Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

In a follow-up to recent posts about election speculation and Liberal fundraising (mis)fortunes, we did a rudimentary calculation on the likelihood of a federal election this fall.

According to the Calgary Herald, it takes “$20 million to run a credible [election] campaign.”

According to the National Post, the Liberals are still drowning in $2.3 million of Leadership debt. (That debt was due to be retired last month, but Elections Canada chief Marc Mayrand granted the leadership candidates an extension until 2009.) That means that, if an election is held anytime soon, the Liberals need to come up with $22.3 million in the next year.

According to Elections Canada data the Liberals raised about $4.5 million in 2007 from 23,442 donors. The problem is, they are also still carrying $2 million in debt. That means they still need $19,828,096.54 to pay for an election and meet their extended deadline for leadership debt. Let’s see how the numbers add up:

$19.8 million needed by August 2009 divided by 23,442 Liberal donors = $845/donor over the next year.

That seems a little unrealistic considering the Liberals inability to raise funds since the Accountability Act came into effect. It is especially unrealistic because Elections Canada data reveals that less than 10% of Liberal donors gave more than $500 to the party. (Of course there is still over $40 million of Adscam money missing…)

The only way that Stéphane Dion can be seeing red in the next election is if he plans to incur massive new debt for the Liberal party. Close observers will be wary of this spendthrift tendency - the same kind that has generated over $60 billion in new, unbudgeted spending promises from the Liberal leader.

As the Ottawa Sun’s Gerry Nicholls opined: “Liberal leader Stephane Dion wants to fight the next federal election on the environment. And for good reason. Better Canadians focus on his green plan, than on his red ink.” We’ll have to wait and see how much it costs for the Liberals to grow a spine.

Since 9/11 life has no doubt been difficult for people of middle eastern origin. It is no proud moment to be the victim of racial profiling, yet we seem to have overcompensated in our efforts to accommodate certain groups.

The fact is that terrorism has been, and will remain, a serious threat in the foreseeable future. Terrorism has curtailed the civil liberties of all people in a way that would have been incomprehensible just a decade ago. Although all public transportation has been affected, air travel is particularly restrictive because of the vulnerability of hundreds of people in one place. Terrorism is especially evil because it kills and maims without prejudice. There are no rules of engagement, there are no “innocent civilians,” there is only mass murder and mayhem.

Because we justifiably demand to be protected from these threats, extraordinary security measures have come into effect. There are new passport requirements, xrays, sniffers, random searches and biometric identification. Carry-on luggage has been restricted and seemingly innocuous things like safety razors, deodorant and even bottled water have become prohibited substances. We used to take for granted the liberty to take a refreshing drink or freshen up after a long delayed flight - that is no longer our right.

The turning point that cost us all our liberties was when extremist Muslim terrorists crashed planes into the World Trade Towers, taking thousands of innocent lives. They were not attacking a foreign military, they were murdering 1000’s of mothers, fathers and children who opened their arms to people from all over the world who wanted to share in their prosperity. Now it seems that we have become the villains, and the terrorists the victims.

In a recent Toronto Star report, we find that Border officials are being subjected to sensitivity training so that they don’t offend Muslim sensitivities. This sounds good on the surface, but we have gone to such great lengths to accommodate one particular group that we have begun to discriminate against all the other people who have lost their travel liberties, but are not afforded the special considerations of this one group.

Perhaps the most disconcerting aspect of the Star story is the following paragraph: “Looking a person straight in the eye is standard procedure for a border guard on the hunt for suspicious behaviour, but in some cases, it can be considered disrespectful to make eye contact with a Muslim woman, she said.”

This new mandate for sensitivity comes on the heels of other senseless limitations at airports around the world. Recently in Britain, security services were restricted from walking bomb sniffing dogs in the vicinity of Muslims for fear of offending their religious sensitivities. How far will we go in tying the hands of our security services who are charged with protecting us?

In the Star article, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress descries the fact that people entering Canada from countries known to sponsor terrorism are “subjected to greater scrutiny… We feel that this is a type of profiling, which must cease.” Mohamed Elmasry said. He seems to be implying that “profiling” is the same as discrimination; it is however the basic tool for filtering out those who are less likely to be suspect.

Grant a would-be terrorist the ability to: avoid extra scrutiny, allow them to conceal their identity and gender, make their country of origin irrelevant, insulate them from explosive sniffing dogs and you are inviting disaster. Now it is suggested that border guards avoid eye contact when questioning people coming into Canada! All of these special considerations are tantamount to reverse discrimination against all the other travelers who have lost significant personal freedoms because they must travel by air.

Sacrificing personal liberties for the privilege of air travel is a fact of life in the modern world. It is necessary because a group of people who fit a common “profile” chose to bring murder and mayhem to our shores. If they want to continue to travel by air, they will have to accommodate the restrictions which are in place just like the rest of us. To make a series of special exceptions because their sensitivities might be offended is simply reverse discrimination.

People of all races, ethnic origins and religious beliefs are welcome to our shores. They are not welcome however to bypass the same security measures that everyone else has to endure. Everyone else who finds the new security measures invasive and offensive simply does not travel that way any more; civil liberties and their restrictions should be the same for all who would share the bounty of Canada.

(Note: We intentionally used the photo above that the Star used to accompany their story. We mean only to reflect their intentions in choosing this illustration).

In a story from the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business, the headline is: “Shell posts $11.6 billion second quarter profit.” This is yet another example of the media’s promotion of class envy. In other words, anyone who is successful is bad and their motives are suspect and steeped in greed. The NDP refrain of “big oil, and big gas…” being the villain for every social ill, is yet another example of bias against large and successful companies.

You don’t have to look far in the Globe story to mitigate this supposedly alarming example of profiteering. Unfortunately you have to break out the calculator (which average readers seldom do). The Globe story goes on to report that the company’s net sales were $131 billion in that same quarter (we assume that to mean their sales excluding profits); therefore their gross sales for the second quarter would be $142.6 billion. With profits of $11.6 billion, that means that Shell had a profit margin of only 8%! Most small and medium sized businesses could barely survive on profit margins that low.

Detractors of “big oil and big gas” will also neglect to mention the 104,000 people that Shell employs worldwide. That is a lot of families who have a roof over their heads, groceries and a good standard of living because they work for “big oil and big gas.” They also fail to mention Shell’s voluntary environmental initiatives.

This is not to suggest that they are a paragon of virtue, merely to state that this perpetual envy of people and companies who control wealth beyond the scope of the average Canadians’ experience, is simply exploiting class envy to create an artificial villain in society. The same socialists who thrive on this kind of exploitation will also whine the loudest when some of those “big corporations” cut jobs because they are losing money.

This paranoia of wealth and success is limiting much of the potential achievement in Canadian society. We have some of the best minds and brightest talent in the world; it is a shame to promote economic slavery by teaching people to expect government handouts at the expense of those who struggle to meet their highest potential. We must never let those who are less fortunate or disabled fall through the cracks, but at the same time we cannot afford to reward the greed of those who refuse to play by the rules. Success comes through equality of opportunity and hard work, not through an artificial redistribution of wealth.

While perhaps not rising to the level of false advertising, Stéphane Dion’s Moncton Green Shift presentation was not quite what it was presented to be.

Without being overly partisan, it is past time that we reported on what actually took place on July 17th. This is important because elements of this event got some national attention and, fortunately, we have the tape to back up our perceptions of this meeting.

First of all there was no public notice published until just two days before the meeting. One would think that interested parties from the community might need a little more notice to get time off work for a mid-morning meeting. It is also our understanding that the venue was changed the morning of the event, although our observers managed to find it and had no problem getting admitted.

The event took place in a sectioned off room on the Université de Moncton campus. We counted about 130 people there, including assorted media and our contingent. A movable partition had been drawn across the center of the room which made it appear full. In reality, they could have doubled their seating capacity if they wanted to.

All of this gave the impression of being a staged partisan event. Notable in the crowd were a substantial number of prominent Liberal supporters and organizers. Brian Murphy offered a suitable glowing introduction and M. Dion was ushered into the room from his staging area in the hallway where he was closely guarded by his handlers.

The Liberal leader gave about a 7 minute presentation, liberally sprinkled with attacks on Conservatives and the Prime Minister. It was when the questions began however that the partisan nature of this “town hall meeting” became glaringly apparent.

(As an odd side note, emcee and Moncton Councillor Pierre Boudreau invited the assembled to “please feel free to address your questions to M. Dion in French.” He said this in French and, had we not understood both official languages, it would have passed unnoticed since there was no simultaneous translation offered. While we attribute no mal-intention to the esteemed Councillor Boudreau, it seemed odd to invite people at a French university, in a bilingual city/province, who are addressing a guest who is clearly more comfortable in French - to speak French to the Liberal leader. The meeting progressed however with people speaking in whatever language they were comfortable in, and that is how it should be.)

After reviewing our tape to ensure we reported accurately, we determined that there were only about 10 questioners - some of whom asked follow-ups. We were not able to get all of the names clearly, but here is the morning’s lineup:

1. Unknown male (alluded to the NB Lung Association)
2. Columnist Bill Belliveau (noted Liberal supporter and apologist)
3. Roy McMullen (energy writer and representative of Post Carbon Greater Moncton)
4. Suzanne Tarte-Pussante (Université de Moncton)
5. Unknown female from the Université (”daughter of NB potato farmer”)
6. Mike Milligan (nominated candidate for the Beausejour Green Party)
7. Unknown female from Moncton (said she had “no problem” with redistributing funds from oil patch…)
8. Jack Layton from Moncton (”just an ordinary guy” who shares the same name)
9. Daniel LeBlanc (former Petitcodiac Riverkeeper and environmental activist)
10. Tim Van Hinte (current Petitcodiac Riverkeeper)

The only one who asked an uncomfortable question of the Liberal leader was Mr. Layton and we will post more about that exchange later. Oddly enough questions were summarily restricted after that question to “those who are currently standing at the mic’s.” What followed was two softballs from noted environmentalists, and then an offering of platitudes by MP Dominic LeBlanc.

M. Dion was quickly whisked out of the room to a small landing outside where he was hidden from public view for the most part. There he had a scrum with reporters while others of his party kept any curious onlookers at a respectful distance. Below in the parking lot was a waiting minivan (was that idling?) which carried M. Dion to Dominic LeBlanc’s home that evening where a reported 80 supper guests plunked down $1000 each to dine with the leader.

All in all, it must not have been a bad day for M. Dion. Feted by two of his local MP’s, isolated from any difficult questions, and applauded by a group of people who are largely disposed to support his ideas, no matter how questionable their merits. Then you pick up a cool 80 G’s at supper to help pay off that nagging leadership debt that is now overdue.

Perhaps the only low moment of the whole trip for M. Dion was when a passerby on the street in Moncton mistook him for Moncton’s new mayor, George LeBlanc. When MP Brian Murphy told her it was the Liberal leader, she just said “Oh…” and walked away.

What was billed as a “town hall” turned out to be a shift to green activists lobbing softball questions in front of a sympathetic crowd. If this is what is taking place across the country, it’s no wonder that Stéphane Dion thinks there’s an appetite for an election. It’s the equivalent of a bantam hockey player being cheered on by their mom - her support is a given.

In an update from our previous post, we have further evidence that the Liberals are seeing red in the next election. According to Stéphane Dion’s latest election musings, you would think that they are seeing a groundswell red Liberal voter support.

According to columnist Nigel Hannaford however, they must be looking through rose-colored glasses. Here are excerpts from his column in the Calgary Herald:

“…it does sound as if Dion talks too much to other Liberals… Some think they can win. The others hope to profit from the change of leadership they believe would follow the carnage they expect, (and secretly yearn for.)”

“Well, of course he has to talk a good game. But, there are two reasons I’d put my money on anything but a fall election.

First, the Liberals are broke. It costs $20 million to run a credible campaign. The Grits just don’t have it. They’re already borrowing money — $2 million at nine per cent, which tells you what the banks think of their chances: People pay less for their personal lines of credit. They can borrow more against future election expenses refundable by Elections Canada, but all this indicates a bigger problem: If your supporters aren’t contributing and thereby force you to borrow, what’s the quality of your support?“

“The Liberals, on the other hand, ran on a few very large cheques from wealthy individuals and big business, and so far have yet to adapt to the world of low-cap donations forced on all parties by their own former leader Jean Chretien — an ongoing crisis made worse by Harper’s Accountability Act that took the upper donation limit down to $1,100.

Then there’s Dion’s own situation. He needs the job. He’s not a wealthy man, and still owes hundreds of thousands of dollars from his leadership bid. Take the party into an election before the time is right, and face a leadership review for sure at the party convention in Vancouver this December.”

Mr. Hannaford goes on to conclude that, if he were Liberal leader “I’d be looking for a wider focus group than the dudes at the barbecue. There they sit, eating their steaks, looking me in the eye, with their wallets firmly folded. Lord, these people hate to spend their own money… Dion should make wider inquiries than his friends and supporters on the summer circuit, before he does anything to precipitate an election.”

With respect to Mr. Hannaford, we may well see the Liberals try to precipitate and election in the fall, but indications are that it will not turn out as well for them as the last time. 

It seems that the more Stéphane Dion sinks his teeth into raising taxes, the more toxic his rhetoric becomes.

Take for example this report from Bill Currie in the Globe and Mail a few days ago:

“OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday he would impose tariffs on imports from countries that Canada deems are not doing enough in the battle against global warming.

But a leading trade expert said the plan would run afoul of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization and would infuriate Canada’s major trading partners.”

“Mr. Dion, …said a carbon tariff on imports would help farmers deal with higher costs from his planned carbon tax on fossil fuels by making the imported goods from their competitors more expensive.”

“Trade expert Michael Hart of Carleton University’s Centre for Trade Policy and Law dismissed Mr. Dion’s carbon tariff comments as “bafflegab.” He predicted other nations would be furious with Canada.

“They’d quickly come to Ottawa and say ‘What the h— are you doing? Who came up with this crazy scheme?’ ” Prof. Hart said. “The environmentalists would all scream ‘the environment ueber alles [above everything else]!’ [but] that’s not enshrined in any trade agreement.”

“Mr. Dion initially raised the issue of carbon tariffs in response to a question from an Ontario Federation of Agriculture executive, Debra Pretty-Straathof, who warned the Liberal Leader that his plan is not going over well with farmers who fear the rising costs of fertilizer and equipment fuel.

“I want you to know there’s a lot of angst in the countryside about this,” Ms. Pretty-Straathof said.

Mr. Dion’s response was that farmers will have to move toward new technologies and Canadian consumers will have to buy more locally grown meat and produce.”

So let’s get this straight: M. Dion proposes to tax the fuel and fertilizers that farmers use to cultivate their crops. As their expense of production goes up, they will of course have to charge us more for what they produce. On the way to our local markets, M. Dion will be taxing every stage of the distribution process. Any produce that is packaged in plastic trays or bags will be hit with a carbon tax again.

Now M. Dion suggests that the way to help Canadians is to make imported produce even MORE expensive than domestic varieties. And if that’s not popular with farmers, they’ll just have to “move to new [non-existent] technologies.” And we, the Canadian consumer, should forget about fresh produce between December and May (the approximate amount of time between stored goods and the earliest annual crops in the following year).

Oh, and as a side benefit M. Dion wants to start a trade war with our trading partners like China, North and South America.

Fast facts on Canada’s imported produce (source):

42% of fresh produce available in Canada is imported.

“Due to the short duration of the growing season… imports are required to fill the shelves for a significant part of the year.”

“Import levels begin to increase in September, towards the end of the growing season, and peak in May at the same time as the first California crops are harvested. Conversely, import levels quickly decline at the onset of the local production season towards the end of May, reaching their lowest levels in September when the local produce is harvested.”

During seasons of peak imports, “an average of almost 100 thousand tonnes of fresh vegetables are imported” monthly into Canada. At the same time “fresh fruit imports average over 50 thousand tonnes” per month.

“Peppers, peas, onions, lettuce, beans, apples and pears… enter all year around.”

“Tomatoes, lettuce, onions, carrots, broccoli and peppers top the list of imported vegetables. Grapes, apples, pears and strawberries are the top imported fruits.”

“Almost all of the imports originate in the United States or Mexico.”

For the past few weeks, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion has been trying to knit together support for his “green” carbon tax plan. Sadly for him the closer Canadians look, the more it comes unraveled.

In an article in the Montreal Gazette today, Peter Hadekel asks the $15.5 billion question: Is Stéphane Dion’s “Green Plan a policy for the environment, or tax reform?”

Mr. Hadekel’s conclusion after analyzing the Green Shift is that “the biggest question hanging over the Green Shift” is that “the plan looks a lot more like a piece of tax reform than an environmental policy guaranteed to cut carbon emissions and combat greenhouse gases.“

He points to the “revenue neutral” aspect of the plan and reminds us that, while it may be revenue neutral to the government, IT WILL NOT BE REVENUE NEUTRAL TO INDIVIDUAL CANADIANS AND BUSINESSES. Everyone will pay more, but only certain groups and sectors will get some money back.

His most salient point however is that while Dion’s tax plan is shifty, IT IS NOT GREEN!

“But the most curious part of it, from an environmental perspective, is that it would exempt gasoline. The Liberals argue that current taxes on gasoline already amount to a carbon charge of about $42 a tonne.

Given that automobiles account for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions, it’s hard to see how this policy will have any material effect on a major source of consumption and pollution.

“If you really want to move the yardstick forward from today on the environment, you have to tax gasoline,” said economist Dale Orr of Global Insight in Toronto.

The Liberals claim the tax on gasoline is already high enough, but “I don’t think that’s a convincing argument at all,” Orr said. “I think they’re not taxing gas because they don’t want to take the political heat for it.“

The broader issue is whether any of the Liberal measures will actually succeed in cutting greenhouse gas emissions by the Liberal target: a 20-per-cent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

There’s almost nothing in the policy other than blind faith that higher prices will do the trick.“

Indeed it is oddly curious that the carbon tax does not tax gasoline when it is purported to be a “green” plan to reduce emissions. The Green Shift does tax aviation fuel. The Green Shift does tax diesel fuel (which puts the food on our tables from fishing and farming to grocery store deliveries). To see whether this is prudent policy, we need only look at Canada’s most recent GHG emissions inventory.

Under the Transportation heading we find that Aviation contributed only 8.4mt of CO2 in 2006. Because of the volume of vehicles on the road, Diesel emissions were significantly higher, totaling 42mt of CO2.

In contrast however, gasoline powered vehicles poured over 90mt of CO2 into Canada’s atmosphere in 2006! That is almost twice the combined volume of Aviation AND Diesel carbon emissions!

If you are really interested in cutting carbon emissions, why would you exempt 2/3 of the transportation sector you want to tax? It could only be because you “don’t want to take the political heat” for taxing gas at the pump!

It is interesting to note that 96% of all Diesel emissions come from vehicles involved in the food chain (from farm tractors and fishing boats, to railway and transport truck delivery). Perhaps Peter Nelson, Executive Director of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, wasn’t kidding when he said this carbon tax will result in an $8 head of lettuce.

The economic theory behind Stéphane Dion’s tax plan is as follows: If you add enough taxes to the price of fuel, the high cost will force consumption down and thereby reduce carbon emissions.

There is only one problem with that theory: Gas prices skyrocketed almost 250% while the Liberals were in power (over 150% just in the time Dion was Environment Minister!). During that same time, Greenhouse Gas Emissions also skyrocketed to 35% above the Kyoto targets the Liberals signed on for!

Moral of the story: An increase of 250% in gas prices allowed emissions to rise by 28% (when they were supposed to be going down by 7%). Just how high is Stéphane Dion proposing to raise the price of heat, groceries and gas so that it will force reduced consumption.

Just like the European model that M. Dion likes to showcase, carbon taxes are an environmental and economic failure.

From a recent article in the National Post, it seems as if the Liberals are seeing red - in their account ledgers that is.

Here is a summary from an article that is a serious indictment of the state of the Liberal Party of Canada:

“Conservatives allege the Liberals have stalled Mr. Godfrey’s resignation because they are so hard up for money they don’t want to fight four byelections at the same time.”

“The party’s financial statements show an organization that is still solvent, but one in which expenses outpaced revenues by $1.6-million last year.”

“The largest source of revenue was the government allowance awarded for each vote received in the last election, which came in at $8.5-million. Contributions from grassroots Liberals accounted for $4.7-million, compared to around $18-million for the Conservatives.”

“…corporate donations, the source of 50% of Liberal fund-raising” (Oops, they’re not legal anymore since the Tories passed the Accountability Act)

“The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with a punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicates a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party.”

“The Liberals will be able to fund an election campaign as they have in the past by borrowing against the 60% rebate they receive from Elections Canada for expenses incurred during the writ period. This means they can borrow around $12-million of the $20-million they will need to fund a campaign, based on the rebate that all parties get for election expenses. But they will still need to raise about $8-million and the only collateral likely acceptable to lending institutions is the government allowance of $1.75 for every vote they receive. This means that if their vote goes down at the next election, they could conceivably be forced to spend the bulk of what they get from the taxpayers to finance their debt, leaving little money for anything else.”

“…their concern is the survival of the institution, rather than the current incumbent.’They can’t afford to run and not do better,” said one expert in campaign financing.’ “

Biff, sock, zowie! This reminds us of a legacy Batman cartoon! So M. Dion says Canadians are ready for an election in the fall eh? We have to wonder if the Liberals are really ready to gamble their last big shot on raising taxes for every Canadian (theGreenShift).

From the University of Illinois, a daily comparison of Arctic Sea Ice.

Too often the Tories are accused of “not caring” etc. for the less fortunate. Here is a quick link to prove that there is no substance to that claim. The Liberals whine about us “defining Dion” when we are actually using his own words and actions. The truth is they pulled the same trick on the Conservatives beginning with the “soldiers with guns in our streets; in Canada” commercials that aired in the last election.

Conservatives believe in having a social conscience. We do not however just run around promising money to everyone before an election, but never bothering to put it into a budget like the Liberals did for 13 years. That was the source of many of the Tory “cuts” the first year or so in office - lots of Liberal promises to special interest groups, but never any money budgeted for them. So far Stephane Dion has promised over $60 billion in new, un-budgeted spending; where do you suppose he’ll go to get the money…?