The Big O Visits Iowa - No, Ottawa

Hopey One Kenobi made the long trek from D.C. to Canada's seat of power today but his visit didn't go quite as planned.

President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper just started their joint news conference, the first such dual podium event for the new president.

The newness is showing - the president began his remarks with, "It's a great pleasure to be here in Iowa - Ottawa."

Obama says "it's great to be" pretty much anywhere he goes. Iowa was a key battleground state, but also the Jan. 4, 2008 caucus was his first win during the Democratic primary election. It swung his way in November, and a Downtown Des Moines rally on Halloween was one of his last campaign stops before winning the presidency.

Flubbing the name of a location has happened to many politicians, and has happened to the president before.*

Via Gateway Pundit:

"Maybe he thought he was in one of the northern 57 states?"

Combine this flub with his previous shout out to the "President of Canada" and I'm starting to think he doesn't care about us quite as much as our apparent obsession with him merits.

And, at the end of the day, we'll still adore him. There's something very romantic about unrequited love.

Does that answer your question, Jarrett?

Stephen Harper On Wolf Blitzer's 'The Situation Room'

A very good performance, I think. I was most impressed by his tactfully implicit threat to Obama about the 'Buy American' clause of their porkulus package - a clause that is gone but definitely not forgotten. Also, Harper hit the point about the potential costs of protectionism for the global economy quite well when he said that there is no surer way to turn a recession into a depression than to pursue protectionism given our current state of financial affairs.

All in all, he earned an 'A-' grade. The minus is in there because I'm still a little sore with him over the budget. Only time will heal that wound.



Exit Question: Is it absolutely crucial that he begins every goddamn sentence with "Well, look..."?

H/t Lance

America: All Of Your Businesses Will Be Ours

Yes. Let's do this thing.

Captain Capitalism:

First you have the corporate tax rate. Oh sure, not a big advantage, but a large enough advantage it behooves the question, why havn't American firms been fleeing north to set up corporate HQ's? I mean if they're going to endure constant negative media coverage, an ignorant villianization of their existence, why suffer a 39.5% tax rate when you can suffer a mere 33.5% tax rate.

Oh, and did I mention they have nationalized health care? That may not seem like an advantage to us die hard capitalists, but for a corporation that would cut IMMEASURABLY MUCHO on their labor costs as they no longer have to pay health care insurance. So lower corporate taxes, plus savings of roughly 1/3 on labor, all the while still having the benefits of a modern, English speaking economy geographically close to their market. Please, somebody tell me why corporations haven't fled to Canada yet?

Second, corruption. I opined earlier that the US' corruption index would collapse under all the corruption, sleaze and parasitic scum buckets ranging from everybody like big fish like Bernie Madoff to the millions of smaller scumbucket fish like the investment banking, blue blood, bulge bracket nepotist and cronyists who got their jobs because of daddy and not because of skill, but forget that. Even ignoring that likely collapse, Canada is already significantly less corrupt. 8.7 vs. a 7.2. Why deal with a bunch of criminals in institutions such as the government, corporations, your employer or your educational institution when you can have significantly less crime in the institutions of Canada? It's not like we're Somalia, but give it time.

Third, government deficits as a % of GDP. Never mind that the OECD data I pulled for the US is already outdated as Obama just sign the "F#ck America over" bill which puts the real government deficit closer to 10% GDP. Let's just "hope" it stays at the previously OECD projected 5.2%. Whether it's 5.2% or 10%, it's a many-multiple of the insignificant .5% deficit the Canadians are racking up.

Fourth, and what does the fiscal recklessness that causes deficits culminate into? Why the national debt.

Yes, the national debt!

"Sick and tired of having to pay for what you want to consume? Why then just borrow it from future generations by saddling (and screwing them over) with the national debt. All you have to do is vote for socialists who couldn't balance their check books as mommy and daddy paid for their philosophy degree in college, who inevitably ended up in politics, because, well, that's where true scum bags with no skill end up. Slavery isn't dead! It's just deferred! Vote for the national debt!"

Apparently the Canadians (and I know, this sounds crazy) don't hate their children nor their grandchildren. Apparently they seem to have this thing called "fiscal austerity" or "fiscal discipline." Because they've ran smaller deficits, they naturally have smaller debts. Their national debt is only 22% GDP while ours is 52% (oh, and yeah, that doesn't include the debt the genius "stimulus" package just saddled us with).

So you can either forever serve in servitude to pay for the "Great Society" and social security and medicare (because that form of slavery is OK), or you can move and not be so indebted.

Fifth (or as Dave Chappelle says, "fif") corroborating their fiscal austerity and their remarkable ability to maintain the simple 3rd grade level concept of spending within their means, it is not just the government that seems to balance the books, but the people in general. The current account deficit, though a deficit, is only 1.8% of GDP compared to the US' 4.4% (again, Obama, socialists, stimulus, not adjusted, more like 10% GDP, etc. etc., never mind). Yes, not a surplus, but 1.8% versus what in reality will be closer to 11% in the US, where would you rather be.

And finally, six, that whole thing about "Canadians are taxed WAY more than the US!"

Oh really?

You see the ideal measure of the tax rate is government spending as a percent of GDP. In that revenues don't really matter since spending, not matter if you pay for it with borrowed money or current tax revenues has to be repaid with future taxes. I've mentioned this before, but for all practical purposes, the US and Canada have the same effective tax rates, both roughly 39%. At least in Canada you get "free" health care (and I know how weak that argument is, but just to goad the left).

PLUS: C'Mon, Move To Canada

Memo To Mohammed Elmasry: Honour Killings Are A Distincly Muslim Problem

Phyllis Chesler:

On February 12, 2009, Muzzammil Hassan informed police that he had beheaded his wife. Hassan had emigrated to the United States 30 years ago and, after a successful banking career, had founded Bridges TV, a Muslim-interest network which aims, according to its website, "to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations." Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III told The Buffalo News that "this is the worst form of domestic violence possible," and Khalid Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, told the New York Post that Islam forbids such domestic violence. While Muslim advocacy organizations argue that honor killings are a misnomer stigmatizing Muslims for what is simply domestic violence, a problem that has nothing to do with religion, Phyllis Chesler, who just completed a study of more than 50 instances of North American honor killings, says the evidence suggests otherwise.

A muslim man's decision to behead his wife or daughter for reasons of collective honour - also known as an honour killing - is simply categorized as murder in Canada and the United States. As far as the legal system is concerned, a person's motivation for murdering someone is perfectly irrelevant.

This is not only absolutely appropriate, but crucial to a fair and liberal legal system. The law must be confined to delimiting the freedom of action of individuals. One's motivation for the action of murder has no bearing on its permissibility. It is not the state's role to punish socially unacceptable thoughts.

However, the fact that no legal distinction between honour killings and murder is necessary does not exempt the barbaric practice from rational scrutiny, nor does it mean that honour killings are merely another variation of simple domestic violence.

Phyllis Chesler's study analyzes 50 cases of honour killings in North America and determines that, despite the claims of muslim advocacy organizations that honour killings have nothing to do with Islam, they represent a manifestly muslim problem to be considered as distinct from domestic violence.

Chesler's study begins:

Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family's domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents' wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families.[2] This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders.[3] The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women's empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.

As you may recall, this issue is highly relevant to Canadians in light of the Aqsa Parvez honour killing that occurred in Toronto in 2007, a murder which was dismissed by the infamous Mohammed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress as a teenager issue and not an Islamic issue.

Chesler identifies the root of the problem as follows:

The problem the West faces is complex. Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus view honor and morality as a collective family matter. Rights are collective, not individual. Family, clan, and tribal rights supplant individual human rights

As this study demonstrates, it is as clear as day that honour killings are a distinctly Islamic problem. This fact must be acknowledged before it can be addressed.

This is a highly salient topic at the moment. I very much encourage you to read the essay in its entirety.

H/t Michael Rubin

Regarding The Issue Of Immigration

Thomas Friedman points us towards a unique panacea to our economies woes:

"All you need to do is grant visas to two million Indians, Chinese and Koreans,” said Shekhar Gupta, editor of The Indian Express newspaper. “We will buy up all the subprime homes. We will work 18 hours a day to pay for them. We will immediately improve your savings rate — no Indian bank today has more than 2 percent nonperforming loans because not paying your mortgage is considered shameful here. And we will start new companies to create our own jobs and jobs for more Americans."

I'm particularly opposed to what I have identified to be a distinctly anti-immigration strain in the North American conservative movement. The situation is particularly bad in the United States where, under current immigration laws, many of the great "Americans" of the past century would have been turned away at the border before achieving their fortunes or fame.

A truly moral immigration policy must be an open one, which is not to say an unregulated one. A strict screening process is an absolute necessity in order to prevent the enemies of the West, the criminal element, and individuals who have certain contagious diseases from entering the country. This is the only way to consistently apply the idea that every human being is free to act on their own rational judgment so long as they do not violate the individual rights of others.

The choice to immigrate to Canada or the United States does not directly violate anybody's rights. To deny non-criminal individuals access to our country is to employ state coercion for the wrong ends, since there can be no rational justification for the initiation of force against another human being. As a policy, then, restricted immigration violates the rights of both potential immigrants and the citizens who would like to associate with those immigrants, whether through friendship or commerce.

In the comments section of the Friedman article, Maxime Rainville parodies a typical argument against open immigration that we're hearing more and more often in these trying economic times:

Instead of worrying about creating jobs for people from abroad, Senator X should worry about creating jobs for Americans first. Americans are already suffering because of the current crisis and shouldn't have to compete with cheap labor imported from foreign countries. This is the same laissez-faire attitude that got us into this mess. Government must devote its energy to creating millions of new green collar, high paying, unionized jobs. That's what's best for America. Why does Senator X want to destroy America?

We hear this very same tune being sung by certain Canadian conservatives as well. The argument assumes, however, the profoundly statist premise that citizens have a "right" to employment and, what's more, that the government should be permitted to use force to keep competition from foreign countries from crossing the border.

But no such right to employment exists. The basic principles of liberty oblige us to consistently recognize the right of any individual to form a contract with any other individual. As such, an employer is perfectly justified in both hiring foreigners and firing native Canadians.

Another typical argument against open immigration is demonstrated by commenter Glen:

Out of those 2 million immigrants that claim they are going to work 18 hours a day, I wonder where exactly that might be, and how many of these 2 million will just come here to collect welfare or unemployment insurance.

The idea that immigrants come to our country merely to collect welfare cheques - besides being largely untrue - is not an argument against open immigration but an argument against the welfare state. This kind of reasoning is tantamount to the suggestion that, because of the immorality of our welfare state, moral individuals should be barred from entering it. This is both absurd and indefensible.

Regarding Friedman's proposal, however, I cannot claim to be altogether convinced that an open immigration policy holds the key to restoring our financial health. The reason that we are currently experiencing one of the worst recessions in the past century can be summarized in two simple and familiar words: government intervention. Accordingly, the key to our health moving forward will be found only in massive deregulation and a commitment to the principles capitalism. It is crucial to note, however, that these principles of capitalism demand an open immigration policy as well.

"Lower, Simpler & Flater": More Practical Budgetary Advice For The Prime Minister

Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

(1) Reduce the employment insurance business premium from $1.40 to $1.00

(2) Rather than bailing out Big Auto, give that money to businesses to provide payroll relief

(3) Broad-based personal tax relief (increase in the basic personal exemption and a reduction from four down to two tax brackets)

H/t LiC

This One's For My Albertan Readers, Whosoever You May Be

Alberta Bound:



Ontario Sucks:



H/t Liberty In Canada

A Quick Thought For Kathey Montague

Before today, I wasn't actually aware that it is illegal in Canada for a woman to carry pepper spray for self-defence.

Kathey Montague expresses her concern over the matter in the following video:



"Why do politicians insist they women be defenceless against two-legged predators?"

I can only agree. Pepper spray is a perfectly reasonable weapon to employ for one's self-defence. It is especially helpful to women who are able to carry it in their purse with little difficulty and have quick access to it should a would-be initiator of force present him or herself.

The only thing that I'd like to take issue with in this video is the idea that Miss Montague raises of a "God-given right" to self-defence. Insofar as she intended to convey the idea that human beings have an inalienable right to defend themselves against those who would initiate force against them, she is perfectly correct. However, an individual's right to self-defence is the logical consequence of the right to life and this most basic right is not derived from God's decree or from the words of the Bible but from the very nature of man.

Individual rights are objective and inalienable already. They don't need help from the invocation of God. In fact, such an invocation can only serve to undermine the idea of objective rights to those who are not persuaded by theological arguments.

Miss Montague, I am pleased that you're invested in lobbying the government to stop interference in the life and liberty of Canadian citizens. There is no cause that I'm aware of that is in more dire need of advocacy. But I would encourage you to abandon the safety blanket of religious rhetoric in order to maximize the influence of your message and to deliver a more satisfying and consistent endorsement of the fundamental individual rights of Canadians.

When Quebec Is Worried That The Stimulus Is Too Left-Wing ...

A group of Canadian economists have come together to sound the alarm regarding the devastating long-term consequences of recently proposed "stimulus" efforts to jump-start the economy. The website can be found at the following link.

Unsurprisingly, the economists are based out of Alberta, a conservative strong-hold in Canada and ...

Pardon?

They're not out of Alberta?

These economists are out of ... Quebec?!

We economists would like to alert our fellow citizens to the inefficiency involved in increasing public expenditures in order to counter the on-going recession. Under the excuse of a false consensus and the pressure of political considerations, governments ignore the long-term consequences of their interventions.

The massive programs of expenditure and regulation that the federal and Québec government are pushing are essentially meant to satisfy the demands of organized interests.

In the light of economic theory and history, we think that those measures, far from rebooting the economy, will mortgage the taxpayers’ incomes, make producers even more dependent of the state, provide stimulus for protectionism, and set the scene for even worse turmoil in the future.

If their real goal were to promote economic growth, our governments would instead choose to shrink the impediments to investment, work and production, especially by reducing the fiscal and regulatory burden of individuals and businesses.

Well, I'll be damned. As it turns out, many Quebec economists have more common sense than our allegedly conservative Prime Minister. Go figure.

H/t Back Off Government

Oh, Right, Harvard's A Cesspool Of Relativism ...

Michael Ignatieff:

Politics is an art, not a science, and so the judgments that you’re making are about people, and they’re judgments about what’s possible, and those are very different than the judgments you make in the safety of academic life.

Actually, politics is a science. It is the branch of philosophy that applies ethics to the social context, having roots in both metaphysics and epistemology. And, like all branches of philosophy, it requires the scientific movement from certain premises to their proper conclusions and corollaries.

This subjectivist garbage is precisely the problem with Canadian politicians. Government should not be a playground for power-lusting pragmatists and intellectual adolescents. The functions of the state ought to be animated by and limited to the stature of a moral social system as determined by reason. When did this fall so desperately out of mode?

Ignatieff is sounding more and more like Stephen Harper's less intelligent and socially awkward cousin every day.

Grow a pair, Iggy. We already know what a Liberal Party with no chutzpah looks like and it ain't pretty.

Sorry, Ezra, But We've Got Miles To Go Before We Sleep

After a year that has been defined by argument over the limits to free expression in Canada, the controversial section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Acts - the section that has been used by Canadian Human Rights Commissions to try Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn for 'inciting hatred and islamophobia' - has finally come up for debate in parliament.

CTV:

The controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act governing hate speech comes under scrutiny today when federal politicians decide whether to debate the limits it places on freedom of expression.

Brian Storseth, a Conservative MP, has asked the Commons justice committee to review Section 13 of the act, which contains provisions that deal with hate messages. Mr. Storseth also wants the committee to review the mandate of the commission itself.

It is imperative that the Canadian government initiates a massive overhaul of its policy on hate speech. Unfortunately, this is still a long-term goal since removing section 13.1 will only be the first step - albeit an important first step - towards restoring the complete freedom of expression in Canada.

If this long-term goal is to be realized, however, it will require solidarity on the part of Conservative MPs and a certain degree of non-partisan and cultural support for free speech as well. I'm not at all convinced that either of these conditions have been fully satisfied at this juncture.

Proponents of Section 13 argue that hate speech should remain under the umbrella of human-rights legislation. The Canadian Jewish Congress, for instance, expressed disappointment in Prof. Moon's position, saying the Jewish community knows how devastating hate propaganda can be.

Members of the Canadian Jewish Congress ought to be ashamed of themselves and their organization. The implication of their support for section 13.1 is that propaganda was a contributing factor to the horror of the Holocaust. In fact, Hitler was a strong advocate for hate speech laws. When the government is allowed to limit the expression of ideas in the citizenry, it is only a matter of time before one false idea or another achieves an advocate in power and then that idea becomes government policy. The safest way of protecting a minority is to allow the completely free exchange of ideas. This way, unreasonable ideas are met with reasonable ones. Bad speech is met with good speech.

As Alan Borovoy explains:

Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it.

Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party of Canada once again missed its cue to convince Canadians that it hasn't sunk into the depths of moral relativism and evil.

Liberal MP Brian Murphy said his party is not in favour of removing Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. "It is a unique tool for people who are being discriminated against and it's an added protection," he said.

Unique. That's one way of putting it. The Human Rights Commissions are able to trample over the individual rights of Canadian citizens, forcing them to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars in legal fees, for making statements or republishing cartoons that offend the perennially offended. Yes, I suppose that is rather unique. Unique for a free country, at least.


Ezra Levant appears to have relatively high hopes for the elimination of 13.1 now that it has achieved attention from the federal government. After all, hasn't Harper condemned the section personally and explicitly?

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is under massive scrutiny for its misbehaviour. Its own hand-picked consultant, Prof. Richard Moon, recommends that its censorship provisions be scrapped. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper tells Maclean's magazine in a year-end interview with him that Canada's HRCs are "abusive" and their conduct is "egregious".

That sounds great, Ezra, except you're dropping the context of the Prime Minister's comments completely.

Here is what PM Harper actually said:

The government has no plans to do [anything about 13.1] ... And it is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society. That’s a valid objective. It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be.

I'm sorry, Ezra, but don't you think that your representation of Harper's position on the HRCs is giving him way too much credit?

The fight for free speech must continue to intensify if we are to secure real change. The solution will not be found in deceiving ourselves into thinking that the government is more ideologically committed to securing our freedoms than it has time and again proven to be.

All of that being said, however, it is a good sign that the issue is at least being debated by federal politicians, even if the NDP and Liberals have unambiguously decided to support the section and even though Harper has patently refused to take a stand on the issue.

Conservatives have miles to go before they sleep if they wish to achieve real freedom of speech in Canada in the near future. Not to worry, though. I've got plenty of coffee stored up to get me through this long night.



(*)

There Is Nothing To Fear But Fear Itself

One of the most dependable by-products of a recession is fear. You can count on it rearing its ugly head every time. But if the recession is serious enough, as is the case right now, that fear allows otherwise reasonable people to look at the economy with clouded judgment. One is tempted to seek out, and accept unthinkingly, the easiest and most comforting answers to the urgent questions we have about our finances. These are the circumstances that allow a person to consider the possibility of a massive federal deficit with a shrug of their shoulders. "Well," they rationalize, "we have to do something to stimulate the economy and I don't hear many people claiming that a stimulus package won't have that effect."

Please allow me to assure every Canadian citizen that Stephen Harper will unquestionably fail to heal our ailing economy no matter how much money he is willing to steal from Canadians. In fact, the actions that he is taking are fundamentally counterproductive to his explicitly stated goal of promoting economic health.

Unfortunately, those who are itching to defend the Prime Minister for his allegedly savvy political move in supporting deficit economics in the recent budget are the loudest members of the conservative movement at the moment. Although many of these individuals are otherwise quite reasonable, they have been so stentorian in their defence of the Conservative Party of Canada that they have nearly drowned out the voices that are patiently reminding Canadians that the government's plan is based on profoundly unsound and dangerous economics.

So forget whether the budget was a clever political move for a minute. The purpose of having a government is to secure the liberty of a people. It is not to watch competing parties exchange blows by using citizens and their money as they wish.

As Peter Schiff notes, "Where there should be an historic clash of ideas, there is only blind resignation and an amorphous queasiness that we are simply sweeping the slouching beast under the rug." The 'slouching beast' to which Schiff is referring is, of course, the dramatic rise in support for government intervention in the economy and the perceived acceptability of incurring massive federal deficits.

Schiff continues:

Individuals, companies or cities with heavy debt and shrinking revenues instinctively know that they must reduce spending, tighten their belts, pay down debt and live within their means. But it is axiomatic in Keynesianism that national governments can create and sustain economic activity by injecting printed money into the financial system. In their view, absent the stimuli of the New Deal and World War II, the Depression would never have ended.

On a gut level, we have a hard time with this concept. There is a vague sense of smoke and mirrors, of something being magically created out of nothing. But economics, we are told, is complicated.

It would be irresponsible in the extreme for an individual to forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can't be repaid. However, this is precisely what we are planning on a national level.

Basic economics isn't nearly as complicated as the statists on the left or on the right would have you believe. In fact, it is mostly common sense, like the idea that something cannot come from nothing. Wealth is produced by individuals and not by governments. Accordingly, when states inject 'stimulus' money into the economy, it is merely removing funds from the pockets of those who have earned it and preventing them from spending and, more importantly, saving. It is saving that this economy direly needs. We are in our current economic situation because of unreasonable borrowing and spending which has been facilitated and in large part perpetrated by our governments. Only a return to production and saving can correct our economy's fundamentals and restore us to a position of financial stability and strength.

Schiff puts it quite clearly:

Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government doesn't have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don't go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won't lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value of those already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.

We are currently heading down a dangerous road towards hyperinflation. If this inflation reaches the levels that some economists fear, we will be looking at the prodigious diminishment of our money's value and, as a corollary, a major upwards spiraling of prices.

By borrowing more than it can ever pay back, the government will guarantee higher inflation for years to come, thereby diminishing the value of all that Americans have saved and acquired. For now the inflationary tide is being held back by the countervailing pressures of bursting asset bubbles in real estate and stocks, forced liquidations in commodities, and troubled retailers slashing prices to unload excess inventory. But when the dust settles, trillions of new dollars will remain, chasing a diminished supply of goods. We will be left with 1970s-style stagflation, only with a much sharper contraction and significantly higher inflation.

So what should the Harper government have done? The answer is obvious: absolutely nothing. Anything that the government does will only make matters worse. And considering that government intervention is largely to blame for the severity of our recession, don't you think that they've done enough already?

As Schiff reminds us, in a recession "belt tightening is required by all, including government." I may be inclined to put the point a little more strongly. In a recession, "belt tightening is required by all, especially government." You see, when it comes down to personal finances, individuals mostly possess the requisite sense to understand that borrowing and spending and then borrowing more and spending more is not an intelligent or healthy habit. Unfortunately for us, governments possess no similar common sense and so it is up to citizens to sound the alarm when the state oversteps its bounds. And, as of this moment, the Canadian state is miles and miles passed its bounds.

Harper's stimulus is not merely unconservative. It is unconscionable. So, yes. Be afraid. Be very afraid. But don't allow that fear to prevent you from thinking rationally. We must immediately stop sanctioning Stephen Harper's non-pragmatic pragmatism and begin condemning, as loudly as possible, the Canadian government's actions with regards to the question of 'stimulus'.

Saturday Night's All Right For Link Dumping

Good afternoon, my beloved readers. This has been a busy, busy day for me so I'm not going to have the chance to do much updating. To give me peace of mind, and also to keep you entertained, I'll clear my tab bar of its most interesting material and submit it for your consideration.

Titanic Deck Chairs: "The Nationalized Health Care Fight That Never Was?"

If Democrats learned anything from the HillaryCare defeat, it was the danger of admitting to their wish to federalize the health market. Since returning to power, they've pursued a new strategy: to stealthily and incrementally expand government control. "What no one is paying attention to in the [stimulus]," says Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, "is that Democrats are making a big grab at the health-care sector."

Heroes of Capitalism: an excellent blog that provides daily updates about great capitalists, living and dead.

What is a hero of capitalism?
Someone who used private property* to produce wealth.

Everyday there will be a featured hero. Though many of the heroes had far more than one accomplishment, only one will be highlighted at a time.

The Western Standard: Harper's golden opportunity to radically embrace trade liberalization and free up the borders.

If the results of this survey can be trusted, and if public sentiment has not changed dramatically since the data was collected, the Conservative government could dismantle Canadian protectionism and pursue an aggressive policy of unilateral free trade with little political risk.

Have a great Saturday!

Obama: I Don't Understand This Economics Business But I'm Pretty Sure This Is Bush's Fault

US President Barack Obama descended from his well-heated White House today to give the misguided North American masses a shot of wisdom about the economy.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

But don't get him wrong: he loves the American constitution. Just not those nasty parts about property rights and the limited role of the state in the individual's life.

Of course, he's right about tax cuts alone doing little to correct the fundamentals of the economy. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts and it is well-covered ground that the Bush administration had a rather difficult time rolling back the spending.

But that isn't the gist of Obama's opinion editorial. Rather, he's looking to throw out the baby with the bath water. He is rejecting capitalism because conservative socialism didn't work. Bush did not govern like a capitalist; he governed like a big government "compassionate conservative" type. Accordingly, the flaws in the Bush method are not the flaws of capitalism. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite. The only tonic to the current financial crisis is a return to capitalism.

The Obama plan will replace flawed economics with even more profoundly flawed economics. Boy, the next four years ought to be a hoot.

H/t Kathryn Jean Lopez

The End of Canadian Conservatism?

Who can save us?

Andrew Coyne paints a rather bleak picture of the prospects for Canadian conservatism moving forward:

With this week’s historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout — a great final leap into the void. Understand: there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country.

Mr. Coyne is perfectly correct on one count: Harper's 'retreat from principle' in the recent budget seems to sound the death knell for the Conservative Party's present momentum towards their much-desired majority government. The man who has been branded a tyrant by his political opponents has allowed himself to be bullied into submission by the weakest Liberal Party that we have seen in decades.

If Harper had stood his ground, would Ignatieff have called him on it? Perhaps. From all accounts, he is nowhere near the anorchid bureaucrat that was his predecessor. But, so what? Ignatieff hasn't had the chance to sell himself to Canadians yet. Harper would have come off as strong and unflinching by standing up to the coalition and the LPC's new leader. If the governor general had allowed the coalition to take over (unlikely), the electorate would have punished the Liberals in the following election. If the governor general had called an election, Harper would have been returned to power with a strengthened mandate and a shot at a majority.

The main thrust of Coyne's argument can be found in the following warning:

We are on course toward a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and — ultimately, inevitably — higher taxes. And all this before the first of the baby boomers have had a chance to retire.

What is it about twenty-first century 'conservatives' and expanding the size of government?

But what of Coyne's prediction that this budget marks the death of the Canadian conservative movement? Is it truly as dead in the water as he suggests? The answer to that question depends entirely on us: its constituent parts. Many on the right have appropriately chosen to reject Harper's budget. Many have called for a return to economic conservatism - i.e. a return to the capitalism that has allowed the western world to achieve the unprecedented level of wealth and wellbeing that we currently enjoy. This is the key to the future health of our movement. There is nothing to be gained from the compassionate-conservatism of the George Bushes or the pragmatic-conservatism of the Stephen Harpers or the red toryism of the Jim Prentices.

So who does that leave us with in the CPC?

Um.

Rona Ambrose?

Not too many tories seem to fit the bill. If you have any better ideas please put them in the comments.

The Difference Between Republicanism & Democracy

I am none too fond of democracy.

I understand that this qualifies as an unusual statement to make in the twenty-first century now that conservatives and liberals alike are so enthusiastic about invoking 'democratic rights' or the best interests of the democratic state to justify their domestic and foreign policy decisions and actions. One can hear them proclaiming from mountain tops that democracy is the root of all good in a political system. Why should the United States invade Iraq, Mr. Bush? Why, to bring them democracy, of course!

The root of all good in a political system - nay, the only proper function of the state - is the protection of individual rights. These individual rights have very little to do with the logically indefensible 'democratic rights' that were invented by the social democrats (I'm thinking here of the right to an education, the right to health care, or the newly discovered right not to be offended, among countless others). Rather, individual rights are the logical corollaries and consequences of the one basic right of every human being: the right to one's own life.

So what does holding this position make me if not a democrat? As the title of this blog suggests - and I know that a lot of my readers have inquired about this - it makes me a constitutional republican. In a Canadian republic, the legislature would still operate democratically but politicians would possess no power to violate the rights of their state's citizens under any circumstances. In Canada, that would mean no Human Rights Commissions violating the right to free expression, no federal confiscation of private property, no coercive taxation, and no compulsory unionism.

I stumbled across this video the other day which does, I believe, an excellent job of distilling the difference between a democracy and a republic down into an easily accessible and relatively concise presentation. Although the video is far from perfect, I hope that it will function as something of an introduction to the idea of a constitutional republic to freedom-loving Canadians.

Separists Want To Run Our Country, Socialists Want To Run Our Economy ....

... And it all comes down to an unelected Governor General whose claim to fame involves work on public television.

Jonathan Kay:

Since so much of what happens depends on the whim of the Governor-General, our nation's intellectuals have engrossed themselves in history books, arguing about whether Michaelle Jean should properly be guided by this or that ancient precedent from our dimly remembered past. To make sense of it all, one needs to become an expert on the Boer-era minority government of Sir Whatshisname, who fell after being undercut by Lord Dustywig. Will the G-G find that precedent persuasive, we all wonder? Or will she go further back in time, to the great British confrontation between the Whigs and the Whags? And what role will the involvement of separatists play in her thinking -- a scenario that requires recourse to the ancient councils of the Orkneys? Would she accept Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament? If not, why? Dear lord, why?

Just more fuel for the republican fire.

Harper Won't Push Obama To Visit The Great White North First

Does anybody else smell a fresh new angle for the Canadian left?

"Oh! Harper hates Obama and won't even set aside his scary hidden agenda to have a friendly meeting with The One, our closest ally, before he goes to stupid Mexico or something. Obviously, Harper is still the enemy of Hope and Change and Christmas and Puppies. Harper still equals Bush!"

Story from CTV:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper won't be pushing his newly elected American counterpart to make Canada his first foreign stop, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Kory Teneycke says Harper doesn't have to be best friends with Barack Obama to have a strong professional relationship with the president-elect.

After all that campaign talk about revisiting NAFTA, I'm not too jazzed about the guy popping over for a visit either. I don't blame the Prime Minister for wanting to put it off as long as possible.

Harper Free To Be Conservative Now That Obama Takes The Reigns

What will Canadian politics look like now that the "Bush card" is off the table?

Darcey:

Stephen Harper equals ObamaHitler, Steve Harper is acting just like his good friend Barack Obama, Stephen Harper is walking in lockstep with Barack Obama and so on.

The Canadian left are now going to have to start coming up with new ideas to mock the prime minister and fear-monger Canadians. If Barack Obama was president during our recent federal election the Conservatives would have won a majority simply because Bush Derangement Syndrome wouldn't have had any play

Now that we've shuffled the Bush card back to the bottom of the deck, will the media choose to put the Obama card into play or will they suddenly feel remorse for the harsh treatment they showed the last president and urge unity in a time of crisis and division?

The Wall Street Journal:

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Whatever the case may be, I'm thinking Harper is going to have a lot more room to maneuver when it comes to pursuing a right-wing economic and foreign policy agenda.

Just ask Norman Spector.

Shocker: California Outlaws Gay Marriage

With Arizona and Florida following suit.

A few thousand couples are waking up this morning mighty curious about whether their marriage is still valid. I guess we'll have to wait to hear from the courts for the final verdict.

I've always found it difficult to gauge just where most Canadian tories fall on the gay marriage issue. For the record, though, I'm glad I live in a country where citizens are free to do as they please. I support freedom in the economic realm when it comes to government action. For the same reasons and in the same way I support the laissez-faire approach in the social realm.

And, more importantly, how did this ever happen in a state containing Los Angeles and San Francisco? Come on, Cali, I thought you were cool.