Foreign donations for personal benefits, selling access to government, expense scandals.
As the (Progressive Left’s) moral and ethical standards plummet, so does their approval rating.
A new _____ Research poll shows the Progressives are down almost 10%.
Citizens aren’t happy with (political leader’s) cash-for-access scheme, and how he’s raised cash for the _____ Party or the _____ Foundation.
And now (political leader) admits to being lobbied, and lobbied often. Usually by wealthy donors, who paid big bucks for face time with him. Here’s some of what we know about the Party’s cash-for-access scheme:
After meeting (political leader), a Chinese Communist billionaire donated a large sum of cash to the _____ Foundation.
Another attendee, got government approval to open a bank, days after meeting (political leader).
Since (political leader) became leader of the _____Liberal Party, foreign donations to the _____ Foundation skyrocketed from $0 (annually) in 2013 to $535,000 (annually) in 2016. (a more than 500,000% increase, right?)
Back at home, domestic donations to the _____ Foundation have more than quadrupled (400%) from $172,000 to $731,000 since 2014.
Are foreign interest groups and big donors skirting the Elections _____ rules?
Are certain individuals making donations to the (political leader’s) Foundation, once they’ve reached their legal political donation limit?
Perhaps that’s a question the Ethics Commissioner can ask (political leader).
After all, National Newspaper reports she will interview (political leader) on the matter.
In fact “It is the first time in a decade the “house of government” independent ethical watchdog has asked a sitting (political leader) to defend his integrity.” – National Newspaper, Dec 15th, 2016
The Party have shown we can’t trust them to keep election promises.
We can’t trust them on the economy or our tax dollars. So can anyone trust them when it comes to their high priced fundraisers?
Enough with the corruption and sleaze already! And NO, it is NOT Clinton or Trump we’re talking about here.
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity … (even in gentle Canada)
“Into The Shadow Realm”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings”
Watching American news on the satellite, trying to get a sense of how things are unfolding to the south of us. Certain concentrations of left wing extremists are trying to whip the universe into a frothing frenzy of “Trunp” hate. The observable fact that the nation is not following is inciting them to ever higher levels of shrill rhetoric.
“The object of Parliament,” observed Winston Churchill at election time in 1951, “is to substitute argument for fisticuffs.”
How’s that holding up after November 8th? The object of at least a proportion of those on the streets is to substitute fisticuffs for argument, and indeed for Parliament: The less self-aware even chant “This is what democracy looks like!” – by which they mean not the election but the post-election riots and looting and assaults.
Some among these self-proclaimed champions of women and immigrants wish to substitute rape for argument, a cause of such broad appeal that the ideological enforcers at the monopoly social-media cartels breezily permitted the hashtag “Rape Melania” to “trend” on Twitter.
…one third of the Democrats’ representation in the House now comes from just three states – New York, Massachusetts and California. That’s one reason why they’re calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.
But, absent the upending of the constitution, they have a problem.
…John Oliver and Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah have sportingly decided, to judge from their ratings, to prioritize their politics over their comedy. But, whether or not “Love Trumps Hate”, condescension doesn’t trump anything.
For a year-and-a-half they shoveled industrial-strength coastal sneering into the path of the Trump train on a scale that would have derailed any other candidate before he got to Iowa. Instead, Trump just bulldozed through it – and so easily that he won the White House for a fifth of what Hillary spent.
If elite condescension failed to deny him the presidency, is it likely to be any more effective now that he is the president?
“Twilight And Shadow”, Howard Shore, from “Lord Of The Rings“.
What “message of unity” could be simpler than that one in every two Americans is a violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet? On Friday, in a veritable frenzy of virtue signalling, the hashtag #safetypin trended on Twitter, as dozens of people shared selfies with safety pins attached to their clothing.
“Standing together we will be safe,” one user tweeted.
“My #SafetyPin shows I will protect those who feel in danger bc of gender, sexuality, race, disability, religion, etc.,” another said. “You are safe with me.”
That’s true in the sense that, if Matt Harrington is around and they’ve confiscated his sniper rifle, he’ll be able to borrow your safety pin and stab Trump with it.
Can you really substitute virtue-signaling for argument? Especially when it’s this lame? And, indeed, are there enough safety-pins in America for all those who feel unsafe? Or will Trump’s trade war be dealt a massive crushing defeat as cheap knock-offs from Chinese safety-pin factories flood the US market?
The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error”. The Bulverist assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive. The term “Bulverism” was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew‘s “Subject/Motive Shift”, Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer’s identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument’s validity or truth. But it is also a fallacy of circular reasoning, since it assumes, rather than argues, that one’s opponent is wrong.
(C.S.) Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title “Bulverism”. This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism”.
Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — “Oh you say that because you are a man.” “At that moment”, E. Bulver assures us, “there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument.
Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.” That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
CUT TO CANADIAN NEWS ON GLOBAL NATIONAL:
Canadian Landscape with the Trump Hate contaminating everything
The mood change almost gave me whiplash … The big news item appears to be that “Canadians” are fearful that “Trump Hate” is leaking over the border and contaminating Canadian Water and maybe Canadian politics as well!
As the writer above said: … what “message of unity” could be simpler than that one in every two Americans is a violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet? One thing is undeniably true “Canadians” are ALWAYS fearful of SOMETHING … it just changes from day to day and even hour to hour. Why can’t they stay focused on our media message?
It seems that the dominant meme of the American extreme left progressives is finding fertile soil in the Great White North, eh? And the scary part is that this is normal, especially amongst the Canadian chattering classes and the inhabitants of the media swamp.
And why not? After all, Canada is a nation of facile, self-righteous, hypocritical, haters from sea to shining sea. And nowhere are they more frantic in their hating than when it comes to hating Americans (a severely overdeveloped case of “Short-Man Syndrome”).
OMG I’m just SO beautiful and I’m such a nice person too …
“violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet” is just about THE perfect encapsulation of how Canadian Liberals of all stripes view ANYONE who has the misfortune to disagree with them or to prefer to deal in facts rather than social media “virtue signalling“.
This sad fact is especially true when talking about Americans or “American” culture. Funny thing though, the roots of American culture are British, and the roots of Canadian culture are British, except for a few privileged minorities who owe their continued existence to the generous way that the British have always treated their enemies.
So where do we get off sneering about American culture? Those holding these violent hate filled views would do well to read Russel Kirk’s “The Roots of American Order“, of course there are a lot of facts in this great book and they don’t adapt well to social media or virtue signalling.
“Yup, huh, huh, huh, ya sure gotta admit it … Trump Hate is showing up on the Canadian scene, contaminating the worship pool. Hey, anyone wanna head over to Timmy’s, I am feeling kinda nibbly. I heard they have a new caramel covered doughnut these days.”
I watch all the usual suspects in their self-congratulatory holier than thou pontification and find I am deeply ashamed of Canadians … deeply ashamed …
Of course always remember to be charitable, even though that is distinctly un-Canadian, eh?.
And of course “anyone who disagrees with ME is a “violent hater-racist-misogynist-homophobe-Islamophobe-transphobe Satan fridge-magnet”. There, I said it first, nya, nya, na nya na … who the heck cares about facts and truth anyway, that is all just so yesterday.
Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.
TORONTO — Canada has officially crossed the boundary into a place in which the sick, the suffering and dying can be legally dispatched by lethal injection or a glass of liquid poison.
On June 6, the nation’s laws against assisted suicide and euthanasia evaporated by order of the Supreme Court of Canada, stemming from a ruling made in February 2015. The court gave Canada’s Parliament until June 6 of this year to create new legislation. But as the deadline was missed, euthanasia is no longer considered a crime.
Indeed, assisted suicide now carries the same status as any other medical procedure. In Canada, as elsewhere, supporters of the practice have used the terms “death with dignity” and “medical aid in dying” to describe what used to be viewed as killing and punishable under the old law.
Most of us opposed to killing patients use the terms “physician-assisted suicide” or “euthanasia” interchangeably, as both end in the deliberate death of the patient. In the former, patients are given fatal drugs to take home and ingest when they are ready. The latter takes place when a physician actively kills the patient with a hypodermic needle.
The present situation has put many Catholics and other anti-euthanasia activists in a quandary. The vast majority of the House of Commons and Senate, the two chambers of parliament, are enthusiastic supporters of assisted suicide, which means that petitions, writing letters and demonstrations likely will have little impact. (blog note: I have been involved in several anti-euthanasia campaigns at the Provincial and Federal level, and the only response we have ever received are sappy weasel words about reviewing the evidence and our concerns being noted)
“We live in morally confusing times, and it looks like things are going to get a lot worse in what Pope St. John Paul II prophetically called a ‘culture of death,’” said Patricia Murphy, assistant professor of moral theology at St. Augustine Seminary in Toronto. ..
I am sorry Patricia but there is nothing morally confusing about murdering the helpless and the innocent. It is evil now, always was evil, always will be evil, evil and nothing but evil. The Progressives in our country still use the term “Nazi” as a heated pejorative directed against those who disagree with them.
And yet their actions clearly demonstrate that there is not a shred of moral difference between our socialists/progressives and our national system here in Canada and the Nazi German regime in the 30’s and 40’s or the Communists in the Soviet Union, or the Khmer rouge, or the Red Chinese, or ISIS and North Korea in this century. NOT-A-SHRED-OF-MORAL-DIFFERENCE.
This entire policy exercise of murder, choreographed by the faceless suits in the Towers of Power, is nothing less than our own Canadian Liberal’s “Final Solution” for inconvenient people who are deemed by government fiat to be not worthy of protection or not worth protecting. “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.“)
We are all become “Persons Without Chests” without any intrinsic value or human dignity left to lose. We cannot even hold our own government’s feet to the fire when they contemplate an evil course, so how much less likely are we to hold accountable avowed and active evil in the outside world that threaten us more and more every day. There is no upside anywhere in this for our society and our culture.
And so it continues. First it was babies, and now it is essentially anyone: “who is suffering intolerably with a grievous and irremediable condition,” the old, the young, the sick, the handicapped, all are now target groups. Soon we will be applying the very flexible and oh so useful “quality of life” criteria to make life and death decisions about anyone who disagrees with popular views. Seriously, doesn’t this all start to feel like “1984” and “Soylent Green”?
How many more years will it be before we find ourselves in a place where relatives of the victim(s) (200,000 a year at last count) simply get a letter on government letterhead informing them of the “death” of their relative. This is the place where Belgium and the Netherlands now find themselves.
This is exactly how we arrived at a place here in Canada where abortion is available anywhere, any time, up to and including partial birth at any government funded hospital, on demand, even by teenage children and with no requirement to inform the parents of the teen.
There are no rules or regulation of the Canadian National Abortion Mill that we call public health care. The only concern ever expressed by anyone is about criminal responsibility. The concept of moral responsibility has been successfully and completely purged from the Canadian lexicon. We are not guilty! We are just following orders. We are cheering while the bureaucrats move forward developing our National Death Camp policy.
The phrase “who is suffering intolerably with a grievous and irremediable condition,” does not mean deadly or near-death. “Grievous” is a subjective definition of discomfort and pain, while “irremediable” simply means chronic. And who gets to decide what constitutes “suffering intolerably”, why the bureaucrats of course! Just like Belgium and the Netherlands. Just like being voted off the island, eh?
The ONLY voice that I have heard in the halls of government speaking out against this evil wave lapping now at our necks, is the Hon. Betty E. Unger, Senator from Alberta. Her speech in the Senate can be found here: