Saturday, August 16, 2008

Freedom In Our Time


This series of posts is a direct response to not only the sad state of politics in Canada but also the sad state of the State of Canada. The sorry excuse for freedom in Canada stems (as all the problems of nations do) from the documents on which it is founded.


Therefore my first, and the most important step on the path to true freedom for all Canadians is the vivisection, destruction and abolition of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

First off, let’s look at the premises implicit in the name of that wrong headed document.

The "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"… Were the creators of this document trying to tell us that Rights and Freedoms are separate issues? Is it possible to have one without the other? Can one experience freedom without having rights or only having some rights? Or could rights somehow be respected by a tyrannical state in which freedom is restrained? The answer to each question is of course an emphatic NO.

When, as in the CCRF we talk of freedoms and equate them with rights we are buying into the modern liberal package-deal that says the freedoms we have and enjoy are of equal value to our rights. As a matter of fact if you look up “fundamental rights” you get a list of rights including such things as “the right to marry”, or “the right to procreate”. Obviously we (globally) have lost sight of what true rights are.

There are really only 3 universal human rights. They are the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property.

You might notice that the right to pursue happiness is not listed, with all deference to the framers of the Constitution of the United States that is really not a right but a condition achievable only through the full and useful exercise of ones rights.

Similarly equality is not among the rights, not because it is not desirable with regard to equality of race and sex, but because these conditions too are implicit within the rights to life, liberty and property, and the elevation of equality to the status of a right leads to tyranny wherein all real rights are lost, for which 90 years of Russian Communism provides an excellent example.

So what do these rights mean…

Life is the unassailable right for each and every man to live, to take all the actions necessary to support, further and fulfil that life. Implicit within this right is the commandment that no man may initiate the use of force against another.

Liberty is the undeniable fact that all men are guaranteed unrestrained action to live their lives as they see fit. Before anyone raises the red herring of the possibility of a sadistic raping, murdering hedonist, I will direct you to reread the preceding paragraph on the right to life…

Property is the acknowledgement that a man owns, lock stock and barrel all the products of his mind, labour and any acquired property achieved through the efforts of his mind and labour.

These three rights make all of our freedoms possible. There can be no freedom to procreate without the right to life, no equality is possible without the right to liberty and no freedom of expression can be exercised without the right to property.

I encourage you to read the CCRF. Read it with the real rights in mind, read it with a puritanical zeal and tell me if any of thee fabricated pseudo-rights contained in the Charter are not implicit within the real rights.

Now look at the high-minded freedoms contained in the document, the question that comes to mind aught to be, well, why do we bother? Why do we bother to list a string of arbitrary freedoms when all freedom is explicitly contained in three small, concise rights.

Food for thought.

On the whole the CCRF is inconsistent, scatter brained and overworked. It has been misled by the progressive political philosophy that made it, but were it only for that, there might be reason and will to rebuild it, but that is not the case, for there are a couple of truly evil inclusions within it, snuck in under the guise of historical acts of contrition.

I draw your attention to the section entitled “Affirmative Action Programs” in regard to Equality rights which states…

“(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Subsection (1) reads…

“(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

Think about it…

This deals with so called equality rights, which as I have illustrated earlier really pertains to the real right of Liberty. Subsection 2 of our right to equality (liberty) is a perversion of the entire concept of rights. Rights by their definition are not capricious; they can not be taken away, renounced or excepted. The millisecond someone, anyone dismisses a right you no longer have any rights.

There can be no valid reason for the dismissal of inalienable rights. The fact that Natives, the disabled, homosexuals, women, Jews, Japanese or geriatrics in this country were treated unfairly in our history is no excuse for totalitarianism.

My rights, everyone’s rights are permanent, unassailable and can not ever be mortgaged off to buy forgiveness for historical, ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual misdeeds occurring now, in history or in the future.

The abomination of manufactured rights, conflicting premises and illiberal progressive doctrine that is the CCRF must be abolished.

Not being one to just harp on a problem, I offer a solution…

The Canadian Charter of Rights.

Canada affirms the following fundamental rights;

Right to Life – Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. No government shall deny, set down or offer implicit support to any means, method, or moral code by which any person may live, make or rule his own life.


Right to Liberty – All men are guaranteed the freedom to take all the actions required for the support, the furtherance, the fulfilment and the enjoyment of his own life. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any person, against his will, is to prevent the initiation of force against others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant for the use of force. Government shall not initiate force against the individual, and shall not use force against the individual except as prescribed by law in order to protect the rights of others against the initiation of force.


Right to Property - The right of property is among the most important fundamental individual rights and the one which, united with that of personal liberty, has contributed more to the growth of civilization than any other institution established by the human race. Every man is the owner in deed and action of all the products of his mind and labour. Personal property once acquired can not be appropriated by force by any person or government except when said government seizes it according to law as punishment for violation of rights.


Here’s wishing us all… Freedom In Our Time

Monday, August 11, 2008

Sorry... I'm Not Sorry.


I’m not going to apologize for the ancient actions of long dead politicians or say I’m sorry on behalf of the nation for anything that our national ancestors did or didn’t do. Not now, not in a park, in the House of Commons or ever.

Canada is a country and its actions are a direct product of the beliefs, prejudices and insecurities held by the society and its norms at any single point in time. As times change so does the nation. One could easily draw a correlation between the death of a person and the death of societal ideals and norms. That is the substance of this issue.

The Canada that denied women suffrage, that attempted the cultural destruction of native peoples, that exercised discriminative immigration and naturalization, that imprisoned Japanese Canadians in their own country, that Canada is as dead as the people than approved, instituted, and carried out those chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic programs.

To all of those who for whatever reason want apologies, who want to see weak kneed historical hand wringing... grow up!

Get over your historical self-pity and insecurities and get on with your life in the here and now. Make use of every freedom and opportunity that Canada offers and live the kind of life that you want in this great country of ours.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Anti-politics


Well, I’ve decided to throw my hat into the ring…

I’m entering into politics.

No, I’m not actually going to run for office I’m going to participate in the next best thing as any Canadian can tell you… I’m going to bitch about it from the sidelines.

In the coming months I’m going to develop my platform, the same way as the other politicians do, through keeping a keen eye on the topics du jour, a savvy read of the countries mass media and of course by watching the opposition, namely him and him. After all who really cares about him and her anyway?

If you’re expecting apologies for historic mistakes, cow towing to dubious theories, vacillation on and befuddlement of the issues look elsewhere.

Welcome to Anti-politics.


Thursday, August 7, 2008

Ezra Wins A Victory

Of sorts...

This more than anything exposes the Human "Rights" Commissions for the capricious, malicious and malevolent group of petty apparactchik that they really are.

Like a bully that's had his nose bloodied by one of the little guy's he's been picking on the HRC's have run away in fear, but now isn't the time for us "Freespeechers" to pick up our books. Now is the time to chase the bastards down and finish giving them the thrashing they so richly deserve.

Fire. Them. All.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Wisdom condensed to one line

Rather than a long meditation, here is a one liner which explains the mindset of our "progressive" friends and their dictatorial role models world-wide:

Free speech? Next thing you know everyone will want free will.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Who pays; who controls?

While some readers might have wondered about my long absence from Uncommon Sense, rest assured that I have been busy at work and on personal matters (like improving my house!). Things should be settled come the fall.

This post is based on the well known but interesting observation that the bulk of tax revenues are paid by a minority of the wealthiest citizens. While the data here is from the United States, similar results should be found in Canadian data.

If 52% of the electorate can effectively control the wealth of the remaining 48%, what possible incentive will they have to elect responsible representatives or support policies that encourage wealth creation, protect private property or even support the Rule of Law (being able to expropriate private property is a favorite practice of socialist city councils, and the Kelo descision has very far reaching implications)?

It was for a very good reason that Aristotle looked down on Democracy as mob rule, and the Founding Fathers of the United States also had the examples of the "Social Wars" that brought down the Res Publica Roma and the excess of the French revolution to guide them. It should be noted that the franchise in the infant United States was only granted to men of property (Timocacy) to prevent mob rule and protect the property rights of citizens.

How to reverse this situation today is not at all clear. People like the idea of getting something for free, without considering where the "free" came from. For those who do, Socialists of all stripes will invoke class warfare, suggesting the wealth is somehow stolen, and really belongs to the correct class, ethnic group, nationality etc.

The only fact in the article that provides a slim ray of hope is the ratio in the United States is still very close to the 50/50 mark, and a little economic tweaking might push the wealth generating fraction back into the majority. Even in the current situation, the greater powers of organization and initiative displayed by the wealth earning fraction of the population might still be enough to retain control of the machinery of government long enough to do the tweaking on their own.

Of course, the solution of last resort might simply be to go on strike, as eaders of "Atlas Shrugged" know...

Monday, June 23, 2008

SOTCA



And the Lord said "Let there be Octane!"
I'm going to skip the middleman and just pray that my car doesn't use the gasoline already in its tank.

What would they do if the Farmers went on strike?


I always thought that business led to employment, which led to stability, which led to less crime, which led to less violence. Meh, what do I know. Toronto City Council (the centre, of the centre of the uselessverse, um, er... I mean universe) obviously knows better. Because as we all know, the scumbag murderers responsible for this, shop and practise locally.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Blessed is Sarcasm, Yea Verily it Speaks Truth!

Wait till Buzz sees these, he'll have some of the boys blockade the Internet!



Friday, June 13, 2008

SOTCA


Never mind human rights violations, torture, executions, mass murder, extremist jihadists or totalitarianism... That little old lady in Windsor Castle is the real concern.

Eliminating freedom and prosperity, one industry at a time.

Filed under "credible source"; Seriously, anyone paying attention to our casualty rate in Afghanistan or to the effectiveness of the Taliban resistance knows that this is the Taliban begging for their lives from the bottoms of their little rat caves. The Mujahideen these losers are not.

Google Couillard, now tell me we'd still be paying attention to this crap if she looked like this.

"Mr. Poilievre also suggested aboriginals need to work harder rather than receive more money." The first casualty of politics is truth.

And Canada's status as a totalitarian banana munching state without free speech, castrated by corrupt star chambers, fed by pompous petty bureaucrats who have never really fought for a right in their lives grows... Fire. Them. All.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The National Post Gets It...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The article is one of those equivocation pieces the main stream media is so fond of, and in true style it paints a picture of modern (Canadian) man as a petty, selfish immoral brute that needs to be told what can and can not be said.

That mentality drags us all back to the darkest Dickinsonian days of the industrial revolution, where abuse, exploitation and racism abounded. But is that the kind of world we live in today? Are the majority of Canadians predisposed to racism and hatred? It’s a basic question, are we moral creatures or are we just animals with utensils?

I can tell you how some would like us to answer those questions, for it has long been the joy of traditional media to cast humanity in the worst light. To twist our society into a caricature where one is either an oppressor or a victim, with a dash of “Yes Veronica there is a Santa Claus” thrown in for stark contrast.

This perversion has been accepted over time by populations and governments. It has led us to the garden path we are on, strewn with fabricated rights like potted plants, for because we are so evil and so predisposed to harm, abuse and degrade other men we must be constrained against ourselves.

We can’t rely on human nature because human nature is weak and evil.

We can’t appeal to compassion because we are only animals incapable of caring.

In truth, it is possible to look at our society and see all of that, but the premise is incorrect.

The reason we see our society in decline is because of these potted plant rights. Because of them we can’t rely on hundreds of years of liberal thought and the few basic and true rights like liberty, equality and property because the fabricated rights we’ve created have weakened those inalienable rights and rendered them impotent.

With every new right, with every caveat included in our national laws we weaken our liberty. And those fabricated rights, incapable of sustaining themselves need to be watered and nurtured by fabricated bureaucracies who’s sole purpose is to ensure that the fabrication is given due consideration. And having precious little to do these bureaucracies seek to ensure their survival by perverting the weakness that they themselves have created in our society. Soon the garden path is a jungle, a jungle in need of a clear cutting.

There is not one, single solitary complaint brought to the CHRC that could not have been resolved with pre-existing law.

Ernst Zundel didn’t need to be tried in a kangaroo court, he needed to have the full weight of existing law rallied against him. Furthermore he needed to face the honest and righteous wrath of ordinary Canadians, he needed to be ostracized, to be loathed, and held up to contempt by every honourable, moral Canadian. And what is more is that we Canadians needed to do it. We needed to stand up as individuals and as a society to be counted, to counter the idea that we don’t care, that we are immoral and that we need to be prodded to act.

We don’t need the CHRC we need freedom of speech, freedom to speak in unvarnished, blunt and forthright language. We need to speak up and out for our society against racism, against intolerance against fanaticism and against all those who would seek to silence such speech.

As Ezra Levant has said time and again “Fire them all”

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Connecting the Debt

The numbers from this old article are impressive.

"The accumulated surplus over that time has been more than $60 billion. The actual surplus's for the last seven years have been:
  • 2003/04 $9.1B
  • 2002/03 $7B
  • 2001/02 $8.9B
  • 2000/01 $18.1B
  • 1999/00 $12.7B
  • 1998/99 $3.1B
  • 1997/98 $3.8B"
But what caused me to dredge it up was this article.

"A group of labour unions from Quebec, backed by the Canadian Labour Congress wants the high court to set things right by belatedly declaring the diversion unconstitutional - and ordering Ottawa to return $54 billion to the EI account.

The money represents the surplus accumulated by the EI program since 1986, when legislation brought in by Jean Chretien's government tightened the eligibility rules for jobless payments."

Some simple math exposes the suspicious thread my brain has traced, and puts the lie to Liberal debt reduction.

60 billion - 54 billion = 6 billion

In 7 years, while the Federal Liberal government claimed to have repaid that 60 billion, they had really just reallocated (stolen) 54 billion from the EI account.

Two things leap out at me.

  1. If 54 billion can be taken out and the program can still function at full capacity we are obviously paying way too much in EI premiums.
  2. That the government's unrestrained ability to steal our money in taxes, do with it whatever they please, and then lie to us about how it is used is a crock!

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Shotgun

Because you just know you’re going to hit something…

If you won’t write it down, it isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on.

Nuclear Theft!

Because nothing says you’re sorry for something done before you were even born like 2.5 million in grants. Well at least it’s not a cheap vote buying scheme…

No honour among thieves, or socialists for that matter. Hey Dalton, keep right on spending and talk of Ontario as a have not province will be a self fulfilling prophecy. What a fricken doughhead…

Maybe if we weren’t sending the aid, maybe if the world ostracized the entire country, maybe if we made it abundantly clear that no one would get any help till the Junta stood down then the Burmese people would rise up en mass and kill their oppressors. Until then we are just feeding the regime.

So we can all stop watching the paint dry now? Thank you, thank you, than you…

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Words of wisdom

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are those who want crops without plowing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. Power never concedes anything without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both."

Frederic Douglas

Wise words from one of the leaders of the Abolitionist movement leading up to the American Civil War. Canadians seem particularly prone to quietly submitting, to our great cost........

We'll either die free or we die trying.

A flat tax for Canada. It's your call

Canadians have once again undergone the ritual of sending in their tax returns, a yearly event greeted with all the enthusiasm of going to the dentist for a root canal. At least a root canal has some direct benefit to the patient, while it is often difficult to determine just what or how the various programs, credits and exemptions the government provides benefit the average taxpayer. The fact that a family which relies on employment income and has few or no investment vehicles needs to fill in a form with hundreds of lines of input is mind boggling in the extreme; if the average family is unable to fill in a tax return without professional help, how much more time and effort is needed by the self employed taxpayer, the small business owner or the person with somewhat above normal ambition who has small investments supposed to cope?

The direct costs to this madness are estimated to be about 3.9 billion dollars to the Canadian economy. Indirect costs from lost productivity and efforts to shelter income from taxation are impossible to calculate with any accuracy, but the reader can imagine it must be at least in the same ballpark. This almost 8 billion dollar hit to the economy in direct and indirect costs is the resources to create almost 160,000 full time jobs.

The Fraser Institute has commented on this for many years, the Toronto Sun recently published a piece, the Guelph Mercury and now the Montreal Gazette have also published interesting articles commenting on the issue. It is about time that you called, wrote or emailed your Member of Parliament and MPP about this issue as well. A simplified flat tax can collect the same amount of revenue as the current system with all its distortions and complexity, while freeing enough economic resources into the productive economy to employ an entire town's worth of Canadians. That is something worth fighting for.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)


More rights ≠ More liberty

More rights ≠ More Freedom

More rights = A wrong

We are quickly sliding into the realm of a 'rights' tyranny. With every new "right" concocted by our hypersensitive, overly judicious, politically correct, namby-pamby nanny state, someone else looses a right.

Your right to ensure that the people you hire will do what it was that they were hired for in the first place is contravened by someone else's right to disobey and mooch. (H/T to Ezra)

Your right to free speech is contravened by someone else's
(Syed Soharwardy) right to not be "offended".

Your right to have an opinion and express it is contravened by someone else's right to not have it published (McLeans Magazine & Mark Stein).

Your right to call someone an ass for being an ass is contravened by his right to not have his feelings hurt. (Kate at SDA vs. Richard Warman)

Your right to property is contravened by someone else's right to lay claim to that property (
Caledonia).

Your right to protect the beliefs you hold dear is contravened by someone else's right to do what your belief tells you is sinful and immoral (Priest charged for Preaching that homosexuality is a sin).

So much for the freedom our rights were supposed to provide, but hey, NONE of our rights were ever guaranteed.

From our glorious illiberal ill-conceived and poorly legislated Charter of 'rights and freedoms'

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.


(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in
Canada.

Our Revolution

Looking at the current race for the White house, I am struck by how "small" the candidates really are. Small ideas, petty infighting between the two Democratic contenders and small historical "footprints". The resumes of the two Democratic contenders are very thin, and even John McCain's legislative achievements are not particularly notable, except for the very confusing and almost unworkable McCain–Feingold Act.

Look at the vision that President Ronald Reagan had of America and the world, and ask yourself are the current candidates even in the same league? (Ask yourself the same questions about Canadian politicians as well).

Below is the text of Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the nation after his eight years as president, delivered in the Oval Office on January 11, 1989.

This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together eight years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time.

It's been the honor of my life to be your president. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass — the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, "parting is such sweet sorrow." The sweet part is California, and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow — the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the president and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past eight years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one — a small story about a big ship, and a refugee and a sailor. It was back in the early '80s, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck and stood up and called out to him. He yelled, "Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man."
A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again, and in a way, we ourselves rediscovered it.

It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created — and filled — 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, "My name's Ron." Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback — cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later another economic summit, with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And one of them broke the silence. "Tell us about the American miracle," he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for president, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that "the engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come." Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called "radical" was really "right." What they called "dangerous" was just "desperately needed."

And in all of that time I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home. Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons — and hope for even more progress is bright — but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday, you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

But back in the 1960s, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things — that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, "Stop." I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.
Nothing is less free than pure communism, and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970s was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street — that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this. I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see.

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments. And I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job, Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did. Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-'60s

But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin weighs in:

I found this set of quotes on the Canadian Republic blog. A nice summary of what we are up against, and how Progressives intend to extinguish this Dominion of Canada and our rights and freedoms:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quotes:

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.

The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy's cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.



It is time to fight back!

We'll either die free or we die trying.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Let a million boycotts bloom

The idea of boycotting the 2008 Summer Olympics has been raised in the Blogosphere and the MSM over China's outrageous conduct in Tibet. The fact that this conduct has been ongoing for decades should be no surprise to anyone, but China has received a pass until now for many reasons.

China's growth as a regional power has benefited us in the West. In the 1970's, they provided a potent counterbalance to the USSR, allowing the Western powers to maintain growing and vigorous economies in the face of Soviet power, rather than developing a full wartime economy with all the deprivations and dangers that would imply. The USSR's wartime economy paid to subjugate its empire and face against the Western alliance and China.Unable to sustain these expenditures, the USSR collapsed, ending the Cold War.

China's economic growth, powered as it is by supplying the West with inexpensive consumer goods has reduced the inflationary pressure that the huge growth of government in the West creates, allowing a large fraction of the population to maintain middle class lifestyles that otherwise would be unobtainable. (Only massive cuts in government taxation and spending would achieve the same result) The proliferation of inexpensive goods also powers the rise of the "big box" retail segment of the economy; providing jobs and opportunities to millions of people with limited prospects across North America.

But these goods for us are only temporary and situational. China wants the world to respect her and treat her as "The Middle Kingdom" (in the Chinese world view, the centre of the Universe), and uses foreign trade and currency as tools to achieve her goals. The Olympics are a giant propaganda fest for the Chinese, and they had seen it as their global "coming out party" to take their place on the world stage.

Given the strong incentives to maintain the status quo, Western government will not institute a full boycott of the 2008 Olympics. There will be the usual hand wringing and statements to mollify the masses, but the games will go on and China will attempt to capitalize on this opportunity.

Freedom, like Free Speech, is really a self help project. While the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world talk about Tibet and China's human rights record, we the people can take concrete and effective actions starting now to change things.

First off, look at your purchases. What do you really need that is made in China? While it may be impossible to completely eliminate Chinese goods and services from your shopping list or portfolio, you can certainly cut down on your financial contributions to China's war chest. Retailers will respond to lessened demand by dropping or substituting Chinese products with ones from other sources.

Second, directly ask your retailers to substitute Indian goods for Chinese goods. India is cost competitive with China, but shares many of the values of Freedom, Property Rights and Rule of Law with Canada and other Western nations. We can maintain the benefits of low cost consumer goods and support our friends at the same time.

Third, let all your media outlets know you will not be watching, listening to or reading about the Olympic games. Let all their advertisers know as well. Limiting the coverage of the Olympics also limits the ability of China to send their spin over the air. The media will respond to threats to their viewer ship and advertising monies by airing other shows and covering something else.

If one million Canadians were to do this it would have a huge impact. One million people is a market share too big for any Canadian retailer to ignore, and their behavior and purchasing decisions would have to change because of the actions of you, the readers. If big and small retailers shift their purchasing away from China, it will start to hurt the Middle Kingdom in the pocket book. Even minor layoffs in China have the potential to create ripples of unrest, and for a brittle society like China, that is something the Communist Party cannot allow.

The cost to you is low, the risk is minimal, but the potential payoff is immense. If Chinese behaviour can be curbed in Tibet, then their intransigence and hostility towards the West in other areas (such as their support for the murderous regime in the Sudan, or human rights violations within China) will also be defanged; we can maintain the boycott until we are satisfied with their behaviour, and no one has to wait for the politicians.

Act now. Free Tibet.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

HRC debate going mainstream

The ongoing battle for the right to free speech in Canada has finally leaked from the Blogosphere and is starting to enter the mainstream of consciousness through the MSM. Ezra Levant lists several stories in this post, and sees evidence of an organized counter offensive by HRC's to state their case in the media and defend their positions of power and privilege, which is an expected response.

Reading Levant's post and following the links reveals how far we have fallen in this Dominion of Canada; the senior HRC officers who speak for the HRC's have such weak and ineffectual arguments and apply the power of the State in such nonproductive ways that they are essentially conceding there is no actual purpose being served by them. At the same time they betray a colossal arrogance, presuming to override the laws of Canada at their whim and bypassing existing procedural and judicial process to do so and bristling with offence when their activities are exposed for inspection and questioning.

Once you read this, I would encourage readers to look at Ezra Levant's entire site for detailed descriptions of how the HRC operates as a Star Chamber; allowing blatant conflict of interest and collusion between "complainants" and "investigators", manipulating or creating "evidence" and so on. Mark Steyn, another Canadian author under attack by the HRC has a great deal to say on his site as well, as well as Connie and Mark Fournie.

You too can have a say, go to this site and look up you Member of Parliament. They need to hear from their constituents that HRC's have no purpose in a Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law, and should be disbanded. Get writing.

I will give Ezra the last word as to why we all need freedom of speech to protect us from the arbitrary power of the State:

I know a little bit about South Africa and the end of Apartheid. It happened because of the decision by the white minority to relinquish power. That decision came about because of a relatively free debate -- a debate in which "offensive" ideas, like the equality of all races, was permitted in the main. There was some censorship, of course -- and, of course, that censorship was used by the Apartheid government to muzzle its more rambunctious critics. And that's the point: weak and powerless people often have no other remedy besides free speech. It was the case with the suffragette movement in the 1920s, with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1980s.