Welcome back everyone, it has been a while since my last post on the Ground Zero community centre/prayer space. Today I'm going to veer away from American politics for a moment to talk about campus politics, and the radicals from OPIRG - the Ontario "Public Interest" Research Group. This is an organization that pledges to advance society and is dedicated to ridding our culture of racism and discrimination. Sounds great! Problem is, the only interests they are looking out for are those that fall in line with the Marxist-Leninist or Socialist philosophies. In this post, I'm going to concentrate on a specific project OPIRG helps put together every year; Israeli Apartheid Week.
For those who have not heard of Israeli Apartheid Week (or IAW), it is a borderline anti-semitic week packed full of events explaining why Israel does not deserve the right to exist. As a strong proponent of free speech, I have no problem with them presenting their side of the argument. Where I DO take issue with OPIRG and IAW supporters though, is their unwillingness to denounce any other nations that commit more serious human rights infractions. For instance, they applaud countries like Syria and Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia, who are some of the worst human rights offenders on the Planet. In Saudi Arabia, anyone that is not Muslim is not even allowed to enter the city of Mecca, or the city of Medina. There are morality police who ensure certain laws are followed, such as women requiring a male presence when they are outside, or having to cover themselves completely. Or how about punishing thieves but cutting their hands off? But do we see anything from OPIRG on this front? Or course not. They are pre-occupied demonizing Israel for firing missiles into Gaza in self defense. They cry out that they are firing at civilians, when in fact, it has been shown that Israel calculates to a T where they fire their missiles, while Hamas will fire missiles wherever they see fit. Yet no word on that from OPIRG or SAIA (Students Against Israeli Apartheid - their sister organization).
OPIRG's advocacy for human rights shoould be a mission praised for its determination. However, their inability to put politics aside, has severely hurt their reputation. Not only on the IAW front (the most recognizable), but also when their President stood in solidarity with the individual who blew up an RBC branch in Ottawa, Ontario this past year in advance of the G8 and G20 summits in Canada, or when they claim ALL right-wingers are racist, homophobic bigots who only care about the rich and are trying to take over the world in some wide spread conspiracy. It is too bad an organization with such a great name and message has alienated the vast majority of the Canadian population, and has made their organization one of the discriminatory forces they claim to fight against.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to read another post of RightForever, and remember, please continue to comment, follow the blog, and re-post it on Facebook and Twitter.
Cheers,
RightForever
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque
Alright everybody, it's been a while since I've posted something and I figured it was a good time to write about the Ground Zero Mosque, seeing as it is the topic du jour (or du mois, considering it has been so intense for a while now).
For starters, I'm going to let everyone know that I (evidently) don't believe this mosque should be built at Ground Zero. There are numerous reasons for this. However, it being "insensitive" is not one of them.
My first reason, has to be the fact that the Imam who is leading this project is a radical extreme fundamentalist. He sympathizes alongside those that bombed the towers in the beginning. He believes the American government had a hand in the attacks of September 11th. He has opined that America needs to be more "Shariah compliant". This is a man who's father was a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood (a radical fundamentalist organization that has been linked to terrorist attacks). I firmly believe that the government needs to step in and explain that a man who respects the country he lives in so little, has no right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Whether or not he owns it, is not an issue as so many point out. There is a legitimate case to be made that he could potentially be a threat to national security, and his teachings could foster anti-American and pro-terrorist sentiments.
Secondly, the sheer irony that the people building this mosque insist on the fact that Islam is an incredibly tolerant religion; yet they do not allow ANY person that is not Muslim into the cities of Medina and Mecca (their two most holy places). If Christians or Jewish people attempted to build a Church or Synagogue in those cities, they would be laughed at. So why we would allow a mosque at such a sacred location for America, is beyond me.
Finally, the flawed logic of the people organizing this mosque's construction, shows why they should not be permitted to put a mosque on these grounds. When asked what they thought of a potential gay bar across the street from their mosque, they said they would fight it, stating that it would be insensitive to their religion. This hypocrisy and ignorance is exactly why that mosque should not be built. Now, remember (this is for the Left-wingers who won't be able to keep up), I'm not saying the insensitivity is the reason it shouldn't be built, I'm saying it's their own beliefs that should prevent them from building there.
So, all in all, there are legal means to stop this project, and there are certainly other legitimate reasons to prevent this project from progressing any further. I hope Obama will step in and do something about it, besides release a statement and then backtrack on it the next day. I won't hold my breath though. I would have no problem with this mosque going up somewhere else, with a different Imam, but as it stands, it is clear to me that this mosque is wrong.
And remember everyone, please follow, comment and recommend to your friends and family.
God Bless,
RightForever
For starters, I'm going to let everyone know that I (evidently) don't believe this mosque should be built at Ground Zero. There are numerous reasons for this. However, it being "insensitive" is not one of them.
My first reason, has to be the fact that the Imam who is leading this project is a radical extreme fundamentalist. He sympathizes alongside those that bombed the towers in the beginning. He believes the American government had a hand in the attacks of September 11th. He has opined that America needs to be more "Shariah compliant". This is a man who's father was a devout member of the Muslim Brotherhood (a radical fundamentalist organization that has been linked to terrorist attacks). I firmly believe that the government needs to step in and explain that a man who respects the country he lives in so little, has no right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Whether or not he owns it, is not an issue as so many point out. There is a legitimate case to be made that he could potentially be a threat to national security, and his teachings could foster anti-American and pro-terrorist sentiments.
Secondly, the sheer irony that the people building this mosque insist on the fact that Islam is an incredibly tolerant religion; yet they do not allow ANY person that is not Muslim into the cities of Medina and Mecca (their two most holy places). If Christians or Jewish people attempted to build a Church or Synagogue in those cities, they would be laughed at. So why we would allow a mosque at such a sacred location for America, is beyond me.
Finally, the flawed logic of the people organizing this mosque's construction, shows why they should not be permitted to put a mosque on these grounds. When asked what they thought of a potential gay bar across the street from their mosque, they said they would fight it, stating that it would be insensitive to their religion. This hypocrisy and ignorance is exactly why that mosque should not be built. Now, remember (this is for the Left-wingers who won't be able to keep up), I'm not saying the insensitivity is the reason it shouldn't be built, I'm saying it's their own beliefs that should prevent them from building there.
So, all in all, there are legal means to stop this project, and there are certainly other legitimate reasons to prevent this project from progressing any further. I hope Obama will step in and do something about it, besides release a statement and then backtrack on it the next day. I won't hold my breath though. I would have no problem with this mosque going up somewhere else, with a different Imam, but as it stands, it is clear to me that this mosque is wrong.
And remember everyone, please follow, comment and recommend to your friends and family.
God Bless,
RightForever
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Breaking News: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional
Welcome back everyone,
This is a big day on the American political scene. At about 1:26 pm PST (so 4:26 for us on the East Coast), Drudge reported that at about 2 pm PST (5 pm here), the judge presiding over the Prop 8 case (the referendum banning gay marriage in the State of California) would strike the referendum from the law books. Controversial to say the least. RightForever will break it down for you.
Proposition 8 was introduced to the ballot in California in 2008, after a mass of signatures was amassed by thousands of volunteers state wide. It was a motion to ban the practice and recognition of same-sex marriage in California. The people of California voted to pass the referendum question with over 52% of the vote. This is saying a lot in a year where the most liberal President in the history of the United States swept the elections for the Democrats. Now, here at RightForever, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of same sex civil unions with equal benefits as marriage. My beef with this judge comes down to them defying the people of their State and acting as an activist and not as an upholder of the Constitution.
For beginners, the fact that this even needs to go to Court is absurd. The State of California already put this proposition through purest form of democracy (a referendum voted on by its CITIZENS). This means a majority of Californians agree with what happened, regardless of who spent what money on whichever television stations. For a judge to overrule the people he is supposed to protect by upholding the law is abhorrent. Furthermore, for him to justify it on based on constitutional grounds is beyond laughable. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution included NOTHING on the concept of marriage, simply because they never, in their wildest dreams, imagined that 250 or so years later, people would actually believe in gay marriage. The same goes for such things as abortion. This is because the United Stated of America is a country founded on Judeo-CHRISTIAN values. And should anyone believe that Christianity believes in the concept of gay marriage, there is no form of treatment that can correct the illness you have. Perhaps if this judge admitted that he made his decision based on his own notion of fairness (even though that would be a blatant violation of the standards of his job), I would be able to respect him for his bravery. But hiding behind the Constitution in a matter that would make the founders sick, is an insult to not only the peopole of California, but the men who fought for the founding of the USA.
But hey, what can we expect from a State that gave us the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Babara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Arnold Schwartzenegger (possibly the biggest RINO - Republican In Name Only - the Republicans have ever seen)? And if you listen close enough, I'll you can hear the Founders rolling over in their graves at this very moment.
Another example of the most biased judges in the country, using their power to push the agenda on the people, who want no part of it. Shocker isn't it? Seems like this judge was following the lead of the Democrats on Arizona and Health Care.
Cheers,
RightForever
This is a big day on the American political scene. At about 1:26 pm PST (so 4:26 for us on the East Coast), Drudge reported that at about 2 pm PST (5 pm here), the judge presiding over the Prop 8 case (the referendum banning gay marriage in the State of California) would strike the referendum from the law books. Controversial to say the least. RightForever will break it down for you.
Proposition 8 was introduced to the ballot in California in 2008, after a mass of signatures was amassed by thousands of volunteers state wide. It was a motion to ban the practice and recognition of same-sex marriage in California. The people of California voted to pass the referendum question with over 52% of the vote. This is saying a lot in a year where the most liberal President in the history of the United States swept the elections for the Democrats. Now, here at RightForever, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of same sex civil unions with equal benefits as marriage. My beef with this judge comes down to them defying the people of their State and acting as an activist and not as an upholder of the Constitution.
For beginners, the fact that this even needs to go to Court is absurd. The State of California already put this proposition through purest form of democracy (a referendum voted on by its CITIZENS). This means a majority of Californians agree with what happened, regardless of who spent what money on whichever television stations. For a judge to overrule the people he is supposed to protect by upholding the law is abhorrent. Furthermore, for him to justify it on based on constitutional grounds is beyond laughable. The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution included NOTHING on the concept of marriage, simply because they never, in their wildest dreams, imagined that 250 or so years later, people would actually believe in gay marriage. The same goes for such things as abortion. This is because the United Stated of America is a country founded on Judeo-CHRISTIAN values. And should anyone believe that Christianity believes in the concept of gay marriage, there is no form of treatment that can correct the illness you have. Perhaps if this judge admitted that he made his decision based on his own notion of fairness (even though that would be a blatant violation of the standards of his job), I would be able to respect him for his bravery. But hiding behind the Constitution in a matter that would make the founders sick, is an insult to not only the peopole of California, but the men who fought for the founding of the USA.
But hey, what can we expect from a State that gave us the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Babara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Arnold Schwartzenegger (possibly the biggest RINO - Republican In Name Only - the Republicans have ever seen)? And if you listen close enough, I'll you can hear the Founders rolling over in their graves at this very moment.
Another example of the most biased judges in the country, using their power to push the agenda on the people, who want no part of it. Shocker isn't it? Seems like this judge was following the lead of the Democrats on Arizona and Health Care.
Cheers,
RightForever
Monday, August 2, 2010
Financial Regulation Bill
Hello everyone,
I just want to preface this (my first post on an actual issue) by saying, I've posted a poll on my homepage. It will run until election day this year (November 2nd). I want you guys to tell me what you think of the current President, by grading him on a scale of A-F.
As most of us who follow American politics know by now, the financial regulation bill has passed through both chambers of Congress and has been signed into law by the President.
Many have been touting the accomplishments of this bill, raving about the success that is to come with the passage of this hitorical legislation. However, what does this bill really accomplish? Does it really address the source of the financial meltdown of 2008? Of course it doesn't. What it DOES do, however, is give the Federal Government the power to pick and choose winners and losers. Here's how:
First, the bill regulates certain sectors of the economy. When one sector begins to falter (as is always the case with regulation), this bill will give the Federal Government the power to bail out whichever companies it deems too big to fail. The scariest part of it all though, is that there is no concrete measure as to what is too big to fail. For example, if company A employs 5500 people and generates $1.5 million per year, and company B employs 4000 people and generates $750,000 per year, there is nothing to ensure that company A receives the bailout funds (although the merits of bailouts in the first place is also debatable). Now, it is not certain that the President or administration WILL be corrupt with bailout funds; but it nonetheless LEAVES ROOM for them to do so. And I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the administration's bandwagon when it comes to trusting them with bailout funds. These are the same people (Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Barack Obama, etc.) that helped Goldman Sachs through the tough economic times of 2008, while letting Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapse. Seems fishy to me, and now they only have more power.
Anywho, let us return to the point about whether or not it addresses the real source of the 2008 collapse. Many people will be reading this saying, "Oh well sure, it regualtes the banks and derivative markets, those are what really helped the economy plunge". Well, not quite. Dig deeper folks. You'll find that the real source of the disaster was the collapse of the housing market, caused primarily by....FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Yes, that's right, the GOVERNMENT! How so you may be asking? Well, the government used those two firms to provide lower income families with affordable mortgages. This forced the private sector to also lower their rates. So, they did...on the surface. At those rates, however, they could not make money handing out those mortgages, so they gave low rates at first and would jack the rates higher later on. This led to the subprime crisis. Do you think the government will admit to that? Gosh no.
So when it comes to the regulation bill, don't you think that the source of the biggest mortgage crisis in American history should be regulated? Of course not. I don't either, because it's the REGULATION that caused the mess in the first place. There we have it, government has shown us first hand why we shouldn't overzealously regulate the economy, right before signing regulation into law. This is just one example of why Americans NEED to shift control of Congress 92 days from now.
Cheers,
RightForever
I just want to preface this (my first post on an actual issue) by saying, I've posted a poll on my homepage. It will run until election day this year (November 2nd). I want you guys to tell me what you think of the current President, by grading him on a scale of A-F.
As most of us who follow American politics know by now, the financial regulation bill has passed through both chambers of Congress and has been signed into law by the President.
Many have been touting the accomplishments of this bill, raving about the success that is to come with the passage of this hitorical legislation. However, what does this bill really accomplish? Does it really address the source of the financial meltdown of 2008? Of course it doesn't. What it DOES do, however, is give the Federal Government the power to pick and choose winners and losers. Here's how:
First, the bill regulates certain sectors of the economy. When one sector begins to falter (as is always the case with regulation), this bill will give the Federal Government the power to bail out whichever companies it deems too big to fail. The scariest part of it all though, is that there is no concrete measure as to what is too big to fail. For example, if company A employs 5500 people and generates $1.5 million per year, and company B employs 4000 people and generates $750,000 per year, there is nothing to ensure that company A receives the bailout funds (although the merits of bailouts in the first place is also debatable). Now, it is not certain that the President or administration WILL be corrupt with bailout funds; but it nonetheless LEAVES ROOM for them to do so. And I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the administration's bandwagon when it comes to trusting them with bailout funds. These are the same people (Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Barack Obama, etc.) that helped Goldman Sachs through the tough economic times of 2008, while letting Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns collapse. Seems fishy to me, and now they only have more power.
Anywho, let us return to the point about whether or not it addresses the real source of the 2008 collapse. Many people will be reading this saying, "Oh well sure, it regualtes the banks and derivative markets, those are what really helped the economy plunge". Well, not quite. Dig deeper folks. You'll find that the real source of the disaster was the collapse of the housing market, caused primarily by....FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC. Yes, that's right, the GOVERNMENT! How so you may be asking? Well, the government used those two firms to provide lower income families with affordable mortgages. This forced the private sector to also lower their rates. So, they did...on the surface. At those rates, however, they could not make money handing out those mortgages, so they gave low rates at first and would jack the rates higher later on. This led to the subprime crisis. Do you think the government will admit to that? Gosh no.
So when it comes to the regulation bill, don't you think that the source of the biggest mortgage crisis in American history should be regulated? Of course not. I don't either, because it's the REGULATION that caused the mess in the first place. There we have it, government has shown us first hand why we shouldn't overzealously regulate the economy, right before signing regulation into law. This is just one example of why Americans NEED to shift control of Congress 92 days from now.
Cheers,
RightForever
Welcome to RightForever
Hello everyone!!
I cannot explain how excited I am right now to be kicking off my political blog RightForever here on blogger.com. I have been debating whether or not I should write a blog for some time now, and figured that with the current political atmosphere in the USA, and election day looming; now was a better time than any to start up a blog.
This blog will come from a Conservative perspective and will be about political commentary, rather than political journalism. It will discuss primarily American politics, and may include (now and then) some Canadian content (after all I do live in Toronto, Ontario).
So, please invite everyone you know, no matter what end of the political spectrum they may be on. I'm sure that discussion on here will be lively, as I've been told I can be a pretty controversial and inflammatory personnality.
I hope you all enjoy.
Cheers,
Jon/RightForever
I cannot explain how excited I am right now to be kicking off my political blog RightForever here on blogger.com. I have been debating whether or not I should write a blog for some time now, and figured that with the current political atmosphere in the USA, and election day looming; now was a better time than any to start up a blog.
This blog will come from a Conservative perspective and will be about political commentary, rather than political journalism. It will discuss primarily American politics, and may include (now and then) some Canadian content (after all I do live in Toronto, Ontario).
So, please invite everyone you know, no matter what end of the political spectrum they may be on. I'm sure that discussion on here will be lively, as I've been told I can be a pretty controversial and inflammatory personnality.
I hope you all enjoy.
Cheers,
Jon/RightForever
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)