God Bless America

God Bless America:

Goodness me I’ve never been a particular fan of many of the foreign and domestic policies of the United States. I’ve said this, written this, broadcast this. I’ve taken a few blows for it as well. But there is a time and a place for everything. And at this time and in this place I say just three words. God Bless America.
For leaving half-a million men on the battlefields of Africa, Asia and Europe during the Second World War, a conflict the United States could easily have sat out. For effectively forcing Japan to declare war and thus join the alliance of light against the gang of darkness. God Bless America.
For that farm-boy from Nebraska who had never even heard of Normandy or Sicily, who wanted so much to walk back from the hill but continued on, the bullets flying over and around him. For his not turning back. For his determination to do his duty and for his dedication to freedom. For his mother and for the stars and stripes flag she hung in her window. For his life, and for the fact that he gave it. God Bless America.
For being prepared to rip the country apart in a bloody spasm of civil war because, however delayed and reluctant in some quarters, the leaders and people knew that slavery was wrong. For seeing the future dawn when others could only see the enveloping night . God Bless America.
For Lincoln and Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Truman, Kennedy and Franklin, Jefferson and Adams. For Mark Twain and John Steinbeck, Henry James and Scott Fitzgerald, Melville and Whitman. God Bless America.
For the legion of Nobel Prizes won with grace, for the medical breakthroughs celebrated with decorum, for the sporting records, the intellectual triumphs, the moral victories, the glory. For embracing yes rather than hiding behind no. God Bless America.
For the pastures and forests vibrant with green and brown lushness, for the mountains and valleys that startle and shock the world. For the cities and the towns, the highways and back roads. God Bless America.
For not taking offence at the smug disdain that comes too often from other countries. For smiling with them instead of laughing at them. For usually extending a hand of friendship to those who extend the fist of anger. God Bless America.
For jazz and pluralism, baseball and religious tolerance, burgers and equality. For inventing and pursuing an ideal that, though not always achieved, is still glorious in the making and pristine in the chasing. God Bless America.
For the billions in foreign aid, greater per capita than any other country in the world. For the food, clean water, medicine, machinery given to every continent on earth. For the Marshall Plan and Marshall Dillon, for Tom Sawyer and Tom Hanks, for New York and for the New Deal. God Bless America.
For not minding when foreigners actually show more ignorance about American culture than Americans ever do about theirs. For in fact being more polite and sensitive when abroad than many other peoples but merely smiling when described as ugly. God Bless America.
For inviting Irish, Jew, Italian, Pole, German, Hispanic, black, Asian, man and woman, all and every into the highest levels of government. For being the first nation in the world to treat the outsider as a guest rather than a problem. For being a melting pot rather than a melting society. God Bless America.
For allowing God and prayer and faith to enter public life and for not running scared of gratitude to the almighty for all that He has given us. For not lauding the religion of secularism whilst hypocritically lambasting the religions of the church, mosque and synagogue. God Bless America.
For your comedies and your dramas, for your movies and your novels, your sentimentality and glamour, your self-parody and self-criticism. For your splendour and for your silliness. God Bless America.
For being right more often than being wrong. For being the United States of America and for being unashamed of it. For being the nation that still leads the way in so many ways, still lights the path on so many days. For being you. For being. God Bless America.

Rights

ights-worship fetish ruining our society
By MICHAEL COREN

When British police arrested a highly dangerous terrorist suspect last month, they acted with professionalism and, considering the circumstances, extreme courtesy. "Mohammed," they shouted, "Take your clothes off! Come out with your hands on your head and you will be all right."

He argued with them for some time, demanding to know why he should strip down to his underpants. When he was told the obvious -- that he was thought to be a potential suicide bomber -- he still argued and refused to move.

Eventually the police had to bring the man out by force and he was taken away. But his first response to the police was so deliciously relevant. He shouted it from the balcony. "I have rights," he screamed. "I have rights."

There we have it. Rights. Even for a man who is suspected of trying to murder innocent people and create panic and terror.

The mass of our social difficulties, the majority of our seemingly insoluble problems, arise from the fact that in the Western world (and particularly in Canada) we have engineered a rights-based society rather than a responsibility-based one.

The social contract between the governed and the government, between authority and citizenry, has become degraded and unbalanced. Instead of asking what our duty or responsibility might be in any given situation, we demand to know what are our privileges and rights.

At its most obvious there is the usual list of standard demands. The right to marry whomever you want, the right to be ordained a priest when you don't qualify, the right to claim welfare even if it isn't deserved, the right to have sex with anyone and everyone, the right to die, the right to be wrong.

The list goes on: The right to swear, the right to defy righteous authority, the right to be publicly uncouth, the right to insult a cop, the right to hide behind any excuse to escape punishment, the right to never fail, never lose, never have one's self-esteem challenged, the right to be wrong.

Instructional guides

Recently our Supreme Court was called upon to judge a man who on the Internet had been selling instructional guides on how to make bombs, break into houses and commit credit card fraud. The judges decided that he had the "right" to do this because they did not assume he had the "responsibility" to read the contents of the material before he marketed it.

Nor is this fetish of rights-worship in any way consistent. A 14-year-old girl, for example, has the right to be given the contraceptive pill by her family doctor, but that same doctor has no right to inform the parents of the girl.

The concept of responsibility is entirely removed from the equation. Individual rights, even for a child, supercede the role of family and medical responsibility.

The same applies to self-defence. We've all heard stories of people like the corner store owner who grew tired of repeated burglaries at his business, who fights back against the criminals with, say, a baseball bat.

In such cases, chances are it's the owners who will be charged. Too often, the rights of thieves outweigh the rights -- and responsibilities -- of citizens to protect their own property and livelihoods.

A mere symptom

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was supposed to liberate the people of this great nation. What was not noticed was that Canadians were already free. Today, the Charter appears a mere symptom of a deeper dysfunction.

To paraphrase former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, ask not what are your rights in Canada but what are your responsibilities to Canada. And ask now, before the cloud of "rights" chokes us into oblivion.

Justice

I don't know which is more disturbing. That a 14-year-old would take a sawed-off shotgun to school with the intention of killing everyone there, or that he would be allowed to walk free from a halfway house only six years later.

The person responsible for the infamous school shooting at Taber, Alta., gunned down a 17-year-old student, injured another and tried to kill many more. The Taber shooting came one week after the horrific Columbine shootings in 1999.

Six years later, the school shooter (now 20 years old) tasted freedom after leaving a Toronto halfway house. Although police and the media released his name last week (while the suspect was still at large) the convicted killer enjoys anonymity once again.

Convicted of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, he was sentenced to just three years of secure custody.

Despite the fact that the school shooter continued to have violent fantasies and the Crown argued he still posed a "significant risk" to the public, the disturbed individual was transferred to a halfway house this past March.

This week, the killer decided to regain his freedom, walking out of the halfway house. He left behind a disturbing letter saying, "I can't be caged anymore ... if they find me they will have to kill me."

Call me a cold-blooded conservative if you wish, but I had hoped that someone who commits first-degree murder would receive a sentence slightly harsher than three years. I had also hoped that a convicted killer who still harbours violent fantasies would not be given the privilege of being transferred to a halfway house where the possibility of escape is high.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. After all, it was just this summer that Winnipeggers learned that Ryan Horvath wouldn't spend a single day behind bars after driving drunk and high on drugs, leaving 24-year-old Danielle Rouire with a permanent brain injury.

And just this month we learned that the killer of Lynda Shaw had already been convicted of murder, not once, but twice. Allan Craig MacDonald killed a Nova Scotia police officer as well as a cabbie back in 1975. He got out in 1989 due to good behaviour and his new-found freedom allowed him the opportunity to rape and kill Shaw, a 21-year-old university student.

One might ask how anyone convicted of killing two people (including a police officer) could be released early from prison.

But this is Canada, and sadly, we seem to have an injustice system that lets victims down again and again.

The mother of Lynda Shaw is understandably upset that MacDonald was given the chance to kill again.

"I feel that Lynda and our family have been betrayed by a federal judicial system that put a cold-blooded murderer back on the street," declared Carol Taylor.

"Lynda was a victim of our justice system and, in particular, of a parole board that acted irresponsibly in releasing this man from prison."

It is tragic enough when someone loses a loved one in such a way.

But to know that the crime could have been prevented had the parole board used better judgment makes the tragedy that much more grievous.

Had MacDonald served his full sentence, Lynda Shaw would likely be in the prime of her life. And Lynda's mother might be enjoying some grandkids right now.

Liberalism

Sun, August 21, 2005

Fear for Grit White North

Powerful Liberal ruling regime menace to freedom of ordinary Canadians

By Licia Corbella

"Any needless concentration of power is a menace to freedom."
-- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

That quote was gleaned from a musty-smelling 30th Anniversary edition of a Reader's Digest Reader 1922-1952 pulled off the shelf of my in-laws' Ontario lake-side cottage.

Clearly, not enough Canadians took Eisenhower's pearl of wisdom to heart. Indeed, it appears many Americans might want to reflect upon it, too.

Eisenhower's article was first published in the October 1948 edition of Reader's Digest -- some five years before he became a two-term President of the United States in 1953 and just three years after the end of the Second World War, in which Eisenhower was supreme commander of allied troops in Europe.

Gen. Eisenhower wrote the article, entitled "An Open Letter to America's Students," in his capacity as president of Columbia University, a post he took a leave of absence from to serve as supreme commander of NATO in 1950.

Reading that comment stopped me dead in my tracks. I read it to my husband as the call of a loon reverberated over the still lake. I got goosebumps.

"I fear for Canada," said my husband. "The Prime Minister of this country -- usually elected by a minority of the electorate -- holds as much power as any dictator."

According to Duff Conacher, coordinator of Democracy Watch, an Ottawa-based watchdog agency, says Canada's prime minister has the power to appoint more than 3,000 people to positions, including to the federal and supreme court, to tribunals, agencies, key watchdog positions, the head of the RCMP, presidents of Crown Corporations, immigration and refugee board members, senators, and of course, our head of state, the Governor General.

Conacher says Martin's obvious lack of due diligence into the appointment of Quebec soft-separatist Michaelle Jean to the post of Governor General could have been avoided if the leaders of Canada's official parties were given veto power over such non-partisan appointments, something they would not take lightly.

Also, Martin, who coined the phrase "democratic deficit," only promised to implement parliamentary committees to review all federal government appointments when he believed he would win a majority government.

"Prime Minister Martin has decided to break that promise, because he doesn't have a majority and therefore wouldn't be able to control the committees that would review appointments," explained Conacher.

So, if a prime minister sticks around long enough, he can appoint as many as 3,000 cronies to positions that then serve the ruling party and not the electorate.

Former prime minister Jean Chretien appointed six of Canada's Supreme Court Justices, and Martin, with his minority government, has already appointed two and is set to appoint another Justice when John C. Major is expected to retire before the end of the year.

In other words, the entire Supreme court will consist of Liberal party appointees pushing through a Liberal agenda, even though the ruling Liberals have never won more than 41% of the popular vote.

According to Larry Gordon, executive director of Fair Vote Canada, never did Canadian voters' wishes become so distorted as during Jean Chretien's three elections.

In 1993, Chretien won just 41% of the popular vote, but he won 60% of the then-301 seats in the House of Commons.

In 1997, garnering just 38.5% of the popular vote, Chretien won 51.5% of the seats in the House, making it "the phoniest majority government in Canadian history," says Gordon.

In 2000, pulling in 40.9% of the popular vote, Chretien's Liberals took 57.5% of the seats in the House.

And yet during that time and since, the prime minister has never ruled with such impunity.

Conacher points out this restricts the freedom of ordinary Canadians.

How? Well, consider that most corporations in Canada donate to the ruling party for fear that if they don't, they won't be treated fairly when government contracts come up. That restricts freedom of conscience.

And freedom is a big word. It is linked to the functioning of our democracy and how we are represented and if we are equal.

"Even with a minority government in Canada, because all of these appointed positions are selected by the ruling party leader, we do not have a rule of law for the ruling party," said Conacher.

"It's as serious as that."

He points out how the RCMP, headed by a Liberal appointee, pretty much refused to investigate Jean Chretien's dealings in the Shawinigate scandal and other questionable taxpayer-funded deals as well as dozens of other examples of top Liberals being let off the hook by Liberal leader-appointed appointees.

Consider that both Canada's Port Authority and Transportation and Safety Board are Liberal leader-appointed hacks. How likely is it Canada Steamship Lines (Paul Martin's family-owned business -- which has been shown to violate Canadian labour and environmental laws) will be held to account by Martin appointees?

Remember how, the day before the now-disgraced George Radwanski was appointed privacy commissioner, the federal tax department officially forgave almost $540,000 he owed the government from years of not paying income taxes?

How many Canadians not connected to the Liberal party have ever received such a windfall exoneration?

My guess is none, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"The ruling-party members, supporters and donors, I believe very strongly, are held to a lower standard than everybody else in Canadian society by all of these agencies that are headed up by Liberal government appointees who will help cover up things and apply a different standard," said Conacher.

"That's a disaster to the rest of Canadians' freedom, because if you're not a ruling-party supporter, you may get more harsh treatment."

Rights

Rights-worship fetish ruining our society

By MICHAEL COREN




When British police arrested a highly dangerous terrorist suspect last month, they acted with professionalism and, considering the circumstances, extreme courtesy. "Mohammed," they shouted, "Take your clothes off! Come out with your hands on your head and you will be all right."

He argued with them for some time, demanding to know why he should strip down to his underpants. When he was told the obvious -- that he was thought to be a potential suicide bomber -- he still argued and refused to move.

Eventually the police had to bring the man out by force and he was taken away. But his first response to the police was so deliciously relevant. He shouted it from the balcony. "I have rights," he screamed. "I have rights."

There we have it. Rights. Even for a man who is suspected of trying to murder innocent people and create panic and terror.

The mass of our social difficulties, the majority of our seemingly insoluble problems, arise from the fact that in the Western world (and particularly in Canada) we have engineered a rights-based society rather than a responsibility-based one.

The social contract between the governed and the government, between authority and citizenry, has become degraded and unbalanced. Instead of asking what our duty or responsibility might be in any given situation, we demand to know what are our privileges and rights.

At its most obvious there is the usual list of standard demands. The right to marry whomever you want, the right to be ordained a priest when you don't qualify, the right to claim welfare even if it isn't deserved, the right to have sex with anyone and everyone, the right to die, the right to be wrong.

The list goes on: The right to swear, the right to defy righteous authority, the right to be publicly uncouth, the right to insult a cop, the right to hide behind any excuse to escape punishment, the right to never fail, never lose, never have one's self-esteem challenged, the right to be wrong.

Instructional guides

Recently our Supreme Court was called upon to judge a man who on the Internet had been selling instructional guides on how to make bombs, break into houses and commit credit card fraud. The judges decided that he had the "right" to do this because they did not assume he had the "responsibility" to read the contents of the material before he marketed it.

Nor is this fetish of rights-worship in any way consistent. A 14-year-old girl, for example, has the right to be given the contraceptive pill by her family doctor, but that same doctor has no right to inform the parents of the girl.

The concept of responsibility is entirely removed from the equation. Individual rights, even for a child, supercede the role of family and medical responsibility.

The same applies to self-defence. We've all heard stories of people like the corner store owner who grew tired of repeated burglaries at his business, who fights back against the criminals with, say, a baseball bat.

In such cases, chances are it's the owners who will be charged. Too often, the rights of thieves outweigh the rights -- and responsibilities -- of citizens to protect their own property and livelihoods.

A mere symptom

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was supposed to liberate the people of this great nation. What was not noticed was that Canadians were already free. Today, the Charter appears a mere symptom of a deeper dysfunction.

To paraphrase former U.S. president John F. Kennedy, ask not what are your rights in Canada but what are your responsibilities to Canada. And ask now, before the cloud of "rights" chokes us into oblivion.

Terrorism

Terrorism must be fought like a disease

By Ian Robinson

It's not often that I have my ghast completely flabbered by a newspaper story.

But there it was in the Calgary Sun, an Associated Press story that began: "Britain began reaching out to Muslim communities yesterday, launching an effort to confront the resentment and anger that helped breed the suicide bombers who attacked London's transit system."

Pretend for a moment that it isn't 2005.

Pretend that it is, say, 1941. An invasion of Great Britain by Nazi Germany has narrowly been averted by the bravery of mere boys in RAF blue who took off in Hurricanes and Spitfires to fight the Luftwaffe to a flaming standstill at 20,000 ft.

Parts of London are in ruins from German bombs raining from the night sky.

Europe is under the Nazi heel, and the concentration camp crematoria are being built to eradicate Gypsies, Jews and opponents of Hitler's regime.

Now imagine the horror and outrage that would have followed a news story published in 1941 that began: "Britain began reaching out to Nazi communities yesterday, launching an effort to confront the resentment and anger that helped breed the German war machine that conquered half the world and turned much of London into unattractive heaps of smoking rubble."

We would have thought such a thing insane.

Today, we do not.

And we should.

There's nothing to understand about terrorism other than the fact of its existence.

The bombers who attacked London's transit system are not drawn from the legions of the impoverished.

They were Britons, born and raised, most of them.

Even being on the dole in Britain is better than being middle-class in Pakistan or most of Africa.

These were not people living hand to mouth, oppressed beneath a vicious system that exploits them.

They lived, in fact, in one of the most politically correct societies on the planet, a country in which teachers propose that the word "fail" be purged from the vocabulary because it makes failures feel bad to be identified as such.

Terrorists are not generally bred by communities of the disenfranchised.

Russia's Lenin? Middle-class.

Germany's Bader-Meinhoff gang? University students.

The American Weather Underground? Ditto.

The 9/11 morons who flew passenger planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon? University students and graduates.

Osama bin Laden? Multi-millionaire.

Terrorism is a potentially fatal, disease infecting the body politic.

And, like any other disease, we must understand it.

But, like syphilis, where terrorism comes from is not the issue.

You can't negotiate with syphilis. (If you could, the disco era may never have ended.)

You can't convince a spirochete not to infect you with the purpose of doing you harm.

No. You recognize the symptoms and hope to God that a seriously applied regimen of antibiotics will take care of it and -- if you've got any brains at all -- you protect yourself against future infections.

Western society has long chosen to devalue its institutions and values to the point of ceasing to demand that immigrants jettison what is not compatible with those institutions and values.

In Ontario, it has been recommended that Muslim law be sanctioned for the resolution of some disputes, including divorce -- something which has aroused the ire of the largest group representing Muslim women, which is something that even gives pause to the most devotedly stupid of the politically correct.

When mutiny struck the French army during the First World War, the French government randomly executed men from the mutinous regiments.

"Pour les encouragement des autres," was the explanation -- for the en-couragement of the others.

Catching them and killing them is the only answer, and in such numbers that it will, indeed, encourage the others to think twice about acting on their twisted belief system.

The answer to terrorism isn't a warm and fuzzy outreach program.

Give A Terrorist A Hug Day just won't work.