If a Tsunami Was Coming Our Government Would Warn us Right?

Last month the Australian Broadcasting Corporation released the findings of the International Monetary Fund's study of house prices in developed nations.

They were ranked by affordability based on income. The worst three countries were Belgium, Canada and Australia.

Australia is specifically mentioned by the IMF's deputy managing director Min Zhu - along with Belgium, Canada, Norway and Sweden - as one of the countries where house prices are out of whack with where history suggests they should be.

When countries are ranked on how they are moving in the right direction, Canada is 26th.

We all know what the housing bubble did to the United States, so we should take heed:

The IMF says boom-bust house price patterns have preceded more than two-thirds of the 50 most recent systemic banking crises. And when you have a banking crisis in a modern, debt-fuelled capitalist economy it is almost impossible to escape a recession.

The ABC suggests that Australia faired better during the 2008 economic crisis because none of their banks failed, primarily because of a government bailout. In Canada our banks also survived because of a 114 billion dollar bailout; one that our government kept hidden, to make themselves look good.

The U.S. also engaged in massive bailouts, but faired poorly because of sub-prime mortgages. This brings us to another Canadian government "secret"; the fact they have also infected our once sound mortgage industry with these high risk transactions.

From a special Globe and Mail investigation, How high-risk mortgages crept north.

New mortgage borrowers signed up for an estimated $56-billion of risky 40-year mortgages, more than half of the total new mortgages approved by banks, trust companies and other lenders during that time, according to banking and insurance sources. Those sources estimated that 10 per cent of the mortgages, worth about $10-billion, were taken out with no money down.

The mushrooming of a Canadian version of subprime mortgages has gone largely unnoticed. The Conservative government finally banned the practice last summer, after repeated warnings from frustrated senior officials and bankers that the country's financial system was being exposed to far too much risk as the housing market weakened.

Canadians continue to lead in household debt and while house prices continue to rise, and borrowing on equity escalates, we could be heading toward a financial tsunami.

Stephen Harper, with the help of a complacent media, and millions of dollars in tax-payer funded ads; has painted himself as a strong economic steward, but it's all smoke and mirrors.

Instead of bogus feel good ads and cautious reports, we need to have a serious conversation about the true state of our economy.

With rumours of an early election, are the Conservatives hoping to get it over with before the you know what hits the fan? Remember during the 2008 campaign, Harper claimed that there would be no economic crisis, despite knowing full well that one was imminent.

In fact, he even went so far as to suggest that there would only be a recession if the Liberals won the election.

How much longer can he mislead Canadians? I guess he's hoping at least as long as another election campaign.

When is Money Good Money?

Several years ago a story in the Readers Digest's Life's Like That, was a perfect anthem to the American Dream.

The young man who had sent in the story, was attending business school, and in the summer worked at his father's restaurant, a busy local eatery.  With his new found knowledge, he found himself frustrated with the way that his father did his bookkeeping.  Receipts were put on one memo spike and invoices on another.

Finally, in exasperation, he asked his father how he could possibly conduct his business like that.  "How do you know how much your profit is?"

His father's reply was priceless.  He said that he had come to the United States with nothing but the shirt on his back.  He now owned a business, completely paid for; a house and furniture, completely paid for and had put three children through college without having to borrow a dime. 

"I figure that, minus the shirt, is my profit."

That is what the American Dream was all about, but that kind of dream is now illusive to most Americans.

After many requests, Mitt Romney finally made his financial statements public.  It was learned that he "earned" $21.6 million in 2010.  To give that some relevancy, the median gross income in the United States is  $33,048.  Romney made that in less than a day.

$7.4 million of his annual income came from earned interest.  Money on money, not on hard work.

When we look at past "millionaires" and now billionaires, most did become rich through hard work and innovation.  We loved the stories of Henry Ford tinkering with motors on the kitchen counter, his wife with her sleeves rolled up as his assistant.  Or Gerber turning a failing food processing plant into a baby food empire and Howard Johnson selling his first flavoured icecream from a small wagon, when he was barely a teenager.

No one resented them because they were the true inspirational success stories.  But Romney didn't make his money with his sleeves rolled up and grease on his shirt.  He made it by swallowing up small businesses, which often meant ruin and unemployment for those not terminally rich.

He uses Staples as a success story for creating jobs, but what's the average salary of a Staples employee?  Are they living the American dream?

In fact, recent statistics have shown that Americans now rank 10th in social mobility. The citizens of nine other countries, now have a better chance of going from rags to riches, than the country that invented the notion.

One in five children live in poverty in the U.S.  One in five Americans is unemployed or underemployed; one in eight mortgages are in default or foreclosure; and one in eight Americans is on food stamps.  Newt Gingrich's solution to that is to reduce the number of food stamps issued, which will only make the statistic, one in eight Americans died from starvation.

Neoconservatism is turning the U.S. into a Third World Country.

But before we pat ourselves on the back, we are not doing any better.  According to the OECD, Canada has fallen from sixth to 24th place in infant mortality, meaning that babies are more apt to die in this country, than in 23 others, most without our wealth.

The numbers were “shocking” — a word used by half a dozen prominent commentators, including the Conference Board of Canada. We had slipped from sixth place in the world to 24, a virtually unprecedented fall for any country. We are now just above Poland and Hungary, with 5.1 deaths per 1,000 live births of infants less than one year of age. The actual tragedy beyond the percentages: 1,181 infant deaths in 2007.

The Conference Board of Canada also cited another statistic: 

Canada gets a “C” and now ties the U.K. for 15th place out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.

In a larger study, the U.S. ranked 41 out of 45 nations.

Conservatives like to take the moral high ground over the abortion issue, but as Gloria Steinem once said, for them "life begins at conception but ends at birth".  They want to save a fetus but do nothing to save a child.  They tout "family values" but are determined to keep most families living in poverty.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives just released it's figures on the top 1%.  By January 3, most corporate executives had earned the same amount that the "average Joe" will make working a full year.  Yet the Harper government just lowered the tax rate for the wealthiest corporations, while raising it for the "average Joe" who will now pay about $150.00 per year more in taxes.

The last two decreases in personal taxes took place in 2001 when the tax rate fell from 17% to 16%, and in 2005, when it was reduced again to 15%.  The Harper government raised the personal income tax to 15.25%, the first increase in decades, but then took it back to 2005 levels, under a banner of "Tories lower personal income tax rate".  They didn't, they just took it back to previous levels.

This means that the Harper government has presided over the largest personal tax rate increases in a generation, not to mention Flaherty's HST.  Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty have made it easier for the rich to get richer, but have done little, if anything, to help the "average Joe" or the "average Jane".

"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.

In Arianna Huffington's Third World America, she discusses wealth and the way in which wealth is now created.

We’ve gone from an economy where we make things to an economy where we make things up: Default credit swaps, derivatives, CDOs, and the like have turned Wall Street into a casino ... the promise of upward mobility – that if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll do well and your children will have the chance to do even better – has been broken. Two-thirds of Americans now think their children will be worse off than they are.

The Canadian banks, who received almost $70 billion in not so much a bailout as a handout, have lowered the interest rates on borrowing, but that also means lower interest rates on savings.  We just renewed an RRSP at 1.3%.   When we bought it we were earning almost 11%.  How can people save for retirement unless they are willing to gamble on the stock market?

And a lower borrowing rate only encourages more debt, and Canada now has one of the highest debt to income ratios in the world. 
 
Mitt Romney's financial statements should come as no surprise, because they are not unlike most millionaire's or billionaire's today.  The only way to make any real money is to become a vulture, capitalizing on the misfortune of others.
 
We all know what happens in Third World countries when that attitude prevails.

So This is Ethical Oil?

The American conservatives appear to be adopting, or at least sharing, tactics being used by the Canadian conservatives to get what they want.  Intimidation and corruption.

The Republican controlled Congress is voting on a bill that would force President Obama to make a decision on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline by November 1.  An unprecedented tactic that would remove the authority of the president and the secretary of state.  Future abuse could be devastating to both domestic and foreign policy.

Obama had to accept the deal in order to avoid raising taxes on workers, something the Republicans were determined to do, and Jim Flaherty has already done. (Flaherty does love taxing the little guy, doesn't he?)

Protests are growing in both the U.S. and Canada over the controversial pipeline, with the Americans not wanting the environmental mess when bitumen is sent there for processing, and Canadians not wanting the risk of devastating oil spills.

Another factor not getting as much media attention, is that while the U.S. oil lobby is citing all the new jobs in their country, many good jobs in the industry are being piped South.

Why?  Lower wages?  Since our government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the oil industry, profit will always be job one. 

Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert claims that Canada must find more markets for its crude oil if it hopes to become a global energy superpower.  Why can't we become a global energy superpower with something other than oil?  And how many Canadians dream of becoming a global energy superpower anyway?  We just want the world to stop hating us.

Another element to this story is one of questionable lobbying practices and conflict of interest.  Apparently at least three politician in the U.S. fighting for the pipeline, have shares in TransCanada; two Republicans and one Democrat.

Time to reduce the powers of the oil industry and put it back into the hands of citizens.

Harper Job Cuts Provide Perfect Opportunity for Revenge

On the front page of yesterday's Toronto Star, Les Whittington and Bruce Campion-Smith reveal the thousands of civil services jobs being cut by the Harper government.  This after an election promise made by John Baird not to make those cuts.

What he really meant to say was vote for us and if we get another minority, those jobs will be safe.  Silly enough to give us a majority, and you're on your own.

Running down the list, it's easy to see why the various departments have been targeted.

Government Services - losing 72 auditors as part of the 687 getting the axe.  Harper hates auditors.

Environment Canada - losing 300 scientists and meteorologists.  Harper hates scientists and has decided that we don't need people sitting around watching meteors all day (she says tongue in cheek).

Fisheries and Oceans - losing 150.  Now that he has allowed mining companies to dump toxic waste into our waterways, and multinational corporations to disease our fish, what's the point?  I hear that lice infested three-eyed salmon will become a delicacy.

The National Gallery of Canada - After trying to move many of our treasures to a corporation in Calgary, employees here only get in his way.  Besides he has already created a National art  gallery after plastering the walls with photos of himself.

Human Resources and Skills development will lose almost 4,000, Canadian Heritage, 579, Statistics Canada (who needs statistics?) 725, RCMP 1,106, Veterans Affairs, 53 (at a time when vets returning from Afghanistan need help), Museum of Civilization, the list goes on.

I know that the right-wing is salivating, but hold on there boys.  In the five years that Harper has been in office, the public service grew by 45% as he had a lot of patronage appointments to fill. (Public sector swelled under Tories: Number of public servants far outpaced population growth,  Macleans,  November 30, 2011)  Spending also increased from $209 billion when he took power, to a whopping $274 billion, and the budget for the PMO has risen at a rate of $10 million annually.

Like Ronald Reagan, Harper was never really a small government guy.  A bloated cabinet and the addition of Parliamentary secretaries, are only a fraction of the people this man needs to make him look good.  Image consultants, photographers, videographers (Taxpayers on hook for $1.7-million as PMO rolls out video, By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press, December 08, 2009), the largest communications staff of any prime minister, all work to make him look prime ministerial.

This government also increased the use of private consultants, after it was discovered that they outspent all others on opinion polls.  “The reality is the Conservatives have increased spending on consultants by $3 billion per year since taking office."  These consultants are doing the jobs once performed by cabinet ministers and their staff. 

Under Harper, a cabinet minister has one job and one job only.  To do what he tells them to do.

Flaherty is also promising that many vital public services will be cut so that Harper and his team can continue to live the lavish lifestyle they have grown accustomed to.

Instead of paying $90,000 per day to a private consultant who is supposed to save us money (?), this government should just start doing their job, instead of wasting so much taxpayer money, to provide the image that they are doing their job.
 
This sounds like John Baird and Ontario under Mike Harris.  Baird hired a consulting service to help him save money when he headed Social Service.  It cost Ontarians four to one, what it would have cost had he just left well enough alone.

Will the Flaherty-Harper Ticking Time Bomb be Detonated?

In Jim Flaherty's first budget, he announced that his government was opening up the housing market to  private insurers.  “These changes will result in greater choice and innovation in the market for mortgage insurance, benefiting consumers and promoting home ownership."

Loosely translated, the sub-prime mortgage industry was heading north, and so was AIG.

On May 2, 2006, in his first budget, Mr. Flaherty announced that not only would Ottawa guarantee the business of U.S. insurers, it was doubling the guarantee to $200-billion.

And despite repeated warnings that Canada's financial system was being exposed to far too much risk, Flaherty locked arms with his boss and said "bring it on".

Tick, tick, tick.

If you remember, AIG was one of the early victims of the Wall Street induced economic crisis, and in fact their "innovation" helped to create the collapse, when with the help of Goldman Sachs, they backed too many risky mortgages.

Of course that was the game all along as what are known as "derivatives" became a popular form of investing.  The way it works is that people who wouldn't normally qualify for a mortgage, suddenly became home owners.  This brought more competition into the housing market creating a bubble. 

The investor then took out an insurance policy on the risky mortgages, knowing that they would fail, and when the housing bubble collapsed, they cashed in and AIG cashed out.  Matt Tabbi called it the "swoop and squat".

Yet again, knowing how risky derivatives are to a nation's economy, Jim Flaherty hired a Goldman Sachs employee to help him get the Canadian taxpayer into the game, even investing some of our Canada Pension Plan funds.

Tick, tick, tick.

When the economic crisis hit, Flaherty knew he was in trouble.  The banks after repeated warnings, let him know that they were not going to shoulder the burden of his mismanagement, so he was forced to buy back all the high-risk debt that he had saddled them with.

Unlike the bank bailouts south of the border, where the banks had to pay the government back, this was an outright transfer of rotten paper, in exchange for $125 billion in cold hard cash.  Our cash, now backed by what could very well be worthless junk.  And since we didn't actually have $125 billion sitting around in a safe, we had to borrow the money, adding to our national debt.

Tick, tick, tick.

The International Monetary Fund is now warning that Canada could be facing the collapse of our housing bubble, something that the government was warned about two years ago.

Canada’s average home price is about 10 per cent higher than models suggest it should be, posing a “vulnerability” to the country’s economic outlook, the International Monetary Fund warns in a new report.  A drop in prices would be a blow to already highly indebted consumers. With household debt at record levels of about 150 per cent of disposable income, the domestic spending boom that helped Canada weather the financial crisis already is at its limits.

When Flaherty bailed out our banks, he said that it was to "free up funds", that could be lent to consumers so that they would spend, and help keep up the illusion of his sound fiscal management.  Now Goldman Sach's Mark Carney, head of the Bank of Canada, is blaming consumers for their personal debt, the result of spending that they no doubt would have curbed, had they known just how shaky our economy really was.

Tick, tick .... TOCK?!

The IMF is now investigating CMHC.  Where were they in 2006?

Jim Flaherty Joins the GOP in Bid to Stick it to Workers

I can understand now why Stephen Harper claims to only watch American news.  How else can his government follow the trends, though the GOP are lagging?

Jim Flaherty announced an increase in payroll taxes ages ago.

The parties who claim to support lower taxes are instead increasing them, though only for those lucky enough to still have jobs.  Wealthy citizens have seen their taxes reduced dramatically on both sides of the border.

Flaherty is now framing his tax hike as only half of what he originally threatened.  The GOP just says take a hike.  Someone has to pay for the Bush tax cuts for the greedy.

Flaherty is also warning provinces to start cutting back on healthcare now at a time when our population is aging, and we need it the most.  "Canadians have to understand that everyone will have to pay their share."

Their share of what?  Their share of planes with no engines so Lockheed Martin can prosper?  Their share of nuclear submarines?  Their share of new uniforms for the Monarchist league?  Their share of new prisons when our crime rate is at its lowest in history?  Their share of corporate tax cuts?  Their share of blood for oil wars?

What??????????

I can think of many ways to find the necessary funds for healthcare.  How about cutting the size of cabinet and their Parliamentary secretaries for a start?

Even Canadian Bankers are Hoping that the "Occupy" Movement is a Success

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report yesterday, showing that Canada's income disparity is growing faster even than that of the U.S.  Low paying jobs and a diminishing middle class, are partly to blame, but also deregulation, that allowed the wealthy to become even wealthier, is a huge factor.

Jim Flaherty was on the defensive in the House yesterday, suggesting that his government has been creating good jobs, but all they created was a marketing strategy:  The Economic Action Plan.  They had no real economic plan, other than to move lobbyists and Goldman Sachs into their offices on Parliament Hill.

Do we really expect that lobbyists have our best interests at heart?  Or Goldman Sachs?

Do you know what Goldman Sachs employee Mark Carney did before being named to head up up the Bank of Canada?  He advised Russian oligarchs during the period of mass privatization, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

According to Wikipedia:

During the 1990s, once Boris Yeltsin took office, the oligarchs emerged as well-connected entrepreneurs who started from nearly nothing and got rich through participation in the market via connections to the corrupt, but democratically elected, government of Russia during the state's transition to a market-based economy.  The oligarchs became extremely unpopular with the Russian public, and are commonly thought to be the cause of much of the turmoil that plagued the country following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The Guardian described the oligarchs as "about as popular with your average Russian as a man idly burning bundles of £50s outside an orphanage".

Historian Daniel W. Michaels suggests that the Russian people were better off under Communism, as the word "corrupt" has replaced "authoritarian".  You would think that capitalists would want to make their system more palpable, in order for it to survive, but instead they have only exposed the ugliness.

Bankers on the side of the "Occupy" Movement?

In October, TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, spoke of the imminent threat to Canada's economy, citing several root causes. 

Consumer and employer confidence, demographic forces that are causing demands for government services to grow faster than revenues, and globalization that has produced massive increases in income around the world, but its benefits have been unevenly distributed.

Clark's speech combines the economic with the social, something that is missed under neoconservatism.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, "There is no such thing as society".  Neocons believe that if you allow the rich to get richer, the benefits will "trickle down", but that isn't happening.  It didn't work for George Bush and it won't work for Stephen Harper.

However, Clark presents another cause of our economic woes:  "divisive politics", and he urged business leaders and politicians to "stand against divisiveness and political extremes."

Even with a majority, Harper continues to play political games instead of focusing on the needs of Canadians, and engages in Nixonian politics, instead of governing.

During the 2006 election campaign the media asked Paul Martin how much he thinks about strategy.  He replied "seldom".  They asked Stephen Harper the same question, and he replied "24/7".  Nixon's response to the same question was 6 days out of 7, and that was after he won the election.  It's politics all the time, and the constant game playing is hurting everyone.

At a time when all elected officials should be putting their heads together to sort out this mess, the Conservatives prefer to go it alone, suggesting that only they can save us.

Only they can bail out our banks and then lie about it.

Only they can spend $18 million more on gazebos for Tony Clement's riding, than infrastructure in Attawapiskat.

Only they can expand our prisons when Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history.

Only they can buy planes without engines and contemplate the purchase of nuclear submarines, while Canadian citizens are suffering.

Only they can bloat their cabinet and enlarge their executive with Parliamentary secretaries, meaning fewer elected MPs working for anyone other than the Conservative Party of Canada.

Ed Clark also offers some advise to the Occupy movement:

Asked by the Toronto Star what he would tell the protesters, he said: "My main advice is stick to your guns. When people say, 'You don’t have a solution,' say, 'Of course we don't. If there was a solution, don't you think people would be doing it?' To ask the people who occupy Wall Street or Bay Street to have a full answer is absurd. They're doing their job which is to say, 'If you think this [system] is working for everyone, it's not.'"

Globalization isn't working. Neoconservatism isn't working. Partisan politics are not working. 

This government is failing us so we need to build on this "Occupy" movement.  We need more government revenue, not less, but instead of hitting workers, as Flaherty has done, we must go after corporations and our wealthiest citizens, demanding that they start paying their share.

We've propped them up long enough.

Rick Perry Steals Stockwell Day's "Flat Tax" idea, who Stole it From the CTF, Who Stole it From ....

In 2006, Time magazine raised the alarm over Stephen Harper's control of the media, which included his unprecedented secrecy of what goes on in cabinet meetings.

However, if you want some idea of what they might sound like, watch the Republican debates and listen to their candidates. They all speak the same language.

This week Rick Perry is touting the "flat tax" as an innovative way to restructure the tax system, and it will be even flatter than Herman Cain's 9-9-9. The only thing flatter will be their heads.

This is not a new idea but one that has been flogged for decades. "Reduce government so you can drown it in a bathtub", Grover Norquist, and his Americans For Tax Reform, have been promoting this for twenty-five years.

Canadian Kevin Avram, attended a conference in Austin, Texas where he met a representative of the “Association of Concerned Taxpayers”, then headed up by Norquist. He came home and created the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, once headed up by Jason Kenney.

In 1998, the CTF invited Stockwell Day, then head of the Alberta Treasury, to a briefing on how this tax plan to make the wealthy even wealthier, works.

Mike Harris and Preston Manning wrote a paper Building Prosperity in a Canada Strong and Free, in which they not only tout the "flat tax" but also want to end Capital gains taxes.

When Stephen Harper spoke at the Frontier Institute, another vehicle of the corporate sector, there were protests against the Institutes policies, including, yes, the "flat tax". He snuck out the back door, his Modus Operandi.

Jim Flaherty also stated that once the books are balanced (or he engages in a bit more creative bookkeeping), he is going to "flatten" taxes.

All of these neocons sound like parrots on crack. "Perry wants a flat tax", "Flaherty wants a flat tax", "Harper wants a flat tax", "Norquist wants a flat tax", Tea Party wants a flat tax" ...."

As Joe Holley reminds us:

Perry is hoping to capitalize on universal frustration with the current system, draw attention away from Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 flat tax proposal and create a clear distinction between himself and Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has been critical of a flat-tax system in the past, arguing that a tax structure that was too flat would hurt the middle class.

A flat tax would indeed be more regressive than the current complicated system. It would reduce the percentage that high-income earners pay, while increasing the burden on lower-income groups. That’s fine with some conservatives, who believe that wealthier earners shouldn’t be shouldering so much of the tax burden.

That's it in a nutshell. Creating a tax system that further widens the gap between rich and poor. Just what we need.

It's Not About Occupying Wall Street But How Best to "Occupy" Ourselves

In the 1960s, college and university campuses, known for their apathy, began to erupt into political activism. Rosa Parks, the black woman who refused to move to the back of the bus, inspired many to stand up, or perhaps more appropriately, "sit-in", for racial equality. Her actions had sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and a young preacher, Martin Luther King Jr., who led the boycott, wrote a book: Stride Toward Freedom.

Motivated by King's words, on February 1st, 1960;  four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical School, David Richmond, Franklin McCain, Ezell Blair, and Joseph McNeil, sat down at a "whites-only" Woolworth's lunch counter and ordered coffee. Following store policy, the lunch counter staff refused to serve them.

The next day, 27 young people appeared at that lunch counter to protest the store's actions, and engaged in a "sit-in". The third day there were 60, and the fourth, more than 300.

Their actions ignited a wave of student sit-ins, and despite beatings, arrests and the sting of fire hoses, the protests continued to grow, in much the same way that the Occupy Wall Street protests are growing today.

Many who marched for equality then, were from the privileged white class, but knew that segregation was fundamentally wrong.  Many Occupy Wall Street protesters have jobs.  Others are retired and don't need jobs.  They just understand that 1% of the citizens should not control all the wealth, and more importantly, that governments should not be catering to that top 1%.

As Bill Maher said this week, they do not oppose capitalism, but only those who have abused it.

I read a column on a U.S. site, critical of people like Susan Sarandon and Kanye West, lending support to the occupiers.  After all, they are hardly one of the 99%.  But having money does not mean that you can't empathize.

To the movement, 'Wall Street' is not a noun.  It is an adjective to greed and injustice.

The actions taken on that bus in Montgomery or that lunch counter at Woolworths, did not single handedly change the world, but were the catalyst for much needed change, that has greatly influenced how we feel today.

When it was learned that Republican presidential hopeful, Rick Perry, had a ranch named "niggerhead", the public reacted with shock.  Fifty years ago they would not have batted an eye.

Since the 1960s, the right-wing has tried to push back the Civil Rights Movement, in the same way that they are trying to discredit this one.  They have failed.  Their money has bought power, making it easy for someone like Stephen Harper to enjoy it, but they have not been able to change our core values.

In 2009, Conservative insider Tom Flanagan, wrote a follow-up to his 1995 Waiting for the Wave -- WFW: The Reform Party and the Conservative Movement.  I thought there might be some revelations, but it still has just enough fact to make the non-fiction category, but barely.  This must be what he meant when he said that something "doesn't have to be true, just plausible".  I'll call this book convoluted plausibility, and leave it at that.

However, I took exception to his list of Reform Party accomplishments, aside from the way they connived themselves to political victory.  Flanagan suggests that Reform's legacy is that politicians now talk about "families", saying that (the late) Jack Layton was just as likely to propose policies to help hard-working families, as Stephen Harper. (p. 215)

Would that be the same Stephen Harper who boasted that one of his National Citizens Coalition accomplishments, was killing the baby bonus?  It wasn't scrapped of course, but adjusted based on family income.  And let's not forget this one:  "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.)

What Reform attempted to do was redefine what constitutes a family, by marginalizing any who don't fit their mould of stay at home mother, working dad, conforming children.

Before Harper was born, politicians put families on the agenda.  It was called The Welfare State, and it has served us well.

Jim Flaherty and Mark Carney, now claim to understand why the Occupy Wall Street protesters are angry.  Flaherty says:  “Income distribution is important and there is a concern that a very, very small group of people have very large incomes and that others do not have those same opportunities.”  He fails to mention that his policies have helped to create that gap.

If he was sincere, he would vow to roll back corporate taxcuts and refuse to continue with the Mike Harris/George Bush "red tape commission", that will remove all safety and environmental standards that impede the top 1% from getting richer, while putting the bottom 99% at risk.

A perfect example of this is with Maple Leaf Foods.  The Harper government began allowing food processing plants to inspect themselves, resulting in the death of 20 Canadian citizens, who didn't get the memo.

Yet now those "job creators", who have not only benefited from deregulation, but have also enjoyed enormous tax breaks, are going to layoff 1550 workers.

The whole neoconservative agenda is a crock.  Just ask Rick Salutin.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has the potential to change how we view financial inequality, in the same way that the Civil Rights Movement changed how we viewed racial inequality, and the Womens Movement, gender inequality. 

In Kingston, Ontario;  there is a small group of protesters, camped out in a city park.  They are breaking bylaws, but our mayor has promised not to move them, because their message is too important.  Local citizens come by on a regular basis, with food and messages of support.

It is quiet, non-violent, civil disobediance.

We can no longer rely on politicians to do what is right.  We are the ones who must draft policy and set the agenda.  It only takes a few, and then a few more, and a few more, and a few more ................

Swindlers Revisited: Why Canada's Occupy Wall (Bay) Steet Movement is Important

A friend left a comment on my blog yesterday, reminding me of a book I had read several months ago, Swindlers.  She was just in the process of reading it herself.  Timely, given the current protests against Wall Street greed.

Anyone questioning why citizens have taken to the streets, need to read this book.

In it, the Rosens (father and son), tell us of how Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper have signed Canada on to a new set of rules governing corporations.

Thanks to our self-regulated auditors, Canada will soon adopt [Came into effect on January 1, 2011]  new accounting and auditing standards called International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Under IFRS, corporate managers will have even more freedom to distort and manipulate their financial reports to make themselves look better than they really are. Despite the devastating impact it will have on investors and the utility of financial statements in general, auditors succeeded in pushing through the change because of complete disinterest from lawmakers and a lack of recognition by investors that auditors have no interest in upholding their needs. Canadians simply assume that a self-regulatory body like the auditors would look after public interests, not just their self-interests. (Swindlers: Cons and Cheats and How to Protect Your Investments From Them, By Al Rosen and Mark Rosen, Madison Commerce, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897330-76-0)

They are now legally allowed to lie on their financial statements to lure potential investors.  When I wrote of this before, I received an email asking why it mattered.  After all, it was just rich people cheating other rich people.

However, this affects all of us, because it could mean company pension plans, RRSPs, mutual funds ... things we don't think about every day but they could have a serious affect on our future financial well being.  More from the book:

Judging from the stories that run in the newspaper, you probably think that Canada is a pretty safe place to invest your money. After all, we just survived one of the worst economic downturns since the Great Depression. Some of the biggest names in the world of banking and finance have disappeared, but not a single Canadian bank collapsed. Canada must be doing something right, right?

If you believe that, we have some bad news. The risks you take by investing in Canada have never been greater. And the so-called protection that Canadians think they receive from regulators, lawmakers, and auditors has never been weaker. (ibid)

Good PR (propaganda) at taxpayers expense, has led us to believe that we are financially sound.  We're not.  Since coming to office, the "Harper government" has been on a deregulation drunk.

During one binge, they flooded the market with sub-prime mortgages and the next day found themselves in bed with AIG.  Some morning after.

Another weekend of partying and they bailed out our banks to the tune of $125 billion.  The drunkenomic hangover.

More from the Rosens:

Corporate lobbying power and the absence of an organized investor voice in Canada means that most regulatory actions favour corporate interests. Canada is the only major country in the world that allows the same people who audit public companies to financially control the process that sets the auditing rules. This basic and fundamental conflict of interest means that auditors can set rules that cater to their paying corporate clients over the needs of investors.

There's a lot of money involved in these financial cons. Based on our extensive experience with auditor negligence and executive dishonesty, we estimate that investors have lost hundreds of billions of dollars to scams in Canadian financial markets. Even if you haven't invested a penny in the stock market yourself, these losses affect you. Anyone who collects a pension, saves for his children's education, or simply pays her taxes like an honest citizen suffers from the disinterest of our regulators and lawmakers in prosecuting dishonest corporate executives, aided by acquiescent auditors.

If power is intoxicating, unchecked power is inebriating. 

A few more brown-bagged calamities:

A former Goldman-Sachs employee is running the bank of Canada and has brought along a colleague to act as his assistant.  The same Goldman-Sachs who helped to create the last economic crisis, and the same Goldman-Sachs who warned their clients not to invest in Canada.

Another Goldman-Sachs employee has been signed on to handle Canada's foray into derivatives.  Investor Warren buffet calls derivatives "weapons of mass destruction", but that won't stop Flaherty.  He's even putting some of our Canada pension funds into this risky venture.

Stephen Harper's chief of staff came right off Bay Street to secure the purchase of the F-35s for one of his clients.

And yet Flaherty claims that Canadians have little to protest.

Chantel Hebert is suggesting that instead of protesting Canadians should vote.  Maybe if the media kept us better informed, we would.  Every time they refer to this government as "Tories", they are putting another nail in our coffin.

A Queens University political science professor was asked recently why people are protesting.  She said that the question should not be "why?" but what took them so long.

Tony Clement and the Crime of the New Century

As Tony Clement sits in stony silence, like a petulant child, refusing to admit he was the one who stole the cookie, despite the crumbs on his face; others are having to defend the indefensible.

The 50 million dollars that was misappropriated and spent lavishly in his riding with little or no oversight.

Many of the projects were questionable, though John Baird claims to have approved everyone of them, and that everyone of them is backed up with the proper paperwork.

Nonetheless, a receipted lighthouse on a stump, is still just a lighthouse on a stump.

Not to diminish the veritable theft of taxpayers money, there is a more serious crime here that should not go unpunished.  This is the crime committed against the people of Parry Sound - Muskoka.  The ones that Tony Clement is supposed to be representing, and whose interests should be his concern.

The area's picturesque shorelines, captivating scenery and tranquil settings, provide a backdrop for one of the poorest regions in the country.

The District of Parry Sound Poverty Reduction Network, addresses issues that are in direct contrast to the extravagant lifestyles of the often  famous summer residents.

And as is often the case, in an economic downturn, those already suffering are further victimized by cuts to essential services.  Even those working full time often "cannot meet basic costs of safe shelter and healthy food".   And while housing costs in the area are comparable to many larger urban centres, the salaries are not.  Most work is seasonal, in the hospitality sector, serving the needs of the summer well to dos.

Yet the money spent by Clement went to the benefit of the temporary residents, not to those struggling to survive year round. 

How easy will it be for them to acquire additional funding, when they've already blown the bank on things that only favor an elite few?

What good is an expensive new sign to a parent out of work and out of options?  A gazebo to a family unable to secure adequate housing?  Or a paved road to nowhere, that could have at least been built to provide a more comfortable trip to the nearest food bank.

I spoke with Tami Boudreau of the DPSPRN, and she described the many hardships facing the people in her area.  But she also spoke of their enormous generosity and strength of character.  The anguish in her voice was palpable as she related the frustrations of trying to help so many with so little.

Boudreau is a "transplant" to Parry Sound-Muskoka, but you'd never know it.  Her soul is there.

The DPSPRN, has a website, where you can download a copy of  The District of Parry Sound Speaks Out on Poverty: A Call to Action.

The site is currently down for renovation, but I'm told will be up and running again soon.  Boudreau sent me a copy of their report and it's absolutely heartbreaking, making Clement's actions all the more appalling.

Watching him and Baird together, promising to do better and taking the report of the Auditor General under advisement, is deja vu for Ontario residents.  A similar scene played out when they were in the government of Mike Harris, and again the money was stolen from those who had so little of it.

When John Baird tried to privatize social services, money flowed to Anderson Consulting, the firm that destroyed Enron.  After they were exposed, Anderson quickly changed their name to Accenture, but their questionable actions in the name of profit continued.

In Ontario the money fell out of the holes in the pockets of those who needed it, and landed right in the pockets of the Valentino suits, of those who didn't.

For the third time since 1998, Ontario's provincial auditor has sharply criticized the government's dealings with Accenture. Auditor Erik Peters called the firm's social assistance system "seriously flawed" and "a bad deal for taxpayers." The contract has cost more than $400 million - and counting. The original cost was supposed to be capped at $180 million. Peters called payments to Accenture "questionable" because savings on which the payments were based "were exaggerated."  (1)

Yet those on social assistance were deemed to be the criminals.  Government posters sought help in tracking down "welfare fraud", and neighbours were encouraged to turn in neighbours.  Even the staff at social services were suspect, creating even bigger profits for Anderson/Accenture.

In early March 2000, the Ontario government fitted social services workers with tracking devices in a 16- week trial to track their activities virtually every minute of every day. These "Big Brotherish" boxes, the brainchild of Accenture, would beep several times every hour, and workers would have to punch in a code to indicate what they were doing at that moment. (1)

How could they possibly find the time to help those seeking help?

Under the Ontario Government's Business Transformation Project (privatizing of services), Auditor Erik Peters revealed that:

... the cost ratio of having Accenture do the work rather than public servants was 6 to 1 and that in 2000 the Province realized savings of $89.5 million [much of this from the continued gutting of access to welfare payments], but the government had paid Accenture $193 million. This statement of the Auditor General was part of a larger condemnation of the Tory government's overuse of private consultants throughout its Departments. (2)

(Some things never change).

The Harris government created no less than 800 new rules for welfare recipients, cutting thousands from its ranks.  Yet not only did Accenture keep the $89.5 million that should have gone to the disadvantaged, but charged us an additional $103.5 million to do it.

Peters noted that many of the expenditures were not only "questionable and unnecessary" but were "unreceipted".  He also complained of how slow it was for the Harris government to address the alarming situation, including the issue of the expensive computer that Accenture sold to us, that never worked. (3)

Of course, addressing these issues might have stopped the flow of money from Accenture to the Conservative re-election campaign. ("Tory Welfare Donations Under Fire", Hamilton Spectator,  October 25, 2001 and "Consulting Firm Boosts PC Coffers",  Richard Brennan, Toronto Star, October 25th, 2001)  Couldn't have that.

So just as Baird ignored the Auditor's report then, he will ignore the Auditor General's report now.

I'm glad that Charlie Angus is on top this, (though it was the NDP who blocked the release of the report before the election).  He knows how these guys operate.

He helped to expose a similar scandal involving a land deal with Adams Mine/Cortellucci Group.  Tony Clement was involved with that one as well, netting $40,000 from Cortellucci for his provincial leadership bid.  Jim Flaherty was paid $47,000.

Tim Hudak sat in the Ontario Legislature at the time, so is well aware of what "cronyism" really looks like.  He is promising to once again get tough on "welfare fraud", from the bottom, not the top, where it is actually perpetrated.

There is no honour in being poor, and most would prefer not to wear the label.  However, the real shame is in being someone in a position to help, but instead choose to simply add to the misery.

No, this scandal will not destroy the people of Parry Sound - Muskoka, but they have been victimized just the same, with the added burden of being labelled "greedy".

They didn't ask for the extravagance, but are paying for it in the worst possible way.

Sources:

1. ACCENTURE: A snapshot of cost overruns job loss and dissatisfaction, CUPE, June 24, 2003

2. Anderson Consulting and Accenture, Polaris Institute, June 2003

3. Tories ignored computer warnings, By Trish Hennessey and Peter H. Sawchuk, University of Toronto Press, July 13, 2004

Will Rob Ford Put an End to Blissful Ignorance?

On February 15, 1983, the New York Times ran a headline: Reagan Misstatements Getting Less Attention.

Ronald Reagan was not only the first American President to bring the Religious Right into his administration, but he also launched an era of stupid in politics.

The man dubbed "The Great Communicator" could barely string two coherent sentences together, and after spending three years trying to make some sense of his ramblings, the media had clearly given up.

I have to laugh at how the Right have now canonized him, but during his tenure he was never that popular. I think his highest polling was right after he was shot.

Unfortunately "idiots" is now a term often used to describe the Republicans, as they've capitalized on incomprehension, and it hasn't hurt them one bit.

Their esoteric boys club has learned that there is a fortune to be made in the mining of ignorance.

Glenn Beck is not a moron, he just played one on TV.

When Stephen Harper's Reform Party had its first real political success in 1993, we were shell shocked with their constant firing of racial slurs and half witticisms.  The Toronto Sun called them "a bunch of dung kicking rednecks".  Now the Sun is among their strongest supporters, pitching the dung they once hoped to duck.

And they have cleverly made the reaction to stupidity, the story, instead of the actual stupidity.

Sun TV often runs a banner reading "We're on your side".  Those "leftist elitist pinkos" don't understand you, but we do.  Then they run to their own elitist friends and say "watch the puppets dance".  Both groups come away with a feeling of superiority.

Neoconservatism 101.

Which brings us to Toronto mayor Rob Ford.  When he first appeared on the scene he created quite a sensation.  Acting as though he would be more comfortable in Animal House than City Hall, he became the favourite of Canadian conservatives.  The more we "lefties" sounded the alarm, the more popular he was.

From Jim Flaherty to Tim Hudak, they couldn't wait to have their photo taken with this new iconic symbol of absurdity.  Stephen Harper touted him around the campaign trail, and the two are now BFFs.

However, they may have a problem.

It would appear that Torontonians have awakened to the fact that there is a reason why you don't elect someone like Rob Ford to run the largest city in Canada.  His foolishness was not an act.  He's really a fool.

According to Royson James in the Star:

His political honeymoon long over, Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has lost the public’s confidence. And now, he’s about to lose council’s as well.  The Ford revolution may be aborted before it takes root.

Torontonians are not impressed with Ford’s confrontational style, his lone-wolf approach to leadership and his threats to gut city services after guaranteeing during the election that he’d cut the “gravy” and not cut a single service.

His poll numbers are slipping fast, and in the middle of a provincial election, where Toronto is key, will this hurt Tim Hudak?  Memories of Mike Harris's slash and burn policies, and broken promises, are already proving to be a hindrance. 

And Hudak has been playing the stupid card with his "chain gang" musings and attacks on "foreigners".

If you've been following the Republican debates, you would have to think that they have finally hit bottom.  Cheers when contender Rick Perry stated with pride, the number of people he sent to death, and refrains of "let him die", when a scenario was presented to Ron Paul of a young man in a coma with no health insurance.

Has Canada's new conservative movement finally hit bottom with Ford?

I'd like to think so, but I'm not so sure.  There is now an arrogance in the ignorance that is driving this movement.  They could never handle bliss.  They're just too damned angry. An anger fuelled by the New Right.

"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."  Saul Bellow (Canadian-born writer and winner of both the Pulitzer and Nobel prizes) 

The Canadian Manifesto 5: The Exploitation of Religion

"... the seemingly squeaky clean but morally corrupt Ralph Reed." Sarah Posner (1)

In the movie Casino Jack, based on the life of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, we are introduced to some of the players in the massive corruption scandal, that took down two Republican senators, and nine high profile lobbyists.

One character in the movie was Ralph Reed, played by Christian Campbell, who assures Abramoff that he is ready to play his part in the casino fraud.

For an enormous fee, 'Casino Jack' set out to destroy the gambling operation of a competing tribe, for his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

This was not the first time that Abramoff had used questionable tactics for this client, but he couldn't have done it without the help of the "squeaky clean" and "morally corrupt" Ralph Reed, then head of The Christian Coalition.

In 1999, the Choctaw needed to defeat a bill in the Alabama State Legislature that would allow casino-style games on dog racing tracks, resulting in competition for their casino business. It was at about this time that Reed had contacted his old friend Abramoff, asking for his help in establishing his new business, Century Strategies.

"Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts." (Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff, via email, November 12, 1998)

When asked what he could do to assist with this situation, Reed said that he could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households" in Alabama, as well as "the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, [and] the Christian Family Association." And he would do this for a retainer of $20,000 a month.

Souls don't come cheap.  Just ask the devil.

The firm that Abramoff was then with, Preston Gates, hired Reed as a subcontractor, and Abramoff told Reed to "get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks asap."

"By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid $1.3 million to Reed via Preston Gates, for various grassroots activities relating to the dog-track bill, as well as opposing an Alabama state lottery." (2) Eventually they broke their business ties with Preston Gates, and began dealing directly with Abramoff, using Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform as a conduit.  (Norquist had done work for them in the past)

However, what Abramoff was hoping to pull off this time, was much bigger and riskier than dog tracks and state lotteries.

In October 2001, Abramoff began to suggest to the Louisiana Coushatta that the Texas legislature was "one vote away" from legalizing certain forms of gambling in Texas. The Alabama Coushatta - a related but competing tribe to the Louisiana Coushatta - also sought to open a casino in eastern Texas in 2001. Abramoff told the Louisiana Coushatta that if the Tigua succeeded in their court case, then Texas would be forced to allow the Alabama Coushatta to open their casino. Many of the Coushatta's casino customers traveled over the border from eastern Texas to Louisiana, so this could pose a grave threat to their livelihood.  (2)

Abramoff then suggested to the Choctaw that they should support Christian evangelical conservatives, who were prepared to oppose gaming expansion in Texas, and Reed was again on the payroll.  "Reed worked with Houston pastors and church congregations to make demands on the state government to prevent the casinos from opening." (2)

According to the director of the movie, Alex Gibney, in response to Reed suggesting that the work he did for Abramoff was "outstanding" and something he was "proud of":

Let's say it plain: Ralph Reed is a fraud ... there was probably nothing illegal about what Reed did. But, he was engaged in a kind of spiritual fraud: telling his supporters that he was opposed to gambling when, in fact, gambling was making him rich. (3)

Though Reed still denies that he knew that the millions of dollars paid him came from casino profits, there are numerous email exchanges that prove otherwise.  And if  that deception isn't bad enough, he also implied that he was "fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs", and cleared.  However, according to Gibney:

Reed correctly notes that he has never been charged with a crime and implies that he had been fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. But the implication is deceptive. According to one very famous, disgraced former lobbyist, Reed was supposed to have been called before McCain's committee but Karl Rove intervened and pressured McCain not to call Reed.  To Reed, Abramoff committed the unpardonable sin of getting caught, and that's why Reed prays for him. Well, Abramoff did his time and now seems to be willing to speak the truth. Reed should pray for himself. (3)

Touché!

Leo Strauss Would Have Been Proud

In her book: Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia Drury of the University of Calgary, reveals that Strauss suggested that the exploiting of religion by the "right thinking elite" was necessary.

The key is to use the most artful and most reliable techniques that history has made available. And in Strauss's view, nothing has ever proved to be more effective than the influence of religion. (4)

Karl Marx called religion the "opium of the people", but to Ralph Reed and most other "elite"  in the movement, it is pure gold.

Religion can be a good thing, when it inspires, but can be lethal when it incites.

There is no doubt that religion often exerts a wholesome influence on human conduct. And it may even serve as a small protection against tyranny and the abuse of power because persons committed to the moral life may prefer to risk their lives than to collaborate with wicked schemes. But it is also the case that religious fervor often turns political and even militant. Religious groups are not always satisfied with the religious freedom that liberal society affords them. They are not content to gather together, worship, sing, play, and educate their children as they see fit. They are interested in imposing their vision of private morality on the rest of society. What they want is not freedom of religion, but conformity to their religious views. (4)

Drury continues:

Their current mood is overtly political if not altogether militant. The Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson and then led by his protégé Ralph Reed, is a case in point. Its "leadership school" does not waste much time on prayer, but on the political process and how best to manipulate it. Grassroots leaders in hundreds of counties in every state are instructed in the modern art of quick communication—phone, fax, and modem. These leaders are trained to mobilize their troops into rapid-response networks intended to "blitz" or bombard congressmen with the values of the coalition. (4)

It is said that 26 Republican presidential hopefuls have sought out Reed for advice, with chequebook in hand, of course.  And why not?

When [Pat] Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (5) 

Their political goals include returning prayer to schools, recriminalizing abortion, stripping known homosexuals of their civil rights, teaching creationism in the schools, and censoring libraries and the press, all included in Reed's  "contract with the American family", that was released right after Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America".

American conservatives such as William Buckley and William Bennett fool themselves in thinking that the Christian right is simply interested in safe streets, good schools, strong families, nonintrusive government, and a chummy Communitarian atmosphere .... They are very much interested in governmental interference to uphold and enforce their own values and preferences, not only in matters pertaining to public morality, but in private morality as well. But their political tactics call their ethics into question. For example, Ralph Reed has defended the "stealth campaigns" of Christian Coalition candidates who have disguised their political agenda by campaigning on issues such as crime or taxes, but have revealed once in office that their real interests are in gay rights, abortion, and creationism.

Reed justifies such deception as a type of "guerrilla warfare." He flatters himself into thinking that his stealth campaigns are a matter of using the tactics of a guerrilla war against Satan. Those who paint their political opponents as the forces of evil and regard themselves as the defenders of good, are inclined to justify any means as necessary to defeat their opponents. The urgency of vanquishing the satanic forces, and the sheer immensity of the task, blinds them to the fact that such mendacious and duplicitous conduct is a blatant disregard of Christian virtue. (4)

Touché again!

Ralph Reed in the Great White North

On May 5, 1996; the Albion Monitor reported on a group of Canadians, who had made the trek to Washington in the fall of 1995, to attend a conference of The Christian Coalition.  Their visit resulted in the creation of the Canadian Christian Coalition, whose board members included Reform Party members, Ted and Link Byfield, and our own Jason Kenney.

... ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition ... The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm. In an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, Spratt insisted (somewhat oxymoronically) "We have no ties with our U.S. counterpart." However, according to news reports, The Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). ...While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better. (6)

Touché, touché. touché, dammit!

The B.C. branch was responsible for a ban on Planned Parenthood in Surrey.  Stephen Harper has since expanded that, by cancelling all funding for PP, domestic and international.  The Tea Party gang have also been instrumental in the organization's demise in the U.S.

We beat them.  Yeah for us. (sigh)

However, while Jason Kenney may have been among the first to transport Ralph Reed's "faith for profit and righteous indignation" to Canada, he was by no means the last.  Two members of Stockwell Day's team, Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer ("Families for Day"), visited Reed to solicit his help in getting Day elected as Alliance leader in 2000.

Both men were graduates of Charles McVety's Canadian Christian College.

In 2005, McVety invited Reed to speak at that institution, making sure that his protégé was in attendance: Jim Flaherty.

His very attentive listeners were challenged by Reed to “get on your work boots and tennis shoes and go out there like it all depends on you, pray like it all depends on God and let’s usher in the greatest victory in the history of this country.” (7)

Mcvety had already worked with Flaherty in his bid for leadership of the Ontario conservatives, but ironically, Flaherty was considered to be too right wing.  It was probably just the company he kept.

A Christian Manifesto Revisited

Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto became the blueprint for the Religious Right, apparently regretted his involvement with the movement that he grew to detest.  According to his son, Francis Jr. (Frank), in his book Crazy for God:

Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and others would later use their power in ways that would have made my father throw up. Dad could hardly have imagined how they would help facilitate the instantly corrupted power-crazy new generation of evangelical public figures like Ralph Reed, who took money from the casino industry while allegedly playing both sides against the middle in events related to the Abramoff Washington lobbyist scandal.

... Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of "these idiots," as he often called people like [James] Dobson in private. They were "plastic," Dad said, and "power-hungry They were "Way too right-wing, really nuts!" and "They're using our issue to build their empires." (9)

Rick Salutin was fired as a columnist for the Globe and Mail, because he reminded Canadians of Harper's links to Leo Strauss.  His only error in the column was calling him the "last" Straussian.  Those guys breed like rabbits.

In March of 1995, former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, was invited to speak to the editorial board of the Washington Post.  Newt Gingrich had been singing Manning's praises with the American media, as an important factor in his 1994 election victory.

Naturally they wanted to meet the Canadian neocon guru.

The late Dalton Camp, wrote a column about the visit, under the heading: Mr. Manning Goes to Washington.

"The Reform agenda includes a host of issues with American analogs—opposition to abortion rights, gun control and gay rights"—and lower taxes, less government, fewer rights for consumers, and "family values."

This does remind me once again of Senator James M. Inhofe* (R. Oklahoma), who has said he campaigned last fall, and won, on "God, gays, and guns."** No doubt Preston could arrange through Newt to meet with Inhofe, who is a great admirer of Jesse Helms who is a good friend of Al D'Amato who knows Dick Armey who needs no introduction to Ralph Reed of The Christian Coalition warmly supported by Pat Buchanan who knows Pat Robertson.

Knowing our man Manning has direct access to those guys makes you feel warm all over, doesn't it? (9)

Will Canada Survive Another Recession?

News on the economic front is that we could be heading toward another financial crisis.

Canada survived the last one, because of measures put in place by previous governments. Measures that would not have been there, if Harper had had his way when Leader of the Opposition, because he pushed Paul Martin to deregulate the banks.

Fortunately, he didn't listen.

We learned through Wikileaks, that Flaherty and Harper really had no plan for the economy, only hoped that their expensive taxpayer funded ad campaign (more than a quarter of a million dollars), dubbed the Canada Action Plan, would lead us to believe that they did.

They had no plan B.

And since then, they have been steadily deregulating, so what will this mean for us?

We're bombing for oil on the credit card and have committed to massive military spending on hardware.

When Harper made a rare public appearance to take a stab at Nycole Turmel, my husband and I both said "My God. Does he ever look awful". He was pale and nervous, without his usual arrogance.

He looked worried.

Now I know why.