What about the 1 Percent??

Don't get me wrong, I like the movement.  Occupy Wall Street is most likely a protest not seen in the USA since the time of the Vietnam War.  I am glad that people, many people, see that there is something inherently wrong with "the system".  The danger however is in how people expect government to fix the issues.

There is still a heavy sentiment among occupiers that the government needs to tax the rich more to help spread the wealth.  In other words, they want more government services and handouts to help them live. 

I still believe that people should be in charge of their own lives.  So I don't agree that a large focus of protesters should be that the government has to tax the rich more.  "The Rich" probably already pay a gigantic chunk of taxes as a dollar figure.  The problem in my opinion with their country and Canada for that matter is that government refuses to let us have true financial/economic freedom.

We have a managed, highly regulated economy with a central bank that plays with interest rates and prints money when it feels it should.  We have 3 levels of government that feel it is within their right to take over 40% of our income.  That in my opinion is the problem.  People should be making enough money (in general) but it is impossible to stay afloat when the government takes that much from us and prices continue to rise on so many items.  It is no surprise, and I think this trend will continue for years to come, that when people retire or move past 55 years old that they are increasingly reliant on the government to survive.  It is just to difficult for the average family to put away any meaningful savings.

When people demand that government fulfill their true role (protect our liberty) that is when things will turn around.

Is there really a difference?

I want to vote....to exercise my right to choose my provincial leader, but in the end will it really matter who I vote for?  I would vote NOTA (none of the above) in a snap if it were available but it's still not.  So I am faced with a choice between leaders with hardly an observable difference between them. 

Essentially they are all campaigning on the same ideas, except that each one says that that they will do more of it; hire more police, more doctors, more nurses, be tough on crime etc...

Where is the debate?  Where is the candidate that will stand up and speak something fundamentally different.  Lets ask the tough questions....is hiring more nurses going to fix our medical system?  Is being tough on gangs really going to curb gang violence?  Is putting more police on the street going to deter criminals?

No one wants to upset anyone, so they just tell us what we want to hear, only more so...
It's time to ask the fundamental questions; why do we have the problems we have, what causes them and whats the easiest way to fix the problem in a way that leaves us with our freedom.

Where has the News Gone?

The republican primary is in full swing with about 8 candidates running to be the republican nominee for president.  My man, Dr. Ron Paul, is in the mix and is doing very well, no thanks to the media.
It's quite amazing but the more I look at it I realize that the nominees are whoever the media says they are.  The media from the get-go said who the frontrunners were, and surprise, they are front-runners (Michele Bachman and Mitt Romney).  Texas governor Rick Perry jumps in the race late and the media instantly calls him a front-runner.

The Debate, and Iowa straw poll happened just recently and Bachman won.  Who came in second?  Ron Paul, with only .9% less votes.  The media are showering her with adulation and saying that this win puts her right up there in the front and shows she's a real candidate.  Not a word of Ron Paul....and he had 0.9% less votes.  Thats it.....less than 1% fewer votes.

They are calling for a Romney-Bachman-Perry stand-off in the primary.  I expect the debates to be a lot of fun to watch as the 3 of them speak with empty words, platitudes, and Ron Paul will kill them with substance. 

In the end I doubt it will matter because if the media say Rick Perry "is a front runner and a political legend in Texas", then the average voter, who doesn't bother to do any homework on the candidates and lets the media choose for them, will choose him, or Romney etc.

Ron Paul will make a splash regardless if he wins or not.  I just hope that there is someone who can take his place after he retires which I suspect will happen if he doesnt win.

Liberty Stolen

Since the harvest season is upon us I felt compelled to write about the the "great" establishment known as the Canadian Wheat Board.  I find it difficult to agree with a marketing board that will not allow a farmer to sell his own wheat or barley to the buyer they choose.  Farmers should own the fruits of their labour, and be able to sell it to whomever they want, no government strings attached.

The argument for wheat board involvement is that a single buyer acts as a single seller on the world market and receives a higher price than the farmer would get selling on his own.  I don't doubt the truth to this at all.  I'm sure the farmer's do, in general, get more.  That positive does not neutralize the negatives of the wheat board.  Let us not do evil so that good may come from it.

The most important thing for a person to have is their freedom and liberty.  Taking some of it, under the guise of receiving better prices, is not proper in a free society.

Producers who have toiled in the field should have the ability to sell their grain to any buyer they want if we want to call ourselves not only a free market economy but a free country.

I find it hard to listen to anyone who thinks that a farmer, who sells his own grain to a buyer should be fined and treated like a criminal for selling their own products they have grown with their own resources.

9/10 Approve? I say 8/10 just don't understand

I saw a billboard in town that was promoting the public ownership of Manitoba Hydro.  The billboard said "9/10 Manitobans prefer to keep Hydro public."  
I, of course, would like to end all government run monopolies such as Hydro, Liquor Commission, Lotteries, Public Insurance and certainly the Wheat Board.  I also have a growing suspision that statistics, such as the above, are fairly useless. 

I wager that the majority of the citizens interviewed in that poll just don't think about the full ramifications, and what they mean, to have the government own a resource.  I am willing to bet that 8/10 people interviewed simply feel the service is good/adequate and so they wouldn't change it simply because they are happy with the rates and service.  I will expect maybe 1/10 people interviewed to have some socialist beliefs that the governement should own the resources because it keeps the resources and profits from greedy, lying, rich corporations which socialists hate. 

I also don't use the word "public company" very often.  Have no illusions, this is a state run monopoly.  The word "public" just makes it sound nice and fair.

The fact is, the state run Manitoba Hydro does not allow free people (us as citizens) from entering the marketplace and that is just wrong.  People should be free to open and run businesses in a free market, which we obviously do not have.  That should be a god given right, to open, own and operate businesses. 

I also have to argue the significance that the majority of Manitobans agree that Manitoba Hydro should stay public.  We do not choose our laws based on the majority.  If we did, we probably would have a law that child molesters should be castrated and handed over to the victims families for punishment.  We don't because our laws are based on principles and rights, not what the majority chooses.  The fact that the majority of Manitobans do not think about freedom principles, does not make the government owned hydro a good idea.    

What is a Patriot?

After the recent Canada Day and Independence Day celebrations in the U.S. and Canada I am left to wonder what a Patriot truly is.  We see people waving flags, wearing flag colours etc.  Most of those people would agree that the country we live in is great and that they are proud to be Canadian (or American). 

Many use the following to define a patriot: "A patriot is someone who feels a strong support for their country".  I have even seen a description that mentions the following:  "Patriotism is a devotion to one's country for no other reason than being a citizen of that country."  Thats pretty empty and in my opinion, slightly dangerous.

Too many times, when a citizen disagrees with his or her government, they are branded as unpatriotic.  As in we should just blindly follow our leaders, and any questioning of their policies amounts to an un-patriotic view.  We see this a lot when it comes to the question of war.  If you don't support the war, you don't support our troops and therefore you are unpatriotic.  

How about this person (from Canada.com)?  This lady is protesting the Canadian troop activity in Afghanistan.  Is she being unpatriotic?  She is showing a dissenting opinion against the war in Afghanistan that has no bearing on our national security.  She doesnt want their citizens killed by our troops, she doesn't want our troops killed and doesn't want Canadians paying for the bill.  In other words she cares for her fellow Canadians well being.  Is she not patriotic?

Should patriotism not include care for your fellow citizens?  

We, on this side of the world, first heard the term applied to British North Americans who were fighting for their rights as free men and were fighting to separate themselves from the British Crown.  These patriots didn't sit back and wave British flags while the crown taxed them excessively and took away their guns...they fought back.
Yet nowadays we are told we need to stop questioning our governments and what they do.

I am happy to live in Canada, especially compared to other places in the world, but I still find some of the intrusions in our lives rather disturbing.  Others are disturbed about it as well, and some are hopping mad about it.   

I believe the true patriots are those who speak out against the erosion of our personal and economic freedom that we find ourselves faced with.  There are a select few who protest these events not only for themselves but for their fellow citizens.  

The Great Divide

I have never understood the racial tensions that can grip people and population segments.  Racism may never end and there is certainly no quick fix to get over this problem but I believe we must try to overcome racism as I believe it keeps people from being as free as they can be; even in this country. 
I personally have never understood why one man may judge another based on the colour of skin.  From a line in a favorite movie of mine: "any man who judges the worth of another man based on his skin colour is a fool".  
It is hard not to stereotype (and I have fallen short) but I have tried hard to judge individuals based on their life deeds and not on their nationality.  Once again Dr. Ron Paul has provided some nice commentary over the years which I believe sheds light on how even the US government (inadvertently) has made the situation worse.     
 
One major problem, says Ron Paul, is that people constantly align themselves in groups and derive their rights as belonging to a group (whether a racial group or social group).  These groups then lobby the government for monetary support which then further alienates them from the rest of society.  Ron advocates a philosophy of individualism.  Instead of seeing people as belonging to a certain group, see them as individuals.  Since we derive our rights from our maker, every person should be treated the same way.

For those who hate:
Hate can become an overwhelming disease.  I am quite certain of this.  It can affect how people treat others, how they speak, think and act.  In American History X (an extremely powerful movie) the lead character is at a crossroads in his life.  As a devout skinhead, he has realized that his life's choices had not advanced him anywhere.  His former high school teacher (who is black) visits him in prison after he is assaulted by his skinhead clan (his so-called friends and protectors).  His former teacher asks him a very important question:  "has anything you've done (the hate, the skinhead gang, his violence) made your life better"?  His obvious answer was no.

Who's Next!?....

It would have been hard to imagine 3 years ago that Obama would have been about the same as W. Bush in their foreign intervention policies.  Sure, Obama's intervention is with less troops but is it really that different??

I am hugely opposed to Canada's involvement in Libya.  The U.N. says we can bomb them, so we do it?  Who the hell is the U.N.?  We should not be putting our citizens lives and tax money on the line at the behest of the U.N.  They have caused enough problems with their handling of different conflicts over the last number of years.  We live in Canada, we are Canadians.  Let us protect our border and use our military to defend our freedoms.  Our troops should not be ordered out at the request of a foreign body. 

We have known that Gadafi was an idiot for the last 30 years...what changed now?  Now we are bombing them to help a rebel army get in power.  Do we know who these rebels are?  Can we guarantee that they will be less corrupt then the present government?

I have always felt that we in Canada do not have to worry about terrorist attacks like other countries do.  All of the security measures we take to streamline us with the U.S. is more for their benefit than ours.  I strongly feel that the more you push your values on other countries, the more they will resent you and the less safe you are.

If we keep up our involvement in Afganistan and now Libya and who knows where else we will go in the Middle East, the less safe we are from radicals and nationalists who will resent us for our involvement.  When that happens, hate breeds, and the end result may very well be an attack of some sort.  We are involved in countries whose politics have almost never been secure or logical in our sense.  It's silly to think that we can just usher in democracy and that everyone will love it.  

   

Finally - Someone sees it as the failure that it is.

A global commission made up of various political and business leaders from many countries around the world have released a report stating "The global war on drugs is failing".

Amen, it's about time someone stands up to report what a gigantic waste of time and resources this war has been.  According to the report:
"Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won." (msn.com)

What they are reporting, has been understood by many for years.  When you criminalize something that works, and people want it, you create a black market.  People make huge profits off of it, many people are persecuted and thrown in jail for victimless crimes and others get victimized through gang violence (fighting turf wars for control of sale). 

Drug use is tragic, but we must help those hooked on them, not treat them as criminals.
The overwhelming, vast majority of people would never start using drugs just because they become legal.  We choose to not use them because of their addictive, destructive nature.  Those that are huge opponents of drug legalization would admit themselves that if drugs were legalized they wouldn't use them.  So what are they doing?  Protecting us from ourselves?

Such logic and reasoning that I'm sure was found in the report was dismissed by the drug czar in the U.S.  Of course it was, what else did we expect them to say?

From msn.com:

The office of White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said the report was misguided.
"Drug addiction is a disease that can be successfully prevented and treated. Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe," Office of National Drug Control Policy spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said.

I've said it before, it's not the federal governments job to enforce health on us.  That's our job.

It's Our Fault

I recently spent a week in Toronto, as part of an education program I am enrolled in.  Most of the week was spent taking in various topics in supply chain management.  One of the speaker’s, who had a Ph.D in economics, spoke on the economics of transportation in supply chains.  For whatever reason he spoke early on about how transport to the U.S. hasn’t completely re-bounded after 2008 and that it was likely due to the economic slowdown and federal debt that the U.S. has.  Then he said something quickly, almost as an aside and most didn’t really know it was even said. 

He commented than virtually no U.S. politicians are addressing the debt or how to fix it except for….the economic advisor to Mitt Romney during the 2008 campaign.  This advisor was and is Glenn Hubbard.  According to the speaker, Dr. Hubbard is suggesting the use of a value added tax as a way to pay off the federal debt.  The value added tax is similar to our nations’ GST.

The very fact that he mentioned it tells me he approves of it since it didn’t really jive with much of his topic.  So I just assumed he was all for it and I decided I needed to talk to him afterwards…

Now I’m not writing this to debate a GST type tax over an income tax…I really don’t know what’s worse.  I’m suggesting that by commenting on a GST component on top of income tax, it doesn’t even begin to treat the problem of the debt which is due to run away government spending. 

I asked him how and why he would suggest that the GST is a good way to reduce federal deficits when it hasn’t erased ours.  He mentioned 2 things.  First, it’s inexpensive to administer from the governments perspective.  I retaliated by saying, right, but it also turns the citizens into tax collectors.  Second, he said it has reduced our debt by quite a bit.  However in the last 4 years we have added back onto it so that since 1990 the debt has not retreated by any respectable amount.  20 years of GST funds and they haven’t reduced our debt by even a third.

Let’s get real.  The guy never even bothered to mention that the government spending our money is the reason behind it.  His suggestion is that citizens aren’t taxed enough.  The government doesn’t need to make any significant policy changes, we just need to ante up and dig in.

I think I threw up a little in my mouth…   

I like choice....I love scotch!

I have, for a long time, been very opposed to our provincial government monopoly over the sale of liquor here in my province.  I really hate it and I'm to the point to where I think it's marginally disgusting...

I should clarify that the monopoly is on the sale of grain based alcohol.  There are private wine stores and a few that sell grape based spirits like brandy and cognac (Fenton's at the Forks Market being my favorite) but I really don't know if and how many hurdles they have to jump through to set up shop. 

I know there are other provinces (and stores in the U.S.) that have different and sometimes more selection with a competitive market but that's not my reasoning behind the hate...
My first reason is that private individuals, who have an interest in and would like sell liquor as their career, can't because the government has taken away that right (unless you want to sell wine or other grape based liquors).  Only the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission is allowed to sell beer, scotch, rum etc...

Second reason, is that it reduces choice for the consumer.  I love what a competitive market can do for competing businesses that sell similar products.  As a consumer, I like choice.  Buying booze here in Manitoba?  Not so much choice...but we should.  People like their booze and should have the option to shop around for variety and best price, our government refuses to give us that choice.  

Third reason, in my not so humble opinion, we are grossly overcharged for our liquor, which is a typical result when there is monopoly control.  I don't want to hear any garbage about the exchange rate and transport rates.  Case #1:  I like tequila.  I like Patron tequila.  A few months ago, I saw Patron tequila in the MB Liquor Mart behind a locked display case for about $120 (price has come down a little with favorable exchange).  I was in Grand Forks with my family and stopped in at Happy Harry's.  I found Patron on sale for $35/bottle ($45 reg price).  No specialty display case, just on a regular shelf with the rest of them.  I bought two for roughly 2/3 the cost of one bottle here....yeah pretty bad.  Case #2: Lets go west then to Alberta...surely their prices must be similar to ours?  No...
As my title suggests, I like scotch.  I have people that regularly go out there and bring back scotch at prices much lower than what we have here.  Bottles sold for $110 here can often be $20-$30 less in Alberta.  Why?  Because there is a competing market for it...

I work in supply chain so I know transport can vary, but it certainly doesn't cost $20 extra per bottle to ship scotch here as opposed to Alberta.  Grand Forks is less than 3hrs south of us.  How can their tequila cost over $70 less PER BOTTLE!  At the time the exchange rate was probably 1.07 or so, not enough to justify this price difference.

Once again I will ring the bell for a call to liberty, a call for choice.  The right to sell in the market and the right as private citizens to buy from the supplier that we want.  Should that not be a right of all people that live in a country that calls itself free? 

The country has spoken, and its never been so torn...

I must be brief, for I have work to do...

I believe this picture says it all for the once formidable Bloc...

The country has spoken and we now have a majority.  I find it ironic that the Liberals pushed so hard to get this election and they did worse than ever.  That is called political backfire...

Although I detest the NDP platform, I should congratulate them on achieving something that was probably thought impossible even 5 years ago; the title of official opposition.  What I find more striking however, is the difference between citizens in Canada regarding their political beliefs.  The Liberal party has always been a little left of centre, the NDP, farther left than that I think I can safely say.  So now we have a country that is deeply divided between the right (Conservative party) and the very left NDP party.  I do not consider myself on the right.  I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  I want the personal right to choose and the economic freedom that comes with government non-interventionism.  Lets say I'm off the chart, as most liberty loving people will say...

Now the Conservative party is hardly the type of conservatism that I would advocate since they spend as much as anyone else; it's just what they spend on that separates them from the NDP.  I think the country has spoken that they believe the government needs to take better care of them by providing services.  But deep down, lets face it; the reason why people want the government to provide more services, especially after they retire, is because the government takes so much of their money when they are most able to earn it.   

I need to find out how, but I do hope to meet with my local MP (Conservative) and discuss the waste involved in the regulatory bureaucracy that is our federal government.  The Conservatives spoke about economic growth and eliminating barriers to trade but so many of our federal regulatory bodies hurt Canadian business and reduce choices of private individuals more than anything.  If we want fast growth and economic freedom, the federal government must clean out their own closet. 

When in need.....read, rinse, repeat

I am not generally a sentimental person, nor do I get energized by song lyrics or poetry very often.  However certain lyrical pieces do change my habits slightly...

The following is from a local band here in Winnipeg:

Wake the Dead

This is our city of the dead
Another life holds it's weary head
We hope, we try, we live, survive
Counting days, trying to get by
Waiting for the calling
Anticipation in the air
We hope and dream of difference
City sleeping, unaware

Break the silence, WAKE THE DEAD
Running through these streets alone
I'll kick and scream, let's break the hold
'cause I swear, and this won't render useless
I promise you, we've come this far
And I'm not stopping, I'm not stopping now
I'm not hiding in shadows
Wake up, Send out this message, it's clear

You said, you said, you said
This time was gonna be different
WAKE UP THE DEAD

Coming alive, something stirs inside
This isn't over yet
Shake off the dirt
Swallow regret
Stop living under the weight
Living under the weight of regret
Your regrets
DON'T LOSE HOPE
Don't let it happen to you
Which side are you gonna choose?
'cause I believe, I believe it's in you...RISE!
We said, we said, we said
This time was gonna be different
WAKE UP THE DEAD

-Lyrics by Comeback Kid-

If only Government could clean my house

I was trying to stay awake and study for a class that I am taking (for some professional development).  It was getting late and my eyes were really heavy and I was ready to quit.  All of a sudden I could hear the late night news cast discuss some statistics regarding topics that Canadian felt were important important for the upcoming election.

There was quite a collection of topics that Canadians felt were important and many of the topics did not have gigantic "for" or "against" percentages.  The two topics that the news cast mentioned that Canadians were almost universal on was that the federal debt needs to be addressed and that government services to Canadians should not be reduced.

I fail to see how this is possible to address both without greatly increases taxes, or soaking one specific class of citizen.

I can understand why Canadians want government services; because they are taxed so heavily and they can't afford to run their own lives and they want some of that tax money back in the form of services.  The problem is an unending circle where we ask for services, the government taxes us to complete that service, and we ask for more services because we are taxed, so we get taxed.....I think you know where this is going....

It's time to really look at what the role of the federal government ought to be.  To quote Ron Paul: "If we think that the role of government is to police the world and take care of us from cradle to grave, you can't get rid of the income tax." 

As hard as it is, we need to reject the majority of federal government services, and then strenuously fight to have our hard earned income from being taken from us in the first place. 

When we run a nanny state, we expect services, but we also get a myriad of regulations and laws that are in place to help look after us and keep us safe (nutritional labelling, seat belt laws etc).  Many of these regulations cost money to police and they only protect a small percentage of the population.  Perhaps, rather than making a law, people should look after their own self interests.   

I always found it strange that I work for 2 weeks, get my cheque, and the federal government allows me to keep a percentage of it while they take what they initially feel is justified.  Sure I can get a portion back at tax time, but it feels strange that they essentially own my wage.               

Voting with a Bullet

There has been debate for years in both Canada and the U.S. over the right for citizens to bear arms.  Rest assured, the debate won't go away any time soon.  And while most people pee themselves over the thought of people having the right to own weapons without registration with the government, I thought I would offer my two cents and hope to spread some common sense on the subject, coming from a regular common man.

I have a few issues with our gun registry, some are very practical others more fanciful but all important in my opinion.  

First, it is another government program/intrusion into our lives which has cost a lot of money.  I believe the figure I heard was approximately $5 billion to get the registry going, which tax payers had to pay for out of pocket.

Second, we need to look at the sources of what crime was committed.  In some cases a crime committed for reasons of jealousy, revenge, murder/suicide etc will probably occur whether the gun is registered or not.  People will do evil, heinous things with any weapon they can get there hand on and there isn't much we can do about it.  Gun registry won't deter criminals who shoot out of rage.

Third, the gun registry targets law-abiding citizens more than criminals.  I personally know of one citizen who had some pretty interesting, old, collectible type guns that he had to get rid of once the registry was put in place.  I can't remember the exact reason but I believe it had something to do with the size of the firearm (it was tiny, you could conceal it inside a boot.).  That is just plain wrong. 

Fourth, just as in drug criminalization, when you criminalize something, you create more crimes and criminals.  I have seen multiple bus advertisements telling citizens to get illegal guns off the street.  Most criminals, who plan to do something illegal such as murder, assault, B&E etc will most likely procure a gun illegally.  If they are willing to do illegal acts, chances are they are willing to purchase an illegal weapon, registry or not...
I understand the need and the desire to make citizens safe, but just as in drug criminalization, a gun registry won't reduce crime long term. 

My last reasons are more fantasy than anything but the reality was very real for our ancestors and for other people on this planet right now.  The fact of the matter is, we do not know suffering like others do and for all it's faults, the government does not typically threaten our very existence.  But some governments do, even as we speak, and citizens should have the right to protect their life. 

The U.S. protected the rights of the citizen to bear arms.  We need to remember that at the time, they had just finished fighting a long bloody struggle against a king who was content on reducing their liberty.  If it were not for guns, the Americans could not have won their independence.  This is very important!  The British moved against towns known to hold weapons, and tried to seize them.  Why?  Because the British knew that the Americans would have no way to fight back without those stores of weapons.

Just because we live in a time of personal safety from our government does not mean that at SOME time that can't change.  Just because we aren't fighting off foreign invasions right now doesn't mean that we won't ever have to.  I know, it sounds far fetched but if it ever happened, would we not benefit by having our citizens available to defend themselves?  Should they not have the right do defend their homes and possessions?

So many of our laws affect a huge percentage of the population when it is supposed to be designed to affect less than 1%.  Those are laws that are not worth the paper they are written on.

   

The debate....or lack thereof.

I was not at home on Tuesday so I had to tape the debate and plan to watch it in its' entirety later.  I watched the first bit, and the term gong show comes to mind.  That fellow on the far right is the leader of the Bloq Quebecois, a "federal" party that has only Quebec citizen interests in mind.  How he gets to land on the debate is anybody's guess considering he doesn't even have members running in other provinces.
2 parts stuck out the most; the insistence of all parties to spend our way to prosperity and tax others to fix social problems and the discussion of our place on the international stage.  Mr. Ignatieff, the Liberal leader seems to think we should be doing more internationally including holding a more important seat in the UN and offering more aid to 3rd world countries.  I could just picture myself up there on the stage answering his questions. 
Number 1, since when is the UN important to us?  They are not our sovereign leaders and they get us involved in conflicts that do not have any bearing on our national security.  At one point, Mr. Ignatieff even used the phrase "make the world safe for democracy".  That is scary people.  It's not our job to tell others how they should live and they will reject it, just like we would reject it here if some nation started telling us how to run our lives.  Sending our citizens to die in UN conflicts, to make the world safer for democracy is not the way to use our troops. 
Number 2, all he wanted to do was talk about how the Conservatives didn't do enough to get us out of a recession and he talked a few times about impressing the world by offering more foreign aid to African nations.  If we are suffering financially, how does forcefully stealing our money and giving it to another nation help us?  Also, foreign aid when completed between governments rarely works.  Charity must remain voluntary.  I do feel for people in 3rd world nations but it remains our right as citizens to help them individually, it is not a proper moral stance to take money from citizens by force and give to those you feel deserve it!  Our political situation in Canada will remain stagnant for years to come, I am very convinced of this.  

Lots of orange signs in my area....

I had the NDP candidate leave a message on my phone.....missed opportunity.  My wife said someone called her to talk politics, probably the liberals.  I had a call to ask if I would support the Conservative candidate and I said, "well, he's the lesser of the 3 evils."

They asked me if I felt PM Harper was on the right track.  I said "not really".  She then asked what do I want to see discussed?

I told her I want to see real discussion on cutting spending.  It's not good enough to just keep taxes where they are, we need to see a reduction in federal spending.  I said, I don't want a few minor changes, I want a real gutting of the federal government with slashes everywhere.  Then I said that the nanny state needs to be dealt with so that in time we can get away from government programs so that people will have the opportunity to take care of themselves.

She agreed with me, as I am sure she does with all the people she talks to.....

The only thing I forgot to mention that I would like to have mentioned in discussion is to bring our troops home from the middle east.  I can only imagine how much we spend there every year in a fight that has nothing to do with our security (and is probably reducing it in the long term).

The talk all around this election just cements my belief that it is more about promising the world to grab votes than it is about really turning the country around and giving people their economic freedom back.

On another note, there are a lot of NDP signs in my area (a lifetime NDP supporting area).  So I guess I get to have them speak for me in Parliment......oh goody.....

Promises, Promises....

We are in serious trouble.  I have seen the early promises that the Liberal party has dolled out for this coming election and it really scares me to see the role that they insist on taking in our lives.

I’ve read about a Liberal promise of $8 billion without raising the personal income tax.  This is part of a new initiative taken to help Canadian families.  The claim is that the $8 billion will not affect income tax levels.  So that leaves 3 choices (that I can see): print the money, run large deficits that others pay for later, or take $8 billion from other spending and transfer it over to this family plan.

I doubt they could be so stupid as to print the money and you would think they wouldn’t be so short sighted as to just run a huge deficit for future administrations to deal with so I’m going with the transfer in spending.

I have 3 issues with this proposed spending.  1) It does not address the deficit we have.  2) It implies that it is the Federal Governments job to look after us and 3) it’s an obvious promise of cash and spending directed towards the average Canadian as a way to buy election votes.

I see no actual principles in these measures; it looks like they will just do whatever it takes to get the vote.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s not the governments’ job to look after us with providing child care, or helping out someone going to university.  A fifty year old who has never had children has no need to have part of his income stolen through taxes and then given to a family he doesn’t know.  It’s immoral, forced charity.  I find these ideas very utopian sounding and full of socialist ideals; “The Government will take care of its’ children, everyone can have an equal share…”

What worries me more however is that there will be a number of people that will be swayed with this political game.  It sounds nice, it sounds like they really care for us but it simply isn’t their job and it can’t be done.  The federal government is incapable of spending us towards prosperity.  People need to start fighting for tax reduction and then look to take care of themselves without looking to government to plunder other sectors of the population for money.  It’s time people step up to the plate and take command of their own life.     

I have yet to hear from any candidate to really hit on the topic of cutting spending.  If we really want economic prosperity we need a federal government who will drastically reduce its’ size, reduce its spending and then reduce taxes.  This is the only true moral stance a federal government can take to help put people back on their own two feet.           

Small is No Excuse

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain

Having thought of the upcoming election as of late, I am forced to wonder how we can ever get a small government, liberty minded candidate in as MP, never mind Prime Minister.  I think the ramifications of even just 1 libertarian in Parliament as MP would have great effect (look at Ron Paul in congress). 

It’s just hard to imagine ever getting the support we need to get a libertarian politician into Parliament.  The libertarian sect of the country is just too small and too many people vote for who they think will win, or for the lesser of 3 evils (or more depending where you are in the country). 

Then I think of some other movements and how they started.  Now don’t get all uptight about my example here, it’s just to show how even seemingly harmless and insignificant beginnings can turn into country changing revolutions. 

Believe it or not, the National Socialist Party (Nazi Party) of Germany started from very humble beginnings.  Since I have great interest in reading about WW2 history I have some fine books and many of them discuss the humble beginnings.  In one book, which includes a multitude of pictures, it has a picture of an early meeting of Nazi members.  It is a small group, and from the photo it looks like they are meeting in a plain basement room, not the large palaces they were know for later.  The picture was from 1933 I believe, and seven years later they were in control of nearly ½ of Europe.

Now I obviously don’t approve of the palaces, the policy, the conquering or the message but the point is they did it, from humble beginnings and seemingly insurmountable odds.  They rallied millions of citizens behind their message and they changed the political landscape in Germany during a very difficult time (due to the treaty of Versailles after WW1).

If a political party can rally that many people behind them on a message of fear and hate, how many more should be rallied on a freedom message.  People from multiple walks of life, different religions, ethnic groups and economic backgrounds should understand the freedom message, because it speaks to all of us.  Small government, sound money, lower taxes and liberty should unify all citizens, not just one or two interest groups.

I think it can be done.  I just don’t know how yet.  I am talking to more people, giving my views on issues to many people who just think things are they way they are and we have to accept it.  I say “no”, it is unacceptable, to live in a free country but not have proper control of your financial well-being due to government control of business, taxes and run away spending.

We have a lot going for this country, but we can’t stop there.  This is my home, my land, my country, my well-being and I will do what I can to fight for it.   

<<<p.s. I love Courage Wolf

The Mice Come out to Play

It looks like we are headed towards a spring election.  It looks like the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP did not enjoy the budget presentation earlier this week.  They will not support it and if that is the end of it, then an election will follow.
From the CBC.ca news website:

"We find that the priorities of this government are not the priorities of ordinary Canadians," Ignatieff said. The Liberal leader, who has been demanding a cancellation of corporate tax cuts and didn't get it, cited the lack of support in the budget for affordable housing and child care as other reasons why his party will not vote in favour of the budget.  "This is a government that doesn't seem to be listening to what Canadian families are telling us," he said. "We're forced to reject this budget."

Let me read this correctly; The conservative government has not provided a large sum of money to be handed out to people that want more affordable housing and parents who want government to help pay for their child care?  Am I reading that right?  This is a bad thing?
Once again, a political party (in this case 3 of them) believe it is their job to STEAL our money and hand it to people they feel deserve it.  The service they want to provide is quite fundamental; housing and child care (clearly the responsibility of the parents). 

While reading this I could feel my temperature rise.  I am, by far, not an overwhelming supporter the Conservative party but at least they don't buy votes by handing out money to everyone that believes they are entitled to it through nanny state initiatves (they do it by other means however).  

This is just a move towards statism.  The government will take care of us from cradle to grave if they feel it's warranted.  I find it reprehensible that political parties want to run our lives like this and its disgusting that private citizens expect, and will for vote for, political parties who are willing to transfer large amounts of income from certain segments of the population to others that clamour for it.  What is wrong with people these days?  Why must we continually plunder from others to get by?

More excerpts from CBC.ca:

The NDP leader said nothing in the budget persuaded him that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is willing to "change his ways" and work with the other parties to introduce measures Layton said would help Canadian families and seniors living in poverty.
"Mr. Harper had an opportunity to address the needs of hard-working, middle class Canadians and families, and he missed that opportunity. He just doesn't get it," said Layton. "New Democrats will not support the budget as presented."

Once again, it falls on government to provide for our needs?  Where do they get this drivel?  Worse yet, where do they get the authority?

While you read the next few lines, read them as if I’m yelling into your face:

We have a nanny state here in Canada that has been growing for years!  Government has perpetually increased their roll in our lives and guess what?  The poverty issue is STILL here!  How can we ever expect it to go away just by throwing more money at the problem?  It hasn’t worked, it won’t work and it’s time we all admit it…

There is an underlying problem to the poverty issue that can be attributed to many things; lack of government support and spending isn't one of them.  Some very smart people have tagged the increase in poverty, especially at the senior level, to problems with high taxation and inflation which causes our un-backed money to lose value and a host of other factors.

Rest assured these underlying factors will never reach the debate floor or make it onto a major political party platform because it's easier to buy votes (through programs and subsidies) with the promise that government cares for us and believes strongly in "people before profit".  It's government spending that hurts us and I am trying hard to get people to see this so that more people can wake up one day and say, "there is something not right about this system we live under".

Sounds Nice, Smells Bad

Since becoming a little bit more interested in our nations’ politics I thought I would look up some info on my local MLA.  He has advertisements up around the community and is a member of the NDP party.  Many people consider the NDP party to be quite liberal, and a party that love unions and are probably quite interested in a services type government at both the provincial and federal level.  As we should all be aware by now, that means stealing money from someone and giving it to others that you don’t know. 

I went to his local website (the MLA) and he seems genuine.  I will trust that he truly cares about the community as it appears he has spent a fair bit of time in it and on different community committees.  He graduated with a degree in economics so I thought it would be nice to have someone with that educational background.

I read their agenda which was written in 2010.  Now for my American reader’s, 2009 was a tough year in Canada.  We had a bad recession which obviously followed yours.  In this “state of the union” address, he proudly commented that other provinces, faced with budget shortfalls were often ending particular services (he didn’t say what kind of services but said they were important) and even selling off provincial assets to make up the shortfall.

He went on that the NDP government would not follow suit.  They would keep providing the services that Manitobans expected and that they would not sell off provincial owned assets (namely Manitoba Hydro) during this downturn and recovery period.  In other words, some provinces were cutting back, either reducing spending or selling assets to reduce their deficit.  The NDP would not fall into that trap.

It got me thinking; that sounds great when you quickly glance at it….but there is a glaring problem.

If I hit a downturn, where my salary was reduced and I was headed to a budget shortfall, I would have to take drastic steps.  I might have to sell a car, or even my house, I might buy more generic food, what ever it took to make ends meet.  I think almost everyone would take those measures.

Apparently the NDP government doesn’t need to do that.  They’ll keep spending to make sure they get your vote.  The other provinces were doing what they had to so that the deficits could be as small as possible.  But the NDP would tell us this is unacceptable. 

Deficits can be dealt with later I suppose?  I would like to know when being financially responsible went out of style.    

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Good evening, London.  Allow me first to apologize for this interruption.

I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke.

But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.

There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way.

Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission.

How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory.

His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.


-V for Vendetta-
Emergency Broadcast Channel Speech