Liberals say the darndest things
Irony is Katheline Wynne commenting on sexual assault allegations against Bil Cosby, but remaining silent about the charges against her ex deputy minister of education Ben Levin.
Particularly in light of the contriversial sex ed curriculum he developed now being imposed in Ontario schools.
Labels: principles and idealism
A simple observation
Its a simple observation really, that came to me like a bolt out of the blue.
What makes a leader?
For that matter what motivates the people that follow them?
Take Sarah Pallin for example. Why does she seem to retain levels of support far in excess of numbers even the current president can't sustain?
She reflects the beliefs of those that follow her.
Not only that, but they can tell that with her those beliefs are authentic, and not patronizing.
Lets look at the crop of "leaders" in Canada and do a comparison.
Stephen Harper has a base because those that support him, even those that don't like him, see him for what he is. He is what he is.
Jack Layton, though he has beliefs that don't resonate among those that don't believe in the workers paradise as espoused by Marx and Engels, he's the real deal. He truly believes what he says, and you can take that to the bank. Gilles Duceppe, actually is very reflective of what a separatist believes, that the ROC will cave in to their demands (please note that this is the foundation of the separatists credo, separation is the last thing they want).
Now why do you suppose I came to this conclusion?
It has to do with a certain young liberal MP from Quebec, whose father happened to be PM, decided he thought the language used in a recently released government pamphlet was too strong on the subject of genital mutilation and "honour killings". He seemed to think that the wording might cause some to be defensive. He offered what he called an apology, but what it sounded like was an admonition to his critics that they just didn't understand what he was saying, as if to say, some people got upset over what he said because they just didn't understand what he was saying.
Then I thought, where else have I heard a similar statement?
But of course, his current leader also has the same response when he also gets caught in the rhetorical weeds.
But I thought a bit more and as a matter of fact, this affliction began to appear in liberal leaders since about the time that John Turner took over the reigns of the LPC.
This affliction is evident among those that frequent the bars and lounges and say something witty, and make small talk, hoping to get lucky, because they know how to say witty things and make small talk. Yet everybody else knows, not one word of it is authentic, its just a pickup line.
But I digress, what Justin hasn't realized is that we do understand what he said, and we also understand that this is exactly who he and most of the self-appointed intelligentsia of the LPC are.
Labels: principles and idealism
Let them know we don't want Khadr
Write to the following folks that we don't want this guy serving a reduced sentence here.
Lawrence Cannon - Minister of Foreign Affairs
Stephen Harper - Right Honourable Prime Minister
US Secretary of State - c/o H. Clinton
Your MP - especially if they are an opposition MP that wants Khadr back in Canada
Lastly
The local rag - though I doubt they will publish if its the Globe and Mail or the Torstar
Labels: principles and idealism
The North American Doctrine
To whom it may concern:
Modern North America is ideologically alien to the concept of feudalism in the many forms it permutates itself into. It is the writers obligation however to provide the reader with the premise of what I believe constitutes feudalism.
The formation of a feudal system of governance requires that three forces be imposed on its people, namely:
- A hereditary government - A government determined by birthright.
- A state imposed religion - a religion given primacy by legal fiction.
- A class structure - A stratification and limit placed on the population, based on a system of class, privilage or religious order.
Because the events that led to the development of what is now called North America, it is self-evident that this continent did so by rejecting the concepts of hereditary government, state sponsored religion, and limitatons on the individual to reach his or her ultimate potential.
Yet even now, forces are at work in the world to impose some form of feudalism on mankind.
With the intent of providing a guiding principle to oppose to those forces, the writer has offered the following doctrine (with apologies to Madison).
THE NORTH AMERICAN DOCTRINE
This doctrine maintains that no part of North America be subjected to any type of foreign incursions by invasion or by stealth, and that the democratic goverments formed on this continent are inherently North American.
That North American's are content to be North American's. That no culture or foreign influence should presume to use offence to this fact or seek to impose international laws, sanction, or ideological dictate that seek to take away the democratic rights of North American's.
That the primary political ideology of North America is democracy. No foreign body, agency, or force outside of the democratically elected Nations of North America has the legal authority to subvert, or work to subvert through a proxy body, the legitimacy of those governments of North America.
Labels: principles and idealism
They hate the left and the right?
Just took a browse at liblogs.
The commentary is the usual smears and innuendo (not that I've ever done that right?)
Problem is this time they are directed at the folks they plead with every election to "lend us your vote".
Odd how they use these people and treat them like dirt, poach their policies at will and then call them their own, and then when the NDP starts to get ahead of them the liberal sense of entitlement shines through in spades.
Labels: principles and idealism
Conservative ideas for success
Rewrite Aug 11 2009
1-Be the party of lower taxes and smaller government. Start by ending all tax payer funding of political parties.
2-That laws are not created for fashionable or transient reasons, but based on a balance of rights, obligations, and reasonable limits to both the individual and the state. State in clear terms that Parliament is a national body and not for special or regional interests. Demonstrate this by disallowing official party status in the HoC to political parties that restrict their organization to one province.
3- That our national defence requires that we have the capability and capacity to carry out those missions that protect our security.
4-Be the party that recognizes and respects the limitations of federal and provincial jurisdictions as laid out in the constitution. State that Constitutional changes can only be achieved through a clear mandate from the voters to do so and not the demands of special interest groups.
Labels: principles and idealism
Mr Harper I've got an idea
Now I doubt highly that anyone in the PMO or in cabinet, let alone anyone in caucus will read this, but here goes.
With the agenda that Obama is implementing, now would be a great time to start this economic stimulus plan.
Go out there and proclaim that "Canada is open for business."
Let the world know that when the big capital flight starts, Canada will be a safe haven.
Addendum
I'm going to add this to my header page. I'm hoping it catches on.
Labels: Conservative majority, principles and idealism
Its not that the idea of a coalition that is wrong
Its the fact that to keep it from losing a vote of confidence it would rely on the support of those that seek the destruction of our nation.
For that fact alone is proof enough that the idea of bringing down the Harper government and replacing it with a coalition requiring the support of the separatist Bloc proves that the liberals and the socialists didn't think this through.
What has happened is that now the liberal party is split into two factions that if they remain on this path will become two separate parties, the liberal-progressives surrounding Iggy, and the liberal democrats who would cut a deal with the Bloc coalescing around Bob Rae.
The other thing that's happened, and don't be shocked, the Trudeau legacy all you liberals had your hearts set on with Justin....took a big hit when the young prince didn't denounce making a deal with separatists. I'm sure his father is spinning in his grave.
But back to the bone of contention. Again, its not the coalition that's the problem, its one of the partners in the triumvirate, the Bloc. Surely after this it must be evident that until this problem is addressed, no party will be able to form a stable government with them around to make sure the "prove that parliament is dysfunctional"....their words not mine.
So lets peel back the onion a bit and get to a solution.
How did they get MP's in the house?
They got elected, by the rules, all legal like under a registered, officially recognized party that receives federal funding like all registered federal parties.....get the hint.
Therein lies a solution to the separatist problem.
Change the rules about what constitutes "official party status". This would not allow the Bloc to be recognized as anything other than independent backbenchers during QP, it would not allow them to sit as committee members, and it would not allow their leader a seat at the leaders debate...in other words....they lose their soapbox.
Next, lets cut the federal funding to political parties. This is the oxygen supply of the Bloc, without it they have to depend on a limited amount of donations of those that are die hard separatists that is split between them and the PQ. Ah yes, I know it would probably put a financial straitjacket on a couple of other parties for a few months, but considering it would probably keep the Bloc out of the HoC for good Quebecers would then be forced to vote for a federalist party. You have to think of whats best for the country. Yes they will piss and moan about how this somehow subverts democracy, but they would have their ideologies confused if they did. Its not undemocratic to end federal funding of political parties, its un-socialist.
So it is my hope that when the budget is tabled in January, there is a line item to abolish the $1.95 per vote subsidy and one to redefine official party status.
Why is this a good idea?
Because Canadians are tired of seeing their tax dollars supporting a political party that has one goal of destroying the country.
Any government that would require the support of those that would destroy my country is illegitimate.
So lets cut the oxygen supply for the separtists, and remember,
if you're getting flak, you must be over the target.
Labels: principles and idealism
A tribute to a great Canadian
Ben Weider was perhaps the greatest Canadian of our time. Born without privilage, he not only rose up and built his personal fortune, but also created a legacy that will be fondly remembered.
That is what makes someone great, not what they built but in what respect they are remembered.
Labels: principles and idealism
Conservative ideas
Here's a couple of ideas that should be adopted.
Federally:
Lets change the rules on what constitutes official party status. Namely, that unless a registered political party campaigns in more than one province, even if they do
achieve more than 12 seats, the speaker won't recognize them as an official party caucus. That only takes a vote in the house and I can't think of any
federalist party that would be against such a thing.
Change the elections act. Lets remove the restrictions on third party advertising during writ periods, allow individuals to donate as much as they want but still restrict corporations and unions, allow parties and candidates to spend as much as they want but disallow loans. Chretien's gift also made it impossible for interest groups to have their voice on the political stage without being joined at the hip to a political party, the problem of course is that political parties can be taken over by interest groups subverting the grass roots.
Addendum Oct 21 2008 : Lets also remove that odious stipend that Elections Canada awards to political parties. The idea that political parties should be entitled to tax dollars is something that reaks of socialism. End it, and make them all have to operate on donations....but then thats why the monetary limit on donations should be restrictive only on banning corporate and union donations. They should however be allowed to campaign as third parties during elections.
Provincial/Federal:
The Ontario conservatives should be advocating for elected senators, which would allow that party to differ from the Ontario liberals. As a
colliery to that, do a name change and drop the progressive from the party name, the party can expand if it describes itself as a home for all conservatives not just some conservatives.
Provincial:
Advocate for a cut to the PST. Its a very hard political fight to argue against a cut like this, and a guy like Dalton would be forced to do only one thing to combat the idea, offer the same. The advantage is that by doing so would put Dalton in the follower
category and not the leader
category.
Laws are meant for all, so equal enforcement for all. Call for military intervention in Caledonia to enforce the two year old court order for removal.
Municipal/London:
Release a statement to the good citizens of this fair city that while supporting the artistic community is a noble concept, forcing the public to pay for it is not possible. Therefore, the city will not entertain funding for a
performing arts center now or in the future. If
Gord Hume and his buddies want one, they can dig into their own pockets and pay for it.
Labels: principles and idealism
How about a C to C convention?
Just a thought on promoting the conservative cause in Canada.
Call it the C to C convention, the c to c meaning conservative to conservative.
Have a weekend convention where notable conservatives come to speak and discuss conservative ideas.
Not a political conservatve function, but an ideological one.
Get the speakers not currently in government or have never entered a political race to come speak, no matter what country they hailed from.
But I wouldn't want it to become a political function and the reason should be obvious. The intent is that this does not become a party fund raiser.
Its about principles and ideals after.
Labels: principles and idealism
Why HRC cannot go negative
Because when (not if) she does, the republicans just sit back and take notes for the general election. Effectively what her negative attacks will do is excuse any republican attack on her.
The double edge sword is that the "experts" are now saying this is the only way she can win. So if she wins this way she can't whine about return fire during the general election. If she doesn't go on the attack, the general election won't be a mud slinging contest. Either way, Obama comes out smelling like a rose and she ends up with mud on her face.
Labels: beer and popcorn, principles and idealism
What I admire about Barack Obama, he's really a conservative in disguise.
This post may seem out of place for a self described conservative, but the point being made is not that I agree with his political point of view, but to admire what he's about to do to the North American political landscape over the next few months. I also want to premise the following on the basis that this is not an endorsement of him, or any other US presidential candidate for either party.
But I digress.
What I've witnessed so far in the US campaign is that Obama has been making an effort to reach out to the disenfranchised, the folks that have walked away from politics, or never got involved, because they felt it wasn't important to them. The perception I believe wasn't so much that it wasn't for them, as much as politics was being done for someone else. The feeling that the process has become more about electing the leader rather than the majority deciding what the laws of the country where suppose to be. Furthermore that the process of electing the leader has been co-opted by monied interests and well connected interest groups. Joe and Jane Sixpack and their children approaching voting age just didn't feel that their input meant much more to the political operatives than the means by which their particular meal ticket got a hold of the levers of power. Swiftboat veterans, code pink, Moveon.org, NAACP, organized labour, have become less about the people they pledged to defend and are now an operative of one or the other political parties. The media is not much better. They pick their side and rather than remain unbiased, report selectively or not at all on the leader. And when they have nothing to report politically, they revert to the latest celebrity meltdown.
So whats this got to do with Obama?
Its this.
He doesn't have to win.
Thats right, if he doesn't win the primary, he comes out a winner.
Now the why.
Its his platform. His platform hasn't changed since he started, and its an outreach to everybody that they have an obligation to get engaged in the process, and not let themselves be talked down to or told their vote just doesn't matter. Thats a message that by-passes partisan interests. Thats a message that makes folks realize they have a part to play and they best go do it. Its a message that the pollsters, the interest groups, monied interests, and the political operatives looking for their next meal ticket fear most. They know that when the majority stay away from the voting booth, or disengage from the process, it reduces the number of votes needed to get elected. It allows a politican to be swayed by the interest groups, it allows politics to be coopted by the extremism in society, and it allows the few elites to have a greater say than the majority. And thats the anti-thesis to a democratic system.
There is some who will say that its better that people don't vote if they are not informed. I would agree, and this is another reason why I admire what Obama is doing. He's getting the people to not just get involved, but get informed as well. He realizes that some may choose a different path and take their support elsewhere, but he knows that the more folks that get involved means one more voter the interest groups, the lobbyists, and the extremists can't ignore. And the thing about that those groups fear is that they know because they can only appeal to a narrow point of view, is that as more and more people become involved the differing points of view also become greater. The result is that politicians are forced to accomodate a more diverse voter base, the outcome of which is that politicians stop worrying about accomodating the interest groups, and the lobbyists, and start creating laws that satisfy the demands of the voters.
But it won't matter if he wins or loses the race, why? Because like any groundswell of support, this one has gained momentum, and the people that have come out to hear him speak are becoming motivated, and his crowds are getting bigger. The media cannot ignore him and the bloggers will keep them honest. Best of all, you can't hate the man, so that means the political operatives attack him at their own peril. And should he lose those voters will make a point of taking their vote and their pov somewhere that until now has been coopted by one group or another, and will wrest control back to the mainstream.
See he's not running a political campaign, he's campaigning for an ideal.
Thats the kind of thing that makes the operatives and elitists very, very nervous because they got where they are by not having any.
Regardless of whether you like his politics, or even if you cannot abide liberalism, you should at least respect and admire what he can accomplish through inspiration by getting more people to get involved.
Labels: principles and idealism
