Democrat or Lieberal?- Pick Your Lie and Run with it!

Photos

Democrats and Lieberals?- Pick a Lie and Run with it!

see larger image

uploaded by Barry ORegan

Opinion,
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor

Two hot topics Global Warming and Human Rights, both important, one a "political vote getting favourite" the uniformed blindly choose to believe. Why? Because a Rock Star said so, and a failed Democratic Presidential  candidate confirmed. It has been proven in the media that both do not practice what they preach.  Yet with Evangelical fervor they spout to the wide-eyed masses their "Convenient Lies". 

Human Rights, viewed by all a basic necessity for all human beings, has the Liberal Left picking and choosing what is good for us, instead of following the facts.  True, there are law on the books which state the basic Human Rights we must all follow, much like the criminal courts, judges are supposed to interpret these laws to protect society and public peace, yet for some idiotic reason they consistently hand down really, really lenient  sentences, usually get it wrong every time, much to the publics outrage. Case in point, First Nations, picking and choosing human rights for women who lost their band status and privileges when they marry outside their very close knit community.  How else can one eliminate inbreeding, unless one marries outside their small close knit community?  This is not to say First Nations are inbred, it is just that history  has shown the disastrous political and deadly human costs of forcing a community to keep one's ethnic race or culture pure within  their  own community.  Germany, India, Pakistan, Middle Eastern and Asian Cultures come to mind.

My Final Thought
If we are indeed a Global family, race or culture should have no bearing on who we choose to mate with, unless your a politician who relies on these pure cultures to stay in power.   People need to make informed decisions, based on proven research and not from self professed Icons who like most in positions of power and influence do not practice what they preach, to do otherwise will lead you to Moonie style doctrines. Never take anything for granted until you have all the facts, and then research it some more.

One of the best moments in the recent TV debate amongst the U.S. Democrats running for president was when the candidates were asked about global warming.

Moderator Anderson Cooper didn't ask them what they have to say about the subject -- he asked if they flew on a private jet to the debate.

As pundit Colby Cosh points out, their heads bobbed back and forth as each of them looked to see if the others would admit to it.

Go to http://tinyurl.com/2q8evl to watch the wonderful video.

Alas, as Al Gore and his five homes prove, it's easier to hector others about reducing energy use than to do it oneself.

But the global warming debate is a scam to begin with.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's official group of climate change scientists, states that even if every country in the world followed the Kyoto Protocol to a 'T' for 100 years, the world would not cool off at all.

So while global warming hypocrisy is fun to point out, it really doesn't matter, since mankind's impact on climate is negligible.

But what about something more tangible, about which humans are involved?

Say, human rights law?

There, the hypocrisy from our betters is harder to stomach.

Last week, the Canadian opposition parties banded together and foiled a Conservative bill to make a 30-year-old federal human rights law apply to Canada's Aboriginal reserves.

Frankly, Canada doesn't need the Canadian Human Rights Act. Most human rights matters covered by it and provincial human rights laws can be handled in civil court (employment law already forbids firing someone without cause; landlord and tenant law already forbids kicking out a tenant without cause) or are political matters that should not be governed by laws at all.

But that's a conservative's criticism.

What about the Canadian left, which thought human rights, as enshrined in these busy-body statutes, was the defining test of whether Stephen Harper was fit to govern? Why have they suddenly come out against human rights law applying to Aboriginals?

This is not merely some embarrassing trick, as was Anderson Cooper's question to the U.S. Democrats.

This wasn't a trick at all -- the opposition parties chose to show their hypocrisy.

Here's how the Liberal Party's Anita Neville spun it: "Human rights rammed down a community's throats are not human rights." Really? Why didn't Neville say so when the Liberal Party was imposing their particular vision of gay rights on marriage laws in Canada, over the objections of religious groups?

The fact is, Aboriginal reserves actually need more human rights laws, at least in terms of women's rights.

Many bands are outright sexist when it comes to determining band membership -- women who marry outside of the band lose their status.

That would be fine if Aboriginal bands were private organizations, like an Elks Club or the Catholic Church. But they are funded by the federal government -- surely federal laws should apply to them, if they apply to everyone else.

But perhaps we should look at this as a liberating moment. If the Democratic Party thinks it's OK to fly on private jets, it's probably OK for mere mortals to drive an SUV. And if the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all think that human rights laws are optional, and shouldn't be "rammed down" anyone's throats, we should probably just smile and make note of that admission for when they seek to ram them on us.

[/q]