Wednesday, 18 September 2013

With stars like this, who needs enemies?

Former General Andrew Leslie talking
to sales management at CGI.

CGI now pays Leslie, who co-chair's Trudeau's
advisory council on International Affairs.

Image Source: 

Over at the Huff Post, this headline:

"Stars Aligning",

Who is Andrew Leslie? Why he's a noble General who was Commander of the Army and left the Service to serve the oridinary citizen? Righ? Right....WRONG!

Here, try this:

Andrew Leslie is a key employee of a mega corporation that makes BILLIONS off of war & military actions...

``CGI also announced the appointment of Lieutenant General Andrew Leslie to lead the new Defence, Public Safety and Intelligence unit``...

Real change, right?
Trudeau Liberal economic advisor
Christia Freeland.

Image Source: NPR

Well, what about that women of the People, Christia Freeland? She's OK, right....

Mrs. Freeland retweets info from Fraser Institute. guess #lpc economic team 'shoots the hippo' #torcen …
Now we know how progressive the Fraser Institute is and how up and progressive the Koch brothers from USA who are big donors of Fraser are, right? RIGHT????.


Anyone who has the audacity to call themselves a progressive and still votes LPC, better give their heads a shake.

Sorry Libs, this ISN'T going to end well for you.

Oh well, Le Dauphin can always go back to the "Rubber Chicken Circuit".

Okay Mr. Mulcair - Its time to ask some questions

Mulcair backs away from a wealth tax.

Time to ask the tough questions.

Image Source
Canadian Press/Adrain Wyld

Post on CityTV Toronto
If you are a regular reader of this Blog, you probably know I spend most of my time going after the Libs. That is due in very large part, to the fact that the MSM simply won't do its job.

Normally, when I slag the Libs, some anonymous, partisan Lib responder implies that I am being unfair, and not being critical of anyone else. Well, as Jim Nabours, as Gomer Pyle was want to say, "surprise, surprise, surprise", take a look below.

It appears that Tom Mulcair may be backing away from the idea of a wealth tax, a plank in his leadership platform that won my vote, and a small contribution to his campaign. To say the least, I am pretty unhappy with Tom's apparent about face on this. Why, it looks like he thinks Le Dauphin is right, an who in a past National Post article indicated he not only was against any kind of such tax, but also though Corporate tax rates were just fine, thanks very much. (remind you of anyone, oh say, Paul Martin, President of Canada Steamship "Flags of Convenience" Lines).

So, truly believing in calling a spade, a spade, and actually calling someone out when it was right to do so for OTHER then Partisan purposes (yes, Libs,that, WAS, meant for you), I emailed the Honorable Member for Outremont, the following, "Little Missive":


I hope you may recall having met me. My name is Arthur Cramer. I am from Winnipeg, supported your bid for leader and contributed to it, at least in part based on your support of a wealth tax.

I believe that Corporations and wealthy Canadians are getting a free ride and not paying their fair share as a result of Canadians as a whole allowing them access to the commons. The Libs and Tories, by purposely removing these streams of revenue have limited the ability of Government to provide for its citizenry. More seriously, they have allowed the meme to take hold that taxes are a penalty, and not, a civic duty. Many great figures in history have cited this fact that taxes are the price we pay and the duty to which we are obligated in providing a society in which all are cared for, among them, and ironiclly, Teddy Roosevelt. If you are in fact siding with Mr. Trudeau, what is the real point of my actively supporting the NDP, and instead, sitting on the sideines?

Le Dauphin, aka Justin Trudeau.

Not the best fellow to take economic
advice from.

Image Source: The Economic Club of

Because they sometimes need a
break from serious economic talks.
Mr. Trudeau has said he did not support your wealth tax position well in advance of your recent, and apparent concession, that Mr. Trudeau is right. Do you now agree with Mr. Trudeau? If so, where do you intend to find the revenue needed to provide for those you wish to govern. I am serious in wiriting you and respectfully request your personal reply. As a long time and current NDP party member, I believe you, as my leader, owe me the courtesy of your response. I supported your candidacy on the belief you would carry on following the tradition of the many great leaders who proceeded you including T.C. Douglas, who was a personal friend of a departed family ancestor and,  David Lewis who was also a friend of other departed family ancestors (NOTE: I actually identified in my email to Mr. Mulcair to whom I was referring regarding knowing previous NDP leaders, but frankly,  am not willing to share this here. You'll just have to take my word for it).

I humbly await your reply.

In solidarity.

Arthur B.B. Cramer, Winnipeg"

So, see, Libs (do Tories actually read this blog?), unlike you guys, I don't blindly accept whatever stand
my leader takes because there are votes in it.

I'll post any reply I receive.

Again, to say the least, the fact Mulcair seems willing to concede Le Dauphin was right, "miffs me". My response, stop whining and pay your G-d damn taxes, and be happy for the privilege and duty. Anyone ever hear of someone named "Teddy Roosevelt"?

If you don't understand the reference, look it up.

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

"Bloggers are the new Jesus"

You heard it regurgitated here first (unless you didn't): bloggers are the new Jesus!!!

I'd like to thank a fellow member of my household for that one. I'm not nearly lewd and crude enough to watch "Impractical Jokers" on a regular basis, so being informed of this Messianic comparision was quite nice.

While up to the eyelids in work, I hope to get out some more good, sufficiently researched posts by the end of the month.

In the meantime, enjoy the good Word (and perhaps some posts from fellow contributors, we don't really coordinate these things at all).

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Corporate Press Priorities


 Osborne House Executive Director Barbara Judt.

Called for Deputy Premier Eric Robinson to apologize
for an off-the-cuff comment in private email and, after
he promptly did, said he wasn't "sincere".

Accuses the predominantly white NDP Government of
Manitoba of trying to give her the push 'cause
she's white. 


Brian Sinclair - who died, well after it
became apparent he was vomiting, waiting 34
hours in an emergency room. The release
of footage detailing his final hours merited
a small snippet article in the Winnipeg Sun compared
 to a full page article detailing Judt's
angry accusations against the Deputy Premier.

Image Source: Winnipeg Metro (Top)

CBC (Bottom)
So, on August 28, 2013 I had the grave misfortune of going  through the Winnipeg Sun. They had a full page, picture featuring article on the whole "do-good white people" manufactroversy, detailing Osborne House Executive Director Barbara Judt's allegations against the Province and Deputy Premier. Meanwhile they had a small, picture-less snippet on the (then recently) released video footage of Brian Sinclair's final hours.

Monday, 2 September 2013

Regarding the FIPA vote of Tuesday April 23rd

So as anyone who follows Canadian politics knows, the LPC line on their FIPA vote is that the NDP "made them do it". If you want to know more about this, and feel like "getting it", from the "other side", here's a link,, "Regardig the FIPA vote of Tuesday April 23rd".

So, what about that pesky vote anyway? Well, a bit of background, first

Quoting failed LPC Leadership Candidate Joyce Murray's Press Release cited at the link, and in part"

"....Protecting Canadian businesses exporting to, or investing in, China is particularly important for jobs in British Columbia and Greater Vancouver, where our governments and businesses have invested billions into the Asia Pacific Gateway. That is why we do not support the outright rejection of FIPA embraced by the NDP Opposition motion...."

Followed by this gem:

"Liberals believe that, before being finalized, international treaties such as the Canada-China FIPA must be transparent, include proper consultation, and be subject to arms-length examination to ensure the best interests of the Canadian people are being served. That is why I put forward a Motion in the House of Commons on October 24, 2012 to require the government to send all such treaties to a Parliamentary Committee for public hearings and study, after being tabled in the House of Commons and prior to the treaty coming into force"

So what about that motion? Well, in actual fact, Hansard notes the motion was introducted on the 25th of October, 2012 ( It was one of over 400 motions on the order paper. And what did it actually say? Try this:

"Ms. Murray (Vancouver Quadra) — That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Policy on Tabling Treaties in Parliament in order to require that all treaties signed with a foreign nation be sent to the appropriate standing committee of the House for comprehensive review prior to the treaty or agreement coming into force."

So, what the LPC ACTUALLY introduced was a generic motion that said NOTHING about FIPA, and that expressed a sentiment that SHOULD the government want to introduce legislation concerning trade, that it should be "SENT" to a Committee so MPs COULD talk about it. It didn't mention ANYTHING, about FIPA.

That\s a little bit different from what you asserted Ms Murray, but, nice try. Splitting hairs on my part? I don't think so.

So what about the NDP's position on this? Speaking in the House on 18 April, 2013, Don Davies explained in introducing his motion calling for the scrapping of FIPA, and, in part (

"... New Democrats believe in the importance of engaging with diverse economies and emerging markets. We support the development of clear rules that give confidence to investors, create level playing fields, preserve democratic policy-making and are transparent and accountable to Canadians. We believe in trade and investment policies that promote and protect Canada's interests.

With respect to China, we believe that Canada should deepen and broaden our economic relations. China is the second-largest economy in the world, it is in ascendancy and there are many opportunities for mutual benefit and synergies between our two nations. Developing a rules-based framework that improves the investment and economic activities in both countries is desirable and necessary. With careful negotiation, it is also achievable.

New Democrats know that an investment agreement done well has the potential to be of great benefit to both countries. However, a deal that is poorly negotiated risks doing great harm. Because the Conservatives have taken an extreme ideological approach to negotiating and ratifying trade and investment agreements, they have concluded a carelessly and poorly negotiated deal. Put bluntly, this FIPA will do harm to Canada's economic interests. Canadians deserve better...." So says Don Daies, as the NDP's Official Voice on this issue.
Well, never one to ignore the chance to use the old Liberal mis-direction-song-and-dance, Lib MP, Wayne Easter rose in the house to say (again, (
"Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the trade critic for the NDP and expect my office received many of the same emails that he mentioned receiving overnight on this particular issue.

I disagree with the NDP motion, by the way, to just throw this out. We need rules around investment, serious rules, but I understand why the motion was put. As the member said, there was a request for an emergency debate, which was denied by the Speaker as it was not seen as an emergency, and there were several attempts by myself and the NDP to have the committee look at this issue, but, of course, the Conservative members on the committee would not even allow that debate to happen in public and the motions were lost.

My question to the member relates to the box that I think all parliamentarians are in. This motion is to reject the agreement. I believe the member would probably agree that if we had transparency around the discussion and hearings across the country and maybe other countries around the world to put in place the safeguards to make this investment treaty work for Canadians, then maybe we could come up with a better treaty. My question to the member is along those lines. Why can we not get that kind of transparent and open debate and would that not be a better procedure, so that there is investment protection for Canadian investors and we can improve our economic relationship?"
So what do we have, the Honourable Mr. Easter, even though HE KNEW there was NO POSSBILITY OF DEBATE, complains the NDP is trying to derail the trade process for no reason, because the NDP isn't allow any debate. Really?

Sigh, yep, REALLY!
Of couse, as is ALWAYS the case whenever a Lib tries to tell Canadians what the NDP said, a NDP MP, ALWAYS has to explain what the NDP, ACTUALLY SAID! Mr. Davies rose to his feet: 
"Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoy working with the hon. member for Malpeque on the trade committee as well. I must say I am disappointed to hear that the Liberal Party will not support the motion, though. All the motion says is that the Government of Canada should inform the Government of China that it will not ratify the FIPA. That is all it says. In its present form, this FIPA is seriously flawed. There is nothing in the motion that says we would not seek to amend or improve the agreement to put it in a form that would actually be acceptable to Canadians."
So, its pretty clear isn't it? The NDP didn't say it wasn't open to the amending of the agreement. Doesn't fit the Lib line on this very well, does it? It doesn't sound at all like the NDP wasn't open to ammendments, right? RIGHT!

Oh, and by the way, in case it wasn't clear, Mr. Davies had previously noted in this same debate:

"On October 23, as official opposition critic for international trade, I presented a motion to the Standing Committee on International Trade to conduct a study of the agreement and to call a varied list of Canadian stakeholders to committee to provide their views. Conservatives refused to even debate that motion in public. No study was agreed to.

On October 31, the NDP member for Ottawa Centre rose to request an emergency debate on the FIPA. That request was denied by the government.

On October 2, 18, 24, 25 and 31, members of the NDP rose in question period to request that the FIPA be properly studied by a parliamentary committee. Each time, the Conservatives refused even to address the merits of the question"
What can you conclude from that, clearly, is the Conservatives had no intention of allowing any discussion, and the Libs, and, MR. EASTER, knew it. And by the way, if you are open to ACUTALLY hearing what the Official Opposition said regarding the decision to go ahead with the motion, the NDP decided to do so, as the above illustrates, because the Conservatives wouldn't allow any amendments to the deal. And, the NDP HAD SAID THIS, in exlaining their decison to go ahead with their motion. So to say the least, the Libs are "stretching-the-truth" in asserting the NDP hadn't been open to debate, "forcing" them to vote with the Tories, because, well if they hadn't, it wouldn't have "sent the righ message" to Canadian and Foreign, "Investors". Please....spare me!
Mr Davies continued:
"I want to talk for a moment about the Conservatives' refusal to debate this. They often boast about the fact that, unlike the Liberals before them, they put trade agreements before the House for debate, but they do not do that with investment agreements and I do not understand the difference. When Canada signs a treaty that covers trading goods and services, that is considered appropriate to put before the House for scrutiny, but when Canada signs a treaty that covers investment, they do not consider that to be worthy of the same treatment. I do not understand that.

If the Conservatives believe that this deal they have signed is justified, why do they not bring it forward and make arguments in front of the Canadian people? Parliamentarians have a prime responsibility, and that is to come here, debate legislation, and give it a thorough scrutiny before it is passed. The Conservatives have a majority and can ultimately pass what they want, but why are they afraid of detailed scrutiny? Why are they afraid of bringing in people from across this country, such as trade experts, academics, economists, business people, people who trade, the public, provinces, and first nations, and really taking a look at this agreement?

Once again, it took 18 years to negotiate, it would be in force for 31 years. We can take a few weeks or months to make sure that Canada gets it right. New Democrats say we should. Why do the Conservatives not?"
What a sec, how could this be possible? I mean after all, the Libs said the NDP was trying to limit debate and didn't want to either enter into discussion, or consider working with the other members of the House on behalf of ALL Canadians.  That's really kind of "odd", on the part of the Libs, right? I mean I thought Mr Easter had said that the NDP weren't amenable to "transparent and open debate".
Well, actually, where it comes to the Libs, if you have read any of my previous posts, I have already illustrated clearly how the Libs, to say the least, tend to "play free and easy with the truth". So, really, nothing new here, or as the Cops say in movies over and over again, "move along, nothing to see here (move along, these aren't the droids you're seeking?). As I have said, don't expect the Libs to ever avoid letting a good story get in the way of the facts.

I think it is pretty clear by now that, if my MP, Mr. Lamoureux is any indication, that you can pretty much count on Lib MPs to conciously, and with intent, mislead and misdirect deabte any time it suits them. I have already explained how my MP has tried to distort the NDP's position regarding Senate reform, and you can add this fairy tale told by Mr. Easter to the list of misinformation attempts Mr. Lamoureux has attempted to foist on his consituents in his most recent "mailer", in the name of "informing", them.

Ha, Ha.

So yeah, regarding the FIPA vote, want to try that again? And maybe this time, try telling the truth for a change, Libs. Or, does Le Dauphin want you to do something else?

I'm just askin'!

POST SCRIPT:  I don't think its unreasonable to ask whether it is principled on the part of the Libs to spead misinformation like this using their Tax Payer allowances for staff and all the amenities. Given the fact that I don't have anyone HELPING ME with this, I don't think that's an "unreasonable" thing to ask. Maybe I should ask Mr. Easter and Mr. Lamoureux to make a donation to the Winnipeg RAG Review; after all, "turnaround is fair play", isn't it? And on top of that, we want to encourage debate, right? RIGHT? ............right.