Andrew Scheer Says Canadians Will See Conservative Climate Plan ‘Very Soon’

Andrew Scheer Says Canadians Will See Conservative Climate Plan ‘Very Soon’

As I mentioned two days ago, Andrew Scheer handled questions from state media’s (CBC) Catherine Cullen with some good political manoeuvring.

This follow-up story from HuffPost recaps the interview nicely, even quoting Cullen’s question characterizing the IPCC report as referring to a “life or death” issue.

The problem is, everybody in media and politics takes this pseudo-science seriously. No one has the intellectual honesty to challenge the methodology, which is not scientific by the way.

That criticism includes Andrew Scheer, who appears ready to compromise as he and his party come up with another version of spending wealth confiscated from those in Canada who might apprecate a climate that is one or two degrees warmer on average.


Melania Trump: Women accusing men should ‘show the evidence’

Melania Trump: Women accusing men should ‘show the evidence’

Mrs. Trump’s statements will probably invite negative backlash from some quarters in the “#metoo” crowd but she is merely stating something that should be standard in civilized society.

One does not make accusations or claims of any kind without some evidence, and arbitrary statements in particular have no place in debate or discourse.

It is not enough to simply “believe” an alleged victim.

“Life or Death” Issue?

Catherine Cullen, in a so-called “Power and Politics” program on CBC News Network, was challenging Andrew Scheer, leader of the official opposition in Canada’s parliament, on his party’s position relative to the recent release of a dire report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as to his party’s position in light of this “life and death issue.”

Well excuse me, but exactly what credibility does the IPCC have after its dismal record of prior predictions made by group consensus? None.

But that does not impede the CBC in its relentless persecution of anyone with opposing views to UN-supported opinions. So the pressure was on to get Scheer to embarrass himself on national television, at taxpayer expense (on CBC, i.e., state media.)

Scheer, to his credit, did not fumble with the line of questioning but it was pretty clear he was ready to compromise depending on how his party experts would eventually spin a fuller political response than the leader could give, off the cuff as it were.

As to the IPCC report that we (the human race) have only eleven years to reduce global warming or face death from drought and extreme heat as a consequence, I think this “Chicken Little” claim is dubious at best.

The claims of the IPCC and other alarmists, Al Gore being most prominent among them, do not inspire confidence or bolster credibility. Except, of course, within the political confines of current Liberal Government and state media, CBC News Network.

North American “Frustrated Trade” Abomination (NAFTA)

If there is anyone more “Pollyanna-esque” than Foreign Affaìrs Minister Christia Freeland, who has regularly assured the media that trade negotiations are proceeding apace, it would have to be our “celebrity Prime Minister.”

Justin Trudeau apparently said today, according to CTV News Channel, that an agreement could be just “days away.” The Prime Minister admitted that the same prognostication was given last spring.

If there is an “agreement” between these governments it will have nothing to do with free trade among individuals or organizations of individuals, (i.e., corporations and other forms of business organizations).

In order to trade freely, individuals must have property rights protected by their governments. For governments to set any kind of regulation of the exchange of private property is to deny and frustrate trade.

Edward Podritske

Truth and Nothing More

I’ve suspended comments temporarily.

The reason is that I’ve become so concerned about the deterioration of our western culture I need to think more fundamentally about the underlying causes of the decay.

The latest delusion and madness that has caught my attention is the consequences of official policies of multiculturalism. It is most evident in Canada where I reside.

However, the delusion is widespread. It impacts western societies across the globe, including Europe, the remnants of the British Commonwealth as well as all of North America. Why?

Perhaps the greatest error ever committed by societies was the conceding of the responsibility for education of children to the state. No longer do young minds have much opportunity for a conceptual education, that is in training them to think for themselves. Instead, they are bombarded with out-of-context concrete examples of issues (largely political) or maybe worse, left to create their own programs of study.

The result of such pitiful approaches to education is several generations largely out of touch with the facts of reality (truth), unable to think in principles (to discover the truth)but in many cases full of useless information or at worst being completely neurotic.

What all of this holds for the future of a culture out of touch with reality is self-destruction, In philosophical terms it is nihilism. The only question seems to be how long it will take to fade into some form of chaos and dictatorship.

Violations of Rights

An imbroglio in Canada’s House of Commons developed recently over a “summer jobs program” funded by the government.

Well, not so much the program, which all parties seem to agree is a good thing. In fact, the article refers to it as a “normally feel-good program.”

The trouble started when Mr. Trudeau’s government introduced a condition for funding applications this year. It is the requirement that applicants must sign an attestation that their organization’s “core mandate” respects the notion of “reproductive rights.” Otherwise, their applications would be rejected. Over 1500 have been rejected so far with just over 100 at the same point last year, according to the article.

Things really began to flare up when it was discovered that one application, submitted by something called the “Dogwood” initiative, had the express purpose of paying for an assistant to “help our organizing network stop the Kinder Morgan pipeline and tanker project.”

So the current Liberal government of Canada is prepared to financially support “anti-pipeline protestors.” Apparently “Dogwood” has no problem attesting to its “core mandate” of respect for “reproductive rights” if it means getting subsidized for “free speech.” To be fair, there is a connection between the privilege of having others finance your right to protest and the privilege of women to have others pay for their abortions. It’s “others pay.”

“Free expression and advocacy” is a principle his government must defend says Prime Minister Trudeau in defending both the required attestation and approval of the “Dogwood” application. Mr. Trudeau might think it nitpicking, but there is an important derivative distinction between a principle and a right. And free speech is a right.

A principle is a fundamental truth, upon which other truths depend. The principle underlying free speech is the right to your own life. It’s only when you choose to live among other humans that the issue of “rights” comes into relevance. We have government ideally to protect those rights.

In the House of Commons imbroglio and subsequent coverage nobody addresses a proper definition of free speech.

So let’s try to help. Freedom of speech means “freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by—the government.” What are the implications? Free speech must be judged on its merits by those who choose to listen without being forced to pay for the opportunity. It means no interference in the form of, for example, subsidy by the government, no censorship, which only government can do, and you should not face fines or imprisonment for criticizing the government. It also means that if you have something to say, you do so by your own means and without trespass on the rights of others.

The “summer jobs program” itself is an improper action by government and is financed by wealth extorted from the productive sector. What makes it worse is the condition added related to matters of “conscience.” No one should need to swear an oath respecting the legitimate rights of others as they also pertain to all of us. There is a reciprocity principle when it comes to rights.

A violation of rights can be met with retaliatory force. It is one of the reasons for establishing government, to place the use of that force under objective control through a justice system. When government violates rights, as I think it clearly does with the “core mandate” attestation requirement, it degrades our culture and moves us further along the path to despotism.