Made In The U.S.A.

Does anyone know if there's a Canadian version of this that will be available soon? CBC (coalition broadcasting corporation) has released their online Compass tool that is supposed to tell you who you should vote for according to your selection of the answers offered. Here's the major problem with it: Not only does it tell you by default that you should elect an American to the office of Prime Minister, it does so by presenting American policy platforms as that of Canadian policy platforms. As Canadian taxpayers, shouldn't we demand that the CBC support Canada by using products designed for Canadians instead of products designed for Americans? It looks like we'll have to wait. Sun TV will be starting in Canada in the next few weeks, offering balanced reporting from all sides of the political spectrum.

Truth Or Dare Time

It's time the Conservative Party started telling the truth, and I'm offering my assistance right here. Listening to the opposition coalition spin on things the last several days, I couldn't help but notice the media's complicity (or stupidity) in helping one of the descendants of the tsarist regime of Russia to get elected. (Isn't it ironic? The great Liberal hope for democracy in Canada comes to us via a decendant of the tsarist regime ousted during the Russian revolution of 1917 that was waged in the hopes of bringing freedom to the commoner!) Well, no offence, but I'm not really keen on taking my chances that things will work out for the betterment of the commoner here in Canada. We already know that the Liberals have a track record of promising one thing to gain power and then doing the opposite (even with a majority to fulfill their promises unhindered). There's also the partners in crime, like the guy driving the getaway car and the guy stealing the gas to power it. Jack Layton wants to know why the CPC won't offer families more help now instead of when the deficit is eliminated. In case everyone has developed a case of amnesia, which I doubt most Canadians have, Stephen Harper was forced to make choices that benefited all Canadians when the world-wide recession started to have an adverse effect on Canadian families. Helping Canadians through this struggle resulted in a $56 Billion deficit that has been driven down to $39.5 Billion for the current year. By reducing Canada's deficit to zero, the federal government will be better able to afford social programs in the future. Replacing Canada's Conservative government with a coalition or Liberal government (or regime, by Michael Ignatieff's own words) will hinder this future planning, at least according to Liberal John McCallum. Corporate tax cuts: Michael keeps insisting he would maintain the current tax rate for corporations at 18 %. Could someone please remind Michael that on one of those rare occasions when he showed up to vote (he had the worst attendance record of all those that were so keen on democracy, perhaps he had too much contempt for parlaiment), he lowered the tax rate to 16.5 %? This really needs to be hammered home. There are too many reporters that are letting the lie of a tax break for corporations fall on the Conservatives, when it was widely supported by the opposition coalition in previous budgets. The Liberals want to raise taxes. It's simple; if the media wants to cover this up, then the CPC has to tell people the truth and point them to the proof if they need it. The G20: Michael would especially like to thank Mark Holland for his "tenacious attack" on the government of Canada for its effort at ensuring the safety and security of world dignitaries. Those Liberals are also tenacious at hanging on to that $41 Million dollars of taxypayers money stolen through the Adscam scheme. What happened to the previous Liberal government's promise to get rid of all people associated with that theft? Currently, two thirds of those people have remained or been rehired to get Michael Ignatieff elected to the office of the Prime Minister. So much for ethics and accountability. The Coalition: CPAC has all the proof required to prove that the CPC didn't sign a letter for a coalition, they signed an agreement to force the Liberal government of Paul Martin to work through issues without forcing an election or ursurping power. Family Income Splitting: The opposition coalition talking point is that this won't come into play until the next election. Of course they're going to say that, to acknowledge that this could come into play sooner would be to admit that the Conservative's are better financial planners and that they have a plan to eliminate our deficit. If you live in eastern Canada, in a province like Newfoundland and Labrador or Prince Edward Island, you know what I'm talking about. One of you leaves to go to Alberta to make enough money to pay the bills while the other spouse stays home to look after the children and everything else. It's hell on most families, but without the high income work many families could not get by in these regions. With this item, we know that not only is there a plan for today, there is also a vision for the future. What is the Liberal plan or vision for the future, aside from gaining power and raising taxes? What are the costs of a Liberal - NDP - Bloc coalition? Since they won't provide an honest, detailed estimate of those costs, should we hold them in contempt of voters? Fighter Jets: The coalition opposition keep touting a $30 Billion pricetag for fighter jets, which won't be purchased for another five to seven years if the decision still stands to do so. Regardless of maintenance costs, the replacement costs of the equipment to the airforce is around $5 billion dollars. Maintenance costs will be incurred with any aircraft, and likely moreso with older aircraft. On another note, why is it that the opposition coalition and reporters are so comfortable spouting this figure of $30 Billion when the first purchase isn't due until 2016 at the earliest, yet we hear Michael Ignatieff and Scott Brison complain that it's too far down the road to vote for a party promising family income splitting ? What, are people going to stop having kids? This may provide an incentive for families to have more children and certainly our canada pension plan could use some future contributors to keep the plan viable. I'm sure there's more to come, how soon depending on how many more lies are fed to us by the Liberal - NDP - Bloc coalition. They've lied to us once. They'll do it again. It's the Liberal hidden agenda.

Budget B.S.

We are definately going into an election. The olive branch being extended by the NDP is a farce. Let's examine the reasons why we are going into an election first. 1) Liberal reason: Nothing to lose. The Liberal party is at rock-bottom. The media is and always has been 90% in support of the Liberal party, with the exception of a 3 year period when they were too embarrassed, as in the sponsorship scandal, or when it just wasn't "cool", when Stephane Dion was leader. Despite the retoric, the romper-room commiteee hearings, Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne defrauding Canadian taxpayers, Ruby Dhalla's past (and current) troubles, and oh yeah, that little matter of $41,000,000.00 that hasn't yet been repaid to taxpayers regarding Adscam; the media are keen to look past all that and announce the Conservatives dead in the water because of lapses of ethics that have yet to be proven, at least by a non-partisan judge. The Liberals really don't have anything to lose; they've got nothing now and if they don't win this election, they'll at least draw some attention to themselves with a new leader. Perhaps they'll even have a vote for a new leader this time. Wouldn't that be unprecedented! 2) NDP reason: They think we're stupid. It doesn't matter if Jack Layton was bullied into rejecting the budget due to pressure from his members ( perhaps they put the pressure on his wife Olivia Chow, you know how some of them can be ), he had the choice of standing up to his followers and showing them who was boss. It was him that got them this far. I can appreciate his current stalling for more goodies in the budget. It makes perfect sense in his position. As it stands, he's going to lose more than he can gain. I think he believed that the Conservatives would be so desperate to retain power that he could get away with demanding more. He thought wrong. 3) Bloc reason: They want more, and will probably get more regardless of who forms the government. 4) Conservative reason: The other three parties can't keep complaining about the government without either shitting or getting off the pot. Despite all the flame throwing from the opposition, we actually do live in a democracy and unless a government can be brought in with a majority that has a vision for our future and a roadmap to get there, we'll just keep spinning our tires going nowhere. Let's get this over with. Getting back to the point of the post, I know perfectly well that any sane politician couldn't make changes to this budget to accomodate the NDP. If the changes were made, Jack would vote for the budget and then later vote no confidence on an ethics motion. He could then tell his members that the NDP was capable of making change, both on the budget and on whether or not the government can survive if he deems them unethical. There's no choice now but to have an election. I hope this insanity will end and we'll be able to give the conservatives a five-year test run with a majority government.

Polling Shows Conservatives Are Trusted More Than Liberals

Something else the coalition will be attaching the word "unprecedented" to. From the National Post: Canadians believe political honesty should trump economic recovery as the main issue in the next election but — in a major blow to the Liberals — voters rank the Tories as the best party to deliver a government they can trust. Expect the Liberals and Dippers to start pouring crazy-glue on all that mud they're throwing around, with the hope that it might stick.

Jack Layton Wants To Fix Ottawa

As the NDP launches its pre-election advertising blitz, we have the most recent ad opening with the NDP claiming that Ottawa is broken and Jack Layton saying that only his party can fix it. Fine then. Let's start by helping to square this circle. We've got on one hand what seems to be an angry misogynist Pat Martin, and on the other hand what appears to be an angry knee-capping Thomas Mulcair. You can judge people by their words, or if you choose, by their actions. Let's take a look at their words. NDP deputy leader Mulcair scraps with QMI journalist 'Tom, are you trying to kneecap your leader while he's recovering from a bad hip' asks QMI's Brian Lilley Mr. Mulcair wasn't having it. Turning to face Mr. Lilley, who was parked behind the usual roped barrier put there so reporters don't get too close to MPs at the microphones, he responded: "Well Brian, since I have so much respect for you as a journalist, why don't you tell me what you heard me say that would make you say that, and not something that a Conservative spinmeister would say." Then came this testy exchange, as Mr. Mulcair gestured toward Mr. Lilley with his hands pressed together and then pointed his index finger at Mr. Lilley. Mulcair: "You tell me something that you've heard me say that would lead you to say that? You're the journalist who asked me the question. Tim Powers isn't a journalist, he's a Conservative spinner." Lilley: "Fine. If you went to an election now, the polls say that you would lose seats. Would that be an opportunity for you? Are you angling for leadership? He raises an interesting question and that's what I'm putting to you. You would lose seats. Mulcair: "You, you're a journalist, I'm a Member of Parliament. You have the obligation, if you're going to make a statement like that to point to something that I've said that you can ask your question based on. I'm not going to answer a pure hypothetical from you Brian. I have too much respect for you and you should have a little bit more respect for your own function and ours than to ask questions like that. "So tell me something that I've said that allows you to ask that question, Brian Lilley. Lilley: "Well I can ask whatever question I feel like Tom Mulcair." Mulcair: "Tell me something that I've said that leads to that question. Something that I've done or said. You're a pure, you're asking a purely hypothetical question based on something that comes from a Conservative spinmeister." Lilley: "We ask them all the time." Mulcair: "Tell me something I've said." Lilley: "You've said that an election is likely. You've called for an election." Mulcair: "Show me where I've said that." Lilley: "Well I don't have them in..." Another reporter chimed in, "You can't decide which questions we ask." To which Mr. Mulcair, still focused on Mr. Lilley said: "I've never said, I've never called for an election. You just made that up." Now, that's one of the gentleman who is going to fix Ottawa. Here's another one. If these guys are the Jeckyll and Hyde of the NDP, how would you know who is who? Pat Martin in committee lynching of Bev Oda: Pat Martin: "I have a question for Miss Biggs, Miss Biggs through the chair, do you believe Kairos is an anti-semetic organization?" Miss Biggs: "Well Chair, my....I don't think my opinions are ( answer becomes diluted due to interruption from Mr. Martin ) Pat Martin: "Well I'm asking you the question, you don't have the option....This is the thing, perhaps through the chair you could remind the witnesses that in this parlaimentary Westmin(i)ster parlaiment you do not have the right to ramain silent, and the offsetting right is, what you say can't be used against you. You have to answer the question. It's not optional" These guys don't act like they could fix a sandwich, much less Ottawa. Don't take my word for it, see for yourself. You can judge them by their actions. Update: If you've got a really strong stomach, you can get a better glimpse of the unprecedented woman bashing from Sandy at Crux Of The Matter.

The Carson Controversy

In the latest so-called scandal, the coalition opposition is lambasting the federal government for doing what they would have lambasted them for not doing: Calling in the RCMP to investigate allegations regarding the relationship between 66 year old Bruce Carson and 22 year old Michelle McPherson in a water treatment deal between the federal government and H2O Global Group. Here's the story from the advertising wing of the Liberal Party of Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/17/pol-carson-folo.html Here's the simplest way to explain this for the average Canadian voter:

This is her, on the left, and him on the right.

Using the same mathematical formulas the opposition parties are struggling with to explain their projections for the cost of corporate tax cuts, 65 F-35 next generation stealth fighters, and the so-called 56 Billion deficit that they forgot they forced on the current government (and you the taxpayer), the simple truth looks to most people like he just wanted to see how many times 66 can go into 22.

I think it's a new trend; he's not the only one with a 22 year old girlfriend. Even Tiger's got one!

For anyone to attempt to tie this as an ethics issue to the Prime Minister is laughable. If this is the best you can come up with then you are in dire need of some medication.

What About Our Hearts And Minds?

Michael Totten has a new article in the New York Post regarding the current uprising in Libya. "As forces loyal to Libya's cruel and de ranged tyrant Moammar Khadafy re conquer one rebel-held city after an other, the Arab League and the Arabic press are calling for a no-fly zone over the country to tip, or at least even, the odds. While I'm inclined to help the Libyans on humanitarian grounds and to advance our own national interests, the American public's appetite is low for intervening on behalf of the rebels -- and it's largely the Arab world's fault." [...] "They might find that if they treated us more like the Kurds do, more of us will be willing to help them in the future -- rather than shun them as hostiles who deserve to be left to their fate. " You can read the entire article here: What About Our Hearts And Minds? Michael also has a new book just released: The Road to Fatima Gate

Here's a book review: Michael Totten is a master carpenter. His work is a long, slow process using only carefully selected quality materials, often acquired with difficulty. In terms of volume, he comes nowhere near the output of many of his colleagues, but what he does produce will stand the test of time because Totten does not seek to tell his readers (or himself) what they want to know – he informs them of what they need to know. [...] The Road to Fatima Gate is essential reading for anyone who wishes to look beyond the trite reporting of Middle East affairs and find out what really makes this region tick. It offers no easy answers, no instant solutions and little comfort or reason for optimism. But then again, that is precisely what makes it an accurate record and analysis of five years in the life of a region which, despite always being in the news, so few know much about. Even more importantly, Totten’s work will provide the reader with an essential basis for the understanding of future events in this region, the mechanisms of which are already in process.