Is Obama About To Sell Out US Sovereignty?

A friend forwarded this video onto me today and it’s worth a viewing folks!

Some notes that I have…

1)Yes, the US Congress would have to ratify any treaty that US President Obama enters into; historians recall Woodrow Wilson’s messy attempt at starting the infamous League of Nations, in which the then-President came back to the States and find that Congress wouldn’t allow the US to join it!

2)No, the treaty isn’t much different from other institutions and treaties the US entered, be it the UN, NATO or NAFTA. The difference, if Lord Monckton is to be believed is that the treaty is specifically designed in order to lock the US into it, which could quite well be a reaction to former President Bush’s removal of the US from previous agreements Bill Clinton set up.

3)Finally, while the US is the focus of this video, shouldn’t we be having more discussion about this treaty and what it means for Canada? On this note, it looks like all of our politicians are failing us by not looking out for our great nation!

---

Matthew Campbell runs Election Target, a free, interactive election prediction website located at www.electiontarget.com.

Fox News v. The White House: Richard Albert for the Win

Over at Politico, our friend Richard Albert takes it to the Obama administration and their, ahem, illegitimate war on Fox News.  Here’s the money line:

Legitimacy is a broad concept that folds within itself dimensions of morality, legality and divinity.

And here’s the clincher:

That Fox News enjoys popular support of such immense breadth and depth suggests that it also enjoys sociological legitimacy- something that the White House risks losing if it retains its antagonistic posture toward Fox News.

I could try to make a supporting argument, but really, y’all should just listen to Richard.

Read the whole thing.

The Marriage Commissioner Hiding Behind Religious Freedom Deserves to Lose His Job…

…just like that racist dirtbag down in Louisiana.

Okay, to recap, in 2007, Orville Nichols, a marriage commissioner in Saskatchewan, lost his fight over his refusal to marry a gay couple.  Tom Cerber wrote in support of Orville Nichols on this web site.  Recently, a Louisiana Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, refused to marry an interracial couple.  Blogger Dr. Dawg noted that there was a lot of outrage by the right over the former, but silence about the latter.  I responded here, but misunderstood his post.  Dr. Dawg was talking about the issue of public servants not doing their jobs; I thought he was directly comparing gay marriage and interracial marriage.

First things firts, dude that doesn’t want to marry an interracial couple should be fired.  I’m not even going to bother justifying that.

Contra Tom, Orville Nichols, too, deserves to lose his job.  I am more sympathetic to his plight, as the nature of his job changed and ran afoul of his religious beliefs.  Nonetheless, he cannot defend his refusal to execute his duties on the grounds of freedom of religion.  It just doesn’t wash.

Keep in mind, we’re not talking about a minister being forced by the government to do something his faith (and, potentially, his employer) deem improper.  We are not talking about someone employed in the private sector being forced by the government to act in contravention of his faith.  We are talking about public servants employed to administer civil marriage unwilling to administer civil marriage.

Civil marriage is, by definition, the domain of the state.  The state has the right to define this institution as it deems appropriate.  In choosing to be an agent of the state, you are choosing to carry out the functions of the state.  Your personal beliefs do not necessarily hold any sway over the duties associated with your employment.

Further, it is a simple fact that the demands of a workforce can change over time.  It is not “fair” that the status of one’s job can change so dramatically as to force one to leave, but such is life.  Mr. Nichols had no reasonable expectation to carry out his duties as he saw fit, the needs of his employer be damned.  If his employer was doing something immoral in sanctioning gay marriage, Mr. Nichols should have acted responsibly and resigned rather than run to a Human Rights Commission to seek protection for his antiquated vision of what his job should be.

No one has the right to a specific job.  Sure, we may have the right not to have our potential for employment unfairly hampered, but we have laws and regulations to dictate what is reasonable and what is not reasonable in our dealings with our employers.  If Saskatchewan’s labour code is anything like Ontario’s, Mr. Nichols probably could have claimed constructive dismissal and walked away from his job with several weeks termination pay.  (Though it would have been more fair for the government to offer a transition period for marriage commissioners to continue working while they sought other employment.)

Putting aside the issue of gay marriage, Mr. Nichols has no right to demand that the state bend to his will and to his will alone.  Public policy is created by our democratic institutions, not a cantankerous marriage commissioner.

Tim Hudak Is Successfully Defining 2011!

Opposition really stinks, as the federal Liberals are finding out these days. It’s even worse for parties that were in power for a longer period of time;just ask the Ontario Tories in the late 80s after they had a 42-year run ended. The problems don’t just stop at the fact that you no longer make the policy or get the big offices, but also because you’re practically ignored by the media, especially during a majority government and especially at the provincial level.

Tim Hudak, who won the Ontario PC leadership this past June, has so far impressed me by indicating, through his actions, that he’s been around long enough to know these challenges and their solutions too! While Michael Ignatieff was dogged all summer with reports that he wasn’t hitting the road and meeting the grassroots of his party, Hudak was. Various community newspapers were peppered with stories during the summer about just who this new, young leader was. In other words, Hudak was defining himself!

Now that the Ontario Legislature is back in session, Hudak has used that momentum to define the McGuinty Liberals. Unlike previous party attempts, Hudak has targeted the bread and butter issues that will most resonate with people: the HST implementation and the e-Health/OLG scandals (say “AdScam” everyone!).

The former, while an interesting issue in that many PC Party members will support a harmonized tax to some degree, has been successfully cast as the “Dalton Sales Tax” by many of the party’s MPPs. It also is an issue that Hudak is wisely building up now, but not too much! This is smart politics — when the HST, Hudak has made himself the defacto spokesman of the backlash forces that the media will turn to.

As for the scandals that have rocked McGuinty, Hudak’s announcement that calls for a public inquiry is only being delayed by the Liberals because they saw what a similar inquiry with a similiarly corrupt scheme did to their federal cousins about six years ago! The consistent and continued calls though will dog the government so long as this issue remains at the forefront of provincial political coverage (and McGuinty has done nothing to help his team by keeping the legislative agenda a ho-hum one at best!).

It’s therefore good to see that Ontario has an Opposition leader that truly opposes; who will go out on a limb to define himself but is smart in picking his battles. This will go a long way to telling us how the 2011 election campaign will play out; both HST and e-Scam will be on the agenda. As for Hudak, his next move will likely be to build up a team for that campaign, and then build up an alternative vision of how Ontario should be governed. Time will tell how this will look, but so far this blogger likes what he sees!

The Conservatives Deserve to Pay For This… a Little

Apparently, some MPs, when they’re handing out government cheques to fund projects in their riding, like to give all credit to the party and none to the country:

Caught red-handed, the Conservatives have hurriedly disavowed an MP who splashed the party’s logo on mock cheques dispensing government funds to a local riding.

But the MPs are free to doctor the cheques in other ways, the government insists.

The misadventure lends credence to opposition concerns that the Conservatives are using stimulus funds and other government spending for partisan purposes, having campaigned against exactly those shenanigans.

This isn’t a huge deal.  It’s mostly just politics as usual… except people like Gerald Keddy didn’t have enough shame or good sense to try to hide it.  I’m not trying to excuse the behaviour; it’s pretty awful and Canadians should be disgusted.  No government should use the public’s money for such blatant partisan purposes.  However, kept in perspective, this scandal, in and of itself, is not sufficient to rightfully doom the Harper government.

Still, if there is any justice, Gerald Keddy’s political career should be nearing an end.

(H/T: Richard.)

Gays, Blacks, Whites and Silence

Dr. Dawg has a post up at his blog noting that a number of different conservative blogs were decrying gay marriage, but none were displaying the appropriate disgust for the Louisiana Justice of the Peace, Keith Bardwell, who would not marry interracial couples.  He calls out this post here at ThePolitic.  Though I didn’t write it, I hope Tom won’t mind me responding with a few thoughts.

First, I might suggest that the reason for this apparent silence is because miscegenation is not a big issue right now.  There was no equivalent to prop 8 seeking an injunction against interracial marriage.  Further, in Canada if not in the Bayou, the question of interracial marriage is, essentially, settled.  The courts may feel that the issue of gay marriage is settled, but anyone paying attention would no that it isn’t.  So, gay marriage is topical and, thus, better fodder for a blog post.

Second, perhaps people like Tom feel that outcries against interracial marriage are so self-evidently wretched that they need not be refuted.  Perhaps he thinks that no one who reads ThePolitic needs to be reminded of this.  Such an analysis may not be correct, but it is, nonetheless, reasonable.

Finally, though we post on a lot of non-Canadian issues (my very first post was on Australian domestic policy), ThePolitic is, still, a predominantly Canadian blog (perhaps with some ex-pats).  Granted, Tom Cerber is not: he’s a Dutch guy who was writing from Laos.  It’s not unreasonable for us to be unaware (or pay little attention) to an issue that pertains to the state of Louisiana.  Further, Tom is not even contributing to ThePolitic anymore, so to call out ThePolitic for hypocrisy is not particularly fair.

All that aside, I think there is a valid point buried in the good Doctor’s post.  It is easy for bloggers (and pundits and people in general) to ignore stories that do not fit their particular narrative (even if they do not contradict that narrative).  It is good to break from such blogging routines (whether the routine is intentional or not).  It is also important to challenge those with whom we tend to agree on such issues.  Echo chambers are great for creating echoes.  They’re lousy for creating policy.

By the way, in case I didn’t make it sufficiently clear, I agree with our canine physician.  There is nothing wrong with interracial marriage and anyone who says otherwise is a disgusting racist and a contemptible human being.  I hope Justice of the Peace David Duke gets fired from his job and shamed by his community (though embraced if he realizes his sin and honestly repents).

Oh, and by the way, Dr. Dawg, I agree with you that gay marriage should be legal.

Republicans Are Making a Mistake With Obama Concerns

There’s a saying I’m sure that we’ve all heard, “It’s not what you say but how you say it!” and that we’re all too familiar with. In addition, those of us who are familiar with politics know that a lot of what wins campaigns, both during the husslings and in the off-season is momentum. In an abstract way, both truths can be very useful for Republicans (and their libertarian-minded allies) at this team in President Obama (D)’s first term. It’s not that the concerns that are being brought up by groups like the Oath Keepers don’t have merit as numerous stories have come out over the past ten months to suggest that the Obama administration might be a tad interested in bending the rules if they can get away with it. In fact, the White House has a tendency these days to be it’s own worst enemy by publicly displaying its trade secrets. If politicians are willing to admit control, how much deeper does the plot go?

We have to be mindful of these communication trip-ups though as they are a reminder of the real reason that Obama is currently flirting with his predecessor’s low mark in the opinion polls and, more importantly, why the reaction my the civil liberties-minded Americans these days are an over-reaction. Upon nearing the first anniversary of Obama’s election, the President has continued to impress every fair-minded individual with his talent for rhetoric; he’s no Reagan but he can certainly light up a crowd. The other emerging truth of the 44th administration is that, as a group, there hasn’t been as much potential for a PR meltdown since Jimmy Carter’s days. Put specifically, Obama (and his handlers) will undo himself before he is able to establish himself as any sort of dictator.

The danger in the path towards sounding the alarm against Obama isn’t that it won’t work, or that it won’t contribute to Obama’s eventual falling out with the American public; it’s that it will weaken what comes after. Civil libertarians and conservatives today serve as the defenders of the original constitutional framework in the United States; the public knows this and, for the most part, will notice whenever they pipe up as they did last year by voting for Obama in the first place. However, if this group makes a mountain out of Obama’s molehill, it will eventually weaken their argument when someone more capable at manipulating the information-driven media comes along. Again, it’s not that the attitudes of these freedom fighters is wrong, just the degree to which they are acting upon it.

Going back to the momentum idea that I brought up at the beginning here, a wiser strategy for the libertarians going forward might be to just sit back and enjoy the show. Sure, make sure that the idea that Obama is just a little too controlling for comfort stays in the public eye, but remember that at the same time, he’s not implementing 1930s Germany or even 1930s America at this point. If that point should come under his presidency, by all means, speak up! However, to take such drastic action now will only marginalize such a warning bell when a serious threat to America’s constitution comes along.

---

Matthew Campbell is webmaster of Election Target, an interactive site devoted to predicting election results and providing global election content.

U.S. War Deserter Should Stay in Canada

No, I don’t mean Rodney Watson, nor do I mean Kimberly Rivera.  I have little time for the pleas of those who join a volunteer army and then desert to avoid being a soldier.

I’m talking about Pte. Bethany Smith, now known as Skylar James.  Ms. James, gainfully employed in Ottawa, is a lesbian who willing joined the U.S. Army, adhering to the ludicrous Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Sadly, her fellow soldiers felt no such compunction, and outed her.  She has since been subjected to harassment and death threats.

And, considering what happened to Barry Winchell, I’d be wary of being dismissive of those threats.

Ms. James played by the rules.  She joined the army, “didn’t tell”, and planned on serving her country.  Unfortunately, her country failed her.  The Army, according to policy (and basic human decency), owes her a discharge.  Her superiors said they’ll take care of the paperwork after she returns from her tour… after she is shipped to Afghanistan to serve with people who, it is reasonable to believe, might seek her death.

But for now, she is in Canada.

It is bad enough that the U.S. Army has a de facto discriminatory policy.  It is bad enough that they treat homosexuals as lesser citizens, whose service to country is devalued.  Beyond all that, they actively and tacitly support the subjugation and malicious imperilment of these people.  They need to address this matter and, finally, allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality while serving their country.

Until they do, it is Canada’s duty to protect those whose worth the United States has callously discarded.

(Note:  This post has been edited to correct an error in Ms. James’ name.)

What about Parliamentary Supremacy?

The only reason any Westminster system requires the services of a “supreme court” is to satisfy the condition of Locke’s separation of powers doctrine that there be a “Federative” branch of government to adjudicate disputes between different levels of government. With news today that HM The Queen has formally opened The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, devolution, at least, as taken a significant next step toward a respectable form of federalism.

Unfortunately, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, like The Supreme Court of Canada, is now a court with the insidious pretence that its justices are not political actors, be they now the wiser appointed and benign overlords of all the realm. As the website of the court now, boldly, proclaims:

Courts are the final arbiter between the citizen and the state, and are therefore a fundamental pillar of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom’s senior Judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasising the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts.

In August 2009 the Justices moved out of the House of Lords (where they sat as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords) into their own building on the opposite side of Parliament Square. They will sit for the first time as a Supreme Court in October 2009.

The impact of Supreme Court decisions will extend far beyond the parties involved in any given case, shaping our society, and directly affecting our everyday lives.

For instance, in their previous role as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, the Justices gave landmark rulings on the legality of the Hunting Act 2004 under European law, and whether or not a schoolgirl could be prevented from wearing traditional cultural dress.

Since Magna Carta, the High Court of Parliament, as it were, has been—and let us hope it remains—the final arbiter between the “citizen” and the state. Consider that a “citizen” is a “citizen” explicitly because he is the “subject” of a State. And “subjects,” being subjects of limited means in comparison to the state, can readily be subjected to the injustices, intentional or not, of that state.

What The United Kingdom has lost is far greater than any advance for federalism would have warranted. It has lost the explicit recognition—at the very top, anyway—that adjudicating the law is always part and parcel of legislating the law.

It was for this reason that John Locke held the Legislative branch of government to be supreme over all others. What we call Parliament was a necessary public conversation between the Executive and those who write the law as well as interpret the law. Take one aspect out of the mix and you will get power run amuck; so much for the balancing act that a separation of powers doctrine is meant to provide.

But, anymore, few learned men consider reading Locke a worthy endeavour. For whatever reason—maybe the American revolution and the cultural dominance of The United States—Montesquieu’s formulation of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government wins wider popular recognition; those who understand the consequences of putting his formulation into practice a much smaller constituency.

It was to temper “legislating from the bench” that, for centuries, by the Law Lords sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the justice system of The United Kingdom tipped its hat toward Parliament. Being part of Parliament, the fact that the decisions of the Law Lords carried political consequence, that the adjudication of justice can, indeed, be effected by the idiosyncratic disposition and perspective of the adjudicators was lost on no one. The final court of appeal avoided even the appearance of being oracular.

New Labour seems to prefer change for the sake of change, especially when trying to win respectability for its love of big government. This is certainly not the first time it has looked across the pond and adopted the worst, the intellectually laziest, that Canada has to offer; be it the incoherent cult of “multiculturalism,” or, now, the larger, the more significant evolutions of our own constitutional history.

The Faulty Economics of Ethanol and Carbon Capture

The Gazette does a great job of outlining the ridiculous notion that ethanol fuel is going to do anything positive for the environment:

In fact, we believe the whole push for ethanol – produced mainly from corn in Canada – will bring no actual reductions in total greenhouse gas emissions, but will cost taxpayers $2.2 billion in federal subsidies, plus more from provinces, especially Ontario.

[...]

Even E10 is shaping up as a waste: Last year a detailed study for the C.D. Howe Institute found that ethanol support is “misguided” government policy; that the cost per tonne of GHG reduction through ethanol is about seven times higher than the cost of practical alternative emission-reduction policies, and that in fact there is no “conclusive evidence” that ethanol does any good against GHG, once the whole production cycle is considered.

Billions of taxpayer dollars are being pored into an obvious “sinkhole” and then next big sinkhole slowing opening in front of our eyes – carbon capture:

If capturing and storing industrial carbon emissions is to succeed as a climate change strategy, Alberta and the federal government will have to provide as much as $3 billion a year for an undetermined length of time, says a provincial report released today.

Personally, I would like to know what their measure of success would be?  3 Billion a year investment on a unproven technology to fight a unproven problem – boondoggle here we come…

« Previous Page — Next Page »