A weak link in the conservative pro-War on Terror chain during the Bush administration was the nonsensical attempt by a handful on the right to paint those opposed as ‘unpatriotic’. As someone who has steadfastly supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right from 9/11 on, I would wince with every rightwing newspaper column and television pundit’s ridiculous jab of this fashion.

Luckily, these folks were a slim minority of the right, and were summarily slapped down by their more intellectual peers. True conservatives have always accepted the fact – relished in it, in fact - that one can and should use the gift of freedom of speech to voice opposition to the government.

Naturally, the political left was in a tizzy over this. They grabbed their chests and collectively swooned in front of every camera they could find. They screamed and cried and repeated their flawed, hypocritical mantra: ‘We support the troops, but we don’t support the war!’

But they had one point: it was not a question of patriotism. The fact that the pro-War movement would try such a flimsy ploy made the public look at the right with even greater suspicion.

Fast forward to now. America’s left has taken power smack-dab in the eye of a powerful economic storm, and the Obama-led ‘stimulus package’ is on its way.

Quickly becoming a vehicle to push forward an all-encompassing socialist agenda on America, the package has grown into a grotesque creature comprised of green policies, bloated spending in the wrong directions, and social engineering.

And it seems to be contagious, as other Western nations seem to be catching the ‘we heart socialism’ solution to the recession. (The Canadian Conservative government has got the bug bad, and has lost all reminisce of fiscal responsibility with their recently introduced budget with spending of historic proportions.)

But what happens when you voice opposition to the Cult of Bailout? Simple. You are unpatriotic.

We are being inundated by media telling us that if we don’t jump on the Obama bandwagon, we are against America. So deep in the fog are these people, they actually seem dumbfounded when they come across one of the few (million) who didn’t vote for Obama and don’t follow the belief that the only way out of a hole is to dig a bigger one.

Nowhere is this more evident than on that bastion of media fairness, MSNBC. In a recent interview, host Norah O’Donnell was full of surprise not only at comments by Rush Limbaugh who stated that he hoped Obama would fail (as opposed to the overwhelming best wishes and support the left showed for Bush), but also at interviewee Congressman Mike Pence for supporting Rush’s right to have that P.O.V.

The unabashed prObama bias that erupted during the election campaign is still alive and well with O'Donnell.

O’Donnell spat: “…that’s not the kind of rhetoric, when America’s trying to come together and do something…”

I recall her saying the same thing to those anti-war fanatics who were calling for the impeachment of the president of the United States in a time of war. Oh wait, no I don’t. In fact, in the past few years I cannot recall that many media talking heads going to bat for solidarity in the face of anything, let alone terrorism.

How audacious it is to assume that everyone has caught Barackitis. How presumptuous to gauge someone’s patriotism by their love of Obama and a devastatingly socialist economic bailout package.

How wrong it is to question the patriotism of those who do not wish to see the government establish a socialist state on the backs of future generations.

And how hypocritical.

There is a common misguided practice of thinking that activism is the sole possession of the political left.

With unlimited footage of anti-war protests filling the airwaves for the first decade of the 21st century, added to the understated avenues of voicing opinion normally used by the right (it seems we’d rather host radio talk shows then march down a city street), when activism erupts from the conservative camp it tends to raise eyebrows.

And in those all-too unique times in history when the left and the right come together, you can be sure that not only is the issue in question of unparalleled importance (think of the days just after 9/11), but that the eventual and inevitable result will be effective change.

Such an issue has arisen. No, it’s not the over-politicized terror issue. That has morphed into an ugly beast that resembles little of its original matter. Iraq has polarized Americans to the point that they were willing to put their faith into a man of little experience, questionable credentials, suspect advisors, with the name ‘Hussein’. You’re damn right that matters.

But that's another story.

This is about the resurrection of the Great Bear. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is swiftly transforming into a fascist state, complete with a popular dictator, a compliant security force that literally kills dissent, cash, oil, and…what else was there?....oh, right – nukes.

Putin has already shown his willingness to hold the economic wellbeing of neighboring nations hostage with the games he’s been playing with oil and natural gas exports. Just ask the Ukraine how trustworthy they think Putin is.

Russia’s connections to Middle East nations run deep and long, and Russian influence I the global War on Terror cannot be ignored, nor can they be trusted not to play politics if it means embarrassment for the United States.

Remember, this regime has overseen the deaths of outspoken writers, journalists, and activists. That is why I am calling on those who value democracy and freedom to support Russia’s ‘illegal’ opposition organization, The Other Russia – News from the Coalition for Democracy in Russia.

If we truly support the spreading of liberty and freedoms throughout the world, then that support must include the struggle in all nations, no matter where. With democracy on life support in Moscow, Garry Kasparov and others are risking more than just their careers in order to draw attention to what’s occurring.

They fight to break through the state-run, pro-Putin national media in the attempt to educate their countrymen, while working to draw international attention in hopes of creating pressure on the Putin regime.

These freedom warriors should be heard. While they still can.

10) As a kid, was original choice for roll of ‘Webster’.

9) Has every Barry Manilow song on CD.

8) Bowling champ.

7) Has already tried to talk Michelle into having ‘multi-lateral negotiations’ with Condi Rice.

6) Actual height? 3”6.

5) Wife is finally proud to be an American.

4) Wants to change the National Anthem to LLCool J’s ‘Mama Said Knock You Out.'

3) Brief member of the Cosby Kids.

2) Only smokes after sex. Always smoking. Ya with me, folks?

1) Ears surgically altered in order to make huge head look smaller.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks

to Canadian soldiers in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The Canadian love-in with Barack Obama hit its crescendo on Tuesday with the Inauguration ceremony. The buzz was so great (reminder: he’s not OUR president) it made me wonder if the United States had annexed Canada overnight and I had missed the news.

The Body Snatcher aura of watching scores of traditionally anti-American, leftwing Canadians rush to embrace an American president has been, to say the least, nervously fascinating. (I'm sure the fact that Donald Sutherland is Canadian is purely coincidental...)

The left may have to deal with a bit of a shock, however. The pending visit by President Obama to Canada – following the tradition that Dubya strayed from with his first international presidential trip to Mexico, thereby setting the foundation of eight years of anti-American vitriol from the latte-sipping pseudo-elite – may just confound the Northern Obama-ites.

On the surface, one wonders how our two leaders could possibly build a rapport. Canada’s Stephen Harper portrays a straight-forward thinker, high on substance but sorely lacking in style. His stiff demeanor is in great contrast to Obama’s stylish and suave image. The first meeting will qualify as good fly-on-the-wall material, for sure.

Many things will be in play, first and foremost the rebuilding of America’s image on the international stage. That starts with their closest friend and ally. It will prove to be a stepping-stone for the Obama foreign policy plan, which brings me to the major slap-in-waiting for the liberal left: Afghanistan.

Obama has long stated his desire to ‘re-start’ the War on Terror in Afghanistan. While the large anti-war crowd fell in love with the idea that Obama would ‘bring the troops home’, which may in fact be true regarding Iraq, he has stayed strong and unwavering in his push for an increased American military force in Afghanistan as well as redoubling the efforts to hunt down Usama bin Laden.

On this, Harper and Obama are in sync. Canadian Armed Forces have spent the past few years shouldering the load of the fighting and reconstruction efforts, and with the exception of American troops, have done more than their share of spearheading the fight against the terrorists.

Canada’s Prime Minister has been loud and clear in repeated calls for more troops from the NATO nations, who have sunk into the habit of not putting words and commitments into action. With the Obama-led ‘surge’ (sound familiar?), the tough-on-terrorism Canadian Prime Minister and the President are on common ground.

As well, it’s been rumored that the Canadian government will extend the offer to work closely together with the Obama administration in order to create joint Canadian-U.S. initiatives on energy and environmental issues – issues that are well-known to be important to the President.

Much more in common and the Canadian left will deflate completely, their image of Obamassiah shattered by the damn annoying reality that the Conservative libertarian Harper and the Democrat liberal Obama could become fast friends.

The very first test President-elect Obama faces could be his toughest, and depending on what path he takes, it could not only determine his chances for a second term but his whole presidential legacy overall.

In preparation for his move into the White House, Obamassiah has been receiving daily national security information, meaning he is privy to the true knowledge of the threats America and the rest of the free world face – he is learning what is kept from the general public but has been known to Bush, Cheney, et al for years.

Voted in by the war-tired masses and those who believed he would pull a rapid retreat from Iraq (only Democrats could favor retreat in time of victory), Obama is now exposed to the ultimate insider information on touchy issues like Guantanamo. In spite of his campaign vitriol, surely even he must now see the necessity of such otherwise ugly methods.

And that puts him in a rather sticky situation.

You can promise almost anything when victory isn’t guaranteed, as every presidential election has shown. As the campaign price tag shoots up, so does the volume of grandiose promises. Obama’s speeches were high on spectacle, low on substance. Now that he finds himself assuming the position as the Most Powerful Person On Earth, how will he reconcile common sense with promise?



Those who look upon him as the new savior (sadly, that is not an overstatement) trust that he will make that nagging Iraq thing disappear, and bring a swift and successful conclusion in Afghanistan. Obama’s supporters are amongst the most out of touch in the world, and their expectations could be prove to be a hindrance to the new president.

Of course, to the far left, there is no such thing as a ‘War on Terror’. These people believe that Bush created and masterminded (?) the 9/11 attacks as an avenue to appease of his family’s alleged grudge against Saddam Hussein. Honestly. Even I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Now that Obama is (hopefully) coming to understand the need for extraordinary measures in the face of the forces raging against us, and perhaps finally comprehending the sense of Guantanamo and other disliked practices of the Bush administration, it will be interesting to see how he juggles the fight against Islamic terrorism and fulfillment of the unrealistic demands of his staunchest supporters.

One would think they would be mutually exclusive. Talk about a tough spot to be in.

No wonder Obama’s team looks like a Clinton administration reunion. Never to be mistaken as being without grey matter, Obama latched on to the experience in his party. While the rightwing focuses on the hypocrisy – ‘Change’ is now an obvious misnomer – B. Hussein has reacted to his new found knowledge by surrounding himself with those in his party who have the best chance of guiding him through this.

After all, these guys convinced the general public that supporting a two-timing, bold-faced lying president with awful taste in women wasn’t anything to be ashamed of, so they should be able to massage a little change in foreign policy without much backlash, no?

This is dependent, of course, on Obama actually being as intelligent as we have been led to believe. It is inconceivable that a president would sacrifice even one sliver of national security in exchange for a misleading approval bump.

However, if it turns out that he really is the charlatan some of us fear that he is, the next four years could be very interesting, and unnerving, indeed.

Canadians who are part of the anti-war crowd (also known as ‘the unemployed’) have been ripping into the latest incident in Afghanistan like a pit bull into a toy poodle.

Not content to just limit their embarrassing comments to the usual inappropriate times, namely while a flag-draped coffin is being unloaded from its journey home, the Taliban-friendly unwashed among us has swarmed to the issue of one Capt. Robert Semrau who has been slapped with a murder charge. To listen to those who are against our military involvement in the war-torn nation, one gets the impression they feel an investigation and subsequent appearance in court is just a huge waste of time. He’s guilty! Someone died in a war zone! Bring the boys home!

Of course, it is extremely early in the process. Understandably in this time of war, information has been scarce in order to protect not only the investigation, but in the interests of national security overall. Rubbish, the sandal-saddled shout, more interested in an opportunity to discredit our own Bravest than to see Afghanis achieve their goal of a safe and free nation. They have thrown the expected allegations of a ‘cover-up’, questioning the gap in time between the alleged incident and the charges – roughly 2 ½ months.

Rubbish, all right.

What we do know is that the shooting occurred during a firefight with Taliban insurgence. Canadian, Afghan, and British soldiers were defending the capital of Helmand province, Lashkar Gah, from an insurgent attack. The charge is that Cpt. Semrau shot and killed an Afghan male who has been called ‘an unarmed suspected militant’. In a sane, non-politically correct country, this is known as ‘killing the enemy.’

But not here in the nation that worries more about our enemies ‘human rights’ than the rights of Afghan women and children.

One remembers the outcry when former head of the Canadian military Rick Hillier shocked the snot-nosed masses when he transformed the image of our military from beret-wearing peace-keepers back into fighters in order to go after ‘detestable murderers and scumbags’.

"We are not the Public Service of Canada. We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people," he famously said in 2005.

The thought that our bravest men and women would actually be called upon to kill an enemy force is completely foreign to the latte pseudo-elite. In fact, one has to question if they believe that freedom itself is worth fighting for.

Even the reality of a 'War on Terror' is considered debatable to these people.

As much as Hillier’s comments were seen as confrontational and controversial, he did represent the strengthening of the force and a major boost to their image.

People die in a war zone. Soldiers don’t always have time to frisk someone when bullets are flying overhead, and often have to make life-saving decisions by the split second. A Taliban fighter or sympathizer – armed or not – is still the enemy.

Our Armed Forces are putting their lives on the line to help the Afghan people establish basic rights and freedoms, including the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty. Perhaps we could show the same consideration to one of our own.

There has been an ongoing saga surrounding the Western Business and Taxpayer's Association (WBTA)'s Policy Chair position and whether or not Sheldon Johnston had resigned. In fact, it has caught the attention of those interested in Western separation as well as others who aren't so supportive of the idea.

It's become a bit of a buzz, surprisingly.

I have yet to make a decision about whether or not I will publicly support the WBTA, and previously stated my concerns, specifically regarding the Policy Chair position.

Today I received a message from WBTA V.P. Daniel Doherty which should put the issue to rest. Doherty confirmed that the WBTA has received correspondence from Johnston in which he officially resigned his position.

While I have nothing against Johnston - I have never met the man - perhaps the WBTA should look to fill the position with someone who envisions an all-encompassing group which caters to all corners of the political spectrum, but with a shared love of Alberta and a common interest in self-destiny.



The message:

Recently there has been some confusion in regards to Sheldon Johnson’s resignation; I would like to take this opportunity to clear it up. Sheldon Johnson has now sent the WBTA correspondence resigning his position as policy chair.

Given the circumstances, we regrettably accept his resignation. We expect Sheldon to return in the near future and we will keep you posted when this takes place.

We wish Sheldon and his family the absolute best; our door will always be open for him.

Warmest Regards
Daniel W. Doherty
Vice-PresidentWestern Business and Taxpayers Association
vp@itstimetogo.ca
www.WBTA.ca

As far back as 2005 I’ve been writing about the need for someone to step up and spearhead a serious Alberta independence movement. In fact, that very topic was the catalyst for the creation of this blog.

In a province where, even in the few and far between ‘good times’ when we aren’t living under an Eastern-based (and historically corrupt) federal Liberal government, support for provincial independence hovers anywhere between 25-40%, there has never been anything substantial by way of a political party or organized movement to capture the public’s attention, let alone their support.

Back then, the issues were the usual suspects: the flawed multi-cultural policy that has exposed gaps in our national security, forced English/French bilingualism, the national attitudes towards the West (Lesson One: stereotyping an Albertan on the CBC is comedy, stereotyping a French Quebecer is racism. Test to follow), and the never forgotten, economy crushing National Energy Program which made it clear to all Albertan’s in the early 1980’s that we were nothing more than a colony in the minds of the Eastern power holders.

While never dormant, the last decade saw pro-independence sentiment on hold for the most part. When we saw Stephen Harper win his first minority, we played ‘we’ll wait and see’. His recent second win with a larger minority this past fall gave even more hope that the West would finally be heard in Ottawa.

Then a new reason for Western separation was born from nowhere. The formation of the opposition parties – all Eastern based and backed – into a ‘coalition’ that threatened to bring the House down once again let Albertan’s (and many other Western Canadians) know just how the East saw them. An attempt to hijack democracy itself has been the latest and, outside of the N.E.P., perhaps the greatest fuel for the independence fire. Shutting us out through a flawed federal voting system is one thing, and we finally beat that. So now they try to make our votes worthless.

It’s almost like they wanted to get those pro-independence Albertans something for Christmas. Thanks, and don’t bother wrapping it.

And so we find ourselves in familiar territory in more ways than one. We have a surge of interest in exploring the possibility of moving towards more independence but don’t have the vehicle to take us there.

So where do we look? The provincial Separation Party of Alberta has seen a soap opera of a storyline turn into silence, seemingly spinning wheels for the usual handful of supporters but never getting any traction. The Wildrose Alliance party, which shares some political ground as the long-serving provincial Progressive Conservatives, is open to moving towards more independence and ultimately a referendum on separation – but only if the people have strongly stated their wish to engage in one first. Until then, it remains off of the party policy table.

The new Western Business and Taxpayers Association isn’t a political party, but rather an organization set up to work behind the scenes as it were, supporting political parties with a separatist agenda. So far in Alberta, only the S.P.A. fills that bill and they have done everything but prove worthy of any support. In fact, judging by the early signs of the WBTA, the jury is out on their support as well.

The waiting continues for that one political entity to make the move; someone or some group who will show the blend of audacity, courage, and a big-tent concept to appeal to a broad-spectrum of Alberta patriots.

The driver’s seat is open. Time moves on but the issues remain as does the question: Who will lead the charge?

It appears that the war in Iraq could be entering its final phase, at least if you listen to the buzz lately. To no one’s surprise, some on the loony left are already taking credit and celebrating victory. “It’s just like we won in Vietnam!” said one of my friends from the Other Side. Where do you begin when you are confronted with such delusional thinking?

I countered twice. First, I inquired as to why, when they think America loses a war, liberals call it a victory? While he reeled from this direct hit to his patriotism, I continued. I asked if he’d give credit where credit was due – the resolve of President George W. Bush, who will go down in history as sacrificing his own popularity and chance at a glorious legacy after the 9/11 attacks in order to hold strong and continue with the needed war.

I swear I could actually hear the look on his face, the look of someone who was just slapped. Naturally, I had to finish him.

“…given that it was the ‘Surge’ that the lefties, including the New Messiah, were opposed to that has made it possible?”

I never heard back.

While Iraq isn’t a done deal, the focus now seems to be (finally!) on Afghanistan. While courageous American soldiers have been in the nation for years, the attention thrown at Iraq has made Afghanistan take a back seat, especially in the media. With Canadian troops fighting on the front lines for the past few years, the level of pride and admiration for our Bravest is unmatched. But the public is growing weary, and the arrival of a fresh wave of American warriors will go a long way, both to the ultimate success over al-Qaeda and to help alleviate the pressure on other countries.

All wars have a political element, and this one is no different. It was an obvious issue in the presidential race, and the impact on the political landscape of other NATO nations must not be underestimated. Simply put, it has become more and more difficult to keep the ‘we’ve been fighting long enough’ crowd at bay. Except for the odd isolated ‘peace-keeping’ incident, Canadians haven’t had to witness flag-draped caskets coming home from war since the middle of the last century.

For more than one generation of us, this is new. We aren’t used to it and each time we see the snippet on television it takes another bite.

As well, while Barack Obama has pledged to re-focus America’s foreign policy on fighting ‘the actual terrorists’, his glaring lack of knowledge on the issues causes some U.S. allies concern. He was wrong on Iraq, time and time again. Will he be right in Afghanistan? More importantly, what about after Afghanistan?

When the bad guys have been eliminated from that country, will we carry out our obligation and take the fight to the next corner? Will Obama do the right (but perhaps unpopular) thing and continue on to Iran? Pakistan? Syria? Saudi Arabia?

If Israel is any indication, Obama isn’t instilling much confidence so far. While the national media and stoned activists decry the ‘disproportionate response’ by the Jewish state in Gaza, the truth is they are taking matters into their own hands and doing what they have to do in the name of self-preservation. Forgotten is the important fact that each homicide bomber who explodes, every grenade lobbed, every mortar lobbed is an act of terror. Israel is the original fighters of Islamic terrorism, and must be supported.

Palestine has been used by the Arab world as an excuse for anti-Jewish, anti-West action. It has become the generic reason to justify terror. Ironically, the Arab states could have each contributed financially and created the nation of Palestine long ago, without making a dent in their resources. That would take away their trump card, of course, so naturally it hasn’t been done.

But I digress...

With impending success in Iraq and a bolstered fighting force in Afghanistan (although we’re still waiting for a real commitment from other NATO nations), what if anything, will be the next step?