December 22, 2005:  (Election doggerel by the Harrier)

Tweedle Steve and Tweedle Paul

Tweedle Steve and Tweedle Paul
Resolved to have a duel
'Cause Tweedle Steve said Tweedle Paul
Ran nothing but a zoo
Of nasty crooks and sycophants.
Canucks were getting screwed!

Just then flew by a big Duceppe.
"We'll separate!" screamed he.
"No, No!" the frightened heroes wept.
"Nous embrasserons ... o oui, oui, oui"
"Votre derrière au lieu!"

December 21, 2005: Canadians Get The French "Clap" - again

So, just who is "standing up for Canada these days?? With his latest promises Stephen Harper has announced a depressing willingness to suck up to Quebec nationalists. Or, is he really crazy like a fox? I almost expect to hear any minute now of Lisa Frulla scampering across the floor of the House to shove Peter McKay into the aisle. It all sounds very nice - promising more international autonomy to provinces ("codespeak" for Quebec only) in areas of special interest but just remember this before "reaching out to Quebec" or slapping on that "My Canada Includes Quebec" bumper sticker: what Quebec wants is very likely to become law for the rest of us. Because Quebec enjoys a stranglehold on Ottawa any initiative like this portends serious consequences for all of us. The result will be even more federal policy making by people we can never vote for.

Just suppose - and this is not at all unlikely - the newly empowered Quebec cultural delegation comes back from some boondoggle to UNESCO, egged on by France, that the best way to promote "the French fact" in Canada is for Canadian broadcasting to become 80%(or whatever) French . You know that's exactly what we would get, along with new taxes to support the program plus criminal penalties for trying to pick up broadcasts from anywhere else. In fact, we have something like this already. Don't forget who runs the CRTC and for whom these days.  Just how much more of this are you willing to encourage? You know it's not going to stop with culture. The secessionist fisherman's wife will be back to the fish for more, more, more. This has always been their tactic ... the political ratchet forcing the widening edge of a very thick wedge. Be careful, Stephen. Remember what happened to Brian Mulroney.

Harper may have good intentions and argues his position well but risks selling out what's left of a democratic vision for Canada with his quisling attempt to win, perhaps, one seat. The secessionists will simply take advantage of his offer to build a case for the next round of blackmail. Martin screams "We are a united country and speak with one voice!" while prattling about "asymmetric federalism" and endorsing private health care in Quebec. Layton is Buzz Hargrove's "squeeze" while all the Greens want is for you not to run your furnace in January. We all know what Duceppe wants.

And as for poor Canada? Looks like "the cheese stands alone".  After all the big talk there is not one leader or party who will "Stand up for Canada" when push comes to shove. This election is, as usual, all about getting Canadians to prostitute themselves to Quebec yet again. Well, I guess once you have caught a chronic "dose" from past encounters, why bother taking further precautions?

December 19, 2005: "Holiday" Tidings

Has the Supreme Court really ruled there cannot be a Nativity Scene in Ottawa this Christmas season? I hear this ban was not entertained for any religious reason or consideration of  political correctness ... they simply have not been able to find three wise men and a virgin in the Nation's capital. There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.
 

December 19, 2005: Bias is OK ... Courting Big Labor

By now we are pretty used to that sleazy clip of Buzz Hargrove and Paul Martin publicly slapping each other on the back and endorsing each others agendas. There has been scarcely a word in the press or anywhere else about how this comprises questionable influence over the democratic process by a large and powerful special interest group. This sort of thing is, by the way, one of the characteristics of fascism and a classic instance of "corporatism".

Now try imagining the reaction if we had been shown a clip of Gwyn Morgan (president of energy company "Encana") yukking it up onstage with Stephen Harper, mugging for the cameras and encouraging his employees to vote Tory. Or how about Ross Douglas, chairman of the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association, doing the same thing? The squeals of outrage from across the nation would raise up the dead. Jack Layton would blow a bowel (as distinct from Scott Reid who just wants to be blown, then enjoy a beer and popcorn). Paul Martin would need help shoveling aside hidden agendas. Shirley Douglas and her fatty son Kiefer would have to be dragged out of their California swimming pools and chartered up here post-haste to warn of the Apocalypse. 

But organized labor publicly and officially endorsing the Liberals and NDP? That's awright, Jack. We're Canajun.

December 18, 2005: Harper Hates Canada - the proof

The Liberal attack team seems to think it has found the mother lode of ammunition in a speech Stephen Harper made to the Council on National Policy in 1997. The speech allegedly "proves" Harper hates Canada. I found this speech and far as I can tell every word is the truth.  Harper merely points out a number of obvious shortcomings in the Liberal vision for Canada and its real-life consequences. Why is it so hard for Canadians to accept the truth?

• We are not as wealthy and productive as the US

• Serious structural problems in government compromise the Canadian practice of democracy

• There is a very serious unity issue

• Some of our social programs are unaccountable and promote an expectation of entitlement that isn't doing us a whole lot of good.

• Canadians are smug and when it comes to knowing anything about their neighbors are no better informed than Americans.

That's the gist of it, along with some history and a few rather good jokes. Judge for yourself by clicking here.

To Liberals, it would seem, you hate your country when you examine and challenge its foibles and weaknesses, especially if these have resulted from Liberal policies and programs. This sort of defamatory labeling is, of course, intended to silence dissent and strengthen the notion that Liberals=Canada. That kind of thinking smacks of fascism and it's a dangerous road to tread.

Far be it from me to defend Gilles Duceppe who has no business even being a participant in a federal election campaign but where does Paul Martin get off attacking him personally for wanting to destroy "his" Canada? Duceppe was elected fair-and-square by Quebecers and is simply carrying out their will. If Martin wants to make a point he should be talking with the people who put Duceppe in his face. He doesn't have the courage so he focuses on the man, rather than the problem. Duceppe did not attain his position at gunpoint. Martin has to recognize the fact that in Quebec there is an entire provincial culture grown accustomed to using political blackmail to brow-beat and intimidate the rest of the country. Duceppe is not the inventor of this phenomenom.

December 17, 2005: Promises, Promises (a non-partisan blog for a change)

During the initial French language debate a caller asked if the Prime Ministerial candidates (well, Duceppe is a non-starter here but what can we do about it?) would swear on the Bible or some other suitably revered document in Canada (such as a credit card or a grocery store receipt, perhaps) that they would keep their election promises. It's hard to believe people can get so excited over this. Several fed elections ago Jean Chretien blatantly lied when promising he would get rid of the GST. Paul Martin wisely avoided getting involved with that. When he became Finance Minister he simply said words to this effect: "Once we had a chance to examine the books in detail we found this wasn't possible". Fair enough. That was an honest dumping of a promise anyone can respect. The world changes. Perceived truth is subject to disclosure of additional evidence. A promise cannot be carved in stone and no one should expect - or demand - otherwise. We do the best we can with the information at hand and should say so up-front. The problem with Chretien's approach was that he denied ever making the promise and persisted in "spinning" its abandonment.

Let's not hold our leaders to a standard we cannot ourselves demonstrate. It is sufficient they unfold their plans in good faith and explain what it will take to fulfill them, along with an explanation of the risks. They are not gods. We should expect only a "best effort" after that and if they cannot do what they claimed to accomplish they should candidly tell us why. After that it is up to public opinion and the voting booth (or some sort of recall mechanism if we can ever become that democratic). The notion recently proposed in some quarters that a politician be forced to resign if he does not keep all his promises is ridiculous.

December 17, 2005: Election Debates in a Pretend Country

We were finally treated to an English language debate last night. So what was the very first question chosen for discussion? Was it about health care or relations with the US? About fraud and other wrong-doing in high office? National unity? No.  It came from some nutter in Ottawa wanting to put Harper on the spot because she has a lesbian daughter (in law school yet - as if we wanted to know) who might want to get married. Good gawd. A matter potentially affecting no more than 2% of the population and on which the courts have already spoken is now the burning issue of the day?  So vital to national well-being we must make it our showcase opener before everyone has fallen asleep or changed channels to Desperate Housewives? Forget Harper and his free vote. If it should ever take place, which is about as likely as Martin challenging the spread of private health care in Quebec, it will mean less than a fart in a strong wind. Marry your lesbian daughters to whomever you wish: a fence-post, a chipmunk or Howard Stern for all anyone cares. This train has left the station. Why are we still chasing it?

We have heard a lot of crabbing from the prime minister lately about US ambassador Wilkins allegedly meddling in this election (he hasn't - but these days anything the US has to say is unwelcome in Khanuckistan). How about asking why Mr. Duceppe is up there on the stage when his only agenda is to turn Quebec into a foreign country? Isn't that "meddling" on a grand scale by someone who, if not a foreigner just yet, has every intention of making himself and 8 million other Canadians into exactly that? How about the fact Mr. Duceppe could very soon sit as head of the "loyal" opposition? Wouldn't that be foreign "meddling" of almost inconceivable proportions? Why do Canadian taxpayers meekly pay the campaign expenses of this "foreign" presence?  Having Duceppe behind the lectern makes about as much sense as if we invited Jaques Chirac to stand there. And where is the Green Party which runs candidates in all constituencies, not just Quebec? Why doesn't anyone (and the the other candidates especially) ask these questions? Is it political correctness? A shortage of guts? Unwillingness to face the fact Canada is a mess? All of the foregoing?

Almost every day we find new ways to prove ourselves a petty, foolish and immature people.  If we are going to be this asinine we should at least try to keep it a secret rather than standing up on a stage and acting proud of these things. What is it with us anyway? One can only hope this embarrassing spectacle is not being broadcast internationally.

December 13, 2005: Matters of Conscience

Everyone is taking a crack at this so why not here? Now Liberals are upset the US has taken exception to Mr. Dithers's pontifications regarding Kyoto. Never mind that the US's efforts to control emissions are considerably more effective than Canada's non-effort so far. Canadians are all smug and superior merely because they signed the Kyoto agreement - the "pretend" nation at work again! The really sad thing about all of this is that the Liberals are now trying to make out the US reaction comprises interference in the federal election campaign. Where was Liberal outrage when Michael Moore flagrantly interfered on their behalf during the last campaign? Where was their outrage when during the second last US campaign Raymond Chretien, ambassador to the US and nephew to Jean Chretien, openly supported Al Gore and campaigned on his behalf?  It was almost with disbelief watching Martin tonight repeating his ravings with the promise he would "defend Canadian values" in this matter when, in fact, he has done nothing whatsoever to establish them.

International: Whacking Middle East Immigrants on Australian Beaches

The way this story broke is representative of the way liberal bias distorts so much news coverage today. The only significant reports were to do with "white" Australians confronting and harassing persons of apparently middle east origin on Sidney beaches, as if this were evidence of some sort of genetic defect or a gratuitous outpouring of Caucasian hatred against anyone otherwise. No exploration at all of background to what must have been a smoldering situation - nothing. Now, most of us realize there are often two sides to a story and so it may be in this case. With considerable digging one finds that Australian beaches have been plagued by gangs of young Islamists looking to terrorize and intimidate women who expose some flesh, consume liquor or otherwise act in a way that offends fundamentalist Muslim sensibilities. The police are, evidently, afraid to act for fear of encouraging charges of racism or bigotry.

In Calgary just a few years ago crowds of Muslims (for so they identified themselves with their placards) paraded down the streets screaming "Death to all Jews!"  The police did not act for fear of "inflaming" the situation. Perhaps that was the best thing to do but it's a safe bet if you or I publicly called for the extermination of all Muslims we could soon expect a visit from the RCMP. I also recall having to deal years ago (when I used to visit such places) with groups of Muslim men harassing women in bathing suits on the beaches of Alberta lakes but in these cases "the Canadian way" was simply for all of us to leave the area.

When we visit foreign lands we are expected to comply with local custom or face the consequences. Some visitors and immigrants to our home demand importing their values, social practices and vendettas. Should we be expected to tolerate all of this?

Incidents and circumstances such as those reported from Australia do not excuse violent behavior on the part of anyone but to report a story so single sidedly when there is obviously a larger issue to explore is rash and dangerous.

December 11, 2005: The Eagle has Landed

I wonder how much backroom work, bribes and cajoling it took to persuade Michael Ignatieff to put on a parachute and descend on Ontario? Certainly, his credentials as someone informed concerning the Canadian situation are excellent. Any Liberals getting excited should keep in mind he is sharply critical of the party and its leadership. This is no Chretienite. He is also a skeptic concerning many Canadian shibboleths, calling several of this country's most hallowed icons (such as peace-keeping and environmentalism) "pretend" initiatives because we do not actually fund and support them. We are all talk and no action. He's right.

Ignatieff was a guest at the Massey lectures a number of years ago. There he pointed out that in its desire to be all things to all people (the French, ethnic groups, aboriginals etc.) and by actually encouraging complainers to assume a level of sovereignty the nation was severely risking total dissolution. He was not optimistic. He also pointed out the essential differences between Canada and the US:

'Americans value and promote freedom, democracy and enterprise'

'Canadians value and promote entitlement, rights and impediments to individual success'

These are not exact quotations but only as I remember them. I am no Liberal but having Ignatieff around may prove "interesting". He is certainly a different kind of Liberal and liable (much like Preston Manning) to force Canadians to do what they dislike most - think for themselves.

December 10, 2005: Canada's Shame (updated)

We learn that yet again the nation's media networks will host federal political debates with Gilles Duceppe on the stage and his secessionist Bloc Quebecois honored as a participating, legitimate "federal" party. This is a joke. The Bloc has one agenda and one only - to extract as much economic benefit for Quebec as it can from Canada and, if possible, to remove Quebec from Confederation. To add insult to injury, all Canadian taxpayers are now forced by federal law to fund Bloc campaigning. How pathetic! Canadians are a timid and stupid people at best but that they meekly endure this humiliation is the final nail in the coffin of their self-respect. Could it get worse? Yes. There is a strong possibility that following January 23rd the Bloc will sit again in Parliament as "Loyal" Opposition. Will Canadians object? They didn't the last time that happened.

It is entirely beside the point that Mr. Duceppe is charming, speaks well and has a good head of hair. He is a secessionist, runs candidates only in Quebec and has no interest other than taking Quebec out of Confederation. What he has to say about the economy, defense, the running of government, the environment, energy, international relations or anything else of importance to Canadians outside Quebec is irrelevant. He does not belong in the debate nor in Parliament, no matter how many votes he takes in Quebec.

If this is how Quebecers choose representing themselves then they should demonstrate a modicum of honor and secede. If they will not, preferring to play the secessionist card in a sick, disgusting, never-ending game of blackmail, then other Canadians should muster the courage to kick them out rather than encouraging this screwing around with their democracy in the name of delusional notions such as "inclusiveness" or "unity". At the very least, a political party should not receive official status and funding unless it agrees to uphold the Canadian constitution. If it will not, how can it be "Canadian"? By refusing to make this commitment it is declaring itself a de facto foreign regime and has no more business sitting in government, on defense and finance committees than, say, representatives of the Italian Christian Democrats.

Is there anywhere else a nation more divided against itself, more devoid of moral fiber, sillier, less courageous, less visionary or weaker on behalf of defending its own interests? 

December 8, 2005: Handgun Hysteria

Each day brings new levels of hysteria when it comes to wild election promises. In order to cement the Liberal vote in Toronto, Mr. Dithers now promises he will ban handguns. This year 84% of all gun-related killings in Canada were carried out using un-registered weapons, the $2 billion Registry notwithstanding, so just what will an outright ban accomplish? We are told by the RCMP most handguns on the loose in Canada are brought into the country via the shared borders between Canadian and US native reserves. A prime example is the Akwesasne / St. Regis border south and east of Cornwall, Ontario (check a map to see just how easy this is). The authorities are either afraid to shut down this lucrative business  or are prohibited from doing so by the government which fears another Oka style confrontation. It is by no means certain what's left of the Khanuckian army could successfully confront the armed forces of Akwasasne anyway so there is, in fact, a real issue here concerning outcome.  Knowing this, will Martin ban handguns or their importation into native reserves -  prohibitions he almost certainly cannot enforce? He is as likely to do this as ban private health care in Quebec meaning - no, he will not.

The real problem is gang warfare and inter-cultural hatred. In Toronto this seems to involve primarily certain Caribbean immigrants . Calgary has very little violent crime compared to Toronto (even per capita) but when it occurs it is almost always Asian gang related or a consequence of certain immigrant groups importing their ancestral vendettas. The Sikhs hate the Hindus (and vice versa), the Islamists hate everyone while Vietnamese gangs have flourished in recent years. It is very difficult to imagine how banning handguns will make it more difficult for these or other criminals to obtain them since they have already demonstrated a total disregard for the farcical registry. Even should a ban prove successful, these people have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable skill in deploying knives, arson, bombs and hit-and-run vehicle attacks. What next? Ban cutlery, nitrate fertilizer, matches and cars?

The real focus should be on properly integrating immigrants with mainstream Canadian society, ensuring that prospective immigrants understand we will not tolerate or welcome individuals participating in vendettas, Jihads or gang warfare and on deporting the "bad apples". In fact, Liberal immigration and multi-cultural programs have encouraged the importation of foreign cultural norms and sheltered criminals arriving as immigrants or refugees. Terrorist fund-raisers have been endorsed by the Prime Minister himself . Organized criminals masquerading as charitable foundations receive federal grants and tax-exemptions while gun-slingers whose privacy "rights" trump public safety and national security are permitted to roam incognito even when the government knows exactly who they are.  Under these circumstances, promising to ban handguns is a joke.

December 6, 2005: Loving the Liberals = Loving Canada (updated evening of Dec 6)

John Duffy, Liberal advisor, has lately been pontificating to Canadians regarding their electoral responsibilities. In a recent guest feature in the Post he re-iterates familiar Liberal dogma. First he demonizes Conservatives by describing the characteristics of Liberal supporters. Specifically - they "like their neighbours, like to volunteer a little", have "kids and jobs". They "worry about their Moms now that Dad's gone" etc., etc. By implication, Conservatives are child hating recluses, antagonistic toward their neighbours, are not legitimately employed (presumably, all their income derives from robbing the poor) and beat their widowed mothers at every opportunity. The second part of this involves circling the ideological wagons around the cause of keeping Quebec happy - the only real Liberal cause and, of course, they are the only party that can hold the country together the fact notwithstanding secessionism has flourished under their aegis.

Duffy winds up this screed by making it very plain anyone who does not vote Liberal is discarding a marvelous vision of Canada ... that doing so will be perceived throughout the world (as if anyone would notice) as an "ill-judged" and "intemperate" discarding of "national opportunity". This is nothing more than a soft-core version of classical fascism that seeks linking a specific political faction to national identity. This Liberal vision lacks only the brown shirts and the guns to make it complete. How the facts escape them is anybody's guess. The Liberal "vision" has fuelled not only secessionism but led to a weakened democracy, diminished sovereignty, poor relations with our most influential and important neighbour (the US) and a presumption of entitlement leading to one scandal and outrage after another while the former Prime Minister himself has proudly proclaimed the latter "business as usual".

The abysmal dearth of any spontaneous morality or ethics on the part of governing Liberals and their associates has grown so serious a rot Paul Martin has been forced to hire additional ethics commissioners, appoint new watchdog tribunals and draft formal rules of behaviour aimed at coercing some minimal standard of acceptable behaviour out of his unprincipled and conniving crew. The existing laws of the land are, apparently, insufficient to constrain this mob.

On top of it all, international war criminals stalk the country "armed and dangerous" according to the RCMP but cannot be identified to the public because doing so would violate their privacy rights under the Charter of Freedoms and Rights. An open-door immigration policy actually favors immigrants who have committed capital crimes.

If discarding this vision and its practice at the polls is un-Canadian then maybe it is time for a new Canada.

December 5, 2005: Loving Canada

The big thing now with Centralist reporters is quizzing Stephen Harper to determine if he loves (or hates - take your pick) Canada. This defamatory crap originated with "Screech" McLellan (Depudee Dawg) last year when she amplified the ad nauseum Liberal insistence that if you criticize them at all you are, by definition, a traitor to the nation.  I am reminded of the joke about a slick courtroom lawyer who confronts the accused (in the box for an unpaid parking ticket or some other minor offense) with "When did you stop beating your wife?" These tactics are expected from a worn out government comedian like Rick Mercer but a political party purporting to represent the interests of all Canadians should set a higher standard. Shame on the press for taking up this pathetic theme.

December 4, 2005:  Sticking it to the Colonies in a "Pretend" Nation

Today's posting is for Khanuckistanis supporting the absurd notion of "asymmetric federalism" - a tarted-up euphemism for maintaining the status-quo wherein certain loud-mouth regions are preferentially treated at the expense of others. With a federal election coming, hypocrisy and regionalism are crawling out from under the slimy centralist rock once more. For example:

Kyoto:

"Cheesehead" Duceppe now tells us an independent Quebec would get tough with Alberta when it comes to honoring Kyoto limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. Just what does he mean? A tax on imports of oil and gas from Western Canada?  Lovely.  Penalize your own people first.  I am all for it. Will he set an example by riding a bicycle to the National Assembly in January from his Canadian taxpayer subsidized digs?  We Albertans have lots of buyers for what we have to offer.  We certainly will not miss a nuisance market in Quebec. Hasta la vista bébés! Get lost. "The better the sooner" as your own Mr. Chretien would say.  Buy your gas from France or burn maple syrup for all we care.

Maybe "Cheesehead" plans sending the Quebec army into Alberta to shut down our oil wells. This should be good for a few laughs. As they will not be allowed to use English I can just imagine them going up to some roughneck and demanding:

"Ne passez plus de gaz, s'il vous plaît. Nous sommes Québécois!"

AIf he tries this I suggest July. Remember what happened to Napoleon when he invaded Russia, Gilly;-)

Energy and Softwood Lumber:

Both Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton are sniping at Alberta's petroleum revenues with Layton calling for a tariff on petroleum and gas going to the US as a means to retaliate against softwood lumber tariffs.  Quebec supplies a large percentage of the electricity consumed by the northeastern US. Why not call for an an export levy on Quebec's hydro as well?  Well, why not, Jacko, or would your pal Gilles get mad? You say an export tariff wouldn't hurt Alberta industry so ... why would it hurt Quebec? You're not going to win any seats in Quebec anyway so what's with singling out Alberta? Maybe you should change your name to "Jackass" Layton (sounds like the sort of project Rick Mercer would be good at). I am reminded of recent comments by certain Ontario Liberal MPs and federal bedfellows that Alberta should not expect the same consideration in disposition of its natural resources as most other provinces because it didn't enter Confederation as a former British colony but was, rather, carved out of "Rupert's Land". These people have never moved on from the colonial mentality of 1905 which is why we are in this mess today.

Health Care:

During the last election campaign Ralph Klein publicly mused he might keep some health care reforms on the back-burner until the voting was over. Paul Martin instantly launched a major attack against Klein, Alberta and Harper on the theme of "hidden agendas" and "scary" motives. It worked. Now, just the other day, Quebec Health Minister Couillard announced he will hold-off health care insurance reforms (remember that stunning court decision effectively putting a hole below the waterline of the National Health Act?) until after the upcoming election. It's deja vous all over again, isn't it? So, just where is Martin's attack? Instead there is an embarrassed silence. C'mon, Mr. Dithers and show us you are made of tougher stuff than a jellyfish! You said you would stare Ralph Klein in the eye and say "No!"  Will you threaten the same to Couillard and Charest? Where is sidekick Ujjahl Dosanjh's socialist outrage ("No exceptions!" he wheezed - remember?)  Why isn't jumped-up Jacko Layton jumping all over this?

December 2, 2005 

Tory Desperation

Stephen Harper can never be PM because he is not from Quebec and Central Khanuckistanis will not countenance a significant Western presence in Ottawa. So what does he do? Rather than accepting the fact he has nothing to lose and might as well challenge Khanuckistanis to rise above themselves and become a real people he trots out bafflegab and codswollop. Here's the evidence:

• Proposes lowering the GST when, in fact, he should propose raising it to 20% (or thereabouts) and eliminating all other taxes. Why not talk about real tax reform which we so desperately need? Other nations have done this with great success. The downside? Pissing-off thousands of tax accountants, lawyers and fed-gov appointees who would have to find real jobs should a simpler, fairer tax regime be instated.

• Capitulates regarding the lame-brain, politically motivated Kyoto accord in faint hope Quebec and David Suzuki will approve. Why bother? Everyone knows Quebec will elect a solid slate of Bloc Heads no matter what and that Suzuki and most other British Columbians have already made up their minds to vote NDP or Liberal.

• Announces "No two-tier health care". This is a real snorter. Fortunately I was sitting down when I heard that one. Will he actually take on Quebec, the runaway leader in Canadian two-tier health care? Give me a break. It's still 4 months until April 1.

• Suggests appointing some sort of federal Lone Ranger to pry up the scab drying over ADSCAM. Quebec has made it very clear this is their jurisdiction, at least until the paper-shredding is done, all remaining tracks covered and any potential singing canaries paid off.  Think, man! This is Canada. You can't just get away with calling for accountability, especially where Liberals and Quebec are involved.

Our next government is most liable to comprise a Liberal small majority with the "Bloc" as "Loyal" Opposition. Harper had better dust off his resume. Trying to breathe life into the corpse of Canadian democracy is a lost cause, to be sure, but it's sad anyway watching the Tories give it up.

Kite Flying at Rideau Hall

First our shiny new Governor General tries to slip past us the fact she is a French citizen and gives up foreign allegiance only when protest becomes a storm. Now she has attempted abolishing Christmas in favor of a winter "Holiday", announcing she will be decorating a "Holiday tree". Well, that one got rescinded too and spun off as a "misunderstanding" (yeh, right) when her in-basket filled up with objections. Expect more "interesting" initiatives from Rideau Hall aimed at demolishing what's left of Canadian traditions. Here in the West we're still waiting for a courtesy call from Her Highness. Someone should send her a map of Canada for Christmas - oops! "the Holidays". 

November 25, 2005  - French Farce

France has regularly hinted at a military response should Quebec secede and Canada try doing anything about it and is presently challenging Canadian sovereignty in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Now consider the following recent good news from the land of bad manners, boring wines, street urinals and unwashed bodies:

• 6 million Muslims call France "home" (meaning only that they reside there)

• 1,400 burned vehicles in a single evening of rioting, Nov 7/2005

• 2,700 youths arrested Nov 14/2005

• 3 months state imposed emergency powers invoked

• 40 French towns with curfews in effect

• 40,000 Al-Quaeda recruits on the loose in France according to counter-intelligence estimates there / 2005

Equality, Liberty, Fraternity? This is the nation from which we are supposed to draw our inspiration?

Ottawa seeks allying Canada with France in its desperate attempts to appease it's own Franco-dissidents.  Really - it's high time Canada sailed a frigate into Ajaccio and had Pierre Pettigrew (or better yet, Alfonso Gagliano) shout "Vive le Corse Libre!" at a public gathering but, of course, we don't have the guts or the sense of humor to do anything like that.

November 23, 2005  - Cokehead vs. Mr. Dithers

It's a classical Canadian/French farce. Now we have "Mr. Dithers", the perpetually bewildered Paul Martin, leader of a pack of Quebec crooks, pontificating to "Cokehead" Boisclair (soon to be Quebec's premier) concerning Canadian rule of law. Dithers's Quebec lieutenant, PQ co-founder Jean LaPierre, has recently pronounced the Clarity Act "useless". Boisclair has said he will ignore it in an upcoming referendum on secession. At least the secessionists have got it right. All negotiation boils down to a use - or threatened use - of force. You can't negotiate unless you are capable of withholding something the other guy wants or have something he fears might hurt if you whack him with it. Doubt on both sides concerning the outcome of a showdown is what drives any effort on behalf of reconciliation.  When American southern states attempted seceding in the 1800's it was because they thought they could get away with it militarily - or that the Union would not want to bear the losses it would take to keep them in. Canada has no army to call in. Furthermore, Canada has handed over to Quebec one after another of its assets.  If anything, Canada is going to prove the weak side in any negotiations. So, what does Mr. Dithers do? In desperation he invests his trust in the other side  by saying "Quebecers will insist that the rule of law be observed" meaning he thinks they will insist the Clarity Act be honored.

Since when? Surely this is a macabre joke. Quebecers support use of the Notwithstanding Clause to enforce language laws violating the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and Rights and their province is the one most flagrantly ignoring the National Health Act with its rampant support for private health care and insurance. Quebecers happily condone labor laws discriminating against out-of-province workers, in violation of inter-provincial trade agreements. They still do not accept the Canadian Constitution - the foundation for our laws. Their provincial business regulations and laws provide a safe haven for mail-order scams reaching across the country. In short, they have a long tradition of fleering at Canadian law when it suits them to do so. If Mr. Dithers thinks respect for Canadian "rule of law" in Quebec will defeat Cokehead he must be inhaling something pretty interesting himself.

As a Western Canadian don't you just hate being dragged down by these losers? They are 2500 miles east of here with nothing between us but rock, trees, prairie, Regina and Winnipeg  but they command our national agenda anyway with their crooked dealings and obsession with the endless whine from Quebec.

November 21, 2005  - The  Liberal  "Hippocratic"al  Oath

During the last federal election campaign a principle Liberal strategy was bashing Alberta over alleged threats to Medicare having to do with imagined privatization initiatives. This seemed to work in parts of central Canada, which is no surprise. Martin swore he would "defend public health" - an oath which has proved meaningless. Apparently a similar strategy is in the works again and, probably, a majority of Canadians will embrace it.

A while back Aaron Derfel ran a series in the Montreal Gazette wherein he exposed the extent to which the Liberals tolerate privatization of health care in Quebec. Among many other things, how within a few minutes drive of Paul Martin's own riding you can purchase a new hip or knee, pay a fee for a colonoscopy or get an MRI on your credit card. A patient whose surgery was covered by the health plan was nevertheless obliged to pay another $1000 for nursing, $300 for instrument sterilization and $200 for disposable supplies.

In the 1990s Alberta was heavily penalized by Ottawa merely for allowing an eye surgeon to charge a small "facility fee" and BC is still losing transfers because of allowing some facilities to charge for upgraded treatment. When Jean Cretin discovered a private MRI operating in Calgary (Alberta pays for all services provided at this clinic) a few years ago he nearly blew a bowel, roaring "Alberta will be punished!", then turned red when he discovered the clinic was owned and operated by friends of his family who operate several such clinics in Quebec . Oops!  Private health care is alive and well in Quebec. We'd better get down on our hands and knees and crawl away from this one or some Gallic noses will be out of joint. Right?

Now, what's happening in Quebec may actually be a good thing but whence this double standard? Where is Ujjal Dosanjh
wheezing his socialist rhetoric about "no exceptions" (his words)?  Silent when within earshot of Quebec or, at best, slippery. Paul Martin swore he would "look Ralph Klein in the eye and say No" over privatization but he has so far not even cast a dirty look in the direction of Jean Charest who is by far the real sinner concerning this matter.  In fact, a few months ago the Quebec health minister laughed and bragged his province can "get away with things you'd be arrested for in any other province".

As usual, Quebec does what it wants but federal rules (most often crafted by ministers from Quebec)  are enforced elsewhere with threats and fines. That's Canada: a pretend nation coming apart at the seams while playing with cop-out notions such as "asymmetric federalism".  No rule of law here please, we're Canajun.

November 12, 2005  - Rick Mercer to be Next Governor General ?

Years ago when I first saw Rick Mercer on "This Hour has 22 Minutes" or whatever I could not figure what some viewers thought was so funny about his "shtick".  His over-the-top, mean-spirited efforts were - and remain - pathetic rather than amusing. The man has no talent. He and his fan club seem to think all it takes to be funny is a big mouth and bad manners. One wonders were it not for the Canadian government and the CBC if he would be on social assistance.  Anyway, his latest thigh slapper is to suggest registering Jason Kenney's name as a web site and re-directing visitors to a Marxist Leninist site. Yuk, yuk. This sort of adolescent prank is typical Mercer (remember how he made fun of Stockwell Day's name?) and possibly actionable in the courts. Maybe people who don't like Mercer should start linking his name to anti-gay websites. I'd bet he'd have the legal beagles on your case in a hurry if you tried to defame him with a stunt like that.

His "Talking to Americans" a few years ago was an especially shallow and negative effort, even for him. Jump anyone with a contrived, preposterous question and you are likely to get a peculiar answer but he used responses to his entrapment style of interviewing as some sort of proof all Americans are ignorant. He should have tried the same thing in Canada where fewer than 10% can name all the provinces and even fewer know who their MP is. Or, try asking a Canadian to name the capital of the state bordering their province. Americans are far from cornering the market on ignorance.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with this bigoted, loud, and very dull government comedian for as long as there are Liberal dollars to pay his salary. It's easy enough just ignoring him but I worry he may be next in line for Governor General. After all, he satisfies the criteria we have come to accept as necessary for a representative of this country:

• Works for the CBC.

• Belongs to a minority group.

• Hates Americans.

• Isn't from the West.

• Regularly makes an ass of himself.

His breath is fogging the windows at Rideau Hall already.

November 11, 2005  - Canadian Logic

Several US health care providers propose bringing mobile MRI and blood test clinics to Ontario and possibly other provinces. They would offer pay-for-use as a response to long waiting times required by our public system. Blood tests would cost around $60 and MRI scans $300 or so. The Ontario government has responded with a resounding "No way!'.

Let's look at the facts as we understand them:

(a) Many Canadians, some with potentially life-threatening illnesses, must wait weeks for blood tests and months for MRI scans.

(b) The National Health Act prohibits access to private facilities (except in Quebec, where Ottawa dare not intrude).

(c) The Yankee providers suggest rolling in their own equipment and staff, thereby not detracting the slightest bit from facilities Canadian taxpayers are paying for nor drawing staff and equipment away from the publicly funded system.

(d) Nevertheless, Canadian governments will not approve this service. Why?  Do they prefer that Canadians die rather than honor the letter of the National Health Act? It seems so.

The only reason I can come up with for these objections are that these services would reduce waiting times for critical analysis of illness and thereby reduce the bargaining power of Canadian health care unions and Canadian health care professionals, who represent a considerable voting constituency and source of financial support for the party in power.

The Canadian system of health care has evolved into an organization serving the unions and health care professionals. Patients come last. Think about it.

November 11, 2005  - True Colors

Paul Martin has set a precedent by declaring he will not be attending the next Commonwealth Summit. Let's watch what happens when the next Francophonie love-in of war criminals proposes a meeting and who will be there. Not long ago Martin refused a proposed visit by British Prince Charles but was preparing to embrace a visitation by France's Villepin, lousy poet and custodian of a republic in flames owing to inbred racism and unreadiness of the French to assimilate immigrant populations.

November 6, 2005  - Riots in France

I remember years ago being chided by the French and other Europeans (while on an extended visit there) concerning bad race relations in the US. Europeans bragged at the time how they had foreigners under control. Look at them now. These dis-enfranchised immigrants and their descendants have a point. European bigotry and the colonial heritage leading to this is, at last, being exposed.

November 6, 2005  - How Inconvenient

Paul Martin does not want an election any time soon because this might compromise Liberal legislation intended to "benefit" us 10 years or more into the future.

Democracy is messy at best. All elections interfere with the business of government. Maybe we should do away with elections altogether so the Liberals can just get on with "business as usual".

November 1, 2005  - Gomery Delivers ... What We Already Knew

In response, at least, Chretien did not play with his balls in public so there's something to be grateful for and the only surprise.

It's at once comical and sad watching these Liberal goons trot around the halls of parliament and the press rooms, lawyers and sycophants in tow, brushing aside the lowly, like in a bad scene from "The West Wing". They really do resemble and act like the characters in "The Sopranos". It's hard to decide which sitcom or organized crime drama suits them best. That's the problem with the Liberals. It's all an act - a show - reality and the truth have no meaning beyond what they contrive and spin to an adoring public.

Give Chretien, "The Jeanfather" credit. He's good. For most of the interview this morning he twisted the whole report and reaction to it into an attack on the sponsorship program itself. The press got befuddled and backed-off the really tough questions. Get a grip ... The issue is not the sponsorship program but the fact the Liberals have generated a culture of entitlement for themselves and their friends (mostly in Quebec) - and somehow gotten the Canadian public to swallow it. The scandal only happened because the sponsorship program was such a big cookie jar with so many hands in it it fell off the shelf and made a loud noise.

The Jeanfather joked, put on his best lousy English and blamed it all on bad men who, in his words, "betrayed me". The poor Little Guy! Just about brings tears to your eyes, doesn't it? Doesn't anyone ever get tired of that routine? And anyway, he smirked, the government spends many billions/year so what's a few million gone where it shouldn't?

October 29, 2005  - Referendum Season - Again

Once more the Quebec referendum clown prances onto centre-stage to taunt and terrify Canadians - not that it ever really left. What a colossal waste of time and energy! Central Canadians should put themselves in the shoes of westerners and try imagining how simultaneously sickening and irrelevant this is. Quebec has never been a willing partner to confederation and its only significance to us has been as an inexhaustible source of corruption and scandal, a bottomless sink-hole for handouts to inept corporations and a constant embarrassment abroad. It is difficult to overestimate how much the decades of this nonsense have held Canada back and compromised our potential to become a real country. Let's not just get out of Quebec's way but grease the skids for them. Who cares about "clarity"? Just hold the door open and administer the boot. My suggestion to the Alberta government during the next referendum campaign will be to use some of our billions to fund the "Yes" side and put an end to this French farce.

 

October 28, 2005  - Double Taxation - Harper Weighs-In

Stephen Harper has rightly suggested that if Goodale really wants to level the investment playing field he should eliminate all double-taxation rather than penalizing people providing for their retirement with income trusts.

Liberals like Goodale have no appreciation for the reality the rest of us must accept. They are looking forward to outrageously generous indexed pensions and, if they and their friends are caught with their sticky paws in the cookie-jar taking even more in advance, a handsome pay-out for keeping quiet about who let them in there. People obliged to providing on their own for retirement are made into the villains and tarred with the judgement they are being "unfair".

October 25, 2005  - Let's Blame Someone Else - Chapter 2

Many of the weapons used to commit capital crimes in Ontario are Kalashnikovs (or knock-offs made in China), Uzis and Glocks. Is Paul Martin also going to sue gun makers in Russia, China, Israel and Austria? If not, why not?

October 24, 2005  - Let's Blame Someone Else

Pandering - as usual - to rampant anti-Americanism and political correctness Paul Martin is now threatening to hold US gun manufacturers liable in the courts for crimes of violence committed in Canada. Just how dumb can Khanuckistanis get? Well - pretty dumb and I'm sure this latest goofery will  result in the Libranos enjoying another surge at the polls. We have been promised for years that the wonderful Gun Registry would put a stop to shootings but this year alone at least 40 Torontonians got nailed anyway. Maybe we need to spend another $billion on a program the criminals simply ignore.

We all know how the guns get in but no one has the guts to talk about it. But if you have been standing behind a door the last 20 years and really don't know ... the guns come in where native reserves straddle the Khanuckistan/US border. It's a profitable business and no one has to pay taxes on the earnings. The feds don't enforce the law in these jurisdictions because they know they would get shot if they attempted doing so. They won't face this problem because that would be politically incorrect. You know how it goes ... utter one word of criticism against native shenanigans and the word "racist" is hissed in your face. So ... much easier to sue the Americans and - win or lose - pick up lots of votes in Ontario and Quebec. The shootings will continue but who really cares so long as the Liberals stay in power?

October 23, 2005  - Ding(wall)ing the Taxpayer

Didn't Dingwall resign as head of the mint? Last time I checked, the rule in industry was that you might get a settlement if you were dismissed without cause and/or suitable notification (that's a 2 week minimum here in Alberta). I have never heard of anyone quitting and then getting a nice "package". Just what is McCallum frothing about when he says Dingwall is entitled? Was Dingwall forced to resign? If so, why weren't we told so the matter of a "settlement" would be less controversial? It's all just Librano spin. On the one hand we are supposed to believe he left voluntarily, which takes away heat on behalf of a proper investigation, but on the other we are expected to swallow the nonsense he is entitled to half-a-million as if he had been forcibly removed from office.

I'm betting the Libranos will depend on the brief Khanuckistani attention-span to look after this one. In a few weeks they will slip Dingwall his $500,000 - possibly in cash laundered through their "organization" - and find him a nice high-paying job somewhere else.

October 21, 2005  - Double Taxation

As if the Canadian Fed cannot satisfy itself enough at the piggy trough it now proposes taxing "income trusts" at the source as well as the recipients of dividends. Protect your retirement income by protesting this raid on your investments by making it plain to the Libranos you might vote against them in the next election. Or are you too timid? I suspect so. Try taking a stand for once, Khanuckistanis, before it is too late.

October 20, 2005  - The Mouse that Roared

Responding to heat from the left Paul Martin has been making loud noises about retaliating over "softwood lumber", threatening an international incident over just 4% of all our trade with the US. In particular, he promises punishing the Americans by increasing energy exports to China. Let's just take a breather and think how this would work. Only two options seem possible:

(1) Suppose we have excess production capacity (which we don't so who is going to cough up the investment to build it?) and crank up output to satisfy some Chinese demand. How does this hurt the US if their contracts are still being fulfilled? Wouldn't this just earn even more money for Alberta and for American companies who dominate Canadian oil production?

(2) The only way Martin can really hurt the Americans is by reducing exports to the US and diverting the surplus to China, somewhere else or having the wells shut-in. That means Ottawa wading into western Canada to tear up long-term contracts, NAFTA and maybe even violating the Canadian Constitution - surely unprecedented in the annals of trade and economics. He'd go over the top like that for 4% and when the lumber companies aren't even suffering?

And what if he really does any of this? China has the worst human rights record of any nation, increasingly threatens its neighbors and is by no means a friend of the West. Would Martin really antagonize the US while helping fuel Chinese communist aggression and crimes against humanity? What is Martin thinking of? How would this promote "Canadian values" in the eyes of the world? The usual suspects - Jack Layton, closet Chretienites and the Quebec "red brigade" - have to be behind this grandstanding.