Canada revokes Emergency Act

It’s hard to work out the reason for the change since two-thirds of the population of the frozen north support the Emergencies Legislation, but that is only what the press reports. Who knows what the actual truth might be. The notion that conscience had anything to do with it is beyond farfetched. The possibility that there had been a massive run on Canadian banks is more likely as a reason for the change. And it is possible that the morons surrounding the Great Reset have found their plans both exposed a bit before they would have preferred, and have found their plans a bit tarnished in large parts of the population. Finally, the notion that the Canadian Senate might have turned this back is possible in a science-fiction sort of way but hardly plausible.

There is also the American truck convoy that is working its way to Washington that may be starting to worry these people.

Still, it is a surprising turn, and weakly suggests there is some resistance to these fascisti. It is a positive sign but it hardly adds to any sense of optimism about where we go from here.

Video of the boy-PM’s announcement here. And this is from the Canadian news.

Government broadcasters are far left cells the world over

The pathetic sheltered workshop of far-left loons known as the ABC has its counterparts everywhere else. Here we take you to Canada which has its CBC, as unrepentant as any such bunch to be found anywhere. Here is a post by Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals on Leave nasty comments for CBC and see what happens. As her own comments thread makes clear, the only characteristic that bands together all of the comments that are not posted by the CBC is that they are contrary to the views of the cadres who run the organisation. To understand the post and the comments thread that follows after, you need to know that the NDP is the Greens equivalent of Canada which may yet form the government after the election in October and whose leader is Thomas Mulcair. The Tories are the Conservatives led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, similar to Tony Abbott in that he is a man of common sense surrounded by crazies, and those crazies are not just found in other parties. The Liberals (ie Labor) are led by the astonishingly vacuous Justin Trudeau who, like Hillary Clinton, leads the party only because of his family name. Here then are Kate’s words to start the post:

We all know CBC moderates comments. Most media outlets will. We do at The Rebel, we may be free speechers but there are people that say things that can get us sued, they spew profanity, they can do all kinds of things. So we moderate, every media outlet does.

So why on earth is CBC doing a story on the Conservative Party moderating comments on their social media feeds, other than the obvious answer – to make the Conservatives look bad.

While the Tories, the NDP and the Liberals all have active Instagram feeds, Meg Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Facebook Canada, said Harper’s account is the only one that has launched ads to date.

Many of the early comments on the sponsored posts were critical of Harper and his government’s policies. Those comments have since disappeared.

Who the hell cares on the CBC? This is only about showing the Conservatives in a bad light.

Try this out, go to CBC’s site and leave rude and profane comments and see if they stay up or are deleted. Then drop me a line in the comments to let me know what happens.

No one will be surprised at the results, but they should be read as a measure of the difficulty parties of the right face in every jurisdiction. The people who run the media are articulate, have direct control of the most far-reaching media service in their own countries, have the marketing of left-wing sophistries down pat, are as devious as any leftist soap-box operator found anywhere, and have a loud aggressive audience who may be relatively small in numbers but are found everywhere, and importantly, often have the special mark of deep ignorance, a university degree in the humanities. These organisations also have a constituency within every party in which they operate. It is a formidable combination that has thus far proven impossible to root out. And now that they are discovering this for themselves, have become more arrogant and indifferent to the public with each passing year.

Balanced budgets make economies stronger – the latest episode

A story on how balanced budgets have caused the Canadian economy to boom. From which this:

We have a lot of cases available to us to test the proposition that we will increasingly be hearing that balancing the books is over-rated. If the all-stimulus-all-the-time Keynesians are correct, for example, France should be the strong man of Europe, for its Socialist president came to power rejecting “austerity” and preaching the virtues of stimulus. Britain, which pursued a course of fiscal discipline under the coalition government of David Cameron, should be in steep decline.

Instead the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, recently had to apologise to Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer for having wrongly warned that his austerity policies would provoke disaster, as Britain turns in one of the strongest economic performances in the EU. Overtaxed and tapped out France, by contrast, continues to be the sick man of Europe. Interviewed on British television Ms Lagarde acknowledged that Britain’s growth seems “pretty sustainable” because it depends on private sector investment and consumer spending.

Economic theory of the Y=C+I+G variety has a lot to answer for. Balanced budgets accompanied by limited growth in public spending are the key to prosperity. The opposite can be seen everywhere in the misery and harm that are caused (see the US for exhibit A). Canada and the UK are now examples of how private sector growth along with what others choose to call “austerity” actually do create the foundations for economic growth.

Australia still has the world’s best healthcare system

An interesting submission on the healthcare system in Canada beginning with this:

Many healthcare reform advocates, political pundits, and policymakers point to Canada as a shining example of the advantages of a state-run, single-payer healthcare system.

Canada is, in fact, one of only a handful of countries with a bona fide single-payer system. Government officials set the total budget for what can be spent on health care every year.
Provinces and territories administer their own insurance programs, with additional funding from the federal government.

Private insurance is outlawed in several provinces.

This is the sort of system that many are calling for here in the United States. They want to abolish private insurance and leave government as the sole source of health coverage.

Read the rest if you think free healthcare is any kind of an answer. Because we have a dual system, there are more resources in the Australian system than there otherwise would be and everyone ends up with better healthcare than they otherwise would have. There’s more illness than the ability to treat it all but from what I can tell, Australia’s is the best there is.

Via Powerline.

Which side are you on?

We went to see Lone Survivor last night and then we came home and I watched Canada-USA in the hockey. And while you may think the two have nothing to do with each other, let me explain.

In the hockey, Canada won it by the soccer score of 1-0. That Channel 10 chose to show the Koreans winning the speed skating while the only goal was scored took some of the pleasure away but nice to see. Sunday it’s Canada v Sweden.

And then there was Lone Survivor, the most nail-biting film of the year, as good as any movie I’ve seen over the past twelve months. The subject matter, though, has created quite a divide within the US. This is what the film is about.

LONE SURVIVOR, starring Mark Wahlberg, tells the story of four Navy SEALs on an ill-fated covert mission to neutralize a high-level Taliban operative who are ambushed by enemy forces in the Hindu Kush region of Afghanistan.

Given the description, you will not be surprise to hear that so far as Academy Awards and other such laurels go, nothing at all. It is a major success across the Red States of America but goes nowhere in the blue states. And this is why I think that is. It is because you can only enjoy the movie if you side with the Americans. Everyone comes to the cinema with their politics fully engaged, specially a film such as this. For me and those I went with, we side with the Americans. The movie therefore completely works. For blue state America, however, it doesn’t work at all. They are disengaged and, I fear, even wish America’s enemies success. The movie is therefore an ordeal for those of a different view. This is from the review at The Washington Post:

What’s missing here is something, or rather, someone, to care about. Written and directed by Peter Berg (“Battleship”), the film presumes our emotional investment in Luttrell and his fellow soldiers’ mission, simply by virtue of — well, it’s never quite clear what. The questions of who exactly Shah is, other than one of many murderous thugs, and why we should care so deeply about his fate, is never really explained in a way that grabs the imagination.

The film must have been an endless torment to him. It’s only a film but if your instincts are not with the Americans then the film is lost on you. You are either with Team USA or you are not. In the war in Afghanistan, blue state America is not.

So when I come home to watch the hockey, no longer was I with Team USA. I have ancient views and attitudes that I bring to the match. Not quite like a Canada-USSR match of days of yore but fully engaged. And so in this film, as in so many other ways, the fifth column of Americans who were born and raised in our culture but hate it and wish to see it fail, have their attitudes engrained at such depth that it is hard to think what could ever save us now.