The Pro-Rogue Prime Minister
Our Prime Minister advises Canadians that the decision to prorogue Parliament is nothing ‘unusual’ via the Ottawa Citizen.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is brushing off criticism of his decision to shut down Parliament for the next two months, calling the move a “routine” procedure that will enable the government to “recalibrate” its agenda.
“The decision to prorogue, when the government has the confidence of the House, is a routine constitutional matter,” said the prime minister, referring to the technical term for ending a session of Parliament.
“There’s nothing particularly unusual about a session of Parliament being roughly a year in length,” Harper said during the interview with CBC Television at his office on Parliament Hill. Governments do want to examine their agenda from time to time and refresh it, and I would simply invite the opposition parties to take the opportunity to advance their own ideas.”
Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament on Dec. 30, ending the parliamentary session and killing more than 30 government bills. Instead of returning on Jan. 25, as previously scheduled.
Well, yes and no. No, Stephen Harper was not the first Prime Ministers to have prorogued Parliament before but it highly irregular to prorogue Parliament twice in any one single 12 month period which is exactly what Mr. Harper has done. And I suggest Mr. Harper set his assistants to research and advise Canadians how many Canadian Prime Ministers have prorogued Parliament in order to avoid complying with a direct order from Parliament?
Actually, I can save everyone humongous amounts of time as there has not been a single Canadian Prime Minister who has defied an order of Parliament by proroguing Parliament till now. This singular dubious distinction belongs entirely to Stephen Harper. While Stephen Harper may think he’s merely ‘conserving’ the ‘conservative’ rule of Parliament rather than abusing it; I have the weight of history and the luxury of time on my side. I seriously doubt history will be very kind in their treatment of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. I know I won’t be.
You neglected the influence of the unelected and Liberal dominated senate in the choice of Harper to, uh, go rogue.
And, aside from those whose paid employment depends upon criticisms of all things non-activist, does anyone care? Harper has been treated rather poorly by the media, academic, bureaucratic, and state-funded activists for, well, his entire career. Perhaps he is learning to do unto others has been done unto him. Infact, I suspect that quite a few of the diversity of these leftist tricks are going to be played back upon the aristocrats of the left. Perhaps by the conservative party, or perhaps just by those polarized by leftist policy.
Well Fenris, let me quote Stephen Harper – back when he still had principles rather than Prime Ministerialship.
“When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent is frankly when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.” ( Canadian Press, April 18, 2005)
Well, I am heartened that you share my dislike for those that seek to cancel dissent or avoid dissent.
I am confident that history will be harsh with Harper. After the employment equity non-ability academics, vetted all by Lenin admirers who do not read Lenin, do their semi-literate efforts (not best, as best is a dead white male attribute, and bad) plagarize each other to come to the same opinion, that opinion will be the same as yours.
This is politics. In a struggle with a movement that has a demonstrated track record of, well, evil, you can expect the tactics used to be used back. If the enemy uses dumm-dumm bullets, they should expect dumm-dumm bullets back. Those that do not respond in kind and measure to tactics find themselves extinct. Those that do not like having rockets sent into their nursery school playgrounds should look to vigilant methods, otherwise they end up in a world where crack addicts and whores gather on their front porch, where once it was just the front porch of their home.
For examples of tyranny, I look to history. If you can stomach the writings of the dead white males, you can find quite a few examples. And if this particular bit of politics is your moral equivalent of, say, Trotsky betraying the anarchists of Nestor Mahkno after using the anarchists to stop the White Army, or Stalin’s ordered assassination of Trotsky, or even the alleged murder of Stalin at the hands of his ‘Jewish’ doctors, then you are you, and sovereign in your ability to hold opinions. Bully for you, as the Limeys say.
These media puffed acts of tyranny of the Harperites will never stop until the three headed party (four, if you include the Toronto Trotskyites) has come back to its place of power of spending taxpayers money. The list of tyrannical acts stretches back to the start of his reign, and continues from there in shocking fashion, which you can read in many an un-read newspaper. Every week, some new scandal. Every week, the taxpayers need to be told what to think. Every week, subscriptions are cancelled, and taxpayers continue to not care.
Fenris, I am surprised at you. I would have thought you a man with your principles would have been the first one of us to see how Harperites have betrayed conservative principles, and yet, I see you have chosen to liberally to drink the kool-aid of Harpernomics. What is the world coming to when the pseudo-conservatives can turn the raconteur of telemarketing? WE ARE ALL DOOMED.
Well, the aristocrats generate this constant series of scandals and uproar about the minority gov’t of the guy. As they have lost my respect, let alone my subscription dollars, I pay them little heed. One battle at a time, Aetius used to say.
If the parties of taxspender privilege think this is such an outrage, they have the power to bring him down. Since they do not, time and time and time again, I share their lack of effort.
True, there are some elements of conservative principles that are being tossed overboard. But, if you look at the alternative, namely a return of the aristocrats to power, I would much rather have Harper. That is politics. Harper is doing a fine job of advancing the policy I support. He is the only game in town, because the real struggle of conservative principle will occur when he has a majority government, and can put a stake through the heart of the CBC, amongst others.
In short, better to have a parliament pro-rogued, than to have a National Energy Policy. That may not be conservative, but it is politics.
Fenris – I just cannot in good conscience paying people who do not show up at the office for work. Level with me – did the Harperites bailout the Telemarketers too? Or perhaps the your telemarketing ventures have benefited by the explosion of ‘guest-workers’ the Harperites insist on being allowed to bring into this country – even during this past year when unemployment has reached such high levels – is that it? I never thought I would see the day when Fenris Badwulf was soft on fascism…
Being content with Harper because he’s not a Liberal, is a ringing endorsement, eh?
No, the Harperites did not bail out the Telemarketers. I would be content for the ‘workers party’ to do their job and bail out unionized workers. After hearing an activist gloat over the collapse of the auto industry (as this would decrease the production of carbon and hence slow down global warming …) I have little faith that the aristocrats in bolshevik clothing will do spit for the working class. Once the unions get bailed out, I can quit telemarketing and go back to sleeping on the job, smoking dope on the job, and just being union-y.
Guest workers? Again, you can have Harpers guest workers, which sucks, or you can have the importation of Fece-Immigrants to ‘rub the noses of the conservatives in’. Indeed, a doctrinare party would clean up immigration. Unfortunately, until we have a majority conservative government, there will be no start on recovery. Currently Harper is at best treading water in the face of the subversives in the government ministries, academia, media, and judiciary. You may quibble all you want, but Harper is edging in the right direction; the other parties are edging left. Take your pick. At least now, in the plantation of Toronto, the activists can live (and now die) with the fruits of their actions.
As far as fascists go, I grew up hearing about the second world war from veterans. One relative, my father, was one of the first to enter a concentration camp. The big one one the danish border, actually. If you wish to compare pro-roguing parliament to organized death, that is your decision. Now, in the activist age where those veterans who fought fascism are now considered rapists (being male), racists (being white), and general scum (being taxpayers). The activists are going to drink from a bitter cup, having alienated and screwed over pretty much everyone. I would say more, but the lack of free speech in this country precludes it.
So, choose your sides carefully. I cannot, as I am white, male, and heteronormative. My activist betters have made my choice for me. And I am still paying reparations for a plantation that my ancestors never had or wanted. I want either my money back, or the plantation. What do you want, and how does your course of action take you there?