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!

Apr 22, 2011

Meanwhile, Back Home at the Ranch ...

It seems that folks in Ignatieff's riding are waking up to the fact that, while he might just be visiting Canada, it isn't his constituency that he's visiting!

According to reports, Iggy actually lives in the toney Yorkville area of downtown Toronto, a mid-town enclave of high class shops (think YSL, Givenchy, etc.), the cafe-latte crowd, expensive restaurants, high-rise condos, the museum and art gallery, universities, theatres, and, of course, "the" address for Toronto's intelligencia to strut, shop, communicate and dine. Just your ordinary Canadian's address and lifestyle.

His riding, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, is on the western edge of Toronto, right next to Mississauga which is generally considered the beginning of the dreaded suburbs. It has a couple of highways running through it, railway tracks and, of course, at least a couple of older malls. In other words, not the usual type of destination for a "common man" Liberal seeking a delectable ambience of French haute cuisine. No, the closest to that is probably a newly-decorated Tim's ... quantities of which are in abundance within the borders of Etobicoke—Lakeshore riding.

So what's up? How come it took the grimy electorate in Etobicoke—Lakeshore so long to cotton on to Iggy's absence?

Well, it all goes back to 2008 when Iggy swore up and down, as he had before, that he would find a place to live in the riding. To truly represent his constituent and be more like the sweating masses he represented. With an area of 44 sq km, and a population of 115,641 (86,386 eligible voters), how hard could that be?

It has been very difficult for Iggy. And, since everyone believed him when he restated a prior commitment in 2008, it's only now that some people have begun wondering where Iggy's house is in the riding. Nowhere, apparently. After all, it was only a Liberal promise.

Comparing notes, some folks in the riding have also come to the conclusion that they haven't seen Iggy at all in Etobicoke—Lakeshore since 2008. Including this election. Obviously they aren't looking in the right place! It's spelled "Y-O-R-K-V-I-L-L-E", folks.

Ignatieff. Not in Parliament. Not in Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Not a Canadian. Apparently, just visiting, as the advertisements say.

Apr 21, 2011

Anatomy of a Coup

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

I believe we owe many thanks to poster "DBSmith" who, in the comment thread of a Globe & Mail article by Jane Taber dated April 21, 2011, succinctly wrote:
"Premier Wall has stepped into the fray, He, like us, has had enough.

Ignatieff is plotting a coup, and this reality so incensed the Saskatchewan premier he was moved to publicly condemn Ignatieff for his treachery.

"The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and, I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians," said Wall. "Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.

"This election" he added, "was caused by a confidence vote over 'contempt for Parliament,' (and) I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election."

Despite stating categorically he would not seek a coalition to overthrow another minority under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Ignatieff was talking overthrow which, if successful, would still need a coalition.

So let's call a spade a spade and not a shovel."
But there is something that Premier Wall did not go on to say. He left that for us to work out for ourselves. You and I know that it takes two (or more) to tango, so I believe that Premier Wall's last paragraph could easily have said:
"This election" he added, "was caused by a confidence vote over 'contempt for Parliament,' (and) I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than opposition parties, including a separatist party, plotting and executing a coup to overthrow a government".
There. It is said. A real scandal of epic proportions ... the shameless, attempted hijacking of a Canadian election. Forget AdScam. This is immensely more serious.

How did we get here, to this point in time ... to this watershed in manipulation of Canadian voters? I believe that this all started before the first coalition was announced in December 2008, after that year's election. The seeds for today's coup were certainly planted then, if not before.

We were lucky that the December coup failed. Just lucky, that's all. They had hoped to stampede it through the electorate and Parliament, but they made a fatal optics and communication mistake. They included a grinning Gilles Duceppe in their cabal photograph. And that set off the (proper) hue and cry that has persisted to this day. And made "coalition" a dirty word.

For this election in 2011, though, the conspirators' tactics were sneakier. Even at the onset, polling showed that absent a disaster during the campaign, the Conservatives would be returned with a minimum of 135 seats. This was known to everyone with an IQ greater than a fence post. No matter, if either the Liberals or NDP couldn't obtain a minority themselves, there was always Plan B. A coalition to hijack the result of a Conservative minority on May 2nd.

So the phony issue of "contempt of parliament" was manufactured and broadcast to Canadians as the greatest travesty of parliament since, well, since something. But there was this pesky "coalition thingy" that Mr. Harper kept reminding Canadians of. No problem.

First poo-poo it, then deny it in less than convincing terms, then craft an official position that could have been written by a firm that manufactures Swiss cheese. Finally, the messaging changed to, "it's perfectly legal, very parliamentary". But this only raised the suspicion that while it might be in the best parliamentary tradition, it certainly wasn't the moral outcome that many Canadians had come to expect in THEIR vision of democracy.

Harper wouldn't let the coalition concern go, and neither did Peter Mansbridge in his interview with Michael Ignatieff. And finally the other shoe dropped this week. It wasn't a "coalition", said Ignatieff; it would be an informal agreement, a more formal agreement, a less formal agreement, an issue-by-issue agreement, a handshake, whatever, just don't call it a coalition ... that will scare Canadians. It sure does, Ignatieff, when one of the parties by necessity, in order to make the scheme work, is the Bloc. We've heard that song before, and it grates on our ears.

So here we are today. The coup conspiracy ... long time in the making ... exposed. Laid out in all its ugliness, its self-centeredness, its presumption of entitlement to the crown by hook or by crook. With at least three co-conspirators, probably more. For this scheme to work, at least three parties had to be onside and committed from the beginning. So replacing Ignatieff with Layton as the object of affection only rewards Plan C of the conspiracy. There is no Plan D (Duceppe) in their grand vision, I hope.

It's not the first time that the Liberal Party has engaged in outright manipulation of votes. In the 2008 election it was quite obvious that Stephane Dion and the Liberals had entered into an "informal agreement" with Elizabeth May of the Greens by not running a Liberal candidate against her in her attempt to gain a seat in Peter McKay's riding. In the late stages of the election, when it was apparent that another Conservative minority government might result, well, let's see what the thoroughly incensed National Post wrote on October 16, 2008 regarding "May's delusions of grandeur", or betrayal of Canadian voters:
"... In the campaign's final days, Ms. May shamelessly shilled for the Liberals, pleading with voters to cast ballots for Mr. Dion's party if that would stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. She turned her party into a false front for a competitor, in other words. It was a disgraceful move, one that made fools of all those (such as this editorial board) who argued she should be admitted to the televised debates ...".
Do they really think that Canadians are so stupid, so easy to manipulate and gull, that they can do this a second time, on an immensely grander scale, and think they can get away with it?

And get us to pay for it, over and over again, at $300 million a pop per election? Well, sure, it's not as if it's their money, you know. It's "other people's money", the best kind. Augmented by those wonderful $2/vote subsidies lifted from Canadians wallets each year, in the name of democracy. And they nearly got away with it.

But doesn't a conspiracy require a broad range of members to pull all this off? In my mind it does and, looking at the overall picture, it's apparent to me that a significant portion of the highly-concentrated media in Canada may have been prime contributors to this conspiracy. It's even possible that the Ghosts of Buzz Hardgrove Past may be involved too, since the CAW are targeting 50 ridings of the Conservatives with some gusto and determination. Not to mention other vested-interest groups such as the old "Think Twice" brigade in current incarnations.

In past elections, the Toronto Star has been unabashedly pro-Liberal, and the CBC has just been its normal pro-left, "progressive view of the world, all Canadians should think like us" broadcaster.

This time, however, the Globe and Mail has been obscenely pro-Liberal from the onset in my estimation. Every Liberal talking point and "expose" breathlessly announced and dissected and approved. Every Conservative action and announcement cast negatively, with occasional dispatches from the field about the NDP injected so as to provide some semblance of "balance". Of course, when the Liberals began to crash and burn after the debates, the Globe's coverage and promotion of the Liberal brand intensified greatly, it seemed, and became more shrill and obviously more silly.

Now, it appears, the Globe may have decided to throw the losing Liberals under the bus, and to move to Plan C (Layton) to shill for the NDP, since Ignatieff and his strategists have made a mess of what should have been your average, run-of-the-mill coup. This may be only a fleeting impression, and Jane Taber's article which I reference at the commencement of this post may only be a one-off. Time will tell if it's an anomaly, or a shift in support to the back-up member of the coup/coalition.

CTV NewsNet also is culpable in my view, as is the obnoxious and biased Evan Solomon on CBC. Much less so than the Globe, though, which takes the cake as the unofficial newsletter of the Liberal Party of Canada. Also complicit may be The Canadian Press, a "news-gathering/shaping" organ jointly owned by the Globe & Mail, TorStar and, I believe, LaPresse.

Only the National Post, and Sun chain with it's newest baby SunTV, has been able to shed light on the edges of this conspiracy. SunTV's creation and start-up was viciously opposed by existing broadcasters, media giants, the "intelligencia" like Margaret Atwood and others ... as the greatest catastrophe that could possibly befall Canada (translation: a viewpoint that wasn't "progressive"). Scratch a "progressive" and you will always find an intolerant bigot. Sorry that the NP and SunTV spoiled your "coup party", folks.

And remember, TV (and therefore political reporting and biases) propagates across all regions of Canada. As do many of their print/media stories. It's the price we have paid, and are now paying in spades, to have allowed a very select number of companies to control the creation, distribution and presentation of news (including political) reporting across our nation. It doesn't take much thinking to realize the implication of this concentration on our lives and on our votes. The next government should clean up this cabal of incestuous "news" shapers or manipulators.

So be careful who you vote for on May 2nd. It may not be the party that you think you are supporting. You may be voting for Uncle Gilles.

[Update: Take a gander at who has registered as a Third-Party, so far. Yup, the CAW, Catch 22 Campaign, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, Public Service Alliance of Canada, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, etc. Shades of the old anti-Conservative Think Twice Coalition, of which Elizabeth May was a member, I believe. Nothing like vested interests to spur on the Liberals ... or the NDP.]

Apr 19, 2011

Ignatieff's Bright Future?

On everyone's lips --- what will Ignatieff do after he and the Liberals lose this election, as they inevitably will?

Will he go back to Harvard, as many believe? Or take up Eyebrow Cultivation as a Green subsidy qualifier? Or even start up a school for arrogant Liberals? For that, we have to look at what skills he might possess that would be attractive to Harvard or others.

He is self-described as a writer, a journalist, a "Professor in Human Rights Policy", and a broadcaster. More recently he has added "visitor to Canada", and "failed political leader" to his extensive resume. All these skillsets can be found in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Canadians and Americans, with the exception of "failed political leader". That club is much more select and includes such luminaries as Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Kim Campbell and Joe Clark. But we aren't talking about his impending membership in this select club, so let's move on.

His other skillsets are a worth a dime a dozen. Even less when it is realized he has done more "whoops" and U-turns in his views, positions, writings and utterances than the whole of the Liberal party since Confederation. Put simply, his positions appear very "flexible", his resolve rather "fluid", and his principles (and convictions) totally "modifiable".

I imagine Harvard has at least minimum standards for exalted professors, such as knowing what they are talking about or lecturing about. A certain level of real, as opposed to fake, gravitas as well? A person who has accomplished something real, as opposed to talking all the time about his view (changeable as the weather) and "how he would do it if he were in charge" (rather poorly, based on experience here).

So why would Harvard want him back? Beats me, unless they have a new chair established for "Unprincipled Professors". Right up Ignatieff's alley! He could do that with no sweat. Or perhaps a chair in "Myths versus Reality". He'd do well teaching that --- extensive experience, for sure!

No, I'm afraid that Harvard may be out of the picture for Ignatieff. Besides, what arrogant, self-centred individual would want to go back to a university where your colleagues would constantly snicker and guffaw at anything you said? No, that's not an attractive scene, for sure.

So, what else? Personally, I can't think of anything realistic. Big business isn't going to give him a plum vice-chair or other executive job if he can't even balance his own chequebook, which is what I have read. He has no management skills, no worthwhile "connections" that can be leveraged, and is as dumb as a posthole when it comes to messaging, PR, and projecting leadership, trust, or competence ... according to most/all polls. And, despite his marvelous photo-op at a hardware store during the election campaign, I rather suspect that he would have extreme difficulty figuring out what end of a hammer to use as the "pounding end". Oh, dear, he really is in a pickle, isn't he?

So, by a clever process of elimination, I have looked into my crystal ball and seen the "Ghosts of May 3rd ... Future". Ignatieff is going to do what all great Liberals do after they lose an election: sponge off the public purse.

Yup. He will remain a MP and, in grand Liberal tradition, continue to receive his MP salary and expense package courtesy of us poor working slobs. No matter; I don't expect to see much of Ignatieff anyway. Villas and chateaux in France are so "in" at many times of the year, aren't they? And he just happens to have one there, I'm told. Not for him a Canadian vacation ... no sir, unless it was Algonquin Park, of course. The only part of Canada worth visiting, according to one Iggy quote.

He could also double-dip by going on a lecture tour, perhaps warming up vast crowds with a hearty rendition of "Rise Up, Rise Up, Dammit!" before the headline act in the local Undertakers' Convention comes on stage. Or perhaps tour the world on our dime, promoting his soon-to-be-written book and bestseller, "Mea Culpa".

But wait! If my memory is right, in February of this year Ignatieff reached another magical milestone ... a six-year MP! And don't politicians with at least six years of service become eligible for a MP's pension? Whoopee. The triple-crown of politics.

And it only cost us $300 - $400 million this time, to find out the future of another failed Liberal. Oh well, I guess that's the price of Democracy, as Ignatieff would say.

Any other suggestions or forecasts?

Apr 18, 2011

Great Moment in Liberal Attack Ads

Hi, fellow Canadians.

Since Ignatieff's Liberals have stomped on their own crank again in an attack ad, attributing a quote by someone else to Stephen Harper, I thought I'd bring back a great moment of a previous Liberal campaign. The 2006 federal election.

First up, absolutely a Liberal classic, if not "The" Liberal Classic. The one that got them laughed out of the election, and into Opposition status. Sorry for the quality.

So pathetic, desperate and laughable was this attack ad that Rick Mercer parodied the spot in one of his programs, turning the theme to, "Stephen Harper is a nice guy ... we are not allowed to make this up ..."..

After Paul Martin's crushing defeat in that election, we were then treated to a wonderful parody by Rick Mercer and Shirley Douglas, on RMR:

In what must be a "Kodak Moment" in this parody, wait for the Michael Ignatieff reference. Remember, this was 2006!

Enjoy. I know that these Great Moments will bring back tears and/or smiles, depending on your political leanings!

Apr 17, 2011

Twilight Zone of the Liberals

It's all over, folks. Except for the constant barrage of BS we will hear from the Liberal side of the house over the next 14 days.

The Liberals are finished. Their polling numbers are still flat or declining. Ignatieff is trusted only slightly more than Gilles Duceppe, so that will give you some understanding of how bad it is. Nobody is listening to, or believes Ignatieff and the Liberals any more. They have blown their load, and are now in a deep crater that the blow-off created.

They have now entered "save the furniture" mode ... try to save as many existing seats as possible. They will have declines in Quebec, the East Coast, and Ontario. They are, and will be even more so, a regional/urban party of some enclaves in Canada's three largest cities. A slightly larger verion of the Bloc, in other words.

Jack Layton and the NDP have a good shot at becoming the official Opposition in the next parliament. Way to go, Jack. You earned it!

The "Hidden Agenda" cards, the last in the Liberals' war chest, are finally being played. Healthcare. Abortion. Dealth Penalty. You name it.

Their media newsletters (the Star, Globe & Mail, CTV NewsNet, CBC) have ramped up their pro-Liberal, anti-Conservative rhetoric to overdrive ... with shrill stories about "missing" F-35 engines, Healthcare, previous school papers on abortion issues and legislation breathlessly announced as the latest "scandals", pictures of Harper in his silly cowboy costume and 150-gallon hat, overplaying the Guergis "travesty".

And failing to mention that, except for the Conservatives' prompt action, the Liberals and their Liberal-dominated Elections Canada cronies would have trashed our democratic rights and rules at the Guelph "ballot-box stuffing" boondoggle.

I particularly like the engineless F-35 stories that are being trotted out ... that won't say, of course, that there are a number of engine suppliers, and why decide now when there will be a host of options to select from later, competitively? So, total BS, but we are in "save the furniture" mode, right?

And of course, trotting out Chretien and Martin to give us that "back to the future" nostalgia for the Good Old Days. Good Old Days, eh? Both are charter members of the very exclusive AdScam Club. Mr. Dithers is another true Canadian "patriot" ... he still keeps his ships and corporations offshore to avoid Canadian taxes. Are they so arrogant to think that we wouldn't remember Martin gutting healthcare transfers by 25% to the provinces? And raising our federal taxes at the same time? And us getting hit in our wallets a third time, since provinces had to raise taxes to make up for Martin's healthcare transfer shortfalls? Or Martin's "balancing the budget" BS, by raiding $57 billion from the EI surplus?

Right on cue, the latest Liberal Premier to have trashed a province, from "Engine of Canada" ... to "Have Not Status", is trotted out to make inane noises about healthcare/medicare. Yes, Dalton McGuinty, the greatest provincial liar of all time, is out there shilling for Ignatieff and his Liberals. After saying at the onset of the election that he wouldn't be campaigning at all. Another indication of the desperation of Ignatieff and his inept crew. All they have left to roll out is a parody of the most incompetent premier in Canada, a liar, and a breaker of written promises. Pitiful.

And, now, the crowning glory of Liberal stalwarts comes slithering like a snake, from under a rock, to write an article in the media. Yes, Warren Kinsella is back in the press with a vitriolic, full-bore attempt to revise history and the truth, and to scare people into forsaking good government. Instead, he posits, only Liberals will save you from that.

Warren, of course, is the slimy thing that Gomery described as nothing more than a mere clerk, yet a legend in his own mind. His claim to fame is apparently being employed as one of many underlings in the Chretien years. But if you read up on him, he perceived himself as the Second Coming ...at a time when even a brain-dead slug could have won a majority against a non-existent, fragmented and disorganized opposition on the right. Enough about this slimy snake.

In the last two weeks of the campaign, the Liberals and their supporting hordes of newspapers and TV outlets are going to bombard us with more imagined "1984 travesties" of the Conservatives, and even more creative (yet cleverly disguised) "Hidden Agendas" of the Conservatives. Bolstered, of course, by puff pieces on Ignatieff. The first appeared today written by Radwanski of the Globe.

No wonder Canadians just want this election to be over with quickly, to elect a majority government, to get rid of the $2/vote funding that makes this torture possible. Make this all go away, they say!

Patience, folks. Salvation is on the way. And hopefully the total extinction of the Liberal party so that they can reconsitute themselves, understand and agree what they believe in (as opposed to just "Liberal Entitlements"), regrow their organization, and attract back members and donations. Just as Harper did.

They will have a nice, unbroken period of four years to do this. And Warren Kinsella's "help" of course.