Freedom of Conscience Lost

This is utterly the worst decisions I have seen from Obama in a good long while. Strategically however it's brilliant:

Most healthcare plans will be required to cover birth control ...
(...)
...Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship are exempt from the requirement, but religious-affiliated hospitals and universities only get a one-year delay and must comply by Aug. 1, 2013.
(...)
“This ruling forces religious organizations to violate the fundamental tenets of their faith, or stop offering health insurance coverage to their employees,” said the Republican Policy Committee. “Time will tell whether those institutions choose the former or the latter course — but neither option should be necessary, if the administration had not taken such an unbending approach to appease its liberal base.” (link)

Contraception is the ultimate wedge that Pro-Choice groups have used for years to divide the Pro-Life movement.

The Obama administration's choice could not have been more clever. Pro-Life supporters who favor contraception should see this for what it is: a cleverly disguised attack on the right to freedom of conscience.

If I decide to do, or decide not to do, particular things that you may or may not agree with based on my own conscience I should be allowed to those things so long as they don't interfere with the rights of someone else. The decision to use contraception or not affects no one's rights. It's a personal decision. There is no right to contraception by any stretch of the imagination.

If we do anything less than respect people's decisions on these particular issues than we might as well eliminate the concept of a "conscience" all together in society. Many died for that right throughout history - the right to believe in what many believe are crazy and ridiculous things that affect no one else.

You don't have to oppose contraception to disagree with this decision. All you have to be is someone that believes that someone's private life is his own business. Libertarians should be shouting down this move first and foremost.

Liberals should be shouting down this measure as it is entirely inconsistent with a state that stays out of the "bedrooms of the nation." It's a horrible abomination of anything any Progressive Democrat or Social Democrat has ever espoused. It's thought control on steroids. It's state control of sexual decisions.

Social Conservatives and People of faith, and even those people of faith with differing beliefs on the issue of contraception, should object to this on MORAL grounds. If we do not allow the free space in society for people to decide whether an act is moral or not we might as well forget about any other belief you may have. So long as the majority disagrees with you, you must shut up. This is entirely inconsistent with the concept of each one of us having an immortal soul whose health depends on the decisions we make in this life. Those decisions require free will which God has given us - only for Obama to take away.

Fiberal Party of Canada RIP

What's come out of the Liberals recent convention?
1) A commitment to allow any tom, dick and harry to vote for the next leader of the party.

2) A Party President vote, hotly contested, with a nail biting internal division revealing 26 vote margin.

3) Unrealistic Potentially fatal Policy votes to legalize marijuana and a centralizing Trudeauesque like push to force provinces to provide access (aka fund) abortions.

The end result is a third party, with a poor base, dwindling membership and now with an open invitation for any special interest group to swoop in and radically take control. Imagine had the old federal PCs passed a similar measure pre-merger - David Orchard's face off with Peter MacKay would have ended quite different.

And a third party divided it certainly is - Sheila Copps has managed to be rejected a second time by her own political home. The first time being when she was forced straight out of politics by the Paul Martin Dictatorship that took hold circa 2005. Her return represented a potential reversal in direction for a Liberal Party dominated by Martin turned Iggy Puff Dons. I would suspect that this will temper Bob Rae's leadership ambitions.

But to make matters worse, the Liberals have still not managed to figure themselves out policy wise. Legalizing Marijuana? Really? Just how do they expect they will do this and maintain an open border with the US? Magic?

Don't get me wrong, I would support the move in an ideal world, but I would also like to win the 649 - neither isn't happening to soon.

And then they lob a gift to Stephen Harper and craft a policy to penalize provinces who refuse to provide funding for abortions. It's like a Conservative fantasy come true.

Harper, dealing currently with an open abortion rebellion in his caucus from pro-life MPs unwilling to wait any longer finds a Liberal Party willing to give him something that will simultaneously unite his caucus in opposition while at the same time drive the banning-abortion issue solidly into the background.

And on top of everything about these policies - did anyone bother to ask if Canadians will care? When the average Canuck is changing his 2 year old's diapers at 3am, will he really care about legalizing pot? As the average Canuck is rushing to work in the morning will he/she give one iota about abortion?

Did anyone in the Liberal Party even think about what Canadians care about right now? I dunno... maybe like the Economy - I'm just throwing out wild ideas here!

Hold on wait here it comes... Another National Daycare Program will be suggested next... What a mess!

2012 Predictions

1. The PCs will be defeated in Alberta.

The PCs have had their 3 decade run. They're bereft of any new ideas. They've drifted into moderate political limbo so much that their wishy-washiness is eerily resembling the Federal Liberal Party.

In Alberta, political change seldom happens. But when it does it comes quick.

My bet is on the Wildrose Alliance winning government come May 31st.

2. Jean Charest wins another term.

Jean Charest's best before date passed last winter. The Quebec people know it. He's been in denial since... birth? His inability to recognize when the gig is up is starting to seem Chretienesque.

Yet his opposition is divided. He has no clear opponent. The PQ is in shambles.

The people of Quebec I believe are at a crossroads. There is a demographic crisis exploding in the province - it isn't having enough babies and yet it's welfare state is European in ambition. The population is very old, and there is an apprehension against mass scale immigration. The end result is mass scale erosion of Quebec's society, culture and an economy not keeping pace with the rest.

I firmly believe that this is facilitating the volatility we have seen in La Belle Province for years now. I expect it to culminate in the devastation of the PQ and the rise of another party as an alternative.

3. We will not have an Ontario Election in 2012.

I don't believe either of the provincial opposition parties are prepared to reface voters in 2012. Financially their base has been taped out by both a federal election and a provincial election in 2011.

Further, their is no impending challenge to Hudak or Howarth in their respective leadership roles.

The federal NDP is engaged in a serious leadership convention which will decide the fate of the Progressive movement in this country like nothing in the past half century. Provincial distractions, as Howarth I'm sure knows, can be a dangerous thing under those circumstances.

4. Peggy Nash wins the NDP leadership.

Mulclair is untrusted by the NDP brass. He hasn't had time to organize the Quebec base that would normally be his. I expect his candidacy has always been a measure to increase his standing within the party first and foremost.

Brian Topp I believe has failed to make a connection with the NDP base. He also has no seat. Without any parliamentary experience behind him, and an inability to debate well, he will find it difficult to compete with Mulclair. He also carries the baggage of being part of the ill-fated liberal-NDP-separatist "coalition."

Peggy Nash on the other hand has come from a union background, and as a former party president has those connections to make her palpable to the NDP establishment. She also has relatively low levels of baggage. My bet is with the NDP's preferential ballot she will emergence in front as everybody's second choice.

5. Romney will be the Republican Presidential Candidate.

The Republican Party has never been more in disarray. The level of division is amazing. No dominant candidates have emerged as front runners in the race. Romney, being the only consistent candidate polling wise, barely registers at 25%.

He'll win the nomination - because the other candidates are seen as far worse by either the GOP base or the establishment or both. Although I would expect Congressman Ron Paul to surprise many and further expose the heavy divisions percolating through the GOP these days. A win by him in Iowa or more states needs to be seen as what it is - a protest vote against the GOP establishment.

6. Obama will still be President of the United States.

Unfortunately for the US, Obama will win. Romney, bruised an bloodied from one of the most divided and scarring nominations, will be unable financially or organizationally to compete. Republicans won't unite with Romney. Obama will sail to re-election having one of the worst economic records in history.

But that's nothing to fret over for true Conservatives.

It's amazed me to watch the GOP having mental breakdowns over the fact that such notable Conservatives as Paul Ryan and Gov Chritie took a pass at the GOP nomination. Paul Ryan is more, and has acted more as a leader than Obama. So has Governor Christie. Ironically, young politicians will little power are having more influence in DC than old experienced politicians like Barak Obama.

I expect what will seem like defeat at first will turn into something else. Obama will be re-elected, but with a Congress firmly opposed to his agenda. There will be no taxing the rich. There will be no gross expansion of the state. There will be gridlock. And gridlock in government can sometimes be healthy.

Meanwhile principled Conservatives like Paul Ryan and others will emerge to challenge the status quo. It may not seem like it - but an Obama victory may manage to do the impossible: unite the GOP and keep Big Government in check.

Now I Disclaim Everything

Predictions are fun. They are also profoundly stupid. The concept that anyone can predict the outcomes of events depending on the individual choices of millions of people deserves to be ridiculed for the fantasy that it is.

Either people make successful predictions by making them so vague they have no way of loosing, or they make them so extravagant that when they do get one right it is noticed and the other barrage of wrong ones are forgotten.

Yet last year I did make some noticeably good calls. McGuinty is still Premier (Despite what the polls said would happen). There was an election going on in April as I predicted. Brad Wall is still Premier. But the NDP still rains in Manitoba. A 75% success rate can't be just luck can it?

Three years of predictions: 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Sesame Street Socialism

It aint easy being green:

'A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.

(...)

“What ‘Food For Thought’ does is remind people that eating healthy now gives them a good health outcome in the long term. So the folks you’re looking at up here, the programs that they represent, what ‘Food For Thought’ does is really a deficit reduction strategy, and we hope policymakers will take notice of that,” Greenaway said.

Greenaway didn't elaborate further on how this would work towards deficit reduction.(link)

First it was Obamacare, then Employment Insurance... pretty soon fighting obesity will be a 'deficit reduction strategy.' So will National Day Care, and just about any other top-down government-run program Progressives can dream up.

Calling anything you like a 'deficit reduction strategy' has now become one of those trendy political tag-lines politicians use over and over and over and over and over... until finally it gets so bad everyone has a vomit moment and suddenly the political world moves on...

I can still remember when calling something a 'deficit' was trendy. Does anyone still remember the 'Democratic Deficit?' What about the 'Infrastructure Deficit?' You see that was back when fighting deficits was seen as a something everyone could agree with - anyone would have to be nuts to argue against eliminating a deficit wouldn't they?

Really though is there anything nowadays that isn't a 'deficit reduction strategy?'

I've reached my 'vomit moment' how 'bout you?

Dipper Keystone Twits

Halifax MP Megan Leslie is heading to Washington on Tuesday to urge U.S. legislators to hold off on deciding whether to approve the massive Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to Texas.

(...)

“Harper’s been down there saying it’s a no-brainer,” Leslie said Monday. “But I don’t think he’s bringing the voices of a lot of Canadians. That’s only a particular sector who think this pipeline’s a good idea.”(link)

Did the NDP even consider the optics of having an Eastern MP, from their Eastern dominated caucus, go down to the US and argue against Western Oil?

It's not like the NDP doesn't have a good chunk of western MPs they could have chosen from. I'm just flabbergasted that a party that showed surprising political smarts in the last election besting the Liberal Party to become the official opposition would make such a terrible terrible decision.

It's the equivalent of sending Rob Anders (whom I do admire) to Halifax to argue against equalization.

Just a bonehead move.

Fiberals Until The Very End

New figures show that, despite the Liberal claim the party spent "very close" to what it was legally permitted on this year's campaign, it actually spent far, far less.

(...)

"Do you guys make this s--- up on the fly? Are you kidding me?" Ian McKay said in an e-mail. "You're so wrong it is laughable. Don't give up your day job if you're actually considering journalism as a future career," he continued.

"I cannot stand by and watch as you publish a piece that is complete and utter rubbish."(link)

I expect that Justin Trudeau will immediately come out and offer a heartfelt sincere apology (filled with qualifications galore) on behalf of Liberals that he won't mean whatsoever.

Not to pick on Justin, this is a Fiberal Party wide problem.

It's called institutional arrogance. It's a pesky thing. Usually the first sign that you have it is you start believing you don't.

But, oh I forgot - the Liberal Party ran a brilliant campaign in 2011 and lost because of some sort of magical "disconnect" with voters... Arrogance, mission drift, and a profound hatred of anything rural, Western, or religious had of course not a thing to do with the result.

The Political Career of Frank Klees, RIP

McGuinty must be giddy:

“There’s no doubt it makes it more challenging for both opposition parties,” a grim-faced Hudak acknowledged, portraying his former leadership rival Klees as a turncoat who ignored an edict that no Tory would vie to succeed retiring Speaker Steve Peters.

“Clearly, I’m disappointed. We all hoped Frank’s first goal would be to help us on the opposition benches in keeping this government on a short leash . . . Frank’s made a decision and Frank is Frank.”(link)

I don't quite know what Frank is thinking. This makes no strategic sense Klees. Not for his career or for his agenda.

The only thing I think, is that Frank has chosen suicide. He's 60 years old. He must figure he can't wait out another PC leader for his shot. That's a bleak assessment - but I can't help but come to that conclusion.

No Trespassing

The Tories seem to have decided that criminals shouldn't hold the balance of power in Canadian society:

The law would permit people threatened with violence to commit a reasonable act to protect themselves or others, as well as use force to protect their property from theft, damage or trespass.(link)

Protect a person's right to self-defense?

Next you'll say we gotta protect people's right to own stuff (like a gun), and they're right to say whatever the hell they want without having a zealously bigoted bureaucrat coming after them for "offending" someone... That's just crazy talk isn't it?