Mar 232017
 

The Scream

Make no mistake: Our Islamophobic politicians are those most responsible for fostering the make-believe phobia against which they are passing “Motions.” The “motions” themselves are cause enough to be rightly concerned. This concern is entirely rational and appropriate. It is in no way “phobic.”

The constant “anti-Islamophobia” rhetoric generated by those in the legislature and in parliament has itself become a great threat. Since our MPPs and MPs appear unwilling to speak out against the very real threat of Islam’s political agenda, they have instead directed their efforts towards motions and agendas calculated to keep informed voices to a minimum, if not entirely silenced.

Fortunately, not every political party or its leader is “Islamophobic.” There is one political party and leader with the courage to publicly say what desperately needs to be said: Freedom Party and its leader Paul McKeever who is our guest today on Just Right. Continue reading »

496 – Rapid transit bullShift – When ‘A’ is not ‘A’

 Comments Off on 496 – Rapid transit bullShift – When ‘A’ is not ‘A’
Mar 162017
 

Bus

“Shift” is the name of the City of London Ontario’s plan to spend well over half a billion (federal/provincial/municipal) tax dollars on a “Rapid Transit” system.

Supporters of Shift say the Rapid Transit service is “more than a people mover,” as the headline in the Mar 11 London Free Press expressed it. It is municipal council’s “vision for London’s future” and is fundamentally based on the “build-it-and-they-will-come” theory. A key component of this vision of the future is to get us all to leave our cars in favor of public transit, biking, and walking (as literally expressed in the Shift plan).

“Down Shift” is the name of an association of downtown London merchants who have formed to oppose the city’s “Shift.”

Ironically, these same merchants are also “members” of another “association” called the London Downtown Business Association (LDBA). When they turned to the LDBA for help, they discovered that their “association” is no such thing! Continue reading »

Mar 022017
 

Amir Farahi

Armed with the courage of his convictions, Londoner Amir Farahi has launched an on-line petition, No to London, Ontario becoming a Sanctuary City, which has caused a sea of controversy in the city.

At some point, we have to stand up to the politically-correct, social-constructivist, post-modernist society that we have today. If you oppose an idea that doesn’t meet the agenda of those who call themselves ‘progressives’ – especially if you are male and white – you are automatically ‘privileged,’ you are automatically a ‘white supremacist’…

I don’t care how politically risky it is. I will stand firm.

On today’s Just Right, Amir shares some of his experiences in having become London Ontario’s principal and principled voice against the city’s motion to become a “sanctuary” for those fleeing the United States. Politically precipitated by US president Trump’s travel/immigration restrictions against seven nations (among them, Iran), Amir objects to London’s setting up any kind of “sanctuary” – from just laws.

An Iranian immigrant himself, Amir has found himself opposed by various “Marxist organizations,” including members of the Occupy Movement, Solidarity Across Borders, No One Is Illegal In London, and even a fan of Vladimir Lenin who accused him of being a ‘traitor to this country’ for opposing the sanctuary proposal. And of course, there’s the usual gang of city hall politicians and administrators who regularly seek sanctuary from the opinions of their voters. Continue reading »

Feb 232017
 

Uber

In the city of London Ontario last week, a 7-6 municipal council vote defeating a motion to force cameras into vehicles driven by Uber drivers was seen as a victory for the ride-sharing company. But the conflict between the taxi “industry” and the Uber “ride sharing service” is certainly far from over.

Vowing to “regroup” after the municipal vote setback, Roger Caranci of the London Taxi Association has been single-mindedly pushing a “safety first” justification for continuing the local taxi monopoly and maintaining the limit on the number of taxis permitted to operate in the city. It is a strategy that has remained unchanged since his first live on-air debate with Bob Metz in 2015, through his second live debate with Bob in 2016 and through his live appearance on talk radio following the municipal vote last week.

On today’s broadcast of Just Right, you’ll get to hear their on-going debate in a way that will leave no doubts in your mind about the one huge taboo topic that Mr. Caranci and the taxi industry fear most: any discussion of taxi limits.

Refusing to discuss limits forces the discussion to one of irrelevant distractions employed to keep everyone’s attention away from the limits.

The good news is that Caranci’s defence of the taxi monopoly using his “safety first” spin has begun to wear thin with the public and with London city councillors alike. Without his “safety” shield, Caranci may find himself in a very vulnerable position in terms of his own credibility. We can hardly wait to see what his next monopoly rationalization will be, after he “regroups” with the industry that has hired him to protect it from competition.

It’s time to end the limits – both on the number of taxi drivers allowed, and on the debate itself. Setting both free from their limits would be Just Right by us.

Feb 092017
 

SCOTUS

GIVE US SANCTUARY – from Virtue Signalers

“By nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, (U.S. president) Trump selected a person who places the idea of limited government and freedom as the number one issue in his legal philosophy,” notes our guest Salim Mansur on today’s broadcast of Just Right.

As a judge who would keep a president in check, Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court would make completely foolish any claim that Trump is a “fascist” or some other term describing a totalitarian.

Then there was the “so-called judge,” in Trump’s terms, who inappropriately quashed his executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from seven countries identified as sources of Islamist terrorism. Not only was Trump’s executive order perfectly appropriate and within his legitimate authority, the countries cited under the immigration ban were chosen with good reason, explains Salim.

Six of the seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan and Somalia) that have had their immigration rights suspended are failed states. “In other words,” explains Salim, “they have no institutional governments working.” The seventh country (Iran) has been in a declared state of war with the United States for the past 38 years.

All were identified and well documented as problematic by the previous administration. Trump did not add any new nations to the already established list. The previous administration well knew that it was not possible to verify or identify immigrants from these areas – yet did nothing to prevent them from emigrating to sanctuary jurisdictions. Continue reading »

Jan 262017
 

Trump oath

In keeping with past Inauguration addresses made by American presidents, Donald Trump‘s Inauguration Address last Friday turned out to be very presidential indeed.

Criticized as being a “dark speech” the likes of which has never been heard before, it would be more accurate to suggest that Trump’s Inaugural Address followed a tradition that has been a presidential practice since the days of John Adams, the second president of the United States.

The parallels are striking and are part of the conversation on today’s Just Right, along with our point-by-point analysis of some key essentials in Trump’s address. Could Donald Trump’s address be resurrecting the symbolic “ghost” of John Adams?

“A nation exists to serve its citizens,” Trump declared, in stark contrast to the opposing philosophy that has been running the White House since the days of John F Kennedy.

Under Trump’s “America first” agenda, is “Buy American” an un-American slogan? Can trade restrictions and import/export taxes possibly benefit the general welfare, or are they simply a continuation of crony politics that benefit the few at the expense of the many? Continue reading »