admit that this has the obvious stench of conspiracy theories. But if you think about it, Russia is not happy with its status as a largely has-been superpower. The Russian government is not in a position to do en masse what it would do before, which is take whatever it wants by force.

But just as the United States had carte blanche to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, a Russia that has been the victim of a nuclear attack would have nothing stopping it from wiping out its Chechen foes. It would also have every justification to then invade Iran who would be seen as the face of the nuclear weapon itself.

Taking over both Chechnya and Iran, would certainly light a fire under every Muslim dominated country including the 93% Muslim Azerbaijan and 89% Muslim Turkmenistan. And any action by these countries against Russia -- either directly or through rebel activities -- would give Russia justification to invade both.

And that is the only thing standing between Russia having 100% complete control over the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

With Barack Obama being quite obviously a moral relativist, he would likely argue that Russia's actions in face of nuclear devastation are largely justified when compared to the United States' response to 9/11. After all, who could honestly see Barack Obama taking the United States to a gunfight with Russia? He would much rather find an excuse not to get involved.

But this of course would turn into a series of conflicts throughout the Middle East drawing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO member Turkey. And any attack against Turkey would obviously draw in the United States, Europe, Great Britain and Canada.

And boom... you've got World War III.

Obviously this seems hard to believe. But when you ask that one question of why Russia would supply the friends of its enemies with means to produce nuclear weapons, it all comes down to what opportunities it could present Russia. And having control over the near majority of the world's oil supply might just be too great a temptation for the financial strained Russia.

The only real preventative measure would be for Barack Obama to do something other than stand up on the world stage and vote present.

I'm not holding my breath.