The Wildrose Balanced Budget and Savings Act

Well done Wildrose.   Pledge #1 is a great start.

You can't spend more than you make.  You can borrow the money but you pay a penalty.  Keep on spending and before you know it, the interest exceeds your capacity to pay it down.  If that happens you go broke.

Everybody knows this.  Everyone except the Progressive party.

Danielle Smith has pledged the Wildrose Government to Balance the Budget.  At the same time they plan to  grow a Heritage Fund by over 200 billion in the next 20 years.  Spending will be pegged to population growth.

They call it "The Wildrose Balanced Budget and Savings Act."  It's like Ralph Klein is back.

The Progressive Conservative party in it's glory days actually passed a law prohibiting deficits.  After steadily increasing spending they managed to double it in the last 9 years.  Now the Progressives had to go as far as to repeal their own deficit law to keep funding their spending habit.  Their deficit itself is an arbitrary number since the progressives have looted the sustainability fund.    That was formerly impossible since it was illegal to drain the fund unless the province was in an illegal deficit.

Only Progressives can manage this.  Only they can break their own laws and call it good.  They blamed the recession for the deficit.  The recession was made worse by their own Resource Royalty Regime scheme which drove scarce capital out of the province.  Now with Oil back at record highs what is their excuse?

The sustainability fund was created for a rainy day.  This rainy day is the PC Party itself.

There is no excuse for the looting and borrowing going on around here.  Allison Redford herself "sat" on a committee she didn't even know existed  and collected money for doing exactly nothing.  This party oversaw funding to activists making Anti-Alberta propaganda films.  That is just the tip of it.  Read the full Pledge Document.  Page 6 has billions more in wasteful PC spending.

How much waste does there have to be before you say enough is enough?  Do you trust them enough not to raise taxes because of it?  The PC party promised not to raise taxes right after they raised property taxes.  I don't want any of that.  I don't want a National Energy Boondoggle.  I don't want anymore PC Party.

I want the The Wildrose Balanced Budget and Savings Act.  Vote Wildrose!

Nice Wheels!

Oh come on now.  You were all thinking it. 

It's still worth a chuckle though.  I could see it as Lady Gaga's next outfit I'm sure. 

Oh well.  Better this than raising taxes to finance pre-election blitzes, budget commercials and do-nothing committees.  Not to mention an inexcusable deficit and the fattest least efficient government in the history of Confederation.  

Alison Redford should dream that this would be the worst of her problems.

VOTE WILDROSE!  Alberta's only conservative party. 

The Power of Incrementalism

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

How did the Western World get upside down?  How did our governing systems get so stupid and so morally wrong?  How does the greatest civilization in the history of the known universe tuck in on itself and implode?  I suspect you know the answer.

Incrementalism.

Incremental nudges.  Nudge: that's their word. Cass Sunstien's word to be specific but the left follows this tactic.  It's a real tactic that they talk about and use to excellent effect.  It isn't new either.  It has been at work for decades.  Faster when liberals and socialists like Trudeau or Obama are in control.  Slower, but still at work when progressives take the reins.  

That is how we find ourselves now.  Coasting on the momentum of freer times.  Mark Styne is the eminent chronicler of Western decline and I suggest you read "After America" if you want more details.  

I want to bring your attention to one area in particular: Capital Punishment.  Tori Stafford's killers immediately come to mind in addition to Paul Bernardo, Robert Picton, and of course Russel Williams.  We know why these people weren't executed.  July 14th 1976 saw Bill - C84 narrowly pass.  130 for, 124 votes against.

If you look closer though, there was an incremental run up to that decision.  It started with Liberal PM Pearson and ended with Liberal PM Trudeau.  They implemented policy decisions and temporary moratoriums for over a decade until it was finally abolished.  It didn't happen overnight.

Even then, the military was excluded from that.  Military courts martials could still execute criminals.  The incremental spread of leftist decay progressed like a gangrene infection.  Liberal PM Jean Chretien abolished capital punishment for even the Military in 1998.  Russel Williams owes his continued existence to Jean Chretien.

Incrementalism is slow but powerful.  It's extremely powerful.  Continents move only inches a year, yet they raise mountains.  Those same mountains are worn down again year after year by wind and rain.  Flood plains are delivered silt until they are just prairies.  Glaciers carve out valleys and then vanish.  All the while species of life come and go.  If there is one thing you need to take away form this post its that incremental changes in one direction build up to humongous effect.   Incrementalism works.   

It works and it has been used against us by a semi-organised left.  They are guided by entropy and a near universal loathing for the universe as it is and what is good about it.  It's as if they believe can change the laws of nature just by lying or distracting or rephrasing.  We neither wish nor deserve the collective lesson they are bringing down on us.  We need to turn it around.

Imagine for minute if Chretien had been thwarted?  Imagine if problems of procedure and protocol were used to delay Chretien and it was supplemented by hysterical misdirection.  Imagine Chretien never got around to abolishing capital punishment for the military?

Russel Williams might be hanging from a rope if Chretien never abolished capital punishment.  Now apply Incrementalsim in our favor.  With Williams executed, how much stronger would the case for executing all the other monsters be?  It would be very strong indeed. 

The enemy would rally of course.  They would defend their heinous murderers as if they were the innocents they had slain. 

Incrementalism would still work.  We could sidestep overwhelming opposition and implement assisted suicide for the worst criminals for example.  Notice how the left would want that reserved for grandma, the unborn, and even new born babies?  It really is evil that we are dealing with here.  You can see the difference between left and right when you mix euthanasia with capital punishment.  They fight for the condemned, and sacrifice the innocent. 

(Just watch you don't confuse the stupefied leftists with pure evil.  Its a cumulative effect.  They aren't evil, they just need to see the big picture and in some cases have their priorities and goals readjusted.)

In short Incrementalism can work for us too.  It has proven utility in conjunction with the Overton Window.  It can be used to push back the green menace and all the other social ills cultivated by the left.  Witness how its been able to turn wrong into right.  It is a winning strategy.  The Magna Carta culminated incrementally in our free society.  Support the incremental moves this government is able to make.  Patience and foresight is key.  Know that this is the way to a sane world.

Rethinking the F-35

Uncle Obama isn't the only one with a state of the art fighter jet under development.  Take a look at the new photos of the secret Chinese J-20.

I doubt we'll ever meet China in combat again.  How long before they start selling these to Iran or Syria?  F-18's are fine against the Taliban, but we might find ourselves on the short end of the technological advantage some day soon.

Would China sell us some of these?  It's a fair question.  The real benefit to asking it is to make our traditional suppliers think twice about playing monopoly-like price games with our defense needs.   Perhaps we could just buy the J-20 fuselage and custom fit our own electronics and engines into it?

I'm glad there is new debate around the F-35 purchase.  It was a purchase made by a previous Liberal government without and open bid.  In reality there was a competition but it was for a NATO Joint strike fighter.  It looked great on paper.  We are supposed to get an advanced fighter at a great price thanks to economies of scale.  A real work horse.

I wasn't opposed to the fighter purchase when it was declared and I haven't been opposed to it before.  It looks like the terms have changed however.  I'm still not opposed in fact, but that doesn't mean I can't change my mind.  The Government has the right to change its mind.  It should reconsider when the manufacturer changes the particulars of what was originally agreed to.

This is beyond politics.  This is the national interest.  Some will try to make political hay out of it.  Let them.  "Now you say this but before you said that!"  As if what the government has to say is the only variable.  Only a fool would deliberately make a mistake to avoid unfair criticism from a hostile opposition.

Give it some serious thought by all means.  What conditions need to be met before cancelling?  What are the alternatives and how much will they cost?  Are there any new alternatives?

What Andrew Coyne should have wrote

If Andrew Coyne didn't hate conservatives, this is the article he would have wrote:  Canada's Stephen Harper: Radical?

Last weekend I wrote a post in response to Coyne's disingenuous article slamming the Conservative Party for doing rather unconservative things in Minority.  He never mentions that those were the most conservative decisions politically possible at the time.  They are history and a matter of public record.

I was challenged by my readers that day to write a post directly refuting Coyne's complaints.  My comments were full of advise on what I should have wrote.  The trouble is, I don't care for their advise.  Coyne was right for the most part.  It's true that he lies by omission.  He also made 3 direct and eloquent lies in his poisonous admonishment.  

Niel Edmonson points out:

Last week I caught Andrew Coyne fibbing about the Conservative party. He claimed in a column that the Conservatives said OAS was in imminent danger of "collapse". I called BS, he acknowledged the error (but didn't correct it, as per standard Canadian media practice). See my Twitter timeline for details.
The Conservatives came to power Jan 23 2006. The fiscal year ends March 31. The last fiscal year of Liberal government ending March 31 2006 saw spending of $220.5 billion dollars (www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/govt48b-eng.htm). The most the Harper government spent in one year was in fiscal 2011: $274 billion (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/cp-rc/2009-2010/cp-rc02-eng.asp). Spending has come down since then and will come in this year at about $250 billion.
274 billion minus 220 billion is 54 billion. Harper increased spending by this much at most; how does Coyne report it? "having increased spending by nearly $70-billion since taking office." That's a pretty big error for a London School of Economics grad to make. Worse, Canada's population growth and inflation under Harper make Coyne's fib even bigger.
Coyne claims the Conservatives added "$150-billion to the national debt". The real number is about $75 billion, see www.debtclock.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=42 . There are somewhat understandable (but still unpalatable) reasons why the Conservatives did that but it's beyond the scope of this comment.
Coyne said that the Conservatives raised spending by 7% a year. If that were the case they'd be spending well over $300 billion annually after 6 years in power. In fact, spending this year will be $250 billion.
Coyne pulls numbers and quotes out of his ass to bash the Conservatives and he does it on a consistent basis. The Rule of Coyne is divide whatever he says by 2 to get the real number.
Harper and company have in fact increased spending by far too much and there is no need to make up facts to prove that point.

(h/t  SDA)

So everyone agrees.  The Conservative Party has involuntarily drifted.  It was the result of hard fought political battles.  Battles that were won at a heavy cost.  The wounds have not fully healed yet either.

Coyne is not here for the healing.  Coyne is here to demoralize Conservative supporters and suppress them.  He is an unwelcome parasite to our common cause.  He speaks our language and knows our views, but uses this to destroy, not to build.

People who were disappointed with my post, seem to have missed the point.  Coyne was not wrong even if he did lie occasionally.  The Point is that Andrew Coyne hates the Conservative Party.  The point is that Andrew Coyne cannot be a conservative if he advocates for higher or new taxes. The fact that he proudly votes Liberal is a side point here.  Its the diaper that comes with the bastard baby.

I want to make this absolutely clear.  A person who wants to reduce spending but increase taxes is a progressive.  Whatever logic they use, it is not conservative logic. It is progressivism, that catchall listener friendly replacement word for socialism.  Higher taxes and their imagined revenue are the precursor to whatever perceived emergency demands higher spending in the future.

Surplus and deficit pivot on an arbitrary break even point governed by spending and revenue.  Starving the beast, cutting taxes, insures the pursuit of government efficiency and lower spending.  Surplus and deficit are as arbitrary as the break even point itself but a commitment to lower taxes brings the burden and size of government down in the long run.  It must, or face ruin.

Emergency spending may come and go that temporarily drives spending into deficit.  An unexpected car repair for example could put you personally into deficit for a time.  The Coyne answer is to demand a raise from the boss.  The people of this country are the boss and when the government asks for more we have to say "NO, SPEND LESS."  We all know there is plenty of waste in government.  We must be resolute as people and politicians that there cannot and will not ever be an increase in taxes.  Enough is enough.

Whatever emergencies have transpired n the past, the Harper Government has committed to lower spending and lower taxes.  There is always more to do.  There is always good conservative policies that will be enacted in the future.  Does last week's flat tire affect today's driving?  Why should the battles of the past haunt this bright future of ours? 

Already the Long Gun registry is gone and the Wheat Board is gone.  The deficit is shrinking ahead of schedule. The economy is strong and stable.  I'm confident that Stephen Harper has not only done a great job but will do an even better one now that the yoke of minority parliament has been lifted.

Hidden in the next big deal

Pierre Poutine is still unknown.  Many objective people agree that there is probably media and opposition collusion at work.

The legacy media have brought this distrust and suspicion on themselves.  Nobody has any reason to believe it was a pro-conservative rouge spoiler any more than it was a member of the anti-conservative media.  The fact remains that this faux scandal, like all those before it, is driven by hatred and devoid of substance.

The narrative, pushed by Andrew Coyne and company, is that conservatives are dirty cheaters.  Conservatives reading this recognize that this narrative can only work with the mob that already hates them.

The other narrative, the compelling narrative, where conservatives are the victims of baseless accusations and fraudulent tricks wouldn't be so believable if there wasn't a stack of examples to prove it.  It's led me to postulate that Pierre Poutine of Separatist Street was not a conservative.

The name itself is obviously not a real name but it has deliberate clues left in it.  Pierre Poutine's is a local restaurant in Guelph and it suggests a sort of mockery of a separatists culture.  Pierre has made it very difficult to be found after launching his sophisticated election crimes.  A random name would have been better, but' Pierre Poutine' was chosen by the perpetrator.  I don't believe it was an accidental slip of bigotry.  It's out of place for this slippery criminal.  I believe it was intentional bigotry aimed at smearing the mark further.

The timing of this faux scandal is still suspicious; immediately after vikileaks died down.

Now you have the story that Pierre Poutine was about to come forward.  He never came forward.  One can suppose that Pierre is now known to EC.  The fact that no information has yet been leaked suggests that there is no information that could harm conservatives.  If you live under a rock you may not know that many faux scandals have been started by EC leaks, not to mention a strange determination to prosecute the CPC while letting other parties off the hook on a regular basis.  The most recent example is that of the Liberal MP in Guelph breaking election laws while making robocalls of his own.  He isn't being charged.

We should remember that this is all just conjecture in line with competing narratives.  Pierre Poutine may not be known to anyone yet.  It wouldn't surprise me if the IP led nowhere.  IPs can be masked.  Imagine EC detectives descending on your house and demanding a confession. Seizing your computers even?  Scary.


Nevertheless, if Pierre Poutine in fact incriminated the media, the opposition or left wing groups like Occupy then you would expect the same hostile media and EC to bury the story.  He could also be lawyered up to the gills.  An incriminating IP by itself is going to be a hard sell in a court.

So watch for the next big deal.  Something to do with Israel lets say or Iran.  I would not be surprised if Pierre Poutine is identified and quietly forgiven by EC on the back pages once this stupid little faux scandal is forgotten.

UPDATE:  Kelly McParland shows there is hope yet for media.  (h/t BC Blue)

The Voice of Progressives

Andrew Coyne has always been anti-conservative.  I want to say that he was part of the Progressive that was cut out from the Progressive Conservatives but that doesn't really fit.  He went after Mulroney like a dog for a bone and kept licking long after it lost all its flavour.  I'm sure you've heard of the self-loathing liberals, well as near as I can tell Mr. Coyne is a self-loathing progressive.

His views speak for themselves.  He wants a national carbon tax for example.  He is unwavering in that wish.  He's a progressive.  A liberal that likes blue.  Only this liberal loves blue when nobody else does.

Read this lecture of his from his bully pulpit at a paper I formerly enjoyed.  Somehow its seems to have gone downhill since Andrew Coyne arrived.  He looks to be somehow channeling Ron Paul.  For a progressive he is adept waging the holier-than-thou conservative finger in your face.

We need that finger in fact.  It's easy to get lost in the labyrinth of day to day politics.  From Steven Taylor and the NCC, I salute. -but from Andrew Coyne?  Umm no.  May as well invite Pat Martin for instructions.

I'm sure you are aware Ron Paul's role in the Republican primary.  It's a particularly useful role for progressives.  It defuses fiscal conservative arguments by proving that there is a limit fiscal conservatism.  It's true: there is a limit.  We do need government.  We do need taxes.  We do need a military.  Etc...  Everybody recognizes this vocally or not.

The trick is that there are ideological axioms that are taken as undisputed truth.  These, like Karl Marx or the environmental movement can be twisted to rationalize anything.  Unfortunately this includes the libertarian principals that are the underpinning of conservatism.  There are libertarian arguments for legalizing prostitution, hard drugs, privatizing the military, even legalizing worse and perverted things.  These are not Conservative ideals.

Progressives have recognized this.  It's the same tactic used against them.  Progressive conservatives don't see themselves as socialists but they see themselves as everything else associated with progressiveness.  They are the elite who understand what's best and want to use the new discoveries in political thought to evolve government nearer to the heart's desire.  They are predisposed to accept socialist ideas when  repackaged as new and nuanced.     

Everyone should recognize that progressives and liberals are two sides of the same coin.  What they have learned, and you see this coming from Liberals too, is that you can always make a more conservative argument to any policy.

That is all they need to do.  They need to raise the doubt that a party or a person has the most conservative views.  Once they get someone explaining why they took the most sensible option, it opens the door to walk the argument all the way back to progressive ideas.  This is how Ron Paul helps Mitt Romney.  This is how Andrew Coyne helps himself.

RP doesn't mean to help MR but Coyne is both ends in one.  I don't think he is actually libertarian but knows the arguments well enough to say: see you should be progressive too.

That's even ok in a way.  You have your opinions.  You like being progressive.  Good for you, fine, whatever.  With Coyne though there is something else.  It's that self-loathing elite thing.  They consider themselves above the rest and despise what they have in common with the non-elites.

He loathes non-progressives.  He loathes the Conservatives.  I've been reading Coyne for years in Maclean's, on The National, on twitter, and recently in the National Post.  If you have too, then you also know that he can't stand Stephen Harper or the CPC.

His bio on twitter is: crap journalist

Agrees with me right?  Nah.  Progressive.  He thinks he's an institution.

The case of the Robocall faux scandal is instructive.  Andrew Coyne was out front inflating the story.  As the flame was put to the dry tinder of piled Harper hatred in the media, Coyne distinguished himself among them.  Twitter trends began to appear like #robocall or #robogate, but Coyne wanted them to be called #robocon.  He tried really hard to trend it.  If he didn't coin the term I'll bet he feels like he did.  The con in robocon suggests who?  Coyne knows how to push a narrative.

Look at a few examples:


See that.  Its just robo-spamming for the NDP and it's "in no way comparable to #robocon."  This implies the NDP had no part in "#robocon" when actually nobody knows.




So according to Coyne the government looks into OAS as distraction to the robocall smear.  Incredible.  He's no fool.  He knows it isn't.  Coyne is part of the problem: the media dirty tricks.

Andrew Coyne is not a conservative.  Not a small c conservative and certainly not big C conservative.  His own words:


He doesn't disagree.  He agrees with Liberals and voted for them.  How is that for principles?

Folks, he's not a friend of the conservative movement.  He's not against Canada but he doesn't realize its more fragile than it seems.  The only reason he's behind things like defunding the CBC is because he's betting the Conservatives won't do it.  You know that if they cut the CBC 50% he'll complain it wasn't 60%.  If you cut it 100% he'll complain you didn't liquidate it.  Cut the CBC because its the right thing to do.  Let Andrew Coyne explain himself to his progressive friends forever. 

Pierre Poutine: the smear within a smear

When this faux scandal started, I didn't know what to think.  Maybe some idiot did something dirty to "help" the CPC?  How was I to know?  How was anyone to know?  All we had were baseless accusations and mass generated complaints from the left's smear engines.   

I focused on the absurdity of the crime. On twitter I cracked jokes about the weakness of the left wing mind.  I recommended a higher protein diet which would not only strengthen the resolve of a robocall victim but also increase the resistance to left wing arguments to begin with.

Then we found out who ordered the robocalls.  Pierre Poutine.  Now I am strongly suspicious that is a setup by the left.  A rogue operative who was tuned in enough to order a sophisticated voter suppression campaign would buy a burner phone with a pseudonym that further harms the good name of the CPC?  It doesn't add up.

The CPC is hypersensitive of the smears they are already accused of.  They would never make an insulting affront to Quebec culture this way.  Pierre Poutine from Separatist Street indeed.  No other party would be as damaged by this name as the CPC.  The burner phone was meant to be found.  Else why use a burner phone?

"Aha!  The Quebec Haters!"  That is the reaction Pierre Poutine was intended to incite.   Pierre Poutine is a smear within a smear.  This faux scandal is a Russian doll of dirty politics practiced by the left everywhere.         
Think it through.  Imagine you were a rogue election spoiler.  Once this thing blows up, they are going to find the phone.  You could choose a generic name that means nothing.  Joe Smith from 2012 Young Street  Ontario.  Whoever did this, tried instead to put smoke in the gun.  They used a name which suggests the Torys; the arch enemy of the Separatists.  If he/she wanted to pin it on the NDP he/she would have used maybe Jack Layton (and the NDP would correctly make this exact argument). 

That is why I don't buy this whole thing.  It's too cute by half, as they say.  Pierre Poutine, if he was really pro CPC, would be paranoid in the extreme of getting caught.  A person this crafty just isn't going to leave hints to his identity unless it was intentional misdirection. 

Furthermore the moniker Pierre Poutine implies some projection as well.  The person who did this is external to the CPC.  A person internal to the CPC would know how important it is to win Quebec (someday).  An external person unintentionally projects their imagination onto the CPC.  I'm sure they imagine rooms filled with cigar smoke where men with their feet on the furniture laugh about poking Quebeckers in the eye.  That's the narrative.  It makes no sense that the CPC would play to it.

The timing also bugs me.  Why now?  Why not immediately after the election?  Why not in January?  I think I know why not.  The honeymoon is over.  The enemy waited until the Government screwed up on its own.  Bill C30 had true conservatives calling out the CPC.  That played out so now its time for Robocall.

Without a shred of proof the left deployed their well oiled smear engines in an attempt to delegitemize the duly elected government.  Andrew Coyne leading the parade.  Media and Politicians slandered with impunity.  Never ask for perspective from legacy media.  It's sensation that sells, so they think.

Which is the bigger scandal? Some unidentified rogue player in the election attempted to misdirect a few thousand voters?  Or is it that some rogue player, the media, and the left wing parties jumped at the chance to fraudulently overturn a free and fair election.  One that they just happened to lose?  Tell me, where are cries of "my God" for the more likely and more despicable scenario?

All these massive complaints facilitated by external entities like Avaaz just happen to arise at the same time, almost a year after the fact.  There are many little inconsistencies and illogical assumptions in this faux scandal that just don't add up.  They don't add up the way the left wants them to.  They add up to something else: a calculated smear attack.

Vikileaks was perpetrated by a Liberal Party staffer but he was given the info by the NDP.  Neat trick eh?  Played them for patsies.  Devised the attack but got the Liberals to do the dirty work.  Liberals despise the CPC as much or more as I do them.  Liberals also have nothing to lose.  So they went and did it.

It could have been the Liberals or it could have been the NDP.  It could have been an external entity or it could have been Elections Canada itself.  Elections Canada who has the means and mandate to actually make robocalls on Election Day and change voting locations may have been hijacked for the deed or may just be incompetent. 

I don't know who is behind it but I know in my gut that the mark for this faux scandal the CPC is very unlikely to be the culprit.

People seem to catch on faster than the sophist intelligentsia will ever give them credit for.  They've built a whole industry out of telling people they can't possibly think for themselves.  All too often they are the ones who don't think for themselves.  There's that projection again.  They assume we are dumb as they are.  On the bright side, the smart people have tuned out.  They have cried wolf so many times that nobody cares.  Detachment from these leftard politicians and media lackeys is about the smartest thing a thinking person can do. 

Unfortunately when politicians from any party act in despicable ways it taints them all.  It comes back on the Government anyway.  This is exactly what Pierre Poutine was aiming for in the first place.

Glenn Beck Warns Canada About George Soros and American Left

Glenn Beck stands with Canada.  This is a message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and "our Canadian friends"  Watch.






We already know about George Soros.  He runs the Tides Foundation which in turn sponsors the varied anti-human groups that seek to block and delay the Gateway Pipeline.  They are some of the same groups who blocked the Keystone Pipeline in the United States by threatening the President.

We all remember Avaaz, another George Soros group based in New York, who tried to get Sun News off the air.  They are currently trying to stop a long standing local logging company in Cochrane Alberta.  If that wasn't enough they are sending thousands of automated complaints from their New York Smear Engines to Elections Canada.

This is stuff we already know.  Soros' eye is fixed on Canada.  Beck says he plans to destroy our dollar and anything else we hold dear.  We're the last ones standing.  Euros, Pounds and US Dollars have all been pillaged by Soros.

I would take this seriously.  GB saw Occupy Wall Street months in advance.  When I heard it was in the final days of the May election.  I assumed it would be May Day and was wrong.  It didn't happen until October.  Don't assume it will be happening next week, but expect him. Expect Soros.

I'm not a finance genius but my first instinct is to make our dollar less attractive.  Dalton will be happy.  Raise interest rates?  I can't be sure.  Mark Carney and Jim Flaherty had better be wary.  Everyone laughs at Beck when he lays out what is coming.  This time I want to laugh because we didn't let it happen.

The Smear Engines

The left is many things, all of them backwards and odious.  Even where there is intelligence, it is employed to such dark purpose that is mocks intelligence and stifles it in others.

An integral part of the left is their smear engines.  I use the term engine in the medieval sense; as a low tech machine of war.  The smear engine we are concerned with (because there are many) is the group of media party journalists, left wing intelligentsia and their political arms in this country. 

One of the brutes hauling this smear engine is Dan Gardener.

I read one of his books.  Future Babble.  It was in a bargain area and its one of my favorite subjects so I thought: why not? I read a lot so it took a while.  I still finished it.  It was good.  I tend to focus on things I like and learned.  I'm a very forgiving reviewer.

After a whole book of good analysis he throws it all away when he gets to Global Warming.  I looked past that.  Nobody is perfect.  The Prime Minister himself is far from it. 

I thought I'd follow him on twitter.  Again, why not?  Now I know.

Dan Gardner is a boiling pot of filthy anti-conservative smears.  If tweets are a measure of hatred, than Mr. Gardner hates the Prime Minister more than anything on this earth.

Yesterday I couldn't have it any more.  Gardner didn't cross the line.  He slowly cultivated my disgust day by day, tweet by despicable tweet.  Here is what he said:
 


 Disgusting.  They are so convinced of their superiority they think we don't know what they are doing.

 

Right?



Lefties piss me off.  He assumes I didn't understand because I don't give a damn about his point.  The smear isn't in his point.  The smear is his revolting scenario.  The point he is making is a vehicle for inventing a scenario where our PM kills a little girl.  Just low.




I don't play lefty games.  Why should I bother?  He knows what he's done.  He knows who he smears.  Why does he need me to say it?  I'm not going to give him an answer he is waiting for.  I'm not walking into his ambush.



Give me a break!  Would you get a load of this guy?  I should apologize to him?  Do you think he was trying to get a rise out of me or does he seriously think he's been wronged?  Amazing the left.

Anyway.  I work for a living.  I can't tweet all night with poor little Dan.

I responded again in the morning.



This is what they do.  They work at hatred.  They have rationalized away any form of respect or decency.  Its War.  He is still at it today as he is every day:



Call them out like I did.  Its not for him and the other brutes of the Smear Engine.  They will never change.  It's for their followers.  Detractors and their insults only made Breitbart stronger.  It exposed the left for the intolerant thuggery it is made of.  The left is different.  They aren't smart exactly but desperately want to appear smart above all else.  They flock to people who reassure them of that illusion.  Dan Garner is one of those.  Gather your wits and arguments about you and attack when you see the opportunity.  They aren't used to it.  Use logic and actually win the ensuing argument properly.  They won't know what to do and people will notice that they are in the wrong place eventually.