Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Justin Trudeau: Love vs Hate

Here we have it folks. This picture is proof that Justin Trudeau’s father was a Communist. Just look at his furry hat and furry coat. Why that’s the same type of hat and coat they wear in mother Russia. Wait a minute, the picture was taken during winter in Montreal. It was freaking cold out. He must be a smart Communist. It looks rather warm and he looks rather comfortable in the cold.

The picture was also taken outside a church right after Justin’s parents had him christened. I thought Communists weren’t allowed to go to Church and have their kids christened. That’s strange. Maybe he’s not a very good Communist.

When we think of Communism, what’s our biggest fear? Well the first thing a Communist regime does is remove free speech and lawful assembly. They destroy the freedom of press. Then they create a police state when the police can search you without cause, arrest you without charge and deny you a lawyer as they hold you in prison indefinitely. That’s the first thing a Communist regime does.

So if that’s what a Communist regime does, then why did Justin’s father prevent any of that from legally happening by creating the Charter of Rights? The Charter of Rights claims we have the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the right to lawful assembly. Removing those rights are in fact illegal. The government is bound by that law. So why would a Communist do that? Create a law preventing Communism from taking over?

Why would a Communist create a law that would prevent the police from being able to search people without a reason or arrest people without a charge? Why would he make a law giving people the right to a lawyer when they are arrested if they want to create a Stalin style death camp? Maybe it’s because Justin’s father wasn’t a Communist at all. In contrast, everything on that list is exactly what Stephen Harper is trying to do us. Isn’t that ironic?

Years ago I wrote a satire about how George Bush declared war on Santa and threatened to bomb the North Pole because his intelligence told him Santa was a Communist. After all, he wore red. He looks a lot like Carl Marx. He even gives away free gifts supporting the welfare state ideal of something for nothing. The purpose of the satire was to show us how silly some of our stereotypes can really be.

When people wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, they aren’t saying we want death camps and we want to create a police state to destroy the freedom of speech. They are saying they support this romantic idea of social justice that unfortunately didn’t happen under Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao or in East Berlin. What happened there was the exact opposite. Why is that? Because the manifesto doesn’t protect individual rights. It doesn’t even protect collective rights.

I submit that the only way that dream of social justice can exist is in a free republic where individual rights and freedoms are guaranteed by a Charter or Constitution which binds the government. All governments need to be bridled so they remain accountable to the people.

Justin Trudeau loves Canada

So Justin Trudeau makes it official. He has officially announced that he is running for the leadership of the Liberal party of Canada and states that he is in love with Canada. He said Canada “can do better” if its citizens actually see themselves in their government. That’s an interesting thought.

“My friends: I love Montreal. I love Quebec,” Trudeau said. “And I am in love with Canada. “I choose, with all my heart, to serve the country I love.” Wow. Kinda makes me think of Jack Layton’s dying pledge “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.”

That is in complete contrast to Stephen Harper’s message of fear and hate that is removing our individual rights and taking us down a road thirty years ago we never would have considered.

Interesting to note that the media recently released some partially declassified statements about how the CIA didn’t like Pierre Elliot Trudeau but loved Lyin Brian Mulroney. It’s enough to make you heave. It’s pretty clear why they liked Lyin Brian and felt he would support their efforts in Central America. Al Martin claims Lyin Brian was involved with Trans World Arms the Canadian Arms company that was used by the CIA as a shell company to smuggle arms into Nicaragua which was paid for in cocaine.

Since every word that came out of Brian Mulroney’s mouth was a lie, it’s no wonder Al Martin thinks he was so involved with the CIA’s arms dealing and drug trafficking in Central America. He’s still a BOD member of Barrack gold which was created by a shady arms dealer.

In contrast Justin Trudeau is a beacon of hope. His love for Canada is something sincere Canadians can relate to. We remember a time when we were proud to be Canadian. That was before we started torturing prisoners and calling everyone who expresses their opinion a domestic terrorist. I look forward to hearing more of what Justin Trudeau has to say. I will say this, our condolences for the loss of his brother Michel in a BC Avalanche. That was indeed tragic.

Da da Canada. Bring it home soldier. Make us proud. Je me souviens.


  1. "When people wear a Che Guevara T-shirt, they aren’t saying we want death camps and we want to create a police state to destroy the freedom of speech. They are saying they support this romantic idea of social justice that unfortunately didn’t happen under Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao or in East Berlin."

    Or in Cuba, which PET was a BIG fan of along with Fidel and Che. Real democracy about that why don't you? PET was a big fan of Mao as well. The man fancied himself a revolutionary.

    Che Guevara personally ordered the execution of hundreds of "enemies of the revolution" when Fidel Castro came to power. People conveniently forget about that, or didn't know to begin with. Those who wear that T-shirt are glorifying a murderer and betraying their own ignorance of history. Scruffy hippie types wear it to attract dumb females who think revolutionaries are cool and "dangerous" in the hopes of getting laid.

    Frenchmen juggling Roman Catholicism and Communism successfully is not new in France, one would suspect a Canadian Frenchman would also be capable of it were he so inclined. Or to put it another way, posting a picture of him coming out of a church after a baptism does not disprove his communist sympathies.

    Catholicism present day is such that many who participate pick and choose what portion of the Church's teachings to follow. (No, I'm not Catholic.)

    1. Cuba is a good example. I know tons of people who call themselves Communists and say Cuba is the best example of socialism we have. I was like are you kidding? No they're not. They have political prisoners and they discriminate against religion. Sure it's a watered down form of Communism in the sense that you are allowed to go to church but you can't be a member of the Communist party if you go to church and guess what. There are no other political parties allowed. So if you go to church you can't hold office in government. So in that case, Pierre wouldn't have been allowed to hold office had he been a politician in Cuba. Ironic n'est pas?

      I remember reading a book called Fidel on Religion. It was an interview with Castro. As I recall he was asked about Christian Marxists helping with the Revolution. He said we didn't ask anyone what religion they were if they wanted to help. So you admit Christian Marxists helped with the revolution. Of course he said. Then why did you form a Marxist Leninist atheist sate as soon as you seized power? That wasn't really fair to the Christian Marxists that helped you. I don't agree with Cuban communism. I just disagree with the Helms Burton law. China has way worse human rights violations than Cuba. Putting sanctions on Cuba and bending over backwards to not only do business with Communist China but let them buy our oil rights is a flaming double standard.

      I remember hearing Joan Smallwood from the NDP speak out against the government's policy of doing business with China given their human rights violations. I found that somewhat ironic. Here we had a left wing "socialist" party speaking out against hardline communism and the capitalists double standard in doing business with them. Personally I think the Kibbutz movement in Israel is a way better model of socialism. You work for your room and board. All the profits of the kibbutz goes toward raising the standard of living for everyone. People vote on if they want to be a religious kibbutz or not and most importantly people are free to stay or leave.

      I'm not saying Che never killed people. I'm saying when people wear a Che T-shirt they aren't thinking about that or the death camps, they're thinking about some other non reality based romantic image they have of social justice. I'm hearing mixed reports about Che. I've heard claims he executed a whole bunch of people who simply disagreed with their revolution. Yet there was a show on TV about his life and it made him look like a pretty nice guy. It would be nice to be able to see through the propaganda and find out what he was really like.

    2. The Kibbutz thing is actually a good example of how "Commune-ism" (nothing to do with Marx or Lenin)can work. The problem is moving it to a larger scale. Above a certain size/population it becomes problematic. People see it work in a small group and try to "supersize" it. Problem is it ceases to work out very well when you do that and all the participants don't know each other or have close ties of the type where everyone can be counted on to have similar values and outlook.

      It's interesting how you know and understand this from your own Kibbutz experience but don't seem to process how this explains why multi-culturalism on a national scale does not and cannot give the results as it would if the members of the group had character/beliefs/cultural outlook were more closely aligned.

    3. Yeah, I can't conceive of how multiculturalism could be possibly considered a bad thing. That is the root of a free republic as defined in the US constitution. All men (and women) are created equal regardless of race colour or creed. Cultural diversity is a good thing. I like French cuisine. I also like Chinese food. Diversity adds spice to life as well as to food. I have friends who are Catholic, Protestant, Atheist, Muslim and Jewish. It's all good as long as we are sincere in our beliefs. Someone else's cultural doesn't diminish mine, it enriches it.

    4. LOL, multi-culturalsim has SFA do do with the root of a free Republic, never mind the US Constitution. You may be thinking of the inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty.

      You don't seem to get it here, no one cares where they come from or who they were, it's who they ARE and CONTINUE to be that's an issue. Teddy Roosevelt said it best and I've posted it here before so I'll paraphrase, "We don't care who you were or where you came from as long as you leave that BS behind and become an American, fully and without reservation, otherwise we don't need you and you can go back where you came from." Get it?

      You keep trying to paint this as anti-diversity and it's not. What it is anti is people seeing themselves as that first, before they see themselves as a Canadian or an American. And the fact of the matter is that people from some cultures are more suitable to Canada or the US than others. If that were not so you would not have these assholes demonstrating to be allowed to follow Sharia law in North America. Fuck Sharia law. THAT is multi-culturalism. Walking around in Surrey wearing Indian clothing after they've been in Canada 10 years is multi-culturalism. By doing this they are telling you "I don't want to assimilate". THEY do not want to let go of or give up the bullshit from their third world shit hole, they want to bring their beliefs/way of life with them and practice them here.

      The only thing they want is the increased economic opportunity. We do not need such folks, we want only those who TRULY wish to give all that up and start a new life doing things the American way, or the Canadian way, or the British way.

      I like Chinese food as well. I eat a lot of middle eastern food at the moment, good stuff. Doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

    5. You seem to be getting all bent out of shape over the difference between the American melting pot and the Canadian mosaic. I prefer the Canadian mosaic. For me, diversity and multiculturalism are the same thing. Leaving your heritage behind is problematic. No one should have to leave their Catholic heritage or their Protestant heritage or their Jewish heritage or their Muslim heritage behind. The Mosaic says we are all different and that's OK. The melting pot tries to convince us we are all the same when we are not. There's nothing wrong with walking around Surrey wearing a turban or a Islamic head piece. Sharia law is a very different matter. Sharia law violates the freedoms protected by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights.

    6. You're right... no one should have to leave their heritage behind. Feel free to practise it within your church, your home, and your school.

      With that being said... in Canada, we are no long allowed to have Christmas holidays... it's now winter break. Easter holidays are now spring break. In fact, store employees can't even wish you a "Merry Christmas"... its's now... "Happy Holidays". All based on religious purposes. But whose religion are we accommodating? Canada was a nation built on Christianity... but it is losing it's heritage every day.

      There is a really really good book... Suicide of a Superpower. A must read. I am not even a religious person... and it really opened my eyes to what is happening in North America.

      You think Sharia law is a very different matter... the longer Canada allows other religions to come into it's borders and dictate how things are done (hey we have already given up the right to have Christmas holidays)... the faster Sharia law is coming this way. Don't fool yourself.

    7. You're absolutely right that people have gone to some pretty bizarre extremes claiming you can't say Christmas. The Charter of Rights says we can say Christmas. That's the whole point. My son had a Jewish teacher one year in elementary school. That year they came home with a picture of a menorah they made in art. It was very nice and a good example of being educated by learning about other cultures.

      I think Sharia law is different because of the brazen extremes. In Iran if a Muslim changers their religion that is punishable by death. That is crazy. The Charter of Rights says you can worship however you want. The problem is when they try to create a Jewish State or an Islamic sate. Israel is a Jewish State. So what happens if you change your religion? Do you lose your citizenship? Expressing an opinion in Iran being deemed blasphemy and punishable by death is crazy. That would again be a violation of the Charter of Rights.

    8. Sharia law is making a lot of headway in Canada... coming in under the Arbitration act.

      In 2004, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice said it wanted to set up its own faith-based arbitration panels under the Arbitration Act, based on Shariah law... within the borders of Canada.

    9. Arbitrating what? Labour law? I certainly don't support that. That would be a violation of the charter of rights. They are free to worship how they want but not to write their own laws and enforce them on others under their jurisdiction who may or may not be Muslim or who may or may not be that particular sect of Islam. We have seen a fair bit of sectarian violence internationally. To give one sect legal authority over another sect of the same religion would be wrong and unlawful. I certainly wouldn't support that in Canada.

      As for Trainrunner’s comment I’d have to clarify that appears to be the problem within Islamic states not with Muslims in general. The formation of an Islamic states is as problematic as the formation of a Jewish or a Christian state if not more so. Denying free speech or the freedom of association is a violation of the Charter of Rights.

  2. Trudeaus DON'T represent the West, and never have, except for one single Trudeau-mania election.

    They win by getting the Quebec votes. And the 27 or so ridings in the central GTA, and that does it, in this screwed-up nation. They don't need us, or care about us. Justin T. stands for one French province, 3,000 miles away, and Bloor Street! Trudeaus tell Quebec they can't leave, but will get every cash-transfer Trudeau has to offer. To central Toronto, Trudeau says, "Only a Frenchman like me can stop the separatistes." Wake up, AK, they don't even know we're alive. We need real homeland, BC Leadership for OUR Province, NOT some Frenchman who knows nothing of BC!

    The last time a Trudeau thought of the West, he gave us the finger from his railway car, and said, "Why should I sell your wheat?"

    1. Hey Justin was in Richmond yesterday. I never realized he taught in Vancouver and was a snowboard instructor at Whistler. I think the guy likes BC. As I recall, Pierre was confronted by a bunch of hecklers out west and he gave them the finger. I thought it was rather humorous myself. They were giving him a hard time so he said screw you. Not like a GW who gave the world the finger and even gave that camera man the finger just because. Two very different scenarios. OK so Freddy and Trailrunner hate Trudeau, but I like him. Fair enough.

  3. No, AK, I don't *hate* anyone. I just noted my serious political objections, to an easterner pretending he can run a Government based even tangentially on our concerns. His votes are Quebec & the GTA,then the election is over.

  4. I didn't say you hate, I said Stephen Harpers platform is one of hate.

  5. People will look to Justin because he is the media's poster child. Not because of any substance.

    It is actually quite sad how people go from hoping one party will change things to another and back again. All the while not realizing that nothing really changes. They are just a new mask placed on the same system.

    As for his father, he was not a communist in practice but he was a modernist and small "L" liberal.

    As for freedom, one must be able to discern the difference between freedom and license. Just like between tolerance and permissiveness.

    However, I challenge anyone to find an high school graduate today that knows the difference, let alone an university graduate.

  6. It is very true that often political leaders come and go and the political parties aren’t much different. Jesse Ventura referred to the two party system in the US as the difference between coke and pepsi. Some but not much. You make a profound reference to the difference between freedom and license.

    The way I see it is the example of Martin Luther King who had a dream and said we have this nice piece of paper on the wall called the US constitution stating that all men are created equal. (A license) His dream was that the constitution would actually be lived and followed. It took a great deal of courage and activism to see that license implemented in society.

    True the Charter of Rights is just a license as we often do see it violated and are witnessing it being currently eroded and under attack. Yet I would see it as an important step forward that requires us to be vigilant to make sure those rights and freedoms are implemented and protected. Without that license, the manifestation of freedom is possible but less likely.

    1. Politicians and political parties are whores who will dress themselves up as whatever is necessary to attract customers/voters who will give them the power they seek. An easy job with great money and perks, and they get to be someone "important". Not all are like this, but most are, and they work tirelessly to co-opt those who are not, just like when they tried to bribe Chuck.

      Blacks in America overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Why? Why indeed, go look at who held up the cause of integration in America, right up through the 1950's. Democrats. What party did all the old Congressman and Senators, Governors etc. who were former Klansmen belong to? Democrats. And yet today the Republicans are seen as the party of white folks, the party of the rich, etc. etc.. Politicians want power, all they can get, and then some more if people will give it to them. It's their nature, and the nature of power.

      Coke and Pepsi indeed.

    2. True, Democrats used to be the clan members back in the day. I hadn't realized that until fairly recently. Yet this whole idea of getting rich by destroying jobs and forcing huge debt and interest on to companies isn't something that will support the economy. It's just another form of organized crime.

    3. I agree. This election is as clear as it's going to get for people that both sides are about power and money, and they only way they get it is to steal from the citizenry. It's been going on for a century in the US, ever since the creation of the Fed and the implementation of the income tax.

      It's not even "both sides". It's us vs. them. We need less of them.

      The only difference between them is their modus operandi, their goals are the same. Steal money and power from those who elect them to look out for the citizenry.

      The fact that Romney signed a health care bill in Massachusetts with more similarities than differences to Obamacare, as well as signing a gun control bill, illustrates this in a very clear way.

      The electoral process is more about keeping one "side" or the other of these in power than it is about reform. "They" don't want reform. Here's a good example.

      In 2011 Texas Governor and Republican Presidential candidate Rick Perry accurately described Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. For this he was derided as a simpleton and an enemy of seniors, not just by the liberal media but also by.........

      Mitt Romney.

      You're right, it's organized crime. "Both sides" are in on it. The joke is on us. And it's not different in Canada, no matter how much you wish it was.

  7. I was going to mention about Romney’s medical in Massachusetts. They all get violently freaked out with Obamacare when Romney did pretty much the same thing in Massachusetts. Affordable medical is not a bad thing. Sectarian bashing is. It’s only a good idea when we do it. That’s silly.

    Although we have similar problems in Canada I don’t think Justin or Mulcair is out for power. I think Justin genuinely wants to serve his country and make it a better place we can all be proud of. I think Mulcair has an ideological quest not a fill his own pocket with money quest.

  8. Seriously? OF COURSE they're out for power, they're running for leadership. What exactly do you think that is? Oh, they may be telling themselves (and you) it's for the right reasons, but they either adjust or fall by the wayside. There's too much money and power to be had to be doing something crazy like limiting their rooting around in the public trough.

    Almost everyone agrees something needs to be done about health care. The problem is, government fucks up everything it touches.
    You give them a dollar for them to skim 20% (or whatever) and then give you back the rest in the most inefficient manner they can find, which usually has something to do with buying votes indirectly. Then, if you can afford to pay cash on your own (in Canada)they threaten you for going outside the system and weakening the control they have over you which they have used your own money to obtain. It boggles the mind. And you think anyone who threatens that is going to get ahead? People have been so deeply conditioned to the idea of "free stuff" that's really bought with their own money (minus the G's cut) that they go nuts if it's threatened. Imagine the short political career of any MP who seriously suggested major overhauls to the Health Care Act.....

  9. Yeah I don't agree with screwing with the Health Care act either. The only thing it needs is a little more funding not cut backs to spend billions on the banks and millions on a fleet of insider trading jets that don't even work in the arctic. That declassified CIA letter about Canadians was really messed up. Yes we support public health care. That's a lot better than supporting their arms dealing, drug trafficking and investment fraud.

  10. Oh I agree that there needs to be public healthcare. The definition of that and how it works we could probably debate for a good long time, but I notice you didn't dispute my characterization of how it currently works. And you think more funding is the answer......lets see, it doesn't work, so, lets do more of that......BC started doing "means testing" about 10 years back IIRC, which is a better than nothing but it's also not fair to people who pay into the system only to never benefit from it because they make too much money. You might as well call this what it is, wealth redistribution. But socialists never have any problem with that anyway......

  11. Sorry, I’m starting to fade out. The only problem I see with our current medical system is wait lists. That could be resolved with more funding instead of continued cuts and diverting those tax dollars to bank bail louts or other things that we don’t need but will give Harper political kickbacks. I’m not familiar with the pilot project you refer to. The current system doesn’t exclude you if you make too much money.

  12. Sorry, I was mixing the thing in BC where if you make more than $26K or whatever it is that you have to pay a certain amount per month with the general concept of means testing as it exists or has been proposed elsewhere, my bad.

    As far as increased funding solving things in Canada, you might want to check into that a little deeper. I think you'll find it's politicians who want to raise taxes even further past the functionally 50% plus you now enjoy who are floating that idea. There are only so many doctors and so many operating theaters and so many hours in a day. The population they serve has skyrocketed in the last 30 years (another downside to unrestricted massive immigration) comparative to the capacity of the system, and even if that wasn't true, the "more funding" aspect is not just on the order of some reasonable percentage, you are looking at doubling that amount. It's not doable financially, and the system is slowly but surely headed for eventual collapse, with a steady downward curve in terms of quality of service, wait time, and even actual availability on the way.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.