May 7, 2011

The Embarrassing NDP Constitution

The infamous "Vegas" candidate isn't the only democratic body that Jack Layton and the NDP have hidden from public view.

It's quite apparent that Layton has taken great pains to hide the NDP's Constitution from public scrutiny as well. Really great pains. In fact, a complete cleansing from Google, based on my searches and those of many others.

Why would they do this? Are they ashamed or afraid of something? Could it be that their constitution resembles an old communist manifesto, more than a modern expression of true democratic values? Could it be that Layton has lied to Canadians about what the NDP REALLY stands for? Probably. From Terence Corcoran's April 29, 2011 article in the Financial Post:
"The CBC’s Leslie MacKinnon recently reported on the NDP’s official constitution, a 2003 document that specifies why the NDP exists. It turns out the NDP constitution is itself a hidden agenda.

First, here’s a core statement from the preamble outlining the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party:
  • That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

  • To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

  • The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty."
Sounds like a typical Communist Manifesto to me. I wonder how many folks signed up for membership in the NDP and were greeted by this declaration that they must attest to first:
"I hereby apply for membership in the New Democratic Party of Canada and the NDP in the province/territory of my residence where applicable. I promise to abide by the Constitution, policies and principles of the NDP both federally and provincially/territorially. I hereby state that I am not a member nor supporter of any other federal political party, nor a member or supporter of any other provincial or territorial party where there is a provincial or territorial NDP."
That's right. You have to agree to abide by the constitution of the NDP. Of course, one cannot view the referenced Constitution, so you have to take Jack and his BS completely on faith. So are all memberships created without being able to reference the NDP's Constitution invalid? One would think so, based on contract law.

What is the NDP so afraid of? That their communist-style manifesto will be found out?

Whatever. Since Jack says he and his party are so democratic, open and transparent, let's see him put his mealy words into action.

Layton. Show us your Constitution! Right Now!

Postscript: Here are a few questions that the mainstream media may wish to ask Jack Layton, if they wish to do their job properly!
  1. Why did the NDP remove their 2003 Constitution from public view? When? What were they trying to hide?
  2. Why did the NDP thoroughly cleanse the internet of all other references and copies of this Constitutional document?
  3. Did the NDP also cleanse the internet of any other documents? Which ones? When?
  4. Will the NDP restore their (2003) Constitution to their website, freely downloadable? When will they do this?
  5. Since NDP memberships purchased, without access to the attesting Constitution document, are illegal and void, will the NDP cancel those memberships and refund moneies paid?
  6. How many such memberships are affected?

May 5, 2011

Pop Goes the Weasel ...

A little earlier than I had expected (see "NDP" section here) , Thomas Mulcair pops up and starts erecting the wall between "his" Quebec NDP contingent, and Jack's ROC contingent.

Mulcair has now laid out his role as the leader, mentor, trainer and handler of all Quebec resources of the NDP. Also confirmed by this is that the Quebec contingent has an insular, purely Quebec-focussed view of their role and objectives of living within the NDP umbrella.

Jack's contingent are probably becoming more distressed at Mulcair's power as each moment passes.

Mulcair, holding all the cards at this point, has a flexible range of options to exercise:
  • change NDP policies vis-a-vis Quebec (probably to the extreme detriment of Canada), by working within the party as Deputy Leader;

  • do the same, by displacing Layton as Leader (time, illness, internal war)

  • bolt sometime and do a "Bloc Quebecois" with 58 MPs, becoming the official opposition (Jack would only have 44).
There will also be Quebec provincial party implications from Mulcair's actions.

Watch for more publicity-seeking by Mulcair, more upping of the ante, more tensions within the NDP.

Great theatre. Just like the "Perils of Pauline" thrillers.

Postscipt: Now folks can begin to comprehend the direct result of Jack prostating himself before the high alter of Quebec appeasement in a greedy attempt to gain a few more seats in Quebec, without thinking through the implications and, especially, the risks.

Mulcair is blatantly positioning himself as the Quebec voice, the logical heir to the Bloc option. He will either take over the NDP and change its character to "the Quebec party", or will bolt to form the nucleus of a new movement.

Jack, when you sacrificed the rest of Canada's "fair play" support of official bilingualism by promising to Quebecers that you would subvert that to Bill 101's unilingual French policies, when you exposed Canada to the potential of divisive warfare by recklessly promising Quebecers to reopen Constitutional talks, and when you pandered to the separatiste aspirations of Quebecers, all in the name of greedily grubbing a few more votes and seats, this is what you get.

You didn't dare do this in the English language debates, did you? No, you waited until the French debates, and continued this reckless path on subsequent French language TV and radio shows. And, of course, your ever-loving "progressive" and complicit media told us in the ROC nothing about this, did they Jack?

One important consolation. We have a highly-principled and "knows what he is doing" PM in Ottawa, that can deal effectively with the chaos that your self-centred actions have wrought upon your party, upon ROC citizens who voted in good faith for your party, and on all Canadians.

The NDP's Vegas Vote Scam

The Greens in particular, followed closely by the NDP, know that in an election they will never be competitive in a host of ridings beyond a nominally small percentage of votes cast. However, to maintain the fiction of being a "national" party and, most importantly to vacuum up the taxpayer-subsidized $2/year/vote "reward" for each vote cast in their direction, they create "candidates" in each of these ridings and register them with Elections Canada.

The Greens usually, however, field candidates that live within the riding and engage in signage and door-to-door campaigning. The NDP, especially in Quebec in this election, have engaged in pure flim-flammery ... and are now being hoisted on their own petard of "making a mockery of democracy".

It is now evident that the NDP did little more than approach and sign up warm bodies, perhaps at a pub or two, to act as their "candidates" in a number of Quebec ridings. If telephone poles could have placed their signature on an agreement, no doubt the NDP would have preferred to take that course since telephone poles are generally less troublesome and "interviewable" than human beings.

Once that nominal party paperwork was completed, it seems to be the case that the NDP party apparatus took over and secured the necessary signatures/nomination papers necessary to register these ghost candidates with Elections Canada. It now appears that NDP personnel responsible for this rather straight-forward task didn't do their job very well. After all, these ridings would normally fly under the radar of the media and voters on election day, and the NDP could look forward to the $2/vote/year "reward" flowing into their party coffers on a regular basis.

Let me say this again, clearly and simply. If any fraud was perpetrated on the Canadian electorate in this scam, it was Jack Layton and the NDP that did it, not Ruth Ellen Brosseau!

It was just Jack Layton's bad luck that a ton of Quebecers chose to park their votes with his party, thus raising the subsequent question of, "Who are these newly-elected MPs?".

And so the NDP's "Vegas Vote Scam" slithered out from beneath a rock, initially focussing on problems with signatures on Ruth Ellen Brosseau's nomination papers, but broadening quickly to those of other NDP "telephone pole candidates". Including their alleged difficulty in knowing where their riding was, their lack of physical presence at any time in the riding during the election, and their complete surprise on the night of May 2nd that they had won the secret lottery prize of $157,000/year, plus very generous expenses, courtesy of Canadian taxpayers.

This NDP Scam will play out in coming weeks as the media finally gives Jack's party the scrutiny that it should have received all along. For example, it is inconceivable to me that Jack Layton and all of his senior staff did not know and condone, if not explictly decide, the strategy to put forth "telephone pole candidates" in every lost-cause, sacrificial-lamb riding. The fact that Ruth Ellen Brosseau cannot now be located suggests to me that the NDP are hiding her from the media, prepping her what to say when she does see the light of day, and are using their levers of influence in the media to minimize the breadth and depth of coverage in the press. Now you know why the NDP would have preferred to use telephone poles as these ghost candidates, rather than humans.

It doesn't matter that Quebecers voted for Jack, as opposed to local candidates, in this past election as some articles are now suggesting. Nor that if a new vote were held in (say) Ruth-Ellen's "riding" tommorrow, that the result would be the same. No, full investigation and exposure of this Scam is necessary to:
  • Once more illustrate why the $2/vote/year "reward" has to be revoked; in short, it is thoroughly "gameable", it encourages these sham/ghost candidate stragegies, and it belittles democracy.

  • Illustrate the contempt that Jack Layton and his NDP really have for democracy in Canada, when it comes to vacuuming up every last cent they can from our wallets to advance their own interests and entitlements.

  • Illustrate the perversion of truth that comes from Layton's lips every time he accuses other parties of having no respect for democracy, or persisting with the cynical and opposition-manufactured "contempt of parliament" charge against the Conservatives on April 25th. As a matter of fact, anything that comes from Layton's lips is generally a perversion of truth, or just plain BS.

  • Add another item that highlights the sheer incompetence of Elections Canada during this election. Whether it was the unsanctioned (illegal?) Guelph special ballot/polling station fiasco, or their wholly inadequate and unenforceable "Twitter Policy" for communicating results before official times, or non-prosection of the CBC for that same perversion of results communication, or this latter case of failing to exercise due diligence in checking a representative sample of Ruth Ellen Brosseau's nomination paper signatures (and every other candidate's in every riding in Canada), it is now apparent the the Head of Elections Canada, and key staff, should be fired for gross incompetence and negligence.
I'll stop there. I sincerely hope, and I expect a majority of fair-minded Canadians do too, that Elections Canada examines and verifies the authenticity and legality of each and every nomination paper/signature of at least every candidate fielded by the NDP in Quebec and, if necessary, those of any and all candidates of all parties across Canada in this election. And prosecutes to the fullest extent possible, everyone who was complicit in this Scandal, this perversion of democracy.

Because if we don't, the first step in democratic processes that produce our representatives in Ottawa begins with fatal flaws. And you can't build a house on a flawed foundation.

May 4, 2011

Parking Votes

For whatever it is worth, I believe that all Quebec did on May 2nd was to park its votes in a temporary storage container called "The NDP".

May 2nd was an opportunity for Quebecers to dispatch the Bloc Quebecois to the hinterlands, after having become an anachronism and possibly a major annoyance. At the federal level, Liberals were clearly in deflation mode (and not to be trusted in any case), and a majority of Quebecers viewed the Harper Conservatives with a high dose of suspicion, if not dislike.

Why not take Jack's NDP for a spin, they reasoned? He talked, smelled, and looked great and, besides, at a minimum he would likely be the leader of the official opposition party. Maybe in a position to wreak Coalition havoc to the continuing benefit of Quebec, like the Bloc. Mightily beholden to his Quebec supporters. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Eat your heart out, Gilles, they thought. Or, as someone else put it:
"Jack Layton is now stuck with Quebec's hot potato," said Christian Dufour, a political analyst at Quebec's Ecole nationale d'administration publique.
Here today; gone tomorrow. Jack should be wary of this "gift" that he has been handed. The gift that he has accepted on their terms, not his.

And that's quite the opposite of the Quebec strategy of the Conservative party. Quick and dirty gains seldom produce a lasting relationship. "Fleeting", though, is a word that comes to mind.

And, assuming that Pauline Marois and the P.Q. form the next Quebec provincial government, the Conservative position is optimal for any discussions/demands that may result from that province. Conversely, the party most at risk will be the NDP, trying to keep its Quebec support while maintaining its core ROC base.

Particularly if Harper continues to take the view that the principal "grievance" of Quebec, signing on to the Constitution, is a political rather than legal issue. That is, all the National Assembly of Quebec needs to do is resolve to sign the Constitution, and the issue is addressed. Quebec's grievances (demands), alas, are never that simple to rectify, and that's where Jack's love-in with his Quebec caucus will show the strain.

Wonderful, I say. Let's separate the wheat from the chaff, as Harper seems to propose, and expose any "constitutional" demands by Quebec as no more than another series of (the expected) ransom notes, wraped in the noble "constitution" red-herring.

No wonder Gilles Duceppe was so concerned (as were countless hordes of other potential money trough recipients) at the prospect of a Harper/Conservative majority. That should have been the tip-off, rest of Canada.

May 3, 2011

Canada's 4-Year Roller Coaster Ride

167 - 102 - 34 - 4 - 1. Four years of stability and yet, of massive change. Here's what I see:

Liberals

For the Liberals, it's a real opportunity to renew their party. They should be reading every book they can on Stephen Harper, because his journey in reconstituting the right is exactly what the Liberals need to do. Beliefs, policies, leadership and positioning. A first step will be the resignation of Michael Ignatieff, followed by appointment of an interim leader. That person must commit to not being a candidate for permanent leadership of the party.

I expect that the issue of merging with the NDP, or remaining a separate mainstream party, will be dealt with rather quickly, with it being decided to continue the latter course. My reasoning for this is simple. Layton's NDP core is a thinly-disguised neo-communist party. More than half his caucus (58%) is now from Quebec, and either they will transform that party into one with more Francophone values, or will bolt when they see the Anglo-socialist values that the core NDP really possesses and wishes to retain. The Liberals can be the pan-Canadian, left-of-centre alternative to the NDP.

Having reached this conclusion, the next step will be for the Liberals to hold a policy convention, followed thereafter by a leadership convention. The Liberals will need to choose wisely this time: new blood, telegenic strategist and tactician, a true leader and manager, and a "long view" to regain prominence in the political landscape. If Bob Rae tries to hijack the party in the next few weeks or months, the party must turn its back on him. Rae is part of the problem now, not part of the solution.

The principal risk to the Liberals at this point is that, if they don't do it right this time, they are screwed, royally and totally.

NDP

Everyone in the NDP is elated that they are now the official opposition in Parliament, as well they should be. But the painful hangover from the Orange Surge starts tomorrow. Jack has 59 members from Quebec, 58% of his caucus. Their values, expectations and priorities are vastly different than his ROC caucus. Moreover, many of his Quebec contingent need to be shown on a map where their ridings are, and some even have to chose to complete their university courses, or become a MP full-time. All will require Parliament 101, NDP 101, Candidate 101, Expectations Management 101, and Reality 101 courses immediately.

And that's when the fun will start. For Jack, for the new MPs and for the party. If Jack doesn't set a track to change the constitution of the party (communist/socialist workers of the world, unite!), and lessen its reliance on unions, then it's going to get very ugly, very quickly. And, of course, Jack will have a difficult time making good on any of his platform promises, since there's a majority government.

So while the Liberals may be a source of pride to many Canadians if they choose the correct, long-haul path, Jack's "menage" is really where the antics will play out in the short term, as he uses his chair and whip to try to line up his snarling tigers. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy; it's one thing to do a holier-than-thou act and whine, it's another to be the official opposition. Welcome to the real world, Jack.

Risk-wise, there are three biggies facing Layton: his age and health, his Quebec contingent, and Thomas Mulcair. The latter two go hand in hand, and also result from the first. I expect Mulcair to continually bolster his positioning as heir-apparent to Jack, and his prime vehicle will be the large contingent of the caucus from Quebec. If Mulcair positions as the informal leader of that sub-caucus, then Jack will be in for a very rough ride, and change will be forced upon the party ... probably accompanied by push-back from the "old" wing of the party. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario where the Quebec wing bolts and forms a Bloc-like party with Mulcair as its leader and displacing the "old" NDP remnants as the official opposition! Yes, Jack's in for a fun time, all right!

Conservatives

I don't believe any serious Canadians deny that Harper is highly competent and the strongest political leader Canada has had for a generation. What has rankled his detractors has been his abrasive personality, a necessity given the minority governments he has led. Now, with a majority, I believe we are going to see a more likeable Harper, and maybe even some of his vaunted (but hidden) humour. The "real" Stephen Harper, so to say.

One of his strategic imperatives has to be to appeal to Quebecers, to bring them into the fold of the Conservative party. If Mulcair "behaves" within the NDP, this may be accomplishable. But if things don't go well for Jack vis-a-vis his Quebec contingent, then Harper's task will be quite difficult. I don't know if you noticed during the campaign, but Harper gave us his strategy to have Quebec sign on to the Constitution: work through Quebec's National Assembly to accomplish this. It's often forgotten that this act is a purely political imperative, not a legal one. The Supreme Court decided that a long time ago. It will be fascinating to see if Harper can pull it off with Charest. Marois will never give him the chance.

On more mundane/routine matters, we are going to see his budget presented, the Crime Bills packaged up, changes to election financing ($2/vote/yr), Changes to the Senate re: appointment process and term (8 years), the firming up of the Conservative majority in the Senate, appointment of 3 (possibly 4) Supreme Court justices over the next 4 years, retrenchment of the Afghanistan mission and repurposing of Canada's armed forces, changes to CRTC and copyright areas, and so on. I'd also expect to see Harper start twisting some arms to get greenhouse gases down, and start a program to decrease Canada's reliance on fossil fuels. No doubt Elizabeth May will try to take all the credit for this latter initiative.

Wrap Up

We are going to live in interesting times, as the Chinese proverb goes. Each party will be redefining itself as time counts down the 4 year lifespan of this parliament. Personally, I'm really looking forward to watching all of it unfold. Hang on to your seat, it's going to be an exhilarating ride!

Postscript: I commend to you Silver's article on the Liberal party ... not the part "how they got here", but his thoughts about 4 options now facing the party.

May 2, 2011

New Coalition Accord Needed?

"An Accord on a Cooperative Government to Address the Present Economic Crisis" was signed by the Liberals and NDP on December 1, 2008 and runs through until June 30, 2011. In this Coalition Accord, the following prime minister and cabinet appointments are specified, quote:
  • The Prime Minister will be the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.
  • The Minister of Finance will be appointed from the Liberal caucus.

  • The cabinet will be composed of 24 ministers plus the Prime Minister.

  • Eighteen of these ministers will be appointed from within the Liberal caucus.

  • Six of these ministers will be appointed from within the NDP caucus, plus six Parliamentary Secretaries, sworn in as Privy Councillors, will also be named from the NDP caucus. In the event the Prime Minister chooses to appoint a larger cabinet, the NDP proportion will be maintained.

  • The specifics of these cabinet appointments will be made by the Prime Minister in appropriate consultation with the Leader of the NDP.
With all polls suggesting the NDP might be the Official Opposition, I wonder how Jack feels about Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister?

May 1, 2011

NDP: Communism for Ever!

This says it all:

Terrence Corcoran, on the NDP's roots and Hidden Agenda, in the Financial Post.

More specifically, the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party, according to its 2003 Constitution, include:
  • That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;

  • To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….

  • The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.
Communism thinly disguised. Profits are bad. State control and management of everything. "Social ownership" means the state owns everything. But some animals are more important than other animals. Party Central, and Dear Leader, control the masses, business, religion.

It's Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm all over again. But now the pigs have renamed themselves as The New Democratic Party.

Apr 27, 2011

Canada's Perfect Political Destabilization

The following is my view, and my view alone.

What do George Soros, the Canadian union movement, the Canadian media, left-of-centre political parties, various activist groups and Quebec have to do with each other in the 2011 election?

Quite a lot, it seems. All are conducting "Anything But Conservative" (ABC) campaigns in this election. And many of these organizations are coordinating their activities to a high degree. For different reasons.

It's rather odd that so many special interest groups are allied in the 2011 election against one political party at the same time. People and groups are usually "for" a polical party, than massively "against" one. So why is this happening? It's my contention that their motivations are different, but their goal is the same. To prevent the Conservative party from winning the next election, particularly with a majority. But why?

To answer that question, it's helpful to understand the key actors, or elements, involved in this massive effort. And to get that, we need to lay out those principal organizations that are currently arrayed in the ABC campaign:
  • the full range of opposition parties, including the Greens, and not necessarily for their power aspirations alone;

  • "progressive" friendly media led, as always, by the CBC and the Toronto Star;

  • new "progressive" friendly media elements typified by the Globe & Mail (rabidly pro-Liberal this time), CTV NewsNet, and the Canadian Press (owned by G&M, TorStar and LaPresse); I wonder if Bell Canada's hand is in this, still smarting at the Conservatives' elimination of Income Trusts, which Bell was about to convert to immediately after the 2006 election;

  • Canadian Auto Workers (has website devoted to targeting 50 ridings against the Conservatives);

  • Public Service Alliance (running an underground ABC campaign);

  • United Food and Commercial Workers (Their slogan is: "Goodbye Steve");

  • Canadian Health Coalition (and provincial offspring);

  • Council of Canadians: Maude Barlow of Think Twice fame is still at it; is Margaret Atwood still with them?

  • Catch 22: vested interest ABC site; linked with Project Democracy and Avaaz?

  • And so on ... AVAAZ, Dogwood, For the Public Good (theirs, not ours), "Project Democracy" (theirs, not ours), Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and others.
By sorting this list into logical parts, and pursuing some data links via Google, we end up with the following main actors:

George Soros is an extremely rich American (see Wikipedia entry) who is credited with establishing "MoveOn" in the U.S. which, in turn, seems to have played a successful role in mobilizing citizens, unions, and vested-interest groups to elect Obama to the Presidency. Soros' other activism thrusts are global and broad in nature, and often engage in political events in other countries. The vehicle used is often Avaaz, a creation of MoveOn.

Avaaz has been highly active in Canada during this election. (We should be thankful that Kevin Libin wrote this article; it has filled in many of the missing pieces of a puzzle). Registered with Elections Canada as a Third-Party, Avaaz's activities have been quite visible if you really know what to look for. They opposed the recent establishment in Canada of SunTV, a station with a conservative view of politics as opposed to the leftist, "progressive" views of the rest of the media in Canada. John Baird's "take" on Avaaz, through the eyes of a rather shallow reporter, is also worthwhile reading. Googling on Avaaz's activities and partnerships within the past 30 days turns up some interesting political activity and links too.

The Canadian Media (see below for further information)

The Canadian union movement (see below for further information)

My personal view is that there are a number of different motivations behind the actions of each of the ABC lobby. If it is true that Soros' prime objective is to destabilize the world's currency and markets, for either enrichment or socialization purposes, then destabilization of major political jurisdictions can be thought of as events necessary to achieve that goal. The U.S. is a basket case and Obama is more and more beginning to behave like a socialist. The U.K is already a basket case. Russia, China and other similar regimes will be, and have been, harder for Soros to crack. Are "spontaneous uprisings" in the Middle East part of his strategy? Some have suggested so.

A strong, coherent, fiscally robust and stable Canada must present itself as quite a target to people like Soros. Especially since we are a nation immediately north of the U.S, with considerable natural resources, including water, and unrealized Artic potential. Is this why Avaaz and its "friends" are so active, some might say pulling the strings from the background, in this election?

Unions: The motivations of the Canadian union movement are easier to discern. Keeping their lifestyle, entitlements, and movement together. Taxpayer uprisings in Wisconsin and other U.S. states must be of great concern to them, because of the possibility to spill over into Canada. The union movement here has always favoured the NDP and Liberals as their "friends", and the Conservative government must be considered by them as a potential threat downstream for them to be so highly involved in ABC campaigns. You should note that the CAW, at a minimum, has been working against the Conservatives since at least the 2006 election.

It is interesting to note that union support for re-election of the McGuinty Liberal government in October 2011 has already begun. A major Teachers' Union has created a $3 million fund for "education" purposes. That's all we see on the surface right now, but it's likely that other union support is marshalling in the backrooms of Ontario already. Will we see Soros-backed elements involved there too? I don't know. We should be worried if they do show up there.

Media: The motivation of the Canadian media is both easier, and harder, to discern. The Toronto Star has always (and I mean always) supported Liberal parties. The CBC has too, but in this election their political favouritism has broadened to include any left-of-centre party, i.e., the NDP in addition to the Liberals. Interestingly, the CBC has been almost saint-like neutral about the Bloc. Almost, but not quite.

In previous elections, my impression was that the Globe and Mail, and CTV, were fairly unbiased in coverage and support of all parties. In fact, the Globe indorsed the Conservatives in the 2008 election. This is no longer the case. The Globe has been rabidly pro-Liberal, and disparagingly anti-CPC this election, but is now giving very favourable coverage to the NDP instead of the Liberals. Is this just another ABC campaign? Likewise, CTV has been unabashedly pro-Liberal this election. By the way, the "Canadian Press" is a news gathering organization wholly owned by Globe & Mail, TorStar and LaPresse jointly. Media concentration, eh?

Trying to balance, or oppose these media heavyweights are the much smaller National Post, Sun newspaper chain, and SunTV (News). Literally the Davids of Canada up against the Goliaths. Note that Soros-backed forces intervened strongly against a license for SunTV last fall; there's nothing quite like a monopoly on GroupSpeak, is there? The media is always the first casualty of any assault on democracy. In fact, it's essential ... to shape the minds of its readers/viewers.

Political Parties: It's obvious to me that the NDP, Liberals and Bloc have been pursuing a coalition track since at least before 2008, in the event that one of these left-of-centre parties was unable to secure a minority decision in the two subsequent elections. So there was competition, but all were united behind an ABC political action if competitive activities failed to produce a favourable result.

We know what happened in the 2006 election, and in the 2008 election, and the subsequent "Coalition Fiasco" in December of 2008. By the way, that coalition accord is still in effect until June 30, 2011. The 2011 election has been anything but dull in its latter stages, with the Liberal party's support declining now, and the NDP's campaign coming on stream after the televised debates. And thereafter rocketing due to two unrelated events that occurred in Quebec about the same time. To the NDP's unplanned, I'm sure, delight.

First, Jack Layton "connected" with younger, non-Separatiste-supporting Quebecers in the debate. But the catalyst for the beginning of the NDPs rocket ride was the following weekend's PQ leadership review/convention, and the subsequent vision of Marois and Duceppe, arm-in-arm, talking about setting "winning conditions" for another vote on sovereignty. Suddenly, this non-aligned group of Quebecers, who had taken a shine to Layton decided en-masse that they had had enough of this separation bullplops and just wanted to get on with their lives. And there was Jack. We are still waiting to see how this new love-in will manifest on May 2nd. And, by inference, the degree of stability of the resultant parliament.

[Update Apr 30/11 - Apparently the Separatistes think Jack is going to be such a good deal for them, that they are now endorsing the NDP and urging their members to do so too! Methinks what is good for the Separatistes, can't be very good for the rest of Canada.]

Where I'm Going on This ...

In many ways, a perfect political storm has occurred this election, never before seen. It looks, feels and smells like a "groundswell populist wave", but it's not. The Quebec rocket ride is a one-off in my view, and Jack Layton will have to ride that rocket with great care. The normal media bias is explainable and expected, but the intensification of support for left wing parties as well as an increase of such in the media ranks, is a cause for concern. It is fair to say that these left-supporting media outlets GroupSpeak the same views, policies, and dislikes. A disheartening and dangerous situation for those who may not GroupThink or GroupSpeak like the "progressive" media and similar-minded public.

Sun newspapers, SunTV and the National Post are the only media that non-GroupThinkers, who comprise 40% of Canada's population, can turn to. But these media outlets have vastly smaller coverage and resources. Particularly compared to the CBC which receives over $1.1 billion a year from taxpayers of all political stripes. Allied with this issue of media representation and scale, though, is the issue of the concentration of the media in a few, very powerful hands. This media consortium is essentially "locked" against different views being transmitted to the broad Canadian populace.

And the interference of Soros-backed elements in our political processes and in this election has to be of great concern . This is a U.S. based assault, whatever they claim. Their Canadian "office" is an office of convenience only. There is no "Canadian Wing"; it is "here today, gone tomorrow". They move on from here to ... where? Zimbabwe? Another Middle East country? The 2012 Presidential election in the U.S., to work their destabilization magic afresh?

No, the Soros assault on our country should be troubling to each and every Canadian. Our sovereignty, our lifestyle, our "Canadian-ness" is what is under attack. By someone who doesn't give a damn for Canada, if you look at this in a critical manner. Using our own wide-open free speech election laws against us.

I fear that if we subsequently find out that we have made the wrong ballot choice on May 2nd, we may then find out that these very powerful forces remain entrenched, even more so, and prevent us from pursuing an alternate path later on. Ever.

You may look at this situation and come to a different conclusion. Fine, at least I presented to you what I believe are the critical issues facing us on May 2nd. You decide for yourself. I can only, as the saying goes, "lead a horse to water, not make it drink".

If, however, you see the situation in the same light as I do, I urge you to take real, positive action NOW. There is no time to lose. There are only 4 days left to get the word out, by every means at your disposal.

After all, it's only the future of Canada that we are talking about.


Resources: My two previous articles, here and here, are admittedly written in a highly-partisan tone. They do, however, provide much additional information and links which will fill in your knowledge of the comprehensive nature of this assault.

Apr 26, 2011

Jack's Quebec Talent


This is a joke.

It's obvious that they are only there to collect the $2/vote/year taxpayer subsidy for the NDP, for poor souls deceived into voting NDP.

This is Jack's Dream Team? Pathetic.

The only Surge there is in Quebec for Jack, is his BS that comes through the media pipes.

He Sold Us Out, Canada

There is no promise that Layton will not make, or no part of Canada he will not sell out, to get another vote for his socialist party.

First he promised to re-open constitutional talks with Quebec. Jack knows full well that Meech Lake just about blew up the nation. He also knows that we have economic uncertainty to conquer right now, need more jobs and the world's economy is very fragile indeed. He also knows that the rest of Canada has no appetite, politically or economically, for undertaking such "negotiations". Yet he made the commitment in the French language debate, consciously and selfishly, with an eye only on "that next vote he could garner", not the well-being of Canada.

Now the rest of Canada has told him what they think of his double-dealing, vote-grubbing ploy. So he's backtracking. And, in doing so, he risks leaving this divisive issue for Canada on the table, and Quebecers disillusioned by his shallow ploy for more votes. Thanks, Jack. You are such a self-centred greedy little piss-ant, aren't you?

In that same French debate he also agreed with the Bloc that Canada's official Bilingualism Act should be subjugated to Quebec's Bill 101, in Quebec. Once again, he sold out the rest of Canada to get that "next vote". Of course, that sort of policy plays into the Bloc's cards, and leaves Canadians wondering why they should have bilingualism if Quebec isn't required in federal jurisdictions to have English as a possible primary language.

Nicely done, Jack. Once more you have set in motion one of the most divisive issues in Canada. All in the name of your selfish grab for that "next Quebecer's vote". You really are a piece of work, aren't you?

Finally, you have probably set back Quebec - ROC relations by 10 years, when all these Quebec NDP converts come to realize you were either lying to them ... or Canadians realize that you have been lying through your teeth to them for these many years.

Well done, you shallow little man. Double-faced, double-speaking, and vote-grubbing little man!

Now you know why Jack only said what he did in the French language debate. What a little piss-ant!

The Big Con

Subtitle: How I Learned to Live with the NDP's Higher Taxes, and Love It!

Normally, Jack's promises and his stated cost of those promises don't get much scrutiny during an election, since there's perceived to be no chance of the NDP forming a government or being the official opposition. But this election is different. So it's probably a good idea to take a look at what Jack's platform looks like, and its impact on us, since it always involves a "tax, tax, tax" and "spend, spend, spend" philosophy.

A Quickie on the "Taxpayer".

In real life, there is only one taxpayer ... you and me. Yes, governments COLLECT taxes from a variety of sources, but it is only you and me that ends up PAYING the whole shot. In addition to our income taxes (federal and provincial), municipal taxes (property taxes), HST/GST/PST on what we buy and whatnot, we also pay a hidden tax on everything we purchase ... our share of corporate taxes.

Yes, we pay corporate income taxes. All of them, in fact. Every last cent. Here's why.

Let's say a company makes widgets. And let's say it costs this company $1.00 to make each of these widgets. They add on a profit of (let's say) $0.30 or 30 cents, and sell them for $1.30 each to you and me. Out of their 30 cents profit they have to pay corporate income tax, make new investments in equipment and people for future growth and competitiveness, and pay any shareholders they have a dividend (interest) on the investment/risk they made to get the company going; the investor also pays tax on these dividends, and on any profit realized by selling shares in the company. A real simple example, on purpose.

No business operates at a loss for long; they go out of business if they do, throwing people out of work and reducing taxes to governments. If their cost of making the widget goes up, they must increase their prices ... which you and I pay, and the government collects more money on income and HST/GST/PST taxes when we buy these widgets.

One of those costs is corporate income taxes. If they go up, the company passes those increased taxes on to us. If government removes a tax incentive for the company, that cost of the lost financial incentive gets passed on to us. If government increases EI premiums, or health premiums, those costs are passed on to, and paid by us, in the end. So are increases in materials, energy, transportation and labour needed to make a widget. You and me pay the whole shot. No exception.

So when a politician gleefully says he or she is going to raise corporate income taxes, what is really being said is that you and I should start bending over.

Where Jack Gets His "Funny Money" From ...

Jack counts on you and me being really stupid, in believing his "free money" claims, and in being "real happy" that he's going to go after those "Big Corporations to pay their fair share of taxes!". Alas, as we have seen from the example above, companies (big and small) don't pay those taxes ... you and I do. The ultimate con job. Here's where Jack thinks he can find all the money he needs to pay for all those spending promises he is making:

Increase Corporate Taxes (from 15.5% to 19.5%): Jack thinks he's going to get $33.7 billion in NEW taxes (increased price of stuff we buy everyday) from you and me. And, we pay more HST/GST/PST on those higher prices! Double-Dipping at it's best.

Eliminate Fuel Creation Incentives ($8 bil over 4 years): As I wrote earlier, whether Jack increases taxes, or reduces incentives to companies, it's a tax increase that you and I will pay in the price of things we buy. Jack's going to "soak" those nasty people (you and me) by another $8 billion in increased fuel prices that we are going to have to pay. Don't like the price of gasoline when you fill up your tank at the pumps, or fuel oil, or electricity costs, etc? Bend over, Jack's going to raise prices to us, and collect even more taxes from each sale in the form of excise taxes, energy taxes, HST/GST/PST, and whatever other taxes are already paid by us.

Tax Haven Crackdown ($8.6 bil over 4 years): First off, if there was that type of money available for easy picking out there, the Feds would have already got all of it, believe me. They've already had good success going after the Swiss bank account type of "undeclared money". But this amount is so huge in comparison that it boggles the mind. Personally, I think Jack's spending spree got so large that he had to invent a mythical revenue source to balance his platform costs. It ain't gonna happen, folks!

But, let's say that companies (foreign and domestic) are booking profits in jurisdictions around the world. They pick the lowest tax rate, safest jurisdiction to do so. A lot of money (profits) is booked here, and they pay taxes on it to our government, helping us. If corporate tax rates are increased, that money will be moved elsewhere, and some other country will get the benefit.

If Jack thinks that he's going to get one orange cent of those profits that will be moved/booked offshore to another country, he's dreaming in technicolour. So, no cost to us directly; it's impossible to tax an imaginary figure. It's just that the taxes that used to be paid to our government from these booked profits won't be paid any more, and Jack's tax revenue from these sources will go down, not up. Congratulations, Jack! Your phony costings are even further in the hole! And that's not even taking into account $500 million over 4 years that Jack claims he will get from "Crime Legislation Saving". How's that work? He doesn't explain. Pull the other foot, Jack!

Cap & Trade Taxes ($21.5 bil over 4 years): The Whopper of all tax increases, also known as the Green Shaft, Carbon Tax, Tax Certificates or whatever. It's nearly $7.5 billion just in its 4th year alone, and increasing at a rapid rate thereafter.

Jack's proud new tax works like this. Jack's going to invent a new type of "certificate" that he will auction off ("sell") to polluting companies and businesses. That's going to improve our environment, somehow. No details, of course, since that would really scare everyone away from voting for him. A business must achieve zero emissions. It can spend lots of money to do this, and increase the price of its products to us, to pay for it. Or, it can "buy" one of Jack's newly-invented tax schemes called a Carbon Credit Certificate to allow it to continue its emissions. Since the cost of this certificate is just another cost of producing its widgets, that cost is passed along to us to pay in the price of the widgets we buy. Either way, you and I pay, and Jack gets more money to pay for his spending promises.

That Great Sucking Sound Is ...

In total, then, Jack is effectively raising new taxes on you and me by $62.2 billion over the next 4 years, with the cost/year increasing dramatically each and every year thereafter. It's already $22 billion in year 4 alone! That's money out of our wallets. To be spent for Jack giving a lot of money out to other folks, through his really generous spending promises.

Jack's NEW spending promises add up to just under the $62+ billion that he's going to take out of our wallets over the next 4 years. They include such payoffs as $4 billion to Aboriginals (he and Paul Martin promised Aboriginals at least $5 billion in the 1993/4 Kelowna Agreement, so this is just a down payment) and $2 billion in increased foreign aid (feel better now?). Something for everyone (NOT). No cost. Free money, says Jack.

Of course, Jack's mythical "Tax Haven Crackdown" and "Crime Legislation Saving" are completely bogus, so that's $9.1 billion that he's in the hole to start with. And if you consider that it will probably take Jack two years to get his Cap & Trade tax-sucker working and revenues flowing, we should deduct the $7.9 billion in taxes he claimed he would collect from this in the first two years, shouldn't we?

So, Jack's short at least $17 billion (out of the claimed $62.2 billion) to start with. Twenty-seven percent error rate to start with! That must set a new record for even the NDP, in the area of simple budgeting. That is, if you believe ANY of Jack's figures, which I wouldn't. For example, he assumes tax revenues from companies continue to increase at a rapid pace after be raises their tax rate from 15.5% to 19.5%. But there's not going to be much growth, if at all, by this wonderful tax measure. In fact, jobs and companies will be lost. So how can his tax revenues increase? Beats me. I guess it's just that magical "NDP Funny Money" at work, that's all.

And Then Reality Sets In...

Jack doesn't have one of his orange cents invested in keeping the economy going, creating new permanent and worthwhile jobs, or attracting new businesses to Canada, keeping current businesses, or creating new businesses. In fact, all his measures are anti-business, despite words/sops such as "encourage new small business investment". No, companies who have booked revenue and investments here because of Canada's ever-decreasing corporate tax rate, are going to take a hike elsewhere. Companies who can find lower costs, including taxes, will go elsewhere. Goodbye jobs. Goodbye growth. Goodbye tax revenue and growth.

Western Canada energy producers aren't going to look favourably on disincentives for investing in new production, and are going to be facing a hostile tax and investment climate. The last time the Liberals penalized the West in such a manner though their Pierre Elliot Trudeau socialist "National Energy Program", the economy of Western Canada tanked into a min-depression, as did the rest of Canada. This Son of NEP should be worse. And remember, Alberta alone pays about $14 billion a year (more than it receives) into Provincial Equalization Grants that go to other provinces. Good luck counting on that revenue in the future, with the province effectively closed down by Jack's hostile policies. Not to worry; separation may be the West's salvation.

Ontario should especially swoon over Jack's money-sucking schemes too. The Nanticoke coal-fired power-generating station alone is the largest polluter in Canada. In fact, Ontario's 4 plants coal stations make up 30% of Canada's pollution, and would therefore be the biggest purchaser of Jack's new/instant make-believe "Green Tax Certificates". The huge cost of those purchases (let's say 30% of the $21.4 billion, or about $6.5 billion over 4 years) will be paid by even higher electricity bills that arrive at your house each month. Plus another $2.2 billion (increasing each year) each and every year thereafter. Plus considerable increases in your gas or oil fuel bill, and so on. Be happy, Ontario, Jack's saving the planet for you!

Except, he's really not. All we are doing is paying more money to keep our environment almost the same. And to allow US coal plants to continue to send their emissions to us. And to make some space for China to send more emissions to us, at the rate of more than 100 new, giant coal-fired plants/year, on eastward flowing breezes. Yup, all these new "Jack Taxes" are wonderful.

Just a Few Other Things to Consider ...

Of course, our economy will have cratered well before year 4 of Jack's Master Plan for Bankruptcy. The world economy is fragile, very fragile, as Harper says. Developed nations and economies around the world have suddenly found out that there's no money to pay for the already lavish social spending programs implemented in better times. Higher taxes are only part of the solution. Massive social spending cutbacks are needed too. And financial bailouts of bankrupt nations. Forever (it's not a one-shot deal, regardless of what politicians say).

The US is a basket case, being kept alive only by the Federal Reserves printing presses, aka "quantitative easing" or debasing the US currency via inflation. That's why prices/inflation is rising. And it's costing the US more than a $trillion per year just to pay the interest on their accumulated Federal/National (not even massive State or Municipal) debt. They will have a budget deficit (expenditures minus tax revenues) of an additional $1.5 trillion this year alone. Insanity. And about 80% of what we produce goes to the US, which is going further and further into the dumper. You can begin to see the risk problem, the "fragility" now. And all that is just the tip of the global economic iceberg.

The Alternatives

At this point in the election, it seems at a high level that the choices are between a Conservative financial management approach, or the tax and spend, hate-Business approach of the Coalition in its many guises (any combination of NDP/Liberal, and/or Bloc). The Liberals and the NDP have virtually the same programs, each with huge revenue holes in costing of their promises. The Bloc is just a conduit for more money to Quebec, with someone else (you and me) paying. So, if they ever had a platform, it would be "100% spend with a $cost of zero".

Harper and the Conservatives know that tough times lie ahead. They want to get the yearly operating budget balanced (zero deficit) as soon as possible, so there's no financial millstone hanging around Canada's neck while it tries to swim in the swamp with financial alligators. That's why there's modest new spending promises. A zero budget deficit will be achieved in 2014-15 fiscal year. Incentives to business (corporate tax reductions), that create jobs and growth, will be continued until 2012. There will be no disincentives/penalties to create and keep jobs and growth in Canada. And you and I will not be hit in our wallets by new taxes.

Both the NDP and the Liberals have absolutely no way of achieving a balanced (zero deficit) budget by 2015-16, let alone any time in the foreseeable future. Maybe never. The Liberals, it should be noted, never said in their platform when they would achieve a balanced budget. And they have the same Carbon Tax (Cap & Trade) as the NDP in their platform.

Bonus: Ontarians should think back to how Bob Rae's NDP government in that province practically bankrupted it, bringing economic "growth" into negative numbers, Rae days, etc. Well, Bob "ruin an economy" Rae is now in the Liberal Party, but his ghost lives on at the federal level in the form of Jack Layton and his "tax and spend" NDP.

Extra Bonus: There's another hidden tax that no one has discussed, for any party "lucky" enough to acquire a considerable number of Quebec seats. It's called "The Quebec Tax". Just think of the (very real) cost of keeping Quebec happy. Constantly. Expensively. Be still my heart. For other occasions, there's MasterCard!

It's your choice. It's your children's future and tax burden that you are deciding too. Choose wisely. BUT VOTE!

References: Depressing, but Mandatory Reading Material:
NDP Calvacade of Promises
NDP Phoney Invoice for these Promises

Apr 25, 2011

Volpe Liberals Trashing NDP (sorry: Green) Flyers

Saskatchewan-based blogger Kate McMillan at "Small Dead Animals" credits "Buckdog" with turning up a very interesting set of photos.

Joe Volpe (Liberal Member of Parliament for Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto) is knocking on doors, and his assistant/handler is inserting Liberal flyers into mailboxes.

Only thing is, the handler is removing other parties' flyers first, and trashing them. In this case, it's NDP (sorry: Green) flyers.

Caught on camera, step by step. The direct link is here. Complete with explanation of what is taking place.
  1. NDP (sorry, Green) flyer visible in mailbox.
  2. Handler "visits" mailbox.
  3. Presto. Liberal flyer now in mailbox.
  4. NDP (sorry, Green) flyer now in bluebox.
Isn't this tampering? Shouldn't someone be charged with a crime?

I wonder how long the mainstream media will keep this hidden to protect their Liberal friends?

Update: a commenter writes to inform me that it was Green flyers that Volpe's handler trashed, not NDP.

Postscript: The button-photo at the top of the post comes from Volpe's run at the Liberal leadership a few years back. It was alleged that Joe had the backing of a great number of Liberal supporters who, unfortunately, were under six feet of dirt. Sterling Liberals, otherwise.

Volpe eventually folded his leadership bid, and joined Bob Rae's camp. We all know how that turned out in the eventual face-off between Ignatieff, Rae and Dion!

Volpe's also been involved in other "affairs", the most notorious being his amazing ability to collect $5,400 donations from severely underage kids (under 10 y/o) who, apparently, had this money laying around in their piggy-bank. They had no doubt that giving Joe the money would result in a better world. This "affair" inspired the infamous "Youth for Volpe" campaign parody website (click on link) ... missing a few pieces after all these years, but still a hoot!

Apr 24, 2011

Our National Media is a Disgrace

Last night Ignatieff got booed out of a Mississauga hockey arena at commencement of a Junior "A" playoff game.

The next morning, not a mention of this rather interesting occurrence could be found in the mainstream media (MSM). Even the Canada Press account of the game omitted the fact that any politician was at the game, let alone that booing took place. How peculiar.

But by 9:00 am, SunTV News had the incident trailing across their news ticker. Shortly afterwards, a news item appeared in their broadcast. And, finally, by 11:00 am or so, we were able to see and hear the booing from videotape that SunTV News had obtained.

By all accounts, the booing was sustained anywhere from two to four minutes. Not a minor event during a campaign, in other words. Made all the more strange that the MSM had found it possible to constantly hype stories and videotape of nefarious CPC supporters drowning out alleged "neutral, unbiased, UN-sanctioned, NOT!" questions of reporters at a CPC rally. They did so after Harper had calmly, succinctly, and completely answered a triple-barreled, pre-loaded question by a CBC reporter well known for having a hate-on of anything CPC. The crowd was that pleased and proud after the response. But no, twist and turn the headline such that it became a negative (against free speech) for the CPC.

But to return to the hockey game booing of Ignatieff. It was not until 12:14 pm that the CBC decided that it could not shield Ignatieff any more from the truth. Even then, their response was to write a short, 3-paragraph fluff-piece about the game, casually mentioning that, yes, by golly, there might have been something like booing, but not necessarily booing, going on. As at 2:00 pm I still couldn't find anything on CTV but, then again, they are masters at burying unfavourable news items, as is the CBC.

The Globe and Mail, as of 2:30 pm was still merrily presenting its "Tory crowd drowns out question" major news item, head for the hills, the CPC is coming. The Toronto Star was, of course, still running their "Another bump in the road for Harper and the media" major news item, gush, gush, on their variation of the Liberal newsletter titled, "Tory crowd drowns out question". But no mention of this massive booing of Ignatieff at the Mississauga hockey rink.

Perhaps the Star doesn't have a news bureau in that foreign country; after all, even Ignatieff lives in mid-town Toronto rather than in Etobicoke-Lakeshore riding that he supposedly represents. And that riding is, well, how to put it delicately, right up alongside Mississauga ... generally acknowledged to be the beginning of those dreaded suburbs. You know, something like Siberia, but with those awful things they call Tim Horton's?

So there we have it. SunTV News scooping CBC and CTV on a major news item by a considerable number of hours. Forcing CBC to run something, however inadequate, on the incident. Nothing yet in the Globe or Star. We all know why, don't we? If you aren't clued in yet, perhaps this will help.

Yet Canadians are forced to pay for CBC, CTV and Global "cleansed" news and programming on their TVs because each of them is designated by the CRTC as a "must-carry" channel. Yet SunTV was specifically denied a "must-carry" license. Why is this?

The Liberal biased intelligencia of this nation, who have gladly assigned the word "Progressive" to their way of thinking, love the way that CBC, CTV and Global echo their views. GroupThink at its best. And if you scratch a "progressive" in any way, you will find that this word they use to describe themselves is a codename for "a bigot who is intolerant of any other viewpoint than their own".

Thus all the hue and cry, when SunTV was requesting a license, that it was no more than "Fox News North", or "an extremist rightwinged channel" or, heavens's forbid, a channel with different views than mainstream Canada, a.k.a. "progressives". Their application should be denied. Approval would mean the destruction of Canada, maybe North America, perhaps the world ... maybe even the universe! Margaret Atwood, the chief crone and supposedly a worthwhile scribe of the "progressive" nation of Canadians (all of whom live in downtown Toronto, it seems), even proclaimed her over-the-top hysterical "concerns" in this Globe and Mail Apocalypse Warning.

Forgotten in all their concerns were, of course, a few Inconvenient Truths. Fox TV was already being carried on Canadian TV channels, as was Al Jazeera Network who certainly couldn't be described as "progressive". Multiculturalism is here, Ms. Atwood and like-minded GroupThinkers should realize and, besides, the Canadian constitution contains a few pesky words about freedom of speech. This obviously did not deter the "progressives', now bent our of shape and purple-faced, from demanding that this application of SunTV be dispatched forthwith to the Hinterlands, possibly even Mississauga even, without further consideration.

It's amazing, then, that SunTV even got on the air considering there was a good chance that the universe would cease to exist as we knew it.

If there is a point I'm making, it is that a news network such as SunTV in Canada should be on the same footing as the CBC, CTV and Global networks. If they are "must-carry", so must be SunTV. Else, CBC, CTV and Global should be removed from the "must-carry" list immediately by the CRTC. Anything else would only reaffirm to all Canadians that the GroupThink controllers, the "progressives", are the only view of Canada and its affairs that are permitted by this nation.

And that is intolerable, as well as being indefensible.

Downtown Toronto is NOT the centre of the universe. Nor should the headquarters of the very few "progressives" in this Toronto enclave be located alternately between CBC Toronto offices and the Liberal party of Canada offices ... changing locations at regular intervals to the cadence of Liberal party leadership conventions.

-------------------------- oooooo ----------------------------

BONUS: To illustrate groupthink support for a particular party (guess which one), I copied down the political headlines displayed at the Globe & Mail's website at about 2:00 pm, April 20, 2011:
  • Minority or not, Harper sees no point in compromise (Slant: a Coalition is good for you!)
  • Harper has no choice but ‘to put water in his wine,’ Ignatieff says (Slant: repeats pro-Liberal talking point)
  • Harper’s coalition dog won’t hunt (Slant: hide the "Coalition" word, quick!)
  • Faring well from B.C. to Ontario, Harper faces ‘fault line’ in Quebec (Slant: no one's voting CPC east of Ontario)
  • Jean Chr├ętien offers the Queen an election update (Slant: gratuitous puff-piece for the Liberals)
  • Ken Dryden's campaign going down to the final buzzer (Slant: Dryden in tight race, but Liberals will prevail)
  • Layton blames Harper for Ontario factory shutdowns (Slant: normal stuff, displacing any room for a pro-CPC story)
  • Harper defends spokesman accused of meddling in port appointment (Slant: third day of fragging out a anti-CPC story)
  • Why everyone – including the Bloc – will join the NDP pile-on (Slant: Liberals will prosper at the polls ... before "orange wave" happened!)
  • Ignatieff’s honesty, Harper’s spokesman and anti-Layton bombast (Slant: retreading pro-liberal articles for day 8)
  • A failure to communicate leadership vision (Slant: run of the mill anti-CPC rant)
  • Election 2011, a dark fiction (Slant: Margaret Atwood's apocalyptic screed against the CPC)
  • Ontario demands more immigration powers to compete with Manitoba, Quebec, BC (Slant: Dalton McGuinty tries to help Ignatieff)
  • Harper renews plea for majority as Ignatieff lays out minority scenario (Slant: Coalition is good, tasty)
  • Canadians still divided over prospect of Harper majority (Slant: Totally invented "warning" against CPC)
  • Will Harper resign if defeated? He ‘won’t take the bite on that one’ (Slant: defeat CPC to get rid of Harper)
  • Will hockey-loving Quebecers send Tories to the penalty box? (Slant: uses playoffs to invent issue against CPC)
  • A pointed reminder health care is a real issue in this election (Slant: regurgitation of Liberal talking point, again)
  • Ignatieff should play the G20 card (Slant: Globe's advice, which is why they aren't in politics!)
  • Liberals decide to go backwards (Slant: actually a half-decent article)
  • Electoral landscape shifts in Edmonton-Strathcona and Nunavut (Slant: look here, the north now hates the CPC)
  • NDP vows are spoken to be broken (Slant: The Globe's own crystal ball talking, no facts or truth)
  • Elizabeth May should have been heard (Slant: the debates are long over, you clots!)
  • This campaign’s about plodders, not prophets (Slant: fairly neutral)
  • Here’s the right way to reform health care (Slant: and only the Liberals would do it! Sure.)
  • Jeffrey Simpson on the NDP platform, (Slant: a hatchet job; too bad he didn't say the same about the Liberals)
  • A Canada-U.S. tax gap means a Canada-U.S. tax transfer (Slant: if you can't confuse them with twisted logic, use BS instead)
  • Ministers intervened after Harper spokesman lobbied port authority (Slant: one reminder above is inadequate; let's repeat)
  • Layton’s leadership edge on Ignatieff will be hard to lose, pollster says (Slant: the understatement of the year)
  • Ignatieff assails Tory no-shows – but admits he’ll miss local debate (Slant: OK)
  • With Ignatieff ‘in the mud,’ Harper sheds support in Quebec and B.C. (Slant: a masterpiece of Globe fiction)
  • Tory strategy seeks to stoke Canadians’ true patriot love (Slant: The Liberals are better, whatever)
  • Delighted with polls, Layton frets over ‘fires of discord’ on unity (Slant: even Layton is vulnerable)
  • Layton takes aim at Ignatieff – but Grit Leader won’t return fire (Slant: wait, the Liberals will come back with Super Response)
  • Liberal and NDP gains dampen Tory hopes for majority three weeks in (Slant: see ... we told you the CPC was sinking!)
  • Anti-Harper ads raise stakes as Liberals try to ‘shake up’ electorate (Slant: free publicity for Liberals)
  • Ignatieff distances himself from separatist scare talk (Slant: ignore Iggy's flipping and flopping, PLEASE!)
  • ‘Price was right’ for Liberals to advertise on Sun News debut (Slant: just ignore that Libs needed desperately to counterbalance SunTV)
  • In Dispute Anti-Harper attack ads raise stakes as Liberals try to ‘shake up’ electorate (Slant: don't take it as desperation, folks!)
  • ‘They dish it but they can’t take it,’ Ignatieff says of Harper misquote (Slant: tries to justify Liberal lie in ad)
  • Debate gives Duceppe a lift, but will Quebecers respond? (Slant: CPC Quebec seats in danger)
  • NDP gains on Bloc turf add tension to Duceppe-Layton rivalry (Slant: obligatory filler piece to provide "balance)
  • Bloc’s grip on Quebec puts province on the outside looking in (Slant: vote Liberal to ease Quebecers' pain)
  • Want a coalition scenario? Try Duceppe as PM (Slant: trying to ridicule CPC's successful Coalition warnings)
  • Are federalists chipping away at the Bloc, or each other? (Slant: Lib poll tanking is just transitory)
  • Harper woos Quebecers with pledge to move key federal agency (Slant: CPC will stoop to anything to woo Quebecers. Swine!)
  • Canada should woo East Asia, a new economic frontier (Slant: Liberal puff piece, ignoring fact CPC doing this for past 5 years)
  • CIDA: a broken agency that needs to be overhauled (Slant: CPC all wrong, not aligned to Libs platform)
  • Marijuana should not be criminalized (Slant: pure Globe viewpoint slam against CPC)
  • Leaders' debate left Canadians in search of passion (Slant: don't worry, Iggy will galvanize voters real soon)
  • The G8 facts must speak, immediately (Slant: yes, these will help the sinking Libs immensely in the campaign)
  • This niche election promise is a very good idea (Slant: reminder that CPC's promises are to niches, not like Liberals')

Ignatieff's Media Co-Conspirators

Courtesy of Saskatchewan-based blogger Kate McMillan at "Small Dead Animals" comes this alternate reality news item about Michael Ignatieff at a hockey game yeasterday. Amazingly, his attendance was apparently not in the same time dimension as Canada's mainstream media, including the Canadian Press which is a news gathering organization jointly owned by the Globe & Mail, TorStar (Toronto Star) and LaPresse.

I wonder how much over-the-top coverage the G&M, Star, CBC and CTV would have devoted to the story if we changed the name to Stephen Harper?

Starting off, from a Reader at SDA:
"He attended an Ontario Hockey league play-off game in Mississauga, Ontario tonight, there were about 4000 fans from Niagara and Mississauga present in the arena. He was introduced to the fans, waved, bowed etc. and was booed by the whole crowd for over two minutes. We are not sure how long he stayed at the game afterwards. Mississauga according to the media is supposed to be a Liberal stronghold !!!".
From Open Ice Hockey reporter Nathan Dearing:
"@Dearing_OIH Nathan Dearing
Michael Ignatieff at the Majors/ice dogs game, receiving a serious boo from the Mississuga crowd
9 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® "
Confirmation from the V.P. Marketing of the Mississauga St. Mike's Majors:
"@RickRadovski Rick Radovski
4000 people booed #Ignatief at the #Majors game tonight while #Mississauga Mayor#HazelMcCallion got a huge ovation. She should run Canada
7 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®"
UPDATE: Apparently Sun TV News is now reporting the story, including video.

Updater: Decision Canada has more, including the Liberal Team's spin on the PR disaster. Still nothing from the MSM, of course.

FINAL UPDATE: At last, it hits as video story on SunTV News. Also reports of some mention on CBC and CTV. I guess that after SunTV blew them out of the water on the scoop, they couldn't protect their favourite son any more.

Original Canadian Press story. No Liberal leader reported in attendance, nothing out of the ordinary:
Shugg scores in overtime as Majors down IceDogs 3-2; Mississauga leads series 2-1
(The Canadian Press) – 6 hours ago
MISSISSAUGA, Ont. — Justin Shugg shook off a playoff scoring drought at the best possible time.
"I've been in a bit of a slump," said the 19-year-old native of Niagara Falls, Ont., moments after he scored in overtime Saturday night to give the Mississauga St. Michael's Majors a 3-2 victory over the Niagara IceDogs.
The goal was Shugg's fifth of the playoffs but his first since Game 3 of the conference semifinals against the Sudbury Wolves.
Mississauga now has a 2-1 edge in its best-of-seven Ontario Hockey League Eastern Conference final playoff series with Game 4 scheduled for Monday night in St. Catharines, Ont.
"Christmas came early," said Shugg, whose birthday is on Dec. 24. "I've been working on just playing straight hockey, going into the trenches and things like that ... The emotion after scoring a goal like that is incredible."
Mississauga captain Casey Cizikas started the play that led to Shugg's game winner. Cizikas broke into the Niagara zone from the right side, cut toward the IceDogs net and got off a weak, fade-away shot at goaltender Mark Visentin. But the rebound squirted right onto Shugg's stick. He was all alone, staring at a wide-open net, and made no mistake.
"Nobody picked me up so they (Niagara) must have had a breakdown and it led to the goal," said Shugg, acquired by the Majors last September in a trade with the Windsor Spitfires.
It was a heart-breaking loss for the IceDogs, who had built up a 2-0 lead by the midway point of the second period on goals by Alex Friesen and Dougie Hamilton.
Maxim Kitsyn started the Mississauga comeback with a power-play goal with two minutes remaining in the middle frame and Rob Flick tied the game when he scored from a scramble in front of Visentin with five minutes to go in the third.
"I thought we got off to a real good start but then we became tentative," said Mississauga general manager/coach Dave Cameron. "You practice all situations but you can't practice pressure or adversity."
The turning point for the Majors may well have come at the start of the third period when they killed off a minor penalty to Devante Smith-Pelly. The IceDogs didn't have a single shot at Mississauga goalie J.P. Anderson during that power play, and they only had 24 shots at the St. Mike's net for the entire game.
"If they score there, they probably win the game," said Cameron. "So there was a sense of urgency on our part. There are always ebbs and flows in a game and you have to play through it."
"It's a tough loss," said Visentin, who was spectacular in turning back 42 of 45 shots on the night. "We'll go over what we did wrong here and come back even harder in the next game."
"We had chances but we didn't generate enough in the third period," said Niagara coach Marty Williamson.
"Momentum is a funny thing," continued Williamson. "It starts to go against you and then you're on your heels."
After Monday night's game, the series returns to Mississauga for Game 5 on Tuesday night.
Copyright © 2011 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.
No other accounts of Ignatieff's "love in" with Mississauga and Niagara voters could be found by googling at time of writing this post.

Postscript: It wasn't until 12:14 pm on Sunday, nearly 4 hours after SunTV News first billboarded the news item, that the CBC finally ran a soft, short, detail-less, three paragraph "story" on the news item. Clearly, with SunTV News having acquired the incriminating footage, it became impossible for the CBC to protect Ignatieff. Thank goodness SunTV is now on the channel listings, to keep CBC/CTV/Global (more) honest and on their toes.

Apr 23, 2011

The Real Co-Conspirators Behind The 2011 Coup

The following is my view, and my view alone, of this travesty to Canadian democracy.

NOTE: See "update" section at bottom of this post; critical information.

The common cry from vested interests in this 2011 election is that "It's all about Democracy!". That may be true, but what they aren't telling you is that it isn't about YOUR democracy, or MY democracy. Rather, it's all about THEIR democracy. Specifically, the entitlement of the unions, special interest groups, and piglet-interests at the public teat. Protecting that teat for themselves. At all costs. Including subverting real democracy.

This election's coup has its origins in the 2006 election, if not before, when Paul Martin's Liberals were facing defeat at the hands of the Conservatives. All sorts of special interest groups sprang up, easily typified by the Think Twice Coalition; clink on the link to get an understanding of the breadth of their supporters at that time (it's grown much more since then), and note that it was a part of or sponsored by the "Council of Canadians".

Note the membership of the Canadian Auto Workers, Elizabeth May (then head of Sierra Club Canada, the environmental lobby group), Council of Canadians (Maude Barlow) and others. There were other self-interest lobby groups pumping out their self-serving "messages" during that election. But this will give you an idea of the extent to which special-interest groups were concerned that their access to the public teat might be curtailed if the Harper Conservatives were elected.

But all this "support" for Paul Martin, including his wearing of a CAW leather jacket presented by Buzz Hargrove, was not enough to prevent the Conservatives from being elected. Not to worry; his supporters never went away. They just went underground, schemed some more, and grew their membership.

Along came the 2008 election. Once more they became active, particularly the CAW who targeted 40 + 26 ridings, principally recommending Liberal candidates, but also NDP, Green and "ABC" candidates. The "ABC" in their table means any candidate, including communist if it comes to that, who can defeat the Conservatives. Well, we all know how that worked out, and how the Liberals, NDP and Bloc tried to seize power in a coup in December 2008, using the infamous Coalition of the Three Stooges. This accord does not expire until June 30, 2011, BTW.

It is my personal belief that one or more elements of these "Public Trough Supporters", aided by one or more political parties (Lib, NDP, Bloc), morphed their strategy after the 2006 election into a "coup strategy", i.e., bring down a duly-elected Conservative government under any circumstances, and replace it with a Coalition, to achieve their pubic-teat objectives. I further believe that Jack Layton himself (at a minimum) was on the frontline of this scheming. I base this view on the audio recording/transcript of a NDP caucus teleconference that embarrassingly came to light about the same time as the 2008 Coalition slithered out from beneath its rock. The audio link is at the top of the page on that link. Listen, and find out how long this had been going on, and who their co-conspirators were/are.

If it were not for the inclusion of Gilles Duceppe in the mug shot photo of the Three Stooges Coalition, the release of this highly-damaging audio tape of the conference call, and (modest) outcry of the electorate, this treacherous coalition would have succeeded. I really hope you will listen to the audio recording of Jack telling the NDP caucus all the setup work he had done beforehand to enable this coalition, or at least read the transcript. Both record an extensive list of the coalition's friends including, this time in the open, the "Aboriginals" who were still looking to make up the $5 billion of taxpayer (yours and mine) money that Paul Martin had promised them via a "Kelowna Accord" promise in the 2006 election!

So they nearly pulled it off. But, like the good plotters that they are, I believe that they merely submerged again, regrouped and cast another strategy -- grander and more inclusive. First, it was necessary for them to put some space/time from that dreaded "Coalition" word. Secondly, it would be necessary to co-opt all elements of the media, and other like-minded unions that they could. And, third, they needed to pull the plug and initiate execution of their Grand Plan on their timing and issue, not the Conservatives'. And that timing was now, and the phony issue was "Contempt of Parliament". Kind of ironic, eh?

Giving some sense of urgency to their efforts were the beginnings of anti-union actions taking place in, for example, Wisconsin in the USA. That battle, the poster-child for all "save our entitlements" union actions, reflected a growing anger amongst ordinary Americans that pubic service unions (teachers, civil servants, firefighters, police, politicians, etc.) had vastly larger salaries, pensions and benefits than the average Joe/Jill taxpayer. And that these entitlements are essentially at the root of bankrupting many municipalities and states, many more to come in the next few years. Unfunded liabilities of these entitlements amount into trillions of dollars. Not only the US federal government is bankrupt, folks.

Another sign I see of this hijacking of the political will of the people is the announcement of a major Teachers' Union in Ontario that they are setting up a $3 million fund for "education" purposes in the upcoming Ontario election in October. Their friends the Dalton McGuinty Liberals (moneybags) are going to be facing a revolt of Ontarians, and obviously these voters might require some "education". Third-party lobbying is forbidden, of course, thus the "education" effort.

I believe that the harbingers of push-back by taxpayers in the USA intensified the zeal of Public Trough Supporters in Canada to replace the Conservative government as quickly as possible, and replace it with more union friendly (loving) political parties. The Liberals, being the official opposition in parliament, were the most obvious target of their affections. But it's possible that there has been some form of "kiss and make-up" with the NDP too and, of course, the cooperation of the Bloc was essential if it was going to bring its 50 seat bludgeon of seats to the fray. So now we had arraigned against the Conservatives:
  • the full range of opposition parties, including the Greens, and not necessarily for their power aspirations alone;

  • a "progressive" friendly media led, as always, by the CBC and the Toronto Star;

  • new "progressive" friendly media elements typified by the Globe & Mail (rabidly pro-Liberal this time), CTV NewsNet, and the Canadian Press (owned by G&M, TorStar and LaPresse); I wonder if Bell Canada's hand is in this, still smarting at the Conservatives' elimination of Income Trusts, which Bell was about to convert to immediately after the 2006 election;

  • Canadian Auto Workers (has website devoted to targeting 50 ridings against the Conservatives); note that the CAW's list includes Liberal, NDP, BLOC and Green candidates this time; shades of an upcoming coup, eh?);

  • Public Service Alliance (underground campaign so far, but running an "Anything But Harper" campaign in select ridings);

  • United Food and Commercial Workers (I expect the Food Inspectors in Ottawa to push out a follow-up fluff piece any day now about the "inadequacy of the Harper Government to protect Canadians" --- they always do. Their slogan is: "Goodbye Steve";

  • Canadian Health Coalition (and provincial offspring);

  • Council of Canadians: Maude Barlow of Think Twice fame is still at it; is Margaret Atwood still with them?

  • Catch 22: a very interesting vested interest site; see their co-conspirators/plotters;

  • And so on ... AVAAZ, Dogwood, For the Public Good (theirs, not ours), "Project Democracy" (theirs, not ours), Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and others. All these were friends of, or funded previously by, the previous Liberal government (i., you and me, the taxpayer).
An excellent starting point in your research to check all this out, of course, is Election Canada's List of Registered Third Parties for this election. All you have to do is follow up the names with a Google search, and add the word "campaign" and a filter of "within the past month". It works wonders.

Which brings us to this election. I wrote one post on it, Anatomy of a Coup, earlier this week. It fills in some of the details of the coalition. And a Coalition it is, a.k.a. a planned and concerted hijacking of democracy. A cabal of traitors, in other words, conspiring to influence the result of an election and, if that fails, to negate the choice of voters at the first opportunity afterwards.

I don't think for a moment that all of the Traitorous Cabal's effort lies with the Liberals. They would be quite satisfied, perhaps more so, to see a NDP-led Coalition flaunt the will of the people. It's just that their first choice is the Liberals, and I expect they would be quite satisfied with either the NDP, Bloc, Greens or Communist party ... if that could occur. Or a coalition of any or all of them.

Folks, fellow Canadians. It's our country that these selfish, traitorous, and self-serving piglets are trying to hijack. If you want to let them do that to protect their special "entitlements" and agenda, fine. But if you are like me, and scared at how easy it has been for these hidden cowards to take over Canada, assisted by a highly-concentrated media, then we have to do something about it. Especially the sleazy and hidden agenda of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc ... the Coalition.

Get the word out folks, though comments to articles in the media, through the remaining free media (e.g., National Post, SunTV, radio stations), blogs, word of mouth, your friends, newsletters, etc. And ask yourself a simple question: if it is so easy for me to dredge up these links via Google, why have the mainstream media completely ignored this treachery?

We can't let our democracy be hijacked again. If we don't stop them now, they WILL be successful this time at subverting OUR democracy. Be careful who you vote for. It might be the Coalition and their seedy co-conspirators!

And remember. Don't be gladdened or saddened by any one member of the coalition gaining or losing a seat in polls, or on May 2nd. All they are is shifting seats amongst themselves. One of them goes up, the other goes down. Total seat count remains the same.

Reference: Here's a list of links that I have referenced in this post by simple Google search, perhaps some more:
Update: Now it's beginning to make more sense, especially Harper's strong and repeated cautions during his campaign. And this group of shadowy characters pulling the strings behind the scenes is much more sinister than I thought. And American-backed.

From another posting elsewhere, there is a report that Avaaz is a George Soros backed group. Also, that they may be fronting the "Project Democracy" web site, which is a pure "Anything But Harper" manipulator. Soros is reported as an extremely rich American trying to foist his view of socialism on the world. Obama is reputed to be one of his products. You can connect the dots from there. Thus the extreme coordinated effort by unions on a "Anything but Harper" basis.

Canada, I really fear that that our nation as we know it, and our lifestyle, is under a very concerted attack. And it doesn't look good. You know what to do. Spread the word. And VOTE!