Atlas Shrugs -Vlogging with Republican Congresswoman Sue Kelly and Sen. Mike DeWine

[Atlas Shrugs Sue Kelly Mike DeWine]

New Europeans use imaginary cattle to milk EU subsidies

[Eu milk subsidies]

“Do you find the results of opinion polls to be mostly (a) smoke, or (b) mirrors?”

[opinion polls]

Maybe the MSM will be able to understand this leading economic indicator-since they are reluctant to carry positive US economic news

Rush: ......."Polls Tightening Despite Drive-By Hysteria"

[Limbaugh polls]

Crime beat

Anne Bayefsky-The U.N.’s Spokesperson for Suicide Bombers

[Bayefsky UN suicide bombers]

MEMRI- Islamist Websites Monitor No. 13

[MEMRI]

Mark Steyn in Western Standard

Registration required

"Australia isn't a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for one thing because it's nowhere near the North Atlantic, though given that NATO is now a military alliance of countries that for the most part no longer have militaries it's hard to see why geography should be the one criterion they're pedantic about. Still, for the moment, Canada and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are the three least postmodern members of America's postmodern transatlantic alliance. So why isn't Canada getting the credit it deserves for the tough, bloody job it's doing in Afghanistan?"........

Hansard excerpts-.......Government Orders-Debating Bill C-25-Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

While witnesses were not able to provide the Committee with consistent or precise estimates of the amount of money that is being laundered each year or the costs of money laundering and terrorist activity financing, we believe that it is probably in the tens of billions of dollars. The human and societal costs associated with money laundering and terrorist activity financing must also be remembered, since the costs are not simply economic. Clearly, the costs are significant, and we must ensure that Canada has the best possible anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing regime in place, consistent with the protection of privacy, for the sake of Canadians, the sake of citizens worldwide and the sake of legitimate commerce.


Of the 143 reports FINTRAC made to law enforcement agencies, there have been no convictions. The Auditor General in 2004 suggested that allowing more information to flow to law enforcement authorities would help in investigating these suspicious activities, and the bill before us, Bill C-25, provides those powers. Members probably will be a little concerned to note that there were 143 reports by FINTRAC of suspicious activity and not one conviction.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

I would like to share with him that I believe strongly that we, the government and the law enforcement agencies, should in fact be able to seize other ill-gotten gains if it is in the context of this bill, which says it can be done if the person has been convicted and is known to be a member of an illegal or criminal organization. In those circumstances, if they happen to have what is ostentatious wealth, I suppose, and if they cannot show any proof of where those assets came from, why should we not be able to seize them and put the reverse onus on that individual to prove to us that the assets were in fact purchased through work?...

Mr. Speaker, I simply would ask my colleague from Mississauga South if he does not agree with the fundamental principle that we have to send a message that crime does not pay. The frustration that law enforcement officers have is that, in the current situation, crime does pay. Law enforcement officers know full well that an awful lot of people who are up to no good have the luxury homes, the speedboats, the luxury cars in their driveway, the tricked-out Escalades. A lot of people have really good reason to believe, just short of meeting the burden of proof, that these are the proceeds of crime.

I do not think that reversing the onus is a bad idea in the narrow scope of this bill and its two caveats, which are that if the person has been convicted of a crime and if the person is a known member of a criminal organization. Is there something wrong with saying that crime does not pay? Is there something wrong with saying that we are going to seize all the toys, sell them and use the money to put more cops on the street to bust the criminal and his friends in the future? I think it is a popular idea that we should be able to embrace without too much reservation.

********************************************
Asset forfeitures -U.S. Marshall Service has been administering this for years http://www.usmarshals.gov/assets/assets.html

[Bill C-25 Proceeds of crime money laundering terrorist financing]

Ny Times....Public Editor

"There has been much buzz about the admission of New York Times “public editor” Byron Calame that the paper should not have published information on the SWIFT program that tracked financial transactions of terrorists."

Al Gore - Climate change crusader......... via smalldeadanimals.com

John Podhoretz- Election- "Mainstream Media Time and Blog Time- "...............via Instaundit.com

"If your clock is set to Blog Time, you believed all that at the start of last week. By last Thursday, however, those of you on Blog Time began to discern a change: Suddenly, things weren't quite so bad for Republicans or quite so great for Democrats.

Blog Timers adduced this not from major evidence, like big polls, but from small data points - trees rather than forests."

[Podhoretz mainstream media blog time]

Bauer and Rose -on air- 10-12 ET

"More sponsorship scandal charges possible, author contends"

"The full depths of the sponsorship scandal have yet to be revealed, and new charges in connection with the affair that brought down the federal Liberal government may yet be laid, says a new book to be launched today...."

Leblanc quotes his source as saying numerous guilty parties have escaped prosecution or scrutiny, and that some are laughing up their sleeves with illicit millions lining their pockets.



[Adscam Gomery Sponsorship Leblanc]

Exhibit A of why the public holds politicians in low esteem

For about $140,000/yr/MP this is the best they can do for the nation's business......



Hansard excerpts/October 23/2006/Question Period

"Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now had four days to reflect on the statement made by his Minister of Foreign Affairs. This matter has to do with respect for women, acceptance of responsibility for one's actions, integrity, accountability for the truth and the dignity of the House of Commons.

In view of the silence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the Prime Minister now prepared to apologize for the totally inappropriate remarks of the minister in this House?...

Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, we could qualify that as a bit of a stonewall.

The Prime Minister cannot escape the fact that he ran an election campaign promising honesty and accountability. He is allowing his Minister of Foreign Affairs to ignore his obligation for openness, responsibility and integrity.

Since the Prime Minister will not personally apologize, will he at least insist that the Minister of Foreign Affairs do the right thing, address this matter directly and issue an appropriate apology in the House?
....


Hon. Bill Graham (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear why the Prime Minister and his party do not support Status of Women Canada in defending women's equality.

Women are not second-class citizens, and although the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly implied it, they are not men's property. He still has not apologized for his remark.

Why has the Prime Minister not reacted to this insult to Canadian women, and how long will they have to wait?...


Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government's argument that the official report does not reflect statements made in the House is looking more and more ridiculous. Canadians can judge for themselves by listening to the clip on the Internet.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs offended not only my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora, but also all Canadian women.

Why not do the only honourable thing under the circumstances? Why does the minister not have the courage to apologize?......


Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.): previous intervention
Mr. Speaker, what is going on with this minority Conservative government? It seems incapable of admitting the slightest error.

For weeks, the Prime Minister refused to admit that cutting the women's program was a mistake.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs made those unacceptable comments four days ago. Why has the Prime Minister not yet said a thing about it in the House? Why has he not demanded that his minister apologize? Why has he not called him to order?


Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been four days since the Minister of Foreign Affairs made unacceptable remarks in the House about a member of Parliament. Since then we have had nothing but excuses, denials and legalese from the minister, who should know full well that he crossed the line.

The Prime Minister is accountable for the actions of his subordinate. What more will it take for him to order the minister to apologize to the House of Commons and to all Canadians?...


Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to the House and all Canadians that the parliamentary secretary is trying to defend the indefensible. This behaviour is not tolerated in the business world nor in the public service. It cannot be tolerated around the cabinet table or in the House of Commons.

Does the Prime Minister really believe that this conduct will have no impact on our relationship with prominent women such as the president of Latvia, the chancellor of Germany, the American secretary of state, or the foreign minister of Hungary, a former minister of equal opportunities, with whom his minister is meeting this very day?...

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, why does this government refuse to condemn loud and clear the unacceptable, sexist remarks made in this House by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?

If similar remarks were offensive to an MP from a visible minority or one who is homosexual, would he have the gall to stand by what he said? He thinks he can get away with it because a woman was involved. That adds insult to injury. We demand an immediate apology.

Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the parliamentary secretary look up the word “potiche” in her French-English dictionary. That word is neither offensive nor a slur.

It has been four days and all we have seen is the Minister of Foreign Affairs evade the truth and a Prime Minister who lets him get away with it. Why does the government allow these sexist comments and evasions of the truth to cloud Canada's reputation as the defender of women's rights around the world?

It has been four days. Will someone over there stand up, do the honourable thing and-"

[Parliament Hansard Question period]

Hands in your pockets....seniors living on fixed incomes and in their homes for 20-30 years bearing the brunt of property taxes..the "freeze"

conveniently punted the issue past the next election.

[property taxes]

Earl Mcrae-........Dissing knitters

"How the (liberal) Old Media plans to cover the last two weeks of the election:....."

....8. Drop any pretense of covering good news from Iraq (uhm&.) or good news about the economy, including some upcoming positive macro numbers (Quick, Note readers: name the current Secretary of the Treasury.)...

12. Carefully document what appears to strategists in both parties to be the case — while a few incumbent Republicans are clawing their way back into contention (including and especially, perhaps, Tom Reynolds), the number of endangered Republican-held seats is growing, not shrinking.

[media election 2006]

Captainsquartersblog- George Allen- Porkbusters

[captainsquartersblog Allen porkbusters]

CNN-the sniper video

"But let's take Mr. Kerry and CNN at their word and assume that this type of footage has journalistic merit. It follows that CNN should also have shown its hours of footage from September 11. We're talking about the people trapped in the World Trade Center who decided to jump and the other grisly images most Americans have never seen. Or what about the tape showing Iraqi terrorists beheading Nick Berg? CNN has kept this footage locked away out of some faux sensitivity for Americans' fragile spines. The only way one can see the full horror of September 11 and other terrorist carnage is by downloading amateur videos off the Internet".

[CNN sniper]

No force border enforcement...........

"Someone ought to tell the Bush administration that prisons are for criminals, not law-enforcement personnel trying to do their jobs. On Thursday, a federal judge in Texas sentenced two former Border Patrol agents to 11 and 12 years in prison because they shot at a drug smuggler who was evading arrest."

[border]

Brent Bozell- Party of Deceit

"George McGovern, Patrick Moynihan, Ed Muskie -- where are you when we need you? ...

No, I haven't changed my stripes, but I have learned to appreciate that while the McGovernites of yesteryear were fundamentally wrong, terribly wrong, in their public policy agendas, they were driven by principle and fueled by conviction, and precisely for that reason they would be absolutely shocked -- no, disgusted -- by what has become of their Democrat Party today. "

Border........

[border]

Journalistic ethics?

Iran is expanding its uranium enrichment program

MEMRI

To every season there is a bias-so how's the economy doing-and how do the media portray it?

For fresh empirical evidence, the Business & Media Institute, admittedly a right-leaning group that audits coverage of the free enterprise system, just released a study of how the TV networks covered what was a strong economy in the 12 months ended in July. Among its findings:

• More than twice as many stories and briefs focused on negative aspects of the economy (62%) vs. positive (31%). "News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm after another, yet each time the economy continued unfazed," BMI said.

• Bad news was stressed on all three networks (CBS, NBC and ABC) and appeared in full-length stories twice as often as in shorter items.

• Ordinary people and businessmen whom reporters used to underscore negative stories outnumbered those telling positive stories by a 3-to-1 ratio.

• CBS' coverage was easily the most slanted. More than 80% of its full-length stories on its "Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy.

• Generally speaking, "the U.S. economy has been depicted as one major event away from collapse on all three evening news shows."

Can you trust the National media -Part 6 - " If the three national networks don't change and allow ideological diversity, they'll just continue

to lose millions of viewers to cable TV, the Internet and conservative talk radio."

Explosives found near U.S. Embassy in Venezuela

Tense in Lebanon