Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

Despite an increasing body of evidence indicating that there is no substance to Liberal allegations of bribery, that party continues to devote their questions in the House almost exclusively to this issue. We fail to see what these allegations have to do with Stéphane Dion’s “Richer, fairer, greener Canada,” but the Liberals have long since lost their way to finding any real position on policy.

As facts have emerged since this controversy broke, we have learned the following:

1. Conservatives Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan, Doug Finley, James Moore et al have consistently agreed with Chuck Cadman’s public utterances before his death. The Conservatives invited him to rejoin the Conservative party and run in the next election and Mr. Cadman declined.
2. Mr. Cadman said in various seperate media interviews that there were no other offers on the table, except as described above.
3. Various reputable experts from the insurance industry have verified that it would be virtually impossible to even buy a $1 million insurance policy on a terminally ill man.
4. It has become clear that there was no meeting with Conservatives on May 17th as the Liberals have alleged. Even Mr. Cadman’s former assistant, Dan Wallace, has verified this fact.
5. It has been established that there was only one meeting between Mr. Cadman and Conservative officials (Flanagan & Finley). That meeting took place on May 19th (the day of the vote) and the only thing that was discussed was point #1 above.
6. Despite Liberal claims to the contrary, it has been established by numerous sources that Chuck Cadman DID intend to run again, regardless of his illness.
7. Both the Prime Minister and MP James Moore have consistently answered questions about “financial considerations” by restating that part of the Conservatives’ offer to have Mr. Cadman run for their party was an offer to financially support his campaign effort (as is customary in target ridings among all parties).

The last straw that the Liberals have been grasping at is that Mr. Zytaruk (who wrote the book that spawned the controversy) has presented an “unedited version” of an audio recording of an interview that he did with then Opposition leader, Stephen Harper. A transcript of that tape recording is widely available on the web and, for purposes of this article, we will refer to one posted by the Toronto Star. It is instructive to note that the Star’s own introduction to the transcript says: “The following is a transcript of a portion of author Tom Zytaruk’s tape…”
In order to understand the context of the recording, we need to establish the background. According to reports, Opposition leader Stephen Harper was visiting the Cadman household in September of 2005, shortly after Mr. Cadman’s death. Our understanding is that he was paying a personal visit to Dona Cadman, Chuck’s widow. As Mr. Harper is leaving the Cadman house, he is stopped by Tom Zytaruk in the driveway. According to the tape released to media sources, the transcript of which is posted online, this is how the conversation began:

Zytaruk [barely intelligible]: “I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?”

Harper: “I don’t know the details. I know that there were discussions…

Who starts a conversation that way? You just walk up to the Leader of Canada’s Official Opposition in the driveway while he’s paying a personal visit to a widow and say, “I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars. Do you know anything about that?” Not on your life!

Everyone knows that “I mean…” is a bridge from a previous comment or question; a statement made to elaborate or clarify something previously said. Normally there would be an introductory greeting, perhaps some kind of request for comment. Most MP’s will not agree to an interview without some idea of the context in which they are being asked for comment. It is hardly credible that even the most hardened journalist would be so presumptous as to begin this way.

It is tremendously important to know what Mr. Zytaruk said BEFORE he asked the ‘million dollar question.’ That context could dramatically alter the understanding of Mr. Harper’s response. The main point here is that Tom Zytaruk claims that the tape is unedited and unaltered. If that is true, than he at the very least knowingly excluded the important discourse that took place before the tape began.

…Which brings us to the next point. When you listen to the audio version of the “unedited tape,” it becomes clear that this is not the entire conversation. The audio version begins as follows:

Zytaruk [speaking clearly and directly into the microphone]: “[CLICK] This is Stephen Harper, leader of the official opposition. [CLICK]”

There is then a break in the audio followed by several clicks and the beginning of the audio which is reflected in the transcript. The audio is DRAMATICALLY different from Zytaruk’s introduction, and sounds like it has been made from the pocket of a jacket, rather than a microphone presented to someone to record their comments.

In the first minute of recording, you can routinely hear something like clothing sliding across the surface of the mic. This is not wind noise, but clearly something causing direct abrasion to the microphone as anyone who has worn a lapel mic with a suit will recognize.

There is also a clear break in the audio at 1:47 where Mr. Zytaruk cuts himself off in mid-sentence. The very next second (1:48) Mr. Harper is magically talking again, though clearly from a different audio perspective than the preceding one minute and forty seven seconds. In other words, there is a distinct change in the tone and dynamics of the audio, indicating that (in the second segment of the recording) the two parties are not standing in the same positions relative to one another that they were in the first segment.

We are expected to believe that Mr. Zytaruk is saying: “and when (Thank you for that), and when…[ambient noise bloom]” And then Mr. Harper is heard saying: “…but the ah, but the offer to Chuck was only to was that it was only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election.” Again, no conversation progresses that way. There was clearly a break at 1:47 of the recording, and it is also clear that an undetermined amount of relevant discourse between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk was eliminated from the recording.

At the end of the tape (2:37) there is also a clear “click” as Mr. Zytaruk shut off the recorder after saying: “Well, thank you very much. Thanks for clarif… [CLICK]” Obviously Mr. Zytaruk concluded that the interview was over and shut the recorder off as he was thanking Mr. Harper for clarifying something. The interesting point is, that there is no “click” at the beginning or end of the break at 1:47 indicating that the tape was recording was altered by something other than shutting off the recorder.

Every recording device has its own signature. For example throughout the recording you can hear the rhythmic whir-whir that is typical of an analogue recorder such as the mini recorders that many journalists use. This sound is transferred to the audio tape as the motor and capstans pull the tape through the recording heads from one reel to another. At 2:14-2:17 however, there is clear evidence of digital distortion such as takes place when a recording is digitally filtered or altered. Every indication is that the original recording was made by an analogue device and later dubbed (or transferred) to digital format. Which parts of the conversation were deleted during the obvious breaks in the recording is highly suspect.

(The above analysis was compiled in consultation with a former law enforcement official who also held multiple licenses as a private investigator. It should be noted that his expert opinion is limited to analysis of the recording posted online in the public domain. Analysis of the original recording may yield additional results.)

The tape recording on which the Liberals are hanging their hat is clearly not an unedited original. There are also questions about how they originally obtained a copy of that recording, and why they sat on this story for over a year since they first received a copy of the manuscript for Zytaruk’s book. The recording as it stands would not stand up as evidence in a court of law for 5 minutes.

Important context has clearly been eliminated from the conversation, and there is no clear chain of evidence to verify the integrity of the recording. This is why the Liberals DON’T want to face the facts in a court of law. They would rather try to convict the Conservatives by innuendo and insinuation in the court of public opinion. The rules of evidence exist in our courts to keep innocent people from being smeared by false accusations.

The NDP is right, these allegations are of a criminal nature and they belong before the courts where they can be evaluated in a fair and transparent manner. The salacious accusations of the Liberals do not deserve to be dignified by less than a full legal hearing. That is why the Prime Minister has filed a libel lawsuit against the Liberal party - that way the FACTS can be evaluated under the scrutiny of impartial jurisprudence.

QUESTION: If Stephen Harper knew he was complicit in the attempt to bribe a sitting MP, do you think that HE would invite the scrutiny of a court of law? That is exactly what he did when he filed a motion of libel. As the Prime Minister has said, “Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in the past several months, as the problems of the Liberal Party and its leader have mounted, they have engaged in more and more extreme accusations, going to the point last week of publishing on their website a series of false and unfounded allegations of criminal misconduct on my part.The truth is that this will prove to be in court the biggest mistake the leader of the Liberal Party has ever made .” (source)

Mr. Harper has never denied that the voice on the recording is his. On Tuesday, March 4, 2008 the Prime Minister told the House of Commons: “Mr. Speaker, nobody suggested it is not my voice. What the Leader of the Opposition has suggested is that he has some evidence of me offering Chuck Cadman a bribe. He has absolutely no such evidence. He will need to defend that in a court of law. I hope he does a better job than he did last night when he brought in a motion to bring down the government and then promptly told his MPs not to vote on it.” (source) By taking this matter before the courts, he is inviting his own destruction if there is even the most remote chance that he was in any way complicit in bribery. As the old-timers used to say, “This dog just won’t hunt.” (i.e. There is no substance to these frivolous allegation by the Liberals)

medicine online

In an article in today’s National Post, Graeme Hamilton pulls no punches in examining what seems to be a prima facie case of judicial nonsense. The title itself is an attention grabber: “Refusal to issue passport violated terrorist’s rights, judge says“

The very first paragraph is enough to grab the attention of any thinking Canadian.

“The federal government violated a convicted terrorist’s Charter rights when it refused to issue him a Canadian passport on the grounds of protecting national security, a Federal Court judge ruled yesterday.” Mr. Hamilton writes.

The first reaction of most reasonable people would be “What?!” But then the columnist goes on to detail Fateh Kamel’s past as a convicted terrorist:

• Fateh Kamel, a 47-year-old native of Algeria who obtained Canadian citizenship in 1993, was sentenced to eight years in prison by a French court in 2001 for terrorism-related crimes.
• At the time of his arrest he was “the leader of an international network whose purpose was to plot terrorist attacks and procure arms and passports for terrorists throughout the world.”
• Mr. Kamel trained in Afghanistan terrorist camps in 1991 and that in Montreal the chief activities of his now dismantled group were stealing money, credit cards and passports and trafficking identity papers to support the jihad. The group included failed millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam.
• The charges in France related to plots in the mid-1990s to plant bombs in Paris metro stations, as well as in the city of Roubaix in northern France. He was also found to have been involved in forging passports.
• Mr. Kamel was freed in 2005 after serving four years of his sentence and returned to Montreal, where he lives with his wife and child. In June, 2005, he applied for a Canadian passport, saying he needed to travel to Thailand on business.
• The French court had tied him to Algeria’s GIA, or Armed Islamic Group, as well as Jemaah Islamiyah, a radical Islamist terrorist organization active in Southeast Asia.
• “France has banned Kamel from its territory for life as a result of his part in plotting terrorist bombings,”

Apparently that is not sufficient cause, in the judge’s mind, to refuse him a Canadian passport. Justice Simon Noel said the government’s refusal to issue the travel document “clashed with the guarantee of freedom of mobility contained in the Charter.” The judge also “found that the Passport Order as it stands does not respect the right of every Canadian citizen ‘to enter, remain in and leave Canada,” as enshrined in Section 6 of the Charter.’”

According to Mr. Hamilton’s article, “The government argued that its action was justified under the first article of the Charter, which says all rights and freedoms are subject to ’such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.’ The Passport Order failed to meet that test.”

The government (which first denied Kamel a passport under the Liberal watch of Pierre Pettigrew) also argued the following:

• They reasoned that terrorism “is recognized as a serious threat to national security”
• “The issuance of a Canadian passport to Kamel would facilitate his travel to other countries of the European Economic Community from which entry to France does not require a passport, thus thwarting France’s own efforts to prevent terrorist bombings.”
• They were also following “a section of the Canadian Passport Order, introduced in 2004, that empowered the Minister of Foreign Affairs to refuse or revoke a passport if “the Minister is of the opinion that such action is necessary for the national security of Canada or another country.”
• Martin Rudner, a professor emeritus at Carleton University, who provided an affidavit for the Crown in the Kamel case, said the reputation of the Canadian passport would suffer if terrorists are allowed to obtain them.“If Canadian passports become suspect, firstly every other jurisdiction will introduce a visa requirement. In other words, if we can’t trust your passport, we’re going to have a vetting process to make sure we know who you are,” he said.

Judge Noel remained unmoved by these arguments and said of the decision to deny a convicted terrorist a Canadian passport: “It seems to me this is in the realm of the arbitrary.”

The one piece of good news is that the judge rejected Mr. Kamel’s request to be “immediately granted a passport.” There remains a possibility that the government may be ordered to give him a passport, even after the legislation is redrafted.

In a time when Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of nonsensical sentences and the revolving door of “justice,” this seems to make the case for the Conservatives agenda of justice reform.

(For more on Fateh Kamel, click the picture above for a link to Radio Canada)




richmond cigarettes online monte carlo cigarettes online regal cigarettes online silk cut cigarettes online mild seven cigarettes prices davidoff cigarettes prices glamour cigarettes prices viceroy cigarettes prices superkings cigarettes prices cheap state express 555 cigarettes pall mall cigarettes online gauloises cigarettes online benson hedges cigarettes online lucky strike cigarettes online winston cigarettes online dunhill cigarettes online more cigarettes online kool cigarettes onlineonline pharmacy without a prescriptionno prescription pharmacy cigarettes cheap canada cigarette coupons buy duty free cigarettes usa buy duty free cigarettes menthol cigarette brands cigarettes online usa order cigarettes online usa where to buy cheap cigarettes online cigarettes usa online cigarettes store reviews buy cigarettes discount price mail order cigarettes buy cigarettes online legal order cigarettes online canada buy cigarette cartons online cigarettes price europebuy viagra australia

Yesterday the adjudicator of the Sponsorship Scandal revisited Ottawa and descried the fact that the government didn’t institute all of his recommended reforms. As it turns out, there were valid reasons for rejection of some of his recommendations. Some of those reasons are outlined in Chantal Hebert’s article in today’s Toronto Star. It is worth reading.

It’s always nice to know that Conservative Government ministers are keeping and eye on what’s going on in our riding. It is a particular comfort to know that our regional minister, Greg Thompson, has his finger on the pulse of what’s taking place here in Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. Here is the latest letter from Min. Thompson on issues reported in the Times & Transcript:

Story declared ‘too one-sided’

To The Editor:

Given our proud heritage and generous nature as Canada’s only officially bilingual province, I feel obliged to set the record straight regarding the recent and destructive article, “Lawyers group wants judges tested” that you published on March 10.

The story — alleging a federal disregard for bilingual judges in New Brunswick — is so politically biased, journalistically one-sided and factually incorrect that it’s hard to believe you allowed it to be printed.

Here are the facts.

During our government’s two years in office, we have appointed six judges to the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in New Brunswick. Of them, two are francophones and a third — Justice Richard Bell — is an eminent judge recognized for being equally comfortable hearing cases and rendering written verdicts in either French or English. Further, his appointment to the bench was immediately lauded by New Brunswick’s legal fraternity — including the province’s current minister of justice.

In short, half of our judicial appointees are bilingual — in a province where 30 per cent of the population is francophone. How is that a disregard for our linguistic duality? How is that failing francophone New Brunswickers?

But the reporter blindly accepts the partisan rants of Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc without seeking any balance from our government. The reporter blindly accepts the allegations from the province’s association of francophone lawyers that there is a greater backlog in French cases than English — even though the group’s president Anik Bossé readily admits it has no evidence to support its claims.

And, the reporter blindly accepts the association’s claim that, because the federal government doesn’t track court backlogs along linguistic lines, that we must not value a bilingual bench. This is beyond absurd. If the reporter had taken the time to call the office of my colleague, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, he would have discovered that the tracking of cases is solely a provincial responsibility.

But here is one final fact: We have also recently appointed a distinguished New Brunswick judge to the military judges compensation committee. His name is Guy A. Richard — and the former chief justice is not only a francophone, he is also Mr. LeBlanc’s father-in-law.

We are proud of our record for appointing the most qualified judges on the basis of merit and legal excellence. And we have done so with full regard for our province’s cultural makeup — no matter where the appointees come from or their political ties. We just wish your newspaper was equally fair.

Greg Thompson,
Minister, Veterans Affairs and Regional Minister for New Brunswick,
Ottawa, Ont.

Well done and well said Mr. Minister! We appreciate your attentiveness to your region and the fairness of our media in particular.

The Liberals finally picked up on the “NAFTAgate” controversy after a couple of days of questions from the NDP’s Jack Layton. As the Prime Minister has said, this is a serious situation and he has launched a full investigation into the source of the leak.

That being said, there is no tangible benefit to “the Prime Minister’s Republican friends in the US” as the Liberals claim. In fact, the one person who has exploited the fact that Barak Obama got caught in doublespeak is Hillary Clinton! We have yet to hear the Liberal opposition claiming that the Prime Minister is supporting the Hillary Clinton campaign by intentionally leaking diplomatic conversations. It must be remembered that comments the PM’s chief of staff Ian Brodie allegedly made to reporters implicated the Clinton campaign, not Barak Obama.

Once again we see the Liberals content to mix up the details into some sort of witches brew of slime. As it was recently revealed on Mike Duffy live however, questions about Barak Obama’s sincerity in trashing NAFTA were hardly new or revelatory.

While interviewing deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff on Mike Duffy Live, March 10, 2008, Mr. Duffy made the following statement:

“In our research, Austan Goolsbee who is the distinguished economic professor in Chicago who spoke to our Consul General, turns out he was on the Larry Kudlow show on CNBC television, and talked about all this long before we ever ran it.”

In fact Mr. Goolsbee (pictured above) was questioned not once, but twice, on CNBC about Barak Obama’s sincerity in trashing NAFTA. That brings into question just how serious this “leak” is, and if so, why does Mr. Obama’s economist have to keep propping him up in public?

There is no question that our relationship with the US is tremendously important. Given the past performance of the Liberals however, the Conservatives need not take lessons from that party on keeping things warm and fuzzy.