Banned!

Mr Heibein will not be joining us for some time.

It seems the authoritarian regime of the country he is currently residing in has blocked this website in its entirety.

Perhaps calling on information to become a Human Right put them over the edge?

Canada's Human Rights Violations

In Western civilization Human Rights are where we have an absolute trust and appreciation. As Canadians; we are unknowingly deficient while blissful in our ignorance. Through linguistics, a subject in which our country ought to reign supreme above all others, we have misrepresented our culture and our past achievements. Canada and Canadians collectively have stalled on the journey to prosperity and national self-acceptance. In the early 19th century Canada had a goal of achieving law and order. In the late 19th century, a goal of becoming a unified country.

With these goals achieved, we entered the industrial era.

In the early 20th century our goals were simple, to prove ourselves to our fellow countrymen in Britain. Immediately followed by desire to give aid, to prevail and to embrace freedom. With the close of World War II Canada became emboldened, her stride more pronounced upon her great journey and Canadians began to stand up and declare triumphantly "I am Canadian!"

Disaster appeared on the horizon in the late 1900's with the threat of economic, territorial and populous separation. It was here and now that Canada’s goals became apparent and realized as – survival. Having defeated the separatists at such a narrow victory, the country and Canadians as a whole entered a post-climatic state of relaxation. A country that once charged to the finish line in Olympic track run fashion, has now taken to kicking the proverbial can with frayed-untied-shoe laces and steel toed work boots.

In our boredom, the country has become emphatically anti-American and profoundly self-righteous. Canadians in the 21st century aren’t able to name all ten provinces, their capitals or point themselves out in an international family portrait. Canada has lost its way. Canadians have lost their initiative. And, as recent evidence as shown, we’re smoking more pot than virtually everyone else. Canada has become the wayward student who graduated high school, took over the family basement and never gave university a second thought.

Canadians pride themselves on falsehoods of our identity. We are the peacekeepers who don’t go on peacekeeping missions. We are the worlds diplomats – who prefer silence and neutrality for Terrorism v. Israel’s Right to Exist. We are compassionate care givers with universal health care – so long as you’re willing to wait a year for the doctor. We proudly support our national public broadcaster in their endeavor to promote our culture – the Little Mosque way. (We may not have associated ourselves with rampant Muslims but, hey, look on the bright side, the Americans always did).

It’s time to either practice what we preach, or just stop preaching it. The first step is telling the truth about ourselves.

Canada can become a world leader – really, this time – as a proponent of Human Rights if we so choose. Human Rights extend far beyond the basics of water, food, medical care and freedom. These are the first steps, however, not the be-all-and-end-all. What seems almost lost on Canadians is the right in which they have been so blatantly deprived – the right to information. As water is the sustenance of the brain, information is the sustenance of the mind. Information is crucial to the academic world, the scientific world, the political world and for a parliamentary democracy, information should be a requirement prior to balloting.

The right to information has been partially recognized by the government through its Privacy Protection and Access to Information Act which enables citizens or entities to submit a direct request for specific government information. However, there is no current legislation that protects the integrity, authenticity or timely release of information. Further to that, there is no direct penalty under the Criminal Code for obstructing information or withholding its release.

Information is provided in various ways. Newspapers provide information on a daily basis. However, that information is not necessarily accurate. How many times have newspapers printed false stories on page 1, and retracted them days later on page 9? Surprisingly, more often than one would guess. Which presents the question: who penalizes newspapers for spreading false information? Currently, journalists are bound by nothing other than a ‘golden rule’ that asks them to behave–if they don’t, they’ll be subjected to strongly worded emails.

That would be enough to keep me on the straight and narrow. Perhaps I’ll run that one by my supervisor.

Newspapers and other media entities are self-governing with integrity and ethics being self-administered, self-monitored and self-penalized.

Canadian media are a walking, talking, publishing dictatorial empire with little or no boundaries. Recently, the prime minister appointed a new commissioner of the RCMP because the former commish was decidedly corrupt. Few would have expected corruption at the highest levels of our respected national police force, yet it happened. There are some in the political world who would say the Globe and Mail is a little too left-wing, and the National Post a little too right-wing. Many more would say the CBC is a little too.. uhh.. communist.

Remember the Reuters photo scandal of 2006? Yeah, neither does anyone else. If any other industry had committed such pervasion of the truth with obvious malicious intent, the media would have lined them up before a firing squad. Yet, when judging their own ethics, the media has displayed an uncharacteristic ability to forgive and forget. So who do we report them too? The RCMP? No. The CRTC? No. The Courts? Good luck with that.

When a media outlet is guilty of spreading false information, disinformation or is simply exercising its bias, the only avenue of pursuit is the outlet themselves – directly or through an association of media outlets, that includes the offending party, that have created their own media oversight committee. If, of course, the offending outlet bothered to join up with any of its buddies for self review.

Canada has a deliberate system of separation of powers. The executive, legislative and judicial branches must all remain separate in order to provide ethical and accountable administration. Yet, our media composes itself like our very own sorority. Canadian journalism has evolved into its own society, its own government, its own police and its own judiciary. Collectively, this group remains ideological, activist and intertwined in the events they record. As a means of progression and development, Canada must champion a revolution in information delivery.

The only things we stand to lose are CBC reporters. It’s definitely worth it.

There is something wrong with Stephane Dion and his opposition party.

Here in Canada, we need to do more to protect the environment. Canada needs to protect its fresh water resources, prevent acid rain and provide clean energy for residential and industrial consumption. Surely the former Minister of the Environment would agree. Yet, surprisingly, he does not. Stephane Dion does not support environment initiatives. What's worse -- at every opportunity he attempts to prevent environment protection bills from being passed in parliament.

Stephane Dion, and his friends at CBC, have subscribed to the notion that the best way to take care of our environment, is to not take care of our environment at all, but to use our tax dollars to pay other countries to take care of their environment. A notion so philosophically obscure it truly takes a liberal to fully comprehend its design. In essence, Dion and his party desire not to protect the environment, not to provide a clean and healthy ecosystem for the next generation, but to provide social support for Russia.

That's right. Dion believes that Canada should engage in Kyoto Protocol green credit trading. Wherein, Canada would do nothing for the environment and subsequently spend billions of dollars on green credits -- from Russia. This fee, coupled with international fines imposed by the United Nations for failing to meet legal obligations. This plan is ludacris. Absolutely ludacris. Economists predict such a move would cripple the nations economy with thousands of Canadians losing their jobs, unprecedented increases in taxes and costs of living with record high unemployment across the country.

Why not just protect the environment at home?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the current US Administration have been cooperating to make a North American solution to climate change. An initiative that could see real environment policies, real action on the environment and real results. All without crippling taxes and job losses. How could anyone oppose this plan? How could any forward-thinking policy maker oppose real action, in favour of tax and grab measures?

If Canada agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, and did nothing for the environment at home as the opposition liberals have triumphed, what would Russia do with the billions of dollars we'd be giving them? Would they build more nuclear weapons? Would they transfer more weaponry to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan? (Terrorists that regularly attack Canadian peace makers). Would the Russians use our money to make more AK 47 death rifles to be used against democracy-supporting Christians in Chechnya?

We just don't know what Russia would do with our money.

So why give it to them?

The prevailing belief system in Western culture leads one to believe that what appears in print or in a documentary is clearly a fact. A verifiable point. A clear message. The truth. A famed liberal failure perpetuates this belief system by instilling further comfort-driven attributes to his title An Inconvenient Truth. Ethically, one must ask the question, in order to call your opinion based film An Inconvenient Truth, shouldn't the content of the film actually be true?

This concept is lost on Al Gore.

Gore is the liberal candidate who was defeated by President George W Bush in the 2000 United States Presidential Election. He has since transformed his image to be an "environmentalist" rather than a failed politician. Protecting Gore is the left wing media who staunchly connect his opinions to the dangers of a global change in climatic conditions. Yet, the questions around Gore continue to mount.

Richard S. Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the Earth System Science Center of the University of Alabama, wrote an open letter to Gore criticizing his presentation of climate science in the film, asserting that the Arctic had a similar temperature in the 1930s before the mass emissions of carbon dioxide began. Former University of Winnipeg geography professor Dr. Timothy F. Ball rejected Gore’s claim that there has been a sharp drop-off in the thickness of the Arctic ice cap since 1970, stating that the data was taken only from an isolated area of the Arctic and during a specific temperate period.

[Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia]

A March 13, 2007 article in The New York Times reported on concerns among some scientists about the tone and the accuracy of the film, noting that they "argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous". Gore's discussion of a rise in sea level of up to 20 feet is contrasted with a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts a maximum rise of 23 inches excluding non-linear effects on ice sheets; although that too discusses the possibilities of higher rises if the ice sheets melt. The article also states that "a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium."

An April 19, 2007 article in The Daily Telegraph reported on concerns among parents who claim that the film is "inaccurate and politically motivated." The parents also challenge the legality of broadcasting this 'propoganda film' in British schools.

The documentary film The Great Global Warming Swindle brought together skeptical scientists who disagree with the media supported belief regarding human-caused global warming. The film claims that in An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has misrepresented the data, and that the actual relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature is the other way round (that is, rise in temperature causes an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). Climatologist Fred Singer argued that the documentary is "devastating" to Gore's movie: "...The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science by recording the statements of real climate scientists. An Inconvenient Truth mainly records a politician."

[Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia]

An honest question: Why does Al Gore care so much about the environment, after serving two terms as Vice-President of the United States (and President of the United States Senate), and having done nothing to prevent climate change?

The answer: Don't get too caught up in his hype. Gore doesn't live by his own words.

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has obtained actual copies of Gore's utility bills for his personal mansion. The figures are startling. Gore -- in his home -- has 20 times more of a negative impact on our environment than the average American family. On top of that, Gore frequently travels the world in a private jet, and occasionally in giant gas guzzling tour buses. Gore's home is well lit with electric fixtures decorating the exterior and surrounding areas, reports the TCPR.

Gore has been pretending to care about climate change, but not taking any personal action whatsoever.

July 7, 2007 the National Post newspaper featured an article on the growing discontent with Gore and his false 'environmentalism.' By organizing the Live Earth music concerts, Gore claims to be raising awareness about climate change. But one must ask the question, Do we need to raise awareness about the number one issue in the 21st century? These concerts have lead to increased air travel -- with hundreds of extra flights around the world -- increased auto usage in several world cities -- massive usage of electricity for the concerts -- and, of course, an incalcuable amount of electricity being used by viewers watching the concerts on television.

Al Gore has just had an acute detrimental effect on the global climate crisis. And the liberal media paints him to be a saint. While climate change continues to worsen, Gore is riding a wave of multimedia falsehoods and intentional ambiguity. Vote Gore-Clinton in 2008, perhaps?

Climate change is something we should take seriously.

Al Gore is something we should lock up in Guantanomo.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M

Thoughts for the Ideologically Fair

The best way to provide fairness, equality and accountability is to just do so. If only someone would inform the left-wingers, we’d be all set. In Canada there is a common belief system that states ‘the best way to deal with discrimination, is reverse discrimination.’ Perhaps that belief system has never been expressed so blatantly or in such words, but the truth remains. A common perception states that a certain gender, and a certain skin color, has an advantage of becoming employed. Liberal thought dictates that in order to level the playing field, we must discriminate against these young white men – thereby providing fairness. Whatever happened to just being fair?

A bureaucracy of liberal fairness is about as useful to this country as a liberal bureaucracy can be.

Recent events in the United States should serve an important lesson for Canadian policy makers. In Canada, we pride ourselves on our fairness, our equality and the freedom our country shares with newcomers. This pride largely stems from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Pierre Trudeau’s endowment to Canadians. Often portrayed as the be all and end all of Canadian national identity, the Charter is many things to many people and has been used in various ways. It has been used to protect known terrorists from prison sentencing. And, of course, the Charter was used to protect Trudeau’s former wife from criminal charges – when arrested for drunk driving.

In the constant struggle to provide a fair and open environment the approach our policy makers should take has been mapped by the US Supreme Court. Fairness should be fairness – not holding down would-be leaders. By allowing employers to ask such questions based on skin color, sex, or physical impalements we are perpetuating discrimination and allowing it to not only prevail, but also to become profound and instigate tensions. A country at peace with itself would welcome the opportunity to institute a merit based civil architecture, wherein the people of Canada would succeed by their own character-attributes and not physical-attributes.

A country at peace with itself, perhaps, would go one step further. And ask the necessary questions to move forward. The questions that need to be answered are frequently blockaded by liberal thought and perceptions. Take highway 401 for example. Why was the highway temporarily closed this week? (Good question). The answer: because the Mohawk warriors blockaded Canada’s busiest highway in an effort to gain respect. Why don’t the Mohawk have our respect? (Good question). The answer: because of the civil failures within the confines of their communities and their dependancy on the taxpayers for income. Why are the Mohawk dependant on the taxpayers for income when everyone knows they’re drug dea.... uh, oh... liberal barriers approaching...

Perhaps one day Canada will be free to look in the mirror in an attempt to make self-improvements. Perhaps those improvements will include health care, schools and equal opportunities (real ones, not just holding down the white kids) for Canada’s First Nations. Perhaps one day Canada will move beyond the failed policies of its past. Perhaps, one day, liberalism will allow Canada to enter the 21st century. "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Michael Savage.

Welcome!

As the 20th century belonged to the United States, it was said that the 21st century would belong to Canada. As we enter the twenty-first century we see a Canada with decreasing international influence, a declining global impact on the world economy and a Canada with relentless domestic issues. Our country faces challenges on multiple fronts. Our federation is tested by separatists in French-Canada, Newfoundland and Alberta. Our armed forces lays in ruins after a "decade of darkness" (Gen. Rick Hillier, Chief of Defence Staff). Our parliament has become impeded with inactivity and growing discontent.

Like a bad marriage, Canada is savaged by issues that are left unspoken for and things left unsaid.

Here, you will find the straight-forward commentary of young patriotic Canadians pushing for policy reform. Enjoy.

[First blog posts beginning Canada Day July 1st, 2007 under the partnership of Dan Aiken, Policy Consultant and Troy Heibein, Business Analyst].