Friday, 26 March 2010

STEPHEN HARPER'S HITLIST PT1: POWER, PROCESS AND THE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY

Harper is a shabez goi which accounts for his close affiliation with the fanatic Chabad Lubavitch with whom he spends so much time.

Harper should not be running our government; he should be running the laundry at a maximum security prison for the terminally treasonous.He is a serious threat to our civil liberties and national sovereignty. He just keeps carving and chipping away at our souls on both a singular and a national basis. His Illuminate Bilderberg side predominates.

About the Author
Murray Dobbin has been a freelance journalist, broadcaster and author for thirty-five years. He is also a leading activist and analyst in the movement against corporate globalization. He has written extensively on various trade agreements and their impact on democracy and on neo-liberalism’s attack on social programs. He is a past executive board member of the Council of Canadians and author or Word Warriors.

Stephen Harper’s Assault on Democracy

“Many of our most serious problems as a country can be traced to the apathy and non-involvement of Cana­dians in public affairs and to decisions that too frequently ignore the popular will. We believe in account­ability of elected representatives to the people who elect them, and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should supersede their obligations to their political parties.” ~ Stephen Harper, Reform Party foundational document

On January 23, 2010, thousands of Canadians in more than 60 towns and cities across the country demonstrated their anger over the shutting down of Canada’s Parliament by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. At the same time, more than 220,000 Canadians also joined a Facebook protest called Ca­nadians Against the Prorogation of Parliament.

It was the second time the prime minister had summarily locked the doors to the people’s house ~ the House of Com­mons. It was clear to most commentators, including colum­nists and editorial writers normally sympathetic to the Harper government, that the reasons for the shutdown were purely partisan: it ended the opposition’s persistent and effective questioning about the government’s complicity in the torture of Afghan “detainees” in the first years of the Afghan war.

Prorogation would also allow Harper to appoint five new senators unopposed, and, more importantly, dissolve the cur­rent senate committees and form new ones with Conservative majorities.

This cynical move by Harper was preceded by two other less dramatic assaults on democracy: the government’s refusal to obey a parliamentary resolution demanding documents related to the Afghan investigation, and the decision by the Conservative members of the parliamentary committee in­vestigating the issue to boycott the hearings, thus bringing the process to a halt.

Pundits had widely predicted, even in the face of polls hint­ing at growing opposition, that Canadians didn’t care about something as arcane as “prorogation.” They were practical people, concerned about bread-and-butter issues ~ jobs, the cost of living, and their mortgages. But something happened with this latest expression of disdain for democracy. It was the last straw.
If it is true that Canadians are slow to anger then the outpouring of rage at Harper’s move demonstrated that they finally had enough. It turns out that Canadians actually care a great deal about democracy and as arcane as the word is, they had no trouble figuring out that “prorogue” means to shut down, to suspend, and in this case it meant the government trying to escape the consequences of its actions.
Just days after the demonstrations, a report by the Institute of Wellbeing ~ the “Democratic Engagement Report” ~ revealed what the authors called “a huge democratic deficit.” The report reinforced the spontaneous outpouring of anger at the shutting down of Parliament.
“At a time when people are demanding greater accountability and transparency, they see their government institutions becoming more remote and opaque. Too many Canadians feel that their voices are not being heard; that their efforts to influence government policy are ignored…”
The list of Stephen Harper’s assaults on democracy is long and unprecedented, not only in Canada, but very likely in all of the English-speaking parliamentary democracies in the world. But how to explain such an attitude on the part of a politician who, after all, was elected democratically to run his country?

His contempt for what Canada had become led directly to his contempt for democracy (this is, after all, what produced the things he hates) and his willingness to subvert democracy any time it frustrates his long-term goal:

TO DISMANTLE THE CANADA THAT

THREE GENERATIONS OF CANADIANS HAVE BUILT.

This is his ultimate goal ~

not to govern,

not be the leader of a political party,

not even to be the prime minister.

These are simply the necessary steps

on the way to achieving the power necessary

to undo what past governments have accomplished.

He is the only prime minister in Canadian history

to openly detest his own country:

its efforts at egalitarianism,

its social programs,

its wealth redistribution,

its peacekeeping history internation­ally,

and its attempts at promoting and preserving its unique culture.

Harper has made this clear on numerous occasions and by the career choices he has made outside politics. He once quit federal politics in frustration to head up the National Citizens Coalition, the most right wing lobby group in the country (motto: “More freedom through less government”), which was formed in the late 1960s to fight Medicare.

On Decem­ber 8, 2000, when he was president of the NCC, Harper told The National Post:

“Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.” This sneering contempt for the very things that Ca­nadians hold dear is the flip side of his attraction to positions from the far right of American politics.

In a speech to a right wing American think-tank, The Council for National Policy, in June 1997, Harper ridiculed all Ca­nadians:

“I was asked to speak about Canadian politics... it’s legendary that if you’re like all Americans, you know almost nothing except about your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.” The whole speech was full of such insults and sarcasm about his own country, its political system and other political parties.

Indeed, the prime minister doesn’t seem

to accept that there is

a separate, distinct Canadian nation.

Harper was asked in a 1997 CBC interview, “Is there a Canadian culture?”

He replied: “Yes, in a very loose sense. It consists of regional cultures within Canada ~ regional cultures that cross borders with the U.S. We’re part of a worldwide Anglo-American culture. And there is a continental culture.”

Harper simply cannot accept

or acknowledge the things

that make Canada unique

~ and different ~

from the United States.

This is the only plausible explanation of his openly anti-dem­ocratic behaviour and policies.

Preoccupied with the goal of turning back

Canadian social democracy,

Harper the master strategist is constantly

calculating every step toward that ob­jective ~

how to maintain power long enough

to accomplish his goal,

how quickly he can move to implement it,

how much Canadians will tolerate in terms

of policies that contradict their values,

how he can change the political culture

through social engineering,

what the opposition parties will do,

and how to keep hidden,

from the media and the people,

his actual agenda of radical change.

If the end justifies the means, then accepting the fact that you have a minority government and all this normally entails is simply accepting a barrier to your ultimate objective. If you recognize, as Harper must, that your goals fly in the face of what the majority of Canadians want, then you must circum­vent that majority in any way you can.

Why? Because Harper knows that

the majority of Canadians

will never support his goal

of turning back the clock

and creating in Canada

a completely unfettered free-market society.

By definition, to achieve such a goal it is necessary to do so by stealth, by un­democratic means ~ or give up on the goal altogether.

This study is intended to examine the most serious viola­tions of democracy committed by the prime minister and his government. Some are clearly more serious than others. But taken as a whole they add up to a dangerous undermining of our democratic traditions, institutions and precedents ~ and politics.

THESE VIOLATIONS ARE NOT ACCIDENTAL, THEY ARE NOT INCIDENTAL, and they are not oversights or simply the sign of an impatient government or “decisive” leadership. They are a fundamental part of Harper’s iron-fisted determination to remake Canada, whether Canadians like it or not.


Harper surrounded by the Chabad Lubavitch who love photo ops with every politician on Earth. This does not bode well for the common folk at all.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING FROM THE RIGHT

One of the most popular concepts on the political right over the years has been the notion of “social engineering.” The phrase is intended to describe a process by which liberals and the left “engineer” society ~ that is, set out to remake it ~ by implementing government programs, intervening in the economy, and redistributing wealth so that there is a measure of economic equality (in a system defined by inequality). The implication is that these changes were undemocratic ~ im­posed by politicians, intellectuals and bureaucrats.

Yet right wing social engineering is exactly what Stephen Harper intends to do, and has already done in many ways. We are now a far more militarized culture than when he came to office four years ago ~ with an aggressive “war-fighting” military.


OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS NOW IN LOCK-STEP WITH THE U.S.

This has never been debated in Parliament nor has the Con­servative Party actually run on such policies. In spite of the fact of widespread support for new social programs such as universal child care and Pharmacare, these programs are ruled out by the Harper government. While his minority govern­ment status has so far prevented an assault on Medicare and the Canada Health Act, Harper is on record as supporting increased privatization and two-tier Medicare.

This is true social engineering if by that term we mean the illegitimate remaking of Canadian society and governance. When all the social programs and activist government pro­grams that the prime minister objects to were implemented there was widespread public support for them. Govern­ments were responding to social movements demanding these things: unemployment insurance, Medicare, subsidized university education, Family Allowances, public pensions, old age security.

These programs were not imposed by a cabal of liberal and socialist intellectuals and bureaucrats ~ they were rooted in the expressed values of Canadians.

Harper’s determination to remake Canada in the image of un­regulated capitalism is illegitimate because it aims at disman­tling what decades of democratic engagement has created. It is even more outrageous given the fact this fundamental shift is being undertaken by a government that received support from less 23 per cent of the eligible voters in Canada.

Ca­nadians have not changed their minds about these programs and values ~ if anything, support has been reinforced by the perceived threats to these gains. These things are the fruits of democracy ~ its ultimate litmus test. Harper’s plan to rid the country of this legitimate evolution of social and economic change is true social engineering, and profoundly anti-demo­cratic.

While the prime minister has a minority government he can­not fundamentally change the country’s direction through legislation as the opposition can vote him down. But the quirks of minority governments allow him to control spend­ing regarding any program and he does not have to raise the question in the House of Commons at all. That means that he can keep legislation on the books establishing various institutions but in effect make them disappear by canceling their budgets, as he did with Law Commission of Canada (LCC).

Eliminating the LCC was an important policy decision that arguably should have been the subject of debate in the House ~ eliminating it by canceling its budget was legal, but not democratic.

There are numerous examples of Harper using his control of the purse strings of government, engaging in right wing social engineering. One of the most prominent examples is his at­tack on culture ~ a favourite target of right wing regimes. The Bush administration also attacked culture in the U.S. because writers, filmmakers, playwrights and artists are often the most effective social critics.

In Canada, governments have always played a major role in funding the arts. But in the run-up to the November 2008 federal election, Harper announced $40 million in cuts to Canadian arts programs. In the short term, it backfired, costing Harper many seats in Quebec which takes culture more seriously than anywhere else in Canada. But the cuts were not reversed and the country will change as a result. While $40 million does not sound like much it sus­tained thousands of cultural workers, and funded thousands of artistic creations reflecting the country.

ANOTHER TARGET OF HARPER’S ENGINEERING IS PURE SCIENCE. The January 28, 2009 budget implemented huge cuts to three of the most important and prestigious grant-making agencies in the country;

~ the Canadian Institutes of Health Research,

~ the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and

~ the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

A large percentage of scientists and academics working in Canada rely these agencies to fund their research. The budgets were reduced collectively by $113 million over the following three years. Genome Canada was expecting approximately $120 million to kick-start new international research projects (some led by Canadian researchers).

Instead there was no mention of the project ~ and no money. The government also imple­mented $35 million in cuts to the National Research Council, one of the oldest such bodies in Canada and one of the most highly respected science agencies in the world.

Why Harper would attack science in this manner (he mas­sively increased spending on physical infrastructure for science institutes and universities) was not revealed. In the U.S., the Obama administration is putting billions into exactly the kind of research the prime minister is cutting ~ citing the need to be internationally competitive.

The fundamentalist political base of the Conservative Party is openly hostile to science and Harper’s Minister of State for Science and Tech­nology, Gary Goodyear, is an evangelical Christian. Asked if he believed in evolution, Goodyear replied: “I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.” Months after the cuts, the Genome Project announced it was forced to abandon its participation in an international stem-cell research project – research opposed by evangelicals.

ANOTHER AREA TARGETED BY HARPER FOR RE-ENGINEERING WAS THE WHOLE AREA OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND EQUALITY and, more broadly, the defense and enhancement of human rights (see below for more details). Both these social developments in Canada over the past 40 years have been denounced and resisted by the same Christian fundamentalist community that is the core voter base for the Harper Conservatives, as it was for the party’s predecessor, the Reform Party.

The Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) described its mission this way:

“… to create knowledge and lead public dialogue and discussion on social and economic issues im­portant to the well-being of all Canadians Through more than 700 publications, CPRN’s work touches on many of the major socio-economic challenges facing Canadian society. We analyze important public policy issues in health care, supports to families, learning opportunities, job quality, and sustainable cities and communities.”

It was ranked as the most influen­tial policy institute in Canada. The CPRN also led Canadian research institutes in its in-depth values surveys of Canadi­ans ~ surveys that showed Canadians to be highly supportive of activist government, democracy and social programs. It was recognized as a “champion of citizen engagement.” The Harper government eliminated its funding. On October 29, 2009, it was forced to close its doors.

Combining just these examples it is hard not to conclude that Stephen Harper wants to try to remake Canada at least par­tially in the image of Christian fundamentalism ~ a country devoid of modern culture, hostile to science, disdainful of human rights and dedicated to reducing the role of govern­ment and public engagement in democracy.

NOTE: Harper’s militant pro-life agenda and China. You read that right! Harper has been doing nothing but suck up to his pro-life socially conservative far-right Christian fundamentalists by ignoring China because it has the highest rate of abortions in the world. Meanwhile Harper has been silent on the genocide of Gazans and Afghan detainees.

After Israel's heavy handed vicious attack on Lebanon, Harper's comment to the world was that Israel had taken a "measured response" to Hezbollah who hid among civilians. (He must have attended the school of Tzipi Livni, Israeli war criminal)

TREATING HIS MINORITY GOVERNMENT STATUS

AS A MANDATE FOR HIS ENTIRE PROGRAM

Prime ministers in Canada govern at the pleasure of Parlia­ment, not the other way round. Everyone understands intui­tively that if you have a minority government you must co-operate with the other parties and compromise, or persuade them to your way of thinking. That’s what minority means. But from the day in 2006 that Stephen Harper achieved his status as prime minister he has treated this underlying prin­ciple with contempt.

Once in power, it seems that Harper forgot that only 38 per cent of voters voted for his party and that 62 per cent voted against him and explicitly for the other parties in the House of Commons. For Harper, once he got his hands on state power he was determined to use it even if that meant running roughshod over the rules of Parliament.

The prime minister’s determination to use his power would see him demonstrate contempt for virtually every aspect of Canada’s democratic institutions, traditions and precedents, the majority of Canadians who did not vote for him, the op­position political parties with legitimacy equal to his own, for the various watchdog agencies tasked with making our system of government transparent and accountable, for the media, for his own MPs and cabinet ministers and for institutions of Parliament other than the House of Commons ~ the Senate and House Standing Committees. He treats the checks and balances of Canada’s political system as somehow perverse and unacceptable impediments to his agenda.

John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the United States, expressed a fundamental value of democracy this way: “[We shall have] a government of laws, not men.” This state­ment simply affirms what we know intuitively ~ that those who exercise power over us are not free to do anything they wish with the power we temporarily and conditionally assign to them. They are subject to limits set by law. And they are bound by the principles of democracy not to use their power to pursue personal agendas or vendettas.

Harper can be seen as a classic example of what Adams was implicitly warning about. His is a government of men, not laws ~ doing whatever he wishes, regardless of democratic tradition and convention and historical precedent. It is for this reason that many commentators have rightly identified Harper as a radical and not a genuine conservative.

STEPHEN HARPER’S MODEL GOVERNMENT:

ALBERTA’S ONE-PARTY STATE

Harper’s ideological approach to politics and his contempt for parliament are exacerbated by another feature peculiar to this Alberta-based politician. He has always admired the way things are done in Alberta and once wrote a commentary in The National Post proposing that Alberta put up a “firewall” around the province to protect it from the federal govern­ment.

Alberta has for decades been effectively a one-party state. While the Conservatives (and Social Credit before them) don’t get all the votes in elections, they get the vast majority of the seats and the meaningful political debates take place within the governing party and the cabinet ~ not between the government and the opposition.

Politicians who want to exer­cise power join the Conservatives. If there is a precedent for Harper’s pernicious attitude towards democracy, it is found in Alberta, where the government demonstrates some of the characteristics of a monarchy: an entitlement to rule and an arrogant disdain for dissent.

As William Neville, a former Progressive Conservative, pointed out in a Winnipeg Free Press commentary on Harper’s latest prorogation:

“Harper’s office sent a memorandum to all its parliamentary supporters listing all the wonderful things that ministers, Conservative MPs and senators are doing ~ and, by implica­tion, able to do ~ because Parliament is not sitting. Essentially, Harper is suggesting that government gets better the less Parliament does.”

That argument was made explicit by no less an authority than one of Harper’s senior ministers. Jason Kenney, who holds the portfolio for Citizenship, Immigration and Multicultural­ism, commented on January 23, 2010, “As a minister, I often get more done when the House is not in session.”

Alberta’s one-party state government is an aberration in Canada and in most English-speaking parliamentary systems ~ but at least in Alberta, governments achieve a large plurality of votes in elections.

TWO PROROGATIONS IN LESS THAN A YEAR

The first prorogation of Parliament,

December 4, 2008

On any given political issue, the majority of Canadians polled generally say they are only slightly aware of the issue and its implications. But it is fair to say that in late 2008 when Ste­phen Harper first postponed a confidence vote in his govern­ment and then asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to shut down Parliament in order to avoid the vote entirely, the vast majority of Canadian were paying attention.

It was high drama, as high drama as Canadian politics gets, and it was all rooted in Harper’s personality and his ruthless approach to politics. Every few months, it seems, the prime minister loses control of the message and does something that reminds people of who he really is.

That happened when he announced that as part of his 2009 budget he was going to repeal the legislation that provided government funding for political parties running in the federal arena. The fund­ing was put in place as part of Jean Chrétien ’s radical reform of elections spending laws that banned both corporations and unions from contributing to federal political parties.

In exchange for this lost funding, which was seen as giving inter­est groups too much power over elections and democracy, the government would provide $1.75 (indexed to inflation) annually for each vote that a party received in the previous election.

Harper calculated that the Conservatives with their huge party membership did not need the money. More to the point, both the Liberals and the NDP depended on it ~ the Liberals in particular were deep in debt. It was a ruthless and transparent manoeuvre designed to crush the opposition before the next election was even called. And it was extremely cynical ~ he had never criticized the program publicly and nowhere in the party’s policies was it even mentioned.

Harper, though he had spent years railing against limits on corporate spend­ing, had actually toughened up the spending law passed by the Chrétien Liberals.

Harper’s strategic genius let him down this time. He assumed that the move to cancel government funding of elections ~ contained in his new budget ~ would be passed by the op­position because none of the parties would dare precipitate another election (just three months after the last one) by vot­ing against the budget ~ the only way to defeat the measure.

He apparently never imagined that the opposition parties would respond the way they did with a plan of their own to bring down his government on a motion of non-confidence.

There didn’t have to be an election ~ there could be a new government made up a different configuration of MPs in the existing House of Commons. The three leaders held a news conference to announce their plan to replace the Harper government with a Liberal/NDP coalition, which would be supported on a limited number of issues by the Bloc Qué­becois. For once, it seemed, the opposition could act with even greater boldness than the prime minister. But it wasn’t enough.

When Harper’s strategizing fails him, his ruthlessness and boldness are called upon to rescue him. First, Harper post­poned the confidence vote. Then he did what no other prime minister in Canadian history (and possible British parliamen­tary history) has ever done: he went to the governor-general and asked her to prorogue Parliament simply to avoid a confi­dence vote. There was no other explanation offered. In what will go down in the history books as one of the most contro­versial, and ill-considered decisions by a Governor General, Michaëlle Jean complied. Parliament would be shut down for three months. Harper had saved his government.

NOTE: According to Harper, Parliament had to be dissolved because it had become “dysfunctional.” When translated from Harperspeak, that means “insubordinate.” How dare Members of Parliament challenge his government’s policy! How dare they demand the government be accountable!

With Stéphane Dion as Liberal Party leader there is no doubt the coalition government would have presented itself to the same Governor General and she would have been bound by parliamentary rules and convention to accept it. But once Par­liament was shut down, the coalition began to falter.

Opinion polls were opposed to it by a wide margin ~ but mostly, it was revealed later, because Canadians did not want Dion, who had just been decisively rejected by them in an election, to get the PM’s office by other means. Michael Ignatieff, the leader-apparent of the Liberals after Dion stepped down, was cool to the idea of a coalition and firmly rejected it after being appointed leader in January 2009.

There was no doubt in anyone’s mind what Harper did and why. His minister of democratic reform, Steven Fletcher, made it official when he declared that prorogation “is a valu­able parliamentary convention and it prevented the cata­strophic coalition of the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP.”

But one question remains and it is as important as Harper’s decision to ask for prorogation: was Michaëlle Jean following constitutional law by agreeing to Harper’s request? If she was, then the prime minister seems alone in his responsibility for cynically thwarting democracy and setting a precedent (which he, of course, was the first to take advantage of a year later).

But if she was wrong, then the precedent is conceivably even more damaging because it has her seal of approval, when it shouldn’t have, and actually sets a constitutional precedent, not just a political one. In other words, if it can be shown that she should have refused, then the fact that she did not represents new constitutional law: proroguing to avoid a parliamentary vote of confidence is now acceptable. Harper’s damage to democracy would then be much greater than even acknowledged.

Some pundits and commentators, many defenders of the PM in general, made the claim that Jean had no choice: she is bound by convention to take the advice of the prime minister and not become engaged in the politics of Parliament. But this view does not stand up to scrutiny. Andrew Heard, asso­ciate professor of political science at Simon Fraser University, argues persuasively that the Governor General should have refused Harper’s request and asked the coalition to form a government.

First, there is the convention that Governor Generals should not intervene in politics, but, in Heard’s words, “...must allow ample room to let the elected politicians try and resolve crises between themselves.” But Heard points out that, given the literally unprecedented manoeuvre by Harper, Jean could not avoid getting involved in politics: “…the Governor General’s decision was actually going to be a substantial intervention in the political process regardless of whether she granted prorogation or not. Indeed her decision to grant Mr. Harper’s request has in fact prevented our elected members of parlia­ment from resolving the issue in a timely fashion.”

There are several constitutional principles to which Jean should have availed herself to defend parliamentary democ­racy. First, she had access to the fact that using prorogation in this manner is highly questionable constitutionally. Second, says Heard, “Only the elected members of the House can determine who has the right to govern in a minority situa­tion.” By asking the Governor General to shut down Parlia­ment, Harper was asking Jean to determine who had the right to govern ~ subverting the role of the House of Commons. She could have refused.

It is the Governor General’s explicit role to “...protect the state from serious abuses of power by the government for which there is no judicial remedy.” That is almost an exact definition of what Harper’s request meant ~ it was a virtually historic, unprecedented abuse of power and Jean should have “protected the state” from the abuse by saying no.

Heard further points out that the Governor General is bound to act on any constitutional advice “...offered by a prime minister who enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons [my italics].” But that is just the point: Harper clearly did not have the confidence of the House. Not only was the request argu­ably unconstitutional, “The prime minister’s authority was also greatly undermined by the existence of a signed agree­ment for an alternative government supported by the majority of MPs…”

Heard further argued that “The Governor General can only refuse advice if she can appoint an alternative government. Opposition leaders had written to the governor-general several days ahead of her meeting with the prime minister. She was clearly informed that the majority of MPs intended to vote no confidence in the current government and of their commitment to support an alternative government for a minimum of 18 months.” She was well within her constitu­tional powers and convention to reject Harper’s request and invite the coalition to form a government.

With this precedent, any prime minister in the future can de­mand prorogation whenever he or she thinks they may lose a vote of confidence ~ and they can prorogue for periods much longer than a couple of months. Says Heard: “This precedent is a damaging and dangerous consequence of the Governor General’s decision. If this precedent stands, no future House of Commons can dare stand up to a prime minister without danger of being suspended until the prime minister believes the House has been tamed.”

  • The second prorogation of Parliament,

December 30, 2009

It did not take long for the prime minister to take advantage of the precedent set, at his behest, by the Governor General. Just over a year later, after facing weeks of mostly bad press over the Afghan detainee torture issue and relentless ques­tioning by opposition members of the International Affairs committee, Harper casually shut down Parliament once again.

The government was losing control of the situation, some­thing Harper is unaccustomed to. The government’s strategy of attacking the character of an extremely credible witness with impeccable credentials had backfired ~ two-thirds of Canadian polled believed diplomat Richard Colvin and not Foreign Minister Peter McKay or other government spokes­men. And more than 100 former diplomats, many of them ambassadors, signed a letter criticizing the government for its vicious attacks on a public employee who was just doing his job.

The opposition knew it was closing in on possibly explosive information as the government refused to hand over un­censored documents directly related to Colvin’s testimony ~ documents that had been released earlier but with huge swaths blacked out.

Harper must have known that refusing to comply, as he did, would quickly lead to charges of contempt of Parliament over which he would have little or no control. In addition, the committee would have begun calling Con­servative cabinet ministers to testify, something Harper was not willing to risk: they could not refuse to testify and could conceivably have been forced to testify under oath.

For a man accustomed to controlling everything, it was a situation he could not strategize out of. So, in the middle of the Christmas-New Year’s break, on December 30, 2009, he again asked Governor General Michaëlle Jean to shut down Parliament. This time he didn’t even bother with the niceties of parliamentary protocol by formally making the request in person ~ he asked for prorogation by phone, a transgression that C.E.S. Franks, a professor at Queen’s University, called “an affront to the dignity of the office of Governor Gen­eral.” Nevertheless, Jean again gave Harper what he wanted.

There was an additional bonus to the second prorogation for the prime minister, it facilitated Harper’s campaign to take control of the Senate. In 2009, he appointed more senators in one year than any prime minister in Canadian history. And in January 2010, he appointed five more, giving him a plu­rality in the Senate.

By proroguing Parliament, Harper also dissolved the existing Senate Standing Committees, formed when the Liberals were in charge. He could now start afresh ~ establishing new committees, with Conservatives in the ma­jority and, given the heated partisan atmosphere surrounding their appointments, ready to rubber stamp anything Harper sends their way.

By now, most Canadians are familiar with the details of the shutdown, and the extremely weak excuse Harper gave for shutting the doors of Parliament. Claiming that he needed time to “recalibrate” his government’s policy dealing with the ongoing problems in the economy, Harper said little about the 36 pieces of legislation that died with prorogation.

It seemed to put the lie to his repeated accusations against the opposition that they were frustrating and delaying the gov­ernment’s legislative agenda. The 36 bills, all of which would have to be restarted from scratch, including bills considered priorities for Harper that dealt with getting “tough on crime,” represented half of all the work carried out by Parliament since the 2008 election.

According to Scott A. Ross, a Liberal blogger whose musings appear in The National Post newspaper, the cost of proroguing Parliament this time (assuming that only five of the 36 bills being considered would actually have become law), includ­ing paying MPs and senators for accomplishing nothing and the cost of producing the bills that won’t become law, was $130,407,733.

It is rare that anything like a consensus develops on political issues in Canada, especially amongst the pundits, editorialists and academics routinely commenting on events. But the sec­ond prorogation by Harper set alarm bells ringing cross the country, and drew out scores of concerned members of the usually quiescent elite in Canada.
It was clear to virtually every commentator that Harper had calculated his move to avoid tough questioning from the International Affairs committee on the government’s complicity in torture in Afghanistan.

By shutting down Parliament, prorogation also shuts down the Senate, and all the committees of both houses. All the com­mittees must be reconstituted after Parliament resumes sit­ting, meaning that the prime minister could delay appointing a chair to the offending committee for a long time. The “reca­libration” was treated as a joke. Harper was so contemptuous of parliamentary rules he could not even bother to develop a believable cover story.

More than 175 professors of political science signed a letter denouncing the prorogation. Written by Daniel Weinstock, who holds a Canada research chair in ethics and political phi­losophy at the University of Montreal, the letter said, in part:

“Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the prime minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people.

“We emphasize, moreover, that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vig­orous questioning.” The letter appeared in many daily papers across the country.

The shamelessness of the move even attracted attention in other countries, a rare event for politics in Canada, with the arch-conservative business magazine, The Economist, pub­lishing a scathing editorial entitled “Harper goes prorogue” attacking the prime minister: “Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr. Harper’s move looks like naked self interest,” said the editorial.

It ridiculed the “recalibration” argument, saying Harper’s government “cannot apparently cope with Parliament’s deliberations while dealing with the country’s economic troubles and the challenge of hosting the Winter Olympic Games.” The magazine had endorsed Harper in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Even columnist John Ibbitson, normally an eager fan of Harper’s policies, could barely contain himself, writing: “No other legislature among what Winston Churchill called the English-speaking peoples would tolerate such treatment.” Even The Globe and Mail editorial board, which overlooks most of Harper’s outrages, was shocked and stated in an editorial: “Canadians are right to wonder how the prime min­ister’s insulting prorogation ploy fits with the Conservative commitment to restore public trust in government.”

One of the benefits of Harper’s four-year reign, for those supporting his conservative policies, was that Canadians were becoming less and less engaged, and more and more disil­lusioned with federal politics. But the second shutdown of Parliament threatened to change all that.

What started out as a simple Facebook page expressing outrage, turned virtually overnight into Canadians Against the Prorogation of Par­liament ~ an Internet protest that eventually garnered over 220,000 names. It also spawned an on-the-ground movement which, in the space of two weeks, organized demonstrations in 61 communities on January 23, 2010, the Saturday before Parliament had been originally scheduled to resume. Some 25,000 people braved winter weather to denounce the gov­ernment and demand democracy. The movement is not going away.

The arrogant sneering Harper we have come to know and despise, a few months before the Vancouver Olympics.

Thwarting Democracy

In contempt of Parliament: Refusing to hand over documents on Afghan torture

Just before Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament for the sec­ond time, on December 30, 2009, he had already demonstrat­ed his contempt for Parliament by ignoring a direct majority vote in the House of Commons demanding that the govern­ment produce uncensored documents relevant to the allega­tions made by diplomat Richard Colvin.

Colvin’s testimony about the government’s complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees prompted a storm of protest and subsequent stone­walling from the government. In January this year, University of Ottawa constitutional law professor Errol Mendes told an informal hearing of the parliamentary committee looking into the Afghanistan detainee issue that

“The executive is really placing itself above Parliament. For the first time that I know in Canadian history, the executive is saying we are superior to Parliament. This is… an open defiance of Parliament. Noth­ing more, nothing less.”

Mendes left little doubt about how serious this defiance of Parliament was:

“The refusal to release the uncensored docu­ments is a violation of the Canadian Constitution. This is the equivalent to a defiance of a judicial subpoena. The Harper government, if it does not respect its constitutional obliga­tions, will be in contempt of Parliament.”

Conservative officials, up to and including the prime minster could be called before the Bar of the House where the House would determine what punishment to impose ~ punishments which include possible expulsion from the House.

Senior Minister Stockwell Day

responded for the govern­ment,

telling the opposition

if it wanted the documents

it should go to court.

Thwarting democracy: The guide to subverting parliamentary committees

While many Canadians may not be aware of the work of parliamentary committees most days, these deliberative bodies are actually a key feature of parliamentary democracy ~ and get more actual substantive work done than often occurs in the House of Commons. While the latter is increasingly taken up with partisan bickering and point scoring, the work of the committees is to examine legislation in detail, debate possible amendments and, perhaps most importantly, call witnesses (subpoena them if necessary) to give testimony relevant to the issue at hand.

The committees (both the House and the Senate have them), reflecting all the legislative areas the government is engaged in, provide the only effective public access to law-making in Parliament. In that sense they are amongst the most demo­cratic features of Parliament. Committees can call witnesses and witnesses can ask to be heard. While committee delib­erations are only rarely reported in the media, the Foreign Af­fairs Committee’s high-profile investigation into the Afghan detainee issue demonstrates the kind of power and influence they have if they wish to use it.

In the latter case it also demonstrates that a committee can be used to check the power of the Prime Minister’s Of­fice (PMO). The PMO did everything it could to thwart the Military Police Complaints Commission in its investigation of the detainee issue, including intimidating witnesses, such as diplomat Richard Colvin, and preventing them from publicly testifying at the commission’s hearings. By opening up the issue and calling on Colvin to testify, the opposition circum­vented the power of the PMO and revealed information criti­cal to the public’s understanding of an important issue.

The committees’ membership reflects the parties’ strength in the House of Commons (or Senate) so the Conservatives have a minority on all committees. The prime minister’s prin­cipal power rests in the fact that he can choose the committee chairs (which he does, reneging on a promise to allow them to be chosen by the committees).

One of the most persistent complaints that Stephen Harper levels at the opposition is the committees’ alleged “delays” and “disruption” of his government’s legislative agenda. Yet as is the case so often, it betrays Harper’s lack of apprecia­tion of the fact that he heads a minority government. In most such situations, governments wanting to keep the confidence of the House engage in some level of compromise. But Harper’s contempt for the opposition parties and of de­mocracy itself leads him to brand their legitimate review of legislation as interference.

In the spring of 2007 he moved to fix the problem.

On May 17, 2007, Don Martin, a prominent small “c” con­servative columnist with The Calgary Herald, received a secret document that demonstrated Harper’s solution to opposition intransigence ~ Sabotage! It was a 200-page guidebook provided to Con­servative committee chairs only, which, according to Martin: “…tells them how to favour government agendas, select party-friendly witnesses, coach favourable testimony, set in motion debate-obstructing delays and, if necessary, storm out of meetings to grind parliamentary business to a halt.”

NOTE: Harper wanted his ducks in a row before the collapsing U.S. banking system and other economic factors started to have an effect up here, to say nothing of the effects of Canada’s self-defeating military policy.

The book was handed out to the Conservative chairs a couple of days before at a meeting with government whip Jay Hill – a meeting where, according to Martin’s sources, Hill “…lavished praise on the chairs who caused disruptions and admonished those who prefer to lead through consensus.”

Besides its inherently anti-democratic thrust, the guidebook also revealed yet more evidence of the degree of control that Harper exerts over the government ~ whether MPs, cabinet ministers or committee chairs.

Among the suggested tactics in the book, according to Martin:

• Procedural notes tell the chairs to always recognize a Con­servative member just before a motion is put to a vote “and let them speak as long as they wish” ~ a manouevre used to kick-start a filibuster as a stall tactic.

• The guide says a “disruptive” committee should be ad­journed by the chair on short notice. “Such authority is solely in the discretion of the chair. No debate, no appeal possible.” By failing to appoint the vice-chair to run the meeting, the adjournment will last until the chair is ready to reconvene the committee.

• That the Conservative Party helps pick committee witnesses. The committee chair “should ensure that witnesses suggested by the Conservative Party of Canada are favourable to the government and ministry,” the document warns.

One high-profile example of the tactics being used was the decision last December of the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee examining the detainee issue, to walk out, along with all his Conservative colleagues, thus making it impos­sible, under House rules, for the committee to continue its work.

The “in-and-out” elections spending scandal

Following the 2006 federal election, revelations about pos­sible rule breaking by the Conservatives led to a developing scandal called the “in-and-out” affair. The scheme involved a sleight of hand through which the national party was able to increases the amount of money it was reimbursed under the Elections Canada spending rules.

Candidates winning a certain percentage of the vote are entitled to a 60 per cent refund of the money they spend. But many ridings cannot spend up to their limit ~ especially those in marginal ridings where Conservatives had no chance of winning.

The Conservative Party had reached their national advertising limit of $18.3 million, so it transferred $1.3 million dollars to 67 riding campaigns that had not hit their own $80,000 limit. The party then had the ridings immediately return the money to the party, claiming that it was being used to purchase ad­vertising and creating receipts on photocopied letterhead of the ad company, Retail Media, used by the national headquar­ters.

Retail Media’s CEO told investigators that “the invoice must have been altered or created by someone, because it did not conform to the appearance of invoices sent by Retail Me­dia to the Conservative Party of Canada with respect to the media buy.” The ads were arranged for by party headquarters and were identical to its national ads except for small print identifying the local candidate.

"How can we stop Stephen Harper?

A stake through the heart?

A silver bullet?

Or will an exorcism suffice?"

The scheme was discovered by accident when an investigator from Elections Canada became suspicious after a naïve of­ficial agent for a candidate revealed the transfer arrangement. Several other examples were discovered. In 2007 Elections Canada refused to reimburse candidates $1.1 million for tele­vision and radio ads. The Conservatives almost immediately launched a lawsuit against Elections Canada.

Commissioner of Elections William Corbett has been con­ducting a separate investigation into the matter for more than two years. In April 2008, his investigators raided the Conservative Party’s headquarters in Ottawa and seized boxes of documents and computer files E.C. investigator Ronald Lamothe’s affidavit noted:

“..a deliberate ‘in-and-out’ scheme conceived to move money from national coffers into and out of the accounts of local campaigns, which have their own spending limits, in order to skirt the national spending limit...

Funds were transferred into and out of each of the bank accounts of the 67 campaigns ... entirely under the control of and at the direction of officials of the Conservative Fund of Canada and/or the Conserva­tive Party of Canada...

The purpose of the in-and-out trans­fers was to provide participating candidates with documenta­tion to support their reimbursement claims for these election expenses.”

After the raid, the opposition parties began grilling Stephen Harper in the Commons about the in-and-out scheme ~ upon which he dared them to make the accusations outside the House. They also raised the issue at the Committee on Proce­dure and House Affairs. The partisan acrimony resulting from the investigation resulted in chaos at the committee ~ the chair, Gary Goodyear, was removed by a vote of non-confi­dence for filibustering, and Jay Hill, the Conservative whip, ultimately refused to appoint another chair unless the opposi­tion parties ceased discussing the issue.

The partisan fighting ended only when Harper called another election at the end of August ~ in the process violating his own fixed elections dates legislation.

On January 18, 2010, Federal Court Justice Luc Martineau in Ottawa set aside the chief electoral officer’s decision not to approve $1.1 million in Conservative Party expenses chal­lenged by Elections Canada after the 2006 federal election. No decision to appeal has been announced at the time of this writing.

The court decision does not affect Commissioner of Elec­tions William Corbett’s investigation, which could result in a referral to the director of public prosecutions for possible charges.

Ignoring resolutions passed in Parliament by majority votes

There have been several motions passed in the House of Commons as non-binding resolutions. While they cannot force the government to act, these resolutions actually reflect the will of Parliament as they can only pass if a majority votes for them. The Harper government has ignored all such resolutions.

One, a resolution calling on Canada to allow war resisters to be allowed to stay in Canada permanently as conscientious objectors, was actually passed twice ~ once in June 2008 and again in September 2009.

The Canada Border Services Agency has continued to routinely enforce deportation orders of U.S. war resisters. Ottawa-based immigration lawyer Yaver Hameed believes that

“the contradiction between the non-binding parliamentary motion that allows war resisters to stay in Canada versus the Canada Border Services effecting depor­tation orders to war resisters reveals a lack of commitment to our basic democratic values.”
Since the resolution was passed, several war resisters have been sent back to the U.S. and sub­sequently to prison. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians polled support giving sanctuary to war resisters.

In June 2007, an NDP sponsored resolution, first debated and passed by the Standing Committee on International Trade, was debated for three hours in the House of Com­mons. The motion called for a formal letter of agreement to be signed with the U.S. and Mexico to ensure that bulk water will never be defined as a good or service under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

As NAFTA crit­ics and the majority of the committee pointed out, the federal government or the provinces could face multiple NAFTA lawsuits if governments, under current NAFTA rules, tried to prevent the bulk export of water. The motion passed the House of Commons by a vote of 134 to108, with all Conser­vatives voting against. The government ignored the resolu­tion despite the opposition of the vast majority of Canadians to such exports.

Controlling Critics

Undermining and manipulating arms-length commissions and watchdog agencies

The federal government is more than just Parliament. It also consists of many arms-length and independent agencies that are designed to be beyond the political control of the govern­ment. They were established in large measure to ensure that the areas they oversee are not politicized by the government of the day and that democratic accountability is ensured. Most report directly to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister’s Office, and so are normally beyond the PMO’s control. They are generally given wide leeway to get their work done and their reports are not vetted or edited by the government.

But a determined occupant of the Prime Minister’s Office can undermine, weaken and attack that independence in various ways. The government can refuse to co-operate, the PMO has the power to appoint the heads of these bodies or the boards, and it has the power to cut the budgets of such agencies ~ all without any reference to the House of Com­mons, even in a minority situation. Stephen Harper has used all these methods to weaken agencies whose work raises ques­tions about his government’s policies or actions.

Some of the principal examples:

The Parliamentary Budget Office

Kevin Page, a veteran public servant, heads the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), and in June 2009, following a long and protracted public battle with the government, told The Toronto Star that the Conservative government was doing its best to shut him down.

“This is a litmus test for democracy,” said Page, referring to the government’s decision to slash his bud­get from $2.8 million to $1.8 million. He said that in his battle over his budget he was reminded of Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s legendary comment: “Democracies die in darkness.”

Page had reported in October 2008 that the war in Afghani­stan had cost $18 billion ~ drawing widespread media at­tention to something Harper would have preferred to keep buried. The prime minister was reportedly furious at the revelation.
Then, in November of that year, he released a report predicting (correctly) that the government has headed for a deficit. The cutting of Kevin Page’s budget came as a surprise ~ even Conservative MPs connected to the process, had suggested a budget increase.

Page and his office provide independent analysis on eco­nomic trends, and closely examine government estimates and spending. The PBO works directly with the Commons and Senate finance committees as well as the public accounts committee.

“Our budget is cut and I am in an almost impossible situa­tion. ... I cannot carry out my mandate,” Page told The Toronto Star on June 24, 2009.

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission

Given the virtual collapse of accountability and the highly questionable actions of the RCMP over the past few years, if ever there was needed a strong oversight body it is now. That is what the RCMP Complaints Commission is supposed to do and its head, Paul Kennedy, was apparently doing his job too well. While the prime minister could not intervene directly in the commission he could, and did, refuse to renew Kennedy’s four-year mandate. This occurred on Nov. 18, 2009.

Kennedy was very critical of the RCMP’s indiscriminate and often lethal use of tasers and also targeted the practice of police investigating themselves in the case of serious inci­dents involving the public. (Former Harper political operative and friend, Ken Boessenkool, has been a lobbyist for Taser International.)

This past January, Kennedy told a Liberal Party forum that he “...feared that Canada’s international reputation could be affected by the way independent overseers are being silenced ~ since many nations have long looked to Canada as an example of a country willing to be self-critical.”

Kennedy saw the government’s choice for his replacement as someone who may not be nearly as aggressive in pursuing the mandate of the office. Ian McPhail, appointed for one year as interim chair, is a real estate lawyer with ties to the Con­servatives going back to 1970. While Kennedy saw his job as making the RCMP accountable, McPhail says his responsibil­ity is to understand how “an administrative agency should operate.” According to The Globe and Mail, McPhail believes “…the CPC chair does not have to be an expert in criminal law or civilian oversight in general.”

The Military Police Complaints Commission

Of all the independent commissions and agencies that have annoyed Stephen Harper, none seem to have disturbed him as much as the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC). Its principal focus has been on the torture scandal surrounding the handover of Canadian-captured Afghan detainees to the Afghan security forces ~ notorious for their record of torture and abuse of prisoners.

The commis­sion’s determination to get to the bottom of the scandal has resulted in almost unprecedented stonewalling, harassment of potential witnesses and refusal to co-operate on the part of the Harper government.

The conflict between Peter Tinsley, the commission’s chair, and the government came to a head in October 2007, when Tinsley suspended the hearings in the face of three govern­ment motions seeking an adjournment. Just weeks before, written testimony by Richard Colvin (the Canadian intel­ligence officer now famous for testifying at parliamentary hearings into the affair) was sealed at the behest of the gov­ernment ~ direct interference in its deliberations which made independent review of Colvin’s testimony impossible.

The government tried successfully at that time to prevent Colvin from testifying at all before the commission, and government lawyers threatened to impose national security restrictions on virtually all government witnesses the com­mission sought to call. The government, by the spring of 2008, had placed severe restrictions on thousands of pages of documents requested by commission counsel.

This refusal to co-operate with the commission continued through 2008 and 2009. Commission counsel Freya Kristjanson told The Globe and Mail in October 2009:

“Since March 2008… when the chair announced that this panel would hold a public interest hearing, the commission has not been provided with a single document by the government.”

Tinsley’s term as chair was not renewed when it ended in late 2009 and to date there has been no replacement named. He is hardly a soft liberal in terms of his background. A lawyer, he was a United Nations war crimes prosecutor in Kosovo, a former director of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit looking into police incidents resulting in death or serious injury, and served in the Canadian Forces for 28 years.

Regarding the government’s behaviour towards him, the com­mission and the parliamentary hearings into the torture issue, Tinsley told The Hill Times: “

We have now, with the proroga­tion, moved to a point that one could say Parliament has been dismissed. For one, like myself, who believes that funda­mental to our legal structure is the supremacy of Parliament, that’s very disturbing, so I would use the term dictatorial, in a metaphorical fashion.”

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

Another high-profile case of government political interfer­ence in a quasi-judicial agency was the direct intervention in the Canadian Nuclear Regulatory Agency (CNRA) ~ re­sponsible for monitoring the safety of all nuclear reactors in Canada, including the Chalk River reactor which produces medical isotopes.

In November 2007, a crisis developed over the decision by Linda Keen, president of the CNRA, to ex­tend a regular maintenance shutdown when safety violations were discovered by CNRA inspectors. The shutdown caused a worldwide shortage of isotopes.

In December 2007, Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn wrote a three-page letter to Keen threatening to fire her and questioning her competence. Keen fired back (after Lunn’s letter was leaked to the media) accusing Lunn of po­litical interference in an independent body and pointing out that he had no authority, as minister, to fire her as president. Opposition parties called for Lunn’s resignation and backed Keen for applying the letter of the law to an issue as impor­tant as nuclear safety.

Prime Minister Harper publicly pointed the finger at Keen as the cause of the crisis. But many close to the issue accused Lunn of failing to act weeks before he did, when he was first informed of the potential isotope crisis. His decision to fire Keen was seen as a diversion from his own culpability.

Parliament ended up passing legislation over-ruling Keen and the reactor was restarted. Keen was fired by the federal Council passed by the cabinet. Keen told a Liberal Party fo­rum in January 2010 that she had warned of a chill effect on independent tribunals:
“... Are we in an era where tribunals must be more interested in meeting the needs of the govern­ment than in doing their jobs?”

1 comment:

  1. It’s a blog with full of latest and spectacular information’s childcare hills area

    ReplyDelete

Please. No spam. No hate spewing. Religious quotations not so much. If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.

WORDS YOU SHOULD BE AWARE WERE SPOKEN

If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. ~ Moed Kattan 17a

WISE WORDS AND WARNINGS OF WICKEDNESS

"Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, scheming, agile, speculating Jews ~ such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, reporters for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and with their arses sitted upon the German daily press ~ they have taken possession of all the newspapers ~ and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which glut a single profiteering sect, a nation of blooksuckers, a single gluttonous parasite closely and intimately interlinked not only across national borders, but across all differences of political opinion ~ this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and, at the same time, at the disposal of Rothschild.

**********

This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the largest banks? Ho-ho! The Communism of Marx seeks an enormous centralization of the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which profiteers from the labour of others, will always find a way to prevail. In reality, for the proletariat, this would be a barrack regime, under which the working men and the working women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of the drum." ~ Bakunin (1814-1876)
**********

“We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General (Eisenhower)...The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result remembering it." ~ General Patton in Germany, diary entry Sept 17, 1945
**********

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Noahide Laws in legislation that was passed by both houses. Congress and the President of the U. S., George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization. They also acknowledged that the Seven Laws of Noah are the foundation upon which civilization stands and that recent weakening of these principles threaten the fabric of civilized society, and that justified preoccupation in educating the Citizens of the U.S. of America and future generations is needed. For this purpose, this Public Law designated March 26, 1991 as Education Day.”
**********

Marxism, to which all branches of Socialism necessarily adhere, was originated by Jew Karl Marx, himself of rabbinical descent and has been dominated by them from the beginning. Marx did not actually originate anything; he merely “streamlined” Talmudism for Gentile consumption.” ~ Elizabeth Dilling

**********
Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” ~ Fr. John Sheehan, S.J.

**********

The cruel canard ‘anti-Semitic’ does not apply for many reasons, not the least of which is the simple fact that the slanderous word itself is derived from language games for purposes of propaganda and in real world context has no validity. ~ Tom Valentine

**********

Follow the path of the unsafe, independent thinker.

Expose your ideas to the dangers of controversy.

Speak your mind and fear less the label of 'crackpot'

than the stigma of conformity.

And on issues that seem important to you,

Stand up and be counted at any cost.

~ Thomas J Watson (1874-1956)

**********

'There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. The business of the Journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.' ~ John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, The New York Times, 1953

**********

We Ain't Got Time to Bleed: "You control our world. You’ve poisoned the air we breathe, contaminated the water we drink, and copyrighted the food we eat. We fight in your wars, die for your causes, and sacrifice our freedoms to protect you. You’ve liquidated our savings, destroyed our middle class, and used our tax dollars to bailout your unending greed. We are slaves to your corporations, zombies to your airwaves, servants to your decadence. You’ve stolen our elections, assassinated our leaders, and abolished our basic rights as human beings. You own our property, shipped away our jobs, and shredded our unions. You’ve profited off of disaster, destabilized our currencies, and raised our cost of living. You’ve monopolized our freedom, stripped away our education, and have almost extinguished our flame. We are hit… we are bleeding… but we ain’t got time to bleed. We will bring the giants to their knees and you will witness our revolution!" ~ Jesse Ventura

**********

WHAT TALMUDICS THINK

"Anti-Communism is Antisemitism." ~ Jewish Voice, July ~ August 1941.

**********

According to the Talmud...."...When the serpent came unto Eve, he infused filthy lust in her (but) when Israel stood on Sinai, that lust was eliminated" ~ Talmud, Abodah Zarah 22b

**********

"Some may call it Communism, but I call it what it is: Judaism." ~ Rabbi Stephen Weiss.

**********

It was hard for Satan alone to mislead the whole world, so he appointed prominent rabbis in different localities. ~ A Chasidic saying attributed to Nahman of Bratzlav, early 19th century

**********

It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not ~ they will be killed." ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg

**********

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." ~ Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
**********

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew." ~ Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
**********

"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." ~ Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
**********

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." ~ Coschen hamischpat 405
**********

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs." ~ Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
**********

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." ~ Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
**********

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog." ~ Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
**********

"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died." ~ Jore dea 377, 1

**********

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals." ~ Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

**********

"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile." ~ Sepher ikkarim III c 25
**********

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah." ~ Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
**********

"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands." ~ Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
**********

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." ~ Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

**********

Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. ~ Noel Ignatiev, Harvard Magazine, Sep-Oct 2002

**********

We intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed, not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.

Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e., all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations ~ and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities. ~ Yitzhak Attia, Israel Magazine, April 2003

**********

Any trial based on the assumption that Jews and goyim are equal is a total travesty of justice. ~ Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, June 6, 1989:

**********

REVENGE OF THE JEWISH RABBIS OF SPAIN
In 1492 CE, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion (after the fall of Muslim rule in spain).

This was the reply:

” Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves. The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:

1. As for what you say that the King of Spain obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians’ lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your synagogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches. [Emphasis mine]
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.

(Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE.”
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
The reply is found in the sixteenth century Spanish book, La Silva Curiosa, by Julio-Iniguez de Medrano (Paris, Orry, 1608), on pages 156 and 157, with the following explanation: “This letter following was found in the archives of Toledo by the Hermit of Salamanca, (while) searching the ancient records of the kingdoms of Spain; and, as it is expressive and remarkable, I wish to write it here.” — vide, photostat facing page 80. ~ The above was quoted from Waters Flowing Eastward by Paquita de Shishmareff, pp. 73-74

**********

“[1] When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you ~ the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you – [2] and when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy” (Deut 7:1-2).

**********

"Compassion towards the wicked is really wickedness. It is along these lines that Rabbi Levi opened his speech in honor of Purim: (Talmud, Megillah, 11a): "If you do not uproot the inhabitants of the Land, and allow them to remain - they will become thorns in your sides, and will cause trouble for you in the Land in which you dwell." (Bamidbar 33:55) The mitzvah, then of wiping out Amalek [Palestinians], actually stems from the value of compassion and kindness - compassion on all those whom Amalek threatens to exterminate. This mitzvah is an ongoing one, and valid even today. Today, too, there are those - driven by a deep-seeded anti-Semitism - who desperately wish to kill us. These are the people whom the Torah commanded us to obliterate, to leave no memory of them." (Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed).

**********

Nachman Abramovic demonized Palestinian children stating:

“They may look young to you, but these people are terrorists at heart. Don’t look at their deceptively innocent faces, try to think of the demons inside each of them. I am absolutely certain these people would grow to be evil terrorists if we allowed them to grow. Would you allow them to grow to kill your children or finish them off right now? Honest and moral people ought to differentiate between true humans and human animals. We do kill human animals and we do so unapologetically. Besides, who in the West is in a position to lecture us on killing human animals. After all, whose hands are clean?”

**********

"Wars are the Jews’ harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100 million of them, and the end is not yet." ~ Chief Rabbi in France, in 1859, Rabbi Reichorn

**********

"The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism." ~ Rabbi Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and Humanity, p. 143-144

**********

The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order, the “children of Israel” will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands. ~ Baruch Levy in a letter to Karl Marx.

**********

"My opinion of Christian Zionists? They're scum, but don't tell them that. We need all the useful idiots we can get right now." ~ Bibi Netanyahu

**********

It was hard for Satan alone to mislead the whole world, so he appointed prominent rabbis in different localities. ~ A Chasidic saying attributed to Nahman of Bratzlav, early 19th century

**********

Gentiles exist only to serve Jews as slaves. Goyim were only born to serve us. Without that they have no place in the world. Only to serve the people of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They are only here to work. They will work, they will plow. They will reap. We will sit like effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were created,” Rabbi Yosef, Sha Party, Jerusalem Post, 2011

**********

"An example of the use of the Jewish code words Esau and Jacob is found in a sermon preached by Rabbi Leon Spitz during the Purim observances in 1946 (quoted here from the American Hebrew of March 1, 1946) : "Let Esau whine and wail and protest to the civilized world, and let Jacob raise his hand to fight the good fight. The anti-Semite . . . understands but one language, and he must be dealt with on his own level. The Purim Jews stood up for their lives. American Jews, too. must come to grips with our contemporary anti-Semites. We must fill our jails with anti-Semitic gangsters. We must fill our insane asylums with anti-Semitic lunatics. We must combat every alien. Jew-hater. We must Harass and prosecute our Jew-baiters to the extreme limits of the laws. We must humble and shame our anti-Semitic hoodlums to such an extent that none will wish or dare to become (their) 'fellow-travelers'.

**********

This is what Trotsky, a Jew, was preparing for the Russians for the implementation of Communism, which Marx based on the Babylonian Talmud for Gentiles:

"We should turn Her (Russia) into a desert populated with white Niggers. We will impose upon them such a tyranny that was never dreamt by the most hideous despots of the East. The peculiar trait of that tyranny is that it will be enacted from the left rather than the right and it will be red rather than white in color.

Its color will be red literally because we would spill such torrents of blood that they will pale all human losses of the capitalist wars and make the survivors shudder.

**********

Remember my children, that all the earth must belong to us Jews, and that the gentiles, being mere excrements of animals, must possess nothing. ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild on his deathbed, 1812

**********

The largest overseas banks will cooperate with us most closely. If we win the Revolution and squash Russia, on the funeral pyres of its remains we will strengthen the power of Zionism and become a power the whole world would drop in the face of on its knees. We will show the world what real power means.

By way of terror and blood baths we will bring the Russian intelligentsia into a state of total stupor, to idiocy, to the animal state of being. So far our young men dressed in leather ~ the sons of watch repair men from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitza ~ oh, how beautifully, how brilliantly do they master hatred of everything Russian! With what a great delight do they physically destroy the Russian intelligentsia ~ officers, engineers, teachers, priests, generals, agronomists, academicians, writers!" ~ Secret Forces in History of Russia. U.K. Begunov 1995, p 148

**********

One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the Crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle the job. If I’d had charge of executing Christ, I’d have handled it differently. You see, what I’d have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed him to the lions. They could never have made a saviour out of mincemeat!”~ Rabbi Ben Hecht

**********

The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks.”~ Al Goldstein (publisher of Screw Magazine).

**********

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews ~ all of them in all different levels ~ is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." ~ Rabbi Kook, the Elder, father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism, said

**********

"You have not begun to appreciate the depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest Great War, but of every other major revolution in your history.

We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone." ~ Marclis Eli Ravage, Century Magazine February, 1926.

**********

"The United Nations is nothing but a trap-door to the Red World's immense concentration camp. We pretty much control the U.N." ~ Harold Wallace Rosenthal, Zionist, The Hidden Tyranny

**********

Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that’s you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.”

Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America.” ~ American traitor, the Jew Edward Mandell House giving a very detailed outline of the New World Order plans that were to be implemented gradually over time to enslave the American people ... A PLAN THAT HAS BEEN REPEATED IN CANADA, AUSTRALIA, BRITAIN AND ELSEWHERE.

*******

"You throw a little Jewish on top of that, you got trouble. You got a bunch of wild, crazy energy.

"Sorry that doesn't sound hippie. Sorry that doesn't sound like communal jubilant fun. Sorry I'm not a Pepper. Sorry I didn't pop out of a soda-pop ad, and life is just one big fucking cabaret, because a lot of what propelled Van Halen, what compels me and propels me is precisely this element. It's fury. If you approach me with anti-Semetic preconceptions, I'm not here to re-educate. I come from a whole different school of thought. If you don't get it on the first try, fuck you.

"I once heard somebody say to the Van Halens, "You guys play the music; the Jew sells it." Well, you're fucking right. And now that I'm gone, Van Halen stinks. Okay?

"Want to know why some of my contributions to Van Halen sound like they do? Didn't come from a smiling place in my soul. Not at all.

"Nobody ever said to Mick Jagger, "So, Mick, you're Episcopalian, aren't you?" Nobody ever took Jimi Hendrix aside and said, "So, Jimi, you're a Baptist, aren't you?" Much less start off the interview that way.

"Every step I took on that stage was smashing some Jew-hating, lousy punk ever deeper into the deck. Every step. I jumped higher 'cause I knew there was going to be more impact when I hit those boards. And if you were even vaguely anti-Semetic, you were under my wheels, motherfucker. That's where the lyrics came from, that's where the body language came from, that's where the humor came from, and where the fuck you came from. All equally as important. You want to know the ingredients? Don't ask if you don't want to know.

"What you get from repression and what you get from hatred is fury, and fury was one of the main trigger points for the great Van Halen. What you see now is a bunch of buffoons waddling around at the family barbecue, and their wives admonishing the children saying, "Don't worry, Daddy's just had a few too many Coors Lights and he's imitating what he used to do for a living when he played music, honey."

"What's missing is the testosterone. What's missing is the fury. What's missing is the passionate convicted commitment. And I got a lot of mine from my religious background. So y'all best stop imagining the way Dr. Zorba looked, or some defenseless Hasidic Jew with a little yarmulke on his head, 'cause that ain't here for you." ~ David Lee Roth

**********

Rabbi Isaac Wise, in The Israelite of America writes, “Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end

**********

“We infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church right from the very beginning. Why do you think the Pope, the Cardinals and all the Bishops wear yarlmulkahs? (skullcaps) The white race never figures this out. A thousand years later the white race began to wake up ... we had to come up with a plan B ... so we formed the Jesuits. There was a nice boy, Ignatius Loyola. He started the Jesuits.” (Loyola was Jewish. Research/read the Jesuit Extreme Oath) Regarding the Jesuits, quoting Rabbi Finkelstein

**********

Does worship of the Talmud pervade Judaism globally? Herman Wouk, Orthodox Jew and famed author of The Cain Mutiny, affirms, “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, ceremonies we observe ~ whether we are Orthodox, Reform,Conservative, or merely spasmodic sentimentalists ~ we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.”

**********
From Jews Must Liveby Samuel Roth, pg. 22. “The organ is diseased. This disease is a sort of moral gonorrhea known as Judaism, which, alas, seems to be incurable. If you have any doubts, look at any Jew ridden country in Europe. If you need to be further convinced, take a look at what is happening in the United States.”

*******

“Every synagogue we Jews build in a Christian country is a finger of scorn we point at our hosts; a sore finger we stick into their eyes, like the leering of a senile old woman who does all sorts of foul mischief before you, and feels safe in the knowledge that you will not lay hands on her for fear of contamination.” ibid., pg. 8