The Reformer's Firebrand

*-{The New Canadian Colonist's Advocate }-* A commentary of fiery reformist sentiment from the spirit of it's 210 year old Canadian ghost publisher patron. This will be a home to the new wave of anti-partisan advocacy for defeating Canada's second "family compact" and reinstallation of responsible governance in this 21st century new Canadian democratic dominion.

Friday, December 30, 2005

Do we use Blue or Yellow ink on Canadian voter's thumbs?

This last election in Iraq was a remarkable event in human social evolution. Over 70% of Iraqis braved the wrath of fascist terror squads, to go to the polls.

In Canada I hear people saying some snow or cold will keep Canadians from the polls....that we are (apparently) whining about having to vote again so soon....and at such a bad time of year.

The contrast in the exercise of democratic franchise is stark between those who have lived in despotism and those who are selling out to a benign form of it.

I issue a challenge to all Canadians:

Get out and vote! This elelction is about punishing corruption and criminalisy in they did in Iraq. Surely we who have had a peaceful democracy can get at least as many voters to the polls to do our duty to stem corruption as the Iraqis can. If not, wear your yellow thumb print with shame.

Now on a lighter note:

"Why I will vote Liberal"
Excuses for supporting institutionalized corruption in government:

"Because I believe in the extent to which the Official Languages Act is carried out and enforced; that every public servant even in the most remote part of B.C. should be fluent in the French language, but that government business in Quebec should be in unilingual French.

Because I believe that only lawyers from the province of Quebec are qualified to be prime minister of Canada.

Because I believe that the federal government should be completely controlled by the province of Quebec.

Because I believe that all criminals are just poor misunderstood victims of society and can all be easily rehabilitated in a very short period of time; and that only they have "rights"; not the victims of their crimes.

Because I believe that hardened criminals like Karla Homolka should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key and be allowed to have pyjama parties and go out on shopping trips; and that killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet mignon, have barbecues, go whale watching and have their own golf course, while our senior citizens have to eat left over Kraft Dinner.

Because I believe that mass murderers under that age of 18 should be protected by the Young Offenders Act and the rest of us law-abiding citizens do not have the right to know who they are.

Because I believe in bringing hundreds of thousands of unskilled people into Canada from third world countries every year so we can support them on welfare and so that they will vote Liberal; and that this number should be increased every year.

Because I believe that it is fair that the province of Quebec is the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy; that they receive 5 times the amount of federal immigration money than does Ontario, even though Ontario has to teach those people how to speak English whereas Quebec only allows immigrants to enter who already know the French language.

Because I believe that we do not have a right to own land in Canada, as it is under Liberal law.

Because I believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax money as they can from us; through every conceivable means from the HRDC boondoggle to the 2 billion dollar gun registry that does not work.

Because I believe that if my family is the victim of a home invasion I should not have the right to protect them in our own home.

Because I believe in huge government bureaucracy and extremely high taxes, as I believe that the government knows how to spend my money better than I do.

Because I believe in having essentially no military because everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our country.

Because Jack Layton is not a lawyer from Quebec so he is not qualified to be prime minister; besides, he smiles too much.

Because Stephen Harper is not a lawyer from Quebec and he and the Conservative Party of Canada have a hidden agenda and they are very scary people.

Because I believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the South because all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada; and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our true friends, France, China and Russia.

Because I believe everything that the Liberal controlled media tells me, especially the CBC.

Because I believe that no one should ever be held responsible or accountable for their own actions in today's society. It is always someone else's fault.

Because I believe that we should not expect newcomers to our country to accept or adapt to our culture and traditions and customs; and that we should not wish each other "Merry Christmas" in case it might be offensive to some.

Because I have the IQ of a doorknob and am easily sucked in by Liberal scare tactics and propaganda; and am easily bought off with my own tax money.


Blogger NL-ExPatriate said...

Excellent double speak post for the informed. But for the masses of immigrants in the seat rich Ontario 106 out of 308 they will probably take you litterally and vote Liberal :(

December 30, 2005 at 10:41 AM  
Blogger ABFreedom said...

LMAO ... . that's good, especially the doorknob IQ ... lol ... to bad it's so bloody true ... :(

December 30, 2005 at 12:49 PM  
Blogger Kim McKenzie said...

Good post. All of the reasons to vote for the Liberals are perfectly true and that's why if they are re-elected, the west will separate. And when the west separates, I think the remaining provinces in Canada will be taking a closer look at why they should stay.

December 30, 2005 at 1:46 PM  
Blogger Junker said...

Nice Bill, very nice.

Now does anyone have a list of Liberals we can email this to? I would seriously like to see Liberal voters respond to that list. I cannot imagine how they could.

Come to think of it, I know one or two people who admitted voting Liberal last go around, I'll think I'll forward this their way.

December 30, 2005 at 9:22 PM  
Blogger Junker said...

p.s. You are a most learned fellow, so maybe you could expand on this bit for me, I'm a tad hazy on the issue:

"Because I believe that we do not have a right to own land in Canada, as it is under Liberal law."

December 30, 2005 at 9:24 PM  
Blogger Shaken said...

You forgot about marriage to your boat house, ferret and next door neighbor's husband Bill.

December 31, 2005 at 3:06 PM  
Blogger ABFreedom said...

All the best in the new year Bill!

December 31, 2005 at 4:10 PM  
Blogger Mugs said...

Great post!!!!!
I hope my fellow Ontarians prove all the skeptics wrong Jan 23 , I'm actually holding my breath , but I certainly understand the feelings towards the voters in Ontario who can't vote their principles................ try living close to some of them its maddening .
Happy New Year

December 31, 2005 at 4:51 PM  
Blogger Debris Trail said...

Junker: Land ownership is not an enshrined right in the Charter. They enshrined all sorts of things, but not land ownership.... unbelievable... and scary!

January 1, 2006 at 10:15 AM  
Blogger Aizlynne said...

Happy New Year Bill... hope 2006 is good to you and yours.

January 2, 2006 at 9:17 PM  
Blogger Debris Trail said...

Liberals use... ahhhh.... Brown Ink!

January 3, 2006 at 8:06 AM  
Blogger W.L. Mackenzie Redux said...

Debris Trail said...
"Junker: Land ownership is not an enshrined right in the Charter. They enshrined all sorts of things, but not land ownership.... unbelievable... and scary"

Not only that but the truly "scary" fact is that the drafter of the charter (PET and the liberal justice department scribes) SPECIFICALLY LEFT OUT property rights even though they were included previously in the Defenbaker Bill of Rights....and this personal property exclusionist idea was supported by a so called PC leader (Lougheed) who signed the charter without a winper about the exclusion of individual property rights which is a cornerstone civil liberty of commonwealth free nations.

In the Hansard surrounding debate in parliament on Charter content, we see it documented that Trudeau purposely left out 2 "rights" in the drafting of the Charter. The first was individual property rights which he explained could be "abused" by citizens in challenging the income tax regime. Note the authoritarian statist mindset that views an individual citizen challenging a dissolute state claim on all personal property as "abuse".

The second was PET's, and his justice minister Chretien's, staunch refusal to include "sexual orientation" in Charter section 15 as an anti discrimination guarantee..."Because the term was too nebulous and open to abuse". This had Svend spinning in his commons seat but his fellow NDP MPs ( nor the rest od parliament) did not back his proposal when it was put to a vote. Interesting that the very argument used to userp charter intent and the court systems by Gay lobbyists was not only intended to be "written out" of the charter but roundly rejected by Parliament and the Charter signators.

Canadians really need a history lesson that is unobstructed by liberal revisionist spin.

January 5, 2006 at 6:52 AM  
Blogger Debris Trail said...

Bill said: "Canadians really need a history lesson that is unobstructed by liberal revisionist spin."

Well, what are you waiting for?

January 5, 2006 at 8:57 AM  
Blogger W.L. Mackenzie Redux said...

Debris Trail said...
"Well, what are you waiting for? "

Frankly, I like to give little hints clues and some big zonkers where the historical/legal/constitutional record contradicts political spin and the modern misconceptions it breeds. I always leave references for those who are interested to check for themselves.

For instance, in the case of the SSM farce I state that it was never the intention of the Charter drafters, PET or Chretien, to inclide "sexual orientation" as a charter section 15 was specifica;l;y written out and all the signators agreed...for a judiciary to "read it in" they would have to be either totally ignorant of judicial and constitutional convention or active participants in a charter fraud...yet 25 years later we find ourselves in a deep pool of misinformation and charter fraud perpetrated by the gay political lobby and dyslexic partisan judiciary which tells us something absolutely opposite to the intent of the charter and its drafters......the key is Hansard...and it'a all on you think that with all the opponents of SSM who would want to validate their position facutually and in Charter intent, that someone would do what I did: search and read Hansard on the charter debates....but so far no takers.

This is indicative of the attitude I have observed from seeing the absolute apathy of Canadians....the facts are available to clear and end debate but they can;t seem to peel themselves away from concocted talking points of their partisanism and ..hey no takers.

Be the first DT.

January 5, 2006 at 4:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home