Caviar Socialism

The title links to the Vanier Institute for the Family / University of Lethbridge child care study released in February.

Socialized childcare sends the message loud and clear:

Family is irrelevant in Canada.

Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and Jack Layton (three 'old white guys' as Rona Ambrose so aptly put it) have decreed that in their 'Early Childhood Education' scheme, our kids are the beneficiaries of the wisdom that says children are better off being raised by the state, than by us.

Mr. Martin said recently that he was only providing what is necessary for the 'new reality' of two income families. Instead of making being a stay at home parent a viable or even preferable choice for families, we get the Nanny State.

A study by the Vanier Institute and the University of Lethbridge says that 90% of Canadians feel that ideally in two-parent households, one parent should stay at home with the children. 90% is not some slim majority.

The study determined that in fact, only 47% of kids are cared for by a stay at home parent. Less than half, but still far more than the media would have you believe. And of the other 53%, they are in 'some form of care' which I take to mean neighbours or relatives as well as formal daycare centres. Some of that 53% probably have moms or dads who work part-time or shifts, meaning the care is not full-day.

Government should be in the business of making it easier for families to raise their own children, rather than making it convenient for them not to.

Don't get me wrong. Women are more educated today than ever before, and sure, they want to use that education. But many, if not most women, are not putting their kids in daycare in order that they may go off to their careers as doctors, lawyers or politicians -- they are doing it so they can work as a clerk in an insurance company, or an office manager in an accounting firm -- because let's face it -- it isn't the doctors, lawyers and politicians who NEED daycare -- they can afford to hire nannies or to take a few years off to raise their kids and know their skills and education are still relevant in the world.

Those of us who need the choices are being told by those who don't. Instead of getting what we want, they are giving us what they think we OUGHT to want.

Most women want to rejoin the workforce at some point after having children, but that time-frame should be determined within a family, not by government edict. The tax system unfairly favours two income families and conversely, one income families are unfairly penalized.

By giving us 'Universal' daycare, the state is telling us that only wage earners are 'productive' members of society -- mothers and fathers who choose to stay at home with their kids are 'unproductive.' They are implying that state run 'Early Learning Centres' are a substitute for the love of a mom or dad.

The yearly price tag for this plan has not been talked about by the government, but daycare advocates and financial experts alike suggest $10,000,000, 000 (that's $10 Billion -- thanks to gullchasedship for the correction) per year to run a fully universal programme. But what will this social experiment cost in real terms? Families already face increasing burdens to their stability and on time together. Giving us babysitters in the guise of 'early education' is a cynical plan that usurps familial authority, obligations, rights, and even loyalty.

Mothers should have the choice to work outside the home and they should also have the choice to stay home with their kids. It's that simple. The key word is choice.

You shouldn't have to be rich to stay at home with your own kids.

Cheers, canadianna

Mayors Off-Side

CTV news (link) says Toronto Mayor David Miller, and Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell "warn Harper not to kill proposed budget."

Put People Before Politics (apparently a group of social/union activists) says "if the budget dies, then so will programs that would help the homeless, improve urban infrastructure and public transit, and increase affordable child-care spaces".

Mayor Miller said the federal budget is important to all Canadians and that he won't stay quiet if it should be struck down. "If there is an early election, I for one will certainly be speaking out about what's been lost," said Miller.

So now Miller, who just by taking office cost the Canadian taxpayer $35,000,000 (link to story of money from Ottawa for cancelling the Island bridge deal approved by the previous city council.) Just this week, the Feds agreed to pay legal fees incurred by the city after Toronto faced a lawsuit for having reneged on the deal.

Miller makes no secret of the fact that he is an NDP supporter. His admonition to Harper that politicians should put 'people ahead of politics' seemed to fly out the window when he decided to take partisan advantage of the first ever NDP federal budget.

It is this sort of grandstanding that casts illusions of a sinister Stephen Harper stealing daycare spaces from hungry children.

Even if all was cool in parliament -- to pretend that passing this budget would make any difference to anyone's life is asinine. The budget from LAST year has yet to be implemented -- and Martin has made it clear that the NDP add-ons would only be a go if certain conditions were met -- It would take more than a year from the budget being passed and implemented to even determine whether those 'conditions' had been realized -- and that is months longer than the time frame Mr. Martin gave before he'd call an election.

Add to that -- the Federal government can't bypass the provincial in dealing with the cities. The transfers go the provinces, don't they? And can the Federal government dictate to which cities, how much and for what? All three levels of government are banking on the fact that most people have only a slim grasp on federal/provincial powers in these things.

The successor to politics will be propaganda. Propaganda, not in the sense of a message or ideology, but as the impact of the whole technology of the times. --Marshall McLuhan

Mass media has made it so that people have more access to information than ever in the history of the world -- and the spread of lies and propaganda travels faster than the flick of a TV remote, or connecting to a news server. Some people will look deeper than the headline, but most will just scan it and see: the Mayors are warning Harper, so Harper must be doing something wrong.

Miller, Martin, Layton et al. are creating a crisis where there is none. They talk as though if this budget doesn't happen, the government spigot will shut off and people will suffer grave harm.

By playing into peoples' fear and anger they can personify the devil and call him Stephen Harper.

If this does go to the polls, we're in for a bumpy ride.

Cheers,

canadianna

The Liberal Message

Title link is to a column by Michael Harris of the Ottawa Sun.

Harris talks about the violation of public trust:

If the policeman steals, the doctor harms, the banker pilfers, the game warden poaches, or the priest abuses, they are subject to much more than the sanctions of the law. The fundamental reality is that they can't be policemen, doctors, bankers, game wardens, or priests anymore. The fountainhead of their authority, the public trust that willingly transfers special powers to these people, has been betrayed.

Martin isn't lying when he says he didn't know about Adscam and the lot. But I also believe it was a 'don't ask, don't tell' arrangement, therefore he should be held accountable by voters. He has not been, and likely will not be, punished for his involvement or his 'lack of vigilance'. If we re-elect this government, we will be providing the means and opportunity for continued breach of public trust, and the burden of guilt will shift from them, to us.

After the last election, media reported that the Liberals had been chastened. Paul Martin said that he viewed his minority showing as a 'message' and that he and his party had 'got the message'.

In that time, Martin has made controversial senate appointments, ignored committee and parliamentary votes on various issues, approved at least one questionable judicial appointment, pushed ahead with dishonest same-sex marriage legislation (it doesn't matter which side of the issue you're on -- the bill as written does not protect religious freedoms for churches or individuals), he had to have his arm twisted on the Atlantic Accord (and still refused to put it in stand-alone legislation which could have been passed by now), and he manipulated the public when he bartered the budget in a deal he knows will never have to be implemented.

No one goes to the polls voting for a minority government. When we cast our ballots, each of us hopes our Party wins. The only message of the last election was that millions of Canadians are fine with the corrupt Liberal version of 'business as usual'.

The Liberals got the message.

Cheers,
canadianna

Who 'Owns' Parliament?

Scott Reid (the Liberal one) is on CBC's Politics. In referring to the Conservatives forcing an election, says:

"It's like someone trying to steal your car and then being angry that you won't hand them the keys."

The arrogance of this regime that they believe they have taken ownership of our government.

This is why we need an election.

Cheers,
canadianna

Question Period

Scott Brison might just as well put on a tape and let it drone over and over.
Ann McLellan should shut up.
Jack Layton seems really subdued when he asks questions -- is he sorry? I think he realizes he's painted himself into a corner. He has to support a budget which, due to Liberal 'conditions' on the deal -- the policies that he had added on will never be implemented, even if it were to be passed.

The Liberals keep saying in the House that they have started civil proceedings against people in order to recover money stolen in Adscam --

-- What I want to know is why -- if WE have to wait for the Gomery Report to decide who's guilty, why did the government not wait for the Gomery Report to be sure who to sue, and for how much?

If Gomery is the only one who can provide the answers, why did the Liberal government jump the gun and start lawsuits?

The Liberals are certain 'these people' are guilty because they are positive this is going to get the money back. Yet 'these people' have not had their day in court -- the Liberal party has predetermined their guilt without benefit of Gomery.

Their skewed logic is getting tired. If people don't think they're corrupt, let's kick them out because they're getting really boring.

Cheers,
canadianna

Accused, disgraced, disgraceful . . . yet they stay

Sometimes I think the Liberal's using Scott Brison as their mouthpiece as a shaming tactic. They value loyalty, and he is disloyal.

Or maybe it's an initiation rite. In order to be a Liberal you have to stand and betray your own history, deny any shred of your former belief system, act as though these fellows have always been your heroes, and swallow any integrity you ever had -- once you've kissed up enough, and knowingly lied to the point where your credibility is shot should you ever try to leave -- then, and only then are you allowed to join the 'in' group.

I look into Brison's face during question period, or when he's interviewed and it almost looks like he's trying not to laugh when he's defending the dirt. Most times he sounds like a trained seal, barking out the Liberal line of doublespeak. You'd almost think he was born Liberal, he's got it down so well.

Tonight on television when he was saying the PM had absolutely nothing to do with this (like Brison would know) he actually looked edgy.

I wonder if he'll keep a straight face tomorrow when he stands up to defend Martin.

I wonder how team Martin will find a way to turn this around.

As you watch the coverage, it's obvious the networks are all trying to be careful. By this time tomorrow, will it even be a blip on the radar?

A couple of the things I've written about this week (the Health Minister wanting New Brunswick to fund abortions at the Morgentaler private clinic, and Alberta lawyer, John Gill, having been appointed a judge early this year by Irwin Cotler, after having had an important role on the Liberal campaign in Alberta during last year's election) I looked for them to be discussed more indepth in the media, but there is just so much sleeze oozing from the Liberals, that important things just get a tiny write-up or no play at all because no one can keep track.

There isn't a Liberal MP who isn't tainted by this mess because of their willingness to hold their ground and defend their PM and party. How can they defend the indefensible and walk around as though they have been wronged? Why is the Liberal party not bleeding members and MPs?

I used to think it was just politics that made the Liberals seem so arrogant -- now I believe that it is arrogance which calls people to the Liberal party.

Cheers,
canadianna

Libranos' Diversionary Tactics

The fuss over the 'Libranos' poster is a red herring. Tony Volpe isn't offended; he and his fellow Liberals probably wish they had something as wickedly funny about the Conservatives.

Volpe's meltdown was a perfect example of the Liberal media machine at work. Volpe goes on an over the top rant, in an attempt to snatch away the headlines from other, more disturbing issues dogging the Liberals as they fester on in an infected Parliament.

If proven, accusations by Inky Mark that he was approached by the Liberals with an offer of a patronage appointment to reduce Conservative numbers in the House, are potentially catastrophic for this ignoble mob.

What better way to take attention away from their own wrong-doing, than to start playing the race card?

Accusations of bigotry resonate with the public -- accusations of vote tampering are just another day in Ottawa under the Liberals.

Cheers,
canadianna

Liberals Selling Judgeships in Alberta?

The NDP defeated a motion to bring a non-confidence vote to the House -- this despite their questions about a lawyer who received a judgeship six months after helping the Liberals run their campaign in Alberta.

The Calgary Sun says:

John Gill, appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta by Justice Minister Irwin Cotler in January, served as the Liberal party's Alberta campaign co-chair for the 2004 election. The NDP worries that allegations of political interference in the judiciary - that have so far focused on Quebec - are reaching across the country.

According the SUN, NDP MP Pat Martin says Gill's former law firm -- McCuaig Desrochers of Edmonton, also received "lucrative" aboriginal land claim contracts worth hundreds of thousands of federal dollars.

Knowing these allegations and the obvious appearance of judgeships for sale, the NDP had no trouble choosing influence over ethics. They have voted down a motion in the Public Accounts Committee which would have borought a non-confidence motion to the House.

The NDP might have conned a lot of people into believing they were only trying to make Parliament work -- but power has proven more alluring than principle. They have no more scruples than their partners in crime.

Cheers,
canadianna

Swiss Banks or Grand Banks -- Military Strength is Essential to Protect a Nation's Interests

Paul Martin's speech to the International Fisheries Conference was all bark and no bite.
Martin said:

"for fishing fleets that break the rules, we need real sanctions with real bite. Unfortunately, illegal fishing occurs because the profits far outweigh the penalties. Giving violators a mere slap on the wrist and sending them back to their home port isn’t good enough. Too often, fines for breaking the rules are seen as “just another cost of doing business.” This is unacceptable. We need to correct this imbalance, put good before greed, stop pretending that certain nations aren’t breaking the rules and instead put in place tough sanctions for those who do."

Okay -- tough sanctions? Any suggestions Paul?

For National Post subscribers, George Jonas has an enlightening column. He's making the case for strengthening our military, and he sites the Swiss as an example of a 'neutral' country that defends it's neutrality with considerable military strength. Jonas says:

"Few people realize that the home of the Geneva Conventions has the largest militia in the world (200,000 including reserves). The federal constitution makes military service obligatory for Swiss men . . . Citizen-soldiers must keep their service weapons at home, making the land of international peace conferences bristle with submachine guns."

The show of force in protecting our valuable resources is crucial lest the perception of weakness provide an enormous hole through which foreign vessels will sail with impunity.

Jonas says about the show of strength:

"Historically, palace guards and peace officers were selected for size and fierce appearance, often enhanced by busbies to make them appear even taller. It was understood that the best way to keep the peace was to make breaching the peace appear to costly. This was an instinctive rather than a rational calculation: Many species of animals puff themselves up when alarmed. Animal instincts may not be sophisticated, but they're seldom wrong.
'May your enemies always underestimate you' is useful advice when fighting is inevitable. But when the aim is to avoid fighting, 'may your enemies always overestimate you' is by far the wiser counsel."

The successive Liberal regimes have abdicated their duties with regard to safe-guarding our fish stocks. The Prime Minister's speech suggests 'stronger sanctions' might help.

The gutting of our military over the past 40 years has played an integral part in the plundering of our waters by foreign fisherman. Our weakness is a point of pride for the Liberal regimes, who refuse to acknowledge the proud military heritage of our country.

The only way to prevent foreign overfishing in Canadian waters is to make breaching our boundaries too costly. Under a Liberal regime there is neither a will nor a way to make this happen.

Cheers,
canadianna

Private Abortion a Must - Liberal Sleight of Hand

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh is cracking down on private health clinics -- well --- SOME private health clinics.

"For myself and Prime Minister Martin, it's very simple: We stand for public pay and public delivery and we will fight every inch of the way against the Harper, (Mike) Harris and (Preston) Manning agenda in this country,'' Dosanjh said to applause.

Last week, the Health Minister sent letters to Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and B. C. warning them they would face consequences over the use of private diagnostic clinics .

New Brunswick got a letter of censure for refusal to cover the cost of abortions at Dr. Henry Morgentaler's private clinic in Fredericton.

Abortions are available in New Brunswick hospitals if two doctors have deemed it medically necessary. Those abortions are paid for by the province.

Don't dare set up a private clinic to serve Canadians who need MRIs or other diagnostic care -- that would be against the Canada Health Act -- It betrays the principles of our medicare system.

And should you choose to pull out your credit card and use a private diagnostic clinic rather than waiting 6 - 8 months in a government facilitated queue -- those privateers will win!

But go ahead an have an abortion at a private abortuary on the public dime.

In the Liberal dichotomous view of the world some "health care" warrants private delivery -- just not the kind that would save lives.

Minister Dosanjh has overstepped his authority in writing to New Brunswick at all. The service is available in New Brunswick -- end of story. How care is delivered within the framework of the public system is for the provinces to determine.

Provincial rights to determine which services will or will not be covered are at risk by the Health Minister's directive to New Brunswick .

And more galling -- he is advocating-- nay-- imposing-- provincial funding of a private clinic for abortions when public delivery of the same service is already in place.

While the Liberal mouth spouts one thing -- the Liberal hands are doing another.

How much more do people need to to see of this regime before they are 'scared' enough to cast their votes elsewhere?

Cheers,
canadianna

Fraud in Plain Sight

Today Linda McQuaig writes in defence of the Layton-Martin budget. That in itself is no surprise, but her analysis should be.

McQuaig lauds the new spending on 'environment, public transit, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid' (only one of which is exclusively in federal jurisdiction) and then says:

" . . . and the Liberals had campaigned on them (this list of priorities) last year. By contrast, tax cuts for big corporations, cancelled in the Liberal-NDP deal, were never mentioned in the Liberal campaign. But then, that's how the Liberals have traditionally operated, promising popular social spending on the stump and then, after the election quietly making the real budget decisions in close consultation with business lobbyists."

So, because Liberals traditionally lie during campaigns, we should not be concerned that they lie during campaigns, but because the Liberals say the Conservatives are lying during a campaign, we should worry that the Conservatives may or may not be deceiving us.

It's okay to vote for a proven liar, because at least you know where you stand? What kind of logic is this?

When the Liberals make a promise -- we know they won't keep it -- and that is reassuring? I get it -- all is right with the world ---the Liberals are lying and I can sleep at night.

What if the Conservative 'hidden agenda' is that they will bring an end to hidden agendas, and actually implement the policies they campaign on?

We couldn't have that, now could we? We're Canadian and we don't like uncertainty. We must uphold the years-long tradition of Liberal lies -- how else could we be sure what was happening in Ottawa?

Cheers,
canadianna

Proving the Negative

The title link takes you to the CTV page: Cdns. suspicious of a Tory hidden agenda: poll

For manipulation to be most effective, evidence of its presence should be nonexistent... It is essential, therefore, that people who are manipulated believe in the neutrality of their key social institutions. -- Herbert Schiller

The two most annoying words in the English language are: Hidden Agenda.

They are vague and mean nothing, yet they are potent and impossible to elude.

One can't disprove the existence of a secret agenda. A lack of evidence is simply a testament how crafty and cunning one is.

The phrase 'hidden agenda' is the perfect tool of manipulation. Paul Martin needn't suggest what is hidden. Nor is the onus on him to prove that anything is hidden at all. He only has to chant his mantra and the media has done the rest.

These words are more powerful and more destructive than: corruption, scandal, fraud, lies -- because those words all have clear meanings. Philip K. Dick said about propaganda: The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.

Propaganda by omission - as practiced by the Liberals, is perhaps more persuasive and more malicious than out-and out accusations. It allows the public to infer a meaning; a particularly exploitive move when confidence in all government is fragile.

Most of us have read about propaganda, media manipulation and the power of marketing (link to US Army PsychOps Manual) It works, or the advertising agencies wouldn't be making the big bucks and the corporations wouldn't shell out -- Those two words 'hidden agenda' have skillfully demonstrated to me, the magnitude of its force.

Everyone wants to get their message out, and most politicians use hyperbole and invective in the course of pursuing their goals. It can get messy and ugly, but the listener is in charge of accepting or rejecting the message.

Only the unscrupulous rely on propaganda by innuendo in the quest for governance. And it's because they haven't a legitimate avenue through which to pass.

Cheers,
canadianna

Can You Hear Me Now?

Warwick asks what (besides blogging) can we do to get the conservative message out. I don't have an answer, but I share the concern.

The difference between conservatives and (L)iberals is that (L)iberals are all the same, and conservatives are all conservative in different ways. Although liberal and conservative ideas converge in many areas (Red Tories/Fiscal Conservatives) in the expression of these shared opinions conservatives are labeled 'heartless' and liberals as 'prudent'.

A conservative who is anti-abortion or anti-same-sex marriage is a (religious) right-wing extremist prepared to deny rights to people who don't agree with his narrow view of the world. A liberal with the same views is a person of conscience.

It is frustrating beyond expression.

I am political, but not Political. I think blogging is an outlet for some conservatives because many of us would not express our views in public. That's the case with me. In my job, within my church, at school -- My world tilts decidedly left and I prefer to listen, rather than engage.

I am afraid to come out publicly against same-sex marriage, for access to privatized health care, against national daycare, for taxation reform to benefit one income families, against the Liberals and for the CPC.

There are things you can't talk about in mainstream Canada (I'm being incredibly Toronto-centric here, as I have no idea what the climate is like elsewhere.) But I have been comforted to note that some of the Blogging Tories are from this bright red city.

The truth is that (L)iberals in Canada are highly mobilized. As Warwick says, they ARE the media.
If you go to the Liberal website they list a whole page of call-in shows, letter to the editor email addresses, etc. where their supporters are encouraged to go and pump the party (or more accurately, vilify Harper).

If there is nothing we can do, then maybe there are things the CPC could do that would get their message out. Electronically, they leave something to be desired. They have a sign-up for a newsletter, but I've never received one. They have a contact email, but they don't get back to you. They need to think about these kinds of things if they want to get the word out.

The Toronto Sun has two good columns today, one by Peter Worthington about Paul Martin's failures in recent days. The second is Michael Taube, who writes praising Stephen Harper, and gives him free advice along the lines that hammering the Liberals on corruption isn't scoring points. He's absolutely right. People just shrug when they hear about governmental corruption -- it's what they expect.

Harper has to make this election about the disquieting decisions and reversals Martin has made recently -- all done to thwart democracy and to obstruct the working of Parliament. This desperate cling to power is absolute proof that Martin should not be governing -- and Harper has to find a way to get this message out.

Rex Murphy was great last night too. It's not on their website yet, but look for it over the next few days. He actually said Martin should resign.

Maybe some people are listening.

Cheers,
canadianna

Lift the Covers, Jack

The empty vessel makes the greatest sound. -- Shakespeare

In his open letter to NDP supporters, Jack Layton defends cozying up with the Liberals saying:

"our responsibility is to make the budget better and ensure this minority Parliament gets something done."

Today Layton chastises Stephen Harper for having a position (defeating the government) which by coincidence, rather than design, is the same as the Bloc's: Harper risks `getting into bed' with Bloc if election forced: Layton

About his own dubious and very deliberate deal with to support the Martin government, yesterday Layton said:

I know that there will be people who will say, 'Ah, yeah, that's Layton. He loves corruption. The NDP, they just love corruption. They're really corrupt themselves because they support the Liberals.' That's a totally ridiculous accusation. We're helping people. We're opposed to corruption," he said.

And of course altruist that Jack is, he didn't make that deal to help his own fortunes:

"We'll say [in an election] that we worked for the people while all the other parties were just taking care of their own business to their own advantage. Ordinary people will make their own decisions and I'm quite confident that what we're doing now will help us," he said.

How's that for a double standard?

Cheers,
canadianna

Martin is *Ethically Challenged*

. . . and Paul Martin reaches into the magic hat once more, this time for Mr. Harper . . . and what do you know -- he's pulled out -- what's that? Why it's another lie.

No wonder people are cynical about politics. Perception is everything and truth is nothing.

Paul Martin and Jack Layton -- forget whether you agree with either of their politics -- have made nice to 'make this minority Parliament work'. In the Globe & Mail article they say: The Prime Minister said the new spending reflects priorities that he was already intending to implement in the future.

It doesn't matter if it's all smoke and mirrors -- they get an A+ for playing well with others.

Then there is Stephen Harper. It doesn't matter what he does now; Martin has thrown him a bone and if he doesn't take it and play nice, he will appear disagreeable and unco-operative. People will likely perceive him as putting lust for power above the working of the country.

Martin would have NDPers believe that Jack Layton's priorities are also his.
He wants them to forget that these 'priorities' ranked so high that they weren't in the budget.
He wants them to believe that he's punishing the rich corporations by withholding tax cuts when he's reaching around into another pocket and pulling out a mirror-twin rabbit to entice conservatives -- all the time knowing the lingering perception will be that Harper had a choice to prop up the government and 'make this Parliament work.'

Earlier today, Harper had a great line: "To deal with Liberal corruption, we get an NDP budget," he said. "What the Liberals don't steal, the NDP gets to spend." You can read the full story here in the Calgary Herald

Those same people who choose to see Harper as the bad guy in all this don't seem to realize that if a government falls due to a non-confidence vote, or the failure of a crucial piece of legislation -- that is democracy in action -- it proves that the government is working.

But perhaps Jack Layton is beginning to realize he's been played, today Macleans quoted him as saying about Martin: "He's either fooling around with Canadians again or it's an admission they didn't know how to count our dollars . . . It really strikes me as game-playing. He's once again trying to please absolutely everybody with promises that he's probably not going to be able to keep."

For those of you who subscribe to the NP there is a great column about cheating by Peter Battistoni. It makes you realize that when politicians become ethically bankrupt, it is critical to purge them from government.
No consequences for bad behaviour means no incentive to remain honourable.
One would hope people will act with integrity as a matter of conscience, but 12 years of no reproof might make anyone think they're untouchable.

'Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.' William Shakespeare

Cheers,
canadianna, hoping for a better Canada