Mar 312011

For the past three months the Arab world has been undergoing a revolution but not many know how it all began. It started in Tunisia with the overthrow of Dictator Ben Ali but what event started it all. Mohamed Bouazizi, a young fruit vendor killed himself by self-immolation out of despair, humiliation and utter defeat at the hands of a corrupt regime.

His actions and the outrage that followed have given millions of Arabs living in the dictatorships of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain the courage to rise up, throw off their chains of oppression and attempt to re-forge their societies. It is most unfortunate that if they are successful any remade societies will most likely be as brutal as, or even more tyrannical than the ones they have overthrown. The Muslim Brotherhood seems poised to take over Egypt and it has recently been revealed that the leader of the Libyan Rebels is al Qaeda and that he has many al-Qaeda members fighting beside him. This revelation alone should be reason enough for Canada and the rest of the United Nations coalition to withdraw from the conflict but that doesn’t seem likely.

The horrific end of Mohamed Bouazizi and the ensuing revolts have begged the question what choices does a good man have when faced with living in a repressive despotic country? I believe the choices he has are limited to four:

1. He can leave the country if possible as millions from the Arab world have done. Many settling in the West bringing with them the inevitable clash of cultures and ideologies which we all must deal with and overcome.

2. He can stay and fight. Going underground so-to-speak much like the resistors of Vichy France did in World War II.

3. If fleeing or fighting are not options then a good man may find living under such circumstances unbearable and end his life as Mohamed Bouazizi did. The same end has befallen many in the fictional world as well, such as Andrei in Ayn Rand’s We the Living, or the protagonist in the film adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut’s, Harrison Bergeron, or the book lady in Fahrenheit 451.

4. He can stay and become part of the problem. He can go about his daily life chanting the slogans of the government, buying into their lies and evasions of reality and hope that they will leave him alone. When the tax collector comes he pays in order to live another day. Perhaps somewhere deep in the recesses of his mind he says to himself “I despise these conditions, but what can I do? I am only one person and I have myself and my family to feed and must go along with the majority or else risk jail or death.

The people who stay, who don’t fight, and who choose to live, do so as slaves. They are experience a living death. They go about their daily routine as would lesser animals that sleep, eat, defecate, procreate and then die. There is no passion for living; there is no joy, no love, no happiness, no productivity, and no creativity. They are forbidden these things by their masters and as a consequence have actually chosen a slower form of suicide than did Mohamed Bouazizi.

Ask yourself the question, if subjected to the repressive regimes of a Ben-Ali, a Hitler or the House of Saud, what would you do? I would suggest you come up with an answer to the question because if history has shown us anything it is that freedom is a new and fleeting concept and sooner or later we here in the West may have to act on the answer we give to such a question.

(Broadcast on Just Right, Show #193, March 31, 2011.)

Mar 312011

Fukishima Reactor Explosion

Anti-Tech Fallout? Let’s Be Clear On Nuclear.
Tunisian Choice – How The Revolution Began.
A Deja Vu Election – Coalition Conundrum.
Diamond Aircraft – Layoff, Not Takeoff.

Click here to download the program or click the player below to stream it

Mar 312011

It was Earth Hour last week and apparently it went virtually unnoticed by the vast majority of us according to the hydro usage stats kept by the various electrical utilities.  People were to turn off their lights and appliances and sit in the dark around candles and contemplate how technology is destroying the planet.  It was a very competitive observance with the winner this year being Kim Jong-il’s North Korea where 24 million slaves have had over 60 years of practice at living in the Dark Age.

What also went unnoticed, unfortunately, was Human Achievement Hour which, by happy coincidence was celebrated by many around the world at the same time as Earth Hour.  Celebrants were to turn on every available light to marvel at man’s creative mind and domination over a hostile planet.  For this year at least it appears that the intellectual luddites won by a slight margin over the people who enjoy their humanity.  Perhaps next year with the ever increasing popularity of Human Achievement Hour and the ever decreasing trust in the climate change alarmists we can light up the world every night.

This is what The Ayn Rand Institute had to say about Earth Hour, “Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away… Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month… Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.”

That about sums up this feeble hypocritical effort to roll back the age of enlightenment to a simpler and darker age called the Age of Ignorance.

The horrific events which occurred in Japan with the earthquake and tsunami which killed over 27,000 men, women and children, costing an approximate half a trillion dollars in damage and wiping entire villages off the map has been almost overshadowed in the media by a rising hysteria surrounding the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant.   Aside from the fact that the accident has caused no deaths from radiation (although it is thought that some of the Fukushima 50 (300 workers) have received lethal doses of radiation) there have been anti-nuclear technology protests throughout the globe but mainly in Europe.

While nobody likes to see any deaths or disease resulting from a destroyed nuclear plant any steps we take from this technology will cause many more deaths and disease.  Aside from hydro-electric power which is very clean as long as you don’t have to flood thousand of hectares of land such as with the Smallwood Reservoir in Labrador, the only other option to generate the kind of power a modern civilization needs is the burning of fossil fuels, mainly coal.

In 2004, 6,027 people died in China alone from coal mining disasters. 28 died in the same year in the US from similar coal mining disasters.  Pile these bodies up along the approximately 30 people who died in the Chernobyl Incident and the Zero bodies who died in Three Mile Island and the Zero bodies (so-far) in the Fukushima Accident.  The death toll without nuclear power will be intolerable yet the Dark Age enthusiasts who protest nuclear power must think that these are acceptable deaths.  On top of these statistics we can add thousands of cases of black lung disease contracted by coal miners every year.

Is this what the protesters of nuclear energy want?  It would seem so.  But I think they want more.  I don’t think that the kind of ignorance fueling the anti-nuclear hysteria is isolated with that cause.  It is the same ignorance that fuels the anti-automobile movement, the anti-drive-through movement here in this city, the anti-incandescent light bulb and anti-plastic mobs, in-effect the anti-technology movement.  And to be anti-technology is to be anti-human, anti-man as a species.

It is a fundamental and defining characteristic of man to understand nature and to conquer it, to master it, to submit it to our will.  Let me give you an example of the contrary philosophy.   If you take off all of your clothes in a brisk day in January in the middle of any Canadian forest you will freeze to death in minutes.  That is the end result of being anti-technology.  From the very clothes on your back to the gun to keep animals at bay to the car in your driveway, technology, science and discovery have made it possible for man to live, but not only live but live comfortably anywhere on this Earth.

As a species we evolved in the rift valley of Africa and from there with the slow development of technology such as the ability to fashion clothes and light fires we have migrated to the four corners of the Earth.  Those who would rob us of this birth-right to flourish as a species are denying their own nature as rational animals.  They are nothing short of purveyors of darkness and death.

(Broadcast on Just Right, Show #193, March 31, 2011)

Mar 242011


Feminism – Still Relevant?
Responsibility To Protect Doctrine Means Perpetual War.
Stepping Into The Briar Patch – Declaring War On Libya.
Business And Government – Giving Us The Business

Continue reading »

Mar 242011

With the declaration of war upon Libya by the United Nations the face of world conflict has changed forever.  War has now become a perpetual means to enforce a New World Order based on altruism.  We have entered a new age of despotism and we are at the center of it.

The proper question Stephen Harper, Barack Obama and the other world leaders who have responded militarily to the UN Security Council resolution of March 17th should have asked themselves was “under what conditions should I, as a leader of a Western Democracy declare war on another sovereign nation?  What could possibly provoke my nation to send troops to their deaths and spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars?”  With the experiences of Vietnam in their history the United States answered that question in the form of the Weinberger Doctrine.  US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger listed the following conditions:

  1. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
  2. U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
  3. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
  4. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
  5. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a “reasonable assurance” of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
  6. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort

To this list I would add a seventh point; that no proper government should go to war unless the men and women who serve are volunteers.

The war in Libya does not satisfy at least five of these seven points neither for the US nor Canada:

  1. The governance of Libya, whether by Muammar Gaddafi or whatever government may arise from his overthrow, is not in our vital national interests.  While Gaddafi has been responsible for several assassinations and terrorist attacks and has been a brutal dictator in Libya responsible for many deaths he has been kept at bay since President Reagan bombed Tripoli during Operation El Dorado Canyon in 1986.
  2. There is no clear intention of winning this war.  The Security Council’s Resolution 1973 calls for a No-Fly Zone to be enforced.  This will most likely not be enough to stop Gaddafi from protecting his strangle-hold on the Libyan population.  The operation is called Odyssey Dawn.  Aptly named since Homer’s Odyssey took 10 years.  This could very well turn out to by the dawn of a very long odyssey for us.
  3. There are no clearly defined political and military objectives.  Italy, France the US and Britain have already been arguing over whether or not taking out Gaddafi with an air strike is part of this mission.
  4. There is no reasonable assurance of the support of public opinion and (in the US) Congress.  In fact Obama went to war without even seeking approval from Congress which he is bound to do by the US Constitution.  There has even been talk of impeachment by some Representatives because of this breach.  (This is not a precedent however, as President Reagan invaded Grenada without the prior approval of Congress).  In Canada Prime Minister Harper unilaterally sent our troops, jets and committed the HMCS Charlottetown to the war without consulting Parliament.  He filled in the leaders of the Opposition on March 18th by phone.
  5. War is a last resort when all other methods have been exhausted.  This is usually a situation which would apply to a situation where our vital national interests are involved.  However since this is not one of these situations there is no need to even consider the last resort of war.

This war was instigated by a call from the Arab League and to a lesser extent the African Union.  Both of these organizations contain many states openly opposed to our political interests and many of the member states could even be considered hostile to us and dangerous to global peace.  While the impetuous for the war has come from these states they are offering virtually no material support for the war.  In fact, now that the war has begun they have even criticized the methods by which it is being carried out.

The war is at the request of the United Nations Security Council.  The UN has a long track record of acting against our best interests and those of the United States.  Any suggestion from them to go to war should be carefully considered for its long-term consequences.

The rationale for this war is not to keep the international peace but to protect the civilian population of Libya.  This is unprecedented.  The civil war in Libya must be decided by the citizens of Libya and in any civil war there are going to be casualties.  For us to pick sides of the Rebels over Gaddafi may backfire if the Rebels turn out to be worse than Gaddafi.  If they become led by the Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood we could see many more civilians murdered by the Rebels than by the Libyan Army.  We could then be thought of as being complicit in their deaths.

The change in the mandate of the United Nations from keeping international peace to interfering in civil wars in order to protect civilians has come about largely due to a Canadian.  Former Jean Chrétien Cabinet Minister Lloyd Axworthy while President of the United Nations Security Council in 1999 and 2000 tried to pursued the UN to alter its mandate to include intervention into sovereign states on humanitarian grounds.  The UN found it too controversial so he convinced the Canadian government to fund a study on the consequences of such intervention.  A commission was established called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.  One of the panel members was none other than Michael Ignatieff now Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Commission attempted to answer the following question posed by UN-Secretary General Kofi Annan:

if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every precept of our common humanity?

The Commission responded by saying that

military action can be legitimate as an anticipatory measure in response to clear evidence of likely large scale killing. Without this possibility of anticipatory action, the international community would be placed in the morally untenable position of being required to wait until genocide begins, before being able to take action to stop it. (emphasis mine)

The Commission refused to define what they meant by large scale.

The United Nations has accepted the findings of the Commission and in doing so has set itself up as a World Police Force, it can now act if it suspects that harm might come to a large number of people.  It has become omniscient by saying that it can now anticipate when genocide will occur as it has done with Libya but will not do for Yemen, Syria, Bahrain or any of the many countries around the world which routinely murder its citizens, China for example.

The United Nations with the aid of Lloyd Axworthy, the Jean Chrétien Government of the day, and Michael Ignatieff has given itself new authority to wage war on sovereign states in anticipation of large scale violations of human rights.  For Canada, forever the lackey of the UN this is not out of character as our governments have acted on the evil philosophy of altruism since Conservative Prime Minister RB Bennett.  But for the United States to fall into this trap spells the death of any hope for freedom in this world.

President Obama has appeared on the world stage at just the right time to both destroy the productive engine of the US through his trillion dollar deficits and relinquish the moral might of that world power by acquiescing to the dictates of an altruist driven United Nations agenda.  On March 18th, 2011 the United States ceased to exist as we used to know it.  A new power has arisen in its stead, the right hand of the United Nations clenched into a fist to intervene in civil disputes throughout the world.

The question we should be asking now is what country will be the next to be bombed by the United Nations for so-called humanitarian transgressions.  The answer may be Israel.

A Reuters article from Tuesday, March 22nd reads as follows:

Investigator says evictions akin to ethnic cleansing

GENEVA — Israel’s expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the eviction of Palestinians from their homes is a form of ethnic cleansing, a UN investigator said on Monday.

U.S. academic Richard Falk was speaking to the UN Human Rights Council as it prepared to pass resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour. The situation “can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing,” Falk declared.

Falk would like the Human Rights Council to ask the International Court of Justice to look at Israeli behaviour in the occupied territories.

The future of the world looks bleak.  Armed with this new rationale for war – the “Responsibility to Protect”, and a weak minded, immoral leader of the United States, Barack Obama we can only expect more interventions in even more countries, causing more cries of imperialism from third world nations, inciting even more acts of terrorism.

The proper action for Canada, the US, Britain, France and Italy to have taken when asked by the Arab League to intervene in Libya should have been that they must settle their own affairs, even though it may mean the death of thousands.  The only way for nations to evolve into capitalistic and democratic nations is for them to get there on their own.  Most often that path is bloody.   We may try to lead by example when we can (although that is getting harder with each passing day) but we cannot impose freedom and democracy upon other nations if their culture is not yet ready for it.  Until they establish freedom themselves the best we can do, the best we can hope for, is to keep their current medieval ideas from polluting the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, with the likes of Obama at the helm of the United States I believe such hope may now be lost.

(Broadcast on Just Right March 24, 2011 show #192.  To listen to the show visit

Mar 092011

Jackboots and StethoscopesWhen Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was himself a doctor, wrote about the adventures of Sherlock Holmes over 100 years ago, the notion that a person could abuse mind altering drugs or frequent opium dens was as common as our young people today taking ecstasy or oxycodone.  What Doyle probably could not have envisaged nor condoned would be the government threatening to put doctors in jail for up to a year for prescribing such common pain relief narcotics as codeine or morphine.  And yet, as of November of last year, that is precisely what can happen to any doctor or pharmacist in Ontario if they run afoul of the new Ontario Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act.  Failure to comply with even the slightest aspect of this act could result in your doctor or pharmacist being fined up to $50,000 or spending a year in jail like a hardened criminal.

This Act was quickly and quietly rammed through the Ontario Legislature with the approval of all parties (the troika) with very little notice in the media.  The Act can be found at the following Ontario Government web page: //

Family physician, Dr. Leger of Newmarket wrote the following at

First, the Act gives government-appointed ‘inspectors’ sweeping powers without the need for due legal process: probable cause, court-issued search warrants and an uncompromising protection of civil liberties. With this Act, patient safety, civil rights and privacy rights would all be seriously jeopardized.

Under this law, if an Ontario family doctor, like myself, is in their office treating patients, inspectors could enter, demand files, interrogate me on the spot, and remove the files without leaving a copy.  What if the patient whose files they remove is you? What if you have been living with extreme chronic pain and the only tools to manage that pain are prescription narcotics? What if you come in to see me the following day? I will have no file on you. With so many patients, there is a good chance I won’t remember the details of your medical history.  In that scenario, you are at risk. I will have no records to guide me in providing for your care.

The Act has already become law on a unanimous vote in the Ontario Legislature.  It was introduced by Liberal Minister Deb Matthews and supported on a vote of 69 to 0 by all parties, the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives with Tim Hudac himself voting in favour.

Once again the three parties in power, the troika as I like to call them, have banded together to infringe upon our personal rights, endanger our health care and treat all doctors and pharmacists as potential drug pushers.

With this Act every Doctor will now second guess his treatment of his patient.  When a patient is in desperate need of pain relief the doctor may think that it may not be worth a possible fine or jail term to prescribe anything listed on the Canadian list of Controlled Substances like codeine or morphine but may instead prescribe an aspirin.

Once again socialized medicine with aid of E-Health is jeopardizing our health.

Next to the recently unveiled statue of Tommy Douglas in Weyburn, Saskatchewan should be a monument to the growing number of people who must now live in pain because the government mistrusts their doctors.  Put that monument next to the monument to the thousands who have died waiting for life saving treatment due to health-care rationing in this country.

(Originally air on Just Right Show #190, March 9, 2011.  To listen to the show go to //