This Says it All

If we can save but one........

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

                      C.S. Lewis

Debased by Debate

Exposed as irresponsible spend thrifts, the left is desperately searching for ways to connect with its base and find its way back to power. In Jamaica they have decided to employ xenophobia with a good measure of racism. (It is so much fun to accuse others of outrageous intent – but “reductio ad absurdum”) Portia Simpson Miller the Prime Minister has decided to implement constitutional change and replace the Queen as head of state in the island. Why? Because it is a great devise to deflect attention from the fact that she has no stomach for policies that will improve the lot her fellow countrymen.

In Canada the Monarchy is very popular (to the everlasting consternation of the left) and it would be suicidal for a Liberal or NDP leader to make such a policy a major plank in their platform. For them the deflection will come under the guise of a “reasonable debate”. They need time to repeat over and over again, with the help of their media minions, their xenophobic, anti-British heritage message.  This was the same tactic Lester Pearson used to undermine Anglo- Canadian heritage in the 1960’s. Keep chipping away at the infrastructure until through exhaustion it ceases to be relevant.

 The problem is that there is no downside to the Monarchy.  It adds to the prestige of the country on an international level, it rewards valour and it generates more wealth than it costs. On a constitutional level it provides moral leadership (exemplified by King George during World War Two) while at the same time acting as a model for the limitation of executive power. The tradition of our Constitutional Monarchy stands as point of patriotism, like the flag, that all people can rally to regardless of political affiliation.

The Monarchy is a symbol of our Country.  To debate it is to debase it – much the way that debates on the right to burn the flag denigrates it and the country. To debate the Monarchy would cause great pain and distress to many of our soldiers and senior citizens.  Canada is a mature, confident democracy that is in no small measure a direct result of our history. Even while young Liberals are preparing their mischief, they cannot deny that the very subjects they pretend to speak for have in the past petitioned the Monarchy on the world stage. Both Aboriginal people and Québécois have used this avenue to present their case before the people of Canada.

The symbols of the Country should never be subject to partisan debate unless there is an aggrieved party. With the Monarchy as with the flag there are no damages – only benefits.

At the polls Canadians will punish the Left again if they inject xenophobia and racism into the national debate – they will give pain for pain received.  

Entitlement and Anti-social Behavior = OWS

The occupy movement, if you can call it a movement, has highlighted a peculiar inconsistency that has muddled thinking in the West for 100’s of years. Since the Enlightenment toleration of divergent views has become the hallmark of the compromise we call modern society. Today we are pushing the envelope on the toleration front to the point where we tolerate advocates who would outlaw toleration.

Most sane people agree that the foundation of Western freedom is adherence to the rule-of-law. Law that is arrived at by a democratic process we call Parliament. It would follow that those who skirt the law are either undermining freedom or protesting an unfair law. How then do we classify those who game the law for an affirmative benefit for themselves or their constituency?

The reason the occupy movement has not roused a larger base of support from the local populations (other than the fact that they are an unsympathetic, unwashed rabble without a cogent message) is because they are perceived to be getting away with something the rest of us cannot. Most of us know that we would be penalized without exception if the parking meter runs out or if we block traffic. Yet protestors flout regulations in the name of expression with what appears to be little consequence. We expect a “level playing field” or “equality before the law” will instill a sense of fairness that makes social interaction tolerable.

The inconsistency is the erroneous belief that the “freedom to destroy freedom” in the name of protest has any legitimacy in western thought.  For centuries the principles of Locke, Smith and Jefferson have come under exceptionally innovative attack by those seeking an unfair advantage. Vested interests have always tried to subvert freedom with intimidation to enhance their position. Unions routinely obstruct the rights of others for partisan benefit, just as the guilds and marketing boards restrict entry to professions or production for their own profit. The growth of government itself is a form of subversion that tilts the playing field toward absurd levels of unfairness (In direct contradiction of the stated goals). 

I hope we have reached the limit of tolerance for anyone who would disregard the law in pursuit of unfair benefits. The economic crisis we face today is the direct result of government policies that sought to “help” certain constituencies by giving those advantages others do not have. This mandate to fast track some people encouraged ingenious but disastrous behavior in the money markets by insinuating that sub-prime loans would be underwritten by government policy.

Perhaps the best illustration of the escalating divergence from the path of freedom is the contrast between the Tea Party protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement. One group scrupulously obeyed the law, demanded unconditional liberty with no advantage and promoted a consistent philosophy. The other group broke the law, demanded free stuff and had no coherent message to speak of.

If we truly want to maintain our liberty within a civil society we must reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law. Sadly this will only bear fruit when the law itself is purged, as best we can, of favoritism and partisan advantage. Social engineering by government inherently seeks to subvert natural law and supplant it will short-term utopian goals. We are now enduring the long-term effects of the Welfare State; extreme feelings of entitlement and anti-social behavior. I.E. The Occupy Wall Street Movement.  God help us!

Freedom in a Dangerous World

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt the Younger

How does anyone who holds individual freedom as their highest ideal defend themselves from the on-slot of vested interests both foreign and domestic?

For most this will appear to be an odd question as it would seem self-evident that the sacrifice of one’s freedom is essential to protect one’s wellbeing.  Is freedom doomed by the very act of defending freedom? The key to avoiding an intellectual melt-down is the acceptance that we live in an imperfect world and it will always be an imperfect world. Man may never achieve a Utopia and would probably lapse into conformity if he did. Epictetus said: If virtue promises happiness, prosperity and peace, then progress in virtue is progress in each of these for to whatever point the perfection of anything brings us, progress is always an approach toward it. So the battle for freedom must be fought on every question with the measure being progress toward greater liberty.

Today Freedom is under attack from all quarters. Terrorists and internet hackers in pursuit of short-term aspirations, see individuals as nothing more than a means-to-an-end. Governments and other world bodies seize the opportunity to redistribute wealth and watch our every move. Criminals lurk in places we least expect, ready to pounce. The plea of necessity is loud and growing in volume. Are we evolving into a tyranny predicted by Karl Marx?

Oakley has a point

One of These Things is a lot Like the Other...

Both Al-Qaeda and the Liberal Party of Canada are organizations that seek to challenge Western civilization. One uses overt violence to pursue its goals while the other uses the numbing mantra of moral equivalence. They both seek to be unchained from the strictures of reason, individual freedom and the right to self-defence.  They represent vested interests that wish to operate with impunity in their spheres without interference or even criticism. These interests are as diverse as the Taliban and the Ontario teachers unions, but the assignment is always the same: gain and maintain power.  The only thing that stands in their way is our tradition of freedom and our confidence to defend it.

Response to a common Complaint

Who do you think pays when corporations pay more tax?

That's right you and me. I presume by fair you mean anything but fair -
punitive attacks on success are considered fair by the left.

If by success you mean making money through predatory pricing and poor wages/benefits for employees, then yes, I am for punitive measures.  However, I don't see how making sure businesses pay taxes like everyone is punitive.  If their greed makes them raise prices because they have to pay taxes, eventually they will fail, when people can no longer afford what they are selling.  Right now, I work just as hard as my elite business executive friends, yet I earne 1/5 the salary and pay more taxes...how is that fair?  Thea

I don't know of anyone who has been successful in business who relies on pricing that does not recoup costs and can't retain employees because of poor conditions. That is unless they are subsidized by governments or taking advantage of illegal immigration. Chinese oil companies and Brazilian aircraft manufacturers come to mind. Perhaps you can think of someone.

A business is not a person – (even people on the right don't seem to get this – Bill O'Reilly) They rely on customers to pay their expenses and if they are efficient they can make a profit and stay in business. Ultimately the customer will always pay – an added expense like a new tax will come right off the bottom-line. This is basic economics – if investors can get a better return at another company they will move their capital there – it is not a question of greed. The freedom to create wealth has produced unprecedented advances in standard of living and life extension over the past two hundred years.

I feel for you when you are prevented from getting the true market value for your work. Unfortunately your industry has been monopolized by the government and is artificially holding the real cost down by restricting wages and engaging in predatory pricing. I support your quest for private sector wage levels – that is if you also accept private ownership.

The alternative is to turn the entire economy over to centralized government planners and we will all be equally poor – see Cuba.

The Technology Already Exists!

AREVA offers its clients electricity management solutions which enable them to adapt their production levels to meet demand. The group is developing solutions for the production of hydrogen through water electrolysis and the generation of electricity through fuel cells.

Building for the peak

The price of electric energy is going up at an astonishing rate and all indications are that if we continue with our existing policies it will reach economy crippling levels very soon. The reasons for this are many and varied, but the government’s desire to appear to reduce emissions is the primary explanation. So-called clean technologies are expensive and nowhere near as efficient as plants that burn fossil fuels. To compound this problem the cyclical nature of electric power consumption requires the industry to build an infrastructure that will meet the needs of peak usage. Most of this infrastructure will lay fallow during off hours - pushing up the cost.


So why not find a way to make the electrical grid pay for itself 24/7? The answer of course is to use excess electricity generation capacity to produce a clean efficient portable fuel – Hydrogen. The production of hydrogen fuel would create a whole new revenue stream for the power utilities that they could use to reduce the cost of electric power. Ironically this would have the greatest effect on the efficiency of alternative electricity sources such as wind or solar power. They are notoriously difficult to attach to the power grid because of their fluctuations in output. Taking them off-line to produce hydrogen would allow them to use 100% of their output to create usable energy.

The problem is we don't have an infrastructure that can distribute and store hydrogen. So what can government do to fix this problem? It would appear obvious. They should remove the cost of government from any project that will enhance a hydrogen fuel distribution grid. They have already spent recklessly on alternative energy projects such as wind and solar power – an investment in a hydrogen infrastructure would help make that technology more cost effective. Government should aggressively encourage the expansion of hydro-electric capacity in the far north with a primary objective of producing energy that can be piped to population centers without line-loss.

A hydrogen infrastructure cannot be built over night – so a sector by sector approach would have to be adopted. Government could influence taxis and buses to burn hydrogen fuel with tax rebates and then move to a similar program for the trucking industry. This would allow the infrastructure to keep pace with growing consumption and before long many private vehicles would make the switch.

So let’s do this before we are too broke to pay our hydro bills!

What will happen to us?

What will happen to us? From the Boston Globe

The underlying premise of this article, which takes a macro-economic view of our species, is at odds with what it means to be human. One must never forget that there is no such person as humanity – thinking of us in those terms can only lead to a calculus where millions will die. What separates us from the lower forms of life is our awareness of our own mortality on an individual level. This understanding guides us toward strategies that should enhance and extend the precious time that we have left. The subversion of our individuality by elites that collectivize us for “our own good” has left a trail of woe and destruction throughout our known history. The battle for the future of mankind lies with philosophy, not with technology.


The notion that free men are self-destructive boarders on absurd – only a sinister philosophy that would promote self-sacrifice for some “greater good” could end in the corruption of our self-interest. Liberty makes life worth living and mankind will survive by defending it.

Presently the greatest threat to freedom is the “precautionary principle” that says we should curtail liberty in order to prevent a theoretical and as yet unproven threat. This maxim will be used over and over again to exert control over our actions and extract our wealth until we become helpless. Our self-interest has always been the guide for free men to deal effectively with known threats and it will continue to protect us in the future.

Little Englanders again?

Responding to anti-American comments on Linkedin Group "Friends of Great Britain"

Christopher J Burton • I see the greatness of Britain when I look at her progeny. Freeborn British pioneers have created the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They unified the Indian Sub-continent to an unprecedented degree and spread Western liberty throughout the world. It distresses me to see a resurgence of “Little Englanders” who would like Britain to retreat into obscurity and quaintness.

The world needs leadership that confidently embraces the Western concepts of freedom that are embodied by Great Britain. The United States is not the villain in this story. Beware of the Eastern economies that are causing the de-industrialization of the West with the deft use of currency manipulation. Beware of the irrationalism and violence emigrating out of the Middle East and remember that it is the centralizing forces of government control that have enslaved Europe over and over again.                 

Breakthrough promises $1.50 per gallon synthetic gasoline with no carbon emissions

From: gizmag
UK-based Cella Energy has developed a synthetic fuel that could lead to US$1.50 per gallon gasoline. Apart from promising a future transportation fuel with a stable price regardless of oil prices, the fuel is hydrogen based and produces no carbon emissions when burned. The technology is based on complex hydrides, and has been developed over a four year top secret program at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford. Early indications are that the fuel can be used in existing internal combustion engined vehicles without engine modification.

According to Stephen Voller CEO at Cella Energy, the technology was developed using advanced materials science, taking high energy materials and encapsulating them using a nanostructuring technique called coaxial electrospraying.
“We have developed new micro-beads that can be used in an existing gasoline or petrol vehicle to replace oil-based fuels,” said Voller. “Early indications are that the micro-beads can be used in existing vehicles without engine modification.”
“The materials are hydrogen-based, and so when used produce no carbon emissions at the point of use, in a similar way to electric vehicles”, said Voller.
The technology has been developed over a four-year top secret programme at the prestigious Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, UK.
The development team is led by Professor Stephen Bennington in collaboration with scientists from University College London and Oxford University.
Professor Bennington, Chief Scientific Officer at Cella Energy said, “our technology is based on materials called complex hydrides that contain hydrogen. When encapsulated using our unique patented process, they are safer to handle than regular gasoline.” Read more here.

The Spirit of Great Britain - Avro Vulcan

This is the result of competence and confidence from years gone by.  This is the spirit we must regain in order to build the technology that will provide us with an advanced Hydrogen energy infrastructure. Hudson’s Bay will become the greatest source of energy the world has ever seen.

£500 on electricity bills to pay for green energy

Electricity bills will have to rise by up to £500 a year to pay for a new generation of environmentally friendly power stations, it emerged.

N.W.T. hydro proposal goes back to review board

The Taltson hydroelectric expansion proposal has faced opposition from Dene in Lutselk'e, N.W.T., who do not want power lines to cross the Lockhart River, which they consider to be a sacred area. (CBC)

A proposed major hydroelectric expansion project in the Northwest Territories is going back to a review board, after federal Indian and Northern Affairs Minister John Duncan rejected the board's recommendations.

Duncan said he is not prepared to approve Dezé Energy Corp.'s $700-million Taltson expansion project based on the assessment submitted by the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, which completed its environmental assessment of the proposed work in August.
In a letter to the board, dated Dec. 10, Duncan said the scope of the board's review on the project is not complete, particularly on the issue of power lines from the Northwest Territories Power Corp.'s Taltson River dam to the territory's three diamond mines north of Yellowknife.
Duncan said the review board made its recommendations without knowing what route the power transmission lines will follow, raising major questions about the expansion project's overall environmental impact.
"The report fails to fully assess the potential impacts of a transmission line as a necessary part of the development, and therefore, the assessment of the development is incomplete," he wrote in the letter, which was obtained by CBC News on Tuesday.
Line route a contentious issue
The proposal to expand the 44-year-old Taltson dam, located about 56 kilometres northeast of the Alberta-N.W.T. border, is being spearheaded by Dezé Energy, which is a joint venture between the Northwest Territories Energy Corp., the Akaitcho First Nation and the N.W.T. Métis Nation.
The joint venture wants to supply the diamond mines with hydroelectricity from the dam, so the mines could cut down on their diesel use.
Dezé Energy initially wanted to run a 700-kilometre transmission line from the dam directly to the diamond mines, crossing the Lockhart River by the eastern arm of Great Slave Lake.
But that proposal has been strongly opposed by the Lutselk'e Dene First Nation, who say the transmission lines would run through an area considered to be sacred to them.
Dezé Energy has said alternative routes that have since come up would cost much more to execute than the Lockhart River proposal. Read more here.

The Most Dangerous Thing About the Ocean Is Sharks

The claim that sea level is rising dangerously, so that coastal cities will flood and islands will be submerged, has become a staple of global warming alarmism. Today’s Associated Press story on the Marshall Islands is a classic: “If an island state vanishes, is it still a nation?”

Read more here.

Climate models used by IPCC fail to predict past climate patterns

By Robert Zimmerman:
A recent paper published in Hydrological Sciences Journal states that climate models used by IPCC cannot even predict known past climate patterns. Key quote:

It is claimed that GCMs [General Climate Models] provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale. However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms.

Read more here.

QUESTION: Didn’t the New York Times refuse to print the Climategate emails because they said that was “wrong”

From HillBuzzs
Here’s Joe Leiberman calling for a Congressional investigation of the New York Times for publishing sensitive diplomatic cables leaked by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks…including material that identifies key targets for terrorists at US installations around the world.

I remember the New York Times making up a lame excuse for why it was not properly covering Climategate…where the Times said it was because it was “wrong” to publish “private emails” going back and forth between scientists who were concocting false results to support whatever doomsday scenario Al Gore’s Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming came up with that day.
Do you remember this?
How can the New York Times be allowed to have it both ways?
Do they have any credibility left at all? Read more here.

ClimateGate One Year Later. Elite Media Still Lying

See more here.

Andrew Kenny: A Year After Climategate, The Corruption Of Science Persists

It is a year since the so-called Climategate e-mails were leaked. Since then, we have had freezing winters in Europe and the US, and revelations of gross misrepresentations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lasting impression is of massive corruption of science.

Leaked from the Climate Research Unit in England, the e-mails showed the scientists behind the climate scare plotting to: hide, delete and manipulate data; to denigrate scientists presenting different views; to force journals to publish only papers promoting climate alarm; to subvert "peer review" into "pal review"; and make the reports of the IPCC nothing but alarmist propaganda. The corruption spread through governments, universities, scientific societies and journals. You have to look back to the Lysenko episode in the Soviet Union in the 1940s (when a crank persuaded the Soviet establishment that agriculture did not follow Darwinian evolution) to find such perversion of science.
The worst nonsense after the scandal was this: "Well, some climate scientists committed a few minor transgressions but the basic science is sound." In fact, the basic science is nonexistent.
Read more here.

Cancun Climate Summit Ridiculed in World Press

While United Nations global-warming dignitaries were invoking ancient Maya goddesses for help in hammering out a wealth-redistribution “climate” treaty, prominent columnists and publications around the world were heaping scorn and ridicule on the whole COP16 extravaganza currently underway in Cancun — even heralding the end of the whole “scam.”

From the United States and Canada to the United Kingdom, the amount of negative press for the climate hysterics — and their whole expensive confab in Mexico — is growing daily. And as UN leaders and climate negotiators ramp up the fear mongering and propose ever-more ridiculous scams and taxes, the barrage of ridicule will likely continue.
“Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse,” noted Washington Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden in an opinion piece released last week. “The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion.” Read more here.