Americans Fear Their Election Could End up Like Canada's. I Can Help

In the upcoming election, Barack Obama will not be challenged by the Republicans, who frankly have given up on even pretending to be politicians serving the public, but by the Super PACs.  Political Action Committees financed by wealthy corporations,  who are tired of democracy getting in their way.

Remember that leaked 2006 CitiGroup memo that they have worked so hard to suppress?

The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.

They warned that voters could try to change the idea of governing only for the wealthy.

We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy. The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing, offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs .... Low-end developed market labor might not have much economic power, but it does have equal voting power with the rich .... the third threat comes from the potential social backlash.

It's like they predicted the Occupy Movement, that could be successful given that the "low-end", without "much economic power" has "equal voting power with the rich".  (Capitalism, a Love Story)

However, Super PACs are setting out to wrong that right.

And the way they are going to do that is with lots of money and telemarketers.  They can't garner more votes, so will instead try to suppress them.  The Koch Brothers are putting up $200 million for this venture, determined to oust Obama. 
 
I don't know how much Stephen Harper cost them, but they are already reaping rewards.  And if we wonder why the Harper government is so committed to outsourcing Canadian jobs, remember that CitiGroup memo.  It's all about cheap labour.  Which is why during the worst of the economic crisis, when Canadians were losing their jobs at record speed, Jason Kenney accelerated the use of migrant workers.
 
Money, Money, Money

Chris Matthews reminded us last week, of where those millions will be going.  To telemarketers who will work like mad to make sure that Democratic voters don't exercise their democratic rights.
 
The last Canadian federal election could serve as a guide to the Super Pacs, as Canadians were telemarketed to the point of madness.
 
In Kingston, Ontario, there were so many such phone calls, that we were ready to leave the country just to escape them.  And while Do Not Call Lists keep the cheap crap purveyors at bay, the rules do not apply to politics.  One call I received was supposedly on behalf of our Liberal candidate, Ted Hsu (now our MP), asking if we wanted a lawn sign.  The caller was so rude, that had I not been suspicious, I might have fallen for it.
 
Soon after, Hsu's office called asking for support and I informed them of the bogus call that I had received.  Others complained of the same thing.  Looking at the Conservative candidate Alicia Gordon's Elections Canada financial records, I learned that she paid Campaign Research more than $25,000 to annoy the hell out of us.  Remember those guys?  Think Rob Ford (but take a valium first)
 
Ironically when our Speaker of the House, Andrew Scheer was asked to investigate the damage done to Irwin Cotler by Campaign Research, it was learned that he himself had used them to assure his re-election.  He should have declared a conflict of interest.  Instead he gave them a free pass.
 
Another example is Joe Volpe, who was telemarketed out of seat.  Joe Oliver paid Campaign Research $12,159.33
 

An investment banker, he has now joined the Koch team to force feed us their XL-Pipeline, contributing to Canada's reputation as a Jingoistic Petro-State, calling environmentalists "radicals" and "terrorists".

 

If the American people want to preserve their democracy and not end up like Canada, with another stolen election, I have some advice.  If you receive one of these calls, you could just tell the caller that you will be voting so "get a life", or maybe "let me speak to David Koch" or "Am I being punked?". 

 

Although I think the best response might be "Where in the hell do you think you are ?  Canada???!!!"

Conservative Law and Order Agenda Tough on Victims

By now most of us know that Harper's law and order agenda is misguided at best, dangerous at worst.

But his constant use of the term 'victims' has many 'victims' angry over being used as props.

When the Conservative government created the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime four years ago, it said the watchdog would promote access to programs, explore systemic issues and make sure Ottawa met its commitments to victims. None of that can happen if the justice minister keeps the office’s annual reports under wraps. Sullivan says he filed his 2008 and 2009 reports before his three-year term ended last April but they have yet to be made public by the government.

And what does it say that the highlight of office’s work is getting the Conservative government to invest $5 million to fund centres for children who have been victims of abuse at a time when it was happily committing taxpayers to spending billions of dollars to house more inmates in ever more prison cells? It suggests the Conservatives are more interested in using victims as props in their ongoing drive to impose expensive and unnecessary anti-crime bills on Canadians than helping those victims through better services and programs.

One more reason to throw the bums out.

Canadian Soldiers Fear Another Harper Mandate

Canadian soldiers fear that they could be the target of Harper's slash and burn agenda, giving money to the rich but ignoring everyone else.

National Defence has changed a cost-of-living allowance for tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors and aircrew, prompting fears the deficit-slashing Harper government intends to eliminate it altogether.

...The benefit used to be included with military paycheques in high-cost cities, but it has been deposited separately since April 1.

Senior non-commissioned officers at several bases have warned the rank and file that is the first step toward possible elimination of the assistance altogether, defence sources told The Canadian Press. “Learn to live without it because it'll be gone within a year,” some sailors were told last week at Canadian Forces Base Halifax.

Don't worry guys. We've got your back. Harper is not getting in.

Facebook Friend of Ignatieff Out. Paul Bernardo Stalker In

Maybe instead of the RCMP screening those who had a photo of Michael Ignatieff on their Facebook page, they should start weeding out some of the people working for the Conservatives.

And I'm not talking about Bruce Carson or Dimitri Soudas. And I'm not even talking about those with links to terrorist organizations.

Seems they failed to weed out a fan of Paul Bernardo's who is listed as a dangerous offender.

And no I'm not talking about Jason Kenney.

In one of the more bizarre twists during the run-up to the federal election, a former Paul Bernardo admirer and dangerous offender has been booted from the campaign team of a Toronto Conservative candidate.Michelle Erstikaitis, 31, told QMI Agency Monday night she dyed her hair and used a fake name to join the campaign team of Kevin Moore (Toronto-Centre) as an envelope-stuffer last week.

Just weeks earlier, Erstikaitis had been released from Vanier prison for women in Milton, Ont., where she was awaiting sentencing for a plethora of charges, including stabbing her boyfriend in 2009.

Geesh!

Stephen Harper Will Stick With F-35s

Despite daily warnings about F-35s being over priced and inadequate, Stephen Harper, who is also over priced and inadequate, is sticking with them.
Good.

We'll tear up the contract on May 3, the same day we say goodbye to Steve and his damn planes.

Jack Layton's Attempt to Get Harper His Majority is Working

With so many Canadians working like hell to get rid of Stephen Harper before he destroys us, what is Jack Layton doing? He's attacking Michael Ignatieff instead, in attempt to make sure that Harper gets his majority.

And it's working.

Twitter is aflutter with news that the NDP are leading in Quebec.

Not this it will transfer into seats, but needless to say the Conservatives are overjoyed. They are even discussing a national Jack Layton Day, right smack dab in the middle of the 364 Stephen Harper days.

I can't believe I actually voted for this man ... twice. What was I thinking?

Oh well. Maybe he'll get to hold Harper's coat while he finishes off our healthcare.

More Scandal Surrounds Tony Clement

In Tony Clement's bid to sizzle as much pork in his riding as humanly possible, he has opened the door to a major scandal.

A Toronto builder siphoned almost $1.8 million of taxpayers’ money from a municipal project in cottage country by taking advantage of weak controls in the Conservative government’s economic stimulus program, a Star investigation has found.

Dalton Engineering and Construction Ltd. used a sophisticated kickback scheme to extract the money from cement, steel and other suppliers working on an expansion of the Gravenhurst Centennial Centre. The project is in Industry Minister Tony Clement’s riding.

When are we going to cry "Uncle!". Haven't we had enough from this government?

Contempt, Coalitions, Republicans, Tea Parties. It's All So Surreal

If someone abused your children, would you hire them to babysit?

If someone broke into your home would you hire them to guard it?

If someone stole your money, would you ask them to hold your wallet?

Of course not. And yet someone was found guilty of crimes against democracy, literally, and Canadians seem prepared to trust that person with their country.

In the Spec today, Naz Fiorilli says: We’re too soft on contempt of Parliament

Why the talk of prison over contempt of Parliament? Because for a similar offence in the U.S., contempt of Congress, prison is mandatory. The penalty for contempt of Congress is a minimum one month in prison, up to a year; plus up to a $100,000 fine. Many people have been charged with contempt of Congress, including author Arthur Miller, G. Gordon Liddy, and Karl Rove.

Harper isn't going to jail, at least not over this. Instead he is arrogant enough to tell Canadians that he has no intention of respecting Parliament, so we'd better give him a majority.

And if the pollsters and pundits are right, we may be ready to do just that. Like a robber saying, "I'm going to rob this bank so you might as well leave the door to the vault open", so we leave the door open.

Daniel Nathanson of Hamilton, writes: Harper style is akin to Bush legacy

It appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper finds his citing for contempt of Parliament by the Speaker of the House frivolous and meaningless. He finds debates over policy pesky, a drag and an interference with his own plans.

Sometimes he expresses his plans openly, and sometimes keeps them secret, as it suits his whim. He replaces Parliament with media control and a hand-picked Senate. He shows no interest in democracy. His policies are aimed at titillating the banks, large corporations and the rich with tax breaks, ignoring the rest of society. It appears he plans to decimate social services and health care, whose costs will then be downloaded to overburdened municipalities, where ordinary people must pay more for needed services or do without them.

Yet for some reason Canadians want him back.

He doesn't allow his candidates to engage in public debates. We shrug.

He destroys a man's career and reputation causing his premature death. And we shrug.

Haroon Siddiqui says: Republicans would feel right at home

Stephen Harper has Americanized Canada more than any prime minister in memory. Even those who disagreed with Brian Mulroney’s free trade agreement with the U.S. never accused him of Americanizing our politics, or even wanting to. What Harper has done, in fact, is to import some of the worst Republican policies and tactics:

We allow our opinions to be guided by visceral personal attacks on candidates and their families and we shrug.

He abuses our veterans, and we shrug.

What's it going to take? The loss of our democracy? Our healthcare? Our country?

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

On May 2, vote and vote wisely. This may be the most important election in your lifetime.

What Happens if the U.S. Rejects Harper's Pipeline?

Harper's pipeline that will ship all the good jobs in the industry South, has hit a bit of a stumbling block.

There are a growing number of Americans who don't want it. And if they don't take it, we could be toast.

Since Keystone XL would cross an international border, it requires State Department approval. Critics have been trying to convince the administration to reject the proposal on the grounds that extracting oil from Alberta's tar sands is extremely destructive to the land, that tar sands oil produces more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, and that potential pipeline leaks could threaten water supplies relied upon by hundreds of thousands of Americans.

... Right now Canada only has the United States and its own market. There is no other market for tar sands oil. There is no pipeline to get it to a port from which it could go to other parts of the world. There’s a proposed pipeline to take it out to the Pacific Coast, but there’s huge opposition in Canada to that pipeline, so I don’t see that being built any time soon. Really the U.S. is the market. And so what the U.S. decides to do, that will have a big impact on what the Canadians do.

Jason Kenney said today that the pipeline will grow our economy.

Right now, it's not looking good.

Why Does Alberta Keep Electing Potted Plants?

A funny video of how Conservative candidates get elected in this province, even when they do nothing. And really what do Harper's MPs from Alberta ever accomplish?

They are not going to Ottawa with their constituents concerns, but instead are bringing talking points back home. This is what we're going to do, live with it.

And even when they're not happy with their candidate and try to get someone else to run, Harper steps in and demands that they sit down and shut up.

Very strange. Albertans are being taken for granted, and they either don't know or don't care.

Weird.

No Mr. Harper. Health Care Concerns are Not Desperate. I'll Show You Desperate!

The Liberal ad warning Canadians about the future of our healthcare is not desperation. It's fact. Anyone following Harper's career knows that it's the most factual statement ever made.

During the debates he couldn't refer to the Canada Health Act or Universal Healthcare. Because those things are anathema to a man who has spent his entire career trying to put an end to our public heatlhcare.

He lives it, breathes it. It's in every pore.

So if the loss of our democracy doesn't wake people up, maybe the threat of losing something so fundamental will.

"Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." - Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994

"Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should... They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

"We also support the exploration of alternative ways to deliver health care. Moving toward alternatives, including those provided by the private sector, is a natural development of our health care system." - Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, October 2002.

"It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act." - Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997.

"What we clearly need is experimentation with market reforms and private delivery options [in health care]." - Stephen Harper, then President of the NCC, 2001

"I know this is a dangerous subject. My advisers say don't talk about it, but the fact is sometimes provinces have allowed in the past few years, they've brought in private services covered by public health insurance... Why do I care and why do we care as a federal government how they're managed? What we care about is whether people can access them. This is just an ideological agenda." - Conservative leader Stephen Harper at the leadership debate, June 15th 2004, conceding that he shouldn't talk about his positive view of privatization of health care.

"Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan... Collect our own revenue from personal income tax... Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial policy, fight in the courts... Each province should raise its own revenue for health... It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta... " - Stephen Harper in an "Open letter to Ralph Klein," January 24th 2001.

When he speaks of health insurance he's talking about HMOs. A tiered system where the wealthier you are the better medical care you receive. Read up on HMOs in the U.S. and remember that the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the United States is because of medical bills.

This man has stolen everything from us and if we allow him to steal this, he will be the only winner. Him and the multi-national corporations who have been trying to get their hands on our healthcare for decades.

So who will win? Us or him? It's that simple.

He is not here for Canada, he is here for Stephen Harper and everyone else be damned.

But if you want desperation, desperation is running an attack ad suggesting that Michael Ignatieff is supporting an iPod tax when the only ones supporting an iPod tax are the conservatives. A bold face lie.

And desperation is running an attack ad suggesting that Michael Ignatieff supports human smuggling when the only thing he opposed about the bill was locking women and children up for a year.

And desperation is mining old tapes and lectures, cherry picking quotes, to paint the Liberal leader as an opportunist.

That's desperation.

This government is the worst this country has ever had. They are poor fiscal managers. They are secretive and wasteful and criminal.

So if the only things Canadians listen to is the risk of losing their healthcare, a very real risk if we give this man another mandate, then I say bring it on.

I had someone at my door yesterday canvassing for our local Conservative candidate. I remained calm and asked him why I should vote for his party. He started rambling about the economy. I asked him if he knew that Harper and Flaherty had deregulated our banking industry so that next crisis we may not be so safe.

Or that the only reason we did survive was because of measures put in place by the Liberals. And that when in opposition, Harper presented a motion asking the Liberals to remove those safeguards. Thank heavens they recognized it as the rantings of a madman.

I then asked about the Contempt of Parliament, prorogations and the EU trade deal that puts our water and public services on the auction block. I got talking points and he got the boot.

On May 2, vote and vote wisely. If not then all I can say is I hope you never get sick.

Is Shelley Glover on Her Knees Apologizing to Seniors? No. She's Getting Her Talking Points.

Conservative MP Shelley Glover made a disparaging remark about senior Anita Neville, suggesting that she was past her expiry date.

Later she twitted that "She doesn't dislike Neville as senior, she just doesn't like her seniorism." Not sure what that means, but a CRUSH member twitted back: "I don't dislike Glover because she is stupid, I dislike her stupidism."

This woman is a loose cannon, once suggesting that it "was a known fact that all criminals voted Liberal and all cops voted Conservative" What does that mean to those of us who don't vote Conservative? That the police officers we pay with our taxes are not there to protect us too? But the Cons are there with their talking points.

First of all, I would like to remind seniors in the Winnipeg area that Ms. Neville just voted to oppose the Conservative Government’s plan to increase GIS payments to the most vulnerable, lowest income seniors in Canada — a measure that would benefit single seniors by up to $600 and senior couples by up to $840.

Your government wasn't defeated on the budget but on your Contempt of Parliament.

Seniors will be looked after by the Liberals too, who are also presenting a better plan for caregivers, than the .82 a day you're providing. So little for seniors but $21 million for gun owners. We know where your priorities are.

Harper's Claim That Canadians Don't Care About Contempt Charges, is Only Showing Further Contempt

Stephen Harper claims this week that Canadians don't care that his government was charged with Contempt of Parliament. And indeed, given it's toxicity, in some respect he's right. I've been a little contemptuous of it myself.

However, let's imagine for just a moment, a board meeting at a corporation, where the pitch for a new product line is being presented. Those involved in the design believe it to be a good product. But when board members notice that there is no cost analysis, they question those with the sparkly eyes.

"What's it going to cost?"

Now imagine being told that the cost was none of their business. Or when pressed, a box of receipts was dumped in the middle of the table, with the message "figure it out for yourself".

How long do you suppose it would take for board members to call security?

Here's another scenario. Your company enters into an agreement with a supplier. Contracts are drawn up and duly signed. But then an employee decides to change the contract AFTER those involved bargained in good faith.

By changing one word to 'not' it nullifies the entire thing. But worse yet, it is made to appear as though the signatories agreed to 'not' being paid, or 'not' being granted the contract for future services.

How long do you suppose it would take for that employee to be fired? Because that's what Bev Oda did.

As Thomas Walkom wrote recently in the Star: Yes, contempt of Parliament does matter

Contempt of Parliament means that you hold contempt for those that we elected to represent us. Thus it means that you hold contempt for us.

I would like to ask Conservative candidates this question. If your boss and your party have such little regard for Parliament, why do you want us to put you there? Wouldn't it be more like a sentence, than the honour it is supposed to be?

The Financial Post Exposes Flaherty's Tax and Spend Budget

The Financial Post is calling Jim Flaherty's latest, not a budget but a call to arms, a high-tax plan: Higher taxes, more spending and no ­credible plan to balance the budget.

With an election around the corner, Tuesday’s federal budget was all political spin. The Conservative government presented the next phase of its Economic Action Plan: A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth. The reality, however, is that the plan increases the federal tax take, increases government spending, introduces a host of activist economic initiatives, and fails to provide a truly credible plan to balance the budget. It will, therefore, do little to improve economic growth and create jobs. Indeed, a more fitting title for the budget would have been A High-Tax Plan for More Government Spending — not exactly the message the Conservatives want to leave Canadians with as Parliament dissolves.

This budget was an insult to our intelligence.

$1.50 per day for seniors won't buy them a large double-double at Tim Hortons. $.82 a day in homecare, won't even net a chocolate bar. And since most 'social spending' was in the form of tax credits, the impoverished will see no net benefit because the only good thing about being poor in this country, is that you are in a zero tax bracket.

Almost like a corporation but without the private jets and limos.

Kevin Page has determined that for all their bluster, Canada has a 15% chance of returning to balanced budgets by 2015-2016. And besides, as NANOS recently determined, few Canadians even care now. "Economy, economy, economy", over "people, people, people". It's wearing us down.

This budget will only add to our national debt for the sake of fighter jets, deemed unsuitable; corporate tax cuts and prisons for "unreported crime".

Stephen Harper clearly wanted this election. I say, be careful what you wish for.

Harper's Watergate: The Bruce Carson Story

This sounds a lot like the Max Bernier story, when his girlfriend was given lucrative contracts and her mother a patronage appointment.

Budget Failed to Provide Free Psychiatric Help for Those Who Believe That Corporate Tax Cuts Create Jobs. Maybe a John Manley Looney Bin.

The budget failed in that it does not provide free psychiatric help for those who still think that corporate tax cuts create jobs.

$300.00 tax credit for those looking after disabled family members and billions to corporate greed.

Enough already.

It is Not About the Budget. It is About a Government That Has Lost the Confidence of the People.

Reuters and other media outlets are suggesting that if this government falls it will be over the budget.

They couldn't be more wrong.

This government is falling because there has been one lie too many.

One deceit too many.

One enormous abuse of tax dollars too many.

One disregard of Canadians too many.

One dictatorial move too many.

One childish game too many.

They are in contempt of Canada and we've had enough.

Have You Ever Seen a Pan With the Teflon Scraped Off?

We had a set of Teflon pans when I was a kid, a gift to my mother when my brother got his first job. They were great things but required a lot of extra care.

With us seven kids, who spent more time arguing over whose "turn it was to dry", taking special precautions with pots and pans never made it to the top of our list.

If we could hide them in a cupboard so they'd have to be washed when it wasn't our turn, that's what we did.

Suffice it to say that within a year those pots looked liked the side of an old barge in dry dock.

Bruce Anderson has a column in the Globe today: Ethics, arrogance and the end of the Teflon Tories.

He suggests that their arrogance may be their undoing.

Because up until now, they have simply dismissed all allegations against them, as partisan blather, ignoring the fact that Canadians want answers.

This arrogance got them into trouble the last prorogation, when they underestimated how important democracy is to Canadians.

They are doing the same now with the Contempt of Parliament charges, hoping we won't care. But we do care dammit.

The Conservatives just keep putting those pots in the cupboard, hoping we won't notice, but the Teflon has been eroding, and we're left with the ugly. It's time to replace them.

Anderson does question why the Liberals want an election now, but what he fails to understand, is that despite the poll of 15% of the people who answer their phone, there is a very large group of Canadians who want this election so bad we can taste it.

We have never had closure on so many issues from the Afghan Detainee abuse to the waste of our tax dollars on Harper's self-promotion. We want our chance to voice our concerns, and we will do that publicly, in droves.

Everyone who has ever been marginalized, polarized, beaten, verbally attacked and ignored by this government will rally.

The media and pollsters ignored us before, and we proved them wrong.

Give us that election and we'll show you how it's done.

Why Was Stephen Harper Never Charged in the Cadman Affair?

The body of evidence, "objective proof that a crime has been committed", couldn't be more apparent than in the case of Chuck Cadman.

He was the Reform-Alliance MP, who was approached by Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley with the bribe of a one million dollar life insurance policy, in exchange for his vote on the budget in 2005.

Attempting to bribe an elected official in a democratic country is a very serious offense, and in this case absolutely despicable, considering that the man was then dying of cancer.

When the news first broke, Stephen Harper was emphatic: In question period in the House of Commons on Thursday, Harper denied the claims of a possible bribe, saying "There is absolutely no truth to it."

Sounds a lot like "I did not have sex with that woman!"

Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk has written about the matter in his forthcoming book, "Like a Rock: The Chuck Cadman Story." Cadman's widow, Dona, told Zytaruk the late MP told her he was angered by an offer from Tory officials, which she claimed included a reference to an insurance policy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, then opposition leader, was asked by Zytaruk in 2005 whether he knew anything about the allegations that an offer had been made.

"I don't know the details. I know there were discussions," Harper replied in the taped conversation, two months after Cadman's death. Harper also said the discussions included talk of money.

Harper claimed that the tape that was being aired of him admitting to knowing of the bribe was doctored, but the FBI crime lab analyzed the tape and found it to be accurate and not tampered with.

In typical fashion he attacked the author of the book on Cadman, Tom Zytaruk, and sued the Liberals for demanding an RCMP investigation.

What did come out in the court case was that Harper himself gave the conspirators the go ahead.

Under Parliamentary rules, MPs found guilty of this kind of "influence pedaling" can lose their seat and be banned from running for five years. So what happened?

One more illegal act that got swept under the rug. This man really has no legitimacy and yet he's still here. What will it take?

The Cadman affairs speaks to Harper's contempt for Parliament, contempt for democracy and contempt for the Canadian people.

He just does what he wants and keeps getting away with it.

If Not Our Parent's Conservative Party Then Whose?

Several months ago, two young people wrote an op-ed piece for the Globe and Mail: Not their parents’ conservatism. One of the authors was Robert Joustra, a member of Cardus, a group I've written of in the past, and Redeemer University College, the private religious school that was awarded $3 million of our tax dollars.

The cost of going to bat for Stephen Harper's brand of conservatism, I guess.

Many followers of Canada's traditional conservative party, already know the story of how Peter MacKay betrayed us by reneging on a written contract (go to Opposition to the PC-CA Merger on left), not to sell out PC's interests to the Reform-Alliance movement, headed up by Stephen Harper. In exchange for a $500,000 debt of Mackay's being paid (*Stephen Harper still refuses to tell us who the benefactor was), the historic Tory Party was annihilated.

Harper's current Chief of Staff, corporate lobbyist Nigel Wright (think F-35s), had once said of the Reform movement: **“Our aim now is to drive a stake through the heart of the Tory party”, and they did on that day. December 7, 2003. With MacKay holding the stake, it was fitting that it was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

So Who is the New Conservative Party?

If this is not yours or your parents conservative party, whose is it? Maybe Stephen Harper himself can best answer that.

In 1995 as a member of Parliament in **a piece for the Globe and Mail, he likens his party to the Conservatives in Great Britain (Margaret Thatcher), the Republicans in the U.S. and the Christian Democrats in Germany (theocracy).

A decade and a half later, I would say that they are more like the American Tea Party, long on nonsense, and short on common sense, or common decency.

But in 1995, we were calling Harper's party, neoconservatives, because, well, that's what they were. A new brand of conservatism in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, where the corporate sector rules the roost.

The Social Welfare State destroyed, in favour of the Corporate Welfare State.

In November of 2010, naturalist/artist, Robert Bateman, stepped outside his comfort zone and wrote an article for the Wildlife Art Journal: Why I Am A 21st Century Conservative. In it he discusses what is wrong with neoconservatism.

I am a conservative. This is why I deeply resent the neo-conservatives who are not conservatives at all. They are the opposite: radicals who are destroying cherished institutions and wreaking havoc on our human heritage as well as our natural heritage. I do not consider destroyers to be conservative. So many cherished institutions have been built with great care and dedication through the decades by well-trained people with good hearts. These are being smashed and weakened in great haste by politicians and ideologues who do not even understand what they destroy. Creation is long and difficult; destruction is quick.

I purchased the entire article, because some things are worth paying for, and I'm glad I did. It was a heartfelt plea, reminding us of everything that is wrong with a government run by and for the corporate sector. And that while their rallying cry is "lower taxes", they never speak of their "waste of tax dollars".

As Bateman says: "The cost of corporate welfare amounts to many times that of social welfare. It is not a question of fiscal responsibility, it is a question of ideology."

Naturally, the Harper government could never sell a party, by and for corporations, so instead they have to hide who they are, suggesting that corporate tax cuts are good for us.

They improve your skin tone, aid in weight reduction, extend your life and heighten your libido. Except for the weight reduction, as hunger in Canada is on the rise, those other things make as much sense as 'job creation'. Voodoo economics.

However, if most Canadians would not agree that we are better served by corporations, why are traditional conservatives voting for this party? It's because they don't know. As Susan Riley once said:

Harper's Conservatives are edging up, but this appears to rest on the prime minister's hiding his true colours, pretending to be a moderate centrist and saving his bad-tempered rants against biased judges, socialist-separatist conspiracies, and "left-wing fringe groups" for closed-door meetings ... his party cannot be credibly described as a successor to the PC party of old -- the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker, Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark. That is partly because Harper's recent policy zig-zags are clearly strategic and not heartfelt. He is on the record (and off) as a tax-hating, elite-baiting, crime-busting guy who believes there are no good taxes and, by corollary, very little that government can do right.

It is also a matter of tone. Neo-conservatives like Mike Harris, Harper and their acolytes bristle with hostility, inflame divisions, despise compromise and aim to intimidate, or scold, rather than persuade or inspire. (1)

In other words: "Not their parents’ conservatism".

We need to remind moderate conservatives, our friends, parents, grandparents, of this. They are not voting for the the party of Sir John A., Diefenbaker or Stanfield. They are voting for the party that deliberately drove a stake through the heart of that tradition.

And if the 'Harper government' can't be honest with them about that, then we need to be.

Footnotes:

*MacKay's financial secret safe with Harper, By: Stephen Maher, The Halifax Herald Limited , Thursday, May 13, 2004

** Nigel Wright, Vancouver Sun, May 9, 2000. He was then working with Stockwell Day. Before that he was with the Mike Harris government.

Sources:

1. Where does the Reform Party go from here?, By Stephen Harper, Globe and Mail, March 21, 1995

2. Conservative Longings, By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen, October 16, 2009