Harper Dragging Canada into Exteme Danger

[Hicksey]

Gotta love liberal conspracy theories.

Keep dreaming guys.

It's Martin that last night pledged to destroy the constitution as the liberal mecca Trudeau wrote it. Not Harper. Martin wants to make us slaves to the court. Not Harper. It's Martin and his Liberals that have fostered the increased sentiment toward separation by trying to buy Quebecers with taxpayer money and then funnelling some of that money back to their own party to assist in their re-election. Not Harper.

The entire constitution doesn't have to be permanently entrenched but basic right and freedoms do need to be to be permanently entrenched (free speech, open discussion, the right to vote, equal legal rights for all citizens etc). Taking away those freedoms creates the risk of Dictatorial rule as per Stalin, Hussein, Hitler and, if they get there way, the Bush cabal. Harper is playing right into this and it could create a climate of abuse in Canada years down the road.

With his Patriot Act, Bush assures us that he won't abuse his powers. What if the next administration gets in, embezzles a few billion dollars and start smuggling a bunch of drugs? With the Patriot Act, anyone who tried to point out the corruption could be labeled a terrorist, and locked away without any chance to explain himself to anybody except the corrupt administration. There have to be some checks and balances.

Bush argues that the evidence against terrorists is too sensitive to disclose publicly, even to honorable members of the opposition. Are we supposed to just trust him? Was he tell the truth about Iraq’s WMDs? What if Tom Delay was president instead? Should we trust him too? What if Someone really corrupt got into power, possibly by arranging the assassination of a political opponent in order to get elected. What would an administration like that do if confronted by a whistleblower and they had the power to just kill him instead of going to jail themselves?

This stuff has happened for centuries all over the world. Don't thinks its an impossibility here in Canada. Harper in Power and a terrorist strike could precipitate a similar disaster here as in the US getting into Iraq. Two terrorist strikes + an economic crisis could lead to most Canadians living a very repressed life. Don't think there aren't people in the world who would try to do this. Bush warns us about them everyday.

The only thing that prevents this kind of stuff is ordinary people attending up to their governments and demanding basic democratic rights. Rights which guys like Cheney, Perle (and Harper) argue Americans don’t really need. They assure us instead that they are completely benevolent and can be trusted – therefore no checks and balances are required.

This is how the German government was acting in the 1930s. Read my next post for more info. Remember how Hitler was also completely trustworthy in the 1930s? Things went from bad to worse very quickly when Hitler started losing the trust of the world.

Try as you might to try to editorialize Harper into something people should be scared of.

I've read the veiled accusations absent proof above and still ... it's Martin that's scary from where I stand.

Martin keeps trying to run on his value system. Martin insists that his values are those of Canadians. I seriously doubt that Canadians hold values like stealing, lying, cronyism, profiteering, etc ... as highly as the Liberal Party does.

Like I said ... gotta love liberal conspiracy theories.

And now you're comparing Bush and Harper to Hitler? Did you get this directly from the talking points for the Liberals/Democrats?

To say the least ... hyperbole. Definitely scaremongering. Much ado about nothing.

[cybercoma]

I didn't realize that this was a conservative forum when I first logged on to it.

My guess is that this guy David Frum from the National Post is also closely connected with the the staussian Calgary school or with the Perle Cabal.

Does anybody want to make a bet?

This cover story on the Maple Leaf Blog seems like double-think to me.

http://mapleleafblog.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

A Vote to Save Canada?

The wisdom of David Frum's column in today's National Post cannot be overstated:

"A Liberal defeat would be a unifying moment for Canada, a moment that brings together Canadians from every region and every province to uphold norms of integrity and decency in Canadian politics.

"Another Liberal victory, however, will put Canada back on the path to a third Quebec referendum and other grave threats to national unity.

"The blunt fact is that Quebec elects separatists as a protest against Liberal over-centralization. The sequence of events tells the story.

1974: Liberal majority.

1976: PQ elected in Quebec.

1984: Conservative majority.

1985: PQ defeated.

It's not a conservative forum, nor is it a website for tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists. They try to deal within the realm of reality here.

[Guest eureka]

If you agree with Einstein, then why do you support a Party whose thinking comes from the days before Canada was born? Whose social thinking comes from the mid-nineteenth century.

whose morality is medieval?

[scribblet]

Gotta love liberal conspracy theories.

Try as you might to try to editorialize Harper into something people should be scared of.

I've read the veiled accusations absent proof above and still ... it's Martin that's scary from where I stand.

Martin keeps trying to run on his value system. Martin insists that his values are those of Canadians. I seriously doubt that Canadians hold values like stealing, lying, cronyism, profiteering, etc ... as highly as the Liberal Party does.

Like I said ... gotta love liberal conspiracy theories.

And now you're comparing Bush and Harper to Hitler? Did you get this directly from the talking points for the Liberals/Democrats?

To say the least ... hyperbole. Definitely scaremongering. Much ado about nothing.

Agreed wholeheartedly, the minute the nazi comparisons come out credibility is out the window.

Conspiracy theories come into play when there is nothing else left.

[tml12]

If you agree with Einstein, then why do you support a Party whose thinking comes from the days before Canada was born? Whose social thinking comes from the mid-nineteenth century.

whose morality is medieval?

I agreed with Einstein's quote. That quote has nothing to do with abortion, etc. Eureka if that is what you were referring to.

[compaq905]

I think that the liberal party needs to disclose how much money they intend to steal if they win and also give us a estimate of just how many promises they intend to break!!!

[SamStranger]

Anyone here who supports "River God's" theory is... how do I put this? Paranoid, retarted, Liberal Idiot??

Sounds about right, eh?

Conspiricies have NO place here... this is a place of politics.

i assume you also support Green martians living in the white house?

[geoffrey]

i assume you also support Green martians living in the white house?

I know I do.

No need to bash River God, no one has taken him seriously anyways. Just coming into a forum and spreading lies isn't really a way to gain respect and any degree of trust from fellow debaters here.

[Guest eureka]

Not just abortion. Tell me anything that is not out of the nineteenth century - updated only for its desire for Star Wars.

[Harare]

Not just abortion. Tell me anything that is not out of the nineteenth century - updated only for its desire for Star Wars.

Eureka: - Lies and corrupt elitist thinking like bribery and fixing the books, the election dates, the Supreme court, the senate, having trained seals for MP's and keeping more powers in the hands of a few greedy Libs is a lot older than the nineteenth century. King Charles had his chopped off hundreds of years ago and it's about time we got with the democracy thing here in Canada.

Seems to me that all the intelligent and modern thoughts expressed here are from Conservatives.

[Guest eureka]

So apart from the silliness and thoughtlessness of your post, are you going to explain how the Conservative platform is not a regression into an uncaring society. Into the kind of barbaric society that millions died to protect us from: that we once had and grew out of..

[cybercoma]

So apart from the silliness and thoughtlessness of your post, are you going to explain how the Conservative platform is not a regression into an uncaring society. Into the kind of barbaric society that millions died to protect us from: that we once had and grew out of..

Oh surprise....eureka is being melodramatic again. Stephen Harper will throw us into a lawless barbaric society, not unlike the dark ages. Everyone fend for themselves, the vikings are coming to rape and pillage.

You don't even veil your fear-mongering anymore...pathetic.

[Harare]

So apart from the silliness and thoughtlessness of your post, are you going to explain how the Conservative platform is not a regression into an uncaring society. Into the kind of barbaric society that millions died to protect us from: that we once had and grew out of..

Seems to me we already have a barbaric society thanks to the Libs - kids getting shot in major cities, Junkies all over the place, a half a million Aboriginals in poverty for a generation despite a $6 billion budget, longer hospital wait times than most european countries, why don't you try waiting 2 yrs for your hip replacement and then tell me about a barbaric society. A society where the crminals have guns and our border guards, prisons guards and military have no guns and police outgunned - brilliant. Kids coming out of school that are illitrate. Provincial budgets dependant on Casinos and slot machine profits. Do you really think that creating a situation where parents spend most of their lives on welfare or unemployment is a good plan for a great country? Or having prisoners watching porn movies and getting stoned is such a great example of a caring society- guess who they will be voting for?

In short what example would a caring parent try to teach their kids - the lying corrupt Lib way or the regressive PC way of responsibilty work and pride ?

All those minority MP's in the PC cacus must really be blind.

[Canuck E Stan]

So apart from the silliness and thoughtlessness of your post, are you going to explain how the Conservative platform is not a regression into an uncaring society. Into the kind of barbaric society that millions died to protect us from: that we once had and grew out of..

Let me add my two cents too.

Eureka,

As you always appear to advocate for the homeless what has your party of choice done in the last 12 years(10 of those as a majority) to REDUCE homelessness in this country,other than having a leader who claimed his best friend was homeless and always talked to him.

What have the Liberals of social conscience done for these people with their surpluses and phoney social concerns.

Your answer of Mulroney being the root cause is not an answer.

It's been a decade that change could have been made and the numbers of homeless just get higher and higher.

What have the Liberals done to help the aboriginals improve their living standards over their mandate?

Aboriginal living conditions are worse today than they ever have been.

Nothing has changed.

Billions have been spent but nothing has improved.

And you feel you should support this party to continue this kind of phoney social conscience?

Shame on you for believing that the pseudo social Liberals havethe ability to solve Canada's problems.

[sage]

When in the hell did it become a human right to live in a house? To difficulty with human rights, is the more luxuries we have, the more they are expected and the more they become a "human right".

What's next Eureka, are they supposed to have telephones. Maybe access to the internet?

What is so wrong with someone helping themselves out in Canada? I've never uderstood this mindless sense that something is owed to us. I come from Saskatchewan, where in a year with an $800 million surplus, the NDP launched a media campaign as to how we were getting screwed out of equalization money. Why were we entitled to any in the first place?

Because lefty's feel they are entitled and refuse to work for anything on their own.

[mar]

After all, we are making most of the bullets currently used in Iraq.

Hey! We Canadians said we were moral people - we didn't claim to be saints!

I actually have no problem with the content in the thread, tho several threads might have been better.

Problem is, you run up against a very human characteristic: Humans are very reluctant to abandon an opinion once they form it. I once heard this exressed by a nice analogy to cross threading:

"Its like when you screw the top of the toothpaste tube on crooked. The grip may be wrong but its very tight."

In this context it means those who dismiss this stuff will not even bother to look at it; those who don't already know most if it.

One thing that does interest me and plays into this is the skill with which NeoCons exploit this in the current U.S. Administration. A quick example.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. We know that. Bush and other administration officials have admitted that on national TV.

BUT he and Cheney continued to slip the accusation in during the 2004 campaign, not in formal addresses on national TV but in speeches where they knew clips would be shown on national TV.

I think this accounts for a lot of the fact that as many as 50% of the U.S. public still believes the Iraq-9-11 connection. When their confidence in this assertion starts to waver, there is Bush or Cheney or whoever slipping it in somewhere and their reactions is "Yeah. Now he's telling the real truth! When he appears from the oval office he's got to be all politically correct and can't say it."

Clever, no?

[geoffrey]

When in the hell did it become a human right to live in a house? To difficulty with human rights, is the more luxuries we have, the more they are expected and the more they become a "human right".

What's next Eureka, are they supposed to have telephones. Maybe access to the internet?

What is so wrong with someone helping themselves out in Canada? I've never uderstood this mindless sense that something is owed to us. I come from Saskatchewan, where in a year with an $800 million surplus, the NDP launched a media campaign as to how we were getting screwed out of equalization money. Why were we entitled to any in the first place?

Because lefty's feel they are entitled and refuse to work for anything on their own.

Sage be careful there. There are alot of hard working NDP members especially. The NDP does represent a very large sector of Canadian society, the working poor. I am probably one of the most fervently conservative members here, but there is no chance I'm going to start saying that all lefties feel entitled to everything. The Liberals also represent a share of this working poor and hard working immigrant population (and yes, I know many many small-business immigrants that work harder than 99% of Canadians by birth).

There are rules to protect those that actually need societies help (and these people really do exist). Our previous governments (notice the plural, not just the Liberals) have just extended this to everyone and their dog. I do understand what entitlement brings (unemployment and the stuff), I have a solid grasp on economics.

But people are entitled to human rights. And if your going to take a right-wing perspective, I'd hope you start considering the very important other aspect of small-c conservativism, charity. Without compassion for those less privledged then yourself, it turns conservativism into fascism rather quickly.

[Ginuwinemj]

Hi, I truly believe Harper is going to drag Canada into extreme danger, and there is quite a bit of evidence. I have some things I want you guys to look at it was posted on another forum by a guy named Menses here is what he found.

http://www.thunderbay.indymedia.org/news/2...p?theme=default

A Call to action to bring an issue to light.

What is Stephen Harper, Leader of the Official Opposition and the Alliance Party of Canada doing at a super-secret elite meeting of the Western world’s central bankers, defense experts, press barons, royalty, prime ministers, international financiers, , industrialists and government officials?

Over the weekend of May 15th -18th, the annual gathering of the Bilderberg group was held at the Trianon Hotel, near Versailles, France. High level plutocrats gathered away from the public eye to discuss matters of global economic, financial and geopolitical strategy and policy. The Indymedia Norway site published an official attendance list, originally obtained by Tony Gosling of http://www.bilderberg.org from Richard Vadon, a BBC radio 4 correspondent who is doing a documentary of the event due out in July. Solan Gunderson of the Norwegian Indymedia site has actively covered the Bilderberg Meeting, and published the guestlist there: http://www.indymedia.no/news/2003/05/10326.php Until recently, the only coverage of the meeting was done by James Tucker of American Free Press, and Gunderson has published his article at http://www.indymedia.no/news/2003/05/10176.php The only Canadian coverage of these meetings was done by John Deverell, a business write for the Toronto Star in 1996.

“Bilderberg takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by many leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period “Source: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Bilderbergers.html

The 2003 guest list includes names such as David Rockefeller, Richard Perle, Klaus Schwab (World Economic Forum), Henry Kissinger, the King and Queen of Spain, Paul Wolfowitz and a host of other bankers, corporate heads and royalty. Some Canadians in attendance included Conrad Black, Mark Steyn (National Post) Heather Reisman (Chapters-Indigo), Anthony Fell (RBC Dominion Securities) and Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition. Other past Canadian participants, as shown in the guestlists posted at http://www.bilderberg.org, have included Ralph Klein, Paul Martin, Preston Manning and Jean Chretien.

Pepe Escobar’s article for the Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html highlights several important points concerning the elite group. Specifically, they do not invite leaders from Latin America, the Middle East or Asia. The Bilderberg meetings are a king-making process, as Tony Blair and Bill Clinton showed themselves at the annual meetings in the years leading up to their elections. Escobar also suggests that the Bilderberg meeting is where the G8 agenda is formulated; hence, the G8 is turned merely into a rubber-stamping mechanism for policy formed by individuals meeting in the capacities of private persons. If this is the case, then protestors are railing against a dead duck.

Several Canadians who have attended in the past include Ralph Klein, Preston Manning, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Klein’s attendance was reported in the May 29, 1995 issue of the Report http://www.bilderberg.org/cocktail.htm [One can only speculate that Harper’s appearance has been due in part to his pro-war stance, a reward from Conrad Black or other Neo-conservatives in Washington.]

These meetings are suffering an absolute blackout in the Canadian presses, as the editors of the Globe and Mail, National post and CanWest all have affiliations with this secretive group. Part of the problem is that, in order to gain admission to the club, one has to pledge secrecy.

Most Canadians have never heard of the Bilderberg group, let alone realize the significance of Mr. Harper’s attendance at the meeting. For a good background reading, please see http://www.nexusmagazine.com/Bilderbergers.html Perhaps the global elite have their bets placed on a sharp ‘right’ turn in the upcoming federal election.

[i might add a few historical notes about the origins of the Bilderberg meeting in 1952 under the visionary leadership of Joseph Retinger who with Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, wbose vision was to great a supernational powerful organization to unite the world in peace. Except that the group has no form of accountability to the people of their respective nations.

Finally, several questions are worth note:

- Did Mr. Harper attend the meeting in the Capacity of a private individual or a public person?

- Who paid for his trip?

- How does his hobnobbing with the elite and neo-conservatives like Richard Perle square with his grassroots support base?

- If past Bilderberg meetings have made “kings” of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, what are the expectations are the plans of the Bilderbergers for Steven Harper?

- How will the Bilderberg agenda impact his policy making?

- Does Mr Harper want Canada’s political agenda to be set by Canadians, or by the global plutocrats?

Please call your local MP and have the address this issue publicly.

[betsy]

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:54:28 EST

CBC News

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach lashed out Monday at the leader of her former party, saying she defected because of the threat Stephen Harper posed to national unity.

Stronach should have been much more explicit about her evidence.

Indeed. She was one of the guests at Mike Duffy only last Friday yet she made no such claims.

You'd think she had the golden opportunity to warn the public of this impending doom. I guess she figured it would be hard to explain and back that claim.

What she did though was try to scare the pants off women!

[betsy]

I think that the liberal party needs to disclose how much money they intend to steal if they win and also give us a estimate of just how many promises they intend to break!!!

Or how much they had stolen so far.

That's why we really do need to review and audit everything they did. Including Childcare.

[wellandboy]

All we've been hearing from the Liberals is the same apocalyptic messages for weeks now. Recently, the specious claims, ultra right think tanks,Richard Perle and inaccurate suggestive ads make it clear that the Liberals will stop at nothing to stay in power. I predict the last week of the campaign will be marred by the most destructive and inflammatory advertising we've ever seen in this country, in a last ditch effort to cling to power.

Gird your loins Canada, we're in for a bumpy ride to the finish.

[Duke]

By the look of the long line ups at ADVANCE Polls a lot of Canadians have heard enough ,made up their minds and voted already.I am going to vote tomorrow and leave for a warmer clime.

[Guest eureka]

Your last post, Geoffrey, was intriguing. The sentiments put you in the tory line and away from the Conservatives.

What people do not seem to understand is that the current Conservatives are not tory at all - not even close to it. They are more clasical liberals. It is the Liberals and the NDP who are more tory.

It shows that selfishness never dies in the human race. People can still be seduced by the flattery of the appeal to their "rugged individualism" and to personal responsibility.

Only when they fall on hard times do they develop a social conscience.

[sage]

Eureka I agree with your last comment, that Tories are the classic liberal.

At the outset I apologize for the rant, however it is getting exceedingly difficult to hear over and over again how the reason the poor are poor is because the capitalist system puts them there. I would argue that it more often then not is due to just plain poor decisions; drugs, teenage pregnancy, dropping out of high school, and so on.

As for the focus of what society can, is, or should be, I readily recognize the need for "the other c" as geofrey put it, charity. The difficulty in answering any complex question however is, as always, a measured response between two extremes. I am not going to state that "rugged individualism" is the key to eternal salvation for humanity, however I think we disagree on what the focus of our society should be.

Take someone who is not "succeeding" (if that is the proper word). Obviously something is wrong, the question is why, and how can we fix it. The starting point is the "why" and my impression (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the left tends to start from the premise that it is due to a fundamental structural oppression that exists in our society. The right starts from the premise that it is the individual who is responsible for the predicament.

The characterization of the problem results in a drastically different view as to the vehicle for change. For the left, the vehicle is government. For the right, it starts with the individual.

My problem with the current leftist policies is that they take away from personal accountability completely. I am not saying however that there is no role for the government in this equation, the question is how much, and at what point does the government quit getting involved.

Ultimately the biggest problem with government as the cure-all is you have politicians spending someone else's money, which necessarily results in abuse and a poor allocation of resources. I mean look at health care. I believe Saskatchewan is spending something like 40% of its entire provincial budget on providing medical services, and the left has us believe that this is sustainable? If you agree its not, then obviously government is not the wonder-cure to society's problems that people (especially in Canada) tend to think it is.

It's not so much that "rugged individualism" and personal accountability is great, but rather its the only thing left after the vestige of government is stripped away.

[Guest eureka]

In gneral, sage. I agree with you. However, the reasons for the "poor" who will always be with us are not generally those that you list and that are claimed by the Right. The poor are poor mostly, because they are intellectually or physically inferior to put it in a simple way. They are incapable of "succeeding" in a complex world.

The Left has always been motivated by this truism and its purpose is to use government to give the disadvantaged a reason to live. The whole of human history has been the success of the species following its community values and care for its own. Only in the last few centuries have the doctrines of Personal responsibility and individualism been extended to economic life.

Every "civilization" has been buit on slavery and those economic ideas (in a rudimentary way before this one), and every civilization has collapsed, always in part at least, because of its uneven benefits.