Democracy Erupts in Iran

It appears that the people of Iran are fed up with what clearly appears to be a stolen election. But do they have the means to effect the democracy they're seeking?

Here is video from Tehran:

Michael Totten has full coverage.

Participate in Canadian Democracy!

If you're like me, and also a Canadian, then you're probably sick & tired of sitting back and reading these never-ending stories about the dreadful state of affairs in our country. Whether it be our lack of Free Speech rights, our lackadaisical Law & Order policies, or our excessive taxes, there's a lot of room for improvement.

But if you're like most Canadians then you just sit back and do nothing. Why? The most common excuse is "because the politicians won't do anything". Let's be clear about something: We do live in a democracy and our members of Parliament are here to serve us. But let's not forget a key fact: if only a handful of people complain then our politicians will not do anything. And quite frankly, if the majority does not appear to want something changed then the politicians shouldn't do anything!

But if enough people contact them then changes will occur!

The MPs you'll have the best chance of effecting change with are the Conservatives. And the good news is that never before in history has it been so simple to connect with your elected members of Parliament. I've set things up so that you can click on any of the links below and an e-mail will be initiated on your computer. Just click on your particular district:

• British Columbia
• Alberta
• Saskatchewan
• Manitoba
• Ontario
• Quebec
• Maritimes
• Northern Territories

---

As a little inspiration to get you started, here's the e-mail I just sent to my BC MPs:

Dear British Columbia Conservative MPs,

I would like to draw your attention to something I just wrote about on my blog.

Jennifer Lynch and the CHRC is clearly out of control. She is embarrassing not only herself, but also all public institutions. She is supposed to be an accountable civil servant but is instead acting more like pompous member of royalty. Metaphorically she just told Ezra Levant and all other Canadians who deeply believe in Free Speech, "Let them eat cake!"

You NEED to do something about this! And as I've stated publicly before, I will only start donating to the Conservative Party of Canada once the infamous Section 13 of the CHRC and the equivalent section here in BC is removed. You have my word on that.

Sincerely,

Robert Werner
Vancouver, BC
604...

Sonia Sotomayer: Postergirl for the Leftist Elites

Directly before our eyes is a perfect example of how democracy is being eroded by the elites of our society. Drip-drip-drip, it is happening slowly but it is happening nonetheless.

Sonia Sotomayor is Barack Obama's first nomination for a Supreme Court Judge. If she gets the job, and there's every indication she will, she will have the job for life. In many ways that makes sense, as such judges should not be affected by political influence.

What does not make sense though and is, in fact, the antithesis of the spirit of the democracy itself, is Sotomayer's view of what a judge's job is. As this article clearly illustrates, she absolutely believes that it's a judge's right and even duty to make policy, even if that policy conflicts with the will of the politicians who were elected by the people; unlike her.

The Radical Left love judges like her because they know that only through them can they get their unpopular policies foisted on the majority of the citizenry, who disagree with them.

I know all of the Left Wing claptrap to explain why giving judges the power to make policy is the best course of action for society. It's absolute bunk. The same disastrous thing has occurred here in Canada. The result is that politicians are often afraid to effect any new policy for fear that such policy will be overturned and their political careers damaged in the process. So effectively, it's unelected judges who ultimately rule over us.

Lest we forget, judges are not God. Their decisions are often not based on wisdom but simply on their own political views. Politicians in a democracy can be removed by the people at the ballot box. Supreme Court judges cannot. That is why it is absolutely critical for them to never be able to make public policy.

The video below is of a judge long ago named Roland Freisler. I am not making any comparison between him and Ms. Sotomayer. But is critically important to be aware of how out of control a judge can get. We all have to accept the inherent paradox of our system: in order for a Supreme Court Judge to not be affected by political influence their decisions have to be paramount and their job tenure has to be guaranteed. Fine. But allowing the scope of their job to go beyond ruling on existing laws is very, very dangerous.

---

Update #1: For anyone who still believes that judges have a greater wisdom than us "mere mortals", I strongly encourage you to read about the Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. And if you think that is the only time that judges have made bad decisions, you are in severe denial!

On SDA I received a fascinating comment about what I've written:

Robert W - yes, an unelected, which is to say, unaccountable authority, is the antithesis of a democratic state.

The democratic state operates by and only by, the will of the people. This Will is not utopian, which is to say, it does not function within a belief that society can attain a state of perfection, whose attributes are accessible and knowable only to an elite or distinctive Set of people.

This Will is, instead, a perception that societies are piecemeal processes, whose rules must be answerable to the diverse and flexible needs of the people. The laws must therefore be answerable to and made by the people. That is why the Legislature must make the laws. Because the Legislature represents the people; they are elected.

The Courts have a different role; they must ensure that the legislated laws developed by the people fit with the long term structure of the society, as outlined in the Constitution.

For an unelected judge to move into judiciary activism is a violation of democracy because it denies this basic Will of the People. Instead, such a perspective operates within a sense of 'hubris', arrogance, elitism, a sense that the Judge has some special innate attribute of wisdom, lacking in The People that gives the judge alone direct access to Wisdom.

Note that this perspective assumes that there is One Truth, an Essential Truth, and this moves the society into a utopian notion of ultimate purity - as found in communism and fascism or any fundamentalist sect.

Ms Sotemayer is clearly an elitist; she assumes that her genetic identity as a woman, as Hispanic, affects her capacity to reason, and gives her unique and special access to Ultimate Truth. Such a view of cognition is invalid, and such a view of society is the antithesis of democracy.

Posted by: ET at May 28, 2009 10:33 PM

---

Update #2: Rex Murphy shares his thoughts.

---

Update #3: Mark Steyn shares his thoughts:

Re: Empathy vs Activism [Mark Steyn]

Jonah, that's a very good point. "Empathy" seems to me to be defining activism down. I can't say I care for it, but at least "activism" requires a certain art — the ability to detect in 18th-century parchments that a bunch of guys in powdered wigs had cannily provided for partial-birth abortion or gay marriage or whatever. By contrast, "empathy" absolves you of the need to bother with any pretzel-like argument and lets you simply announce your bias, as Judge Sotomayor did in the Ricci case, like the schoolkid who knows the right answer but can't work out how to get to it.

Justice Sotomayor will not be good news for the United States constitution.

05/27 10:24 AM

The Limits of Sotomayorian Empathy [Mark Steyn]

I was interested to see that Sonia Sotomayor was the judge in the New York Times v. Tasini case, a case close to my heart. The authors of various freelance contributions to the Times sued over the paper's subsequent licensing of their writing to electronic databases that then re-sold the pieces to customers for $3.95 per. It was a fairly obvious breach of the 1976 Copyright Act, as well as of the more basic principle that rights not specifically assigned remain with the owner.

Judge Sotomayor cheerfully sided with the Times, a ruling that (as appears to be not uncommon with this jurist) was subsequently overturned at the Supreme Court — 7-2 (with David Souter being among the seven). Despite being a "wise Latina" enjoying all the benefits of "the richness of her experiences," she was sadly unable to empathize with the impoverished writers in their garrets eking out a thin crust from their freelance contributions to the appallingly low-paying Sulzberger GloboCorp Inc.

As I learned during my battles with Canada's "human rights" commissions, almost all "diversity" issues have a "property rights" component. I don't think Justice Sotomayor will be any great friend of the latter. And, alas, there will now be no David Souter to overturn her decisions.

05/27 09:20 AM

Common Sense Prevails in California!

California voters have resoundingly sent a message to the legislators in Sacramento. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's listening. Only time will tell if any of them truly are!

Here are the results from yesterday's 6 proposition votes:

Proposition 1A

Proposition 1B

Proposition 1C

Proposition 1D

Proposition 1E

Proposition 1F

To see how completely out of touch most newspapers are, look at this chart provided by Veronique de Rugy:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - The Who

The United States of America was founded in 1776 because the hard working citizens of what was then a colony of England, grew tired of unaccountable, irresponsible government.

Today Tea Party demonstrations are occurring all over America. These are heartfelt protests against over-taxation by all levels of government. Make no mistake, the protests are also against both the Democrats and the Republicans.

And how does the Obama Administration, purported to be more open to dialogue than ever before, respond? By coordinating with the Homeland Security Department they now control and issuing a new document a few days ago entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment". If you think the timing of this is mere coincidence, you're in more denial than Larry Craig thinking he's straight.

Even some people back in Jolly Olde' England are aware of how insipid this is. Imagine if this were occurring in a different country: A government controlled security agency, with more power than the police, releases a highly politicized report a week before scheduled citizen tax protests, insinuating that some of these protestors may be "Right Wing Extremists". This is the kind of thing that occurs in places like North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and the old USSR and has served as a highly effective way to shut up opponents, even if such opponents are protesting peacefully and democratically.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. 233 years later, Americans are facing a very similar tyranny once again. Scary times ahead.

Liberal Backroom Boys vs. Democracy

Former Ontario politician, John Snobelen, provides an excellent summary of what has occurred recently with LPOT aka the Liberal Party of Toronto aka the Liberal Party of Canada. You can read it in full here but let me share a snippet:

You have to give the Liberals this much -- they are consistent. Whenever Liberals are faced with a choice between democracy and political expedience they go with expedience. Apparently this democracy thing is just too darn unwieldy. It requires consultation, compromise and debate. It takes time and effort. It costs money. Liberals figure it's best to go around all that arduous stuff and just let the backroom boys run the party and potentially the country. Problem is, it seems the backroom is lit by a 10-watt light bulb.

Democracy Denied to Roy Green

Popular talk show host, Roy Green, had something very, very strange happen to him yesterday when he tried to vote in the Quebec provincial election. Will anything be done to resolve the outrageous behaviour of those he dealt with? I think not. Sigh.

Michael Ignatieff: The Liberal Party's New Leader

Michael Ignatieff has been appointed to the top job in the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm not going to dwell on how he got the job because clearly the powers at be were comfortable with the process. Whether Liberal Party members will be so forgiving of the backroom deal that put him in place is TBD.

Looking to the race ahead, I was particularly struck by these comments on the SDA forums:

Ladies and Gentlemen I give you the Leader of the Liberal party... In his own words.

"To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils : indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."

http://www.vigile.net/Lesser-Evils
Lesser Evils
Michael Ignatieff
New York Times Magazine
dimanche 2 mai 2004

Here I am thinking that most of the Liberal party doesn't have a clue about this devil they don't know.

Posted by: Zip at December 9, 2008 11:12 AM

The MSM will have to make the CPC look far-right so that the Liberals will appear to be the center. Get ready for a full assault of the Neo-cons are mean-spirited, nasty, knuckle-dragging, heartless rednecks stories. Articles filled with anonymous sources, sensitive papers found and delivered to the CBC, days upon days of manufactured outrage over one petty issues and an unending parade of "experts" to condemn every CPC initiative. I suspect they will also throw in a lot of region-baiting stories to attempt to demonize the west to gain support in Ontario and the East. That is why the progressive MSM want Harper gone. He has outsmarted them too many times and they would prefer an easier target.

Posted by: lynnh at December 9, 2008 12:03 PM

Let's see. Having failed in a clandestine backroom coup to replace Canada's duly-elected Prime Minister without going to the Canadian electorate, the Liberal Party of Canada has responded by . . . well . . . conducting an INTERNAL clandestine backroom coup to dispose of its own elected leader, the chief knock against whom is that he is a hopelessly out-of-touch academic, and replace him with another hopelessly out-of-touch academic without going to the Liberal Party membership.

Somehow, I don't think that this will play well in a democracy.

Conservatives must stress how this episode exposes the incredible insularity, elitism and Toronto-centrism of the Liberal Party of Canada. For the Liberals, it's all about catering to the ever-changing whims and whispers of the backroom elite in Toronto. This is a political party that has turned its back on its own rank-and-file, just as it has turned its back on ordinary Canadians.

The Tories should be welcoming with open arms those centrist Liberal Party members who are having second thoughts about jumping into an ill-conceived coalition with socialists and separatists on the eve of a Global recession and who want to know just how a Russian aristocrat (I, for one, will be insisting that Count Ignatieff be addressed using his proper title) who has spent the majority of his adult life outside of Canada came to be their party's leader without their vote.

Posted by: Meerschaum at December 9, 2008 12:04 PM

Finally, Stephen LeDrew, president of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1998 to 2003, has some very strong words as well.

While I do not hide the fact that I've long hoped that Stephen Harper and the Conservatives be given the opportunity to have a majority government, I also firmly believe that a democracy is much stronger when it has at least two strong parties. The Liberals are still very much up the creek with a broken paddle mended together with Scotch tape.

Charles Adler & Lorrie Goldstein Discuss the Coalition's Demise

Here's a great discussion about Bob Rae's hypocrisy and the Coalition's demise beginning at 34:00.

The Radical Elites of Toronto

Jonathan Kay offers up an hilarious column exposing U of T elites as the absolute phony, undemocratic thugs that they truly are. Here's one side-splitting snippet:

White, middle-aged, dour, earnest liberal academics are quite outraged that Canadians may still wish to be governed by the government they voted for and will stop at nothing to use their influence to install the coalition of the rejected and bring down the Harper government.

Here is the group photo of elites involved in the recent debate that Kay describes. They may all seem like innocent bureaucrats but each & every one of them is fully prepared to throw away your democracy & mine faster than you can say "Prime Minister Stephane Dion"!

After reading Kay's piece, one cannot help but reflect upon Charles Adler's recent editorial about those "tenured professors". They're one & the same!

Liberal Elites Selling Out Canadian Democracy

If this were a different country, what would be the consequences for those supporting a failed coup d-etat, be it violent or peaceful? In this audio clip, move the slider to 7:00 to listen to Conservative pundit, Norman Spector, and NDP pundit, Bill Tieleman, discuss all that happened last week.

BOTH were vehemently against the Coalition trying to seize power in the manner which it did. And you will hear some VERY interesting things about Peter Mansbridge and Margaret Atwood, two elites who would now be in prison or worse if this were another country or another time. But in peaceful, kind Canada there are no repercussions for what many would describe as traitorous actions.

Here's a sampling of what Spector said:

"I think what you've got here around The Tyee, and you hear them on CBC, and they're full in the universities, are people who think you change governments by trickery or in the streets. It's the same thinking as in Solidarity or in the BC Teachers' Federation that thinks he can go on strike or call it illegally and call it 'civil disobediance'. It's the same kind of stuff. This one has infiltrated all kinds of people, who don't know what they're talking about in terms of constitutional conventions. But this idea that parties have a constitutional right to take power in this country without an election is balderdash! You've got a lot of people posing as constitutional experts, who essentially are political operatives. They don't like Stephen Harper, which is fine, but if you don't like Stephen Harper the way to do it is to win an election against him. I believe the Left should unite. I've written that. But I think they should unite before an election, not go into an election, tell people they're not going to do this and then turn around and do it. That is simply fraud. To get the Governor General to do the dirty work for them is simply outrageous."

Pertinent Quotation

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Coalition's Cap & Trade Plan

There's a critically important fact of the Coalition's plan that has gone under the radar. I first learned of it from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall in an interview with him here. The interview starts at 8:35, but his pertinent comment starts at 9:50.

Premier Wall points out that the Coalition's Cap & Trade plan is to impose absolute limits on emissions, setting them at 1990 levels. He adds that Saskatchewan is about 60% above that now. One can reasonably assume that Alberta and B.C. are similarly way above those 1990 levels.

Do people fully understand what it will require to quickly remove 40% of our emissions? If anyone believes it can be done with "technology" then please:

1. Tell me precisely what technology.
2. How much this will cost each company and each individual.
   

To double check Premier Wall's statement I went right to the Coalition source: http://xfer.ndp.ca/coalition/2008-12-01-PolicyAccord_en.pdf It states:

We will work with our North American Partners to pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute emission targets, using 1990 as the base year.

Why has this not been a headline news story? Why has there not been an investigative story by our mainstream media, showing what the repercussions of this policy would be?

Pre-Rally Thoughts

I read this posting and immediately had these thoughts:

I’m a strong Conservative supporter but I want an election that has only one Coalition candidate per riding facing each Conservative opponent. I concede that such a move would heighten the chances of the Coalition by eliminating vote splitting. Why would I want this? Because it’s long overdue to get resolved the most important question in our country: “Which direction do we want to head?”

Those on the far right have been sure. Those of us on the moderate right have been sure. But everyone left of that has been in LaLaLand about what they want. The only thing they think they’re sure of is that Stephen Harper is an “evil maniac”. And why do they think this? Because they’ve had a beer with him and saw horns growing out of the top of his head? No, it’s because this is the image that the mainstream media has painted for them, day after day, month after month, year after year. And like mindless Sheeple, they've let the brainwashing occur, the propaganda flow directly into their craniums. No questions asked.

I'm tired of disingenuous Coalition supporters stating that 62% of Canadians support the Coalition. I'm tired of phoney university professors, all of whom appear to support either the Liberals or the NDP, exclaiming what a "dangerous precedent" has been set by giving MPs an extended Christmas holiday. Mostly, I'm tired of all of them and their friends & lovers in the mainstream media treating us like chumps, like rubes, like suckers playing a slot machine that has a Coalition member behind, fixing the results each time. Note to you disingenuous con-artists: We have eyes & ears & brains and can look behind your great big PR machine and see what's really going on.

So decision time is near. Not for us on the right. It’s clear how we’ll vote. Rather, it’s time for those on the left to put their money, their livelihoods, and the future of their children on the line and decide whether they REALLY feel that a government run by liberals, socialists, and separatists is in their best interest.

Rally For Canada - Msg from Stephen Taylor

Time is ticking down to the Rally For Canada rallies that will be held from coast-to-coast this Saturday.

================
BRITISH COLUMBIA RALLY LOCATIONS:

VANCOUVER - SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 12PM - LIBRARY SQUARE

VICTORIA - SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 12PM - CITY HALL

KELOWNA - SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 12PM - RUTLAND CENTENNIAL HALL

NANAIMO - SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 10AM - JEAN CROWDER'S OFFICE (77 Victoria Crescent)

COURTENAY - SATURDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 1PM - COAST WESTERLY HOTEL
================

This movement started just days ago in reaction to the backroom attempt by the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc to overturn the results of the last election. The Governor General has granted a "cooling off period" of sorts, but we know that Jack and Gilles will be back at it again soon.

So on Saturday, we rally. We rally so that our voices are heard, so that politicians don't abuse our trust and most importantly, we rally for Canada.

For rally day, let's create a sea of red and white! Wear red and white clothing and bring your Canadian flag and wave it proudly. This is a rally for our amazing country and for the celebration of our democratic principles.

Bring:

• Your family
• Your friends
• Warm red and white clothing
• A Canadian flag
• A non-perishable food item for the food bank or a Christmas gift to be donated to a needy child through the Salvation Army
• A love for Canadian democracy

Do:

• Take lots of pictures and upload them to the web: http://www.flickr.com/groups/962003@N21
• Take video and upload it to Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/group/rallyforcanada
• Provide live updates to the world with your cellphone, iPhone or Blackberry using twitter: http://www.twitter.com/rallyforcanada (#canadarally)
• Update your facebook status on Saturday. Tell your friends that you're going to the rally and tell them where.
  

When we started this movement this week, we had no idea of the overwhelming response that we were about to get. Canadians have a deep rooted love and respect for their democracy and for that we know that this is indeed the True North Strong and Free.

See you on Saturday,
Stephen Taylor
www.rallyforcanada.ca

Positive Signs All Around

Great news is all around us! A new poll by COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research reveals some startling, though not unexpected findings:
If you don't immediately grasp the enormity of 51% support for the Conservatives, then look historically at the Top 10 elections ever in terms of the popular vote:

---

My only hope is that no one takes this strong support for granted! Indeed, the actions of the Coalition have suddenly awoken the Silent Majority. And they're angry, really angry! But the holidays are coming up and then winter sets in. Through it all our corrupt media, lead by CBC News, will be working hand-in-hand with their friends & lovers in the Liberal and NDP parties to unseat the Conservatives. And this past week has showed us all to what extent they'll go and what false rhetoric (remember the 62% nonsense) they're prepared to use in order to unseat the democratically elected Conservatives. If you care about our democracy then I strongly encourage to show up for tomorrow's rallies. It IS imporant!

Lest We Forget

---

Update: I also posted this sign on Facebook. There I received this publicly posted comment:

Chris Swan (Esquimalt Secondary School) wrote
at 11:33am

extreme right wing=facist=people working for the government
extreme left wing=communist=government working for the people
which one sounds more dicitorial?
i think grade 12 history should be manditory in school

---

Mr. Swan is 18 years old, states his political views as "New Democratic Party", belongs to a group called "The Eventual downfall of Capitalism WILL bring about Socialism, eventually", doesn't know how to use a spell checker, and clearly doesn't know a thing about the following countries or care a whit about the people in them:

• China
• North Korea
• Vietnam
• Cambodia
• Tibet
  
• Cuba
• ... and many, many others

THIS IGNORAMUS IS A PRODUCT OF THE B.C. SCHOOL SYSTEM!!!

Andrew Coyne: Notes on a crisis: The End

Andrew Coyne has two words tonight to describe Le Coalition: The End

I have four: Dead In The Water

Another Petition to Consider

Mine made it 206597 in total. Click here if you'd like to add yours too!

Mark Steyn: A Pantomime Horse with 3 Rear Ends

Canada on the brink, cont. [Mark Steyn]

I apologize if this seems a bit arcane to those accustomed to fixed election dates, two-year campaigns and three-month transitions. But what's happening in Canada is shaping up as the biggest constitutional crisis in the country's history. Remember when Jim Jeffords flipped control of the Senate to the Dems because he wasn't invited to the Vermont Teacher Of The Year reception? This is the nuclear version of that.

To recap: the soft left (Liberals), hard left (NDP) and secessionist left (the Bloc Quebecois) have entered into a backroom agreement signed in blood (and with many billions of dollars and Senate seats changing hands) and are leaning on the Governor-General to fire the Conservative Prime Minister and replace the present government with a "coalition" - a misbegotten pantomime horse comprised of three rear ends. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, is contemplating ways to avoid defenestration and will be addressing the nation (I use the term loosely) this evening.

I disagree with David Frum's interpretation of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis and of his characterization of the Queen's view of it. But he's right that this is the relevant precedent. Three decades ago, the Australian Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, fired the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam. Whitlam's first words on being told the news were supposedly: "I must call the Palace." He meant that, if he got through to the Queen in London, he could fire Kerr before Kerr could fire him. Sir John told him it was too late: He'd already spoken to Her Majesty. But Whitlam captured the hard-power reality: It was a question of who got through to Buckingham Palace first - the Governor-General to say he'd fired the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister to demand the Queen fire the Governor-General.

In Canada, Stephen Harper is said to be considering doing for real what only belatedly occurred to Gough Whitlam - having the Queen fire Mme Jean, Canada's vicereine, and replace her with somebody who'd tell the pantomime horse to get lost.

If they're the choices - a constitutional coup by the opposition parties or Harper's proposed solution - serious and lasting damage will be inflicted on Canada's institutions either way. The best way to avoid either option would be if the Liberal leader-in-waiting Michael Ignatieff (former Harvard prof, former BBC talkshow host and former Iraq war supporter) were to decline to support the coup and bring enough fellow Libs along with him.

Otherwise, whatever happens, it's going to be ugly. The "checks and balances" of most free societies operate on a kind of honor system. In the Westminster form of parliamentary monarchy, the important stuff isn't written down: it depends on codes and conventions agreed over the ages. All very gentlemanly - until some thug decides he doesn't care about gentlemen's agreements and drives a truck over the conventions. That's what the three-reared horse is proposing to do.

12/03 05:24 PM