Blogging Canadians / heelschristian / Saved News

"Our Union" and "an Oppressive Government"

thepubliceye — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:12:22 -0800

Secession: Are We Free To Go?

by Ron Paul

As originally posted on: Congressman Ron Paul
November 19, 2012

Is all the recent talk of secession mere sour grapes over the election, or perhaps something deeper? Currently there are active petitions in support of secession for all 50 states, with Texas taking the lead in number of signatures. Texas has well over the number of signatures needed to generate a response from the administration, and while I wouldn't hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union.

Is it treasonous to want to secede from the United States? Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort. Writing to William Giles in 1825, he concluded that states:

"should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers."
Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical.

Do we have a "government without limitation of powers" yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?

Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those "traitors" became our country's greatest patriots.

There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents. That is what our Revolutionary War was all about and today our own federal government is vastly overstepping its constitutional bounds with no signs of reform. In fact, the recent election only further entrenched the status quo. If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.

Consider the ballot measures that passed in Colorado and Washington state regarding marijuana laws. The people in those states have clearly indicated that they are ready to try something different where drug policy is concerned, yet they will still face a tremendous threat from the federal government. In California, the Feds have been arresting peaceful medical marijuana users and raiding dispensaries that state and local governments have sanctioned. This shouldn't happen in a free country.

It remains to be seen what will happen in states that are refusing to comply with the deeply unpopular mandates of Obamacare by not setting up healthcare exchanges. It appears the Federal government will not respect those decisions either.

In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?

If a people cannot secede from an oppressive government, they cannot truly be considered free.

"Church and State" and "Government and State"

thepubliceye — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:04:30 -0800

Instead of repeating we need separation of Church and State, which is true, how about we need separation of government and State?

by "Arbitrary Design"

As originally posted on: Arbitrary Design (ArbitraryDesign) on Twitter
September 14, 2012

"Reavers"

thepubliceye — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:13:52 -0800

Reavers everywhere!

by Kent McManigal

As originally posted on: Kent's "Hooligan Libertarian" Blog
January 30, 2012

Recently I've taken to calling all "law enforcement" goons reavers. That keeps me from calling them things I'd rather my daughter not repeat. And the term is completely appropriate.

"Reave" is from Old/Middle English and means to forcibly rob, which is what "law enforcement" spends most of its time and energy doing. So, by definition, they are reavers.

That brings up a bit of historicity. The word "sheriff" comes from the Old/Middle English for "shire reeve" or "reeve of the shire". The dictionary claims that "reeve" and "reave" are not related words, but I have my suspicions that they are wrong.

I can just imagine some townsfolk, many years ago, saying "Great, here comes the Shire Reave of Nottingham!" He overhears this and

gets pissed at them. So they wink at one another and say "Oh, no! We would never call you a reaver; we were calling you the 'reeve', which is totally different! Trust us."

.

Disbarred Manitoba Lawyer Robert Fisher

thepubliceye — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 00:04:49 -0800

The following disciplinary notice has been edited in terms of formatting.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA

THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT

TAKE NOTICE that by resolution of a Panel of the Discipline Committee of The Law Society of Manitoba, ROBERT LEWIS FISHER was found guilty of professional misconduct and was disbarred and his name struck from the Rolls of Barristers and Solicitors of the Society.

DATED at the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, this 3rd day of April, 2012.

Allan Fineblit, Q.C.
Chief Executive Officer

"FED"

thepubliceye — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:05:30 -0800

don't want FED blown up, rather piss on it, then run it over with bulldozer while wearing an Andrew Jackson mask smoking a cigar & laughing

by "red pill economist"

As originally posted on: red pill economist (redpilleconomic) on Twitter
October 17, 2012

"Your President"

thepubliceye — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:04:09 -0800

"The Oppressive State"

thepubliceye — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:06:57 -0800

@VicPopuli Preserving a free State is an obligation. Keeping/bearing arms to fulfill obligation is a right. Secede from the oppressive State

by Bryan Runnels

As originally posted on: Bryan Runnels (scythewieldor) on Twitter
December 7, 2012

National Post’s Anti-Science Piffle Worsens

sixthestate — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 02:14:43 -0800

Unlike the Globe & Mail, which claims that science is legitimate but that it has no really significant implications (regarding climate change, for instance), the National Post claims that science isn’t really legitimate at all. They even have an annual Junk Science Week devoted to the promotion of fringe scientific hypotheses, like radiation hormesis and [...]

"Our Oppressors"

thepubliceye — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 18:02:13 -0800

The television is a vehicle of mind control owned and distributed by our oppressors.

by "Anonymous"

As originally posted on: trutherbot (trutherbot) on Twitter
August 26, 2012

"The Whole System"

thepubliceye — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 19:12:18 -0800

Want to Stick it to the Bankers? Did you Know the Day you Signed the Note, Your House was Paid in Full?

by "The South"

As originally posted on: Daily Paul Liberty Forum
July 14, 2012

If these crook Bankers were doing what they are supposed to be doing with the public debt, there wouldn't be a need for anyone to file for Bankruptcy.

All Homes and Utilities and anything else considered 'public debt' is already pre-paid in advance.

Are you ready to blow your top?

Remember HJR-192 aka Public Law 10 chapter 48, 48 Stat 112?

That's right folks, when they took our Gold, they took away our ability to actually 'pay off' anything. So, they had to give us a remedy, and that remedy is Public Law 10.

Remember now, we are still in Bankruptcy (1933).

All public debts are pre-paid in advance. That means all utilities and homes as well. When you sign the note on your home at the Bank, you need to walk out with the Deed, because your signature just paid off that house.

But the crooks don't tell you that. No, instead, they endorse the back of your promissory note and deposit it in a secret account in your name. Then 72 hrs. later, they call the Treasury Dept, and say "Hey, someone has abandoned this account, can we have it?", and the Treasury says "Sure, it's all yours!".

Then the crook bankers pillage that account for about 10 times more than the actual money that was created with your signature (remember, fractional reserve banking?), and then have the ballz to Con You Into Making $1,200.00 Payments AGAIN on that house for the next 30 years. that you just paid off 3 days ago when you signed the Note.

How's that for screwing you three ways to Sunday?

No Joke People: You paid off the home the day you signed the Note at the Bank. It should have been over, done, no more payments, free and clear. You walk out with the keys and the deed, and the Banker is supposed to take that promissory Note to the Treasury window and Discharge the debt.

Remember, it's not HJR-192 you use in your argument, it's "Public Law 10: Chapter 48, 48 Stat 112 ..... That's the Key!

Remember also: The Bank did not loan you jack $hit. They had no money to loan you, until YOU signed the Note. Your signature created the money, it's all a con; all of it, from day one.

Listen to Rod Class explain how your signature is what creates the money in Episode 598, May 25, 2012 in the Archived shows as you scroll down the page:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=4...

Listen to his other shows; he's driving home the Bankruptcy and how it's effecting all of us. At some point in almost every show, he gets into the 1933 Bankruptcy.

And to add injury to insult, if you miss one of those 'other payments' that you are paying monthly (even though you already paid off the home), the greedy boogers will show up with the Sheriff and steal your home and repeat the process again.

Yes, I said they come and STEAL your home, because you already paid the home off with your signature; they are just double dipping on you.

The whole system is setup for confiscation. They are THIEVES and CRIMINALS, the whole lot of them!

Read it yourself:

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/WHERE_DOES_THE_FRAUD_BEGIN.pdf

Source of above link: http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Bank-Fraud.html

NOTE: It's not HJR-192 you want to argue, it's:

Public Law 10: Chapter 48, 48 Stat 112 .. That is Law.

People are walking out of the bank without the deed; they are signing the deed over to the bank, instead of putting it in their pocket when they leave. Did you think they were going to TELL YOU that you just paid off the home?

LOL

In Liberty and Beyond!

"A Central State" and "Man"

thepubliceye — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:03:44 -0800

14,500

by Laurence Vance

As originally posted on: The LRC Blog
November 20, 2012

I watched about 5 minutes of something on the History Channel while eating some pizza and I saw a graphic that said that there have been 14,500 wars in human history. Not sure how that number was obtained or how accurate it is, but even if the true number is only 10 percent of that-I think it shows the depravity of man and the evil of a central state like nothing else.

Someone unknown to me once said: "Peace is a theoretical condition we infer from the gaps in the historical record of endless wars."

"A #PoliticalApparatus"

thepubliceye — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 22:10:45 -0800

@scythewieldor @AnarchistVoice The correct response to a #PoliticalApparatus is never the construction of a contra#PoliticalApparatus.

by Bryan Runnels

As originally posted on: Bryan Runnels (scythewieldor) on Twitter
November 7, 2012

Akaash Maharaj: Political Corruption is a Crime Against Hope

Akaash — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:11:50 -0800

My article in the Globe and Mail: Canadians now have a lower opinion of their own government's commitment to public integrity than do Pakistanis, Iraqis, or Nigerians... Parliamentarians are the watchdogs of democracy, and it is tragic that so many citizens perceive our watchdogs as having muted their bark, muzzled their bite, and been neutered by the very powers they were meant to hold at bay.

Manitoba Lawyer Terry Beley

thepubliceye — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 08:02:34 -0800

The following disciplinary case summary has been edited in terms of its formatting.

THE LAW SOCIETY OF MANITOBA

DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST
____________________

Case 11- 02

Member: Terry Peter Beley

Jurisdiction: Winnipeg, Manitoba

Called to the Bar: June 30, 1977

Particulars of Charges: Professional Misconduct (1 Count):

- Breach of Chapter 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct [quality of service]

Plea: Guilty

Date of Hearing: May 26, 2011

Panel:

- Richard K. Deeley, Q.C. (Chair)
- Dean I. Scaletta
- Neil Cohen (Public Representative)

Counsel:

- Darcia A.C. Senft for The Law Society of Manitoba
- Stephen Vincent for the Member

Disposition:

- Fine of $1,500.00
- Costs of $2,500.00

________________

Quality of Service
________________

Facts

In the fall of 2003, Mr. Beley was retained to represent a client regarding an existing family division proceeding. Approximately three years later, he was served by opposing counsel with a notice of motion to dismiss his client's proceeding. He corresponded with opposing counsel in respect of the motion and participated in the court process, all without his client's knowledge. Mr. Beley appeared in court on March 13, 2007 in relation to the motion and agreed to file his client's responding affidavit by March 19, 2007. Mr. Beley failed to make his client aware of the motion until March 2007, did not advise his client of the court appearance on March 13, 2007 and did not advise that he had agreed to provide the client's responding affidavit by March 19, 2007. The responding affidavit was not sworn until May 8, 2007. It was filed in Queen's Bench on May 10, 2007.

On May 8, 2007 Mr. Beley had his client swear a second affidavit in support of her motion for financial disclosure. That motion was already deemed abandoned pursuant to the Queen's Bench Rules. Mr. Beley's client was not made aware of this. The affidavit in support of the motion for financial disclosure was never filed by Mr. Beley in Queen's Bench, notwithstanding his advice to the client that it had been.

Mr. Beley advised his client that he had not received recent communication from opposing counsel when in fact a number of written communications had been received from opposing counsel some of which dated back for some time. From October 2006 onward, Mr. Beley was unduly dilatory in responding to inquiries from his client regarding her domestic matter and in addressing legal issues on her behalf.

Plea

Mr. Beley entered a plea of guilty to the breach of Chapter 2 of the Code of Professional Conduct in that he failed to serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner so as to provide a quality of service equal to that of a competent lawyer in a like situation.

Decision and Comments

The panel considered the submission and authorities presented. After hearing the submissions, the panel indicated it had a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the charge and, in particular, the fact that Mr. Beley was the fifth lawyer acting for the client in a matter that involved a large volume of material. Nevertheless, the panel did not excuse the conduct in question and noted that all clients are entitled to the same level of service as required by the Code of Professional Conduct.

Penalty

The panel accepted the joint recommendation made by counsel for the Law Society and counsel for Mr. Beley and ordered that he be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,500.00 and that he pay costs to the Society in the amount of $2,500.00 towards the investigation and prosecution of the matter.

Harper least trusted. Media at dismal 6% approval.

Jymn — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:07:42 -0800

The Twelve Gifts of Dalton

egerrits — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:05:46 -0800

CCPA Stimulus ideas

braddillman — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:08:15 -0800

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a pretty good report here (pdf). Runesmith has a good post on it.

An EI boost seems like a good idea, people aren't likely to just save that money if they're unemployed. Further, if more people keep their jobs than expected (say, due to other stimulus) there will be fewer EI applicants, right?

Similarly, help for poverty action, low income seniors and the working poor would be spent not saved. And those people would need help the most.

I really like the Pension Guarantee Fund idea. I expect anyone close to retirement might be pretty worried about their pension now, making an excuse to cut their spending. Further, if a pension fund fails it sends a BIG message about lack of confidence in the economy. It's the same situation for retirees with RRSPs, but I don't see how you could help boost RRSP value except through general recovery of equity values. Anyway, if someone does retire it potentially opens a job for a replacement.

Affordable, green housing and renovations for seniors would directly stimulate the construction industry to offset any decline due to residential mortgage difficulties. And I think there is an increase expected in the proportion of the population as seniors, so this would be a good time to invest ahead of that trend.

Even if infrastructure doesn't provide the stimulus we all hope for, it still makes sense to buy it while it's cheap. As well, there have likely been many technological advances (green and otherwise) since the last infrastructure build out that should be of advantage now, whether in cost, quantity or quality.

Tax cuts would only help those who're paying tax, which are the most likely to save any extra for a rainier day. Specifically I think past GST cuts weren't much of a stimulus; more of the same won't be any different.

Budget, election, coalition? More fretting.

braddillman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:10:03 -0800

I think Chantal HÃ©bert may be right about a federal election this year. Even if the Liberals support the budget, Mr. Harper will be aggressive in parliament proportional to the Conservative poll numbers. Eventually he will introduce a confidence measure with a poison pill, and the government will fall. The further in the future, the less likely the Governor General will look for a coalition. That leaves the only way to avoid an election in the next 18 months is the Lib/NDP coalition real soon now. But at what cost to the Liberals?

Three things could happen:

1. Liberals support the budget. I agree with Ms. HÃ©bert, it looks like the very things the Liberals are calling for such as infrastructure, spending rather than tax cuts and some love for EI may be omitted from the budget. Instead I expect tax cuts, which I personally oppose (I prefer the CCPA plan). It would be very difficult to express confidence in a budget which proposes the opposite of your position, and also difficult to have people believe your confidence is sincere.

2. A coalition forms. The GG calls Iggy and asks if he can govern. If he refuses, an election is the only option left (see #3 below). If a coalition takes power, they'll face unrelenting criticsm of how their spending failed to create anything but a bigger deficit. The newly-jobless will soon wonder if maybe corporate tax cuts might have created more jobs. The Liberal spin could be "it was either this, or an election - the GG perfered the coalition, it was her call not mine".

3. An election is called, and it's blamed on the Liberals by the Conservatives (for defeating confidence - and that NO budget could've satisfied the power-hungry opposition) and the opposition (for not pushing the coalition). I can't find any polls for 2009 yet, but I wonder if Iggy as leader has changed the numbers much yet. I expect some anti-Dion votes to return, and possibly some soft Conservative votes to choose Mr. Iggy over Mr. Harper. I think the best Liberal spin on this would be "it was either a coalition or an election, confidence was not possible - it was the Conservatives who forced this election, and at the worst time".

3a. Liberal minority. Iggy seems to be doing better in Quebec, and the spending vs. tax cut battle could shift some Ontario power to the Liberals. They could probably govern with a minority better than the Conservatives. 'Nuff said.

3b. Conservative minority. Another waste of election money while the economy continues on its laissez-faire path. However, Conservatives would have to take the blame (or credit) for economic conditions - it would be hard to blame the opposition in this case (but they would anyway, for the interruption).

3c. Conservative majority. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My minds eye is blind. Fortunately, I think this is least likely of #3.

I think #1 is least likely, but that's for Mr. Harper to decide. If he governs like he has a minority, he could introduce an acceptable budget. I won't hold my breath. What's in it for Mr. Harper? Another dysfunctional minority and less Liberal support than before (I hope). If he believes there is no solution for the economy and he'll take the blame for it anyway, he might as well try to get some things done that fit with his ideology and ignore the economy (but don't make it so obvious this time).

Of #2 and #3, it's too hard for me to say. But these are the choices for Mr. Iggy. If he thinks he can win a minority after considering the impact of triggering another election, that might be his best outcome - but the risks are #3b and #3c (ACK!). Otherwise, I expect #2.

(BTW, I just can't resist typing 'Iggy', and now I type 'Mr. Iggy'. The shorthand is literally irresistible)

Back from Iggy's 1st town hall

braddillman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:10:55 -0800

As I write this I realize my notes are incomplete and reflect my personal interests, and how difficult a reporters job is. Note to self: improve note-taking skills for next time.

The venue was a small theatre at Neptune with a sold-out crowd. They (Halifax Chamber of Commerce) had to add a second meeting tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Ignatieff said he would value the upcoming budget using a quote from Joseph Howe: "What is right? What is just? What is for the public good?" He also wants to know how much of the spending is "shovel ready", i.e. how fast can the money be disbursed.

The spending should be green, but qualified that could apply to evolutionary improvements as well as brand new technologies. He'd like to see the GM deliver the Chevy Volt.

Scott Brison followed that with an example he called the Atlantic Energy Corridor, which could deliver green electricity (wind, tidal, hydro) to markets outside Atlantic Canada. It made me wonder about how to deal with NS Power as both a generator and a distributor, yet competing with other generators (see my earlier post).

Mr. Ignatieff suggested spending on summer employment for students.

Mr. Brison said he'd like to change the tax system to encourage venture capital, referencing Ireland as an example.

Mr. McCallum said we need to get banks lending again. I didn't quite hear everything he said, and think he simplified that a lot as was necessary for the time allotted. IMHO that's a pretty detailed and complex topic to get into in this context.

A question asked Mr. Ignatieffwhat he'd do in his first 100 days if he were PM on Monday. He joked that part of the question sounded pretty good. He simplified his answer to 3 points:

Tax cuts for low- and medium-income workers, and a possible one-time-only income boost

Changes to EI including a reduced waiting period, faster claims processing and equality of qualification across the country

Shovels in the ground, by spending 80-90 hours/week on the phone to every mayor in the country to find out what they can spend right now. Halifax mayor Peter Kelly was in the back of the room, and joked (I think) he had a $1.2B list for him.

One of the last questions asked if he still supported the coalition. He replied "my position is still coalition if necessary, not necessarily coalition." He said he would not compromise the unity of Canada or his liberal values, and re-iterated the Joe Howe quote "What is right? What is just? What is for the public good?" He said he wouldn't dismiss the coalition as an option, saying Mr. Harper had acted quite unpredictably and against the public interest by pulling $6B out of the economy instead of stimulating it.

My interpretation or opinion is he genuinely wants to keep his options open, and wants to see the budget before making any decision.

Charts comparing this and previous recessions

braddillman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:10:16 -0800

The Digerati Life has a post with charts of the current recession overlaid on the average of all previous recessions post-WWII.

It looks to me like this mess is going to last a long, long time. The best chart IMHO is unemployment which tracks very closely with the average. If we can avoid extraordinary unemployment (e.g. the equity market declines already appear extraordinary) we might be getting off easy.

Cornwall Mail Delivery No Longer Blessed

egerrits — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:08:51 -0800

Two mail carriers at the Cornwall post office were recently disciplined for uttering the incredibly offensive phrase “thank the Lord for this beautiful day”.
After 25 years, a tradition at the Cornwall post office, where carriers starting on their routes in the morning would “thank the Lord for this beautiful day”, has been banned after one [...]

Will EI be the critical budget item?

braddillman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:09:12 -0800

I expect the upcoming budget to contain tax cuts. You can't expect Conservatives to bring out a budget without them. It wouldn't be fair to expect a complete capitulation and get only 100% of what the opposition asks for, and nothing the Conservatives want.

I also expect infrastructure spending. No one denies it's time for shovel-ready projects. However, the projects presented in the budget should be examined to see whether they're a) re-announcements of already committed money vs. new money, and b) really shovel-ready for 2009 vs. spending programs over several years. Past Conservative announcements seem very prone to these two, IMHO. Anyway, I think any party in government would have some trouble finding shovel-ready spending.

But Mr. Harper in a CTV interview (check out Scott's DiaTribes and Far and Wide) said he doesn't want to make EI more generous. However, if EI measures are omitted from the budget I wouldn't see this as a dirty partisan trick; only a different set of values. Ones which I don't share. What I don't think is fair is generalization of EI as paying people not to work. EI is an insurance system against downturns just like this one (although I won't speak to how effective it is nowadays). Honestly, without it what can you do? Use your savings (sell investments? I thought there were buying opportunties), move somewhere to a new job (where is that, now?), start your own business (like what?).

Strengthing EI was one of three priorities Mr. Ignatieff mentioned in response to a "first-100-days" question in his first town hall meeting. I hope he stands up and pushes hard for an EI boost. Unemployment is both an economic and a social problem. Flaherty says he expects big job losses soon. The CCPA plan suggests $3.4B for EI. Carol Goar has a good article on EI repairs.

But can Iggy support a budget without an EI boost? Maybe. But how will that reflect upon him? Is it something the BQ and NDP will dress him in for the next election?

Can Harper put in something for EI? Maybe. I doubt it, based on past performance. The opposition will claim whatever EI love he gives as not enough, and his own party might not support the EI measures. It could be lose-lose for Harper to put any EI help in the budget.

Favorable Liberal poll - another nail in the coalition coffin?

braddillman — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 04:12:00 -0800

Nik Nanos released a telephone poll taken January 3-7, showing the Ignatieff-led Liberals have passed the Harper-led Conservatives:

Liberals 34%

Conservatives 33%

NDP 19%

Green 7%

The BQ has 29% in Quebec, and Quebec has about 25% of Canadian population, so I infer that the national BQ support must be close to 7%, which makes the above total roughly 100%. But since the BQ only runs in Quebec that's probably irrelevant anyway.

The poll also suggests Conservative support has increased in the West, but I think it's hard for them to increase their seat count much at all (they're pretty near 100% already). That means less support in the rest of Canada, possibly fewer Ontario seats, probably fewer Quebec seats.

Stronger Liberals numbers in Quebec and Ontario could raise their seat count quite a bit. With a little luck, some soft voters who supported the NDP in the last election might switch their support. It's optimistic but not unrealistic that Liberals could form a minority government with those numbers. I hope they last.

But why would Mr. Ignatieff form a coalition now, risking the possibility of a minority later? Perhaps these poll numbers are sufficient defense against an abuse of confidence votes?

The result which interests me is the shift of support within Quebec away from the BQ to the Liberals. If the BQ would lose seats to the Liberals, wouldn't they want to avoid an election? But to avoid an election, there is a strange potential that the BQ could support the Conservatives. That just doesn't sound right.

Did we make the right choice?

egerrits — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:07:50 -0800

<ring>
<ring>
Obama: Hi, this is Obama.
Dion: Hosama?
Obama: No, Obama. Osama’s the other guy.
Dion: (to himself) I don’t understand what he’s saying…
Obama: Barrack Obama.
Dion: Oh yes. Congratulations on your helection recent. Congratulations also, on the, you know, uhm… visible minority… thing…Â I know all about being a visible minority.Â Uhm… ‘Ow are you?
Obama: I’m good. How about [...]

Grace?

egerrits — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:08:17 -0800

I haven’t said much about the American election, and in fact, this is courtesy of my wife, who said yesterday evening watching John McCain’s concession speech: I wish Canada had such a MAN, such aÂ graceful loser,Â and not such a grovelling, whining little boy for an opposition leader.
Congratulations, Mr. Obama. I hope you can bring the [...]

Election Results

egerrits — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:08:20 -0700

Let’s face it: Harper did not get a majority due to the following facts:

TheÂ boneheads in Newfoundland who voted for equalization handouts even though they are a “have province” now. They would ratherÂ risk a carbon tax on their precious oil than to finally take their place in confederation and pay towards this country.
The idiots in Quebec [...]

Anything to Get Into Power

egerrits — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:08:32 -0700

This is the first election I’ve heard the opposition parties say: If the Conservatives win a strong minority or a slight majority that means they got 40% of the vote which means 60% of Canada did NOT vote for them. 60% of Canadians DO NOT WANT them. That means 60% of Canada voted for US [...]

Election 2008 - Day, what, 28?

egerrits — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:06:47 -0700

To Elizabeth May:
I’ve had it with you. First you were voted out of the debates and you cried foul. Then some people cheered for you and you were, with kind permission of Harper and Layton, let back in, even though your numbers didn’t allow it. You called it a “victory for democracy”. At the debates [...]

Iâ€™m affraid we canâ€™t win the MSM warâ€¦

egerrits — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:06:36 -0700

On CTV.CA the big headline says:

Economists call on gov’t to stimulate economy

It’s a big story about it’s the THIRD letter economists had to send to the government this week urging the government to act on 1) Carbon Taxes are good (Monday), 2) Act on Climate Change by voting strategically (Tuesday) and now 3) Act on [...]

food.erwingerrits.com

egerrits — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:06:21 -0800

I have decided to spin off the food section of this blog into its own entity: food.erwingerrits.com.

Now the Papuans are offering their opinion on Canadian Policy?

egerrits — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:13:41 -0800

Our favourite Liz May is in the news again. She says Canada is breaking the law by cancelling the Kyoto Accord. To which I have one thing to say: what does a delegate from Papua New Guinea have to do with Canadian policy?

Running back to Daddy

egerrits — Fri, 07 Oct 2011 07:11:05 -0700

So what is there to say today? We're back with Premier Dad, who lied to us, and cheated us, but you know, we didn't know the other guy, so, you know, we went with him. Great. Get ready for some more taxes, folks!

The “Controlversial, rammed through, majority (40%) of expensive copyrighted Challenger flights” Post

egerrits — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:11:43 -0700

Once again, if I were a Green candidate, I’d be pretty pissed off–at my leader

egerrits — Thu, 05 May 2011 13:14:18 -0700

So, Elizabeth May *finally* got herself elected. It didn't come easy, or cheap: first, she had to pick the most hippie-like riding in the country (I've been to the Gulf Islands) and then she had to spend the entire campaign in her own riding, and blow more than half of her entire national budget on buying herself some votes.

Mr. @BradDuguid is a psychic, or has a friend named Doc and access to a DeLorean Time Machine, but no calculator.

egerrits — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:13:04 -0700

It all started with this innocent looking Tweet by @BradDuguid:

New #energy rates today show average home bill this May compared to last May remained the same http://bit.ly/cdpKw

There is so much wrong with this tweet, I barely know where to start.

So it’s the Rainbow Door, then?

egerrits — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:14:45 -0700

All of a sudden, Iggy pulls out the Coalition Option. Layton said last week he's willing to jump into bed with anybody (my words, not his). Seems like Harper was the only one telling the truth all along. Surprise, surprise.

The Quebec National Ducks Registration Agency (or: Quedux) #elxn41 #roft

egerrits — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:12:19 -0700

The three amigos tried to come out swinging on contempt charges and G8/G20 reports, eventhough this had nothing to do with the taped quations, but after about 10 minutes, they seemed kind of puzzled that that hadn't gotten them anywhere, credit to Harper, and seemed kind of lost on what to do next.

A little of the ol’ In and Out — #elxn41 – Day 5

egerrits — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:15:12 -0700

So, the campaign promises have started. Already the collective Opposition leaders have promised about $1B per day. Where this money comes from no one knows, but hey, it's a campaign, and Canadians have been known to believe a promise or two (remember the GST?).

@Dalton_McGuinty needs to go #roft #pcpo #onpoli

egerrits — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:12:47 -0700

So McGuinty quietly takes another $18 million out of our pockets. This time because we didn't want something, we took a stand, and these are the penalties for that little victory we scored last year. It's like we can't win for losing.

The Coalition of Losers

egerrits — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:14:40 -0700

In response to last year's popular effort, here it is: