The federal election campaign has only just begun and it didn't take long for the greatest weapon the leftwing parties have at their disposal to rear it's head.

Long been accused of leftwing bias, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has once again lived down to it's reputation with an allegedly leftwing-biased 'vote compass' gimmick on their website.

People usually shrug off such incidents from the CBC, such as their penchant for left-leaning political discussion shows, their one-sided 'documentaries' and their love of all things environmental (rumour has it new employees get an 'I heart David Suzuki' t-shirt after orientation), but this time the backlash has been vocal.

From online chats and blogs to radio talk shows, allegations are flying that the results of the compass test, no matter your answers, will be that you should vote Liberal. 

So I tried it out, answering the questions honestly.  The questions themselves raised suspicion, as they seemed lacking in actual current issues.  As I went along, I felt as if the questions were somehow rigged. My result?  Just barely Liberal.

I've spoken with many others who share a similar ideology as mine who have tested this theory, and most have experienced the same result: if you are a small 'c' conservative, you should vote Liberal.

I did another experiment, this time choosing answers from a far-right (practically fascist) point of view.  My result?  According to the CBC chart, I fell just slightly right of centre.

While only the truly naive would put much weight on the results of a website add-on, especially one found on the CBC site, the fact of the matter is it could potentially sway some of those same naive voters. 

The bigger problem is the fact that the CBC is a public broadcaster.  It survives on the $1 billion per year it gets from the federal government - that's your money. You own it.  You pay for it and it's agenda.

This is the same CBC which boasts a litany of indiscretions and controversies.  From it's blatant anti-Americanism masquerading as 'in-depth investigative journalism' (the Bush years were the Glory years at MotherCorp) to it's incessant showings of Michael Moore propaganda films to its refusal to release financial data even under the Freedom of Informaton Act, the CBC has long proven its secrecy and inability to be trusted.

The fact that the CBC's current whipping post, the Conservative government, actually increased the level of government funds to the broadcaster is troubling.  True conservative voters can only hope that would change if the Election Nobody Wanted© results in a Conservative majority victory.

Better still would be the long overdue privatization of the CBC.  Then, as a private broadcaster, the CBC would be free to exude its leftwing bias at will - and not on our dime.

** update: I've just learned that one of the main people behind the CBC voter compass, a certain Professor Peter Loewen, was a policy advisor during the 2006 election for...wait for it...Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff!  What were the odds of that...?

Just sitting here wondering:

• how my American friends feel about their president unilaterally deciding to join the NATO mission in Libya without first going to Congress,

• or what they think about the evidence growing by the minute of ties between the al Qaeda and the Libyan rebels, some of whom could have killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq,

• or about their president considering sending arms and military equipment to these same rebels, 

• or that their relationship with the only free democracy in the Middle East - Israel - is the worst it's been "...in 35 years."

• ... and if anyone knows who is Barry Soetoro?

As we enter the first full week of campaigning for the Election Nobody Wanted© , the first real buzz-worthy topic has emerged.


And to the dismay of the Liberals and NDP, it has nothing to do with alleged Tory 'scandals' or the 'untrustworthiness' of P.M. Stephen Harper.



P.M. Stephen Harper



The question on everyone's mind, from the media to the voters is, is there an opposition coalition?



The original agreement, made just after the 2008 election, was snuffed out after a groundswell of opposition to the idea occurred from average Canadians.

But the agreement is still in effect, and doesn't technically expire until June of this year.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and his party's talking heads have rapidly denied any such intent this time around, and have found themselves spending the first few days of the campaign publicly disregarding any plans for a coalition at every turn.

But as blogger Steven C. Britton points out, we've heard all of this before.  Ignatieff's denials are not succeeding in extinguishing the threat or possibility of a coalition in the minds of voters.
 Canadians just don't buy the spin.  Politically, the game has long been one of 'us' vs 'them'. No matter how many left-of-centre parties there are, the flavour of federal politics for many years has been a choice between conservatism and socialism.  This time it's no different and the people know that.  That's why the concept of a leftwing coalition isn't so hard for the average voter to believe.


Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff



It would make it simpler - not to mention more honest - if the entities on the left stopped pretending they held vast ideological differences with each other, ended the roundabout coalition games, threw away the pretense and just formed a single party.  Essentially, that's what we have now.

The Liberals, depending on the leader of the moment, can be found anywhere from slightly left of centre to full-on leftwing; the New Democrats are an unabashed mix of labor and special-rights socialists who will never achieve enough national support to come close to holding the reigns of power; the Bloc Quebecois represents nothing more than a glaring flaw in our parliamentary system, a separatist, single-province Marxist party whose purpose is the end of Canada; and the national Green Party is, ideologically speaking, little more than the enviroNazi wing of the NDP.

Put them all together, and you have a clear decision to make in May: the Conservative party vs. the Socialist party.

No matter how strong the denials, regardless the attempts at deflection, that is the choice Canadians will face at the ballot box.

The federal Liberal’s finally decided to end their three-year habit of making empty threats and pulled the trigger on a non-confidence motion today in Ottawa. The minority Conservatives of Stephen Harper were, as expected, toppled.
And so, for the fourth time in seven years, Canadian voters – as divided along the political spectrum as we have been for years – are going to the polls.

It is expected that this election will result in more of the same: either another Harper minority or a slim Liberal minority with Herman Munster Michael Ignatieff as P.M.

There is one difference this time around, however, which was revealed long before today’s vote: the people don’t want an election right now. From radio chat shows to blogs to the MSM, the mood on the street is that we have no taste for another $300 million exercise in democracy.

While that may not be surprising, it is how vocal people are becoming in their opinions.

Even some voters who may not be historically ‘conservative’ in ideology have come to trust Harper, at least compared to the current leadership of the Opposition. His image has morphed from stoic and aloof to not-as-stoic and confident. Under Harper, Canada has survived the global economic meltdown with the least amount of damage, but we aren’t out of the woods yet.

The cries that the Conservatives have ‘destroyed our international reputation as a leading peace-keeping nation’ have been drowned out by our pride and support for our brave Armed Forces personnel, fighting alongside our American brothers and sisters in Afghanistan since the beginning of the War on Terror and now participating in the Libya coalition.

The only people who believe Canada’s ‘international reputation’ has suffered on Harper's watch are radical Islamists and CBC commentators.

The fact is, Canada has risen to a higher level of prominence under Stephen Harper’s Tories. Upgrading and strengthening our military, standing strong against global terrorism, proud and clear public reconfirmation of Canada’s alliance with Israel when to rest of the world neo-anti-Semitism is the new chic, conveniently having the Great Waffler Obama as your next door President, all of this has given Canada a new image as a nation ready and willing to play with the Big Boys.

On the economy, while many fiscal conservatives have not been impressed with the apparent Spending Flu the government has suffered, as the numbers still aren’t great, they are getting better and most of us want to let Harper finish the job he started.

But Ignatieff, socialist NDP leader Taliban Jack Layton, and the one-province example of Marxism also known as the separatist Bloc Quebecois under Gilles Duceppe wrote off our lack of enthusiasm to spend millions on an election without an issue as ‘voter apathy’, and decided they knew best.

They are trying to play up what they call ‘scandals’, such as the Bev Oda affair. Who is Bev Oda, you ask? You mean, you don’t know? Don’t feel too bad. Neither did more than 75% of the respondents to that very question in several recent polls. Plus, Adscam has had a surprisingly long shelf-life.

Strike One.

They will say this government had lost the confidence of the House because they ‘lied about the cost of the F-35 fighter jets’ on order. Go figure – you can always trust the socialists to oppose any upgrade to our Armed Forces.

Strike Two.

Remember the coalition, that post-election threat by the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc to form a coalition to steal the reins of government away from the just-democratically elected minority Tories? Technically, it’s still in effect. When heading to the polls, Canadians would be wise to remember that the threat of a Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff with Bob Rae as Minister of Finance (remember Ontario?), enviroNazi Jack Layton as Minister of Natural Resources (goodbye, Alberta!), and separatist Duceppe as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is real.

Strike Three.

Half-way through the current economic recovery plan, engaged in military action on two-fronts, a stronger international image, a trustworthy image from Harper, voter anger over an unneeded, unwanted, and expensive election…it all adds up to a Conservative majority.

It would serve Iggy and the Coalition right.

The campaign of 'assistance' is well underway in Libya.  The U.N. sanctioned coalition of nations including Canada is now actively enforcing a no-fly zone as well as hitting Qaddafi's military targets. 

Reaction has been mixed, with those on the left grudgingly supporting Obama with as much enthusiasm as the President showed in committing the U.S. to this action, which is to say not much, and the right complaining that it took too long to get involved.

Alarmingly, conservatve talking-heads are quick to dismiss discussing the possible outcomes.

What neither side is discussing is the one question that craves an answer: what happens to Libya after Qaddafi, and who exactly have we allied with?

The same question should be asked of the other Middle Eastern and North African countries currently embroiled in revolutionary turmoil. 

It is no argument that the citizens of nations such as Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have lived for years under tyrannical rule.  Oppression is part of their daily lives.

But to what extent should we be involved?

There is a disturbing and glaring lack of a certain word from the people protesting and the 'rebels' actively fighting for change in these uprisings: democracy.

You don't hear the revolutionaries demanding democracy.  Unorganized as most of the opposition supporters are, one of the more stable groups involved is the Muslim Brotherhood which would like nothing more than to see these countries turn into staunch Islamic states complete with Sharia law.

As has been noted, protesters are not chanting 'one person, one vote!', they are more often overheard praising Allah and yelling passages from the Q'aran.

The West has been in similar situations before.  While the circumstances were much different, we covertly supported the muslim Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan in their ultimately successful fight against the communist Soviets in the 1980's.  Years later, former 'ally' Usama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 terror attacks, and we have been fighting those very same rebels ever since.

Some now question our involvement when looking back at the Yugoslavian-Bosnian war of the 1990's.  Yes, the Serbs carried out atrocities and something needed to be done, but now in hindsight, did we need to get that involved?  Did siding with the Muslims result in any lingering benefit?

When the West and al Qaeda agree on something, red flags go up.  The fact that the free world and an Islamic terrorist organization both support the protesters and the removal of current dictators in these countries makes something seem a bit askew.

We have a current administration in which each member seems to have a different answer as to our military goal, and a conflict where the international coalition supports that same side as terrorists.

Are we fighting to stop the oppression and slaughter of innocent people, or are we, in actuality, fighting a proxy Muslim war in these fragile nations that will result in the further spread of radical Islam?

It's an annoying trait that runs through the celebrity liberal left: just when you think you've finally heard the last of them and their nonsensical rantings, they jump back into the spotlight with more inane nonsense.

A nice, long absence from having to see their mugs on the screen makes us relegate these people into our mind's footnote.  'You never hear anything spectacular from Al Gore anymore. What's that?  Another new house? Must be retired.'

After his last cinematic attack on Americana went by virtually unnoticed (Capitalism: A Love Story should have been called Capitalism: A Hypocrite's Story), uber-leftist Michael Moore pretty well faded from public view. 

A kind of Moore-fatigue set in, even with his most ardent fans.  His run of edit-biased, pseudo-documentary propaganda films came in rapid succession, and by the time Capitalism was made - and his muse George W. Bush was out and Moore's guy Barry Obama was president - he all but disappeared.



 But, like an annoying wasp at a picnic, Moore has reappeared with an outburst slamming Obama over the Libyan action.  Yes, the man who makes everyone looking at him think 'shower' has unleashed an infantile, Charlie Sheenesque tirade on Twitter.

It makes one ponder his agenda.  Exploiting something like the Libyan situation is not a surprising move for an attention whore.  But one of the most effective, albeit flawed, arguments Moore and his fellow Bush-era anti-war flock used was 'no blood for oil'.  They came up with many other alleged 'reasons' for the Iraq war, and vilified Bush beyond recognition.

That argument cannot be used here.  The coalition effort to establish a no-fly zone, and the directive to use any and all military force except ground units was given by the United Nations itself.  This purpose of this action, as late in starting as it was, is accepted by most on all points of the political spectrum to be to stop the mass murder being carried out by a mad dictator against his own people.

Obama has gone out of his way to present this as a NATO action, not a solely U.S. strike.  France was the first to cross the border.  If Moore could make an argument that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are wars of American imperialism, surely he cannot honestly make the same argument here.

This is a true coalition of nations, including an alliance of Arab nations.

A people are rising up against a murderous, tyrannical leader, and they are being slaughtered in their fight for freedom.  They have asked for our assistance, and our morality dictates we answer that call even in a limited capacity.

The outcome could be freedom for millions of oppressed people.

What objection could Michael Moore possibly have?

Best wishes for a happy St. Patrick's Day. I'm still flattered they named a day after me...

As you enjoy a cool pint of green beer, shillelagh in hand, a piece of wisdom from the true leaders of the civilized world - the Irish:

Is minic a gheibhean beal oscailt diog dunta! (An open mouth often catches a closed fist!)

Who Wants To Captain the Sinking Ship? - Former Progressive Conservative M.L.A. Gary Mar has resigned from his cushy gig as Alberta's representative in Washington, D.C., fueling speculation that he intends to throw his name into the mix as a candidate to replace outgoing leader Ed Stelmach. (I always have a tough time putting 'Stelmach' and 'leader' in the same sentence.)  This will give the P.C. membership an 'anybody-but-Morton' candidate.  Unfortunately for the Tories, it still leaves the party without a worthy choice.  Ultimately, this leadership race will be to determine who will lead the P.C.s in the opposition benches.

Like Father, Like Son - As could be predicted, the Conservative government's new guide for potential immigrants to Canada has caused a Liberal to blow his top.  And as could also be predicted, it is Grit M.P. Justin Trudeau who has the problem.  Apparently, he disagrees with a section of the guide which calls so-called honor killings 'barbaric'.  Too tough a word for young Trudeau, who suggested the term 'absolutely unacceptable' would suffice.  The son of Pierre proves that the rotten apple doesn't fall far from the tree by seeing the world through politically correct glasses.  Of course, if his father hadn't screwed up the nation as Prime Minister with his 'keep your own culture' modus operandi with regards to his destructive multicultural policy, none of this would be an issue at all.  Honor killings, female genitalia mutilations, forced marriages, gender-oppression, etc.,...'barbaric' is a more than appropriate term, Justin.  It fits like a hajib.

That's Not An Apple - During a photo shoot for a Tel Aviv radio station (a photo shoot for radio?), model Orit Fox got a little too friendly with a snake she was posing with.  Apparently after licking the snake (groan), it lashed out and latched on to her left breast.  While it took several seconds to dislodge the reptile, Fox wasn't seriously harmed.  The snake, however, reportedly died from silicone poisoning.  You can't make this stuff up.

As the Colostomy Bag Turns - The Alberta health care soap opera continues. First it was rebel ex-P.C. M.L.A. Raj Sherman making shocking allegations about cover-ups, payoffs, and intimidation of health care professionals.  Then he failed to provide proof which made some believers doubt his words.  Now Raj is being proven right, as physicians and other HC staff are starting to spill the beans about alleged government malfeasance.  Premier Stelmach didn't help his own cause with his flip-flop on rubber-stamping an investigation, first resisting then allowing it to happen - but by a non-independent, arms-length group.  The more this goes on, the more I believe Eddie is trying to prevent damning evidence from coming to light until after he leaves the political scene.

Paging Michael Moore - Remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 when then-President Bush talked tough about not resting until America finds bin Laden, then edited to show him playing golf?  Japan is in a potential nuclear crisis, the Middle East is on fire with revolution, the global economy is still tanking.  What is Obama doing?  Playing golf.  Where's that fat bastard and his camera now?

As we approach the ten year anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terror attacks, perhaps it is not surprising that we have watched the War on Terror given the back burner treatment.

Time is a factor, as the initial sting has subsided.  A lack of any major follow-up on American soil has contributed to a dangerously false sense of security mixed with declining interest.  Homeland Security and the other agencies are doing their job, so we don't have to worry. 

Watching a president refusing to even acknowledge the existence of the war, while simultaneously apologize to some of the very people we are at war with didn't help, either.

Some analysts have said recently that the likelihood of an imminent terrorist attack on North American soil had decreased due to the revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa.  They believe radical Islamic groups are too busy with their involvement in that situation to undertake another meaningful strike across the ocean.

This doesn't take into account the very real and growing threat of home-grown attacks by cells already located here.  On any given day one can look at the back pages of their newspaper for the undersized, three line blurb about another traffic stop that yielded a surprise cache of chemicals or other various bomb-related items.

If there were to be a strike, wouldn't it make sense that it happen when the targets least expect?

That would seem logical.  Also logical would be to assume that al Qaeda has continued to evolve and use 'outside the box' thinking.  They know that while all of the changes in security policies and procedures implemented since 9/11 haven't been perfect (TSA), it has become increasingly difficult to execute a large-scale attack. 

With the price of oil certain to rise and the global economic situation as volatile as ever, one could expect our energy infrastructure to be a prime target.  That kind of blow to the economy could be devastating.

So, how could terrorists launch an attack that would inflict damage on the American economy without having to worry about heightened U.S. security?  Hello, Canada.

It has been much discussed by Canadian security experts and political pundits that there are two main areas we have to pay attention to: Alberta and Quebec. 

An attack in Alberta, with its oil sands, refineries, pipelines, etc., would immediately impact that U.S. economy.  Their most reliable source of foreign oil would be hampered.

In Quebec, a hit to their massive hydro system would also create major problems for both countries, affecting millions.

Ultimately, terrorists could attack and cripple the American economy without even having to set foot on U.S. soil. 

So the question becomes, how secure are facilities in these provinces?  We can assume our national security agency CSIS is taking care of things. But when you have been witness to this, you don't maintain complete confidence.

Hopefully it won't take something as horrible as another attack for people to realise nothing has changed. We are still vulnerable, the threat remains as it has for a decade.

As one security expert said recently: "Canadians are blissfully naive about the likelihood of a terror attack on their soil, and the cataclysmic repercussions which would result."

"It truly is a question of when, not if."

Who is John Galt?

An excellent mini-documentary primer before the release of the movie next month. Ayn Rand's opus seems prophetic for those living in the era of Obama.

If you have been following the soap opera/circus in the news lately - no, not Charlie Sheen, but about the Ed Stelmach government, you know the battered P.C. group is deep in the water without a life preserver. 

Even the main stream media believes Stelmach's long, drawn out exit from the Premier's chair is counterproductive to the province and has called for an end to his impersonation of a lame duck, urging him to leave sooner rather than later. (Read here.)

Well, the Premier's Office released a response to the Sun article today.

The rebuttal apparently is the handiwork of Cam Hantiuk, who is Stemach's Director of Communications.  Folks, I've been around the P.R. game for a while now and have been witness to some whoppers, but this one truly stands out as an incredible, astonishing piece of shi...work.

Honestly, this cat shouldn't be in the spin game.  He deserves to stand with some of the great fiction writers of our time. 

Ladies and gentlemen, brace yourselves.  (Warning: you may not make it all the way through without bursting into fits of laughter, bouts of uncontrollable eye-rolling, and forehead slapping.  Due to the amazing amount of crap spewed, wearing a raincoat is advised.)

Here's the article in full (link here):



Dear Sun Media:

As a person who has worked closely with Premier Ed Stelmach, I have learned that he regards healthy skepticism as a virtue -- because it keeps people, businesses and governments on their toes.

Through his quarter century in public office, the premier knows that rigorous inquiry helps governments and leaders stay focused.

However, the March 6 edition of the Sun, which called for Premier Stelmach to step down, was so clearly one-sided, so incomplete and so misleading in its information that it amounted to a completely inaccurate portrayal of Premier Ed Stelmach's leadership of this province.

That is why it is so important that Sun readers get all of the facts on statements made in the March 6 Sun.

First of all, the Sun stated that Ed Stelmach was the "second choice against more popular contenders" in the PC party leadership campaign of 2006.

The reality is that Ed Stelmach won more first-place votes than any other candidate in the 2006 leadership contest, which was the largest leadership vote in the history of this province, and possibly the largest leadership vote of any political party in the history of this country. He also won 72 seats in the 2008 election, which was a gain of 10 seats and nearly 6% of the popular vote over the PC party's electoral results in 2004.

The premier continues to stymie many who wrote him off in the PC leadership campaign and in the last provincial election. Quite frankly, in any election in which he has been involved he has always gained the confidence of his constituency and they have put or returned him to office.

The political acumen of Ed Stelmach has long been underestimated -- to his continued benefit. Under Premier Stelmach's leadership, the PC party has out-fund-raised every other party in the province by a wide margin and has won virtually every public opinion poll conducted in his more than four years as premier.

Secondly, the Sun article mentioned that Budget 2011 represents "an inability to confront economic reality." The fact is this year's provincial budget confronts Alberta economic reality head on.

The premier has focused on controlling the cost of government and this year's budget is balanced on the operating side, while keeping Alberta's taxes the lowest in Canada.

The Sun also fails to mention that the increase in government spending in Budget 2011 actually runs below the rate of inflation and the increase in Alberta's population.

The "economic reality" also is that the world is coming out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and economies all over the world are still very fragile. To help ensure that many hardworking Albertans have jobs and the ility to take care of their families, the government dipped into its savings account to build infrastructure. So we are spending money on things like 18 new schools in Edmonton and Calgary, thousands of new accommodations for seniors and the homeless, as well as roads, health centres and community facilities.

Third, the Sun suggested that the premier is staying on "so he can be part of the Royal Visit" later this year. This statement is simply not true. Prince William and Kate Middleton's royal visit to Canada was announced in February of this year, several weeks after the premier publicly stated that he would not be seeking re-election.

Furthermore, Premier Ed Stelmach believes that when Albertans elected him and his government they were entrusted with the responsibility to govern, full stop. The premier announced that the leadership vote would occur in the fall because he wanted to ensure there was time to introduce, debate, and pass one of the most important budgets in this province's history. The soonest that the budget process will be over is April 28.

So, if the leadership were to occur in June, that would leave MLAs interested in contesting the leadership of the PC party only about five or six weeks to campaign from the end of the legislative session -- or ignore the work of the Legislative Assembly. This is not nearly enough time for the PC party to pick its new leader, and more importantly, Alberta's next premier.

By calling for a June PC leadership vote, the Sun is advocating for legitimate government business to be given a back-seat to partisan politics -- a position that Albertans would simply not stand for. It is arrogant in the extreme that the Sun suggests that its opinion is paramount over the business of the Legislative Assembly, or a political organization and its constitution and membership.
Finally, the Sun makes absolutely no mention of the accomplishments of this government over the past few years, and how Albertans have benefited from them. There is no mention of the five-year funding plan for health care, the establishment of a lobbyist directory, advocating for the oilsands, development of the New West Partnership with B.C. and Saskatchewan, the end of health-care premiums, the recognition of Alberta's education system as being among the world's finest, the focus on new international markets for Alberta's energy, food and wood products, and the move towards streamlining energy regulation in Alberta.
Sun readers deserve accurate and balanced information regarding politics and their democratically elected officials. Newspapers should report news, not try to create it based upon one-sided, incomplete and misleading logic. While the Sun is entitled to its opinion, it is not entitled to its own version of the facts.

Sincerely,

Cam Hantiuk Director of Communications Office of the Premier
cam.hantiuk@gov.ab.ca 780-427-2251


Don't say I didn't warn you.

If the rumors are true regarding secret, high level negotiations between Canada and the United States to create a North American trade and security 'perimeter', it would be in our nation's best interest to put the brakes on.

I am all for the concept of an open and safe border between the world's two most peaceful allies, and have long been in favor of the implementation of any strategy that will make our homeland safer.



There are other policies that would need to be in place alongside in order for this to be effective, such as an overhaul of Canada's immigration and refugee laws.  That in itself would be a tough sell.



Obama and Harper



But the main reason Canada should hold off for a while has less to do with domestic issues and more to do with our neighbors to the south.





The problem right now is timing.



The fact is, many Canadians have joined others from the free world in losing a little confidence in our American friends.

The slip in faith isn't in the American people, but in its current administration.

We watched as President Obama apologized to the enemy.  We have witnessed his attempt to whitewash history and blur accuracy, refusing to call the enemy the enemy.  We have seen Obama's America turn terrorists into mere criminals.

He even defended the 9/11 victory mosque on Ground Zero.

The once unthinkable has indeed happened as the U.S. has loosened its traditionally strong ties with Israel, to the point where the world now sees Stephen Harper's Canada as the Jewish state's best friend and defender in the West.

To put it directly, we don't trust the current president to act sincerely and with honest motivation when it comes to the security of our continent.

One only need look at America's southern border and how Obama has fumbled and bumbled along.  He seemed to spend more time and put more effort into fighting Arizona's laws than protecting Americans who live near the Mexican line.

As a free-trader, I believe our two nations should continue to work together to improve and increase safe trade avenues.

But until the United States has a president who is a little more convincing to America's allies, and a little less contrite to our enemies, we'll take a rain check.

One of the few concerns I have had with Alberta's Wildrose Alliance during their amazing rise was their habit of grabbing former Progressive Conservatives and putting them into positions of power within the party.

My fear does not include former P.C. M.L.A.s Guy Boutilier, Heather Forsyth, and Rob Anderson who have performed more than admirably since crossing the floor to join Paul Hinman as Wildrose members in the opposition benches.

Any skepticism I held when these members switched teams has been extinguished by their skill and commitment to the party and their constituents.

The potential danger is within the party structure itself, more specifically those who leader Danielle Smith chooses as her 'advisors'.



Lyle Oberg



When word broke that Lyle Oberg was going to buy a Wildrose membership (and make a splash by introducing Danielle Smith at an Edmonton leader's dinner), I couldn't help but question the logic.

Oberg, yet another former P.C. M.L.A., has a long and sometimes bizarre history as a government member.  He held some vital portfolios, including being Ed Stelmach's Finance Minister.  He also ran for the leadership of the P.C. party at the end of the Ralph Klein era.

Which brings me to the cause of hesitation of celebration.

When he was in charge of the province's finances, Oberg was the pointman for Stelmach's flawed and damaging energy royalty scheme - one of the top bones of contention for Wildrose members.

But it isn't so much bad policy but his poor choices and bizarre behaviour that raises eyebrows.

Oberg was famously suspended from Klein's caucus for his outburst at a constituency meeting, when he told attendees: "If I were Premier, I wouldn't want me sitting as a backbencher. I know where the skeletons are."

He later tried some damage control, claiming the 'skeletons' didn't refer to a scandal, but to "...gaps in policy."

He is still thought to be one of the major players behind the Dump Ralph movement that saw Klein's last party approval rating drop to a mere 55%, effectively pushing Klein off of the plank. 

During the subsequent P.C. leadership race, Oberg torpedoed his own chances with a another bizarre series of events involving the media.  He called a presser to announce that he had dirt on front runner Jim Dinning.  When he didn't provide proof or any evidence or elaboration, the result was a negative effect on his campaign. 

He then threw his support behind Ed Stelmach.

(Memo to Raj Sherman: making wild allegations to the media then failing to provide proof is called 'pulling an Oberg'.  It is not an effective strategy.)

Now, after several years away from politics Oberg has resurfaced as a member of the upstart Wildrose Alliance.  While I would be a bit critical of his agenda were he to run as a party candidate in the next election - are his sights already set on the leadership? - it was when I learned that Oberg was not to be a candidate but an advisor to Smith that I got really worried.

I'm not an 'insider' of the Wildrose clan so I am not privy to top-level discussions, but as a party member watching this latest development I have to ask: Is Oberg's experience and name recognition in his own constituency worth the potential dangers of having him in the inner circle?

Be careful who you appoint as your advisors, Danielle.