Also: the only two kinds of security guards





Khurrum Awan is a serial liar
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 77 Views | Leave a response

Julian Porter himself was at the meeting where Khurrum Awan and his junior Al Sharptons tried to shake down Ken Whyte and Maclean’s for cash and a cover story.

Porter asked Awan point blank if the CIC’s proposed “counter-article” was to be “mutually acceptable” to Whyte or of the CIC’s own choosing.

After obfuscating for a few rounds, Awan acknowledged that he never in fact offered a “mutually acceptable” article — that was simply an after-the-fact lie, a little bit of taqqiya that Awan et al. has told the press.

Awan admitted that he made no such offer of a mutually acceptable author. It was to be the CIC’s own choice.
More counterpoint:
Awan the liar, part 2
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 79 Views | Leave a response

Now Porter is showing Awan various letters that Awan sent to Maclean’s. The fool was stupid enough to put his shakedown demands in writing.

And Porter is showing that Awan demanded that Maclean’s submit to the CIC’s choice. No “mutually acceptable” anything. That qualifier was added later by Awan the Liar, to appear more reasonable to the Gentile press.

It reminds me of Yasser Arafat, who would preach peace when speaking in English to Western journalists, and preach terrorism to his own constituency when speaking in Arabic.

That’s Awan: reasonable to the media; a junior Al Sharpton when dealing with Ken Whyte.

No wonder Awan had trouble finding employment following his clerkship.
Yet more counterpoint:
Awan the liar, part 7
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 19 Views | Leave a response

Julian Porter is asking Awan if he remembers whether or not he demanded money from Maclean’s.

Porter is now reading out a written demand by the sock puppets for “substantial” monies.

Awan is denying the documentary record.

Awan says that $10,000 was the number they had in mind — though he acknowledges he hadn’t particularize that sum before.

Why stopping FFAs matter (and why the media and Wildrose should stop denying the winning argument)

The latest push to get officially endorsed Faggot-Familiar-Alliances forced upon schools in Alberta took yet another setback yesterday, as Premier Jim Dinning announced his government would unveil its own bill on the subject which killed Mrs. Ben Henderson's Bill 202, which was a reprisal of Kent Hehr's Motion 503 from earlier this year.

You remember Motion 503, right? If not, you should remember what I wrote at the time of its defeat:

Motion 503 was defeated this week, but there will be more to defeat next week, and the week after that, and the week after that, until sanity is restored and we no longer have to deal with mushy liberals like Kent Hehr and Brian Mason.
Well I was right: there was another one to defeat (Bill 202) and now an even more difficult challenge, a government sponsored bill yet to be tabled that promises to "balance" the rights of parents and students to speak out against sodomy and prevent schools from officially recognizing groups that are explicitly pro-poofter, and the right of proponents of a sick and disturbed lifestyle to promote their shameful deeds with full governmental authority and banning any countenance or discussion.

So that's coming. Joy.

Meanwhile, if there's anything you may have noticed if you've been keeping an eye on my Twitter feed the past few days, it's that these extremist liberals are either completely ignorant of or else willfully trying to ignore any ant-FFA arguments. You'd think at a certain point they'd acknowledge that they exist, but if you were listening to the politicians speaking about this to the media, or the media coverage itself, you'd have no idea there was any opposition to Faggot-Familiar-Alliances mandated in schools at all! Hell, don't take my word for it:
One notices that even supposedly "right-wing" columnists like Don Braid won't even actually do this. So what you have is an issue that keeps coming up (hey Alberta Liberal party! You lost. MoveOn.org!) and my side keeps winning yet the media and the online chattering classes don't even pay the winning argument the slightest lip service.

Which is why the Wildrose capitulation on this issue is so distressing. After a couple years of evidence that trying to out-liberal the other Alberta parties on social issues is a non-starter, is it too much to ask that the Wildrose party, its (remaining) MLAs, its leader, its devoted fanbase, and its media supporters clue into what the grassroots already knew and already made clear at the last AGM? Specifically, is it time to acknowledge that Wildrose should look at doing the right thing first and then trying to secure political power later? There are worse fates in this world than perpetually being the right-wing official opposition to a centre-right government. Prentice gets this for crying out loud: even without official political support for banning FFAs in Alberta classrooms, the movement (which the media is apparently unaware of) is strong enough to force Prentice to "balance" it out in legislation against the noisy pro-poofter crowd and their 3.5 political parties in support.

If Wildrose could force Prentice to do this on every single issue, they would be making our beloved Alberta a better place to live without ever once forming a cabinet themselves. It's not ideal, I grant you, but it's definitely better than this mythical future where voters look at a centre-right PC party and a less-centre-right Wildrose party and decide that the Wildrose folks are trustworthy enough (or Danielle Smith is pretty enough) to put in charge of the purse-strings...where grassroots Wildrose members are members of the governing party but apparently are unable to get the legislation they want enacted. Is it any surprise that rank-and-file members, Wildrose MLAs, and the general public aren't signing up for this exciting opportunity?

So be ready, Alberta parents. These "GSAs" are coming, and the sheep that are in favour of them can't even understand what they actually represent and what the actual analogy on their terms looks like. You've fought and defeated them once. You've fought and defeated them a second time. But the sodomite agenda being pushed on your kids is relentless. You'll need to stop it again, and this time you should aim to push back so hard that they never come back. Use every method at your disposal to stop this, and ensure these far-left losers like Blakeman and Hehr know to lick their wounds and never again return to this forum.

The future of the children of Alberta lies in the balance. Why do you think the other side is so viciously underhanded about it?

It goes without saying, of course, that this is pretty much exactly the circumstances presently occurring in Ottawa: there's a "Conservative" government in power, and they as a rule do slightly conservative things, but ultimately aren't much more conservative than a "Liberal" government was with a strong right-wing opposition keeping them in check. The loss of the Reform Party would be analogous to the loss of the Wildrose, and whether the loss comes from obscurity or merger is ultimately not as important as the loss itself.

Why the CFL shouldn't change their schedule

In Edmonton this morning we're just recovering from a blizzard that dumped about a foot of snow on the city. The 102nd Grey Cup will be in two days from Vancouver.

I say this because outgoing CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon said a couple weeks ago that the CFL should look into starting the season earlier. Events like the Eskimos/Roughriders game (that your humble correspondent attended) and cold temperatures two years ago in Calgary for the Western Final have put a damper on attendance: the game I went to had a measely 26,000 people there. For Saskatchewan in the playoffs (though they still ran out of alcohol!).

The thing is though, the 18 game CFL schedule ending in late November isn't new: the Grey Cup actually used to be played in December. Even in the pro era, the big game has been held at the end of November. It's routinely been around the -10 mark for the Grey Cup: the last time it was in Edmonton, it was -19. This Grey Cup, one may note, sold out in less than a week. (Again, your humble correspondent -- and the Prime Minister -- were in attendance).

So why, especially if this so-called global warming ever starts coming our way, are we talking about moving the CFL schedule around now? The answer is simple.

Canada is becoming a nation of pussies.

The pussification of society doesn't just mean trannies in women's prisons and radio star Jian Ghomeshi: it means that as a people we're so weak and pampered that we can't really spend any amount of time in physical discomfort. Sure sure, HDTVs are a factor (the debate amongst my circle of friends this week is whose TV we're going to watch the game on: the 70", the 65", the 55", the 47", or the 42"). It also doesn't help that the Evil Empire EskimosTM have been extremely lousy this past decade or so, leaving a "good" attendance at an Esks game in the 38,000 neighbourhood when the stadium seats 66,000. Still, the ultimate answer is that we're becoming a nation of pussies. Sure sure, Alberta is working to slow this trend as much as possible with real men like myself at the forefront, but it's a relentless process.

Every time the CFL scales back the role of female cheerleaders, or has some whiny Red Indians complaining about Edmonton's team name, or has players wear pink booties during games, or fines Maurice Price for speaking to conservative Christian values, it's another little hit to the manliness of the league, the manliness of sports, the manliness of sport. The CFL is slowly succumbing to forces that will ultimately destroy it.

So no, leave the schedule alone. Don't fine the Maurice Prices of the world for chastising human weakness: work harder to chastise it yourself. Invoke a little patriotism: Canadians like to pretend they're better than Americans, start showing them the attendance differences between cold weather CFL and NFL/NCAA games. There are dark forces at work that are trying to change society in a way that will harm your league. Even if you can't stop it, you have to try. And that means holding games in weather that guarantees no pussies in the crowd.

Rona doesn't sell Christmas lights

I looked and looked and looked...but all they sell are "holiday lights".

If you're looking for Christmas lights to hang up for Christmas this year, I guess you'll have to go to another store.


It's the End of the World as We Know It

Just by reading this you can destroy the world (or at the very least be enslaved by a supercomputer).

(no wonder the technocratti class is all about quashing freedom of speech)

Two stories about privacy

Story one

Story two


It's about the future, Madam Chancellor

Steve Tilley looks very very superficially about 2015 according to Back to the Future, Part II. He's covering Mr. Fusion, Jaws sequels, and hoverboards. Business Insider covered this a few years back, and ultimately a Miami baseball team and 3D sequels are the best that 1987 Hollywood could tell us about this mysterious time.

And Queen Diana was in that movie, remember. Whoops. Not only is Di deader than the Dodo, but both Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth are highly likely to start 2015 (and, almost as likely, end 2015) still alive. Hell, you can't discount the Queen out for 2020 at this point.


Mental note to self: Whyte

Once we get a nice cold Whyte Ave day, show Scott McKeen some photos of the vibrant street scene.


Lose All Honour for Conner

(Almost!) everything you need to know about last night's 4-3 overtime loss:


Why isn't DND doing what the Slutwalkers do?

In the wake of the Quebec run-down of two CFB soldiers, and the Ottawa attack that left one dead, DND made an immediate decision to order soldiers not on active duty not to wear their uniform in public. Other than a admonishment on Twitter by John Williamson there hasn't been much controversy about it.

Contrast that with the infamous Slutwalk, with hundreds of loose (or hypocritical) women marching in the streets, upset that police officers pointed out that women who dress in revealing outfits (which are not, so far as we're aware, the military uniform of the nation) probably shouldn't be surprised when they get raped. Now when a group of mostly men [with the rest probably dykes. -ed] are the target of attacks, these same women are silent when the solution is "well, don't go out in public in your uniform".

Besides the obvious difference against the sluts that I note above, the other one is of course that soldiers are supposed to be protecting us. Unlike the United States, Canada's pledge of allegience doesn't vow to fight enemies foreign or domestic, though its certainly not entirely unreasonable to assume that the Canadian Military's mandate doesn't preclude using military force to combat attacks on Canadian soil perpetrated by foreign organizations -- even if they use Canadian citizens as happened in Ottawa and Quebec.

In his article on the subject, Rex Murphy provides a soldier's justification for the order:

I think I’m free to cite one very telling observation from a person who has served long in the military — and backs the order not to wear uniforms in public. In an email, he wrote "When [the] enemy is unknown, prudence dictates no uniform, especially so when enemy is mentally challenged, as is common these days. In these cases people in uniform become targets for individuals acting out from impulses of deranged minds."
While I'm sure the soldier is meaning well, he's almost certainly in the minority. Soldiers are mostly willing to be out in public in their uniforms, perhaps slightly aware that the risk of being killed while wearing that uniform (no matter which country your feet are planted on at the time) was a risk they signed on for from the get-go. It wasn't intended to be "unless the risk started to become too great", or even "only if there isn't a tiny risk that civilians will be in the cross-fire". Pace M in the movie GoldenEye, the military shouldn't have any compunction about sending soldiers to their death, so long as they aren't doing it trivially or without due cause.

Aren't soldiers standing defiant and implicitly or explicitly telling terrorists "come and get me, you pussies" one of those things that are "worth it"? Instead of telling soldiers to hide, the Canadian Forces should be asking more of them to be seen in uniform off-base: a reminder to both the general public and the violent Muslims that there are a lot of them, and it's not going to be possible to pick them all off.

That is, of course, except that it really is.

One of the things that John Williamson suggested for the Honour Guard at the National War Memorial was that the ceremonial guards be armed -- that is to say, be actual guards. It's not all that far-fetched, you know: the ceremonial Sergeant-at-Arms in Parliament was the one who used his non-ceremonial handgun to shoot Michael Joseph Hall. Yet the ceremonial guard is presently unarmed. Putting them back into that post without weapons is almost making it possible to pick them off: though its not necessarily evident how arming them could work in their current "stand still like they are at Buckingham Palace and pose for tourists" role. Perhaps they'd have to be supplemented with actual guards? They wouldn't necessarily have to be that intrusive: I haven't been to Parliament Hill in years, but presumably there are actual armed guards that walk the premises. Then again, regular police officers seem to be able to both pack heat and pose with the citizenry, often the drunk scantily clad kind that think the "slutwalk" is how the sashay between Billiards Club and Hudsons.

But what about the regular soldiers out and about in public? Do we need to give them bodyguards as well? No, of course not...because as the entire planet seems to have forgotten, soldiers already are bodyguards. They are literally bodies who guard. Williamson's idea of arming the ceremonial guards was a good first idea. Here's the logical second idea: permit soliders who wear their uniform in public to carry their sidearm with them. This could even be modified to requiring soldiers who wish to wear their uniforms in public to carry a sidearm. If they want to de-uniform they certainly can (and have been able to do forever), and it can be a condition of leaving the base in the colours that the Browning be alongside for the ride. This would certainly solve the concerns about the soldier's safety, though the "soldiers in our cities with guns" crowd may get their feathers ruffled a bit. Of course, anybody who wants to claim that arming soldiers in public is a threat to public safety would have to answer the question the 2006 Liberal Party couldn't: then why are we arming them and training them to use tanks and machine guns and jet airplanes with missiles on them?

Allowing soldiers to carry their guns just makes sense: it's literally force projection. The anonymous solider in Rex Murphy's article gets his wish through the backdoor too, since now soldiers on the streets aren't targets anymore, and whether or not the enemy is easily identifiable or not, he's now the target, not the solider.

But what about the sluts walking around, targetted based on their fashion choices? Well, the same solution works for them (and for me, and for you): let us carry our goddamned guns out on the streets. The objections dissolve pretty much as fast as they do for the soldiers: if you can't trust us to have guns why trust us with anything at all? (Memo to Lefists: this is not a challenge)

Canadian soldiers and Dana Loesch are both yeomans of freedom. Both should be packing heat in public. That way, when they (or us!) are targetted by the next Michael Joseph Hall, they can be the next Kevin Vickers, and not the next Nathan Cirillo.