Wednesday, March 30, 2011

"Bad governments are elected by good citizens who don't vote". Well, not really.

This morning I woke up to this quote posted any number of times on my twitter stream, and although I am a huge advocate for people to vote, the logic is just lacking.

See this quote assumes that all bad governments will be somehow thwarted by the collective intelligence of the majority of people. However it fails to recognize the political disinterest, or apathy, I find most people have in finding out the truth behind campaign rhetoric or candidate/party History.  And this is what runs counter to the logic of the statement.

I agree that people need to vote, but I go a step further in saying that instead of listening to rhetoric, or even worse like I've heard said "I vote X because that's how I've always voted", they need to do their homework about as much as possible instead of  "Cliché voting".  I feel it is the duty and responsibility of every citizen of a democracy not to "just vote", but to invest themselves into the Democracy they live in, and educate themselves as much as possible to all parties Policies and History, and AFTER doing so, to Vote.

What this quote fails to address, is that bad Governments are elected by ignorant, albeit good, citizens who both vote and don't vote.  Apathy of politics and blindly following rhetoric are the killers of Democracy, not simply the lack of voting.

Bob

Monday, March 28, 2011

The bluster about the "Coalitions".

I have heard several times now the comparison between the Lib, NDP, and Bloc COALITION, and the Conservative merger of political parties into one as being the same.  As gently as I can I call this HOGWASH!! Anyone with an once of sense in their head sees the difference, the Conservatives ran as a party, the Coalition did NOT. So to compare an amalgamated and cohesive party like the CPC to a compilation of parties like the Coalition is simple nonsense, an extremely weak justification for what it really was, which was a power grab or coup to overthrow the government.

That brings me to a second argument I've heard, that the 2004 letter to the GG was a coalition letter.  There is nothing in this letter, or as far as I know the arrangement, that puts Socialists in the Cabinet, and gives the Separatists power to hold it all together (a great term I saw yesterday called this "Bloc-mailing" the Coalition.)  Which is completely contrary to the agreement between the Libs and NDP, and we haven't even heard what he offered Gilles to get his "Confidence"  Hey wait, isn't that almost like influence peddling?  It should be pointed out that in 2004 there was no wrangling "to bring down the Government", but opened an option to avoid another election. 2008 was just the opposite, it was a ploy to take over Government and subvert the election by purchasing confidence of the Coalition members.

So a couple of reasons occurred to me why Duceppe went on after PM Harper yesterday and railed about the 2004 letter;
1. He unequivocally WANTS the Liberals to gain power where they never could.
2. He was mad the the Conservatives didn't offer anything but cooperation in the 2004 letter.
3. He will say ANYTHING to try and gets what he wants.

I think you would be a fool to rule out another coalition if the Conservatives don't gain a Majority, and it will hurt Canadians to have to pay for it.

Check out all the documents and video footage on Hatrock"s cave to compare 2004 to 2008.  It seems that Jack and Gilles have selective memories.

That's what it all looks like to me.
Bob

Sunday, March 27, 2011

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I have ALWAYS maintained that I believe the Bloc have NO PLACE in our Federal Government House. Our Parliament is broken, And to fix it we need to oust the Bloc.

The Toronto Sun has a great article on it HERE.

Bob

The "Thought control" on PM Stephen Harper.

You know I FULLY realize the Stephen Harper an the Conservatives are not perfect, but for someone to come onto CPAC and accuse the PM of forcing them what to think.  Really? By saying that you don't want to support him, and you want him to fall hard, wouldn't that be something contrary to what he would make you think (if he had the power)?

It amazes me how people who claim that all Conservative do is spout rhetoric, come up with inane ramblings like this.

Bob

Saturday, March 26, 2011

"Iffy's" Statement released for the press March 26-2011

(My comments will be bold/Italic, and fittingly in blue below.   Bob.)


Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: The rules of our democracy

POSTED ON MARCH 26, 2011
This election is not just an exercise in democracy, it’s about democracy.  So as we begin the campaign, let’s be clear about the rules. (Just announcing "let me make myself perfectly clear" doesn't actually do anything  if you are not going to explain yourself properly, which even the biased MSM has picked up on.)
Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.  (This seems to be in direct conflict of the signed agreement of the Coalition, where the NDP were offered cabinet positions, and the Bloc could pillage the Nation as they held unprecedented power in Government.)
If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament.   If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.  That is our Constitution.  It is the law of the land. (Pounding in the legitimacy of the coalition attempt previously, and at the same time leaving the door open by saying "Well we said they could do it, so why can't we?)
If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:
  • We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election.  What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.
  • We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition. (Was I the only one who saw good bills go down in flames, simply because the Liberals preferred an election over working with other parties?)
  • We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties.   In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option.  However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function. (where was this belief when the coalition tried to take over Parliament?)
  • We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. (We? Who exactly? It can be easily said that Iggy unilaterally decided this, and the rest of the party is not bound by it. Names, please, who all agreed to this?  I would like it in writing too. )
  • If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did:  to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum.  These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan.  With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.  (This inflated talk is exactly contrary to what we've seen of the Liberals, and is pure bull manure.)
That is my position.  Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:
  • Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system? (Iggy's thinking "So in case I choose to form a coalition anyway he can't argue it's illegitimate or not right somehow.")
  • Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false? (How do you call someone a liar that is pointing out historical fact, and making valid  projections of possible impending events?)
  • Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?  (Well the letter is out there for everyone to see, as is the Liberal coalition signed document. It was clear to me which of the 2 was more damning.)
  • Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons? (I actually find this statement particularly egregious, because the charge of contempt was laid at the feet of the opposition parties, which all chomp at the bit for anything to use against their opponent.)
Bob

Iggy "makes it perfectly clear".

After all the blustering, scrambling, and double talk, Michael Ignatieff sent out a press report saying that he would not look to form a coalition. (National post article here) (Liberal Press release here). However it still came across as pretty weak and "ambiguous".

At this point a couple of things do remain very clear;
1. Iggy is just starting to realize that he can basically say anything in a campaign (especially so far behind already), as there is no legal ramifications that would force him to fulfill those promises.
2. He was trying to leave the coalition door open. And technically it still is, because his inevitable replacement has made no such commitment/promise.
3. Both minor parties will gladly jump at the chance to "be in Government", because without a Coalition they are limited to being "fringe" parties, with no real chance to Govern alone.

It would be a grave mistake for voters to believe that a Coalition is dead, and for separatists to hold that much power over OUR Country is abhorrent!

Bob

And the rhetoric begins.

I had an interesting conversation with a Liberal that told me I was "railing" at the coalition (two posts ago).  And as much as I was accused of spouting Conservative rhetoric, he spouted Liberal rhetoric even faster.  However I don't think it turned out the way he wanted, because as usual when Liberals start to lose they turn to name calling and slurs just as this poor fellow did.

One of his main argument was that 60% (nicely fudged round up, it's actually 53%) of Canadians didn't vote for Conservative. And even while it's true that a majority of Canadians at 53% DID NOT vote Conservative, in the same respect let's look at the numbers that didn't vote for the other parties.
March 2011 House at dissolution

1. 75% of Canadians DID NOT vote LIBERAL.
2. 89% of Canadians DID NOT vote NDP.
3. 85% of Canadians DID NOT vote Bloc.
4. 100% of Canadians DID NOT vote COALITION!

So by the same equation he use to defend the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition, it actually works out worse for the Opposition parties.  But for Canadians in general it's more about tradition than the "legality" of a "Coalition", where traditionally we expect that the winner of the most seats in the House of Commons will be the party that Governs.

As I maintained throughout. if "The Coalition" wants to prove that they have 60% of Canadians support, let them run together under a Coalition Banner and prove that they can make a legitimate Government.

Bob

Friday, March 25, 2011

A letter to the Governor General Sept 2004.

Here is the text from the Letter sent to the Governor General by the leaders of the Opposition parties in 2004.  I'm betting it looks a lot different without any biased media spin on it, which is why you will not find my opinion on it posted here at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Gilles Duceppe, M.P.
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the New Democratic Party

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bob

Could be a fun election on twitter.

I'm a social media type guy, and I post and retweet things on Twitter.  Today I posted a quote from an article (with the link), and a lefty posts to me that I "rails agains a coalition when the CPoC is a coalition of the PCs and Reform formed upon McKay's broken promises. Hypocrites".

I find this funny for 2 reasons;
1. I wasn't railing, just pointing followers to an article (not that I don't or won't rail about the "coalition monkey", but in this instance I wasn't)
2. The reform/PCoC are now one party, and if the Liberals, NDP and Bloc wish to be a coalition then run as such (after all they already have the name "Coalition Monkey Party"), I have no problem with them forming the Government if they win!

Check out the twitter feed.

Kind of funny if you ask me. ;-) 
Bob


Iggy's Regime change ideas.

If the Conservatives happen to only get another Minority Government, you can pretty much guarantee the revival of "The Coalition".  Michael Ignatieff said as much by his blatant avoidance of the question from the media, and his sudden exit (he "fled") from the scrum. The full article HERE.

But he is determined on twitter to follow through. Check it out.

This is definitely his prerogative, but what was the straw that broke the camels back after a year of redrawing his line in the sand? The Harper Government finally had a semi-credible scandal involving possible influence peddling.  But what did the PM do? He called the police on the party alleged of it! Scandal dead.

Bob

Thursday, March 24, 2011

"The most vulnerable in society".

One thing that really ticks me off is how Liberals are always INAPPROPRIATELY throwing out the phrase "the most vulnerable in society" for every group they think is not being adequately represented. (Scott Brison & John Mccallum, 10:30 & 10:40am March 24/2011 in the House debate of the budget.)

STOP THIS, IT'S RIDICULOUS!!!!  THE POOR ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! ABORIGINALS ARE NOT THE MOST VULNERABLE! UNBORN CHILDREN ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE!

There is one group that are the most vulnerable in society, and that group is under attack thanks to Liberal values of ABORTION!  If the Liberals had any concern for the TRULY most vulnerable in society, ABORTION WOULD BE ILLEGAL! MURDER IS MURDER, NOT WOMEN'S RIGHTS!

There is NO OTHER HUMAN CONDITION that puts us AT THE COMPLETE AND TOTAL MERCY OF ANOTHER!

How Moronic.

Bob

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Here's a kicker when the Opposition parties Say "There is no Coalition" or don't talk about it.

CBC has an article that was updated Dec 1st, 2008, which gives the outline of what and why with the Coalition deal. When looking at the "Details" you find that the Coalition is technically still in place, at least within the Liberals and the NDP.  FULL ARTICLE HERE.

The excerpt on the right hand side of the page, just below the picture of the document you will find;
"Details of the deal

If there is an election..

Even if the Conservatives hoped for it, this will be an election forced by "The Coalition."

However watching Question Period after the March 23rd Conservative budget, I notice that surprisingly enough something is missing.  What's missing is Conservatives "Hedging their bets" in case the Budget actually passes.  What I mean is that the appearance is such that despite all the allegations that they put forward a budget to force an election, it seems that they would honestly rather see the House pass this budget rather than go to an election.

I don't think the Government is entirely happy with the budget, which will happen when you have 2 parties pandering for socialist programs, and the Bloc sitting with their hands out like entitled children. I don't think it would have mattered what was in the budget, because it was already decided (whether collectively or independently) by "The Coalition" that it would be defeated.

There is something we can do about it, stop voting for Fringe parties (NDP and Bloc). That would force the Fringe candidates to choose one of the parties that can actually make a difference.

Bob

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Blocs block more representatives for growing Provinces

I have to start by saying I don't remember how a Provincial party like the Bloc ever even gained 1 seat in a Federal forum like the House of Commons.  This becomes even more of a concern as I watch the Bloc debate on bill C-12 (Democratic representation), as they are staunchly opposed to allowing the rest of the Country to have adequate and proper representation. Why?  Because with growth in the rest of the Country, and with proportionate representation in the House, it means that The Bloc will have less ability to bully the Government to force them to hand over more money only to Quebec.

I don't think Quebec realizes how much of a bunch of spoiled child this makes them all seem. The bloc will never form a Government, for that matter they never want to. All they really want is to pillage the rest of the Country for their own gain.  The Bloc simply has NO BUSINESS having any seats in a Federal Platform like the House of Commons, because they have NO interest in ANY OTHER Province than their own (which would be better served by electing representatives from one of the 2 major parties that CAN Govern our Country.)

This bill should pass, because it goes directly to equal and proportionate representation for all Canadians.

Bob

A "what the heck?" moment.

Sandy Crux of "Crux of the Matter" blog came across a facebook page, under causes, which has Amnesty International running an "Anti-Harper" campaign (with a donate button and everything!)

What on earth would prompt this? Why would an organization, worthy of respect for assisting with human rights for those that have them oppressed, suddenly "sell" themselves to partisan politics?

One reason could be they need to maintain their base, which is hyper-Liberal College students, by pandering to their ideologies. Although as Sandy points out there may be other nefarious and selfish reasons than just ideology for it. Either way I think they have lost a certain credibility by "choosing sides".

Bob

Monday, March 21, 2011

Quebec freeloading.

Apparently Quebec has some sort of problem with the way the rest of the Country sees them as Freeloaders. I guess if they would learn to not "expect" constant handouts, that perception might change. (And at this point I won't go into how the Bloc has no business in Federal Politics, but maybe some time later.)

Check out the National Post Article HERE. As well as Dr. Roy's BLOG (is that pronounced "Wah", or is it still "Roy" out here in the West? lol)

Bob

Too funny not to share!!

"Michael Ignatieff, truly, is the George Costanza of Canadian Politics" from Hunter Thompson at "Searching for Liberty". :-)

Bob

The facts on Michael Ignatieff's immigrant family.

Royalty always seems to believe they are entitled to power, and when you come from deposed royalty that's what you quest for. Here is a little look at the "poor immigrant" Ignatieff family which came knocking on Canada's door to ease their burdens.

I don't even think this would have become an issue, if Ignatieff hadn't brought it up himself.

Bob

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Tory's lead in Honesty polling

Not surprising though after watching the desperate antics of the Coalition trying to build Conservative scandals where there are none.
The Montreal Gazette reports.

And on NDP Pat Martin's ridiculous behaviour in committee; Hunter at Climbing out of the dark, graciously took the time to go through the footage and post some here.

And lastly the Toronto Sun looks to be breaking Michael Ignatieff's "exit plan" to work at the UofT if the whole "Prime Minister" thing doesn't work out.

Bob

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Liberals misplaced priorities.

With all the Hubbub from Michael Ignatieff over "how much new justice incentives are going to cost", then promising $180 Million in funding for a recreational facility for Quebec city, it is no wonder we have the level crime that we do. Once again Liberal priorities are misplaced, being more concerned about their own personal advancement than our safety.

Here's the article.

Iggy's Liberal policy: tax you and promise it to Quebec.

It appears that this is what Michael Ignatieff feels it will take to "win" (aka buy) the top spot in Canadian politics.

To me this speaks volumes of the desperation the Liberals must be feeling, especially when they aren't in the position the feel rightly belongs only to them, which is The Government. Thankfully it also screams to everyone at the lengths they will take to make sure they get what they want, and to make sure that you and I pay for it.

I really think this is going to hurt the Liberals even within their own support base. Any rational person sees this for exactly what it is, and how do you support someone willing to pick the pockets of all Canadians to send it to only one Province for a recreational facility? Federal politics revolves around all of Canada and not just Quebec, and any party willing to loot the rest of us for their own gain needs to be sent packing.

Bob