Ruby Dhalla.. poster girl for the Liberal Elite

The current Ruby Dhalla mess, in this bloggers mind, has less to do with the suggestion she mistreated her employees, and more about the disconnect between the Liberal oligarchy and the Canadian people.

Ruby Dhalla, recall, was at one point considered for leadership of the party. She has been a stalwart of the party, given high profile positions under Martin, Dion and now Ignatieff. She is, in many respects, the "face" of the party.

Now - unlike some of my fellow Conservatives, I'm really not overly concerned about the particulars of her little nanny dispute. The accusers may or may not be exaggerating - and Ruby may or may not be unfairly accused in many respects (though I'm slightly irritated with the revelation that her staffer pressured a senior citizen to sign an endorsement on behalf of her seniors organization - which endorsement was later retracted).

No - what I find more interesting is what it says about those at the top of the Liberal party.

We have, King Michael, now known very well as someone who snubbed his own brother for being too short and too fat while they were in school - and as such, wasn't permitted to acknowledge Michael at Upper Canada College. Who loves to drop names and references to his literary past - "Oh, did you know Barack Obama read MY book?".

And now we have Ruby Dhalla - former actress, beauty pageant contestant, Chiropractor, and business women, who was one of those Canadians who has the wherewithal to be able to rely on "the help" to tend to her and her family's homes. Apparently, washing their cars, cleaning their clinics and shining their shoes.

No biggy. If you are busy, and can afford it, why not create a job and hire someone to help you.

The problem, however, is that the Liberal party of Canada has created this facade of some connection with the down-trodden, that they are the saviors of the middle and the lower classes.

The reality - the upper echelon, the policy-makers, of the Liberal party are truly what are described as the "Liberal Elite".

What does that mean? Well, typically, it references the well-healed and well-educated who have the luxury of pontificating on how to "make society better", while having no real risk imposed upon them in the event that their philosophical meanderings turn into mush.

We'll raise taxes for this program or that (can you say gun control) and if it turns out that we're wrong, well, for the most part, we're either so wealthy that OUR tax consequence is easily avoided, or we're esconced in academia, the place where Michael Ignatieff admits, "a bus-driver would know more of what's what" than they do.

In other words, the thinking minds of the Liberal party, truly, are people who admit they really don't have a pulse on what is happening in reality. Who base massive societal changes upon those who know less of "what's what" than the average bus driver.

The people, for example, who propose a national daycare program for everyone. The Liberal party wants to spend literally billions of dollars to make sure that no parent "has to" raise their own child. And not just struggling single mothers.. no, that doesn't go far enough, it doesn't assure that the government can get their mitts on the minds of ALL children - so they're going to pay for daycare for Ruby Dhalla, and Michael Ignatieff.. lawyers, doctors, billionairs. All of them "deserve" to have their children raised by the state, don't you know.

Why should we raise our own children? Why should we tend to our own aged parents?

These are the people who are going to "save" society.

People like Ruby Dhalla.

People like Michael Ignatieff.

Aren't they swell?

Michael Ignatieff suggests Stephan Harper is.. "Nixonian"?

In the most blatant act of a pot calling a pot a pot, Michael Ignatieff yesterday referred to Stephen Harper as "Nixonian" for the comments that Harper made suggesting that the volumes of tapes and materials on Michael Ignatieff will make him cannon fodder come the next election.

Ignatieff described the comment as the "most Nixonian" of Harper's many remarks to him. "Every day that goes by, he's more like Richard Nixon," Ignatieff told reporters - Toronto Star, May 29, 2009

How truly ironic.

What made Nixon tick and what did he do? Well, firstly, he was perhaps the most insecure American President ever - as affirmed by one of his closest advisors, Henry Kissinger - "It was characteristic of Nixon's insecurity with personal encounters," wrote Kissinger, "that he called me into his office four times that day for reassurance that he had done well."

Secondly - Nixon was consumed with acquiring power - perhaps in part to fill the void created by that personal insecurity. So much so, that he facilitate the law being broken to spy on the Democratic party, breaking into the Watergate Hotel.

Meanwhile - the "pot", Michael Ignatieff:

He posts a picture of himself and Barack Obama on a jumbo screen TV at Times Square and in Las Vegas.

He basically abandons his native country, writing excessively about his Russian heritage, adopting the United Kingdon, and then the United States, being so consumed with being "accepted" that he adopts the pathetic ploy of referring to himself as American and the U.S. as "our country".. and during the fervor of the U.S. public for vengeance in the wake of 9/11, he again adopts the "American" personna, and, like a running-dog lackey, drools all over President Bush's hard-line approach to fighting terrorism.

He returns to Canada to seek leadership of the Liberal Party, put publicly discloses that if he loses, his intention is to return to the U.S. to his old job.

As odious and hackneyed as the Conservative ads may be to some - knowing of the limited ability of our electorate to pay attention to anything for more than 30 seconds at a time - it is perhaps a necessary evil (to borrow a phrase) to illustrate just how insincere Michael Ignatieff is about his ties to this Country.

Now - back to his most recent asinine comment - comparing Harper to Nixon.

Uh - Michael - the "tapes" we're talking about are the volume of tapes and recordings and writings of you filling your massive ego. No other politician in this country has enjoyed the sound of his own voice so much - that Michael Ignatieff has, literally, books and books of his musings and pontifications. No hidden Nixon tapes these Michael - these are your own creation.

And why did this arise - well, Michael is seeking the resignation of our Finance Minister. His complaint, obviously, is that the recent announcement of increasing deficits make the Minister unfit for office. Now - as posted recently on this blog - I'm not going to stick up for current Conservative policy - but mostly because it isn't conservative policy at all - it's Liberal policy.

There's the rub Michael - you are complaining about the Minister for doing what you, effectively, demanded of him. Increase Employment Insurance, you demanded, spend more "stimulus money" you demanded. Every time the Conservative party suggests holding the purse a little tighter, Ignatieff and Layton bellow and scream.. and then, to their discredit - when Flaherty complies - Ignatieff asks for his resignation.

Harper's response? Well, Michael, in due time, your arrogance, your insincerity, your insecurity, your lack of anything that could ever be called leadership, will be laid bare for all to see. And at that time, you will be hoisted on petards of your own making - the never-ending monument created by your own ego, your own recorded words.

P.S. - for those, like I, who don't know what a 'petard' actually is, well, I learned today that its a bomb. The reference literally referring to someone being blown up by their own bomb.

And the word petard derives from the Middle French peter, to break wind.

How truly appropriate then.

Where do you go to find a Conservative in this Country?

Hmm.

Today, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the federal deficit will balloon to $50 billion this fiscal year, more than $16 billion higher than he predicted in January.

His scapegoat - higher Employment Insurance Payments (uh, when you increased benefits, and were aware that job losses were going up.. what did you THINK was going to happen).

His scapegoat - lowered GST rates and lower income tax rates.

His scapegoat - bailing out the auto industry.

Look - the last thing I want to do is give Michael Ignatieff a boost - Lord knows I've made my position clear on his vain and insecure motivations to lead this country.. but that doesn't give our current government a free pass.

To be "conservative" in my mind requires that we be fiscally responsible and moderately libertarian. Others may disagree, but to me, conservatism is not about pressing religious beliefs on others, is not about increasing police and military power - it's about two things:

a) Keeping the hand of government off of my shoulder;
b) Keeping the hand of government out of my pocket.

Clearly, these principals require refinement - government requires a degree of coercive power to assure freedom from criminal activity and to maintain order, and to operate a society, a certain degree of tax is required, including a need to maintain a modest social safety net with reasonable health care and support for those truly disadvantaged.

However -

I see nothing "Conservative" about bailing out auto manufacturers.

I see nothing "Conservative" about suddenly increasing Employment Insurance because more people are unemployed.

I see nothing "Conservative" in our government's refusal to take action on revising our federal Human Rights legislation to assure that free speech is not on the endangered species list.

And I definitely see nothing "Conservative" in our current government running up the largest deficit in Canadian history.

Memo to Stephen Harper:

Stop trying to avoid criticism and trying to appease the pollsters and just do what you, in your heart, believe is the right thing. And if Canadians are too stupid or myopic to realize it's in their interests, let them vote you out. Soon enough, they will beg to have your party back.

Better to die with your principals than to live without them.

The first thing we do.. let's kill all the lawyers.

Seems like a good plan, no?

This line, from Henry VI, Part II by William Shakespeare, is widely misused and misunderstood. The true intent of Dick, the Butcher, in making that statement is to assist in creating anarchy by removing those who can understand and enforce the law that they are trying to undo.

So - why am I taking a break today from beating up poor Michael Ignatieff to talk about "killing" lawyers? Well, because last month I had a particularly irritating time assisting a client with a particularly offensive act on the part of the Maintenance Enforcement Department of Alberta.

You see, my client had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment, during a time that he had 1/2 time care of his daughter. After being re-hired, and after re-setting the new support payment he would owe his wife, he owed her $900.00. His wife agreed, in writing, to collect that at a rate of $50.00 per month. His wife's lawyer wrote a letter directly to Maintenance Enforcement confirming this arrangement.

And then, keeping in mind that this client had 1/2 time care of his daughter, Maintenance Enforcement garnished him (seized his bank account and the whole of his monthly pay cheque) for $4,000.00. They also garnished his tax refund on top of that. All for $900.00 which they knew she agreed to collect at $50.00 per month.

So - where does the "kill all the lawyers" comment come in? Well, the cornerstone of democracy and freedom is the "rule of law". The rule of law posits that everyone, including government, is subject to the law.

Problem is, the government and their bureaucracy doesn't like that. They want to do what they want, free of interference from those who challenge them to do "the right thing".

The Maintenance Enforcement Act prevents any action against the Department, no matter how offensive or arbitrary their acts are. My client has no right of action against them for this callous and arbitrary act.

In a separate case, an Immigration lawyer I work with was assisting a client having a problem being denied entry into Canada (she's Canadian) because she was driving her sister's car (who is American). When the lawyer tried to explain to the Customs Officer that he was not applying the law, the lawyer was summarily dismissed, and in fact, his client was told that if the lawyer attended the office, he would be arrested.

There is no action which can be brought against a Canadian Customs Officer for refusing to apply the law or for wrongfully threatening detention. There is not even a formal board of inquiry to investigate wrongful acts of Customs Officers - though there is a "review" process regarding actual decisions - but no conduct review process.

Another lawyer I spoke to, practicing immigration, has her clients regularly advised not to have a lawyer while they are applying for immigration.

The Family Law Act in Alberta has had major amendments recently to assist in parties coming to Court without lawyers - and, most lawyers will attest, Judges are regularly friendlier and more tolerant to these "pro se" litigants than to clients with lawyers.

Amendments to the Rules of Court are in the offing permitting legal representation by non-lawyers.

Our Law Society - meanwhile - like Nero, fiddles while Rome burns. They are so guilt-ridden from actually charging for their services (unlike Dentists and Doctors) that they actually roll their sleeves up and help - under the notion of improving "access to justice". Problem is - where "justice" is capricious, uncertain and unpredictable because rules of law are no longer applied - well that isn't justice at all.

We can make dispute resolution simpler, certainly. We can simply flip a coin - "Plaintiff or Defendant"? That would be easy, it would remove the expense of litigation, it would allow the Government to impose their will unchallenged, and it would "kill all the lawyers" and kill justice in the bargain.

Under a primarily (but not exclusively) liberal notion that government can cure all ills, there is an annoyance with anyone getting in the way of government authority. There is this notion that all government programs are perfect and that lawyers only gum up the works (go talk to a Worker's Compensation claimant about the perfection of government).

As a lawyer, in my 24 years of practice, I have noticed a troubling tide of government regulation, which, more and more, excludes review by the Courts of their acts and more and more, seeks to remove lawyers from the process.

Maybe you think that's a good thing.

Maybe until your bank accounts and pay cheques are taken away from you without reason and without recourse.

Appology redacted.. Michael Ignatieff is the Great Pretender..

A few weeks ago, I published a post, where I attributed a quote to Michael Ignatieff,

"As an academic, he said, "you just build up a habit of trying to give honest answers to questions. ... Then once you get into politics your task is mostly to conceal the truth. The truth becomes a gaffe."

I was challenged on that, and as I re-read the source, it appeared that perhaps the quote was actually that of Tom Flannigan. I stood ashamed, and appologized.

Now - I come across Michael Ignatieff's essay in the New York Times, "Getting Iraq Wrong", here.

Now - to read through it is a truly mind-numbing experience - but I'll give you the cliff's notes:

Hi, my name is Michael. I wanted everyone to like me in the U.S. and so I wrote about how great the Iraq war was and how indefinite detention and "coercive interrotation" (can you say waterboarding) was a great idea to preserve freedom.

Well, that was when I was American (see my writings where I refer to myself as "American"). Now, you see, I want Canadians to like me - and, well, that means I have to explain how I was really just talking out of my hat, and what I really think is that Iraq was actually bad.

How did I do that? Well, then I was an academic, and..uh..

As a former denizen of Harvard, I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners

Read that again. Just to be sure you catch his meaning. I'll translate for you:

Until I ran for the leadership of the Liberal party, I had no sense of reality whatseover. I had no grasp of what was what at all - and you would have been better getting advice on world affairs from a bus driver than you would have from me.

If I'm getting that wrong - please correct me. I don't think I am. Michael basically wrote in the New York Times Magazine, for millions of readers, that he pretty much had his head up his ass for his whole life until, magically, he became "aware" when he decided he wanted to be Prime Minister.

Does that give you a strong sense of security or what?

Now - before you get too appreciative of his mea culpa, you have to consider his explanation for how he sees the world now:

Nothing is personal in politics, because politics is theater. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel. It is a common spectacle in legislatures for representatives to insult one another in the chamber and then retreat for a drink in the bar afterward. This saving hypocrisy of public life is not available in private life.

Ok. Read that again as well.

Again - I'll translate:

If you're wondering if I'm sincere when I speak as a politician, keep wondering. It's smoke and mirrors.. (and I can't do better than repeat his own words).. my job is "to pretend to have emotions that I do not actually feel."

Have you had enough? Can you believe this guy actually has ANY support of his party, or anyone else.

Michael Ignatieff, in his own words, the great pretender, and, at the end of the day, can anything describe Michael's problem better than that song?

Oh yes, I'm the great pretender
Pretending that I'm doing well
My need is such; I pretend too much
I'm lonely but no one can tell.

Michael Ignatieff - "We wouldn't have international human rights without the leadership of the United States."

With thanks to AlbertaArdvark..

Michael Ignatieff explaining, in detail, how the world owes much to American leadership, and specifically, speaks positively about the speaking of George W. Bush.

Indeed.

Muslim Extremist Terrorism is still alive and well in North America

There is a problem. It has to be addressed. And it concerns the extremist devotees of the Muslim faith.

Yesterday - two men were arrested in a U.S. sting operation after planting what they thought were bombs outside two New York synogogues, and after acquiring what they thought were operating surface to air missiles - story here.

"They stated that they wanted to commit jihad," Kelly told reporters, using a term that can mean holy war. "They were disturbed about what was happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that Muslims were being killed. They made the statement that if Jews were killed in this attack that would be all right."

I am sympathetic with the comments of Aliya Latif, civil rights director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York, who fears backlash against law-abiding American-Muslims. The acts of these evil and insane men do not constitute the intent of all Muslims, clearly.

However - what is required is a clear and unambiguous message from all Muslim devotees that violence on our shores is unacceptable and a sickness that constitutes an offense to all Muslims and an fact, an affront to Allah. There can be no uncertainty in this message. If adherents of the Muslim faith in North America wish to share our freedoms, they must share our joint responsibility to unabashedly denounce terrorism. To do otherwise, is to give credence to the sickness which is Muslim extremism.

Yes - there are troubling issues in the middle-east, and not everything that Israel does is right - however, to equate acts occuring in a border war with planting bombs in New York or flying airplanes into the World Trade Centre is a false logic which does nothing to advance serious debate and serves only to provide justification to terrorists.

Complain about Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn all you like - but their underlying message, that we require freedom to question all religion which advocates harm to others is just. As we disclose and condemn the abuse committed by the Catholic Church this week in Ireland, so to must we be free to disclose and condemn the failure of the Muslim faith to respond clearly to the sickness of Muslim extremism.

It's just that simple.

Hot off the Press.. "I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people." Barack Obama

So. Funny how it is easy to complain and to make unreasonable demands when you aren't in power, but when you obtain power, the problems suddenly become more complex.

Such is the case with Barack Obama.

As Obama has settled into the seat of power of the Presidency of the United States, he has realized, now publicly, that terrorists are the enemy of the west, and must be treated - not as "criminals" with full rights of due process and some obligation to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", but, as (to use his words) "prisoners of war" who may be detained simply because they are enemies of the United States of America.

The darling of the left, President Barack Obama, has made it clear that he is supportive of indefinite detention of terrorist suspects (now "prisoners of war").

We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again.

When reality strikes, Mr. President, it strikes hard doesn't it?

Ok. Michael Ignatieff - where is your moral compass pointing now? Is it shifting back to that of your pal, Barack Obama (you know, the guy in the Times Square photo).. consistent with your writings in 2004 when you wrote in the New York Times about "Lesser Evils"?

As Ignatieff wrote:

..defeating terror requires violence. It may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, even violation of rights.

..To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. These are evils because each strays from national and international law and because they kill people or deprive them of freedom without due process.

Of course - now, as recently as April 15, 2009, Michael tells us that there is no justification for this. Ok.. so that's your position yesterday, where do you stand today? Is Obama your friend, your mentor, or not?

Indeed.

Michael Ignatieff.. vain and insecure. Nice combination for a supposed "leader".

There was a time that this blog actually saw Michael Ignatieff as a reasonable selection for the Liberal party as leader. Reading some of his work, he appeared to be a closet Conservative. Tough on terrorism, understanding that sometimes, harsh results are necessary in the effort to combat evil.

But, as is often the case, over time, a facade reveals itself as just that.. a facade, a fake, all image and no substance.

Such is Michale Ignatieff.

I alluded to this in my last post, however, I think it bears further examination. The conduct of Michael Ignatieff following up on President Obama's trip to Canada is so illustrative of his shortcomings, well, it bears further examination.

As the world knows, following up on the election of President Obama, his first trip to vist a foreign leader was to Canada, to meet with Stephen Harper.

Read that last paragraph again if you missed the point. President Obama came to Canada to meet with our "leader", our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

He didn't come here to meet with Elizabeth May. He didn't come here to meet with Jack Layton. And, to be clear, he did not come to Canada to meet with a party leader by default, Michael Ignatieff. Why would he?

To be sure - this is not a slight to any of the non-governing party leaders. It is simply a reality. One leader comes to meet with another leader.

No one should have been suprised or offended by this. But, someone was.

Yes - Michael Ignatieff - he who is insecure and lacking, could not tolerate being ignored, not being the big man on campus. Like in the old days, when he told his younger brother to hide himself in Michael's presence, Michael could not fathom not being the most popular guy on campus. He stewed and mewled. He complained that the Prime Minister was getting television time witht he President that he wasn't.. he made a big deal that he was getting second-billing to the Prime Minister.

Yes - he is that insecure. Yes, he is that lacking.

Certainly - protocol dictates that a visiting foreign leader also meets with the leader of the official opposition. Protocal - a form of ceremony and etiquette observed by diplomats and heads of state.

However - it is just that - a ceremonial visit. It could be nothing more - as the opposition, by definition, doesn't govern. It may challenge government, it may make suggestions to government - but it doesn't govern. Contrary to Michael Ignatieff's vain suggesiton, "business" is not accomplished in a meeting with an opposition leader. It is ceremonial, it is simply etiquette.

And Michael Ignatieff could not accept that.

He immediatelly went to his friendly press and explained to them, in detail, about HIS meeting with the President, and the "business" they accomplished.. oh, and if his insecurity and vanity wasn't already grotesquely apparent, he explained that during the meeting,

'The Liberal leader, who graduated from Harvard and later taught there, noted that Harvard-alum Obama and he had mutual friends. "He was even kind enough to say he read a few of my books," Ignatieff, a prolific author, said.

Sorry.. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Wait - however, it gets worse. Following up on this pathetic display of insecurity, the so-called "leader" of the opposition then paid (PAID - as in gave money to) for his picture to be posted on the jumbo screen in Times Square. In New York. In the United States of America. (Recall, if you will, that Michael has actually described himself as "American".) Oh - and he also had it posted in Las Vegas, Nevada. As in the United States of America.

Pathetic. Inadquate. Lacking.

No leader.

Ignatieff - not an "arrogant bastard", but "insecure and lacking"

Andrew Steele wrote an article yesterday in the G&M that was actually quite interesting. In his article, he references Will Ferguson's book, "Bastards and Boneheads", and points out, quite properly, that Canadians often flock to support "arrogant bastards", and quite clearly put the boots to sincere boneheads.

See Trudeau v. Clark, Mulroney v. Turner, Harper v. Martin, Harper v. Dion.

Like it or not, the Canadian public has no stomach for sincere honesty. They are much more comfortable with a Machievellian bastard at the helm.

As such, perhaps the Conservative ads regarding Ignatieff are slightly off-point.

The difficulty with Igatieff isn't so much that he's an arrogant bastard, it's that deep down, he's insecure and lacking.

Michael Ignatieff is the chameleon, he is driven by the need to be respected by whoever is in his company at any particular moment. He is the leaf who flows with the prevailing wind.

He is not the arrogant bastard, secure in his convictions, even when wrong. That, you can get behind. Trudeau had it, even Mulroney, greasy as he is, had it. Chretien had a semblance of it.. and Harper has a smattering, but just.

Ignatieff has none of it.

When President Barack Obama visited Canada, and Prime Minister Harper was on the front pages, arm in arm with the U.S. leader, what did Michael do? He paid to put up a picture of himself in Times Square with the President. Seriously. This guy has massive insecurity.

Look at his policy, he cannot be nailed down as standing for anything - and it started as a young man, while attending Upper Canada College, Ignatieff was so desperate for approval of his peers that he demanded that his younger brother, attending the same school, not acknowledge him if they should cross paths.. telling him "You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned", according to Andrew Ignatieff in his 1994 book, "Old Boys".

Ignatieff's insecurities continued, flailing wildly to grasp whatever point of view was the "right point of view", apparently being devoid of any commitment of character on his own, some of the clearest examples being as follows:

1. Michael Ignatieff is a Canadian of convenience, having spent the great part of the last three decades living elsewhere, and, apparently, referring to himself as "American". When asked about it by Peter Newman in a Maclean's interview published on 6 April 2006, Ignatieff said: "Sometimes you want to increase your influence over your audience by appropriating their voice, but it was a mistake." Michael, it's ok to admit you are Canadian, even when you're at Harvard. You don't need to be embrassed.

2. Michael Ignatieff loves/hates Israel - take your pick - In August,2006, Ignatieff said he was "not losing any sleep" over dozens of civilian deaths caused by Israel's attack on Qana during its military actions in Lebanon. Ignatieff recanted those words the following week. Then, on October 11, 2006, Ignatieff described the Qana attack as a war crime (committed by Israel).

3. Michael Ignatieff is a great supporter/opponent of the War in Iraq - take your pick - Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Ignatieff stated that "The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark."

There was a time where he appeared to be a good Republican, at one point stating "The Michael Moore-style left conquered the Democratic Party's heart; now the view was that America's only guiding interest overseas was furthering the interests of Halliburton and Exxon. The relentless emphasis on the hidden role of oil makes the promotion of democracy seem like a devious cover or lame excuse. The unseen cost of this pseudo-Marxist realism is that it disconnected the Democratic Party from the patriotic idealism of the very electorate it sought to persuade."

Of course, later, as the war lost favor, his attitude changed and he became an opponent of the Iraq war, suggesting his initial (very strong and clear) views were errors of judgment, by presenting them as the commentary of an academics and intellectual, as "generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea". In politics, by contrast, "Specifics matter more than generalities".

4. Ignatieff opposes/supports the use of extreme measures to combat terrorism - take your pick - in his writings, Ignatieff has suggested that western democracies may have to resort to "lesser evils" like indefinite detention of suspects, "coercive interrogations", targeted assassinations, and pre-emptive wars in order to combat the greater evil of terrorism. Again, as he has become esconced in the Canadian Liberal hegemony, he has distanced himself from such statements.

5. Ignatieff is a huge believer in the need for hard Carbon Caps under Kyoto - err.. I mean, no he isn't, he's a big believer in the need for a healthy Oil Sands Industrty. In 2006, while campaigning for the Liberal leadership, he stated that He said it's not enough to rely on voluntary initiatives and subsidies to encourage businesses to reduce harmful emissions, saying "This would represent an environmental tax shift from taxing activities we want to encourage to taxing activities we want to discourage," he said. And any excess payments the government receives would be returned to the source province to fund emissions reductions programs."

Or, maybe not - on February 29, 2009, as reported in the Toronto Star -

Michael Ignatieff used an appearance in Alberta to slam his predecessor's carbon tax plan as the new Liberal leader opened his party's latest attempt to win back the West.

"You can't win elections if you're adding to the input costs of a farmer putting diesel into his tractor, or you're adding to the input costs of a fisherman putting diesel into his fishing boat, or a trucker transporting goods," he said yesterday in Edmonton.

I could go on.. the point being, the CPC needs to make a slight shift, away from simply describing Michael Ignatieff as an "arrogant bastard" to making it clear that, he is "insecure and lacking".

Is that bad? Well, witness the most insecure leader in North American politics during our lifetime, Richard Nixon.

In deed.

Mulroney Apologists - do we laugh at them, or pity them?

So - a couple of bloggers seem quite irate that I have refused to drink the kool-aid Brian Mulroney is serving up, and are calling me an embarrassment as a Conservative, one of them making the astute point in response to my criticism of this Schreiber affair that I spelled "Brian" wrong.

Why is it that all you Mulroney apologists absolutely REFUSE to respond to the actual issue - which is, how the hell do we justify a former Prime Minister taking money in brown envelopes.

And yesterday, how rich..

1996 - he says, in testimony, that he "never had any business dealings" with Schreiber, that they had the "odd cup of coffee".

His justification for this bullshit.. uh.. the government lawyers never specifically asked.. and he felt no duty to volunteer.

This is beyond a joke.

He sued the Canadian people and received $2.1 million dollars, knowing, all along, that the reality was that the allegations he suggests were defamatory were, if not true, not far off the mark.

To refresh everyone's memory - from Wikipedia:

..a key fact was unknown in 1997. Mulroney had accepted $225,000 (or $300,000 according to Schrieber) in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber, a German-Canadian businessman who had been a middle man for Airbus and other companies. The cash changed hands in three meetings in hotels in Montreal and New York. The payments occurred over an 18-month period, beginning in 1993 when Mulroney had stepped down as Prime Minister but was still a member of Parliament. In 2007, Mulroney stated that he had kept the cash in a New York safety deposit box (and not carried it undeclared across the US-Canada border) and in a safe in his Montreal home.

Schreiber had at his disposal $20 million from Airbus for the payment of secret commissions. CBC Television reported on February 8, 2006[45] that the money Schreiber paid to Mulroney originated in a Swiss bank account code-named "Frankfurt". Schreiber used the same account to pay the secret Airbus commissions. Schreiber transferred $500,000 from "Frankfurt" to an account in Zürich code-named "Britan" on July 26, 1993 and used these funds to make the three cash payments to Mulroney in 1993 and 1994.

Five years after the payments began, Mulroney and Schreiber met again in a suite at the Hotel Savoy in Zurich, Switzerland. Schreiber claims Mulroney tried to extract a promise: Schreiber would never reveal the payments. Schreiber also claims Mulroney's attorneys later tried to induce him into perjury by asking that he sign an affidavit falsely stating that he had never paid any money to Mulroney. Mulroney denies the charge. He also denies Schreiber's claim that the payments totaled $300,000.

Testifying before the House of Commons Ethics Committee on December 13, 2007, Mulroney said the cash payments were for lobbying foreign leaders to buy armored vehicles from Thyssen industries, a company Schreiber represented. Mulroney said Schreiber had paid him as a consultant for this task only. Mulroney said he never had a written contract, made written reports, or issued receipts for the cash payments. Mulroney said he had destroyed records related to the transactions and received the payments in cash at Schreiber's insistence. Mulroney denied any legal wrong doing. He admitted to errors in judgment and apologized for any appearance of impropriety.

And yet.. Trusty Tory, and Tories Rule, get behind that and suggest that those in the party questioning this are "the embarassment".

Go ahead boys - do your best.. tell me how, in fact, Mulroney, "BRIAN" Mulroney, doesn't stink to hell here. Explain to me how there is absolutely nothing questionable in his conduct. All of those who stood and jeered at the Liberals and the adscam fiasco, now tell me that we can take the moral high ground and support this former Conservative Prime Minister.

Better we suck it up, say we are sorry and embrassed, and we will do better. Otherwise, we're just drinking more kool-aid.

We should expect more.

Just visiting.. LOL..

BC delivers Liberals (in name only) another majority..

Is it any wonder that Canada's most successful Provinces are all effectively governed by a small "c" conservative government?

As BC re-affirms it's faith in a conservative-minded government, Alberta and Saskatchewan are re-assured that their partner in the new model of confederation will continue to be supportive of their desire to create a flowing inter-provincial economy that helps everyone except short-sited protectionists.

Alberta has work to do, no doubt about it. Our Conservative government, oddly enough, finds itself somewhat left of the BC Liberal government.. and with some work and attention, one sees the Province moving back to something slightly right of centre, in the interests of those who value personal responsibility and individual liberty.

Oh, and the resounding defeat of the asinine "STV" policy is also very encouraging. Let them do that in Ontario where the GTA already controls the province anyway, and "regional" multi-party minority governments wouldn't really change the mindless gobbeldy-gook regularly coming out of the Ontario legislature already. While I truly would love to see Ontario take the lead in confederation, if they are truly intent on ruining their own Province, well, here in the west we'll just say "thank-you" and invite business interested in a stable government to invest here instead.

Well done, Gordon Campbell.

Brian Mulroney continues to embrass himself..

So, today Brian Mulroney used his soapbox to poke at Stephen Harper.

Nice.

Is there any leader more bereft of any class than Bryan Mulroney?

Mulroney has the temerity to attend to give evidence today, and rather than respond to the matters in issue, he becomes too cute by a country mile, and chooses to poke fun at Stephan Harper for reducing the GST and failing to embrace Quebec.

Uh.. Brian.. it's about brown envelopes full of cash and failed tax reporting.. tell us more about THAT.

Look - I don't agree with the GST reduction, and in fact, I'd probably increase it by a point or two.. but, well, if I was seeking to "clear my name" as the pompous ass Mulroney puts it, well, I'd do just that. Explain how you received $300,000 in cash in a brown envelope, and why it wasn't recorded or reported to Revenue Canada. Explain that. Or maybe, show a minimum of class, and admit you screwed up. You over-stepped your bounds, and are willing to take your lumps.

Fat chance.

The man who threw the PC party under the bus is now trying to do the same to the Conservatives.. so he can clear his name.

Not gonna happen buddy. You will go down in history as a pathetic excuse for a leader, who, at the end of the day, showed himself to be little more than a Richard Nixon wannabe.

Saberi is free: How about Hossein Derakhshan

So - after "admitting her espionage", the Iranian appeals Court "reduced" Roxana Saberi's sentence to a two year suspended sentence and released her from jail yesterday. I guess that's a good thing - though even that result is an indictment of just how much Iran is still a backwards and stone-aged society.

Unfortunately, Canadian-Iranian Hossein Derakhshan, known as the godfather of Iranian blogs - has been in jail in Iran since November 1, 2008, and there are no indications that he may be released at any time soon. His crime? Seeking to create dialogue between Iranians and Israelis.

The Canadian media, the darling friends of terrorist Omar Khadr, continue to say virtually nothing, our politicians, including "enhanced interrogation" devotee, Michael Ignatieff and, again, good friend of Omar Khadr, Irwin Cotler, continue to say virtually nothing (and, in fairness, our current government also is alarmingly quiet).

To fellow conservative bloggers, who have stood up and supported Ezra Levant and Mark Stein, this is more than an issue of harassment by the Canadian HRC's.. make some noise.

To liberal or "progressive" bloggers.. if you can stand up for Omar Khadr, certainly you must have time for someone who's life is on the line and who hasn't killed allies in battle.. make some noise.

Sometimes, doing the right thing is not easy..

Well, I'm back after a few days off, attending a family law legal education conference in Lake Louise for a few days.

I had the very flattering and interesting opportunity of presenting two papers at the conference and was curious, but not suprised, at the response to one of them.

My last presentation was based upon the need to apply rules of evidence and procedure in Family Law, not succumbing to the pressure to skirt the rules to help a client. One point I spoke on in particular is the need to apply rules of evidence to children. There are some limited exceptions to what is called the "hearsay" rule, regarding child evidence given out of court - and I urged fellow lawyers to properly apply the law in that regard.

Most lawyers reacted positively to the paper.

Two lawyers did not. They were very offended that I would urge children to be forced to give evidence in Court. My point - which apparently went over their heads, was that to put a child's statement in issue is to put that child in the court process - and that it is highly improper to place into evidence a statement of a child given out of Court and then to argue that it is now abusive to seek to examine the basis of the statement.

In other words - if you don't want a child involved in litigation - don't bring their direct statements before the Court.

The point for any non-lawyers reading this? Well - I guess it's just a commentary on what is so wrong with society right now. There is this misguided notion that everyone should be free to assert their own needs without regard for consequences.

Really - the whole point of my paper had a broader application - which is basically, you demean yourself when you seek to avoid being fully responsible in how you carry out your job and your lives. That we are at our best when we are fully accountable for what we do - and we are at our worst, when we seek to avoid responsibility, when we seek to ignore fundamental rules of order, when we seek a world in which the rules apply to everyone else, but not to ourselves.

Apparently some don't agree. And that is too bad, for them.