Are we a "front" for the Conservative Party of Canada?

Some would say this. See today's posting, on the freaks inc. site.

We want to see a Conservative Canada

While we have taken a few, what we feel are deserved kicks at the Conservative Party of Canada, our recent retreat made decisions which would align us closely, but informally, with this political party. See the posting at freaks inc. United for a Conservative Canada.

Freaks on Retreat. A Manifesto. Of sorts.

Where do we go from here?
It’s been a little under a month since our first Freak blog was published. Since then, we have grown to 12 blogs which are linked through our freaks inc. site. Now is the time to put our feet into the ocean for a few days to see where we go from here. So, as of tomorrow, April 14, there will be no postings until about April 19 as all the Freaks associated with all the sites go on retreat. We will be asking ourselves these questions, among others:
1. Do we continue as blogs or go to a full Web site? Or, both?
2. Will all the Freaks, from all the blogs, join in the upcoming election to lobby against all those politicians who support Bill C-17? Or, do we concentrate our efforts on the Liberals and the NDP and ignore the Bloc and the Conservatives? (If we go after the Bloc, we will have to recruit a French speaking Freak.) And, do we really want to go after the Conservatives? Truth be told, although we have picked on the Conservatives along with all the other parties, most of the Freaks are supportive of the Conservative Party. If this party wins the next election, we are sure they won’t be as anxious to support the spread of non-medical drugs, as are the other political parties. Or, do we remain completely apolitical?
3. How much money do we pour into the upcoming election campaign? Do we try to raise some cash? How many Freaks will put their lives on hold to fight this campaign?
4. How do we fight the campaign? Do we use news releases and telephone interviews with media that are situated within the targeted ridings, as well as updates to our blogs or web page (the latter depends on the time we have before an election to get a Web page up) or do we also use billboards and other mass advertising? This, of course, depends on our finances and would probably necessitate some fund raising. Are there any rich Freaks (or not Freaks) out there, who support our fight against the spread of non-medical drugs, such as pot?
5. Will we finally have an Executive Director to co-ordinate all our FAD (Freaks Against Drugs) business? It is important to have a "front man" for all media contacts. We have two Freaks here who are capable and have the experience to do this, but they are a bit leery of becoming front men because of some of the language, in the past, used on many of our sites. Not only what we have said, but how we have said it is bothersome to both of them. Each site is independent of the other and even within sites, particularly the FAD site, there is more than one person posting. If we are to be taken more seriously, our candidates for Executive Director have said that all postings (at least on the FAD sites) would have to be cleared by them. Some of our more anarchist Freaks have a problem with this.
6. Do we disband? Say, "it was nice to get our feelings out but, there is more to life..." and just let the country go to pot?
7. That’s about it. If you have feedback, please email us at freaksinc2@hotmail.com.
8. Until next week, this is Peter wishing you peace. Freak peace

What a few (very few) Conservatives would like to see for Canada

If the few Conservatives who support the spread of non-medical drugs in Canada get their way, the picture below will be lived out in our nation's villages, towns and cities. Our youth, pumping their veins full of drugs. Using abandoned building, alleyways and even back yards.

Conservatives receive only passing mark. They get a C.

Only the Conservatives receive a passing mark in our first Drug Report Card. They would have done much better except for their position of compromising to ensure that the Liberal Party's pro-pot bill passes without any fanfare. They will probably do better after the election if they, or the voters, drop the pro-pot candidates. Click this link to see the complete report card.

Thanks to a few Conservatives...

Please, don't click on this link one hour before a meal. Or, until at least an hour after your meal. It's not a pretty sight. But it's something we will see more of if the handful of Conservatives press ahead with softening Canada's drug laws. (Thankfully, most Conservatives are against softening our drug laws, but there are a few who aren't. You'll find them on this site.)

Conservatives Compromise for Victory!

In an email from Conservative Drugged Critic (Randy White), it appears that the Conservatives are quite willing to compromise true conservative principles in order to form the next government. Our earlier posting suggested this (under the sub-heading, "Double Thumbs Down") and now we have the proof. So, is there a choice in the coming election? Yes, if this bill doesn't pass because Stephen Harper has woken up and pulled the plug on the Liberals. But then, he doesn't want to see an election until the Same Sex Marriage bill passes; then he can blame it on the Liberals. The last thing he wants is to form a minority government and have to fight the same sex business all over again. (Personally, we couldn't care less about the same sex bill, as the link to this posting shows.) Harper may not be a charismatic politician, but he is an extremely intelligent one. And he is not about to come out, or instruct Mr. White to come all out, and oppose Bill C-17, the first step on the road to legal pot. The less they stir up the waters, the better; not opposing the bill too loudly, they feel, will mean more votes for them. If Bill C-17 dies because of an election, however, you can be sure (?) that the Conservatives will not introduce a similar bill(?)

How do the other parties look on the issue?

The Liberals are at this link. The Bloc are here. Check out the NDP here.

Paranoid Conservatives Respond to Survey.

The Conservatives should have stuck with the PC label. Because, they definitely are, "Paranoid Conservatives." While 8 of them responded (without answering the questions) four of them wanted to know "what is your organization?" They were the only party that asked that question. What are they afraid of? Somebody trying to trick them? Trick them how? Don't all Canadians deserve to know where the party stands on the issues, regardless of who they are? Or, perhaps the party isn't sure itself? Of all the political parties, the Conservatives were also the only party whose leader responded. If you can call a computer generated response a reply. One of the other replies said they would refer my request to Randy White, "as our spokesman on this issue." We're still waiting.

Thumbs up and down, to Conservatives

Thumbs Up:
While 93 Conservatives voted against Bill C-17, six MPs never bothered to vote. However, the Conservatives do support legalizing some pot. (Check this link.)

Thumbs Down:
The six MPs who must have been sick or had a family emergency (at least we'll give them the benefit of the doubt for another week), and therefore didn't vote are: Ken Epp (Edmonton-Sherwood Park, Alberta), Brian Pallister (Portage-Lisgar, Manitoba), Joy Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul, Manitoba), Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, B.C.), Chuck Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, B.C.), and Randy White (Abbotsford, B.C.). Unless we hear from these MPs by April 12, we'll put them down as supporting Bill C-17 (first step to legalizing pot.)

Double Thumbs Down:
Okay, so Randy White didn't vote. (Maybe he was sick or had a family emergency.) But, what bothers us even more, is that he hasn't even responded to our survey or even had the decency to inform us of the official Conservative position on Bill C-17. (As much as we knock the other parties for their support of the bill, at least one of them, the NDP, was quick off the mark to respond to our survey.) In reading Mr. White's remarks on Bill C-17 during debate on the first reading in parliament, one gets the sneaky suspicion that the Conservatives are going for changes to the bill in committee hearings (and thus support the bill) even though they, in a parliamentary vote, are against the bill. But, they feel the final vote is a done deal (so let's just go for some changes) and hey, they want to form the next government. So, it's best to keep quiet about most contentious issues except Same-Sex legislation. (Here's our link on that one. If you want to get the views of one group of Christians, check out the link to our friends at FIG, Freaks into God. Even if we differ, we think they have a valid point, at least for them.)