Former Prime Minster Paul Martin, better known Mr. Dithers, has come out in support of Elizabeth May being included in the leaders debate. A broadcast consortium came to the decision to exclude the leader of The Green party earlier this week, after it came to light that The Green party is mainly composed of utterly insane environmentalists.

Alright, while that last statement is only a hopeful assumption on my part, the truth of the matter is that the Green party was excluded because they are completely irrelevant in the Canadian political landscape. They are no more a serious party than the Christian Heritage Party, or the Communist Party of Canada. Each of those parties get a significant amount of votes, yet have zero influence in Canadian politics.

“She should not be cut out,” Martin said in a phone interview with the Star on Friday.

“This is an election campaign and the debates form an important part of that,” Martin said. “Canadians are entitled to points of view of all of the valid players and Elizabeth May and the Green Party are certainly valid participants.”

Martin says this isn’t a good enough reason, noting that the party did gather nearly a million ballots and 6.8 per cent of the popular vote in the 2008 election.

“In terms of the popular vote, the Green Party has demonstrated that there is a strong group of Canadians who are prepared to support that party,” Martin said.

Paul Martin should also realize that there is a strong group of Canadians that also support the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, that human extinction is a goal to strive for (PETA’s win a free neutering contest), and that Israel should embark on a hug-a-jihadist campaign.

It should come down to this – if you want to be included in the leaders debate, then become a serious party, with a serious platform and actually get someone elected. Until then, you are just a fringe party, composed of a motley collection of anti-humans, truthers and foul smelling hippies.

A doctor specializing in late term abortions has been arrested in the United States for the murder of at least seven babies. Doctor Kermit Gosnell, is accused of murdering live babies with scissors, after inducing late term abortions.

Now stop and think for a moment. Proponents of abortion have long argued that it’s a woman body, and that she has the right to choose – some even going so far as saying right up until birth. But if children are being born both live and viable after some late term abortions, then does it really matter what a woman chooses? Shouldn’t a living, breathing baby have the right to choose life?

We’re talking about a doctor stabbing a baby to death with scissors because the mothers what – couldn’t be bothered getting one earlier? Or they suddenly decide that it’s too much responsibility?

Thankfully, the doctor involved has been charged with murder and has a whole host of other issues facing him – from untrained staff, to keeping bizarre trophies from his practice. But it was really the practice of late term abortions that lead to the killing of these babies.

No matter what side of the abortion debate people are on, they should be able to agree that unless the mother’s life is threatened, then late term abortions should be outright banned. Many babies could survive if measures were taken. The cut-off for abortions in Canada is 20 weeks. What most people don’t know, is that there is a small, but significant survival rate for babies born prematurely at 20 weeks. The abortions done in this time period are born alive, and are just allowed to die a slow, agonizing death.

At least the United States actually has laws in most states regulating late term abortions. In Canada there are no laws. Technically, a woman could abort a baby right up until the end of her pregnancy. There are many stories of nurses holding, and caring for late-term abortions in Canada, where the babies survive for up to twelve hours. The nurses are forbidden from trying to take extraordinary measures, or even feed the aborted live babies.

Most mature countries can talk about difficult subjects – but in Canada we seem frozen in paralysis when subjects such as abortion or capital punishment come up. The only downside of ignoring the capital punishment debate, is that society has to live with monsters like Paul Bernado. The downside of not talking about the abortion debate, is that babies – living, breathing babies, that no one can argue are just a collection of cells, will die nearly everyday.

A government committee has a great idea – create a human rights minister to help pull together all the human rights commissions under one banner. What a great idea – give even more power and influence to a group that is the modern equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.

And who do we have to thank for giving the government this idea? Why it was Cuba and Iran. The United Nations, led by Cuba and Iran have heavily criticized Canada’s human rights record. The result? A recommendation from the House of Common’s foreign affairs subcommittee on human rights (quite the mouthful), that a minister position be created to oversee and coordinate Canada’s human rights progress.

Canada was heavily criticized at the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2009 for failing to address extreme poverty and curb violence among Aboriginals.

Cuba and Iran, as well as traditional allies such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland, pointed the finger at Canada, chastising it for allowing deep levels of inequality to take hold.

“According to several witnesses, Canada’s international reputation is at stake,” the subcommittee said, bolding the last comment for emphasis.

Amnesty International Canada’s secretary general Alex Neve said a senior minister responsible for human rights would help improve the situation on the ground.

“It wouldn’t solve it on its own but it is an important step forward,” he told QMI Agency.

Thankfully Canada has such shining examples of progressive human rights to look to for guidance. Who better to criticize us than Cuba and Iran? Aside from the political rapes, missing dissidents, lack of free speech, murders, oppression – on second thought, maybe Canadians shouldn’t give a damn what these countries think.

Regardless of the powers granted to the minister of human rights, the idea of further federal power for human rights commissions is nothing but an extremely dangerous idea. While a Conservative minister is not that dangerous a proposition as a human rights minister, a future Liberal or heaven forbid – coalition minister is a terrifying idea.

It seems that recently, progressives are no longer content just having their agendas’s ‘accepted’ by society. More and more, they are going out of their way to find people that disagree with their agenda, and either punish them through quasi-legal methods or attempts to label them as a racist, homophobic, or any of the other dreaded ‘isms’.

The troubling part of this trend, is that they aren’t going after the skinheads or insanely fanatical religious groups in society, but people who have legitimate concerns, or even moral reservations. Whether you’re a marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan, or someone that opposes unfettered immigration – they will find you and punish you for your non-progressive views.

And the methods are becoming far more complex these days, from operations that resemble a sting, to online campaigns to discredit and even destroy a person’s life. Many progressives on the left spout nonsense that would be qualified as hate speech, if anyone on the right dared mutter it in a dark alleyway.

Britain has found a new way to ferret out the non-progressives in society – record their remarks starting at pre-school and keep them in registry. Not only are these remarks kept on file from a very young, but they will follow you for the rest of your life. This registry of remarks can be accessed by any future employer, university or other interested parties.

So calling someone ‘gaylord’ at age four, can now haunt you for life, thanks to the progressive’s campaign of stamping out childhood. Now many would say ‘surely only the most severe of incidents would be recorded’, but in 2008-9 alone, almost 30,000 homophobic or racist incidents were recorded.

Figures for the year 2008-9 were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the civil liberties group, the Manifesto Club.

They show 29,659 racist incidents reported by schools to local education authorities in England and Wales. Of these, 10,436 were at primary schools and 41 at nursery schools

At one primary, teachers filled out an incident form after three Year Four pupils, aged eight or nine, told a classmate he was ‘gay’ and could not play with them.

It’s terrifying how quickly Britain is headed towards a complete Orwellian state, with Canada following right behind. There is something sick in a society that brands children as thought criminals.

It seems that everyday when I hear a progressive member of the left speak, my expectations drop just a little lower that I’ll ever hear an intelligent thought. This week is no different as Gwyneth Paltrow, a staunch Obama supporter, wrote an article which proves just how out of touch the rich ‘progressives’ are.

In an article published on her website Goop, Gwyneth lays out some helpful tips for working mothers on how they can balance their work and families.

Here are a few gems from the article –

  • Have a personal trainer come to your house, preferably on Mondays. This will be great motivation for working out the rest of the week.
  • Have a weekly blow-out. This means that you don’t need to wash your hair each day and can save time in the morning.
  • Get an amazing assistant.
  • Condense your spa appointments. For example, JB has a salon she goes to at the end of the day to have a facial, manicure, and pedicure at the EXACT same time. She’s in and out in 70 minutes.
  • Get seven hours of uninterrupted sleep a night.
  • Get a fishmonger who delivers. This way you can always have fish in the house and can be prepared in case you need to whip up a quick fish dinner.

Just remember the next time that a celebrity member of the left tells you vote Liberal, or vote Democrat, that this is the type of life that they lead. When she filmed a commercial for Obama in 2008, who would have known that Obama was as clueless about money as her? How else can you explain bankrupting one of the greatest nations on the planet?

A columnist at the Toronto Star has a great idea – put tolls on all roads to pay for transit. After all, people who drive cars are just those suburban slobs, who really don’t get how ‘evil’ their cars are. And everyone knows that those suburb dwellers have no idea how to properly spend their money.

So what if most car drivers don’t use transit – if they can afford a car, then they should have to pay for all those that choose to use transit. They should embrace the idea that people have to be forced to pay for trendy lefty ideas, even if they can’t benefit from them.

Road tolls are the only way to effectively manage congestion. Money from tolls should go toward… providing good, affordable transit to those who choose not to — or can’t afford to — drive.

But why not turn all roads in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe into low-cost toll roads? Affordable technology now exists that makes this feasible. By putting in a comprehensive and publicly owned tolling infrastructure, we could avoid the brutal fees now being charged by the 407.

Revenue generated could be used to modernize and improve our roads and public transit. Mayor Ford is right, the war on cars should be over. Which means the time for road tolls is now.

Apparently they have forgotten that car drivers actually do contribute to transit and roads. If you aren’t a bike riding pinko, then you realize that car drivers pay registration fees, gas tax, HST, taxes, and parking fees in Toronto. But hey – I’m sure they wouldn’t mind paying more.

It now seems reasonable to assume that the writers at Time Magazine have completely lost their minds. Once a well respected and relatively centrist paper, Time Magazine has now become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the far left.

In the wake of last weeks shooting, Time Magazine had numerous columns trying to link the shooting rampage in Tuscon to Tea Party Rhetoric. These articles were mostly nonsense, drawing outrageous links between Sarah Palin and Jared Lee Lougher.

Now that polls are indicating that their effort fell flat, Time Magazine comes out with out with “Top 10 Clashes at Sea.

You might think that the top spot would be awarded to the massive naval clash between Germany and The United Kingdom at the Battle of Jutland. Or perhaps the epic duel between the Bismarck and the HMS Hood. But then you might think that Time Magazine decided to look at more ancient naval battles, so they may have included the Battle of Salamis or even the Battle of Actium.

Of course if you thought that, then you would have a rational mind that hadn’t been completely rotted out by liberal propoganda. The top spot on the list goes to the Freedom Flotilla vs. The Israeli Defence Forces.

Yes – the Gazan Freedom Flotilla takes the top spot. Ignore all those battles that shaped the world, that cost thousands their lives – where empires were lost and where western freedom hung on the outcome. The clash between militants on an alleged ‘aid’ ship, and a handful of Israeli Commandos now qualifies as the greatest naval clash of history.

This is the actual list;

  • Freedom Flotilla vs. Israeli Defense Forces
  • Defeat of the Spanish Armada
  • Ship v. Iceberg: The RMS Titanic
  • Sinking of the ROKS Cheonan
  • The Battle of Trafalgar
  • US Navy vs. Somali Pirates
  • Destruction of the Athenian Navy
  • Battle of Midway
  • Sea Shepherd Vs. Japan
  • Gulf of Tonkin Incident

It should be said, that anyone who puts the Sea Shepherd vs. Japan on the list, isn’t exactly a history scholar. But it is absolutely astounding that they had the gall to put the Freedom Flotilla at number one on the list. Just more proof that liberalism requires you to check your brain at the door.