Even I don't always agree with my opinion

 

Merry Fucking Christmas, Helena

0
Posted December 23, 2011 by jim young in Politics

Hey – Helena started it when she announced “Happy fucking birthday to me” after her meltdown in P.E.I. in February of 2010.

So now I just want to wish Helena a Merry Fucking Christmas to go along with it.

Just days before Christmas, Guergis has filed a $1.3 million law suit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party and lots of others in a shotgun attempt at trying to hold everyone but herself accountable for her own actions over the past few years.

Give it a rest Helena.

At a press conference last April, Guergis was quoted as saying,”by (the constituents of Simcoe-Grey) re-electing me it will send a very strong message that they will not tolerate such unacceptable behaviour from our political leadership in Canada.”

Well guess what, Helena? Once again, as was clearly shown at the polls, you were wrong.

(That is not to suggest the constituents of Simcoe-Grey would accept “unacceptable behaviour…” but rather they just didn’t buy Guergis’ point of view.)

It’s bad enough that Canadians will have to pay $100,000 a year to Helena for her retirement when she reaches the age of 55 even though she was fired from Cabinet, but now Guergis expects Canadians to cough up $1.3 million dollars PLUS legal costs to go along with that?

(The official record is that Helena resigned, but we all know the truth and by her own admission in the Peter Mansbridge interview – Guergis was effectively fired.)

 

Note to Helena:

You can’t blame your temper-tantrum in P.E.I. on the Prime Minster or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame your husband, Rahim Jaffer’s arrest for drinking and driving and possession of cocaine (he was subsequently acquitted after pleading guilty to a lesser charge) on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame the conflict of interest that you had with your cousin Tony Geurgis in the “Wright Tech Systems Affair” on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame your neglect to declare the purchase of your house in Ottawa with a 100% mortgage with no down-payment on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame your claim for clothing purchases as “election expenses” on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame your staffers’ letters of support to local papers without proper disclosure on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

And you can’t blame your husband Rahim Jaffer’s use of your email and office for business purposes while your were an MP on the Prime Minister or the others named in the lawsuit.

So what exactly is the thrust of Helena’s lawsuit? That her “reputation” has been tarnished? Shouldn’t Guergis, herself and her husband Rahim Jaffer be named in the lawsuit?

Wasn’t it Helena herself who whined that the Prime Minister was not telling even HER what the allegations were?

Allegations that – on the one hand Guergis said she didn’t know what they were – but on the other hand claimed they were “baseless and unfounded?”

How did she know they were “baseless and unfounded” if she didn’t know what they were.

But then Helena likes to play both sides doesn’t she?

Is it really appropriate for the former Minister of the State for the Status of Women to cry crocodile tears to solicit sympathy as she so often does in her interviews?

Or to make a statement such as “It was no secret for the entire time that I was dealing with this mess that I was pregnant…” and even offer up her newborn son to a press conference? Was this intended to be an excuse for her actions or to demonize her critics as if she deserved special consideration due to her pregnancy?

Doesn’t that in fact set the women’s rights movement back?

As President Harry Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat – get out of the kitchen.” Perhaps in Helena’s case it should be “If you can’t stand the heat – get back IN the kitchen.”

With any luck at all, the courts will rule in, just irony, that Helen’s lawsuit is “baseless and unfounded”. And while that may save Canadians $1.3 million dollars off the top, we’ll still be stuck with the legal costs involved to allow Helena to exercise one of her “democratic rights” that she mistakenly believes she has been denied.

– 30 –


0 Comments



Be the first to comment!


Leave a Response