As aware by most Canadians, reported in the Canadian media, the Liberal Party faithful (the BORG) are yearning for an ‘exciting’ Liberal candidate to take them to the Parliamentary Promised Land. One of the major political names bandied around by the BORG was Justin Trudeau.
Pasted is an insightful assessment of Justin Trudeau, as follows:
Justin's got his mom's brains, not his dad's
By PETER WORTHINGTON, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: March 17, 2011 3:43pm
Even if one tries, it’s pretty hard to see Justin Trudeau as anything but something of a jerk.
Yes, he’s an MP, but that’s no excuse.
And he’s his father’s son, but his dad did positive things as well as goofy things like going to China and praising the humanity of Chairman Mao.
Even when he was PM, Justin’s dad wasn’t immune to goofiness - like his adoration of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his curious view that the KGB was similar to our RCMP - or vice-versa.
That was when he was in denial that the Soviet Union had subversive designs on Canada, contrary to evidence to the contrary.
But it’s doubtful if Justin’s dad would ever object to viewing so-called honour killings and female genital mutilation and spousal abuse and forced marriages as “barbaric”, as Justin did in his role as Liberal justice critic.
Justin said that instead of calling these practices “barbaric”, the government’s booklet Discover Canada (to help immigrants to adjust to our peculiar way of life) should have used the term “absolutely unacceptable”. Baloney...Why a euphemism to soften or justify disgusting and cruel practices masquerading as cultural traditions?
Justin has since back-watered - perhaps because a lot of Liberal MPs as well as Tory MPs found his indignation weird and misdirected.
In a radio interview Justin said he was “uncomfortable” with so-called honour killings being called “barbaric”.
Why “uncomfortable”? If not barbaric, what are they? Female mutilation, forced marriages and the rest of Sharia law are obscene by civilized standards, and to pretend otherwise is hypocritical and wrong.
Justin has now apologized. Post-media News reports he e-mailed them: “Perhaps I got tangled in semantic weeds in my comments, particularly in view of the Conservatives’ cynicism on these issues. I want to make it clear that I think the acts described are heinous, barbaric acts that are totally unacceptable in our society.”
Sorry, Justin, that’s not good enough. Maybe even “absolutely unacceptable”, to quote your initial view.
Just how are Conservatives “cynical” about honour killings and female genital mutilation? And what “semantic weeds” would these be? He now calls the practices “barbaric”, so why the complaint that the government pamphlet for immigrants uses the word?
“Cynicism” applies more to Justin’s reaction than to the Tories.
Surely, this is one issue on which most Canadians - especially elected ones - can agree. It’s pretty hard to see Justin’s dad objecting, but then his dad had done something with his life before entering politics and becoming PM to irrevocably change Canada.
And what does Justin mean when he opines that the publication in question “needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”
Oh? What sort of “neutrality”, one wonders, is there in opposing or condemning honour killings and such? “Neutrality” is the last thing needed in condemning such “barbarism.”
Anyway, Justin now regrets his impetuous outburst - but he’s still a jerk, and one who should give pause to those who fancy he’d be an ideal choice to someday lead the Liberal party.
Justin, it seems, has his mother’s brains, rather than his father’s .
DYSFUNCTIONAL DISORDER IN CANADIAN POLITICS
Sigh…At present, especially because of our turbulent economic times, potential nuclear fallout from the failed Japanese nuclear power reactors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, and the present mid-east instability; we need an unflappable captain of the head of the government helm, so ‘excitement’ and/or 'freaking out' - we do not need. The reality of a good leader of any nation entails 10% inspiration - 90% perspiration.
Sigh…At present, especially because of our turbulent economic times, potential nuclear fallout from the failed Japanese nuclear power reactors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, and the present mid-east instability; we need an unflappable captain of the head of the government helm, so ‘excitement’ and/or 'freaking out' - we do not need. The reality of a good leader of any nation entails 10% inspiration - 90% perspiration.
Some of the major concerns that Opposition Liberal Leader: Michael Ignatieff is not suitable as the future Prime Minister of Canada, are as follows:
- To reiterate, I was impressed with the putting aside of political partisanship insofar Prime Minister: Stephen Harper acknowledged NDP Leader: Jack Layton's input and advice about the manner of implementation and the logistical difficulties regarding
Canada - In 2008, in the height of the economic downturn, Opposition Liberal Leader: Michael Ignatieff was known that he did not want to divulge his party’s financial agendas to our present Prime Minister because of fears that the Stephen Harper government would ‘steal them.’ To allay fears, the opposition leader’s plan or agenda could have been documented and photocopied to be used as political economic fodder against this present government in the next federal elections. So what? Even if Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and his ruling Conservative Party were that crass, a potential Prime Minister who truly cared for Canada would set aside political partisan for the sake of national economic interests.
- While the falsification of documents (KIAROS) and questionable election financial procedures are not to be condoned, so what? This has never been done in the past by previous federal governments? Was there no none-partisan appreciation for International Aid Minister: Bev Oda for implementing 3 million dollars of international aid for African women and children? It would not be surprising or grasping that the world’s national leaders are down on their knees begging spiritual powers-to-be that these are the worst ‘corruptions’ that they ever had to deal with in their own nation. To clarify, I want my Member of Parliament (MP) asking questions and suggesting empirical credible alternate solutions about what the government is implementing for the economy particularly in the riding where I live - not on and on about the above-mentioned political soap opera that belongs in the National Enquirer. The attacks on Bev Oda border on sexism and possible racism. In short, there doesn't seem to be a feasible/empirical vision by Michael Ignatieff and the liberal Party of Canada.
- Michael Ignatieff seems to be fanatically trying to set up the present government (coalition or not) rather than cooperating with the Stephen Harper government. The Liberal party doesn't seem capable of an implementing empirical vision and agenda to give Canadian voters a meaningful choice and/or a viable alternative. Perhaps, there is nothing consequential for the Federal Liberal Party to give without hard scrutiny.
- Regarding implementing a coalition government because of a workable coalition government in the
UK - It seems that the only high point of the Liberal Party of Canada was a few years previously in the Parliament House of Commons - Oral Questions pertaining to questions regarding the Afghanistan mission. Liberal MP: Bob Rae stuck a political nail into DP Leader: Jack Layton by challenging him on why he and the NDP do not support the present mission. This is contrary to the agenda of other national feminist organizations insofar are supportive of present UN involvement on the basis of empowerment of Afghani women and school girls. Left-hand click on http://www.feminist.com/activism/afghanalert1.html and http://feministmajority.org/media/pressAfghanWomen_032709.asp for further information
- In
Canada Afghanistan
Again...Sigh…Right now especially because of our turbulent economic times, potential nuclear fallout from the failed Japanese nuclear power reactors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, and the present mid-east instability, we need an unflappable captain of the head of the government helm, so ‘excitement’ and/or freaking out - we do not need. To reiterate, the reality of a good leader of any nation entails 10% inspiration - 90% perspiration.
One of my posts: THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE ONTARIO
- No ethical reporter, especially from the Toronto Star and CBC, seem to have the intelligence and/or the ethics to ask Michael Ignatieff, “Mr. Ignatieff, in lieu that you very recently laid on us Canadians during the election; your new 5-point ‘Liberal Family Pack’ Plan - why wasn’t this platform and/or other earlier financial proposals previously discussed with the Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) especially during the 2008 World Economic Crisis”?
- Alas, instead of the traditional journalistic ethical points as who, what, when, where, and why; with the exception of world consequential big-ticket news; it is perceived by a considerable number of media junkies that a majority of the mainstream media isn’t reporting unbiased facts but are into advocacy. Maybe this is why increasing number of people are trying to find alternative media viewpoints on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and/or other internet media outlets
POLITICAL INGRATITUDE OF UNETHICAL CANADIAN VOTERS
There was a subliminal microsecond flash media byte that suggested that the Stephen Harper Conservative government increased transfer payments toOntario
There was a subliminal microsecond flash media byte that suggested that the Stephen Harper Conservative government increased transfer payments to
Sigh...It's a given that the so-called left-wing media is not going to give this the coverage as it did the Helena Guergis/Rahim Jaffer unintentional politically-comedic bogus 'scandal'. The media coverage of the 'scandal' was so protracted; even the average Canadian was weary.
Regarding the significant federal cash transfer payment increases (third column from the left on fiscal reference tables) to Quebec Ontario
Although, finances and economics are boring, thus put on this post are the new 2010 Quebec and Ontario Governments Public Accounts for observation and calculation (left-hand click or if problematic: copy and paste: www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2010/frt-trf-1004-eng.asp on http://www.google.ca/ and one should get one Google hit: (Fiscal Reference Tables - Part 5 of 10 2010) as follows:
#NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO QUEBEC BETWEEN 2004 & 2006, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE ACRIMONY REGARDING QUEBEC PREMIER: JEAN CHAREST AND THE PAUL MARTIN GOVERNMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS IN OBTAINING THE MONEY. PREMIER CHAREST NOT ONLY REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE CANADIAN FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY IN ELECTIONS CANADA 2006, HE RECOMMENDED QUEBECERS TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE. THIS SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE HARD-CORE QUEBEC FEDERAL LIBERAL BORG AND THE BQ NOGOODNIKS SOMETHING! FROM 1992 - 2010, THE FEDERAL CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO QUEBEC
#NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO ONTARIO
What is worrisome are the ONTARIO FEDERAL LIBERAL BORG COLLECTIVE and the ethically-challenged hard-core Bloc Quebecois voters who had knowledge of these tables and refused to offer tangible appreciation to the present Conservative Canadian government - are despicably dysfunctional to the point of treason. In so being, how would any of these politically-challenged people offer any ethical values to their partner, children, and/or grandchildren?
CONCLUDING POLITICAL POSTSCRIPTS
I (Mike Researcher) need to clarify some misconceptions.
I am not affiliated and/or defined by the Conservative party of Canada
During the Brian Mulroney years, if former federal NDP leader: Ed Broadbent had run another term; I was going to vote for him.
In the mid 90’s, if former Constitutional Law expert, Federal Liberal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Newfoundland Premier: Brian Tobin had run and won the federal Liberal leadership convention - I would have voted for him and his government.
At present, the federal Liberal Party of Canada is beginning to be perceived by increasingly more Canadians as historically and politically redundant. Decades previously, eligible voters in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand voted either Conservative or Labour. Between 1916 and 1922, David Lloyd George was the last Liberal UK Prime Minister.
As of now, we are at a social/economic/political crossroads in Canadian history.
Alas, the sad pragmatic reality; because of globalization - big corporations have the flexibility to move their operations to China, India, Mexico etc.
Sadly, this is the bottom line of any government (albeit well meaning) in desperately trying to 'attract investments'.
In so being, if one does not take unnecessary risks in business and personal finances in the real world, why for goodness sakes; take political risks?
I am going to take a chance? Yee Haw?
I appeal to all eligible Canadian voters especially those that have a spouse and children - do not become 'economic road warriors' in voting for one of the opposition leaders or political parties and do vote for Stephen Harper out of one's own financial well being.
I implore that all of eligible Canadian voters ethically and privately think before they vote in 2011 Elections Canada.
If in 4 years, a Stephen Harper majority government with an empirically stable economy is able to generate a surplus but is unsuitable and/or unwilling in directing Canadian taxpayers' money to relevant social programs - then Canadian voters have an option and/or luxury of voting for one of the opposition parties as a credible alternative.
But for now, there is too much at stake forCanada
Sadly, this is the bottom line of any government (albeit well meaning) in desperately trying to 'attract investments'.
In so being, if one does not take unnecessary risks in business and personal finances in the real world, why for goodness sakes; take political risks?
I am going to take a chance? Yee Haw?
I appeal to all eligible Canadian voters especially those that have a spouse and children - do not become 'economic road warriors' in voting for one of the opposition leaders or political parties and do vote for Stephen Harper out of one's own financial well being.
I implore that all of eligible Canadian voters ethically and privately think before they vote in 2011 Elections Canada.
If in 4 years, a Stephen Harper majority government with an empirically stable economy is able to generate a surplus but is unsuitable and/or unwilling in directing Canadian taxpayers' money to relevant social programs - then Canadian voters have an option and/or luxury of voting for one of the opposition parties as a credible alternative.
But for now, there is too much at stake for
Yours In All Our Politically Best Interests.
Mike Researcher
Mike Researcher
No comments:
Post a Comment