The Latest "Free Dominion" Debacle ...

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=7f65d11d-f37b-4a33-a3d7-f911a50fb088&k=52072

Here we go again ! The John Birch Society (North) is at it again.

As if real Tories need even more reasons to not vote for the republican CPC ...

We now have the sad spectacle of Alberata Separatism rearing its very ugly head within that political party. This merely confirms what I have been detailing all along: The CPC is basically nothing more than the Reform Party, reconstituted. It is not representative of anything remotely - and traditionally - conservative in the Dominion.

It is controlled by the Americanophile "Calgary School" and an Alberta Legion of Festering Rednecks (ALFR) - most of whom have never been east of Saskatoon, I would venture. They have nothing in common with traditional Canadian Toryism, and are more dangerous in my opinion, than even the NDP. (Western separatists are merely the "flip-side of the same coin" as Quebec separatists, and this sad episode again proves the point. Both are enemies of the Federation - and traitors to their Queen and Country.)

The fact that Gordon Stamp was Peter Goldring's Campaign Manager speaks volumes about the company the Alberta Reformers keep - and keep too close, apparently. It is one thing if this person's neanderthal-like political musings came from the cake-hole of a low-level party functionary; but it is quite another thing entirely, if they come from someone in a high position of trust within the local party organisation.

This is quite another thing entirely.

Of course, Goldring and the CPC will point to the fact that Stamp has been rusticated and/or has resigned, as proof that the party will not put-up with such sentiments. Those of us with a long history in Conservative politics know better. This is the tip of the iceberg ...

Quotes proving that Stephen Harper is not a Canadian Conservative:

(thus providing me with further reasons to not vote for his Party ...)

"Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it."

* I told you he wasn't a Tory;

"I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome."

* Where is his proof for this statement?

"Atlantic Canada's culture of defeat will be hard to overcome as long as Atlantic Canada is actually physically trailing the rest of the country."

* It trails the Country simply because it is sparsely populated and has not won the Carbon-Lottery, in widespread fashion. I guess we should just abandon the unlucky blighters eh ?

"But I'm very libertarian in the sense that I believe in small government and, as a general rule, I don't believe in imposing values upon people."

* Liberatarian ideology is an amalgam of French and American anarchist theory - it is foreign to Canada, and is dangerous to the Common Good;

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."

* I contend that we are a Nation of the First-Rank. In 2005, the UN and OECD agreed. Stephen doesn't like facts that get in the way of making us the 51st State;

"In my judgment Canada will eventually join with the allied coalition if war on Iraq comes to pass."

* He shows good instincts for the National Mood - again;

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans."

* Where would he have stood in 1911?

"I think there is a dangerous rise in defeatist sentiment in this country. I have said that repeatedly, and I mean it and I believe it."

* He is proud of his Country, ain't he?

"It was the removing of a regime that was hostile, that clearly had the intention of constructing weapons systems. "

* He believes US propaganda and seemingly, would send Canadian Soldiers to die for it;

"On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction."

* He reads from the same Prayer-Book as "Dubya";

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters."

* I detested Jean Chretien more than most, but he was right about Iraq;

"I will strive to make this not the highest-spending country in the world, but instead the lowest taxing one."

* What about our obligations to our fellow Countrymen? Isn't that more important than reducing our quality of life to below that of the United States ? And one more thing Stephen: Equalisation is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982;

"It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."

* Tories were the creators of a centralised Federal System. I guess Harper is an "Oliver Mowat Conservative" which is a non sequitur, as Mowat was a Liberal;

"The nature of our constitution is that everyone is supposed to be able to do their own thing in their own area of jurisdiction."

* No - the nature of the Canadian Consitution is that the Dominion has a "Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" and that it is "... lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order and good Government of Canada";


"There is a Canadian culture that is in some ways unique to Canada, but I don't think Canadian culture coincides neatly with borders. "

* What does this mean? I would guess that he would not defend Canadian culture in a trade-dispute with the United States? What about water that courses its way outside of our Borders? hmmmmmmmm?

"Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion."

* This would appear to be anathema to traditional Conservative thought on the Constitution and Canadian Federalism;

"You've got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society."

* I was born, raised and lived in Ontario until 1995. I now live in the West. I don't live in a ghetto. And what exactly is western Canadian society? I live in Canada - purely and simply. When I travel this land, I am constantly amazed by the similarity in values from East to West (with the exception of Quebecois' language policy ...) - with the lone exception of those who want us to become Americans !

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them:

"Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David - a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

re: Dominion Election Campaign and Issues

Does ANYONE remember this Man ?

Does anyone recall what he created?

Does anyone recall what his principles stood for?

Does anyone care?

Has anyone under 40 even been taught any Canadian History?

Or are they all too busy reading People Magazine or the (US) National Review?

"A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the 'veiled treason' which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance." Sir John A. Macdonald, 1891.

More reasons why I will not tolerate Stephen Harper as Prime Minister ...

see this link about his latest contempt for Canada:

http://www.liberal.ca/images/dir/PDFs/harper_speech_txt_only.pdf

Will this man ever convey a Love of Country to the electorate?

We have shown evidence of many good qualities over our History.

* Loyalty to the Crown and Empire - despite much privation - in the face of American republicanism;

* Carving a Great Nation out an utter and sheer wilderness;

* Construction of a "Ribbon of Steel" through the barrens to unite this Dominion;

* The incorporation of more territory in building the second largest country on earth;

* Innovative use of tariffs to build an industrial economy;

* Imperial Glory-in-Arms in South-Africa;

* Uncommon, and many times - untold, Deeds of Valour at Ypres, the Somme, Vimy Ridge, and "the Last 100 Days;"

* Imperial Leadership on many occasions, culminating in the Statute of Westminster;

* Superhuman Courage and Sacrifice in fighting alone with the Empire, and eventually defeating both Hitlerism and Japanese militarism;

* Co-founding both the United Nations and NATO;

* Building a tolerant, wealthy, and generous nation in the aftermath of War;

* Scoring high in the UN Human Development Index on a consistent basis;

* Eradicating the deficit and paying down our National debt in the 1990's - and beyond.

THESE are just some of the things that I am proud of Canada for doing.

I LOVE my Country and would DIE for it.

I Honour and respect Her Majesty the Queen - Our most gracious Lord and Sovereign.

I admire and respect my Countrymen.

I honour and salute the sacrifices of my Ancestors, Grandparents, and Parents.

THEY built this Canada. It is my inheritance. I shall defend Her. I will respect Her.

Stephen Harper evidences none of this respect, or appreciation.

He loves America, and that inhumane liberalism they call their "conservatism."

He will not get my Vote.

Paul Martin and the Olde Liberal Party "Game" of Obfuscation ...

Recently, the sitting Prime Minister has been plying the old Liberal trade of obfuscation. Oxford defines obfuscate as communicating in a way "to make unclear or unintelligible."I would argue that the Liberal Party of Canada has used this tactic consistently, and throughout its History.

Reciprocity. The War in South Africa. Reciprocity again. Conscription. King-Byng Affair. Empire Free-Trade. The Great Depression. The Second World War. Conscription again. Welfare State. Korean War. The Pipeline Debate. The Nuclear Arms Crisis of 1963. The Flag Debate. Canada Health Act. Economic Nationalism. The FLQ Crisis. Wage & Price Controls. The National Economic Policy. The farewell Peace Crusade of Pierre Trudeau. The Liberal Manifesto of 1993. Daycare Policy. The repeal of the GST. The Gun Registry.

And now we have - Daycare Policy, Handgun Bans, and the Kyoto Protocol! On most issues of National importance, the Liberal Party obfuscates. The lean right and/or left, or both ways - if they can slice and serve it that way, and get away with it.

Mackenzie King - which was a swear word in our House - summed up the Liberal method perfectly when in talking about the possibility of Conscription in the Second War he said:

"Conscription if Necessary, but not Necessarily Conscription"

This constant tweaking of the language in order to confuse the people, is undertaken for one reason only - to give the Party sufficient "wiggle-room" in case they have to back-track on an election promise. Case in point: Daycare Policy. The Liberal Redbook of 1993 promised that a Liberal Federal Government would fund up to 150,000 new Daycare spaces across Canada. Of course this never happened, and it is a real point of debate for all of us, as to how it should happen. (There can be no debate that the issue is real, pressing, and cause for concern ...) . Apprarently, it is now on the front-burner. Sure Paul ...

Another case in point - repeal of the GST. Pledged in 1993, yet nothing has happened in 12 years of Liberal Government. We can debate whether or not repealing the GST is foolhardy or wise all we want, but the fact remains that the Liberals pledged to repeal the consumption tax, and the fact further remains that they did not repeal the tax. No explanations were given, but they sure liked to crow about all their budgetary surpluses didn't they?

And now we have the issue of handguns. Paul Martin says that a Liberal Government would ban handguns in Canada. What could this possibly accomplish? The fact that 90% of all handguns used in Crime are sourced illegally, and often from the United States, would mean that such a ban would not only be ineffective - but illogical as well. Ban handguns in Canada all you want Paul, but that would not mean any reduction in handgun crime. Better to press the Americans for better gun control on their side of the border, better inderdiction of the smuggling of US arms into this Dominion, and tougher measures and sentences for those who use handguns in the commission of crime in Canada. That could work, eh?!

But there are votes to be had - via such obfuscation - in the urban Tornonto and "905 Belt," isn't there Paul?

Better to make misleading promises, fracture the electorate over single-issue policies, and count on the Stephen Harper and the CPC to fumble in English-Canada, than to defend the indefensible (the Sponsorhip Scandal) in Quebec. If we had better alternatives, we could make the Liberals pay for all the obfuscation. But we don't have better choices do we?

Vote Conservative (they are not Tories ...) and watch them give everything to the Americans?

Vote NDP, and watch the Special Interests & Radicals take over?

Vote Bloq Quebecois, and watch nothing happen?

Vote Green and ?

(The most tragic thing I have seen in my life in politics was the mess the Brian Mulroney made of the Conservative Party between 1984 and 1993. By not facing the electorate in 1993, he left the Party to twist in the wind. Not only that, he single-handedly allowed for the rise of the Reform Party, and fed it all kinds of fertilizer in its early years. In the end, the Conservative vote was fractured in Canada, the neconservatives (neoliberals proper...) were empowered to feed on the carrion he left behind, and the Liberals were handed an extra eight years in power. The Liberals did not win these elections. The necoservatives handed them to the Liberals. Only a Tory party could win them, and the neocons ensured that it could not breathe.)

Despite all of this, the Liberals continue on with their obfuscations and arrogance. Now Liberal spokseman Scott Reid has offended everyone in taking-on Harper's useless daycare tax concession. That Harper's plan is insufficient to help deal with the real issue that the provision of Daycare represents, is beyond debate; that Reid's attempt at confusing the issue was inelegantly handled, is also beyond question. Inelegantly handled on purpose, I submit, which has handed the issue over to Harper and the CPC - who do not care a wit about this pressing issue that affects millions of Canadians on a daily basis. The CPC is now distracted by this sideshow. They cannot get "on message" now, because the Liberals have succeeded in blurring the issue into a melange of confusion.

See how it works?

The dangerous thing about all of this, is the fact that Paul Martin has now scored points with the electorate over Kyoto, painting Harper and the CPC into a corner on the issue; on one hand, Harper can back the Protocol and support the Canadian position as it stands (unlikely, as he is beholden to "Big Oil"), or he can defend the Bush administration (as he did blindly & foolishly on the Iraq War) - and appear once again as "bootlick" to America. In the course of all of this obfuscation, we move further and further away from dreams of Liberal accountability for the Sponsorship debacle.

In achieving this, the Liberals have now guaranteed that the issue starts to move away from the Sponsorship Scandal, and toward single-issue policies; amongst them: Daycare, handguns, and the Kyoto Accord.

More are coming, I am sure.

Obfuscate on!