The Maple Leaf Forever!

Its time to remember how great this country used to be!

In Days of yore,
From Britain's shore,
Wolfe the dauntless hero came
And planted firm Britannia's flag
On Canada's fair domain.
Here may it wave,
Our boast, our pride,
And join in love together,
The thistle, shamrock, rose entwined,
The Maple Leaf Forever

The Maple Leaf
Our Emblem Dear,
The Maple Leaf Forever.
God save our Queen and heaven bless,
The Maple Leaf Forever.

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane
Our brave fathers side by side
For freedom's home and loved ones dear,
Firmly stood and nobly died.
And so their rights which they maintained,
We swear to yield them never.
Our watchword ever more shall be:
The Maple Leaf Forever!

Our fair Dominion now extends
From Cape Race to Nootka Sound
May peace forever be our lot
And plenty a store abound
And may those ties of love be ours
Which discord cannot sever
And flourish green for freedom's home
The Maple Leaf Forever.

Sharia Law in Ontario is a Political Ploy that has Backfired on the Liberals.

The use of Islamic religious doctrine for Arbitration of civil disputes is not the adoption of Sharia Law. It is a mutually agreed set of mystical rules to settle disputes. It would be no different than the law of Captain Kangaroo being agreed upon by both parties to settle a non-criminal argument.

What is not required is any formal or government recognition of Sharia Law in Canada what so ever. Sharia Law means nothing, as does Catholic or Jewish Law, because it would be over-ruled by Canadian Law every time.

This would appear to be a tactic by the Liberals to bait those on the right so that they can get some good intolerant quotations going into the next election. What they did not expect was that most of the demonstrations came from the left and the Muslims themselves.

Arbitration is the acceptance of something less than Justice and is a short cut that is designed to unburden the courts. To be sure anyone can arbitrate if both sides agree to the decision, but as with any other area of life – beware what you agree to.

Canada Chooses Multi-Ethnic Governor General of the Correct Colour - Liberal Red.

The New Governor General may appear on the surface to be a marvalous example of a person of ethnic background lifted from obscurity to the highest post in the land, but as Mark Steyn points out there is no diversity in her thinking. Read more at the Western Standard

"The problem with “celebrating diversity” is that it leads paradoxically but remorselessly to ruthless conformity. Thus, the viceregal succession of Michaëlle Jean. On the face of it, Mme. Jean and the incumbent Governor General have nothing in common: Adrienne Clarkson is an anglophone, Mme. Jean a francophone; Ms. Clarkson was born in Hong Kong, Mme. Jean in Haiti; Ms. Clarkson hosted shows on the CBC’s main unwatched channel, Mme. Jean on their subsidiary unwatched cable channel."

Is Canada now predominantly Anti-Capitalist?

Jack Burton asks do you agree with Michael Campbell?

Michael Burton says:

As we all know it is simply the fact that she was an announcer for the CBC as have the past 4 GG’s have been! How else can they get good press! Born in Canada why would we be so crass! The liberals have no shame and should be thrown out of office. Martin is simply like the rest.

Dr. Phil Burton says:

Sounds like he was having trouble coming up with a topic for his collumn. I'm not sure what qualifications are neccessary to be GG or if it should be a prize or lifetime achievement award. Seems to me the GG is a cheerleader for Canada and represents us at cultural, ceremonial, and sports events; ie if it was real important the PM would be there.

The world sees Canada as a tolerant, peaceful place with opportunity for all. While this image may be somewhat undeserved, likely this appointment was made to perpetuate it. Undoubtedly also to suck up to immigrant voters in Quebec.

This lady is a good communicator, youthful, french,pretty, intelligent, and an immigrant to boot... what more could you want. She will have no more influence on government policy than any other GG and hopefully she'll have a bit more common sense than the current GG and realize that her job is not that important and doesn't require 7 figure budgets.

No outrage required on this one

Christopher Burton Says:

I wonder why no one has addressed the main point of Campbell’s article. Are we becoming anti-Capitalist and anti-Globalist? Has the disease of collectivism so permeated the country that we think this is a normal attitude?

The Governor General is the highest post (when the Queen is out of town) in the Country. It is no less a symbol than the national flag. The Liberals managed to destroy the flag and have been doing their utmost to destroy the office of Governor General. I guess they will never forgive Julian Byng.

The Governor General is the head of the Canadian Armed Forces, an organization that is dependant on tradition to maintain morale and effectiveness. The ascension of totally unqualified people who have no idea of the efficacy of military tradition is a slap in the face to our armed forces and further erodes its self-worth. But then again the Liberals never did like the military.

The choice of a woman who has spent her life milking the hind tit at the CBC while applying to become a citizen of the French Republic, our oldest enemy both philosophically and militarily, is a calculated appointment that will without a doubt denigrate the office of Governor General. We don’t even have to bring up the fact that her husband is in favour of destroying the Country, is a socialist and has consorted with terrorists.

I think many in the world view us as a soft touch – an easy mark. Canada can always be counted on to act outside of her best interests. For those of us that are not preoccupied with re-electing the federal Liberals this is a very painful admission.

More Hero Bashing in the US

Davie Crocket dead at UT.

More Evidence of Bogus Scientific Support for Global Warming

Patrick Michaels exposes the "shameful" bias of the scientific press.

There's also nastiness if you say hurricanes aren't getting worse. A month ago, University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke, Jr., posted a paper that was accepted in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society concluding there is little if any sign of global warming in hurricane patterns. In a pre-emptive strike, Kevin Trenberth from the federally funded National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told the local newspaper, "I think he [Pielke] should withdraw his article. This is a shameful article."

Read the article here.

Drive the car that Stirling Moss drove in 1958!

Someone in Britain has produced a road legal version of the famous Vanwall F1 racer.

Every so often, a story comes along that you simply couldn't make up. Like the one about the new, fully road-legal, single-seat car that looks very much like a famous 1950s grand prix winner.

Read about it here.

All Cultures are not equal.

This comment in US News points out that even the left is turning away from Multiculturalism.

Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.

Read the whole thing here.

How Not to Run a Prison System!

Corrections Canada seems to be more interested in the politics of AIDS and another organisation that watches our border than on providing a secure and safe lockup for our criminals.

Tell me, with all the technology we have today, how does an inmate manage to sneek into another's cell and have sex without the guards knowing about it.

The truth is that Corrections Canada is a slack organization with very low standards.

Read more about priorities at Correcitons Canada here.

We should be proud of our cultural inheritance!

Mark Steyn states the obvious, while the Liberal multiculturists evade it.

"So, as any impeccably progressive soft-lefties would, Her Majesty’s Government in Ottawa decided to build the Mushuau a new town a few miles inland — state of the art, money no object, new homes, new heating systems, new schoolhouse, new computers, plus new more culturally respectful town name (Natuashish). Total cost to Canadian taxpayers: $152 million, which works out to about $217,142.85 for each of the town’s men, women and children. Got a wife and two kids and you’re looking at a government handout of about nine hundred thousand bucks."

Read the whole thing here.

Prison Reform

I have been asked to state my position on incarceration and its true purpose.

It is my contention that prisons should be humane and safe places for their inmates to reside. The security staff at a prison should model their activity on the precautions taken by the staff of a major casino. If someone can be spotted counting cards at the Black Jack table surely an inmate at a prison can be spotted with drugs or a weapon.

Long-term inmates should be housed in prisons that are far from populated areas and are secure from attack from within or without.

It should not be the responsibility of a prison to rehabilitate a person for committing a criminal act. The goal of a prison is to separate inmates from society as humanely and safely as possible until it is time for their release. The imposition of work details would also come under the purview of prison authorities.

It is the responsibility of the Justice system to make sure that violent offenders are incarcerated and out of circulation for a long enough period to protect law-abiding citizens. Society may well have to contend with an increase in geriatric crime when violent offenders are released, but at least we will be able to out-run them.

Cost savings can be enhanced with the use of modern technology to control the movements of inmates in a prison. Much of this can be done without human intervention. Identity management systems could be used to grant access to areas based on privileges that are unique to each inmate and operate automatically. Surveillance systems can monitor every movement of an inmate and behavioural software would identify aberrant behaviour. A prison should be compartmented so that only a small number of inmates can be together at one time.

A special branch of the army should administer federal prisons. The guards would be rotated through the prison system in the early part of their careers and would be highly trained for their task.

Reflections on a Revolution in Canada

I think it would be helpful to take a stand on issues that confront us today and state what government action I would support to solve those problems. I welcome input on these points and suggestions how they could be modified or reasons why they might not work.

Issues:

1) Violence: It is imperative that the freedom of individuals is not constrained by the State for reasons of convenience in times of peace. Limits on freedom must be abhored while physical violence must anticipate severe punishment. The number of laws that restrict human activity must be reduced to a minimum so as not to create unnecessary criminals. The punishment for crimes must be consistent and punitive in nature. Following these principles would produce a free society that would not tolerate violence.

a) Banned substances: No substance should be regulated unless it is a threat to human life or property “in and of itself”. (e.g. radio-active materials and explosives) The state has no business regulating human nature and cannot be responsible for self-destructive activities by individuals. One must live by the consequences of ones actions. Therefore the inherent penalties that result from the abuse of drugs must be borne by the abuser.

b) Firearms: It is the prime responsibility of the State to protect the individual from attacks on his person or his property. It is also the paramount interest of the individual to lawfully defend his person and his property. These motives should not conflict. The use of the tools of defence is an inalienable right. Therefore it is an abuse of State power to curtail the ownership of firearms. It is also incumbent upon the State to apprehend and punish any individual who through ignorance, malice or criminal intent misuses a firearm.

c) Youth: A crime committed by any individual must be consistently and punitively dealt with under the law. An individual under the age of reason (consent) is the responsibility of his parents or guardians and it is they who must bear the repercussions of their charges crimes. It is also a right of the parent or guardian to protect them-selves by publicly disowning their charges prior to a crime being committed if they can show that they have not the means to compel responsible behaviour. The State would then consistently and punitively punish the youth as if he bore the full responsibility for his actions.

2) Morality: Outside of the responsibility to defend the physical person and property of the individual against external attack, the State has no right or interest in defining the morality of its citizens. The State cannot restrict freedom of speech – but it must arbitrate for individuals who claim to have been damaged by maliciously fraudulent speech.

a) Religion: The State has no right or interest in restricting the practice of any religion outside of protecting an individual from being compelled to submit to a religious practise.

b) Sanctity of Life: The State must protect the rights of individuals above those of potential individuals. The law must state emphatically when an individual passes from potential into existence.

Marriage Becomes a Financial Contract

Well, its happening faster than I thought it would. Marriage is becoming nothing more than a short term financial contract.

Two straight men in Toronto are getting married strictly for the financial benefits. While this is hardly a new reason for getting married, the ability of a whole new class of entreprenuers to access benefits may destroy the viability of any financial advantage to being married.

I talked about this earlier here.

The message coming from the social liberals is that there should not be any advantage to being married. I pity our children.

The Liberals Strike Back

Chris(tine) says:

Cleary, it would be futile to argue the immorality and illegality of America's "pre-emptive" war with you. It wouldn't matter what I said. And you know very well what I meant when I said Stephen Harper would have marched our troups into Iraq. Instead of the peacekeeping in Afghanistan he would have sent those soldiers with the rest of the very small coalition of the deceived . With the exception of Australia, Britain and the US we could have out-soldiered the other few contributing nations. Are you proud of the letter by Harper (along with the brain power of Stockboy Day) to the Wall Street Journal apologizing on behalf of all Canadians because we didn't want to join them in the desert? Do you really wish we had gone to Iraq? I mean not just for the lucrative contracts.

And comparing World War II with Iraq? I have only ever heard that from the most ardent Bush groupies. They made up lots of great reasons why this war was so just after the "Weapons of Mass Deception" story fell through. Of course Sadam was a monster and who would know better than the Americans. I am sure they still have the receipts for all the weapons (including biological) they sent him. You would think that their policy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" would get old, but along came Osama bin Laden and they didn't hesitate to jump into bed with him either. I wonder how that worked out?

Did the government in Spain get re-elected? Would you have voted for Tony Blair and his Labour party or cast one for Michael Howard and his Tory party? Of course Blair was re-elected!!! The conservative Howard would have been an even more ardent poodle for Bush and his cause. I mean Karl Rove. Honestly, I don't know why John Howard won, despite the lack of support by the majority of Australians for their participation in Iraq.

Have you seen the news lately? Has anyone told the Iraqi people how fortunate they are? Many still have no power, no jobs (who wants to work for the Americans?) and most important of all, no security. That staged little election was a great photo opportunity, but not much more. And please, no lecture on the sanctity of voting rights and democracy. It is easy to wax lyrical when you don't have worry about the safety of your children.

There is something wrong when Stephen Harper is still being criticized despite the scandal-ridden Liberals and it is Stephen Harper himself. Many Canadians are well versed in the Gomery commission. It is easy to underestimate/belittle people just because you don't understand or approve of their opinion. You have to accept that, as well as the fact that most Canadians prefer the tarnished Liberals to the creepy Harper. And moderate?! Have you read the platform of his little National Citizens Coalition? Maybe he is moderate to an ultraconservative, but not to anyone else.

And if you are counting countries for the U.N. oil for food scandal don't forget to add the United States. Selectively reading the news isn't good for anyone. And I am sure that American blog site will get to the exhaustive research on the Bush-Saudi royal family connection right after it finishes investigating the Bush-bin Laden group relationship. And after they get to the bottom of all the prison abuse scandals. Probably on the same night that pigs fly. And who did take that picture of Sadam in his undies?

Have you told Ralph that he isn't a king? He'll need a drink for that kind of news.

And of course the Americans have and need a huge army. They start so much of the trouble!!! Someone is bound to fight back. And after 50 years of foreign policy meddling/bullying I guess they have.




Christopher J. Burton says:

Sorry for delay – I have been overwhelmed trying to make enough money to pay my taxes.

I can empathize in the feeling of futility one must feel if one argues a case without credible evidence. Perhaps consulting ‘moveon.org’ would supply more funny names and leftwing platitudes. It always matters what we say because the first person we must convince is our selves. One can evade reality or accept it.

The fact of the matter is that Canadian’s did serve in Iraq both on the ground and at sea. The Liberals would not support the war but they would send Canadian troops into the war zone. The obscene dishonesty of the Liberals was designed to curry favour with the French and placate the Americans at the same time. I prefer an honest approach where we would have supported the war and at the same time realized the extreme limitations of our armed forces. Rebuilding a credible defence structure would have to be the main priority for Stephen Harper.

I do agree that the UN, the French, and the Russians deceived the coalition by not disclosing their vested interests in Sadam’s Iraq. Many Canadians were embarrassed by the actions of our Government and wanted our allies to know it. We are at war with those who would use militant Islam as a motivation for attacking the West whether we like it or not.

As for comparisons with WWII – Let’s see: Totalitarian Dictator, mass murder of civilians, Invasions of neighbouring countries – the motivation sounds the same to me.
The great fallacy perpetrated by the left is that the sole reason for invading Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction. It has been shown over and over again that the US government has proposed a democratic “Domino Theory” to solve the Middle East conundrum. Even the main stream media’s quintessence of left wing bias; Time Magazine stated on Feb. 27, 2003 that “President Bush wants sceptics at home and abroad to believe that a war to depose Saddam Hussein would spread democracy and peace in the troubled Middle East.” That’s before the war started people.

Yes Sadam was a monster, just ask the Iraqis that suffered under his tyranny – they are glad that he is gone. Many on the left believe that the Iraqis are not ready for democracy, that stability is more important. Better to have a bloodthirsty dictator in charge to safeguard those French and Russian oil contracts. It is strange how you claim that the Americans supplied Sadam with his weapons as the whole world watched his Russian tanks and aircraft get blown away while he hid in his German and French built bunkers.

I know the left will never forgive the Americans for winning the Cold War and destroying their little experiment in Soviet Russia, but to say that it was folly to support the Mujahdeen in Afghanistan is bizarre. Certainly the left did not feel any reluctance jumping into bed with the North Vietnamese to create that workers paradise – just ask Jane Fonda.

I would gladly stand aside and let you have Spain – to their everlasting shame they buckled and surrendered to terrorism. What would Winston have said? As for Michael Howard and his Tories I don’t know why you have a problem with them. They agree with you. Michael Howard is nothing more than a mushy middle liberal who seems to be more Europe oriented than American. I have to give full marks to Tony Bair who had the courage to stand up to the naysayers in his own party and do the right thing. You seem to have intimate knowledge of who runs the United States – please pray tell where you get these inside scoops. Silly me, I always thought George Bush was President, but you seem to think a guy named Karl Rove is in charge. Other than regurgitating another left wing platitude why do you believe this? I suggest you don’t know why George Bush and John Howard were re-elected and you can’t figure out how Tony Blair stays in control of the Labour Party.

Perhaps another time we can discuss the motivations of the mainstream media, but if you broaden your news sources you will find an incredible amount of good news coming out of Iraq. Check here as an example: Good news from Iraq. You seem to prefer the wonderful security of Sadam’s Iraq where children were so safe. Who is waxing lyrical? Surely all those smiling Iraqis holding up purple fingers, after they voted, were just pawns of the oppressor. Even the lefty press was surprised by the courage displayed by Iraqis but it seems not you.

So the scandal ridden Liberals are merely tarnished and the Conservatives under Harper are creepy? Perhaps you can explain what you mean by creepy. Could it mean that you think the reduction in the influence of government in our lives is wrong? Could it mean that you want more social programs? Could it mean that you believe the end justifies the means? Again I wish you would explain what it is that you have a problem with instead of just spewing left wing platitudes.
What parts of the National Citizens Coalition’s program do you disagree with? What do you mean by an ultraconservative? All of your platitudes mean nothing until you explain what it is you are talking about.

As for the UN “oil for food” scandal – I am counting countries. It would appear that if it were not for investigations demanded by the US senate the details of this abomination would not have come to light. The corruption is being exposed in a fair and detailed investigation. You know, like the fair and detailed examination of the Bush-Saudi royal family relationship or the Bush-bin Laden love fest that was explored so convincingly by Michael Moore. I am sorry if I am distracted by the head hacking terrorists and didn’t notice the embarrassing positions that the inmates at Abu Ghraib prison were arranged in. Also I couldn’t care less what Sadam was wearing when that murderous scum was photographed.

Back to Canada – What is it about Ralph Klein that you don’t like? He seems to be somewhat of a free spending liberal to me. Could it be that you disapprove of private healthcare clinics like the ones that have been operating in Quebec for years? I don’t get the King reference – what do you mean? I presume that you were making fun of his drinking problem when you said that he would need a drink if someone told him he was not a king. That sounds a lot like making fun of Jean Chrétien’s mouth to me. Oh Liberals have such short memories.

Peace and Love

Liberals where you least expect them.

Chris(tine) says,

Cadman voted the way most of his constituents wanted him to vote. And since opinion polls indicate that the majority of Canadian's do NOT want an election now, who were most Conservative members representing? It is common sense to wait until Justice Gomery issues his report. Most Canadian's understand that.

And it is important to always remember that if Stephen Harper had his way Canada would have marched into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq. I know he danced around the issue during the last election campaign, but he can't run from his original comments. The money wasted on that fiasco would have made the Gomery/ Liberal bribes look like pocket change. That serious lack of judgement would prevent me from ever voting for Stephen Harper. The Conservative Party needs a new leader. All four Atlantic provinces have Tory governments because their people are willing to elect PROGRESSIVE conservatives. If Alberta continues to bite off its nose to spite its face the Conservative Party will have limited success. And I don't mean king Ralph's party.

If your American blog site is looking for scandal and corruption perhaps it should spend less time on Canadian politics and do an honest and thorough investigation into the intimate relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. I wish people would take that seriously.


CJB say's

I did not realize we had so many partisan Liberals about. I wonder how forgiving they would be if any other party were to be involved in so many scandals. I should also remind Liberals that the budget was only sent to committee to prepare it for Third Reading in the house. It has not passed yet!

It must be “Liberating” to be able to make outlandish statements without having to back them up. I wonder if most Canadians even know what the Gomery Commission is about or even what the Gomery Commission is.

I would love to know how Stephen Harper would have marched into Iraq without an army capable of doing so. After years of Liberal government we have decimated our armed forces to point where they can only provide on site spectators at conflicts. More Canadians serve in combat with the US armed forces than with ours. Our country is virtually defenceless without American support – Shame on us!

I would like to know who has jurisdiction to call the war in Iraq illegal. What Law was broken? In fact it would appear that UN officials were making themselves rich along with the French and Russians while doing Sadam’s bidding. The oil for food scandal is the biggest fraud in world history. It dwarfs Enron and Tyco by 100 times.

I would like to know by what measure you think the liberation of a people from a mass murdering totalitarian dictator is immoral. Why did I see so many happy faces holding up purple fingers after they voted in Iraq? Was fighting in World War II immoral?

As for costing money – I think the Australians have done quiet well thank you with preferred access to contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq. They can also hold their heads up saying they did the right thing. Interesting that all the war leaders have been re-elected since the Iraq war. But I guess a hypothetical expense is worth much more than one of many scandals that the Liebrials have perpetrated on the Canadian people. If supporting our three greatest allies in a cause against a bloodthirsty dictator shows bad judgement then I must be stuuuupid.

I would like to know what the definition of ‘progressive’ is in a political sense. Because it sounds to me like ever-increasing state involvement in our lives. Ever-increasing taxes and the enshrining of envious hatred of success in the public conscience also come to mind. I think Canada needs a new constitution and I am beginning to agree with the Quebec Separatists. Canada should become a true confederation where the central government provides the army, a common currency and gets out the lives of people in the regions. I should mention that Alberta has the lowest taxes and has one of the highest standards of living in North America. The only thing that is being cut off is the money extracted by the Liberals to pay off Quebec. By the way Ralph is not a King.

The American blog site does not belong to me and it does attack scandals in the US such as false and biased news reporting by Newsweek and other liberal organs. I thought you would have regarded Michael Moore’s film on the Bush Family as an honest and thorough investigation. Perhaps you leave your front door unlocked so he can just walk in for a cup of tea.

We have a corrupt bunch of people in Ottawa calling themselves a government. Paul Martin has shown that he will sink to any depth necessary to stay in power. I wonder how long it will take Carolin Parish to get a cabinet post. Martin knows that a bi-election is coming up in a safe Liberal riding – so he will delay and delay.

Stephen Harper is an honest and intelligent moderate leader. There is something wrong in the country when he is criticised more than Paul Martin over the last six months of scandal and deceit.

CJB

This could be the most costly Liberal policy yet!

The Gun Registry, the HRDC scandal and ADSCAM will look like pocket change if the Liberals cave in and try to meet the Kyoto goals they have promised the NDP.

The Issue that is Never Solved!?

I think Mark Steyn understands the Liberal Party and its relationship with Canadians.

“Well, the same excuse as always: "national unity." "National unity" was the Liberals' justification for Adscam and Flagscam and all the rest in the first place. Now they're threatening to run as the "national unity" party against those rabid extreme "U.S.-style" conservatives. If so, it's important to remember what "national unity" actually boils down to: it means Quebec federalists and Quebec separatists bribing each other with money raised in the rest of the country. In the sense that Quebecers of all persuasions are united in their determination to milk the nation, the "national unity" strategy worked. Jean Brault himself is a splendid example of "national unity" in action: he received money from the federal government to promote national unity and used it both to make illegal donations to the P‚quistes through his workers and buy tables at Liberal fundraisers, where he papered the room with his separatist employees who got a free meal in exchange for cheering M. Chr‚tien. Can't get much more "national unity" than that, can you?”

From Laurier to Chretien its always the same excuse.

Ducking the issues.

It would appear that many Canadians do not want to have an election in June and would rather follow Prime Minister Martin’s request to wait until after the Gomery Inquiry issues its report. The people who traditionally vote Liberal are finding it difficult to buy the party line and are looking for a better argument that will confirm their voting habit. They need time to let Paul Martin and Co. cook up a solid case of plausible deniability.

Wife & Daughter get Posted!

Erin & Haley

Feet of Clay

I contend that great men should be remembered for their achievements and that the foibles of their day-to-day life should not diminish their status. Success in life is difficult to achieve – pitfalls are everywhere and everyone has a million reasons why they can’t accomplish their goals. One road to success is to emulate those that have already been there. Mentors and heroes who have defied the odds and succeeded where most have failed can be of great comfort to one in time of disillusionment.

Why then have we entered upon an era where it is almost obligatory to denigrate our heroes? My answer is that we have dispensed with principles and have entered an age of pragmatism. The consequences of the acceptance of a pragmatic world are subtle at first, almost imperceptible. A great swath of grey begins to encroach on what was once the demarcation between black and white. Certainty begins to dissolve into doubt - Confidence devolves to fear. In this world reason is supplanted with a determination to mould reality to fit our desires in spite of contradictions.

No one in a pragmatic world can stand for anything but the social caprice of the day. What is right today may be wrong tomorrow. Everyone must experiment with short-term solutions devoid of context. A pragmatic notion is held in esteem as long as one can get away with it. How could a hero survive in this world?

Heroes are discredited by the pragmatic idea of “moral equivalence”. This means that modern ideas of social conformity to which a hero may not adhere are used to discredit the hero’s achievement. This argument can also be used to explain away all manner evil in the world.

An argument of this type that I have heard stated with a straight face is: Stalin’s liquidation of thirty million people was not as bad as Hitler’s murder of ten million because he did it to achieve a noble end, where as Hitler simply was a racist. Quite a pragmatic view!

I have heard that Ronald Reagan's policies contributed to the end of the cold war but he was a fool and a liar because he tried to say he did not dye his hair. Many great heroes are dismissed simply for being dead, white and male.

Many people today accept the notion that war is bad in and of itself. They accept that terrible evil could be happening in the world, but they say war is not the answer. A good admonishment at the UN should do the trick. Mass murder may continue but at least we did not go to war. I say this line of non-thought is devoid of any understanding of the principle of self-preservation. It is a pragmatic moral-equivalence.

Heroes are invariably men of principle. They would be waffling poll readers plagued with indecision if they were not. Gandhi was a man of principle who gained independence for India and at the same time proved the humanity of British rule. Had Nazis or Communists ruled India he would have been shot on the first day of protest. Gandhi counted on the fact that the British would adhere to the principles of human decency and fair play. If he had faced pragmatists instead – well.

Cecil Rhodes was a man of principle and energy who built an empire in southern Africa. Today he is scorned as a racist and a tyrant by the mainstream. He may have employed thousands of whites and blacks where there was no work before. He may have undermined and subverted a truly racist government in the Transvaal primarily for business principles and built a country of immense wealth. He may have believed that the right to vote should be based on education achieved and not on skin colour – but today in spite of the corrupt mess that modern rulers have inflicted on southern Africa he is considered a vile evil racist. A very pragmatic view!

Western civilization was built on principles that cannot be denied without contradiction. That is why it has dominated the world. Other civilizations are awash in mysticism and emotion. Pragmatism is undermining our heroes and thus destroying the principles that we have built our civilization upon. It is with selfish intent that I ask – Have you defended your heroes today?

Closing the Window on the Left.

The Transition to Hydrogen fuel – The window of opportunity for the Left

The purported motive for countries to sign on to the Kyoto Accords is to reduce greenhouse gases and thus theoretically slow down global warming. In fact it is a thinly disguised formula for wealth redistribution throughout the world – but I digress. One would think that the deployment of an alterative fuel that does not pollute and exists in inexhaustible abundance would be the prime directive of the Accords. The environmentalist elites are forever complaining about the “tons” of effluent that burning fossil fuels spews into the atmosphere. Yet why is there not a chorus of support from these elites for the transition to a hydrogen economy?

Most proponents of the environmentalist movement prefer restrictions on or scaling back consumption. More controls are necessary they say in order to protect the planet from humans. We should move away from private automobiles and use mass transit. We should not live in low-density suburbs, but rather in high-density urban condominiums. We should sort our garbage for free and then pay huge fees to dispose of it. Solutions for energy requirements should be in “harmony” with nature, expensive and in your face. A constant reminder of the guilt we should feel simply for existing.

Most of us don’t like scaling back on consumption – whether we can afford it or not. Most of us believe that the planet should exist for the benefit of mankind not in spite of him. We prefer the freedom of the private automobile to the inconvenience of mass transit and many would live in a low-density private home given the opportunity. This is the problem that confronts the social planners of the left as they try to mould society into dependent communities.

In a way Hydrogen is the worst nightmare for the left. It will allow the private automobile to dominate human transportation unfettered by the pollution argument. Personal freedom will be enhanced and commerce will flourish. How can a group of oligarchs’ control and mould society with all this freedom about? What’s more, because so many consumers desire all the things that the left wants to restrict, this new means of their attainment will become inevitable. The left knows this and can only use the interregnum period between the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen as a closing window of opportunity to put more controls in place.

70 Years Late

It looks like there will be a German Pope.

It is too bad that there was not a stong willed German Pope in place in 1933. He could have saved us alot of trouble.

Time for an Irish Pope?

The tremendous impact of Pope John Paul II on Cold War politics leads one to think that perhaps an Irish Pope could do the same for the Troubles in Ireland.

This conflict is long overdue for a solution and the Pope has the right authority to impact a positive outcome. Fear of the Papacy could be overcome by an empathetic policy of outreach toward the Protestants. At least we could have peace with a Catholic acceptance of the Protestant North's right to exist.

Party on the Black Sea?

Why are so many people in Ontario still going to vote Liberal?

The question begs an answer in the light of the scandals that are breaking in Quebec.

In order to understand we must examine what the Liberal Party stands for and who benefits.

In their hearts Liberal Party strategists believe that the deft use of Government force to redistribute wealth is their magic bullet for remaining in power. They also believe, unlike their more honest NDP colleagues, that this axiom should be treated like a dirty little secret. The party is in effect a collection of special interests that use the brand of big “L” Liberal as cover to support their habits.

Ontario is the keystone of special interests in Canada – even more so than Quebec. This former Loyalist Tory bastion has in the last forty years been transformed into a polyglot where a coalition of monopolies and subsidised industry determine the politics of Canada.

There exists a “United Way” mentality in Ontario. As with the charities, using an umbrella organization like the “Liberal Party” deflects scrutiny from organizations that would have trouble gaining public support on their own. The brilliance of this interaction of special interests and hidden agendas is that it is able to produce Liberal Governments that will ever enhance and expand a very cozy arrangement.

The Liberal Party (both provincially and with Federal Party interference) will protect at all cost the largest monopoly in Ontario (the Teachers Unions) by restricting competition. The granting of tax relief for those who did not use the Public School system was a grave threat to the Liberal Party. It could have produced many new teachers that would operate outside the Union and thus offer an alternative to this overwhelming power block. Now we get a bureaucratic educational system that costs too much, delivers sub par results, but in the end votes Liberal.

The Liberal Party will protect those that benefit from the healthcare monopoly. Privately delivered healthcare would be a grave threat to the Liberal Party. It would produce entrepreneurs that could not be controlled and restricted by government largess. The system may tolerate long waiting lists, indifferent service, and hospitals with unusable capacity, but those who benefit from the security within the confines of this system will support the Liberal Party.

The Liberal Party will create and protect industries that are dependent on vast government social engineering schemes. Liberal concepts such as multiculturalism, bilingualism, environmentalism, public transportation, racism, feminism, sexism, soft power, community, “self esteem”, minority preference, and hate speech all produce unviable entities that can only survive on the backs of tax payers. The organizations that benefit from these concepts will support the Liberals come hell or high water.

The Liberals will be a focal point for anti-Americanism and deny our British heritage while diligently dismantling it. Since the once proud Canadian Armed Forces do not tend to vote Liberal and divert money away from Liberal Special Interests they are shunned.
The Goal of the Liberal Party is to create a country that will devolve voluntarily into a "Second World" status where special interests are dependent on the patronage of the central authority.

In Canada a Party only needs about 40% of the vote to form a majority government. It helps if the support is concentrated in an area that has many parliamentary seats. For the “Liberal Party of Canada” Ontario is the bedrock of its success. Ontario has been hit by the magic bullet. The Liberal Party (that supports the special interests, which in turn support the Liberal Party) has reached the tipping point and now controls enough support in Ontario to win the province despite blatant corruption in Quebec.

When I hear commentators on radio talk shows pulling their hair out because of the incredibly large number of apologists for the Liberal Party I can only shake my head. Many rational people ask how can these voters support a party that is caught red handed in the most repugnant scandal in Canadian history. If it had been any other party these same voters would have been merciless in their response. Just ask Brian Mulroney.

The answer is that these people have a cozy deal and they don’t want to mess it up. They know that if the Conservatives get into power they will reduce the influence of Liberal Special Interests – though I fear not as much as I would prefer. They also know that if many of them vote NDP they would split the vote and elect the Conservatives. The special interest voters have nowhere else to go and the Liberal Party knows it. If the Liberals were caught with their comrades and families at a Party resort on the Black Sea, spending our money of course, large numbers of Ontarians would still vote for them.

Brave New World of Marriage

Being somewhat of a traditionalist I am saddened when an institution is changed or marginalised (for no good reason). Even though I am an atheist I still respect the history and allure of the Church. Many men have been motivated to perform great deeds by her tenets. I still have a soft spot for the Crown and the time-honoured controls that we place on that office. Commonwealth countries benefit from the civility and identity that the Crown bestows upon them. Many in the United States, with her shared history, have adopted the Crown as a symbol of the Mother Country. It should, then, be no surprise that I do not agree with the changes in definition of the institution of marriage.

We are all individuals with our own hopes and aspirations for a happy and successful life. Far be it for me to promote the use of governmental force against those who practice a non-traditional lifestyle. Live and let live is the only reasonable position I can perceive. Relationships between human beings exist for as many reasons as there are people. Companionship, dependence, fear, love, money and tradition are all compelling reasons why people choose to bond with each other.

The fundamental reason for a union between a man and a woman is survival of the species. We must procreate or die off. Perhaps science will find a way to dramatically extend our life spans, but in the mean time we must reproduce as we always have. The institution of Marriage has for centuries been our solution for Man’s endurance on this Earth. It is a tradition with great merit that has stood the test of time. It has many subsidiary benefits as well; a stable environment to raise children, protection against sexually transmitted disease, the support of pooled resources and the passing on of inherited wealth. Marriage has been interwoven with history, giving families a sentiment of pride and glory. It allows individuals to have a sense of continuity with the past and a base of support to affect the future. Why would anyone want to change such a force for good in our lives?

We can garner the answer from history as with most modern conundrums. The individualist philosophy that predominated during the 18th century Enlightenment has suffered two hundred years of persistent and innovative attacks. The great parliamentary traditions of Great Britain that have been transplanted throughout the world matured under the tutelage of this period. The Constitution of the United States began here. The oligarchic enemies of individualism have schemed and plotted the destruction of the enlightenment ever since.

Who are these enemies? Who stands to lose from the evolution of the sovereign individual? Could it be those who wield the power of the state and those that benefit from that power? Make no mistake; these Stateists have been very clever in their reaction. They have invented many arguments with which to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual. This was no easy task, as the Aristotelian logic of the Enlightenment is grounded in reality and cannot be defeated without contradiction. This did not deter them however; they merely dispensed with reality and used reason’s antithesis emotion as their tool of persuasion.

The Stateists began with state sponsored religion as a primary method of control. One only has to look at the Province of Quebec in Canada as an example of the use of religion to enhance centralized political and cultural manipulation that lasted well into the 1950’s. But non-hierarchical religions can lead to decent and are not suited to centralized control.

Philosophy became the new battleground in the 19th Century. With the twisted coils of Emanuel Kant’s theories, reality became a figment of one’s imagination. William James’ work professing pragmatism was able to dispensed with principles and form the underlying foundation for modern political movements in the 20th Century. With reality gone and principles viewed as a form of mental illness the world was ripe for a flood of political “isms” that were to lead to untold suffering. Global Socialism or Communism, Racist Socialism or Nazism, Anarchism or Nihilism and the subtlest movement; the Mixed Market Economy all are founded to enhance the power of the state and assail the individual.

What has all this got to do with the institution of Marriage one might ask? In order to understand why there is pressure to change the definition of Marriage one must understand the mindset of those who wish to change it. Marriage (and the resulting family connections) is the buttress of individualism and self-reliance in the world today. It is an obstacle to centralised state control and thus has come under attack by stateists.

The state is determined to become the paternal overlord of many aspects of our lives. Most modern stateists support an incremental approach to the destruction of individual rights. They will tolerate enough freedom to pay the bills and keep people from going to the barricades.

Marriage is to become no more than a financial arrangement sanctioned by the state. It will no longer serve as the potential bastion of the individual and anchor one’s place in history. It will be open to or forced on any combination of people. Many think that the new definition has something to do with homosexuals wishing to call their relationships a marriage. While they are included in the new definition it is preposterous to presume the State will care if one has a sexual relationship in order to be married. It is the destruction of the historical tradition of marriage that is important. An example of how traditional marriage will be debased is the new single purpose marriage that might look something like this:

John and James went to school together and shared an apartment. Upon graduation John obtained employment with a large unionised firm, which had a generous spousal benefits program. James wished to extend his education by obtaining a Masters degree so he remained a student. On his way to school James falls and breaks his leg and must have months of expensive therapy to recover. John and his girlfriend feel sorry for James so they go to the Internet and download the latest do-it-yourself marriage kit and presto John and James are married. The spousal benefits flow to James as long as he requires the convalescent care. Once James is back to normal John simply downloads the do-it-yourself divorce Kit and ends the financial arrangement.

The new single purpose marriage will have a dramatic impact on all forms of spousal benefits. Since the cost of benefits will then rise out of reach for most people, the government will claim the high ground and step in to make them equally available to all. Of course taxes will have to be raised to pay for the new infrastructure and the power of the state is enhanced once more.

The institution of Marriage is debased and becomes a convenient legal manoeuvre for the extraction of financial benefits. The historical impact of Marriage on our culture and our Country will be changed into the Brave New World of State control. It is not hard to follow the logical conclusion that will accompany the destruction of the tradition of marriage – Just read Huxley!