When the truth gets sacrificed

It’s sad when the truth can get you in trouble, lest you hurt someone’s feelings. Ask Post Secondary Education Minister Selina Robinson who stepped into it when she stated fact that pre-1948 Palestine was “a crappy piece of land.” She got raked over the coals, left and right, mostly left, and had to apologize for hurting feelings.

In a B’nai Brith panel discussion, Robinson commented on young people’s lack of knowledge of the Holocaust, saying 18 to 34-year-olds have no idea about the Holocaust. They don’t understand that Israel was offered to the Jews.

It had nothing on it, there were several hundred thousand people, it didn’t produce an economy, it couldn’t grow things, it didn’t have anything on it. That is a statement of fact, some may not like it, but fact should not fall victim to hurt feelings.

Mosques and Islamic associations now want Robinson fired. They say no NDP MLA or candidate for the next election is welcome in their sacred spaces until Premier David Eby takes action against Robinson. And that, my friends, is extortion.


Beware the Boogeyman,

injecting fear and hate into politics

I have a love-hate relationship with politics. I love it while despising a lot of aspects of what is really a game played to select how and by whom we are governed. We’re told that we must accept that black is white and white is black.

American politics has operated this way for decades, vilify your opponents through fear based on misrepresentation. In other words, lie like a mattress. The Americans go to the polls this November and it’s getting messy to the point of involving their judiciary in influencing the dialogue. That behaviour is beginning to rub off on our politics north of the border.

Our federal election is not for another 20 months or so, but it’s becoming clear that we’re in for an American-style campaigning in both this year’s provincial and next year’s federal elections. Prime Minister Trudeau and Mini-Me NDP leader Jagmeet Singh are trumpeting how we are in mortal danger if Donald Trump returns to the White House next January.

They are auditioning the mantra that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is a mini-Trump. It’s the fear smear, first fear of Trump and then equating Poilievre to Trump and by extension, comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler. They accuse Conservative MPs of using “MAGA tactics” likening them to Trump’s Make-America-Great-Again mantra.

It’s difficult to comprehend how that slogan could be turned into a negative ­– who would not want to Make America Great Again? Or Canada? Canadians are frustrated at the price of goods, falling behind through inflation, housing shortages, failing health care, rising crime and more. These are great election talking points that the Conservatives are plugging into.

Political strategists believe they can take a message about making the country great again and twist them into something to be perceived as negative. It could be a misjudgment of the pulse of the electorate.

The fear campaign sounds like a recognition that voters may turn in that direction. That’s what it’s all about, what voters perceive as best for their interests. Making our country great again certainly sounds appealing, voters might just buy into that and reject the boogeyman theory.


Pay me now or pay me later

Political promises are little

more than a grand shell game

Good politics does not guarantee good governance. Dangling the shiny object in front of voters can spell political success but that usually wears off under the bright light of reality.

With about 22 month before the next federal election, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has the shiny object, his promise to “axe the tax”, to eliminate the carbon tax which is at the heart of a lot of our country’s challenges. It brings in a lot of revenue to the wild spending of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, but it’s a real burden to many sectors of the economy. It is constructed so that massive increases are already built in, costing more each year.

The promise to eliminate the tax could be a winner because it’s something taxpayers and voters can buy into. Not too many people voluntarily hand over their hard-earned income. As far as election goodies go, this one on the surface looks like a winner.

It’s after the election when the sheen wears off that we have to worry about. Governance is generally based on income and outcome. You can’t simply get rid of a revenue source without replacing it – and the carbon tax is a big one. You have to replace it with other revenue, generally known as a tax. With this one, increases are already built in.

Former Premier Gordon Campbell made British Columbia the first jurisdiction to adopt a carbon tax, trying to convince us was that is was “revenue neutral.” The first numbers tossed around made it appear that our income taxes would be reduced to match the carbon tax revenue. Campbell tried to convince us that would be the case, we’d break even, and save the planet at the same time.

B.C. Liberals grudgingly conceded later that the carbon tax revenue was much greater than projected, therefore costings all of us more than the supposed income tax savings. They didn’t further reduce our income taxes to make up for the windfall. As an aside, if any program is revenue neutral, then why bother? It’s simply putting a new label on an old package.

The promise to axe the carbon tax will likely earn a lot of votes, but to make it work will require some fancy maneuvering. If elected, Poilievre will have to initiate new revenue sources or cut government spending, hopefully the latter, or a combination of both.

There’s a catch though for British Columbians. A prime minister can eliminate a federal tax, but in B.C. it was brought in by the provincial government. On top of that, the B.C. NDP diverted the carbon tax into general revenue rather than leaving it earmarked for so-called climate action.

Like the old shell game, put an object under one shell and move a whole bunch of them around and see if you can guess under which one it is hidden. As much as we may love the shiny bauble, we need to hear which shell it is under. The problem is that usually reality doesn’t set in until after an election.

As the old Fram oil filter commercials used to warn us, “Pay be now or pay me later.”


WEF should scare the

living crap out of us 

The World Economic Forum sounds so important and powerful. It’s a place where the ultra rich, better-than-thou elitists gather regularly to impact our lives and our future. And impactful they are even though none were ever elected to this august body. Their only qualification is their power through their personal wealth.

They gather to lecture the rest of the world about the dangers of climate change and how we all have to reduce our carbon dioxide production, to the extent of simply breathing. They boast about how they are creating a new world order, a Nirvana, heaven on earth. It’s not about getting rid of fossil fuels and controlling the amount of carbon dioxide, which will be impossible to achieve, it’s about control of every aspect of our lives, with them on the throne.

Our own prime minister and deputy prime minister are real fans of this world agenda.

The devotees go to this exclusive shindig in private and charter jets that spew more CO2 per second than any human might in a lifetime.

They lecture how we should all get rid of our fossil fueled transportation, yet when they arrive in Davos, Switzerland for their wine and dine they all take Bentleys, Rolls Royces and Lamborghinis, their limos while there. Not a Tesla in sight.

Most of us have known the WEF exists, but it’s a distant elitist group than doesn’t affect us directly, or so we are lulled into believing. They’ve convinced a huge portion of the world about climate change and how we must adapt and make changes, even in the light of their extravagances. Yes, we’re impacted.

Recently farmers have become a target, arguing that methane in cow flatulence is a threat to the climate, not to mention the pollution from fossil fuel tractors. All over Europe farms and agriculture are being targeted.

They are already playing that game in Canada with the carbon tax scam foisted on famers. It never improves the climate, it only threatens survival.

One new target got little mention after the most recent Forum, and that was the biggest single food crop in the world. Rice feeds more people than any other staple, and now some in the WEF are preaching its elimination. The way they explain it, rice is grown in flooded fields, using up a lot of water which we should conserve. That’s a no-no. But the rice harvesting process takes only the yield, the actual rice, leaving the plants and stems to decompose in the water. And guess what, that produces methane which escapes from the water into the atmosphere.

Controlling the world food supply naturally means there won’t be enough to go around. However, the brains in the WEF preach that planet earth cannot sustain our population, therefore we’ll have to reduce the number of inconvenient people in the world. Not them of course, just us peasants. To the political left it's a redistribution of wealth, but it's only distributed to the rich, not equally to all of us.

At the latest forum, Scammer in Chief Al Gore left everyone with their tongues hanging out. He intoned there’s money to be made from this New World Order, lots of it, and he invited them all to get on board.

From every breath we take, to livestock, frain fields and rice paddies, we’re doomed. Just how many tons of cow farts and rice farts are exuded by Gore in a single trip as jets around the world sipping champagne and dining on caviar while pretending to save the world?