Thinking hypothetically…

A few weeks before the expected election call, strategists from Alberta’s Progressive Conservative machine faced a huge challenge: reverse the trend of sinking public support. The 41-year political dynasty tasted the first real threat to its hold on power and needed an out.

They couldn’t run on their record. Five consecutive in-the-hole budgets, more than 70 investigations into malfeasance, and an ever-growing reputation of total arrogance and entitlement bathed the province’s Natural Governing Party.

The only option was what P.C. spin doctor Stephen Carter referred to as the ‘negative myth’ option. Slime your opponent to a) discredit them in the eye of the public, and b) deflect attention away from history of bad governance.

A ‘strawman’ needed to be created, and fast. Someone unrelated to the P.C. group had to be activated whose sole purpose was to sell the myth.

Enter Kikki.

Soon after the writ was dropped and the expected bad news came flooding in from the polls, the local blogger published a convenient and, at first blush emotional, story of how she was a huge supporter of the biggest threat to the P.C.s – the Wildrose party, and how she had a life-altering change of heart when she ‘learned’ of the new party’s position on the issue of Conscience Rights.

That was step one. Step two soon followed, in which the main stream media picked up the story (amazingly at lightning speed) and ran with it. Left wing ‘journalists’ waiting anxiously for anything to smear the upstart Wildrose had their opening, and as if by design, quickly ensured Kikki her fifteen minutes of fame by turning a simple and highly suspicious post on an unknown blog into the issue of the campaign.

There is no doubt Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald’s Robert Remington will be sending Kikki some Christmas cards this year (unless they deem that to be too politically-incorrect).

It was at this point the P.C. team jumped on the buzz and turned their campaign around. Suddenly the public wasn’t hearing about the fumbling of the oil sands file or the year-after-year deficits or underhanded infringing on personal rights and freedoms. The media didn’t care about facts. They cared about the ‘scary’ Wildrose and all the damage to our society their victory would cause.

Convenient for a media intent on promoting their friends, the ‘new, left wing P.C.s’.

For their part, the Wildrose showed evidence of being unprepared for this expected turn of events. Call it rookie mistakes or assuming Albertan voters were too intelligent as to be fooled by such untrue allegations, the novice party fumbled the issue until it had grown unmanageable. Surely, voters would know that none of the sacred cows of society would be in danger. Surely, they knew Canada’s Constitution prevented any government from crossing the line, right?

Wrong. The ‘negative myth’ worked like a charm and the P.C.s lived to govern for another term.

Since the election, we’ve seen Alison Redford’s P.C. government pick up where they left off. Talk of more personal property-seizing laws and even a new, Alberta-made N.E.P. has recently come from the governing party. More of the same mismanaged government as before.

And Kikki? She has apparently sunk back into obscurity, her services no longer required by the victors. Some unanswered questions remain – ones that the MSM ignored which would call into question Kikki’s story. Did she ever really support the Wildrose? Was she ever a party member? Is her amazing, eye-opening revelation legitimate?

Of all the Wildrosers I know and have spoken with, only one ever remembers (“vaguely”) seeing her at one Wildrose town hall get-together. Her post-election Tweets read like a list of left wing talking points. If Kikki’s story is valid, whatever led her to support the Wildrose party in the first place? Was it the Wildrose fiscal policy? Was it their position on the oil sands? Was it because the Wildrose leader is a woman?

Time has passed and the election is now but a memory. But the tale sure reads like a subplot from some political thriller b-movie.

Fictitious, of course.

Of the nuggets of wisdom (what few I have) which I have attempted to pass down to my kids, perhaps the most pertinent is to ‘always consider the source’. When hearing a claim or opinion, go behind the words and study the messenger.

Given the priority issues in our schools – environmentalism, anti-capitalism, political correctness, etc., kids need to learn the skill of critical thinking now more than ever.

This came to mind as a result of recent comments by NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. The novice Opposition leader has made headlines by publicly bashing Canada’s oil sands industry directly and Western Canada in general.

Making outrageous claims – similar to those of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty – about Alberta’s energy sector being the cause of alleged destruction of Eastern Canada’s manufacturing industry, Mulcair opened fire on one of his and his party’s favorite targets.

The expected reaction followed with counter-statements from the likes of federal National Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall.

(As is usual, Albertan’s had to wait for our own Premier Redford’s response. It takes time to consult, discuss, write, vet, re-write, practice, then type a Tweet, you know.)

When Thomas Mulcair learned of the backlash emanating from a place called Common Sense, he showed the dignity and high ethical standard we’ve come to expect from a prominent leftist by bypassing the topic and personally attacking those who disagree, calling them lackeys for P.M. Stephen Harper.

This, right as StatsCan released new statistics which show our Eastern manufacturing sector actually growing and creating jobs – thanks in large part to the oil sands. No word from Mulcair yet if StatsCan is also a minion of Harper.

But the point is the evidence is overwhelming Thomas Mulcair is wrong on the oil sands. Sure, he won’t lose any of the usual NDP socialists who long ago learned to ignore any inconvenient truth that exposes their beliefs as false. And, inexplicably, he will also continue enjoy the support of unions whose members would be negatively impacted if Mulcair’s policies ever came to pass.

Here’s where it is important to consider the source. Mulcair’s defiance in the face of contradictory evidence on the oil sands is just the latest of his bizarre stances.

He showed great hypocrisy by raging against the return of the ‘horrible’ criminal Conrad Black, yet vocally supports and defends convicted terrorist Omar Khadr in his return to Canada. Khadr, murderer/terrorist who is fully indoctrinated in the concept of jihad: good. Black, philanthropist, media baron: bad.

Then there is the 9/11 conspiracy quips. And an apparent UFO encounter.

Mulcair also question the official story of the Usama bin Laden killing, stating: "I don't think from what I've heard that those pictures [of bin Laden's body] exist."

So, here we have someone who fits the classic description of a conspiracy theorist who forms his opinions not on evidence but instead on hearsay and hunch, ignoring statistical evidence in his condemnation of the oil sands industry.

Perhaps too much weight, attention, and credibility have been given to Thomas Mulcair’s anti-oil sands rants, and not enough focus directed at the source of the comments.

Hearing a far-left socialist make negative and misinformed comments regarding Alberta’s oil sands is nothing new. Federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair’s latest rant on how the industry is causing stress and strife on the rest of the Canadian economy is neither unexpected nor surprising.

Mulcair’s idiotic statements follow those of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s, who just a few months back said virtually the same things. The oil sands have become the go-to target for left-wing politicians hoping to scare a few votes their way. Other than introducing the concept of ‘Dutch disease’ to the argument, his position is the same as his predecessor Jack Layton. Nothing new there.

What it disappointing is the response. Sure, we had federal Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver speak out against Mulcair’s tripe. Oliver has proven to be more than impressive with his portfolio, as evidenced by his quick movement to streamline the regulatory requirements for new pipelines.

And we saw Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall become the voice of reason. When asked about Mulcair’s comments, Wall didn’t hold back. First responding via Twitter, Wall stated: "Thomas Mulcair calls the strength of our resource sector a "disease" ... Resources have been the cure not the problem, NDP."

Wall then followed up for reporters by accusing Mulcair of playing divide and conquer politics. "I think it's very, very divisive," Wall said. "For someone who aspires to be prime minister to label a certain sector of our economy that's actually creating jobs — creating jobs through exports and through their development for all of the country — that he would label this as a problem, is very disconcerting and I hope he changes his tune."

What is disappointing in all of this is the absolute silence by the one ‘leader’ charged with defending the oil sands. At a time when our most valuable resource is under attack from the Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition, the CBC, and a collage of environmental groups, Alberta premier Alison Redford is nowhere to be found.

Redford, fresh off a fear-gifted victory in the recent provincial election, has been quiet. Too quiet. All Albertans, even those who did not vote for the Progressive Conservatives, expect our premier to be front-and-center in the battle. Instead, she’s busy playing the avoiding game, as she’s done with other issues like the twinning of the killer highway 63, or how she plans to pay for her $7 billion in campaign promises.

Confidence that Redford would fulfill her obligation to stand up for our energy sector has taken a massive hit over this. This is what many of us feared during the election campaign when Redford touted ‘new energies’ while all but ignoring the oil sands issue. This is, as many of us said, a ‘real’ issue as opposed to the fake social issues that dominated the campaign.

Now we see first-hand how Alison Redford defends Alberta’s interests. She says nothing.

It is possible that by the time you read this, Redford will have come out with a statement of her own. Doubtful, but certainly possible. In that case, it would show her coming late to the party. She would be no better than third in line, behind Joe Oliver and Brad ‘the premier we wish we had’ Wall in standing up for our energy sector. Not good enough.

Remember the warnings about handing the task of defending the oil sands to a leftwing leader of a leftwing party?

I told you so.

Acts of public protests are nothing new.  From time to time, certain trigger issues will emerge which cause the general public to rally en masse for or against or both on the topic.

The 1960’s were defined by both the anti-Vietnam War ‘hippie’ crowd, comprised mostly of the younger generation, and civil rights marches in the sometimes bloody battle for racial equality.  The neon, Cold War ‘80’s saw protests against nuclear proliferation as well as its use as an energy source, and South Africa’s Apartheid policies, along with the starving in Ethiopia, were the main social causes.

Even back before and during World War II there were anti-war groups and outspoken public figures.

The recent rise in the occurrence of protests is much different in one distinct way.  No matter on which side of the fence you stood on with past issues, and no matter if history has proven you right or not, at least the purpose to protest back then was founded in something real.

Anti-Apartheid March, 1985

Nuclear power was being expanded.  Because of the Cold War, so were the warheads.  Nelson Mandela was real.  The Vietnam War was real.  They actually existed.  Citizens marched against nuclear buildup in the 1980’s not because of phantom science, but because the Soviet Union and the United States did, in fact, have huge arsenals of killer weapons.

Today, we don’t have a major (recognized) world war.  Starvation still happens of course, but the protest groups have changed their focus to other issues.

While historically situated on the left of the spectrum, the ‘protest movement’ has lurched to the far-left and has become generally more violent and aggressive in its pursuit of its goals. The new wave consists of the first post-Cold War generation.  They are now in their late-teens to late-twenties, and have grown up in a world without the prime example of socialist failure, the Soviet Union.

Western governments fumbled the ball by immediately sending trillions to the ‘new capitalist Russia’ and its former nation-states, instead of spending some of that cash educating the former slaves of communism on the inner workings of the free market system.

Socialism in the former U.S.S.R was soon replaced by a weird form of bribe capitalism which had a level of corruption that would make 1930’s Chicago blush.

Any lessons which could have been instilled in our kids about the dangers and inevitable self-destruction of the socialist state were ignored by our education systems, our educators’ attention fixed instead on inserting the new environmentalism agenda into the lesson plans.

Today’s Generation Whatever sees socialism through the eyes of their messiahs: the Hollywood collective.  They see ‘respected actors’ such as Danny Glover and Sean Penn soaking up valuable photo-op time with Venezuela’s Moron-In-Chief Hugo Chavez.

The blurring of the celebrity/learned political genius line has created a false legitimacy in the opinions of such informed people as Al Gore, Michael Moore, Kevin Bacon, Daryl Hannah, Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert Redford, etc., who speak out repeatedly against the intangible threat of ‘climate change’ while living a lavish personal lifestyle, sometimes making money on the perpetuation of an unfounded ideology.

Montreal, 2012

As an example of the effects, I give you the Occupy movement.  The thinking has become so clouded they target capitalism and Big Business for the economic sins of a president they overwhelmingly support.

In Quebec students are rampaging through the streets of Montreal as a reaction to the provincial government’s plan to raise tuition, even though the post-elevation would still place the cost for Quebec students around the lowest in Canada.  Ignored are facts, such as Alberta’s long-time contribution to keeping the price of post-secondary education low in Quebec through transfer payments, while our own students struggle to pay their bills.

A complicit leftwing media, an American President who publicly condemns free-market capitalism while forcefully engaging in leftwing socialist economics, and an education system which has shed any semblance of traditional schooling and filled the void with socialist, politically-correct programming for our young have created the Protester Without a Cause.

The video that will haunt Obama until he is replaced in November.

(courtesy http://freemarketamerica.org/ )