Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Now how are those foreign trained doctors working out?

Suit cites MDs' errors in loss of stomach No cancer found after surgery removes much of organ

A local woman who says she had much of her stomach removed in 2008 to get rid of a cancer that never existed is suing her surgeon and pathologists at Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital.
In a $1.125-million statement of claim not yet proven in court, Laurie Helen Milosevski says the ulcers in her stomach were wrongly diagnosed as cancer.
Milosevski says she underwent surgery after pathologist Sajid Shukoor wrongly diagnosed her with invasive adenocarcinoma in April 2008.
Surgeon Abdusalem Elalem came to her after the operation and told her she never had cancer after all.
Being told she had cancer "was shocking" and caused her "considerable emotional trauma and upset," says the statement of claim.
Learning after her life-altering surgery she did not have cancer "was even more shocking and caused her additional emotional trauma and upset given that she had in fact undergone unnecessary surgery for a phantom cancer condition which did not exist."
Milosevski says she ended up with an infection at the surgical site and suffered extensive scarring. She developed post-surgical gastritis, and suffers psychological damage to this day, including nervousness and severe depression.
Contacted at her Tecumseh home Tuesday, Milosevski said she'd like to talk about her ordeal, but first wanted to consult her lawyer, who could not be reached.
Milosevski said hers is a "long, sad story" and began to cry.
Milosevski and her husband Zarko are suing Dr. Shukoor, and Dr. Olive Williams, another pathologist who recently resigned after Hotel-Dieu suspended her privileges in the midst of an inquiry into errors in her work.
While Shukoor diagnosed Milosevski with cancer, Williams, who analyzed samples from a second biopsy, said she wasn't sure. Williams suggested the biopsy be repeated since the "atypical cells were suggestive of either dysplasia or carcinoma," according to the lawsuit.
Williams' report, dated April 23, 2008, came just two days before Dr. Elalem performed the gastrectomy on Milosevski. No further biopsy was conducted.
During surgery, Elalem took tissue samples from Milosevski's stomach and himself walked them to the pathology department. A third pathologist, Dr. Yong Nguyen, analyzed the specimens and ruled out cancer, saying the woman suffered from an inflammation of the lining of the stomach.
Nguyen is not named in the lawsuit.
Milosevski is also suing Dr. Earl P. Morgan, the specialist in internal medicine who performed the first biopsy and referred the woman to Elalem. Her suit also names Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital.
Hospital spokeswoman Kim Spirou said the hospital had yet to be served with the lawsuit. According to court documents, it was filed March 26. There is no indication any of the doctors named in the suit have been served.
"Because we haven't been served, we can't comment," Spirou said. Spirou stressed that doctors with privileges at the hospital are independent of the institution. "Often, the hospital gets dropped in these suits," she said.
The hospital launched an investigation into pathology errors last fall. It identified what it called seven "cases of concern." Dr. Gord Vail, Hotel-Dieu's chief of staff, said Tuesday that Milosevski is not one of those cases.
"It's not in our review, so far," Vail said.
With the exception of Williams, all the doctors named in the lawsuit are still active staff at the hospital, Spirou said.
The statement of claim said the hospital did not have protocols to ensure diagnoses were communicated to surgeons. It specifically refers to Williams' report which advised the biopsy be repeated.
But the lawsuit also blames the hospital for allowing Williams to practise in the first place, saying it "knew or ought to have known that Dr. Williams had a history of poor reporting."
The suit says Williams "created a report which was capable of being misunderstood or misconstrued."
All the doctors, says the statement of claim, "had a duty to make a proper diagnosis ... before invasive surgery was carried

http://www.windsorstar.com/story_print.html?id=2746280&sponsor=true

Now how are those foreign doctors working out?

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Dalton's Smarter Brother - Part Deux


Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the darling of the reform-conservative-republican movement really outdid herself last night in Calgary. By addressing Canadian diversity, Ann Coulter said that diversity is not an advantage to a country like Canada. “It’s not a strength”, she continued. Then she went on to compare diversity to cancer. From organizing speeches to putting on cocktails, the Conservative Party’s dirty little fingerprints are all over her Canadian tour.
Will the Prime Minister immediately and publicly condemn Ann Coulter’s outrageous and intolerant views?
Hon. Jay Hill (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, you and the hon. member would know that his question has absolutely nothing to do with the business of government and should be disallowed.
Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the office of the member for South Shore—St. Margaret’s organized a Coulter cocktail. The member of Parliament for Calgary West led the applause last night from his front row seat.
The Prime Minister’s mentor, Rainer Knopff, who co-authored the reckless and divisive firewall letter, co-sponsored the speech and sat there while his guest savaged mainstream Canadian values.
Silence is acquiescence. Either the Prime Minister supports it or he does not. Which is it?
The Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. I do not see that that is a business of government administration. I do see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister rising, so I will give him a chance to answer, but I caution members to keep their questions–
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. David McGuinty: Which is it?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The member for Ottawa South will come to order.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. David McGuinty: Go ahead.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa South will come to order.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister rising to answer the question. I will allow him to do so.
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the member has raised a very important question about an American commentator who has come to this country with some outrageous comments: comments supporting the Iraq war, comments supporting the use of torture, and comments referring to Israel as a war criminal. But enough about the leader of the Liberal Party.

Hansard

 

Friday, March 26, 2010

Want a laugh?

Go here.

Dalton's Smarter Brother

    Mr. Speaker, Ann Coulter, the intellectual leader of the North American reform-conservative-republican movement, has the right to make her views known. In fact it is important for Canadians to be exposed to her obscene, radical and intolerant thinking, which underpins the extreme right.

    Given her views are completely out of step with mainstream Canadian values, will the Prime Minister stand here today and, without equivocation, publicly denounce her views while explaining to Canadians the link between his party and Ann Coulter?

  + -(1450)  
next 
intervention previous 
intervention   [Table of Contents]
    Mr. Speaker, apparently the member is obsessed about importing the views of an American political commentator. That makes sense given that he imported his leader from the same country. If he actually wants to engage in a broader debate about American politics, he has a leader who would be well qualified to do that.

    Speaking of views that are out of touch with mainstream Canadians, that member authored the Liberal carbon tax, which was rejected as a radical job-killing initiative by Canadians.
next 
intervention previous 
intervention   [Table of Contents]
    Mr. Speaker, Ezra Levant, who stepped aside for the Prime Minister and ran his last campaign's war room, sponsored her national tour.

    The University of Ottawa Conservative club organized Tuesday's speech.

    A former PMO and current Conservative assistant planned her reception at the Rideau Club

     Rainer Knopff, co-author of the Prime Minister's firewall letter and a repeat and generous Conservative donor, is organizing tonight's speech in Calgary.

    It is simple. Either the Prime Minister endorses her views or he does not. Which is it?
next 
intervention previous 
intervention   [Table of Contents]
    Mr. Speaker, the member raises a whole group of vitriolic accusations against a government whose fiscal plan many of his members rose to support just the other day. I wonder if he will berate them with the same vitriol as he blames himself for authoring an out-of-touch, radical, job-killing carbon tax, which led to his party's humiliating defeat in the last election.
*   *   *

Hansard

Censored Again!

My original letter, the Windsor Star edition. No censorship here just freedom of the press.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

WOW ! The Canadian Association of University Teachers takes provost Francois Houle out to the shed.

Waterloo Prof: University of Ottawa should be censured

Waterloo Prof: University of Ottawa should be censured

Re: I'm The Victim Of A Hate Crime, Coulter Says, March 23.
The students and the faculty of the University of Ottawa should respectively petition for the resignations of the provost and the president of the student federation. The actions of these two individuals with respect to Ann Coulter's visit to campus have been inimical to the environment of free expression that must characterize any campus. If the members of the university fail to act, then the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) should censure the University for violating the basic mandate of free inquiry that is proper to an institution of higher learning.
Joseph A. Novak, acting chair, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo.

Camel T-shirt

 


Intolerance and Ignorance in Ottawa

 Intolerance and ignorance was displayed by the self righteous self anointed bigoted censors the Canadian Students Federation, under the guise of the University of Ottawa student body. They cowardly acted as boorish thugs creating civil disobedience to silence freedom of speech.
Thought police or censor vigilantes have no place in Canada, regardless if one opposes Ann Coulter, her right to speak and be properly debated was denied by these hooligans.
 I venture to say that these very students are a part of the professional clandestine protesters cabal that hide their identities beneath a balaclava, mask, scarf or any covering used by common criminals. Lacking power to act with legal effectiveness they wreck havoc upon our communities, creating anarchy and wanton damage at the expense of law abiding citizens.
 Violence and intimidation are their only tools - not logic or reason Violence is the last resort of the incompetent and arrogance is their mark.Learn them well, they will be your defense against totalitarianism.
 Their act of self superiority over others has given Canada a black eye on the global stage let alone imposing their will upon others denying freedom and rights. Canadians as a people we are now viewed as hypocrites due to the actions of these few, we can no longer rightfully promote democracy and freedoms when they are not observed and upheld in our land.
We Canadians must show a greater constitution and support our freedoms and rights, one day we might lose them all if we remain silent and passive.
 Simeon George Drakich

Section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

Section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

A person is guilty of an indictable offence and up to two years imprisonment who:

· By threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents, or attempts to obstruct or prevent
a minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in
connection with that calling.

· Or who assaults or offers any violence to a minister or arrests him or her on a civil process, knowing that the minister is about to perform, on the way to perform, or is returning from the performance of clerical duties.

· Or who disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for moral, social or benevolent purpose.

· Or who willfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of religious worship which includes that following behaviour: indecency such as brawling in the church yard, shouting about idolatry during the prayer of consecration in holy Communion, shouting about hypocrisy when certain ministers of state attend divine worship, the loud singing of hymns throughout the service so as to make the officiating cleric's voice inaudible, exhorting participants to leave the service, creating a noise with a loud hailer outside the place of
worship and wearing placards calculated to disturb congregants, refusing to sit in a pew indicated by the ushers and generally, shouting during the service.

Section 176 has been tested constitutionally both in respect to jurisdiction and freedom of expression.

CFS BEHIND ANTI-COULTER MESSAGING

CFS BEHIND ANTI-COULTER MESSAGING

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre - Mark Steyn

Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre
Steynposts
Wednesday, 24 March 2010

I've been traveling for most of the last day and so I'm late getting to the Coulter-cancelled-in-Canada story. Kathy Shaidle has three great round-ups here, here and here. Perhaps my single favourite line came from Kate McMillan:

    See? You can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre after all!

Indeed. If this doesn't kill the laziest trope of the brain-dead statist control freak, nothing will. This was a literal re-enactment of the full Oliver Wendell: In Ottawa, the fire alarm was set off even though there was no fire but only a visiting conservative blonde. As Rebekah recounts:
    Then the fire alarm went off. Do you know how loud industrial fire alarms are? Do you know what they sound like when they go on for about ten minutes?! People in the auditorium seemed to be very confused about what was going on. It was impossible to tell what was happening outside. The rumors that I collected (true or not I'm not entirely sure) indicated that there were protesters outside yelling "No hate speech on campus", they had barricaded a door, they were pounding on the auditorium door... My notes at the time read "We're trapped in here. No bathroom... This might get REALLY interesting."

Another lame argument of the censors is that "hateful words lead to hurtful actions". As Chief Commissar Jennifer Lynch, QC says:
    Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.

But it was not Ann Coulter but François Houle whose words led, very directly and within 48 hours, to actions that undermine freedom. As my old comrade Ezra Levant put it:
    In a short speech, Levant said Tuesday was "an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body, who could not debate Ann Coulter . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation, just like their vice-president did." [Mr. Levant laid the blame squarely on Mr. Houle.] "A fish rots from the head down," he said. "Francois Houle got his wish. He telegraphed to the community that the University of Ottawa is not a place for free debate." Houle could not be reached for comment on Tuesday night.

Well, there's a surprise. Ghost of a Flea writes:
    Mob rule in Ottawa as leftist thugs used violence, intimidation and the threat of anarchy to prevent Ann Coulter from speaking at a local, bush league university. That which does not kill you makes Ann Coulter's point.

That's another good line. But I'm not sure that's enough. Our side has all the good lines. The others are either nakedly Orwellian, carrying placards hailing "Free speech!" even as they threaten violence to silence their opponents, or so pathologically lacking in self-awareness that in the interests of creating "a safe, positive space" they join an ugly mob to crush any dissenters. The University of Ottawa, an institution mired in stultifying conformity and intellectual homogeneity, has just received a $2.5 million grant to study diversity. Last night's head cheerleader for the 21st century equivalent of book burning turns out to be an employee of the Canadian Library Association.

But you could point out the ironies forever, and the other side wouldn't care. Because they don't want to win the debate, they want to win, period. And that's a big difference. As I wrote in The National Post eight years ago - August 5th 2002:
    The aim of a large swathe of the left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts. You can do that in any number of ways -- busting up campus appearances by conservatives, "hate crimes" laws, Canada's ghastly human-rights commissions, the more "enlightened" court judgments, the EU's recent decision to criminalize "xenophobia," or merely, as the Times does, by declaring your side of every issue to be the "moderate" and "nonideological" position...

The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion. But it’s irrelevant if you want to win by intimidation. I’m personally very happy to defend my columns in robust debate, but, if Canada believed in robust debate, we wouldn't have these "human rights" commissions or university administrators like the wretched M Houle in the first place. The morons who shut down Ann Coulter last night don't care that they made her point for her, anymore than those Muslim agitators in the streets of London fretted about the internal contradictions of threatening to kill anyone who says they're violent.

Freedom of speech is in grave peril in Canada. In the Coulter fracas, almost all the major societal institutions behaved poorly:

1) François Houle symbolizes a decadent academy that is the very antithesis of honest enquiry and intellectual debate that the university is supposed to represent.

2) The Ottawa Police have declared that there is no equality before the law. If you belong to certain groups, they'll stand by as the mob shuts you down.

3) The dinosaur media are vast lumbering eunuchs too cowed by political correctness to do even elementary research. Fatima Al Dhaher, the poor wee thing traumatized by Ann Coulter's camel joke, turns out to be a Jew-hater who wants to eliminate the State of Israel. But that's too complicated for the media to fit into their Sesame Street narratives.

Between them, the media, the law and the education system are actively shriveling Canada's liberties. It doesn't lead anywhere good: Ghost of a Flea's title - "Fascist Canada" - is no exaggeration. If you say, "Oh, c'mon, if you're not a troublemaker like Coulter or Levant or Guy Earle or Douglas McCue, Canada's very pleasant", well, so were large parts of Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. But they were not free, and few pre-Trudeau Canadians would have entertained trading ancient liberties for soft totalitarianism euphemized as "diversity".

The saddest aspect of this sad day is the number of people who've sent e-mails denouncing the Ottawa bullies but ending with the words "If you print this, please don't mention my name." Don't you realize that that's part of the problem? In a sane world, it would be François Houle and Fatima Al Dhaher and Susan Cole who would be ashamed to have their names mentioned. But they're not. They're proud to nail their colours to the masts of state censorship, Israeli eliminationism, and mob violence - while your support for free speech and other traditional liberties can only be expressed sotto voce and anonymously. That right there tells you how much of Canada you've already lost.
SteynPosts

Today, we are all Ann Coulter


Whether you or I like it or not. Today, we are all Ann Coulter. They are coming for all of us. It won't stop at public speeches, or blog postings, or letters to the editor or magazine articles. It is coming for sermons in churches, private conversations at home, words to our kids, our sacred books, jokes in a bar, words shouted out a window, answers to teachers, paid advertisements, and free speech on a street corner. It won't stop until all speech conforms to the Borg or until the Borg is defeated.

Not the Canada you grew up in, is it now?

I used to believe that if I could get most Canadians involved in the political process we could take the country back from the politicians. Bad laws came from ignoring the will of the people. If the people's will was enforced, then we could have good government.

My first vote was during the 1992 referendum. From then on, I toiled away in the Reform Party. Democratic reform was the main reason why. I believed that we were led badly, we just needed more democracy. However, within a decade I realized that Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien had changed the country, not just the laws, but its people.

To really change the government for the better, would require changing society and the culture. Yesterday's events at U of O show me that people are changing all right, but it's for the worse. Not only was Ann Coulter's speech closed down by "radical students", that action has received widespread support from Canadian politicians, newspapers and letter and comment writers. Comments are implying violence against her. Charges of hate speech mixed with actual hateful coments about her are everywhere. Cries for her to be shipped to the US and banned from re-entry are everywhere. For what? "Ride a camel."

If you wonder why the CHRC has waged a jihad against free speech, it is because they have massive public support. Free speech is for liberals. Fines and jail time is for conservatives who oppose society's drift leftwards.

All the rules and freedoms in place that allowed liberals to take over society, are now being removed so that conservatives will have no place in this new society.

I'm not waving a white flag of surrender. I'm just saying this fight isn't what I used to think it was. For instance, Ezra Levant being another former Reformer of the same age as myself, still holds to his belief in the people. He wants to de-normalize the HRCs. He wants to hold up the Left to public ridicule. He wants to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the PC enforcers. He wants to shine a spotlight on the work of the HRCs. I believe he is wrong to believe there is this massive constituency waiting to be awakened and rally to his cause.

We are in for a long, tough slog. One mind at a time. Most of the major channels of influence, for instance universities, are controlled by our opponents. This will take a lot of persuasion exercised on multiple fronts.


Plaid Shirt

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Tim Hudak: 10 Ideas To Create Jobs In 2010

My buddy Darryl has a great posting on Tim's economic ideas on his blog "Darryl Wolk Blog"

Never taking resposibility for their actions

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/international_politics/clips/3871/

OH, Canada...Ann Coulter Not Welcome...

Glenn Beck

'Free speech in Canada leaves much to be desired': Ann Coulter after event cancellation

'Free speech in Canada leaves much to be desired': Ann Coulter after event cancellation
Posted: March 24, 2010, 4:28 AM by Daniel Kaszor


By Zev Singer and Kristy Nease
(updated at 11:19 p.m. ET)

OTTAWA — After protesters at the University of Ottawa prevented Ann Coulter from giving a speech on Tuesday night, the American conservative writer said it proved the point she came to make — free speech in Canada leaves much to be desired.

Then she said what she really thought of the student protesters who surrounded Marion Hall, making it to unsafe, in the view of her bodyguard, for the pundit to attempt entry.

“The University of Ottawa is really easy to get into, isn’t it?” she said in an interview after the cancelled event. “I never get any trouble at the Ivy League schools. It’s always the bush league schools.”

Ms. Coulter said she has been speaking regularly at university campuses for a decade. While she has certainly been heckled, she said this is the first time an engagement has been cancelled because of protesters.

“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said.

Ms. Coulter remarked on the reception she has had since entering the country.

“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!”

The “accusation” of which Ms. Coulter speaks is a reference to an email she received from University of Ottawa vice-president and provost Francois Houle on Friday, warning her that freedom of speech is defined differently in Canada than in the U.S. and that she should take care not to step over the line.

Ms. Coulter said that letter set the tone for and encouraged the protesters. She said it’s well known on the campus speaking circuit that conservatives need to travel with security staff, as she did.

“I’m pretty sure little Francois A-Houle does not need to travel with a bodyguard,” she said. “I would like to know when this sort of violence, this sort of protest, has been inflicted upon a Muslim — who appear to be, from what I’ve read of the human rights complaints, the only protected group in Canada. I think I’ll give my speech tomorrow night in a burka. That will protect me.”

Canadian conservative political commentator Ezra Levant, the other speaker travelling with Coulter on the three-city tour, presented by the International Free Press Society of Canada, told the half-filled hall that no more people would be able to enter and that Coulter had been advised it would not be safe for her to appear.
Ms. Coulter’s bodyguard ultimately made the judgment, after conferring with security staff on site.

In a short speech, Levant said Tuesday was “an embarrassing day for the University of Ottawa and their student body, who could not debate Ann Coulter . . . who chose to silence her through threats and intimidation, just like their vice-president did.”

Mr. Levant laid the blame squarely on Mr. Houle.

“A fish rots from the head down,” he said. “Francois Houle got his wish. He telegraphed to the community that the University of Ottawa is not a place for free debate.”
Houle could not be reached for comment on Tuesday night.

Levant said the spectacle showed “just how eroded our Canadian values of free speech have become” — especially on university campuses.

“I think this has turned into a teaching moment for the entire country, a reminder that freedom of speech is a Canadian value,” he said.

Rita Valeriano was one of several protesters inside the hall who, with chants of “Coulter go home!” shouted down the International Free Press Society of Canada organizer who was addressing the crowd.

Ms. Valeriano, a 19-year-old sociology and women’s studies student, said later that she was happy Ms. Coulter was unable to speak the “hatred” she had planned to.

“On campus, we promise our students a safe and positive space,” she said. “And that’s not what (Coulter) brings.”

Outside the hall, Sameena Topan, 26, a conflict studies and human rights major at the U of O, spoke to the Citizen on behalf of a group of protesters.

“We have a large group of students that can very clearly outline the difference between discourse and discrimination,” Ms. Topan said of the protest. “We wanted to mobilize and make sure that’s clear on campus, that there’s a line between controversy and discrimination, and Ann Coulter has crossed it. Numerous times.”

“We had concerns about [the event] at the beginning, but especially after we saw what happened at the University of Western Ontario, when she called out a Muslim girl there and was saying she needs to take a camel because Muslim people shouldn’t fly. That kind of stuff just reaffirmed everything that we were afraid of and that’s when ... we really got worried.”

Ms. Topan was pleased to hear the students behind her shout, “Hate speech cancelled!” in unison.

“I think that’s great. I think we accomplished what we were here to do, to ensure that we don’t have her discriminatory rhetoric on our campus,” she said.
Jonathan Reid, 18, a Carleton political science student and a fan of Coulter, brought a book to be signed.

During the protest outside after the event was cancelled, Mr. Reid and a group of other students shouted a counter-chant, “No more commies on our campus!,” while pumping their fists. The Coulter protesters moved forward to face them, and TV crew lights lit angry faces.

“It’s a shame,” Mr. Reid said of the cancellation. “They claim we’re the intolerant ones, yet they’re the ones who refuse to allow a Conservative speaker to come to campus. That is the definition of intolerance.”

U of O political science student Faris Lehn, 23, said he doesn’t support Coulter’s message, but had hoped for a debate.

“It’s too bad she didn’t get to speak because I think she would have made herself look more ridiculous than anyone here could have made her look,” Mr. Lehn said.

“The problem with Ann Coulter ... is that the arguments that she uses don’t necessarily promote good debate, they promote this,” he said, glancing at the chanting crowd.

Canwest News Service


(Photo: Dave Chidley for National Post)

http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5071887604595535895

Lefties Wet Pants Over Ann Coulter!

Climbing Out Of The Dark has an excellent post on the events at the University of Ottawa with the leftards shutting down freedom of speech.

University of Ottawa Police

 
What me work?

Michael Coren with Ann Coulter



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_INuAWSn7U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD4nuhhoZhk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jToSILRfHng

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aHSu05ya6Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlcPP9syOKM