Yesterday’s post stirred various Raelians – all using false names and/or fake email accounts, and regurgitating suspiciously-similar talking points – into a spit-flecked fury.  Some of the more rational ones argued that Bob Rae should be permitted to break his written promise not to seek the permanent leadership because, well, we’re doing great in one poll.

As a rejoinder, a regular reader sent me this.  It’s hard to read, but it makes clear that not all is well, one poll notwithstanding.  As he put it: “Warren, this is really why we’re losing elections. Sitting MPs with zero members. What a joke. They wonder where their volunteers are.”

Comments (31)

Below, one comment in response to today’s column.  I don’t know who is moderating over there, but they need to pay closer attention, I think.

• AlexRoberts642 Collapse

  Why is this anti-White still being given a platform for his blathering?

Comments (20)

I see.

So it’s okay for the interim leader to break his promise to not run for the leadership, and to squelch the ambitions of anyone other than himself?

Because, make no mistake, he promised not to seek the leadership post. And he said he would encourage, not discourage, others to seek the leadership.

He’s not telling the truth. And this is one “stupid blogger” who intends to make that point, over and over.

Comments (88)

If you enter those words — “honour killing” — into Google, in fact, you will be quickly provided with hundreds of media accounts of the trial. In headlines, and in straight-up news coverage, the murders are repeatedly referred to as “honour killings.”

The craggy railbirds of the Canadian media, Christie Blatchford and Rosie Dimanno, have been there to chronicle all of it in forensic detail, regurgitating the prosecutors’ “honour killing” axiom over and over. And one old Islamophobe, Robert Fulford, actually wrote in the National Post that “One lesson we can learn from Kingston is that mindless tolerance, when carried too far, can be fatal.”

“Mindless tolerance.” What’s mindless, in fact, is the likes of Fulford, who have dishonestly suggested that “honour killings” are permitted, or even encouraged, in Islam.

Problem: It’s a lie. If you were to comb through the Koran, in fact, you would not find a single passage that advocates “honour killing.” It isn’t there. Plenty of prohibitions against murder, however, are.

Comments (24)

Said he wouldn’t raise taxes or cut services.

Is raising taxes and cutting services.

He’s a liar.

Comments (50)

It’ll help with fundraising (I hope) and membership (I expect), and it’ll generally boost morale.

Could it be an outlier?  For sure.  But good news is good news, and you take it when you get it.

Comments (46)

 

Comments (53)

The coverage of his Kingston murder trial is starting to bug me.

So, here’s a quiz: is the phrase “honour killing” anywhere in the Koran?

Comments (17)

Peter C. Newman, having just been asked why Michael Ignatieff never became prime minister of Canada, muses.

“He was an impressive man,” says Newman, as he waits to go on to a Sun News talk show. “But he was the wrong man.”

The wrong man. That, in sum, is the verdict you are left with when you read — as I did, quickly — Newman’s impressive new book, When the Gods Changed: The Death of Liberal Canada. Ignatieff was brilliant, erudite, accomplished and decent.

And, mostly, the wrong man.

Comments (41)

A very delayed but nevertheless fervent AMEN to your column in mid-October asking “What would Jesus do?” re the Occupy Movement.  

The Sunday morning prior to the column appearing, as a retired Pastor, I was sitting in Church at a worship service and thinking, “This is not CHURCH, we are just playing CHURCH.  That is where the CHURCH is”.

Thank you for your columns, providing a dose of reality in the midst of often very (undeclared) biases represented as thoughtful comments. 

   Albert Bailey

Comments (24)