The Liberty Manifesto

I was surfing for some P.J. O'Rourke writings today and I came across this speech he gave to the Cata Institute back in 1993.

Like most of his writings it is a must read. Some quotes:

This is because we believe in freedom. Freedom-what this country was established upon, what the Constitution was written to defend, what the Civil War was fought to perfect.

Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights - the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

...

You know. if government were a product, selling it would be illegal. Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have. Government contains impure ingredients-as anybody who's looked at Congress can tell you. On the basis of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises. I think we can say government practices deceptive advertising. And the merest glance at the federal budget is enough to convict the government of perjury, extortion, and fraud. There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Cato Institute's program in a nutshell: government should be against the law. Term limits aren't enough. We need jail.

Well said. This of course applies equally to Canada and the rest of the 'free world'.

Dependency is the greatest crime that a government can commit against its citizens. And here in Canada we see it all around us.

As an example, back home in PEI the government has been pressured to provide separate french elementary schools in areas with very small french populations. I'm not here to debate the wisdom of opening such schools since I'm basically neutral on the matter but I do want to comment on one of the most commonly sited reasons people gave for demanding them. One of the most common reasons was that being bilingual made getting a government job much easier.

Can you imagine? Parents preprogramming their children to be dependent on the good graces of their masters. Children raised in such a manner are going into the world with one strike already against them.

Now I don't mean to pick just on PEI but since I've spent most of my life there its my primary point of reference. When a problem exists somewhere, doesn't matter what, the first thing people turn to in order to solve the problem is the government. A government grant perhaps. How about ACOA funding? Lets give money to outsiders if they promise to give us jobs. There must be someone out there who will help us... the rations of slavery - hay and a barn for human cattle.

Point Well Taken

James Taranto of Best Of The Web Today makes a very good point concerning polls in the US that according to Al Gore state 'a clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction'.

Democratic spinners have used these poll results to say that a majority of Americans are unhappy with G.W.'s performance. Perhaps. But the people quoting such polls fail to tell us why a majority feels that America is headed in the wrong direction. As Taranto mentions:

If you think the country is going in the wrong direction because of Hollywood vulgarity and court-mandated same-sex marriage, you'll probably vote for Bush, the candidate who stands against these things.

Very good point. I'm curious if the pollsters even collect such data and if so why the media fails to report on the specifics.

Do They Have No Scrupples

That Bush Dynasty is up to no good. We all know that they only run for public office so that they can control the global supply of oil. They of course use this to hurt children and kill little puppies.

Now they have just gone to far! John Kerry has an inside source that says G.W. Bush has a secret plan to hurt the Wisconsin milk industry.

Imagine the suffering once the Bush clan gains control of global milk production. Children malnourished. We will all be slaves!

We cannot let this happen. To prevent more American control of the global means of production I intend to write to Prime Minister Paul Martin demanding that a federal program be implemented that diversifies Canada's milk production. Let's be honest. Such a program would only cost $2-3 billion which would be a small price to pay to ensure America doesn't pull us closer within the American sphere-of-influence.

A cow in every home I say!

PS: Jesus, Kerry is an ass. Bush may hate children, poor people, minorities, whatever... but at least he isn't an ass.

What Is With This Poll Question

Todays poll question at The Globe And Mail asks: Should the federal government introduce a short-term 'windfall tax' that redistributes some of Alberta's oil wealth to provinces in need?

Is this story in the news or are they just making up the poll questions as they go?

I'm curious since I havn't heard of it elsewhere.

And while we are on the subject why don't they ask questions as to why Ontario doesn't redistribute to 'needy provinces' it's income from auto manufacturing, high-tech industries, or the legal and corporate professions in Toronto?

A Few Reciprolinks

I know I haven't written much lately but thankfully Bob has been keeping the ship afloat.

I just thought today that I'ld put up some reciprolinks to a few folks that have been kind enough to link to us:

The Diplomad
The Red Granger
Babbling Brooks
Looney Canuck

As for my lack of posting... well I've just been way to busy. Plus sick. Damn microscopic organisms. Damn them all!

Anyways the news these days pretty much explains itself.

CBS News is finished. And rightfully so I might add. How Dan Rather could respond to criticisms of his work in the way he did is enough to convict him. I have no other comment on the matter.

John Kerry... well where could one start. How about this: Could the Democrat's have possibly picked a worse candidate? At least with Al Sharpton they could have claimed it was all a bad joke that got out of control. Instead they nominated Al Gore 2.0 thinking things would be totally different this time around. Tsk tsk.

Now it wouldn't take a genious to figure out that I hope G.W. gets re-elected, but I could have picked better candidates that the last two Democratic nutjobs by choosing the two most colourful characters I could find on cereal boxes. Like seriously? Al Gore? John Kerry?

I don't claim to understand the 'left' or liberals in general but which neurons misfired that allowed these nominations to happen? Why are Democrat's letting the 'normal' candidates slip through their fingers? How about Dick Gephardt? He seems normal. Joe Lieberman?

Out of the 2-3 hundred million Americans out there, how many would look at Gore or Kerry and say: You know he's kind of like me.

Koffi Is At It Again

In a BBC interview Koffi Annan claims that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Now I'm not quite sure what Koffi's background is (and I'm too lazy to figure it out) but it is probably safe to say that he has spent most of his life as a politician, lawyer, or beaurocrat. From the interview:

Kofi Annan (A): I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Inteviewer (Q): So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Why did the interviewer not ask what clause in the UN Charter made the US invasion illegal? Oh I remember now... because THERE IS NONE!

This Week's Poll

What kind of chance do you give Paul Martin coming through on his promise to fix healthcare for a generation?

Vote on the sidebar to the right.

Universities And The Idiots That Run Them

You've really got to love the Internet. Bob and I created this site intending to bitch and complain about the goings on here in Canada. As happens to many blogs we can't always spend the amount of time that we would like looking for events that aren't already covered in some manner by the MSM. You know how it goes... wives, homes, kids, pets, etc... time is scarce.

Anyways, back to why I love the Internet. Michael at Confessions of a Hockey Fanatic (He's apparently a big Pittsburgh Penguins fan. Sad. Go to his site and send your condolences.) sent us a link to a story in The Varsity Online, the student paper at the University of Toronto. The story SAC paid for NY protest bus decribes how the Student's Administration Council funded 26 protestors on their trip to New York during the Republican National Convention.

Michael must have a 6th sense or something because I just watched the trailer for Brainwashing 101 a movie about bias found in American universities. The movie by Evan Coyne Maloney was actually very good. I especially enjoyed the interviews with the zombie-like economics professor and his run-in with the university administrator. That administrator was worse that Ben Stein's character in Farris Bueller's Day Off. Amusing.

Anyways watching that trailer had me cursing our university culture last night and then Michael sends us his link. I've always known that our Canadian universities lack just as much, if not more, a diversity of opinion but it subject is a total do-not-touch topic in our media.

I studied engineering at UNB (note my lack of spelling and grammer skills) and had to deal with this stuff whenever I ventured out of Head Hall which was the engineering building. Some of the more amusing stories is how whenever issues of the engineering paper The Pillar were distributed in any of the arts buildings someone would often throw them all in the garbage. Like please. The entire paper was dedicated to humour and current events in the engineering faculty.

Now the 'official' university newspaper The Brunswickan (or The Bumslickan as referred to in The Pillar) never had this problem because they of course didn't deviate from any rules defined by our politically correct culture. This week's editorial criticizes the Republican National Convention and says that the US should enforce it's 'separation of church and state' like France does. Allo? First off, the US Constitution contains no reference to a 'separation of church and state'. The Constitution states that the federal government cannot institute a 'national religion'. That's it. According to the American Constitution individual states could create and impose their own religions if they so chose. Details. As well the author fails to mention that France's wonderful policies are driving France straight into a civil war within 25 or so years. Great plan buddy.

I should mention that I worked for The Bumslickan for about 2 months. It could have been longer but how much time could I spend around such idiots before stabbing one of them in the neck with a #2 pencil. NOT LONG I TELL YOU! I did manage to get a few concert tickets out of them so it wasn't a total loss.

Anyways, our universities are today so devoid of diversity of opinion that it makes me shudder. While I was a student, Preston Manning of the now defunct Reform Party of Canada gave a speech at the university. There were actually university professors that let their students out early so that they could go and protest. What kind of message is that sending?

Anyways I'm babbling again. In short: universities suck, thanks for the link Michael, check out The Pillar, and watch Brainwashing 101.

PS: The Bumslickan still sucks.

Europe Is Very Very Sick

It's nothing new for me to criticize European countries but sometimes the news out of the Old Continent truely frightens me.

Wesley Smith at the Weekly Standard is today talking about how the Dutch are now euthanizing children. He says:

For anyone paying attention to the continuing collapse of medical ethics in the Netherlands, this isn't at all shocking. Dutch doctors have been surreptitiously engaging in eugenic euthanasia of disabled babies for years, although it technically is illegal, since infants can't consent to be killed. Indeed, a disturbing 1997 study published in the British medical journal, the Lancet, revealed how deeply pediatric euthanasia has already metastasized into Dutch neo natal medical practice: According to the report, doctors were killing approximately 8 percent of all infants who died each year in the Netherlands. That amounts to approximately 80-90 per year. Of these, one-third would have lived more than a month. At least 10-15 of these killings involved infants who did not require life-sustaining treatment to stay alive. The study found that a shocking 45 percent of neo-natologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to questionnaires had killed infants.

It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21 percent of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. Moreover, since when did parents attain the moral right to have their children killed?

I've always feared Europe's willingness to accept radical social and economic philosophies or programs. If you look around the majority of totalitarian and tyranical movements in the world are based on models developed in Europe.

For decades the world recoiled in horror at the crimes the Nazi's commited. Volumn's were written trying to explain how Germans and other sympathetic Europeans could accept the rationale to 'purify the race' or to 'eliminate the weak'.

And today Europe is slowly marching down the same well-trodden path to disaster. Killing children? How does a society rationalize this? What mechanism controls a society that says you can kill children based on 'what they would want if they could communicate it'? Is it wise for the state to convince it's population that it is OK to till the innocent and defenseless?

Europeans are slowly learning that life is meaningless and without consequence. I pity the rest of the world when they, as a people, fully absorb these lessons.

Quote Of The Day

From James Taranto at Best Of The Web Today:

Of course, if you're free to call your government "tyrannical," it's a safe bet that it isn't.

How true...

Hornets Are No Friends Of Mine

Well we got ourselves moved into our home this weekend and the place is starting to look liveable. Naturally the floor is covered with odds and ends but at least we can walk from room to room without to much trouble.

The first problem I am going to face as a homeowner is how to get rid of a hornets nest. I looked up at the front eaves last night and there to behold was their nest. Now the hornets haven't caused any grief yet but hornets are not really known for living in peaceful coexistance with their bi-pedal'd neighbours. So the nest must go...

I've come across several methods to get rid of the hornets. For my own amusement I've made up catchy names for each:

1) The Apocolypse Now Method: Take a large garbage can and start a fire in it. Slowly walk up to the nest, grab it, and throw it in! This method will surely result in a few bites but it apparently makes up for that due to the entertainment it provides the neighbourhood.

2) The Athlete's Method: Take a badmingon racket and slowly approach the nest. Take a deap breath and then start swinging like hell! Results will likely be similar to Method #1.

3) The Girly-Man's Method: Call pest-control.

4) The Handy-Man's Method: Go to Canadian Tire and by a can of 'hornet freeze' or whatever it is called and freeze the buggers. Using a product like Raid is included in this method.

5) The Carpenter's Method: By a can of expanding foam insulation and spray it into the entrance to the nest.

6) The Cheapskate's Method: Whack it with a stick or spray it with the hose.

7) The House-Wives Method: Mix some water with liquid dish detergent. Get a pressure hose and soak the nest. Apparently the soapy water causes them to drown.

I think my first attempt will involve hosing the nest and hoping it falls down. If that doesn't work I think I'll go for the Raid.

Wish me luck...

The Globe And Mail Sucks

I'm really getting sick of reading the guest commentary at The Globe And Mail.

Today we are honoured to be able to peruse Desmond Morton's latest offering Misunderestimating A Leader. He starts off with:

Republicans in New York this week are doing all they can to accentuate the positive on George W. Bush, their inevitable presidential candidate. Bravely nursing their badly twisted arms, the only two Republicans with bipartisan prestige, Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it.

Morton seems to be able to read minds when he says they 'delivered their carefully designed prose as if they meant it'. He of course is implying they neither of them truely meant the words they spoke. I guess the neo-con conspiracy must have threatened to kill off their families or something. Maybe those nasty Jews were involved somehow? For Morton to make such a claim without offering any proof is poor writing if there ever was any. I wonder if he lets his students write their history exams in such a manner?

He then proceeds to go on about how Guiliani compared G.W. Bush to Winston Churchill:

Mr. Bush, Americans were told, was "rock-solid" for the war; his Democratic rival, Senator John Kerry, was actually guilty of changing his mind. In rock-simple analogy, George Bush was a war leader comparable to that robust British hero of an earlier generation, Winston S. Churchill.

Now I've read many editorialists complain about Giuliani making this comparison between the two men. But when exactly was it stated that Bush equaled Churchill in any manner. Both speakers claimed that a leader 'like' Churchill was necessary today. At no point did they say Bush exceeded or equaled Churchill in any manner. The point was that between Bush and Kerry, Bush is more 'Churchillian' than Kerry is. But of course that has been lost on Morton since he was too busy hearing what he wanted to hear.

Giuliani made two references to Churchill in his speech:

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.

But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership. President Bush has the courage of his convictions.

...

There are many qualities that make a great leader but having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.

Winston Churchill saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a warmongering gadfly.

Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as "the evil empire" while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence.

Where here does Morton hear Guiliani comparing Bush to Churchill? He says Churchill was 'an optimist' and that he had 'strong beliefs'. Is Morton claiming that Bush is neither of these things? It doesn't seem that he is but then there would be no point to his statement here then would it.

Morton they gives us this original gem:

However, in September, 2004, it is hard to find evidence that George Bush has been a great success as a war leader.

The United States is bogged down in Iraq, with a deep deficit and a job-losing economy. The diversion of troops from Afghanistan means that a plausible war on terrorism is stalled and even in retreat.

Anger at the U.S. feeds the fanaticism that breeds terrorists. Having declared war on terrorism as a means to rally patriotic fervour and to secure greater presidential powers, President Bush now confesses that his war cannot be won — hardly a Churchillian strategy.

This of course is the usual blather that comes from anti-Bush writers but as usual no proof of any of this exists. Why exactly did they go to Iraq? Did he not listen to McCain's speech? McCain said:

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

Why does Morton not address this? Or was his hearing impaired by the usual complaints of the Left?

In short, Morton heard what he wanted to hear. And this guy teaches history? Sad.

The Fat-kins Diet

The Fat-kins Diet contains some harsh language but it was too funny not to pass on.