Political Spectrum Reality Check

Nazis are on the left with the communist. Many people believe the lie that Nazis are conservative. But it's even more nuanced than that. Here's a great 7 minute explainer, not perfect (by his own admission) but really well done.

Canada's conservatives: strong in numbers but still in the wilderness

From a Canadian conservative perspective, another far left Liberal government is not just bad for Canada, not just a potential death-blow to the country, it doesn't make sense. Someone make it make sense for the millions of common sense conservative Canadians...

Here we go:

Canada's Liberal Party's secret tax - incoming

The Liberal 'savior' Mark Carney decided to do away with the carbon tax that he supported for years as a copycat move from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre to win voters. Really original Mark. In any case, he's a globalist and very anti-carbon. So instead, in secret he's going to make it impossible for Canadians to buy cars unless they are expensive all-electric cars.

More Canada stuff: Liberals have sucked for a long time

Canada's lost decade thanks entirely to Liberal idiocy. My fellow Canadians, pay attention and do not vote Liberal:

Canada is really struggling

 Thanks Liberals, this is all on you. Actually, idiot voters; this is all on you.

My fellow Canadians

Yes, I'm Canadian.  Yes, I'm pro-Trump. But I'm even more a conservative and anti-leftist.  Here's a well thought out argument as to why Canada needs to get back to common sense:

Liberals can't define words

This is so typical.  They can't define a woman so this was a long shot (no pun intended) from the get go:

Canada's clueless liberal leadership

Meanwhile in Canada, the Liberal government is still full of Marie Antoinettes:

Owned.

The best Canadian candidate (who won't win)

With the Canadian election tomorrow and the Liberal Party's mysterious late resurgence in the polls vs. the Conservative Party, I thought I'd share a video with an interview with the leader of the underdog People's Party of Canada (the closest thing we have to Trump).  

In a comment on a YouTube post I mentioned I thought it was a wasted vote to support a party with only ~6% support in the polls (which may be a mirror of that U.S. guy with a 17% lead over president Trump in 2020).  Unfortunately I still believe that's true, but Maxime Bernier is a smart guy and he should have been chosen as the leader of the Conservative Party rather than the current leader.  His positions make the most sense.  Rather than just giving him and his newer party short shrift, I thought it would be beneficial to share his interview by Jordan Peterson. 

NOT. A. SHOCK.

 They are more than half mad.  Bill Whittle on fire as usual.

Proof media liberals are uneducated

Basic math people, come on!  I now get why media liberals support impossible Medicare for all proposals - basic math escapes them.

This is as dangerous as it is sad and pathetic.

Surprising Canadian Election Results

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won re-election last night, winning an election he had no business being close to winning given all of his scandals (not to mention his glaring, drama teacher phoniness).  But the polls between the Liberals and Conservative Party of Canada were within fractions of a percentage point of each other, and it could have gone either way.  So the result is not a shock, but there are some very interesting takeaways nonetheless.

It's worth noting that the Liberals won a minority government.  That means a snap election could be called at any time if a non-confidence motion is agreed to by the other parties.  Typically minority governments last less than two years.

But the results are interesting for two specific reasons. Here are the results as of this morning:

The first reason that this is unusual is clear: the Conservative party won the largest vote share but not the most seats in parliament.  People in the United States who are familiar with the popular vote versus the electoral college results will be familiar with the phenomenon.  There are groups in Canada, mainly far-left-leaning who will take the opportunity to point out that our voting system is not fair.  It's not in the Conservative Party's interest to join this fight.  Parties in Canada rarely garner 40% of the popular vote.  The Liberals (socialist lite) and New Democrats (socialist) would form coalition governments in Canada forever if there was some form of proportional representation.

Besides which, these results are rare:

It marks only the second time in Canada’s history that a governing party will take power with such a low share of the vote. David Moscrop, a political theorist at the University of Ottawa, tweeted that “the last and only time a party has formed government with less than 35 percent of the national popular vote was John A. Macdonald in 1867—with 34.8 percent.”

...Even more unusual in Monday night’s vote, it appeared the Liberals were not even the first place party in terms of absolute number of votes.

Elections Canada official website pointed out how rare this is:

...A party forming a government may receive a smaller share of the popular vote but still win more seats than its principal competing party. This has happened three times since Confederation: in 1957, 1962, and 1979. In 1925, the Liberal government continued in office although it won both fewer seats and fewer votes than the Conservatives.

There's another interesting result.  Party support is highly regionalized.  The Atlantic provinces are predominantly Liberal (though less so than in the last election).  Quebec is predominantly  Bloc Quebecois (a regional party focused mostly on provincial issues).  Ontario, the most populous and central geographically province,  is typically split between conservative (suburban and rural) and liberal (urban) voters and is the real battleground.  It's also where the socialist NDP find support.

The West is predominantly very conservative except right on the coast where there is socialist and liberal support.  The far north has very little representation in parliament but it is split between liberal and socialist support.

The regionalization has been a growing trend over the last decades and it might have reached the point where Ontario becomes the battleground province and the focus of elections going forward.  Again this is similar to typical U.S. elections where battleground states garner the majority of election efforts to the detriment of other areas.

The short term takeaways are obvious for the Conservative Party of Canada - it has grown voter share but not efficiently.  It needs to focus on growing support in suburban Ontario. It can take some comfort in the fact that it won a plurality of the vote, beating the liberals in that regard.  It must look for openings to work with other parties to force another election sooner rather than later (the caveat being it's got to build it's regional support smartly in the meantime).

More Trudeau is not a good thing for Canada, but it looks like we will have to deal with it for a while.

Anti-war liberals (including the media) want more war in Syria.

President Trump gives liberals what they wanted when Bush was president.  Now they hate him for that too.  So what does the president do?  He fires back.

I understand wanting to support America's allies. Conservatives understand and generally support that notion too.  But president Trump is more aligned with the libertarian viewpoint (e.g. Rand Paul).  He is also being consistent.  America first also means with respect to military activities too.

While I lean more towards working with allies who are willing to work with America, I can understand the president's viewpoint.  It's not ideal in my opinion, but I get where he is coming from.

The anti-war liberals who want to stay in Syria to help the Kurds have a consistency problem that I cannot resolve on their behalf.  Clearly Orange Man Bad trumps every other consideration for them and if the president did not pull out they would have the same level of horror with his decision.

Meanwhile in Canada, liberals being liberals

Watch this despicable agenda-driven ruining of a man's life for political purposes by a leftist Prime Minister and see if it doesn't remind you of what happened to Trump, Flynn and others in the U.S.  It's sickening.

Thankfully, just as the Mueller investigation led to exoneration, at least we know that Justin Trudeau is most likely going to be a one term Prime Minister and things here too, can be set right The justice system needs to be blind to political stripe just as much as it needs to be blind to color, religion, gender etc.  Why leftists don't get that is unfathomable.

Scandal - the liberal strategy on display

In Canada's most populous province of Ontario an election is approaching and defending their long held grip on power the provincial Liberals are facing a disaster, trailing the conservatives in the polls a drubbing has been expected for a long time.  The newly chosen leader of the provincial party has been crafting his image as a compassionate conservative for a long time now.  In the face of tanking numbers the governing Liberals have tried everything - crazy handouts to every imaginable interest group, rebates on electricity bills,

It hasn't worked so there was only one route left - scandalize your opponent. The conservative leader Patrick Brown has been hit with a sexual assault allegation for something that happened a long time ago.  Sounds familiar in the Roy Moore torpedoing, does it not?

Patrick Brown denied the allegations but has been left hanging in the wind, as has his party and the probably the chances for a conservative win in my home province. In the future it seems, unless you are a woman, as a conservative you cannot successfully run for office. This is the new modus operendi for liberals - dig up allegations from a long time ago and sit on them until necessary. It's the politics of personal destruction. It's Saul Alinsky's tactics in the extreme.

Patrick Brown has denied everything and it is just breaking so he has not had his day in court but for the liberals, courting public opinion, it doesn't matter.

In Canadian politics, if you erase emails, you pay the consequences

Unlike Hillary Clinton, In Canada the Ontario provincial liberals were engrossed in a gas plant scandal and some emails implicating top politicians were deliberately erased.  Today, someone paid the price with a conviction:

BREAKING: Laura Miller not guilty, David Livingston guilty in Liberal gas plan email scandal. #onpoli https://t.co/1fgpH5elWe

— Toronto Sun (@TheTorontoSun) January 19, 2018

Maybe someone in the Justice Department in America could perhaps buy a vowel on this notion?

Newsweek Delivers Democrat Fantasy Scenario to Still-Frothing Liberals

This. Is. Inane. Blather.

Sure, it's been more than 340 days since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, but there's still one very narrow, highly unlikely and entirely unprecedented way that Clinton could become president.

And it has some Democratic die-hards dreaming again.

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig offered a Clinton path to the presidency on Medium, putting forward a series of "if/then" scenarios that lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton.

They kid you not - this is real. At least to them.

Here's how constitutional law expert Lessig lays it out:

If number 1: If Trump is definitively found to have colluded directly with Russia, he would be forced to resign or be impeached.

If number 2: If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president.

If number 3: If Pence becomes president, he should resign too, given that he benefited from the same help from Mother Russia.

If number 4: If Pence resigns before appointing a vice president, Ryan would become president.

If number 5: If Ryan becomes president, he should do the right thing and choose Clinton for vice president. Then he should resign.

To be fair, this is from a Harvard law professor and a 'mainstream media' publication, not Democrats in Washington, but based on the actions of Democrats in Washington, they secretly agree with the writing.  These are the type of people that Republicans have to work with to govern the country. How do you work with people who harbor fantasies like this?  Answer: you don't.

The inconsistency in demands for socialism

This particular inconsistency must be constantly pointed out.  Socialists, communists, progressives and liberal Democrats consistently demonize big business while often pay lip service to the little business owner or in some cases free market capitalism. This all as they overtly or covertly work to dismantle the free market.  They rail against corporate welfare and insufficient taxation and they proclaim interminably that business cannot be trusted to do the right thing - particularly big business. Yet there is a fundamental inconsistency in their proclamations.

Sometimes it's true, big business, particularly progressive liberal businesses do not play fair;

In an explosive new allegation, a renowned architect has accused Google of racketeering, saying in a lawsuit the company has a pattern of stealing trade secrets from people it first invites to collaborate.

Architect Eli Attia spent 50 years developing what his lawsuit calls “game-changing new technology” for building construction. Google in 2010 struck a deal to work with him on commercializing it as software, and Attia moved with his family from New York to Palo Alto to focus on the initiative, code-named “Project Genie.”

The project was undertaken in Google’s secretive “Google X” unit for experimental “moonshots.”

But then Google and its co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin “plotted to squeeze Attia out of the project” and pretended to kill it but used Attia’s technology to “surreptitiously” spin off Project Genie into a new company, according to the lawsuit.

“The real adding-insult-to-injury was Google telling him the project had been canceled and they weren’t going forward with it when in fact they were going full blast on it,” Attia’s lawyer Eric Buether said in an interview Friday.

That seems quite predatory if it's proven to be true.   It's anti-free market because it's the type of behavior that discourages innovation because there's no benefit in innovation for the innovator.  Every financial benefit flows into the hands of a shrinking cabal of monopolies.

It's enough to make one thing that maybe socialism isn't such a bad idea.  Almost.  The problem, the inconsistency with that type of thinking is that the solution socialism or communism provides is to take that centralized power over the market from those monopolies and hand it over to the government, which is in itself a super-monopoly.  Think about it - if the government is in a business like health care, as is the case in Canada, they not only can dictate the terms of the marketplace as there are no competitors, they can actually write the rules to dictate the marketplace.  They can enforce the rules of the marketplace through the police and courts. 

The solution socialism suggest actually worsens the problem.  The real solution is actually the exact opposite of socialism - more competition, which provides more choice and therefore more opportunity for innovation.  Both of those things advance social welfare.  Government should only exist in that spectrum as an adjudicator between competing companies or between companies and consumers where products and services have caused issues for consumers.  Even then it should be an adjudicator of last resort, as the marketplace that recognizes poor performance for a business will resolve that by flowing business to competitors that provide better service, better quality and/or better prices.

That this inconsistency needs to be constantly reminded or shown to people is sad, nevertheless it's a job we should all share tirelessly and with enthusiasm and no expectation of personal reward (because that's the socialist thing to do).

Real diversity vs SJW diversity

Diversity. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Today, people who call themselves liberals insist that America (or the West in general) is not diverse enough.  They claim that we are not diverse enough with respect to gender (no really, there are more than two genders. Okay.) or ethnicity or sexual orientation, or religion.   The problem with their claims is actually two distinct problems: (1) that's not really diversity and (2) it goes against actual liberal principles.

Real diversity means diversity of thought.  The way liberals classify diversity by identifiable categories like race and gender is literally, superficial.  Real diversity - the diversity that makes America a great country - is diversity of thought. Making sure that society is a certain percentage gay, a set percentage female, an exact ratio Muslim and an equal proportion of African American, Hispanic, Asian, White or otherwise does absolutely zero.  The ultimate question is what does that offer?  Next to zero benefit will arise from the supposed fairness this offers. I'll save the fairness argument for another time. Instead let's look at viewpoint diversity.

Tackling a problem with viewpoints from the left and right, from a passive or aggressive viewpoint, a scientific and humanitarian perspective concurrently, allows for a greater possibility of a comprehensive and successful solution to a problem than one developed by a visibly diverse but otherwise homogeneously-thinking group.  Without ideas being challenged they do not get tested before being put in place.  That's a recipe for failure.  But that's exactly what social justice warriors want to happen.

This is where the other problem of incongruity with liberal principles comes into play.  As a reminder, here's what classical liberalism actually is:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.

It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.

"Securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of government".  Social Justice Warriors want the government to impose equality on everyone. And by that they mean equality of outcome, not of opportunity.  They mean equality of visibility based on visual identifiers.  That comes at the expense of ideas.  There will be no diversity of ideas under that model and that means that individual freedom of thought is superseded by these visual markers.  That represents the death of liberty and true classical liberal ideals.

The problem for the country is that leftist leadership are adept at using that social justice warrior thinking to increase the preponderance of that sort of thinking. And while they have had a lot of success at doing that, they have simultaneously tried to tamp down individual thinking within these identity groups; if you are African American you have to be a Democrat.  If you are gay and are a Republican you need to have your head examined.  If you don't use the pronouns people choose to identify themselves by, you are a racist, misogynist homophobic neanderthal. 

The synergy of progressive liberalism with the consolidation of superficial identity groups is a recipe for totalitarianism. Classical liberalism it is not.

Shocking: Liberal violent rhetoric just got real, dropped the rhetoric part

Liberals, in this case a Bernie Sanders supporter, are turning from violent rhetoric to violent action.  The over-the-top rhetoric is inciting real world violence.  It's time for the left to get a grip and start acting responsibly.

The far left have blood on their hands. And let's not forget the former agitator-in-chief, former president Obama:

And now they are trying to assassinate Republicans.  This has the potential to escalate quickly and horribly and Democrats who have been covertly encouraging this had better step back quickly and noticeably, NOW before the country devolves into chaos.  Or maybe, that's just what they want.