The Most Powerful Symbol You Will See This Election

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. John Diefenbaker

On January 6, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Address; put forward four tenets of freedom that every citizen should enjoy:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear

I watched a short Canadian newsreel recently, that would have been shown in movie theatres as propaganda.  It was made in 1943, at a time when Canadians were growing weary of war.

Lorne Greene of Bonanza fame, narrated, and started out by showing victorious battle scenes in an attempt to convince the movie goers that we were winning.  They just had to hold on a bit longer.

He then repeated those four tenets of freedom, one at a time, with all the passion he could muster.

It was very moving, and they were not just empty promises.  On behalf of the Government of Canada, Social Scientist, Leonard Marsh, prepared a report that was presented to a House of Commons committee that year:  Report on Social Services for Canada; as part of the plan for post-war reconstruction.

It wasn't enough to just bring soldiers home, They had to come home to a country committed to making that country, not only worth coming home to, but with visible signs of the things they had fought for. Their sacrifices were not in vain and the welfare state was born.

Initially, the term was used to describe an industrial capitalist society, in which the state manipulated the market, but in 1967, British historian Asa Briggs, in The Welfare State, laid out revised provisions of what the welfare state should look like:

- Provision of minimum income
- Provision for the reduction of economic insecurity, resulting from sickness, old age and unemployment
- Provision to all members of society a range of social services

Not just the freedom from want but the freedom from need.  If we were expected to make sacrifices during wartime, we needed to be taken care of at times of peace.

Then in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, turned the whole thing upside down.  Forget all that.  There was no such thing as society and no need for social services.  Give more money to the wealthy and the resulting economic boost would trickle down to everyone.

The corporate welfare state was reborn.

Conservatives will take every opportunity to use the word "freedom",  but clearly have no idea what it means.  Chest thumping and carnivorous nationalism is not freedom.  

Instead of freedom from want, they leave society wanting, and use fear, attacks on religious groups and stifling of free speech, so they can have us participate in perpetual war.

Photo-ops with soldiers, first responders, or anyone in uniform, might make you look good, but you can't remove them from the picture once the cameras are turned off.

Those who risk their lives for us, deserve better.  Indeed, all Canadians do.

Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong. And our dreams for this beautiful country will never die.  Pierre Trudeau

This election campaign, we're hearing a lot about the middle class.  There's no denying that a strong middle class is tantamount to economic security.  However, even with a strong middle class, there was still poverty. 

There was still want.

Instead of a higher minimum wage, that will only force small businesses out, we need a living wage guarantee for everyone. We need a strong social safety net, that includes a housing strategy, so terms like "homelessness" and "food banks" are removed from everyday conversation.

Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world. Tommy Douglas

George Bush referring to corporations as "job creators" is a myth.  Corporations only create jobs when it's convenient to do so, and will shed jobs anytime they threaten their bottom line (as we're seeing now in Alberta).  And despite the fact that the public has subsidized these corporations for years, shareholders take priority over stakeholders.

Enough is enough.

A recent Nanos poll indicates that 2/3 of Canadians are ready for a change.  It's up to us to make sure that that change, is not simply more of the same.

If a picture speaks to us, the image of the crest above is speaking volumes.  It's not only a reminder of what freedom was supposed to look like, but also a reminder that we are failing our heroes and heroines.

Patriotism is not dying for one's country, it is living for one's country, and for humanity. Perhaps that is not as romantic, but it's better. Agnes MacPhail

One of the most Powerful Countries in the World Can no Longer be Trusted

There is a Public Relations firm operating in both the United States and Canada, Ketchum Inc., that has for the past several years, been working with Vladimir Putin, to sell Russian influence in the United States.

They run an English language website, ThinkRussia.com and when tensions first began to rise in the Ukraine, postings included 'a look back at the Sochi Olympics, a feature on international women's day in Russia, and a piece detailing a crackdown on bitcoin.' Nothing on Ukraine. Indeed, if you visit the site today, you get no sense of the turmoil currently taking place.

Ketchum also maintains a Twitter account for Russia, @mfa_russia They have over 48,000 followers, and while much if it is non-confrontational, they do question the actions of NATO and its members.

They also, however, give us a view of the conflict outside the Western sphere, as Russia seeks humanitarian aid from China, to assist those living in what we refer to as Pro-Russian territory.

Remember. These sites are being maintained by one of the world's largest PR firms, originating in the United States, and being paid for by the Russian government. How can this be?

The Destabilization of a Powerful Nation

Stephen F. Cohen, described as a 'scholar of Russian studies', wrote a book in 2000, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia. I had read it several years ago, but picked it up again to read as a refresher.

In it he writes of the invasion of Russia by the United States, throughout the 1990s. Not a military invasion, but a social and cultural one with an army of bankers, investors and Evangelicals, hoping to turn the country into an American style democracy.

They called it shock therapy, as the middle class was gutted, the most vulnerable left to fend for themselves and Christian Orthodoxy allowed to play an important role in public policy. (Simon Shuster, Time, August 4, 2014)

Cohen questioned the logic of destabilizing a country with nuclear weapons. He is now a seemingly lone voice, in once again questioning the U.S. And their role in Ukraine.

The Coup and the Chorus of Voices

I started following this story back in February, when a tape was leaked of a telephone conversation between U.S. Diplomat, Victoria Nuland, and Ukrainian Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. In it we hear Nuland angrily state "f... the European Union!"

Initially, Nuland denied that it was her on the tape, blaming the Russians for trying to discredit her, but eventually admitted to the slur and apologized for her insensitivity.

However, that tape revealed a lot more than a diplomat with a potty mouth, but also showed America's apparent involvement in the coup. Not because Nuland or Pyatt spoke of it directly, but because many asked themselves who these people were and why were they so upset with the European Union? This was when rumblings of another U.S. sponsored "regime change" was underway.

Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, co-founder with arch Neoconservative, William Kristol, of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

PNAC worked closely with the Bush Administration and their so-called War on Terror and Kagan personally supported the invasion of Iraq. He also wrote a book in 2003; Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order, in which he states:

When it comes to setting national priorities, determining threats, defining challenges, and fashioning and implementing foreign and defense policies, the United States and Europe have parted ways ... '

He then coined the term "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus"' which understandably upset, well, the Europeans. Did he also coin the term "F... the EU"?

And what about Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukranian Ambassador?

Soon after landing in the Ukraine, he engineered the purchase of a television outlet called Hromadske.TV, with embassy funds and contributions from wealthy Americans. What's interesting though, is that he also received almost $100,000 from the Embassy of the Netherlands.

A secret Wikileaks cable revealed a statement made by a departing US envoy to the Hague, "Dutch pragmatism and our similar world-views make the Netherlands fertile ground for initiatives others in Europe might be reluctant, at least initially, to embrace."

Damn I hope MH17, with so many Dutch passengers, wasn't targeted because of that, given that Hromadske TV played an integral part in the Revolution, and is now the most quoted in the Western media.

In December, 2013, Radio Free Europe wrote of the upstart new station: Out Of Ukrainian Protests, A New Media Outlet Is Born

Disinformation, misinformation, rumors, and speculation have been widespread throughout the crisis as throngs of protesters have taken to the streets to protest Yanukovych's scuttling of a landmark pact with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

But apparently, only Hromadske could get to the truth. However, Hromadske may have also launched the Revolution. According to Mustafa Nayem, the man credited with the igniting spark:

The press gained freedoms under Yanukovych. But it wasn’t until 2013 that a group of us left our jobs at companies owned by oligarchs or political partisans and began to create a truly independent media. In the first months of the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych we formed Stop Censorship! to protest persecution of the press.

Three years later, we founded the first Internet TV channel in the country that operates through donations from our viewers—Hromadske.tv, where I work now as editor in chief. The media showed everything that was happening—helping people to believe that if we all act together, we can accomplish great things.

So who controls the message? You be the judge, because that is not the purpose of this post.

The Destabilization of a Powerful Nation

When I mentioned in the heading, a powerful nation that can't be trusted, I was referring to the United States. Not that we can trust Russia. I think that's a given.

Nor does it necessarily mean that the United States can't be trusted. However, because of past sins, and bogus reasons for war, American credibility is fading.

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, they were seen as the biggest threat to world peace, at 24%. Next to them was Pakistan at 8%, India 6%, Israel and Russia 5% and Afghanistan, Iran, And North Korea all tied with 4%.

Of course, the right-wing blames this on Obama, but the reputation as a war monger, began long before he came to power. In fact, you could say it started in 1898 when the U.S. no doubt blew up its own ship, The Maine, and used it as justification for the Spanish-American War. From then on, Imperialism became an integral part of public policy.

Many influential Europeans are even suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job. But this post is not to debate that either, but to ask ourselves what happens when a country like the United States loses credibility, at a time of profound crisis.

In May of this year, journalist Finian Cunningham, had a piece posted on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy site, entitled: Putin Should Send Troops Into Ukraine

Despite Western claims, the facts show that the unrest and violence in Ukraine has stemmed from Western subversion in that country, beginning with the CIA-backed street agitation in Kiev last November that led to an illegal coup against the elected government of Victor Yanukovych in February. We could go further back to the CIA-sponsored Orange Revolution of 2004 and the $5 billion invested by Washington for regime change from the early 1990s onwards.

The neo-Nazi paramilitaries and their political leaders who usurped power in Kiev have gone on to unleash a campaign of terror against ethnic Russians in the east and south of the country, and anyone else who opposes the regime’s power grab.

It should be noted that Paul Craig Roberts is no left-wing nut, but a supply-sider Republican, who was part of the Reagan Administration. Yet he allows a guest posting that blames American foreign policy for the Ukraine crisis.

Cunningham continues

In the southern city of Odessa, more than 40 anti-Kiev protesters were killed when a building they were seeking refuge in was set ablaze by hundreds of neo-Nazi storm troopers acting on the tacit direction of the junta in Kiev and its Western state sponsors ... Eyewitnesses in Odessa say that when people jumped from windows to escape the blaze they were “finished off” by neo-Nazis on the ground who had minutes before set the building alight with petrol bombs.

These forces comprise remnants of the Ukrainian national army loyal to the fascist junta, as well as Right Sector neo-Nazi paramilitaries outfitted as a “national guard”, and very possibly the involvement of US-backed mercenaries and Special Forces.

Ketchum Inc, is not alone in supporting Russia, though it's not so much about supporting Russia as not trusting the USA.

It took months, for the European Union to endorse severe sanctions, and since many of those Europeans will be hurt in the process, they may cave before Putin. If the purpose is to ignite a coup against the Russian leader, that doesn't appear imminent, as he had already took measures to decrease foreign investments.

The United States had the only vote against a a UN investigation into Israeli violence in Gaza, revealing what little international influence they now have. Had Canada's international voice still meant something, we would have surely joined them, but Harper lost our seat at the UN council.

At a time when we need strong American leadership, that country has been destabilized with shock therapy that has gutted the middle class, left the most vulnerable to fend for themselves and allowed Christian Orthodoxy to play an important role in public policy. Sound familiar?

Tea Party politics Russian style, or American style, is still Tea Party politics. They tanked the Russian economy in 1998, and put the American economy on the brink several times. How can anyone now look to the U.S. for guidance, when the Tea Party now control the GOP and Congress?

The American people are weary of war, and the rest of the world growing weary of the USA.

Let's hope the goddess of diplomacy can defeat the god of war, and this mess ends peacefully, because no matter what neoconservatives believe, there can be no winners in a nuclear war.

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.

And So it Begins. Harper's anti-Homosexual Agenda

Despite denying his anti-gay stance, Stephen Harper continues to remake Canada by stealth, by nullifying thousands of same-sex marriages:

Thousands of LGBT couples across the world awoke this morning to learn that they are no longer married. A Department of Justice lawyer under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party of Canada government has nullified all same-sex marriages performed in Canada in which the couples’ native country does not permit gays and lesbians to marry.

This is only phase one.  They no doubt have already selected the "landmark" case by a right-wing fringe group, who will challenge the ruling by saying that it was descriminatory to their religious beliefs, showing favour to the beliefs of "foreigners."  Harper now controls the Supreme Court, stacked with "social conservatives", so it would breeze through.

If you wondered what a Harper majority would like, wonder no more. 

How about a landmark impeachment since this prime minister lied to get what he wanted?

Dog Whistle Politics and the Return of Old Dance Partners

 "Borrowed in part from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Canadian neo-conservatism owes much of it's character to the right-wing populist tradition of the West. "Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.

I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' Like cowboy culture, Canadian neo-conservatism is a growth industry, spawning a whole generation of Will James outlaws in hot pursuit of political power." (Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv)

The political cartoon above, first appeared in the Alberta Report Magazine on March 27, 1995, under the caption 'Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich dancing in newt suits'. The two men formed a lasting friendship as they worked out ways to promote combative style politics.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, was then working with Canada's Reform Party, but took his leave to help Newt draft his Contract With America. Ralph Reed of the U.S. Christian Coalition wrote a corresponding document Contract With the American Family, to bring in the Religious Right.

Jason Kenney and company travelled to Washington in 1995 to attend a Christian Coalition conference, and soon after:

... Even more ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress .... the Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall [1995] 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).

The B.C. chapter is sure to be a factor in the upcoming election, giving a boost to Reform Party candidates and any others who will go on record opposing abortion ... While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from the Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better." (The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996)

"Journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better"? Yeah. Good luck with that. A decade and a half later and they still don't get it.

Even Kelly Block's recent attack on our aboriginal communities, stems from American neoconservatism. She's working on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, described as a pyramid scheme. And CTF is a spin-off of Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

Both traverse the country with their debt clocks and force conservative politicians to sign pledges not to increase government revenue. Jason Kenney had Mike Harris sign it in 1995. Enough said.

I now watch American political commentary programs, because it's the only way I know what Harper's next move will be. And it is also the only way to understand the politics of the Conservative Party of Canada. They are part of the Conservative movement that began in the U.S. in the 1940s, imported by Ernest Manning, and they have been in lock step ever since.

We just didn't notice until they came to power in 2006. It has been said that the Harperites introduced Western style politics, but in fact, it was American style Conservatism.

Listening to someone like Evan Solomon, is like having a hockey commentator call the plays at a baseball game. He's not even in the ballpark.

Dog Whistles and Playing to the Base

A letter in Time magazine this week, discusses why many Republicans don't trust Mitt Romney. "They are distrustful of his recent public conversions on abortion, gun control and gay rights, or turned off by his Massachusetts health care law." (November 18, p. 20)

Those conversions of course, refer to the fact that he used to respect gay rights and women's reproductive rights, feared guns, and was committed to improving the health of his constituents, or at least assuring that all had access to good health care. All of these things are now kacky poo poo to the Republican base.

How did they let it get this far?

It's because they only played to that base with dog whistle politics. Saying the right thing to stir up the ignorant and now they are forced to draft policy to appease the ignorant, or risk being unelectable.

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week, they discussed the rise of Newt Gingrich, who now has the perfect blend of ignorance and moderation, to make everyone happy. At least for now. Newt used to be deemed too right wing. His politics haven't changed, only the expectations of the conservative base.

One panelist on the program, Chicago Tribune columnist, Clarence Page, said that segregation is making a comeback. Instead of signs reading "Blacks to the back of the bus" or "Whites only", Anglo Republican politicians are simply ignoring the concerns of black communities, and turning others against them by suggesting that they are demanding too much.

Be more like the Huxtables and not depend so much on us white folks. You had it better under slavery, so go with that.

Michelle Obama was booed recently by NASCAR fans, prompting Rush Limbaugh to praise them for going after the "uppity" first lady. It was blown out of his dog whistle as "uppity n.....", and the base sang Hallelujah.

Our own Fox News North painted First Nation struggles as being against "white people and Indians" with another banner "we're on your side". The "Indians indulged" makes it pretty clear whose side they're on.

Harper government policies are also a promotion of the new form of segregation. He doesn't attack women, but instead removes the word "equality" from the Status for Women mandate, puts an end to affirmative action and pay equity initiatives, closes 12 of the 16 Status for Women offices and eliminates their research funding.

His government doesn't overtly attack minorities, but closes down Human Rights Commission offices, so that those suffering from discrimination have no place to address their concerns.

Gawd, I wish our media would catch up. Maybe we should send them all dog whistles for Christmas, because they sure as hell are not trying to communicate to us.

When it was discovered that neo-Nazis had infiltrated the Reform Party, Preston Manning fell back on his father's tired line, when the media exposed his extremist elements.

"A bright light attracts bugs."

But as my own father might say: "So does shite."

Despite Evictions and Arrests, Occupy Wall Street Message is Getting Through

The actions of those in the Civil Rights Movement were not always supported by the majority of Americans, especially the violence.  But the messages presented at the sit-ins and marches did begin to resonate.

However, what probably helped the movement the most, was the response of segregationists like George Wallace.   "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". 

His confrontations with students played out like a Klan lynching, and Americans noticed, overwhelmingly supporting an end to segregation, and discrimination that defined where blacks could live, work and be educated.

As "Occupiers" in the anti-Wall Street movement are being evicted, many citizens are applauding the police crack down.  But the message of inequality is sinking in, being helped by the parallel universe of the Republican debates.  We know that there are many people hurting, victims of not only the "economic crisis", when the rich got even richer, but of a concerted effort to remove the public from public policy.

The message presented by the GOP hopefuls, is that poor people should be allowed to starve, sick people without medical insurance, allowed to die, and if you're unemployed, you're just lazy.  The same message they've been spouting for fifty years.

The right wing noise machine has monopolized the political conversation for too long, and people are beginning to tune out.

In Mississippi, voters rejected a measure that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person, even though pro-life groups poured a lot of money into getting it passed.  They were hoping that this would set a precedent, and help a larger bill, the Sanctity of Life Act, sponsored by Georgia Republican Rep. Paul ‘When Will Someone Shoot Obama’ Broun. If they can't get it passed in Mississippi, there's hope.

In Ohio, an anti-union bill that was signed into law earlier this year, was repealed by voters with a 23 point margin. 

Regardless of the margin, last night was historic as no Governor of Ohio has ever seen voters repeal any portion of their agenda within the first year in office. First, the ability of anyone to pull off a referendum so early in a new Governor’s term is itself incredibly rare. Second, this is the only time it worked. 

A grassroots group called We Are Ohio, need to be commended. They were discredited at every turn, called communists and traitors, but they never quit.

Canadian unions are challenging Tony Clement's budget cuts, and we need to back them up.  In Ohio, Democrats and Republicans worked together.  This is not a partisan issue but a We are Canada one.

Maine reinstated same day voter registration after the Republicans tried to make it more difficult to vote.  Russel Pearce, the architect of Arizona’s racist profiling law, just got voted out of office, in an historic recall and the state of Delaware is suing Wall Street for questionable mortgage practices.

You don't have to live in a park and pee in a porta-potty, to know that what is happening is wrong.  The Occupy Wall Street group has struck a nerve and the ridiculous Republican presidential hopefuls, a shot of common sense and common decency, sorely lacking in the GOP.  They represent everything that is wrong with the Conservative movement.  It is pure evil.

We SHALL Overcome.

Fusion or Confusion? Why I Think the Conservative Movement Will Self-Destruct

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neoconservatives Stole My Country

I read an interesting paper by Mytheos Holt, a neoconservative intellectual, I suppose you'd call him; that discusses the fusion of right-wing groups, that currently make up the nucleus of the conservative movement.

It was simpler in the beginning, because there were primarily just two: libertarianism and traditionalism.  However, in their quest for power, two additional cells were added to the mass: neoconservatism and paleoconservatism.
 
The Libertarian promotes individual freedom and the freedom to make money without government restrictions, like product safety standards or environmental regulations.  They believe that the market will dictate safety standards, because if their product kills people, no one will buy it.  I'd sooner know in advance if using that product could kill me, not wait for additional research or a new marketing strategy.
 
The Traditionalist wants a return to moral standards, which they see as only being possible in a Judeo-Christian society.  This should clash with Libertarianism, because it dictates how a person can live.  In many ways, organized religion is a form of collectivism, since members are expected to conform to a set of standards laid out by the hierarchy of the Church, which is like a regulatory board.  This political group is more often referred to as the Christian Right or Religious Right.
 
The Neoconservatives believe that they are the intelligentsia of the movement. They create the ambigous policy statements that are designed to mean different things to different people.  And despite the fact that movement conservatives claim to detest "elites", these people are elites.  Wealthy and well educated puppet masters.  As Paul Krugman says in his Conscience of a Liberal, becoming an intellectual in this movement is a good career choice.  You will never be unemployed, moving into government when conservatives are in power, and into right-wing think-tanks when they're not. Neoconservatives are followers of Leo Strauss.
 
The Paleoconservative is committed to creating a society with a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant hierarchy (WASPs).  Their views fit well with the Religious Right.  Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis A. Schaeffer, whose book A Cristian Manifesto is believed to be the blueprint for the Religious Right, confirms that the movement was always about race.
 
Paul Weyrich agreed, saying that it was not the abortion issue that mobilized them, but the end of segregation.  Weyrich was not only a founding member of the RR, but also a Paleoconservative.  He helped to create The Council for National Policy, which is a kind of vanguard group, for all four elements of American conservatism.  In Canada, the Civitas Society plays that role.
 
How Do You Sort it All Out?
 
With so many conflicting elements, how do you sort it all out?  It can't be easy.
 
To appease the Libertarians, Stephen Harper has placed Maxime Bernier, the former head of the libertarian Montreal Institute, into his cabinet, and allows the Fraser Institute to draft policy. 
 
To appease the Religious Right, he has moved their members into every nook and cranny of his government. In April, Le Devoir, published a piece on: Religious Fanatics in the Conservative Party (April 7, 2011).

They tell of a Liberal MP who was going into anaphylactic shock. Instead of providing medical assistance, three Conservative politicians, "Mark Warawa, Jeffrey Watson and Blaine Calkins, approached the sick woman, knelt down, placed their hands on her head and ... began incantations and prayers." Says Les Devoir:

This story is not widely known on the Hill, and for good reason. Those who witnessed the scene were shocked by this counter-productive religious reflex (the crowd was keeping the MP from breathing), but they are reluctant to condemn it for fear of being accused of intolerance.

They can get away with anything under the protection of religion. Others speak of members in almost constant prayer and some who even speak in tongues. (And you thought it was just Jason Kenney)

To appease the Neoconservatives is not that difficult. The Ezra Levants and David Frums get more media exposure than Paris Hilton.

And finally to appease the Paleoconservatives, he has taken Canada down perhaps the most dangerous path yet. He is allowing the Monarchist League to begin the transformation of our country, from one with a vast cultural heritage, to one whose history begins with Confederation. This not only ignores the contributions of those who were here centuries before the Anglo-Saxons, but also those who came after. We will be transformed from our wonderful cultural mosaic, to a work of still life.

Where is the Commonality?

Mytheos Holt discusses the clashing of views held by the four cells of the conservative movement.

Traditionalism has been taken over by religious conservatism, or what conservative writer Kathleen Parker refers to as the "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP."  ("Letting Go of God." Washington Post. November 19, 2008)

David Frum was fired from the American Enterprise Institute for criticizing the Republican's stance on Obama's healthcare plan.  Tom Flanagan was exiled from the Harper government for writing his book Harper's Team, even though he cut out almost half of it. (Harperland, Lawrence Martin, 2010) Gerry Nicholls, Harper's VP when he was president of the National Citizens Coalition, was fired when he publicly criticised our current prime minister.

Holt believes that there might be "too much individual freedom", that is creating a paranoia with the movement.

...because each of the four sectors of the movement views their compatriots as potential traitors, each of them believes it is absolutely essential that the problematic elements be tossed out before ideological war can be made on liberalism, since traitorous urges will inevitably manifest themselves on the battlefield. This paranoia induces a state of ideological paralysis, in which each of the different factions of conservatism find it impossible to build upon each others’ insights, for fear of accidentally accepting a liberal narrative. (The Unchanging Republic: Prospects for a New Conservative Fusion, by Mytheos Holt, 2010)

Their only commonality is a hatred for liberalism and it consumes them.  In his book Harperland, Lawrence Martin tells of speaking with a foreign leader, who claimed that while he openly criticizes his political opponents at home, he was quite taken aback by Stephen Harper, who he claimed actually "hates" his.  What he must think of us.

The very word 'liberal' ignites an hypnotic induction that no amount of clapping will wake them from.  But as Holt suggests, since the movement began, the character of liberalism has changed dramatically, yet the conservative arguments against it have not.  They have only turned their arguments against each other, in their quest to find the perfect conservative specimen.

So can a fusion held together with hate survive, or will it undergo a fission, breaking apart as each pursues its own agenda?

Maybe the real question is not will it, but when?

The NDP's Trouncing in Saskatchewan Should be a Wake-Up Call

In the recent Saskatchewan provincial election, the NDP took a thrashing.  From the Huffington Post:

The Saskatchewan NDP suffered one of the most crushing blows in the party's history Monday night. The once dominant party was reduced from 20 to nine of the 58 seats in the legislature. NDP leader Dwain Lingenfelter lost his own riding, a long-time NDP stronghold, and stepped down soon after. The Saskatchewan Party cruised to victory with 64 per cent of the vote, doubling the NDP total, and increasing their seat count to 49.

Losing Saskatchewan for the NDP is akin to the Reformers losing Alberta.  This was where it all began.

Steve LaFleur suggests that in order to regain power the party must focus on the fact that they had moved to the right in terms of placating big business.  He blames their demise on the unions.  However, LaFleur belongs to the right-wing Frontier Centre, another think tank whose staff move in and out of the Harper government.

He discusses the destruction of the PC Party in that province, but the fact is that Brad Wall was a member of that government, and the "new" party is the same old neoconservative party of Grant Devine.  Tom Lukiwski was their general manager and is now a Harper MP.  Senator David Tkachuk was another corrupt insider of those not so defunct neocons.

I think Murray Dobbin has a better take on the problems that the NDP are currently having.  In a posting before this trouncing, he discussed the direction that the party was taking, as reflected in some of the candidates for leader.

Of Brian Topp he says:

Topp was Roy Romanow’s closest advisor. But Romanow [former Sask. NDP premier] was essentially a small ‘l’ liberal and his administration slashed education and health budgets almost as much as the previous Tory regime. I once interviewed Romanow just before he became party leader and asked him about the role of social movements and he replied they were “completely useless.” His government reflected that attitude. Maybe Topp disagreed with him — but if he did, he had little influence.

And of Mulcair:

He is an unrepentant capitalist and big ‘L’ Liberal at heart who is barely out of synch with the 1 per cent the Occupiers have targeted.

In fact, when Thomas Mulcair first decided to enter federal politics, he couldn't decide whether to run for the NDP or the Conservatives.  Clearly he chose the NDP because there was more room to advance his own career.  Dobbin is right when he says:

One of the weaknesses of the party under Jack Layton was its preoccupation with tactical maneuvering at the expense of policy development. The party had almost no policy people but a lot of communications flaks. Topp had enormous influence with Layton and we can assume he was one of the architects of this approach — one that moved the party to the centre. At the same time, the party was accused of putting its interests ahead of the country’s — with some going so far as to blame it for allowing Harper to gain his first minority.

I like Paul Dewar very much and will be watching his bid closely.  Peggy Nash has an opportunity to capture the imagination of the electorate, but with the orchestrated and unwarranted attacks on unions by Canada's conservative movement, she could be in for a rough ride.

Thomas Mulcair would be an unmitigated disaster.  A Stepen Harper mini-me.  I haven't liked him since he attacked Libby Davies for drawing attention to the plight of the occupied Palestinians.

Surge and Decline

In 1960, political scientist Angus Campbell, brought forth a theory of "surge and decline" in American politics.  It mostly addressed the often conflicting results of the mid-term and presidential elections.  However, since then many have used the theory within a particular campaign.

The current Republican leadership race is a good example.  Michelle Bachmann "surged" one week, Rick Perry another.  Now they have both dropped significantly.

The NDP success in the last federal election was the result of a "surge" in popularity for Jack Layton.  Increased media attention led to advantageous name recognition, but had the campaign gone on another week or two, it's difficult to say if it would have lasted.

Saskatchewan was the NDP's mid-term election, and as I say, hopefully, their wake-up call.  In their quest to destroy the Liberals, they have forgotten who they are.  They will never outstrategize Stephen Harper, nor will they take over the Liberal Party, so they shouldn't try.

Two weeks ago the Liberals had a membership drive with a target of 5,000 new members.  They landed 5,087.  Their death is wishful thinking on the part of both the Reformers and the NDP.  The Liberal base is disappointed but not ready to jump ship.

The Right Did Not Unite, the Populist Parties Did

In 2002, the Fraser Institute published a report on the feasibility of uniting the struggling PC Party with the Reform-Alliance.  The right had been attempting such a thing since 1967, and Ernest Manning's Political Realignment.  The Report: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam, stated that "The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party."

What was interesting about the report however, was the analysis of the 1993 election that became a turning point in Canadian politics.  One of my readers recently suggested that Harper's movement simply took over the conservative base and that his supporters were already conservatives.  Putnam's analysis proves otherwise.

The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time.

In British Columbia in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.  The Liberals and PCs were often interchangeable.  In fact PC leader Kim Campbell lost her seat to Liberal Hedy Fry.

The Reform-Alliance's success only came about when they bought out the rights to the PC Party and pretended to be Tories, allowing them to cash in on an historical tradition.  This won't work for the NDP because the Liberal Party is not currently on the auction block.

The Quebec surge knocked out the Bloc, who were often allies of the NDP, and vote-splitting knocked down the Liberals.  If the NDP hope to succeed, they have to come out as themselves and define what they stand for.
I have always thought that we did better under the Liberals when the NDP held the balance of power.  There is no reason to believe that an NDP government with a Liberal opposition, wouldn't do the same.  However, Jack Layton led  his party in a full frontal attack on the LPC, ignoring the stronger forces of the conservative movement.

As Murray Dobbin says:  "... we are facing possibly monumental social and economic change in the next few years. The [NDP] leadership race is being judged by trying to imagine who can defeat Stephen Harper in four years — but just what are people thinking the world and Canada will look like in four years?"

We need a progressive movement and we need it now.  In four years it may be too late.

Bob Rae is in a unique position, because he has led both the NDP and the Liberals.  Maybe he can find common ground.  We can't depend on "surges" because they inevitably lead to decline.

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 ................

Harper Stacks Judiciary For American Conservative Movement

Brian Abrams is a former Conservative candidate for Kingston and the Islands.  He had a pretty good showing in 2008, but lost to incumbent Peter Milliken. 

After his defeat, the Conservatives launched an all out attack on this riding.  They saturated it with taxpayer funded ten percenters, warning Kingstonians that if we voted for Michael Ignatieff, he would leave us and join the Samurais.

Yes, apparently Michael Ignatieff had once jokingly claimed that he was a Samurai Warrior and it was of vital importance to our national security, for us to know that.

Abrams took a beating in the local press for this waste of our money and also for not supporting the Prison Farm protests.  Local candidates for the Liberal, Green and NDP parties were at every meeting and most rallies.

When it became clear that he would not be able to win an election, the Conservatives bought him off with an appointment to Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, to make way for their star candidate, local businesswoman Alicia Gordon.  She lost.

I was concerned with Abram's appointment, not only because he was one of the most partisan creatures on the planet, but because he had been the attorney for the local police department.  I believe that the judiciary and law enforcement should be separate. He was also a former RCMP officer.  Could he rule against the police if there was wrongdoing?  Or against Conservative ideology?  I don't think so.

I remember during the 2008 campaign, on his blog he claimed that he was sitting around worrying about the hardships that the Green Shift/carbon tax plan of Stéphane Dion's would impose on people in this riding.  He knew that the plan was revenue neutral, but if he had to lie to get ahead, he could lie with the best of them.  He should have been sitting around worrying about the devastating affects of Climate Change.

However, this isn't really about Abrams, but rather how Stephen Harper chooses his appointments.

Bruce Ryder had an excellent column in the Star yesterday:  Are we appointing the best judges?  While most of the media and some MPs are chasing shiny things, aka: the announcement that one candidate was not bi-lingual, they are missing the obvious.

The views and qualifications of the appointees.

A former selection, Justice Marshall Rothstein, has already taken a stand against collective bargaining, despite the fact that he promised not to let his personal views affect his decisions.

Ryder raises another issue.  Of the four Harper selections to date, NONE are committed to upholding our Charter rights and freedoms.  This is not an accident.

In 2004 Harper actually ran against the charter, promising to use the Notwithstanding Clause to overturn things like abortion laws, gay rights, women's rights and hate speech laws, (which he likened to totalitarianism).

To the Conservatives, the charter is social engineering, elevating individual rights over personal responsibility and undeserving minorities over the taxpaying majority .... Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution. (Winnipeg Free Press, June 25, 2004)

In the 2005-6 campaign, some in the Canadian media became alarmed with Harper's ties to the American Religious Right and their Conservative Movement, prompting one of their leaders, Paul Weyrich (above right), to send an email to his flock, warning them not to talk to the Canadian press. At first he denied that the email was his, but later confirmed that he had indeed attempted to hide Harper's close relationship with members of his team.  (Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006)

When Harper failed to get a majority, Weyrich told his followers not to worry.  Said he:

"It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian prime minister has more power than a United States president. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

"Harper's partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the courts. (ibid)

In his new book Rogue in Power, Christian Nadeau reminds us that Harper has indeed been doing just that.

And for Harper, the appointment of judges is ... part of a strategy whose objective is to profoundly change the relationship between government and other institutions to one of master and servant.  Placing judges who hold and will support the neoconservative agenda ....  at least three judicial appointments to higher courts were motivated by religious [Right]reasons—Dallas K. Miller in Alberta, Lawrence O'Neil in Nova Scotia, and David Moseley Brown in Ontario. Miller is the founder of an association that advocates home-schooling. O'Neil has told the Commons that pregnant women have no right to control their own bodies. Brown is known for his battles against gay rights. (Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is remaking Canada by Stealth, By Christian Nadeau, Lorimer Press, ISBN: 978-1-55277-730-5, p. 53-54)

Paul Weyrich is also a founding member of the Council for National Policy, the pro-military, religious organization where Stephen Harper gave his "yes I really hate Canadians this much" speech in 1997.  Said Harper:

"The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."

Funny.  None of those things horrified me, but the thought of losing them scares me to death.

Grassroots at the Real Grassroots. What a Novel Idea

The Occupation of Wall Street protests are growing, and appear to have staying power. Without the corporate funding of the Tea Party, they started with just a small group and an idea.

Taxpayers were forced to bail out Wall Street, and yet Wall Street now sits on a mountain of cash, refusing to bail them out.

What are these so-called "job creators" doing with all that money? They certainly aren't creating jobs.

So this small group took to the streets to deliver their simple message and it's beginning to resonate.

Republican presidential hopeful, Herman Cain, suggests that they are playing the victim card. They are jealous of the wealthy, otherwise known as Republicans and their posse; and if they're out of work it's their own fault.

Can you imagine someone wanting to be president of the United States, openly declaring that he has no interest in representing the working class, who are now the "hardly working" class?

He's now tied for the lead.

Canada's occupation of Bay Street protests will start this week and let's hope they are a success.

The fools gold of neoconservatism has been exposed as worthless.  Giving more money to the rich, only helps the rich, who in turn help the conservatives stay in power.

In Ontario, Tim Hudak's campaign was reliably disappointing.  "Low taxes", tough on imaginary crime and going after welfare cheats.  If he'd thrown in "long-haired hippies", it could have just as easily been Ronald Reagan's 1967 campaign in his first run for Governor of California.

In fact, it probably was. For almost half a century, neocons have stuck to the same script.

In Kingston, our local conservative candidate Rodger James, had more signs than any of his opponents.  Not many on lawns, but busy roadways were plastered with them, lined up like blue and white dominoes.

I see those signs as a metaphor for today's conservatism.

Gluttony and excess, with nothing behind them but a big stick.

James finished third.