Time to Cool It!

Infighting gets no one anywhere. Ronald Reagan, architect of the Republican majority had an 11th commandment of politics, "Thou Shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican." Well, Canadian Conservatives and conservatives (i.e. members of the party and like-minded idealists) need to take a quick lesson from the Gipper.

It's sad to see how the media has skewed Garth Turner's level headed remarks. In interviews he's been full of praise of the Harper Govt. He merely points out one issue on which he disagrees. He does it mildly. As someone who agrees with the Prime Minister and not with Garth on this one, I still find it appalling that as soon as his interview was over, the statements he made, which can accurately be summed up as "I think this government is doing a lot of great things but I do disagree on this one issue" are immediately changed and rehashed in a way that would make the primary subjects of George Orwell's 1984 proud.

It's equally sad that some "conservatives" have taken to badmouthing as honourable and decent a man as Garth Turner as a result of these comments. The fact is that Garth Turner is a highly principled individual. He'd make a great Cabinet Minister. Canada, not just the Riding of Halton, is fortunate to have him in Parliament. PM Harper would be wise to immediately appoint him to a junior Cabinet post, at least, thereby stifling the Liberal media in their latest line of attack.

Most importantly: Whatever side you're on - Cool it! Conservatives can't maintain a proper government while fret with constant infighting. There will be disagreements. That's the stuff that makes a party stronger. The key is to get over them. Fast!

If you believe that the Emerson appointment goes against democratic values then fine. Recognize that nothing illegal or unethical was committed and don't make an issue of it to an extent that Liberals who just spent the past 12 years blocking every attempt at democratic reform use this as fodder to throw at a government that is finally taking steps in this area. If you believe, as I do, that no wrong has been committed, then don't impugn the dignity of a man like Garth Turner who has worked tirelessly to promote Conservative values and Conservative politics.

We have bigger issues to worry about. Like the fact that the overwhelming majority of Urban Canadians still have no understanding of conservatism and of the reasoning behind the issues we care about? Isn't that worthy of at least enough of our attention to pass up this "oh so important, one time chance" to smear and tarnish one of the most ethical MPs in Parliament today, one who just happens to be a member of our own party to boot?

In short; Thou shalt speak no evil of thy fellow Conservative. Translation for Montreal Canadiens fans, Go Emerson! Go Turner!

Note to PM Harper: Bypass the Media

It's interesting how the media never waits to attack a Conservative. Had they not launched their offensive during the first hour of Harper's Govt. they could have at least put on the appearance of impartiality. But why do that when no one calls them to the floor for it? Why bother when no one cares to recognize the agenda they have beyond mere reporting of the news?

Remember a little over six months ago when Belinda was heralded as a hero? What changed when Emerson did the same thing? Why aren't we hearing ad nauseam about how his move was "in the interests of the country," how politicians "have a right to act according to their conscious" and the plethora of other excuses then coughed up by the media?

Of course, the media, now taking their talking points from Bill Graham, are already defending their openly displayed hypocrisy accordingly: "Harper did it right after an election." Does anyone honestly think that the media would have given this story more sympathetic, Belinda-type coverage had this happened mid-term? I don't think there's anyone gullible enough to believe that. Not even the most stalwart of liberals are that gullible - they just pretend to be. On the contrary, a defection to the Tories would have been portrayed in a much worse light had it not happened on the day the new government was being sworn in, when people are most apt to cut the new guys some slack. Anyone who thinks that Emerson's defection would have received the same celebratory acclaim given Stronach hasn't listened to, read or seen a media broadcast in decades.

Note to Harper: Take heed. From day one, on every matter of policy, speak directly to the Canadian people. Hold press conferences, broadcast night time speeches, whatever - just go above their heads and don't rely on newsbytes. In other words, bypass the media. These "impartial" goons won't cut you any slack. (Though they will make up scandals where none exist. You're a Conservative, so you can count on them for that).

Note to the "mainstream" media: People are beginning to see your agenda for what it is. The slack you cut Liberal leaders (remember Jean Chretien's paper napkin, anyone?) and the muck that you spew against their Conservative counterparts has reached a level that you can no longer deny. Hypocrite, thy name is CBC (or the Toronto Star - take your pick).

Martin Getting Dangerous

For all who've had enough......

What on earth do Liberal higher-ups have against Democracy? Whatever it may be it's now a fact that those with the audacity to always accuse the Conservatives having a "Hidden Agenda" (who, unlike the Liberals, have been open and consistent about their policies for years) are the real party who go against the will of the public whenever it clashes with a newly minted Leftist policy.

Take same sex marriage, for example. This idea, rejected by the Liberals just three short years ago, has now become an important enough issue for Martin and Co. to forever render the Canadian Government at the mercy of unelected judges. Or is there anyone else who didn't take a back-flip when P.M. for Tylenol PM promised to revoke the Not-Withstanding Clause in tonight's debate? What was the jolly ol' fellow thinking?

Whatever it was he certainly couldn't be thinking very clearly. Perhaps that's why it's not ordinarily recommended to formulate far reaching policy initiatives in middle of a leaders' debate. Perhaps this is also just one little reason why the Liberals' foremost hero, Pierre Trudeau, sponsor of - among other things that shall remain unmentioned (this is a G-rated posting after all) - the Not-Withstanding Clause, was less than supportive of Martin's first bid for the Liberal leadership and would have been so even if it hadn't been against Trudeau's long time friend, le petit menteur de Shawinagin.

Well, after tonight's debacle all one can ask is this: What was Paul thinking? What has Paul been drinking?

The Not-Withstanding Clause is our only protection in a democratic society against runaway judges. It serves to protect the electorate from judicial rulings that are not supported by the public or which belong in the realm of debated theory but are otherwise too impractical to implement (and are dangerous if implemented). The Not-Withstanding Clause protects the rights of the electorate in that its representatives, not unelected judges or justices who will never face public scrutiny, are given the final say on all legislation.

What, Dear Mr. Martin, will you say when the Supreme Court strikes down laws that are necessary for the public good but which an academic may frown upon? What will you say should they ever make a ruling that is wholly unpopular or impractical? Have judges not been known to do just that? And then there's the larger issue Mr. Martin. What of the "Democratic Deficit" you so correctly, yet so facetiously, ranted about when you first took office?

Why, Mr. Martin, can't you take an example from Mr. Mulroney, your far more worthy predecessor, who you hate - even though he never did anything as brazen as to unilaterally force his social opinions down the throats of the Canadian public and down those of his own ministers. Quite the opposite of you, sir, he had the decency to call for free votes on issues of national confidence. He did not pretend to be the king and social concious of a nation. What do you believe you stand to lose by taking a similar approach? Aren't the tactics you currently employ a bit much for a man who only two short years ago sought to style himself as the long awaited champion of the people who, after 10 years of Croutonic rule, would finally respect the will of the electorate? Indeed, Mr. Martin, you are as shallow as you are hollow.

This emperor is truly without clothes. Let us hope that, come election day, he adorns an equally few number of votes. The consequences of this race have just been raised a notch and the sooner we rid ourselves of this man who has shown himself tonight to be careless, conceited and thoughtless beyond belief, the better off we are as a nation.

Alternative Sentencing - An Important Issue That Can Also Help the Tories

As a staunch Tory supporter and former member of my Canadian Alliance riding board I am greatly supportive of most of the Conservative Party's policies. There is one noted exception shared by many others. This concerns mandatory minimum sentences.

There are cases which deserve special consideration and have special circumstances and qualified judges who handle the individual cases and who actually have the opportunity to meet the accused are in the best position to decide on appropriate sentencing. Studies also show the effectiveness of alternative sentencing (far more effective and fiscally responsible than the broken Judicial System currently in place) and the Conservative Party of Canada can garner much support and establish its credentials with the public as a policy leader by advocating for the expansion of same.

Although I have no personal stake in this issue, as someone - like everyone - who wants to see the betterment of society, I believe this issue to be of primary importance. Focusing on alternative sentencing will add a breath of fresh air to the campaign and greatly enhance the Conservative Party's image, going a long way to dispel the smears and malicious depictions that its opponents have partly relied upon until now.

The Real Hidden Agenda

Anyone with even a remedial knowledge or understanding of Canadian politics knows that in each of the past four elections a party whose views are not shared by a majority of voters has managed to trounce its main opposition whose policy initiatives (democratic initiatives, economic stimulus, safer immigration to name a few) have always gathered substantially greater support in "hot button" issue polls . It takes little more familiarity with Canada's politics to know that there is but one reason for this. The winning party has managed to cast seeds of doubt in the minds of the public, painting their opposition as hicks, racists, immature, too dumb and inexperienced, too wise and crafty and just about everything else under the sun short of claiming that their opponents are two headed Martians a la Terminator Supreme.

Of course, I'm referring to the Liberal Party's remarkable electoral success at the expense of the Reform, then CA, then Conservative Party despite the fact that would but the public have its druthers, we would sooner see a school of goldfish led by a swimming dog named Rover elected in place of the rump of contemptuous and arrogant demagogues who now sit in their would-be places. So why haven't Canadians turned to a less arrogant, less corrupt and less objectionable alternative, one whose policies they seem to endorse in poll after poll? Because the ever gliberal Liberals have convinced us that the "eevil ones" (those who would lower your taxes thereby increasing employment but not without limiting government power, the raison d'etre of a Lib), i.e. the Conservatives, have a "hidden agenda."

What the "agenda" is we don't know. We can't know. But if Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and other equally trustworthy individuals, the likes of which have not been seen since the days of the man who first uttered "Father, I cannot tell a lie," say that someone has a "hidden agenda" you can bet your bottom dollar that a "hidden agenda" is lurking in our midst, even if the one making the charges can offer nothing more than hymns and haws when asked what this "hidden agenda" might consist of - With noted exception to Hedy Fry, the sole member of this gang of "trustworthy" individuals to actually articulate an accusation, standing up on the floor of the House a few years back claiming that Conservative voters were seen burning crosses on lawns. After it was discovered that not one single report of such a happening was ever witnessed or written of Hedy was summarily demoted by that most honest of individuals, The Right Honourable Jean Joseph Jacques Chrétien,P.C., Q.C., B.A., LL.L., LL.D, inventor of the "hidden agenda," it being clear that the only objects upon which toasting occurred were Hedy's own marbles - which had most positively been Fryed to a crisp.

As is usually the case, dirty politics has little to do with the truth. But in this case it bears mention that a sane and composured look at Canadian politics would reveal the exact opposite to the assertions of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. (Big surprise here! - yawning three times, rolling eyes twice and getting on with it) Namely, while Canada's conservatives have been remarkably consistent in their views and core beliefs, it is Messrs. Martin, Chretien et al who have and who always have had, the real hidden agenda.

Say it can't be so Jean? Paul? Sheila? John (Manley)? Say it can't be so? One need not go as far back as the GST debacle of the early nineties. The Liberal Party of Canada has constantly and consistently denied an agenda only to pursue radical and unpopular policy initiatives a short while later. They do this whenever a piece of legislation or issue would be unpopular yet they secretly desire for its passage. They did it with increased taxation. They did it with neglect to the military. They did it with same sex marriage - still not supported by a majority of Canadians, once again slandering those who held the same opinion that they had purported to support only two years ago with a host predictable (and equally meaningless) smears.

But it doesn't end there. The Libs have more work to do. Based on the prestigious record they've accumulated switching their positions without a thought for the will of the public ( the common folks, who they refer to as rubes and the sort) one is forced to ask what will come next. We see that Liberals will not explicitly state their plans during election season, opting instead to pass their desired legislation underhandedly after the game is over and they are safely in power.

So what else can we expect from these enlightened elitists? For one, we should be concerned that their bowing to every whim and will of the UN continue. And to what end? The UN has lobbied for years for a global taxation policy whereby a portion of each global citizen's income would be allocated to Kofi Annan (or to his successor, who if history is an example, will be equally scrupulous in nature and in deed) and to his "Food for Oil" friends. Will the Liberal Party's secret Pledge of Allegiance to the whims and desires of this group of third world dictators and terrorist leaders that is the UN lead to a day when a portion of all paychecks of the now "underburdened" Canadians (working citizens whose treatment at the hands of the Liberals has always been such that can most generously be described as disdainful) will be allocated directly to the UN's coffers?

Impossible? Ridiculous? Would one not have found it equally incredulous just a few years back that the Liberal Party would make scrapping the GST a central platform of an election campaign only to deny ever making such statements a few years later (ending off with the Prime Minister of Canada - Jean Jacques, LLBS, MBS, etc. telling Canadians that if they don't like the tax system they can "leave da countree")? What would your reaction have been then to a government changing its position on the definition of marriage, then halting all debate on the issue by smearing all who believe in its traditional definition as racists, bigots and bashers?

In this election the possibility of a "hidden agenda" should once again play out in the minds of voters. Let us just hope that logic now rules the day and that this time the party who has proven time and again that its modus operandi consists of nothing more than "how will we sneak this one past them?" rightfully become the cause of our worries, not those who have been forthright and consistent in their beliefs.