Quebec's "Occupy" Student (?) Rioters

The cost of Charest’s cowardice: Good students are being sold out

What’s going on in Quebec cannot be called protests. The right word is riots.

That’s what you call it when masked vandals smash cars, break windows in banks and shops, night after night. And that’s on top of the smoke bombs thrown in the subway stations earlier this month that paralyzed the city’s transit system.

How is this any different from the Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver?

It is different, of course. It’s worse.

Vancouver’s riot was spontaneous. They weren’t backed up with official NGOs and union organizers and bank accounts and spokesmen and press releases.

The Montreal riots are a criminal industry.

But blame also apportions to the people whose duty it is to stop riots — but who haven’t.

The police, who too often stood by idly because they didn’t want the rough work of a confrontation. Even when peaceful students got a court injunction demanding they be allowed to attend class, the cops refused to enforce the injunction and clear protesters blockading school doorways.

But at the end of the day, the man responsible is the premier, Jean Charest. He is the one who has permitted these riots to stretch for four months.

Worse, he has rewarded it. He negotiated with the rioters. He responded to their law-breaking by allowing them to direct his law-making.

Last week, things took a darker turn. Masked students stormed through universities, going classroom to classroom seeking out students who dared to study and teachers who dared to teach them.

If they found a class going on, they’d storm into the room. Flick the lights on and off. Jump on desks. Shout and scream. And even physically grab students inside, screaming and swearing at them, terrifying them.

When you wear a mask, trespass in schools, hunt down law-abiding students, then disrupt them and physically push them — they are terrified. And if you are doing so to terrorize them into not going to class, and to join your political protest, that is terrorism.

This, in the city where Marc Lepine burst into classes and shot women.

Last Thursday, four months late, Charest proposed a new response: Laws against rioting. And a delay in the school year.

Quebec doesn’t need new laws. The Criminal Code is full of them. Charest always had the tools — he was just too cowardly to use them.

But his plans to cancel the current semester, and reschedule it months from now, is shocking. That is the perfect reward for the protesters, doing what they couldn’t do on their own: Bring Quebec’s universities grinding to a halt.

Charest — not the rioters — has derailed not only students’ education, but also their plans for summer jobs.

Back in 1957, nine black students signed up to all-white Little Rock Central High school. Then, as now, masked protesters wanted to stop it. Then, it was the Ku Klux Klan. And the state’s racist governor, a Democrat named Orval Faubus, deployed the state’s national guard to stop the black kids from going in.

The president at the time, a Republican named Dwight Eisenhower, showed what you do when kids are being illegally blocked from school.

He federalized the state’s national guard, taking it out of the hands of the governor. And he deployed the 101st Airborne Division to escort the black kids in.

That’s what leadership is about. Eisenhower was a leader. He de-segregated the schools. He let the black kids learn.

If the Klan had broken into that school, flicked the lights on and off, shouted at the black kids, and disrupted their studies, do you think Ike would have cancelled the semester? Negotiated with the Klan? He would have sent in soldiers. Not to destroy civil rights. Not Trudeau-style, to put the state under martial law. But to uphold civil law — the right to be free from violence, the right to the rule of law.

Charest is no Eisenhower. He’s Neville Chamberlain, appeasing the rioters. He’s a coward. And the good kids of Montreal are being sold out by him.

Does the Koran Promote Peace and Cooperation?

Although many try to explain away much of the militant teaching of the Koran, a straightforward interpretation of the following sampling of verses plainly demonstrates Islam's views toward non-Muslims, including authorizing jihad - holy wars - against them.

A Koran bearing an ornate cover.

Source: Wikimedia

All are quoted from the Dawood translation of the Koran.


• "Fight against them until idolatry [worship of any god other than Allah] is no more and [Allah's] religion [Islam] reigns supreme" (Sura 2:193).

• "Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of [Allah]; whoever fights for the cause of [Allah], whether he dies or triumphs, on him we shall bestow a rich recompense . . . The true believers fight for the cause of [Allah], but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan" (Sura 4:74-76).

• "Those that make war against Allah and His apostle [Muhammad] and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter" (Sura 5:33).

• "Believers, take neither Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship becomes one of their number. [Allah] does not guide the wrongdoers" (Sura 5:51).

• "[Allah] revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied [Allah] and His apostle [Muhammad]. He that defies [Allah] and His apostle shall be sternly punished by [Allah]" (Sura 8:12-13).

• "[Allah] will separate the wicked from the just. He will heap all the wicked [i.e. non-Muslims] one upon another and cast them into Hell. These will surely be the losers" (Sura 8:37).

• "Let not the unbelievers [non-Muslims] think that they will ever get away. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of [Allah] and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to [Allah]" (Sura 8:59-60).

• "Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding" (Sura 8:65).

• "A prophet may not take captives until he has fought and triumphed in the land" (Sura 8:67).

• "Make war on them. [Allah] will chastise them at your hands and humble them" (Sura 9:14).

• "Believers, why is it that when you are told: 'March in the cause of [Allah],' you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared with those of the life to come. If you do not go to war, He will punish you sternly, and will replace you by other men . . . March on and fight for the cause of [Allah], with your wealth and with your persons" (Sura 9:38-41).

• "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" (Sura 9:73).

• "They [faithful Muslims] will fight for the cause of [Allah], they will slay and be slain" (Sura 9:111).

• "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that [Allah] is with the righteous" (Sura 9:123).

• "When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort. If they persist in sin, judgment is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly" (Sura 17:16).

• "We have destroyed many a sinful nation and replaced them by other men. And when they felt Our might they took to their heels and fled. They were told: 'Do not run away. Return to your comforts and to your dwellings. You shall be questioned all.' 'Woe betide us, we have done wrong' was their reply. And this they kept repeating until We mowed them down and put out their light" (Sura 21:11-15).

• "When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until war shall lay down her burdens" (Sura 47:4).

• "Mohammed is [Allah's] apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" (Sura 48:29).

• "It is He [Allah] who has sent forth His apostle [Muhammad] with guidance and the True Faith [Islam], so that he may exalt it above all religions, much as the idolaters [those who worship gods other than Allah] may dislike it" (Sura 61:9).

The U.N., NDP, Lieberal's, Greenpeace, David Suzuki, Aboriginals (officially), Human Rights Tribunals, Universities (most of them), big Unions, the E.U. (most member nations), all Communistic regimes, the good 'ol US of A including his highness Barak Obama and MANY more organisations and individuals support Islam with ALL it's warts (including its extremist terrorists). The CIA has just arrested a group sponsored by Iran, that was looking at various locations in New York City to bomb. THIS is a religion of peace? Sure it is.

Mulcair Knows Nothing About Economic Issues - What A Ridiculous Conclusion He Makes

In his Saturday appearance on the CBC radio program The House, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair rolled out shopworn arguments about how the oilsands are inflicting unreasonable costs on other parts of the country. Although he piously maintained he is not opposed to oilsands development and is not trying to inflame regional conflict, he then went on to do both.

Like King Canute, Mulcair is demanding that the tides of global economic change be rolled back. Canute, however, was trying to demonstrate to his countrymen the limits of human power, whereas Mulcair is trying to restore the Canadian economy of the past.

To be fair, the value of the Canadian dollar has been driven upwards by resource prosperity in the West, and this has further complicated life for a manufacturing sector already struggling with low productivity, soft U.S. markets and increasing global competition.

It may also be true that up to 500,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have been lost in recent years, although Mulcair fails to mention the good-paying jobs that have been created in the West. However, will his proposed cure leave Canada better off?

In the past we used tariffs to protect Canadian manufacturers from competition, but in the era of NAFTA and global free trade initiatives, tariff protection is no longer available. Thus Mulcair turns instead to the possible salvation of a low Canadian dollar.

Here he refers to the Canadian dollar being kept “artificially high” by the oilsands. But why are highly paid jobs in the resource sector and eager foreign investment any more “artificial” than manufacturing jobs protected by a low exchange rate? Why is a high dollar artificial but a low dollar natural?

Given that the value of the Canadian dollar now floats, the only way to weaken the dollar is to choke off investment, production and employment in the parts of the economy responsible for the high Canadian dollar.
In other words, curtail economic growth in the West and drive down the value of the Canadian dollar to the point where manufacturing jobs in other parts of the country will be protected from global competition.

This proposed regional redistribution of economic opportunity is draped in the flag of environmental stewardship. But, when Mulcair asserts that “polluters must pay,” his indignation is directed only toward the oilsands — not to the consumers of petroleum products, not to Montreal or Toronto commuters. His own constituents are conveniently let off the hook.

Mulcair tops his recipe for economic mayhem by referring to the “Dutch disease” whereby the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands was hurt in the early 1970s by currency inflation brought about by an over-reliance on natural gas revenues. However, this appeal to international validation ignores the fact that the Netherlands is doing just fine today, and additionally, is a country spared the regional divisions that shape the Canadian economy.

The economic prescription advanced by Mulcair is both simple and potentially disastrous: curtail economic growth in the West and assume that a lower Canadian dollar will result, which will protect the manufacturing sector from global competition and soft American demand. It is impossible to imagine a more ill-advised policy prescription for the West and for Canada.

Roger Gibbins is the president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Welcome Back Gift For Omar.

Sun news network puts together a welcome back gift for convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. This is a good one!  http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/treats-for-a-terrorist/1631203818001

The European Union Financial Crisis

The European Union has been going through a major test of its viability with the Greek debt crisis. At stake is the viability of the entire EU project as it presently exists. Without a full economic union it has become clear that there is no true "union," and without a unified fiscal policy controlled by a central authority the present debt problems of the member states will inevitably continue.

Germany is by far the strongest economy within Europe. Its fiscal stability has been the guarantee behind the financial firewall that is keeping the fragile EU together. No other EU member state can begin to take on this role—and that is the unspoken problem and fear. No one desires to see the present German economic dominance to advance to another stage of control.

The crisis in Europe is still simmering. Greece has received a series of bailouts, not without pain. Spain, Italy and Austria have received credit downgrades. Democratically elected leaders have been replaced in some countries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is being accused of leading Germany and Europe down the wrong path. What can be done?

Germany is the leading manager of this crisis, and in truth is the one country that is responsible for the current situation. Germany pushed hard for the single currency but, like all other EU members, did not want to give up sovereignty to another authority. The result was a single currency, the euro, without effective political union.

What some predicted more than 10 years ago has now come to pass—a massive debt crisis with no effective way to manage and remove it. One observer describes it as "a machine from hell." Many see a need for political union, but at the same time it's the most feared of solutions.

The Financial Times of London puts it this way: "The current crisis shows that Greeks, Germans and Italians do have one important thing in common—a deep aversion to ceding control of their national budgets. The result is that the euro is in a dangerous and unstable position. The actions that are being urged on Germany are unreasonable. But Germany's own solution—structural reform now, political union later—is unworkable" (Gideon Rachman, "Germany Faces a Machine From Hell,"  Feb. 14, 2012).

The fear of a strong Germany controlling the future of Greece or any insolvent European country immediately evokes words like "Auschwitz" or "Nazism." Behind the scenes, leaders are very worried about the outcome. The crisis simmers, waiting for a bold solution from somewhere.

As things stand, Germany is seemingly the only nation that can steer Europe back into calm and stable waters. Watch for some further crisis to appear and create the right conditions for a group of core nations to cede political and operational control to a power that can right the ship. It will come, and when it does it will reshape Europe and possibly the world scene.

An excerpt from Good News Magazine, May - June edition


Essentially, when the EU was formed, countries that already showed a propensity to spend more than they brought in (sounds familiar, something like what would happen to Canada if the NDP ever got into power as they know NOTHING, or are REALISTIC about real world economics. Sorry, I got carried away.) Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece and other countries had, at the time, were paying 14% on their loans. So, when they were given the opportunity to become part of the European Union, their interest rate dropped to 4%. Countries jumped at this, BUT, continued their undisciplined spending ways.

Now, the citizens are upset with austerity, which really is what is THE solution to the problem. Greece and France have voted in Socialist governments with the promise of a better, more prosperous way of life. The problem is, the day after the euphoria of electing a new gov't the financial problems still exist and reality sets in (again). These new gov'ts can't do for their citizen's as promised and the treadmill continues, except now, they have a larger debt to pay due to the costs from the election.

The public are looking for a boost in their respective economies and they foolishly think that by changing the gov't, that will, overnight, create enough optimism that new business'es will open and prosperity will come a knockin' for all.   Ignorance of this dire economic situation, is bliss for all. It is very obvious that the economy of many of these affected, will have to get worse before they "get a grip" and reverse their misguided practise of grabbing the bull by the tail and instituting some real austerity measures. Unfortunately, the public will be severely and very negatively affected. Canada is not protected as our exports to Europe will experience a drop in demand, causing a rise in unemployment, especially in provinces that can least afford it.

Justin Trudeau, Mr. Teacher, Tells All How Student's Should Be Taught - NOT!

Teacher Trudeau – Can You Teach Me?

Posted on May 4, 2012

CHARLES ADLER | QMI AGENCY

Here’s a fun fact for you: Justin Trudeau spent a little while teaching at a Vancouver high school before entering politics. He also has a Bachelor of Education degree from the University of British Columbia.
So he’s been on the frontlines of education before. He can honestly say he has experience in the field.
That may seem a little odd, based on his thoughts on how today’s teachers should approach the practice of education.

You’ve read about educators who forget to be educators, instead choosing to be armchair child psychologists, or mouthpieces of big labour, or – my personal favourite – “co-parents.”
But to Monsieur Trudeau, it’s a great new development when teachers don’t think about how to get the kids to do well in school.

Last week, Trudeau gave a lecture at Queen’s University to 31 student leaders from the Upper Canada District School Board. According to the press release, the purpose of the speech was to “talk about the importance of reminding students of their personal power and impact.”
He used the word “empower” a lot during his address. According to him, that’s supposed to be priority number one for today’s teachers.

What happened to priority number one being the act of teaching the material to the students? Apparently it’s not “diverse” enough.
Here’s the quote:
Trudeau said the hierarchical model of success that existed for so long in western society – the idea that academic success means success as an adult – must be altered.
“The kinds of success we’re looking at now are going to be as diverse as the students themselves are,” he said. “As a teacher, you must demonstrate that these students have power.”
What does THAT mean? That you don’t have to do well in school because you’re already “powerful?” That anyone’s idea of success is valid if they say so? Folks, this is what we talk about when we’re talking about an entitled generation.

I have no doubt that plenty of Canadian kids were raised to believe in hard work, individual effort, the value of a good education and a good career, and live those beliefs to this day.
But there are also plenty of Canadian kids who never learned to take responsibility for themselves and expect everyone else – school staff, parents, employers, the government – to do it for them.
Trudeau isn’t talking about “empowering” kids. He’s talking about coddling them. Can’t read or do math at a college level by the time you finish high school? Hey, no problem! You’re so special that it doesn’t matter!

And so-called “student leaders” are the ones hearing this. How many of them will buy it? How many of them will repeat it to their fellow students?

I wish there were more voices of responsibility reaching out to our kids. Instead we get a prime minister’s son and left-wing media darling who has always believed that he fell off the special tree and didn’t miss a branch on the way down.

Occupy, Another Hypocritical Ad

I'd like to know what these so called "subsidies" are. If anything, most of the profits these supposed "terrible, evil,etc, etc," oil companies earn is done through their EMPLOYMENT of tens of thousands of people that PAY thousands in taxes in order for all, including these lazy Occupy protestors, to benefit greatly, from various govt's to maintain our infrastructure. Oh yeah, I'm sure these same protestors use Blackberry's, Iphones, Laptops, etc., that are all put together using OIL BASED technology. More hypocrisy by these protestors that milk the system that GREATLY BENEFITS from "Big Oil" profits. Besides, whats wrong with them making a profit? We are closing public schools (and to equate oil company profits with closing schools is a silly argument as one is PRIVATE sector and the other is PUBLIC) to make the system more efficient, thereby monies (our tax dollars, but then protestors of this same mind think its okay if there are inefficiences, we can just pay more in taxes) can be distributed elsewhere. These protests are useless and only incur a huge inconvenience for Cities by costing thousands in cleanup costs. You will find that quite a few of these people are students and WHO PAYS their tuition? Is it Mummy and Daddy? Are these same working? Are some (most) receiving gov't money (us) to live? More craziness from the Left.

I'm actually looking for some common sense here, with Occupy and many, many others, for ex. the NDP or the Lieberals or Greenpeace or ANY Union, common sense is not so common.