sda2.jpg

March 31, 2010

Between The First American Prime Minister In Waiting

... and the diplomatic gift horse formerly known as "Bill's wife", Stephen Harper may come to look back at this week as one of his best ever.

"Whether it comes to our role in Afghanistan, our sovereignty over our Arctic or ultimately our foreign aid priorities, it is Canada and Canadians who will make Canadian decisions,"

Forty years of Liberal cultivated anti-Americanism finally put to good use.

Posted by Kate at March 31, 2010 10:23 PM
Comments

What is even more hilarious is that while Obama gave his executive order that no federal funds will be used for abortion; we have Hillary lobbying for Canada to support it as part of a foreign aid package.

Thus the Obama-Nation(tm) and Hillary have found an abortion wedge issue between them. LOL!

Meanwhile, Iggy is still choking on his 'aborted' motion.

PM Harper and Co. come out smelling like a rose while Iggy and LIEberals are running around out in the cold "Bush's" with a scalpel.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at March 31, 2010 10:35 PM

I have yet to hear a "pro-choice" advocate answer the following question with any intellectual and/or moral clarity, or if they'll even try to do so, instead ducking the question:

Take a baby, nine months and one day from the moment of his or her conception. Then going back in time, please tell me the point at which that baby ceases to be a human being and explain why.

Posted by: Dave in Pa at March 31, 2010 10:48 PM

Unambiguously Ambidextrous has the facts on where abortion is even legal in the world. Maybe "let's kill the babies before they cause more foregin aid problems" Ignatieff and Bob Rae should educate themselves before they lecture the PM. IOn fact, maybe Hillary Clinton should do some homework before being a busy body in other people's countries:
http://unambig.com/conservative-maternal-health-plan-aborted/

Posted by: Lorraine at March 31, 2010 10:53 PM

On questions of artic sovereignty i'm with PMSH on the exclusion of Finland and Sweden as they have no coastlines fronting the Artic. Iceland tho? They're kind of blocked by Greenland - probably a good call. Good for PMSH for playing hardball!

Posted by: Agent Smith at March 31, 2010 10:54 PM

Thanks Lorraine.

Posted by: WalterF at March 31, 2010 10:59 PM

And, I might Add: It's Israel and Israelis who will make Israeli decisions.

Posted by: Gary at March 31, 2010 11:18 PM

Yankee go home. BO BO, Hey, Hey. How many babies will you kill today? No American-style foreign policy in Canada. Obamhitler out of Canada NOW!

Posted by: Arty at March 31, 2010 11:22 PM

I am baffled by the reasoning behind Clinton's boorish behaviour. Imagine the hysteria of the MSM if Condi Rice had made these kind of statements on an official visit. I can't see why this and the arctic issue is worth picking a fight with a major ally. But then, they also insulted Britain, Austria and a few other European allies. Was she in a bad mood, or is it just Canada's turn? On the Afgahanistan request, even if PMSH was agreeable to cooperating with the Americans, she made it almost impossible for him to do so.
She is as much suited for diplomacy as a bull is suited for clerking in a china shop.

Posted by: Martin at March 31, 2010 11:23 PM

I got the impression that Shillary was in a foul mood. Maybe the old man is screwing around on her again and she has had to arrange abortions when necessary in order to save face.

Posted by: Louise at April 1, 2010 12:01 AM

Perhaps Hillary's boorish 'diplomacy' is no accident. It's the worst kept secret in politics that she wants him to fail.

@Dave in Pa: birth is the cutoff.

Posted by: Cytotoxic at April 1, 2010 12:02 AM

And with Hillary's ignoramus comments, the Canadian Obama fawning media went into convulsions.

Something about - with friends like this who needs enemies !!??

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at April 1, 2010 12:18 AM

Hillary looks a lot like Christopher Walken in the picture alongside Jane Taber's gleeful "smackdowns" piece in the Grope and Fail. No wonder Bill screws around.

It is said that Walken lived on bananas, rice and water for a week (to get that authentic tired and haggard look) before the scene in Deer Hunter where he blew his own brain out playing Russian roulette in Saigon. Wonder if Hillary's been eating enough broccolli....

Posted by: rete at April 1, 2010 12:55 AM

Cytotoxic: "birth is the cutoff."

You missed part 2 of Dave's question: Explain why?

Posted by: LindaL at April 1, 2010 1:25 AM

Peepee Mansbridge,on the National tonight,'reported' that our PM was "FORCED" to say that "Canada will make decisions for Canadians." FIRE.THEM.ALL.

Posted by: wallyj at April 1, 2010 1:53 AM

wallyj: " ... reported' that our PM was "FORCED"to say that "Canada will make decisions for Canadians."

I have no problem with that statement. It says that we Canadians have a line, and the Americans have crossed it. I have no problem rejecting anything "Clinton".

Posted by: ∞² at April 1, 2010 2:29 AM

Hillary is just being Hillary. Always in a bad mood and no idea how to behave or how to play well with others.
Besides, she won't ever be happy with an imposter in the WH. She thinks she belongs there. Just be happy she flew off on her broom before she smacked somebody with it... then again Iggy and Layton could use a good boff up side the head.

Posted by: Snowbunnie at April 1, 2010 3:27 AM

You can say good or bad things about Harper. Stupid is not one of them. He screws up rarely compared to any other Pm's. Than again he's only human.
I don't envy him having to deal with a megalomaniac down South.
If up to IGGY'S lefties, it would be Team Canada: "Abortionists to the World.
In Afghanistan I figure unless you have a real war, its pointless to lose Canadians lives or American for that matter. In an endless police action.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 1, 2010 5:47 AM

What I don't understand is why Obama sent Hillary to make his request through the media rather than ask if he himself could state his case before a joint session of Parliament?
It could then be put to a free vote and the opposition would have to square the circle of having to vote against the great O.
The ultimate juxtaposition.
mmm mmm mmmm mmmm mmmm

Posted by: gimbol at April 1, 2010 5:56 AM

Plain and simple, Hillary's a bully, along with her boss.

What we saw this week was an undisguised pile-on of our government on the part of leftist liberals stateside and in our media, who were loving the smackdown shrill Hill was giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Well, nice try, Billary and co. 'Last time I looked Canada was a sovereign nation whose government calls the shots, not the POTUS or his toadies in the media.

Like Lorraine says, what we're looking at here, and as I mentioned in a post a few days ago, is genocide of the poorest and most vulnerable populations in the world. Aren't we "kind" here in the West, to suggest abortion and "family planning" clinics for the "health" of third-world women and their children? sarc/off

What health are we looking at for them through abortion? Women's/children's health through abortion is an oxymoron.

And, BTW, what after care can a third-world woman expect after an abortion? Is there going to be a clinic in every tiny village or will she have to walk miles to access it? Where will she get the money for medications? Is there a pharmacy nearby, open till midnight, where she can access drugs? Will she be able to conceive again if her uterus or fallopian tubes are scarred as an after-effect of an abortion? Will her religious convictions permit her to allow herself an abortion or two or three? Will her husband assent to an abortion -- an issue in many third-world countries, even though we in the West have ensured that fathers of babies have no say in whether they live or die.

The arrogance of Western "progressives" (sic) in pushing our supposed "solutions" on vulnerable third-world women is disgusting. Check out Germaine Greer's views on this issue.

'Anyone else see the wolf in grandma's clothing: We're going to provide abortions for you, my dear, all the better for your health and your baby's.

Posted by: batb at April 1, 2010 6:51 AM

Hilary is such a walking contradiction.

She grew up an arch feminist.

Lived an arch-feminist life - absolutely devoted to her career, and firmly believing that the right to an abortion is to female rights what desegregation is to black/rights. To her and many feminists pregnancy Is a form of male domination and enslavement. And Like a rabid civil rights leader, she ignores all of the related issues - family, reproduction of the species, etc. It is paramount. It is inflexible. And it is utterly lacking in compassion or politeness.

And yet she has a daughter and yet she has a serial philandering husband - a man she has famously stood by and endured much humiliation for doing so to the point of becoming a national punchline.

And in the past few years she has been dramatically eclipsed as the most powerful woman in America by someone who is a pro-lifer who has managed the work/family balance far better than her and - horrors - has an educational pedigree not much better than the bushman Abraham Lincoln. And is needs to be acknowledged is vastly better-looking - a MILF - the new feminist ideal it seems.

Little wonder she is such a grumpy, caustic harridan. And she only seems to become moreso as she gets older. Ultimately a figure to be pitied. And ignored.

(and she is not alone. There are millions of women who were educated to believe similar things and who are now in their late fifties or older and have seen their uber-feminist tenets disregarded and often ignored even by they in their own lives and families. One wonders what kind of mental reckoning they may go through as they enter old age).

Posted by: Gord Tulk at April 1, 2010 6:57 AM

Are Finland & Sweden more to the Socialist side?

Posted by: bryanr at April 1, 2010 8:38 AM

I understand that marital fidelity is an essential component of any maternal health initiative. Why wouldn't Hillary make supporting this a priority?!?

Posted by: Sean at April 1, 2010 9:09 AM

Dave in PA -- good question.

I consider terminology, the language, to be key. Abortion advocates consistently and unwaveringly call an unborn child a "fetus," and the very moment it is completely outside the womb it is suddenly a baby. This is why Cytotoxic notes the birth "cutoff."

Controlling the language is strategic. The generic "fetus" dehumanizes the infant and makes the concept of termination more palpable. If the language changes and the unborn child is consistently called a "baby" then termination will be much more distasteful.

The interesting thing about words, of course, is that reality often renders them moot. Once you have the dead "fetus" outside the womb it is then a dead baby, is it not?

Posted by: Mark Peters at April 1, 2010 9:45 AM

cytotoxic - re 'birth is the cut-off'. That's your opinion. I have a different opinion.

The human biological entity goes through a set number of phases: fertilization, gestation, birth. I consider fertilization the 'cut-off'. It is then in phase 1 of its existence.

Abortion is not a tactic of contraception and to define it as such is not merely morally but biologically invalid.

Posted by: ET at April 1, 2010 9:55 AM

Hillery is only for aborting people not policies.

She'd abort unborn Afghanis but not the protracted military misadventure in that nation which kills their parents in collateral events.

Posted by: the Fly at April 1, 2010 9:56 AM

batb I think the birth control would be offered in the refugee camps. The people that have been forced off their land will be subject to the whims of the feeders. I think it's better to ensure they can stay on their land rather than help out the aggressor.

Posted by: Speedy at April 1, 2010 10:08 AM

Gord nails it !!

Posted by: ron in kelowna ∴ at April 1, 2010 10:43 AM


Is this Ms. Bill's blowback for Belinda's foray into international relations?

Posted by: Bocanut at April 1, 2010 10:53 AM

Bev Oda yesterday (paraphrasing):

“The Canadian government is committed to improving the lives of women and their children."

How a child's life is improved by terminating it, is beyond my comprehension. Only in the twisted utopian mindset, I guess.

Posted by: set you free at April 1, 2010 10:56 AM

The three tenets of modern Progressivism: abortion, eugenics, euthanasia

Posted by: Free Thinker at April 1, 2010 11:05 AM

So Canada is being criticized by Hillary for its positions on foreign aide abortions & quitting on Afganistan.

My question for Iggy; why the outrage over lack of free abortions and but dead silence over our failure to extend the military commitment in Afghanistan? If Hillary's respect is so important for you, shouldn't you jump to all her commands?

Posted by: hoil at April 1, 2010 11:19 AM

Beyond the horrid idea that abortion is an integral part of infant and maternal health, what about other risks. How many decades will pass before white devils are accused of ripping babies out of the wombs of poor foreign women. Progressives in universities, being adept at rewriting the past, will declare abortion as evidence of conservative racism and insist that only massive reparations to the 3rd world will relieve our collective guilt.

Posted by: LC Bennett at April 1, 2010 11:31 AM

BTW, I liked PMSH's "...it is Canada and Canadians who will make Canadian decisions." speech. I hope he passes it on to Jim "we must harmonize" Prentice.

Posted by: LC Bennett at April 1, 2010 11:36 AM

"even though we in the West have ensured that fathers of babies have no say in whether they live or die."

Thanks for mentioning that little tid-bit batb.

Cyto

So given the skills necessary, you'd be comfortable providing the "procedure" one day before the projected due date?(assuming of course there are no medical concerns)

I think social liberals like yourself tend to skirt the issue social conservatives are making with respect to abortion. Using you for example, you appear to be making a legal/political argument (although under the guise of a scientific argument) while the social conservatives are making an ethical argument. I believe you and your ilk are disingenuous because you wish to cover-up an inconsistency in your ideology. The inconsistency of course is the outright rejection of militarism, out of an epic sense of empathy for victims of our so called Imperialism; yet, in the next breath will advocate the murder of an unborn baby. Surely we can agree on that term “unborn baby”, considering I'm quite positive you wouldn't be accepting of an abortion being executed "one day before the projected due date".

Anyways my point is, that the only reason this "cover-up" is necessary, is because of the high & mighty facade that social liberals are more enlightened and empathetic than the rest of us knuckle-draggers. So why does the left use this high & mighty tactic regarding militarism (and social justice)? It's simple, because in reality, the foreign policy and economic ideology of the left doesn't pan-out; but I digress.

The pro-choice view is a legitimate view point(unlike liberal foreign and social policy), pro-choicers are just not legitimately arguing the issue. I support a woman's right to choose. We're I'm at odds with you and the social liberals is the disingenuous, and more often than not disrespectful tactics and tact demonstrated by said liberals. I wish social liberals would challenge themselves to look clearly at the concerns social conservatives raise. It's the least they can do.

I know I've projected quite a bit here(regarding your foreign policy views), but it was necessary to make my point. I trust you'll let me know if I pegged you wrong with any of my projections.

Posted by: Indiana Homez at April 1, 2010 12:53 PM

@ Cyto
Dude, give it up. This is an echo chamber.

Kate posts something that supports her view of the world. Commenters agree with it post their support in the comments.

Dissenters are heckled.

Repeat.

You are wasting your time if you think you will change any opinions here. You would be better off if you spent your time on people you can influence.

Posted by: shizzie von shizwit at April 1, 2010 1:41 PM

That's correct Shizwit. This isn't an open marketplace of ideas like democrat underground, kos, moveon, the congressional black caucus etc. Now go back and play on your own side of the street

Posted by: Arty at April 1, 2010 2:38 PM

Look on the bright side. There will be many PhD dissertations written at the Harvard School of Government on Obama's innovative new foreign policy of peeing on your allies, then asking them for favors.

Posted by: jim303 at April 1, 2010 2:48 PM

Speedy, even birth control is problematic for third-world women. There are plenty of side effects from contraception: the pill, IUDs, spermicidal foam, etc. Women have had to endure these side effects for years and usually don't complain because it means they don't get pregnant -- and North American women have access to doctors and medications should they experience the many negative side effects of contraception.

Third-world women have regular access to neither medical personnel nor medications, and yet we want to push North American contraceptive methods onto them.

Another salient factor here is that the only "social safety net" third-world women have is their living children who grow old enough to take care of them in their "old" age. Sadly, many of their children will die young which, surely, would seem to make abortion abhorrent to them, incomprehensible.

You can't just take a North American template that tends to work for women here and lay it over the third world situation. It's a tactic lacking in both imagination and compassion.

Hillary and co. need a reality check.

Let's not forget how the CPC are planning to assist third-world mothers and children: by providing vaccinations, clean water, better nutrition, and by training health care workers.

That's a very good start. Rome wasn't built in a day, and third-world problems won't be fixed right away either -- especially if we're looking at fixes that work in North America but which might not be adaptive to third-world realities.

Posted by: batb at April 1, 2010 5:38 PM

@ Indian Homez et al: Yes if I had the skills I'd do it. Simply put babies are born and fetuses are under the sovereignty of their bearer, who does not require a mandate from society whether to continue with it or not. While the act of aborting a late term fetus is distasteful, barring distasteful acts is not a legitimate state function. And I have no idea where these foreign policy ideas are coming from.
Ultimately, although the CPC's cute little aid plan may help some people, they are still pilfering money that doesn't belong to them to do it. It is wrong.

Posted by: Cytotoxic at April 1, 2010 6:32 PM

What a blowhard Ignatieff is. Canada is embarrassed? Don't think so. Caadians, when asked, don't favor abortion. You can look it up.

Wasn't that Donolo guy brought back to put some bite back into the Libs, to start preparing them for the return to their birhright?

I like his work so far. Whenever Ignatieff opens his mouth he offers up more ammunition for the CPC to bludgeon him with when the election is called.

Librano heads must be exploding all over Toronto. 'The Americans are bad, wait, we must do what the American Secretary of State tells us to do'.
Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

A very good week indeed, Kate.

Posted by: BJG at April 1, 2010 7:55 PM

@ Dave in Pa:

Take a rotten vegetable, just about to be greenbinned or chucked in the trash. Then going back in time, please tell me the point at which that vegetable is not spoiled and explain why.

In summary, Christians think in black and white, but the world does not.

Posted by: Zappa at April 1, 2010 8:28 PM

Are you not thinking in black and white for singling
out Christians for thinking in black and white, Zappa?

Posted by: Vitruvius at April 1, 2010 8:41 PM

Yeah, Donolo's doing a great job, isn't he?

Every time Ignatieff opens his mouth he diminishes both his credibility and that of his party. The Liberal$ are trying to rewind their tape to the time of their relevance (aka, when their bullying tactics worked and there was lots of taxpayer money to squander) and don't seem to realize that the only way forward is ... well, forward.

But that will mean new and innovative ideas, which the party of Trudeau, Chretien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff (Rae and the Desmarais family) seem utterly bereft of.

Posted by: batb at April 2, 2010 10:53 AM

Nothing to get excited about - 'bama has some new best friends in the Arab world, and he's got to show them that he doesn't much care for Israel ... or anyone who supports it.

Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at April 2, 2010 2:22 PM

Zappa, as an atheist I gotta say - nice comparison. NOT! ...moron

Posted by: K at April 2, 2010 7:02 PM

"Peepee Mansbridge,on the National tonight"

He's still there???

They're still broadcasting???

Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at April 3, 2010 8:27 AM
Post a comment

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.










Remember personal info?






Site
Meter