Progressivism and the power of unelected officials

In the middle of national celebrations by Canada and the United States, there is a rising cloud of activism in both countries. The success of this trend may have serious repercussions in the rest of the world as we move towards more globalization. Is it time to revisit the appointment of certain officials who may have the final decision in our democracy?

Ever since the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States, we have seen an increase in decisions made by the judiciary rather than Congress. Every decision that Trump has made has been scrutinized and very often challenged in court. The Ninth Circuit, with the majority of its members appointed by Democrats have stopped most if not all of Trumps proposed legislation. Too often these judges have made decisions not based on the constitution but rather on ideological beliefs.  A Democrat majority Congress has no intention to address the growing immigration crisis, which exist on the  Mexico/U.S border. Increasingly courts have viewed immigration as a humanitarian issue rather than interpreting existing laws. The initial premise is true but what of the law of the land? Do they not apply anymore? There is no doubt that many leftist politicians believe that the world should have no borders an accept immigrants for  multiple reasons, as a result for purely political reasons elected officials have relinquished their legislative powers to non- elected activist judges.

The current Supreme Court of the United States has  a Republican appointed majority, and yet it seems that the Chief Justice has decided to show that he is ‘neutral’ in certain cases, and has been a dissenting voice in important cases.  Famed law professor Alan Dershowitz recently stated: “Chief Justice John Roberts' deciding vote to kick the census question back over "phony excuses" was designed to file what Chief Justice Roberts sees as his main role: "to make sure the court is not seen as a partisan institution." Dershowitz added: “The Supreme Court's indecision on the census question and decision to get out of the issue of gerrymandering was "utterly inconsistent" and a compromise to attempt to appear nonpartisan.” Of course we want judges to be impartial, but we also want them to  interpret the law as per the Constitution.

The status is no different in Canada as courts have recently rendered decisions on two important government legislation, namely Bill C69, and Bill C48. These two pieces of legislation have serious implications for the national economy, and even ultimately the national unity. Challenges to the government’s ability to impose a tax on carbon have so far been won by the federal government to the detriment of provincial governments. Majority decisions in these cases have been rendered by Liberal appointed judges with one exception. The dissenting voice came from Justice Grant Huscroft, who was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal by Stephen Harper in 2014,  Justice Huscroft is a true legal originalist who believes that judges should resist  progressive legal interpretation and follow the founding documents of the nation. However, in Canada judges do not follow the ‘originalist’ interpretation of the law; they prefer to interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a living document subject to their interpretation. Since many of our justices have been appointed by Liberal politicians, it stands to reason that their interpretation of the law trends towards progressivism rather than conservatism. Furthermore, another un-elected body, The Canadian Senate while  succeeding in amending C-69 and coming awfully close to defeating C-48 altogether,  was unable to make any change to the status quo  since the Liberal majority in the House has the final word it is  thus unlikely that things will change.
The appointment of justices will affect future decisions of national importance. In both countries the trend of appointing judges based on their political affiliations or ideology makes a mockery of the idea that justice is supposed to be blind. Trump has promised to appoint conservative judges and in Canada the federal Liberals have promised to appoint the "most meritorious jurists" to judicial vacancies across Canada, but they continue to appoint friends and family members of their party, as is the case in New Brunswick. The result will be that judicial decisions will be used to embolden progressivism.
This trend of un-elected officials having the last word on the laws of the land is very concerning as recent judicial decisions have proven to be. It seems that the law will no longer apply according to legislation or constitution, but will rather be based on progressive or conservative ideology. In other words precedence created by judges. I am not a legal expert, far from it, but as a citizen, I am very afraid of the dangerous slope of giving un-elected officials the final word. ‘Res ipsa loquitur’

Bringing back the Alberta Advantage.

After four years of the socialist NDP government, Alberta is still reeling under an economic  downturn caused by both the provincial and federal governments.  However there seems to be real signs of economic revival as we see a new conservative government and the business community working to bring back the Alberta advantage.

The elected UCP government under Jason Kenney has already made some significant changes to stimulate the economy. A cancellation of the carbon tax is only one of the many changes made to free the economy. There still remains much work to be done on many fronts. Altering the many destructive policies of the previous government will take some time, but we have confidence and optimism that the right decisions will be made. On the other side of the equation the Institute for Public Sector Accountability (IPSA), does not support any interference by the government to use the excuse of economic diversification to affect  the free market. With this in mind we are very pleased to see that the business community is willing and able to work towards the province’s economic revival.

The formation of the Business Council of Alberta by a number of business executives and entrepreneur s is the right way to help the economy. Such an organization has been badly needed since the Calgary Chamber of Commerce has lost its real ‘raison d’etre”.  It will take  the business community, with the help of the government, to diversify the provincial economy. IPSA has always maintained that governments choosing winners and losers are not the way to diversify an economy. Advice and involvement of many of these founding members will work towards the prosperity for all Albertans.

Furthermore in another much awaited announcement is the involvement of Calgary’s business leaders to start questioning the decisions made by a dysfunctional Council. In view of the recent and continuing inability for the current Council to properly manage its financial affairs, IPSA is very glad to see that the business community is ready to question the decisions  made on increasingly risky capital investment. This Council is unable to make decisions regarding budget management. They continue to bring forward proposals to curtail essential services before cutting useless expenditures, benefits and large pensions. This strategy by administration to offer essential services as the first cut in a reduction of costs, is a long established ploy to get citizens to accept their continued spend and tax tactics. They believe that citizens will allow Council to save essential services and make no significant cuts. There are many areas which can be subject to reductions and sometimes complete eradication. This Council has been unable to set priorities; it is time for the business community to set guidelines for Council to get its house in order. It is very unfortunate that we have to resort to this type of oversight of an elected body, but Calgarians  have reached the end of their tether.

As a contribution to the economic debate IPSA has made proposals to the Alberta government to make some significant changes to the property tax regime. Given the recent ruling concerning the assessment of the Metropolitan Centre, i It has become quite clear that our proposal should be a priority for the UCP to reform the Market Value Assessment basis for property taxes. The proposal can be found on our website  www.theipsa.org   in a publication called A Blueprint for Alberta II.  As Don Braid wrote: “Cities have no real need for their own property assessors… Calgary assessment department costs $22 million a year to operate. Abolishing it would help the downtown tax hole.” For these reasons IPSA calls upon the government to consider a review of the assessment system.

All of the above developments bode well for the future of the Alberta economy. If only the new UCP government would consider working with these new groups to redress the dismal performance of the previous destructive government policies.

Send in the Clowns

Ever since Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States, his Democrat opponents have tried to delegitimize his presidency. They first said that he did not win the election because Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, then it was that his campaign colluded with the Russians, and he obstructed justice. As a result a Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian intervention in the 2016 elections, and the circus cane to Washington.

Not content with collusion, the probe morphed into an investigation of obstruction of justice when the President fired the FBI Director James Comey. After at least $40 millions of taxpayers’ money, the Mueller report was finally released to the Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019. For close to two and half years all we heard from the Democrats was that Trump was a lackey of Russia, and some even hinted at treason.  But to their chagrin, the final report found that there was no collusion, and perhaps there may be evidence which could not clearly exonerate the President from obstruction of justice charges.

The Attorney General is under no obligation to release the Special Counsel report, but AG Barr first released a summary of the report, then a redacted version of the full report which did not please the Democrats because the Pre4sident was not found guilty of any charges. Despite the fact that some thirteen Russian, three Russian entities, 12 members of the GRU were indicted, still there was no Trump people indicted for collusion, but members of his campaign were sent to jail for other infractions.

The genesis of all these accusations and investigation is yet to be made public. It is well known that the first sounds of collusion came from a Dossier prepared for the Hilary campaign and the DNC as an election research and may have involved material provided by the Russians. While the now Democrat Majority Congress wants to pursue other avenues to impeach the President, Democrat Presidential candidates making the rounds with charges of ‘constitutional crisis’ and charges of contempt for AG Barr because he refuses to testify in front of Congress and he refuses to release the full Mueller report. Ironically, the AG cannot release all of the report by law, because certain parts have to be redacted to protect certain Grand Jury testimonies. Ironically, the Democrat crying foul is no other than Congressman Jerry Nadler chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the same congressman who vigorously opposed the release of the Starr report that led to President Clinton’s impeachment.

We have yet to see proof of obstruction of justice in the Comey case.  What most people and the media ignore is the fact that the President can fire anybody under his employ, which Comey was. The same Comey who once was vilified by the Democrats for disclosing additional Clinton emails in a letter to Congress.

 There  are two shoes yet to drop.: the Inspector General Michael Horowitz report on  Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA) abuse, the other one is the possibility of the President releasing classified documents pertaining  to  the involvement of former FBI Director James Comey, ex-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who may face criminal prosecution. As the public is invited into the big tent, we are about to see all the clowns coming out of Democrat Circus that Congress has become.

Negative Campaigns, Character Assassinations and Resistance

Today the Attorney General of the United States released the long awaited Mueller Report concerning Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election, collusion and obstruction of justice. It may be a coincidence but it is also just days after the Alberta provincial elections. I believe that I could end this book with my thoughts on these two historic events. 

First why is the release of the Mueller report important? For one it was an un-relented attack on a duly elected President of the United States, the most important office in the world. Ever since the night of his election, Donald Trump has been accused of every single crime possible by his delusional political opponents. He has also been labelled a racist, misogynist and a xenophobe, every time that he has changed or attempted to make changes to existing laws. After two years of investigation and $25 million of taxpayers’ money the attacks by the Democrats and the liberal mass media will not stop just because the Mueller report has found no collusion with Russia and no clear evidence of obstruction of justice in the firing of the former FBI Director James Comey. The so called ‘resistance’ will continue in different ways, as the Democrats who have a majority in the House of Congress will block any legislation put forward by the President. The 2020 Presidential election is already under way and the focus is not going to be so much on policy but rather on character assassination.

Closer to home, after a resounding defeat of the NDP government by the United Conservative Party under Jason Kenney’s leadership, the resistance has already started. Former Finance Minister Joe Ceci has already called for more investigations of the UCP leadership race. Despite a resounding victory which saw a voter turnout of 71% of the electorate, and the election of a large UCP majority, some in the media are still talking about social issues. In my view social issues are important and are in most cases established already in the laws of the land. During the campaign, negative attacks on UCP candidates were numerous; candidates were accused of being bigots, racists, misogynists, xenophobes and of course Islamophobes. In a desperate attempt to sway voters from their four years of failed policies the NDP and their friends in the media could not help themselves but focus on social issues. Moreover, the constant barrage of pollsters who had their predictions, once again proven to be wrong, was constantly being used to sway voters. The only poll that mattered was the election results; Albertans completely rejected all these attacks from the left who ignored the fact that when you have no job, and cannot put food on the table, social issues, real or fake, were secondary to the electorate’s decision.

In conclusion, I urge the public to start learning from these two events, and see for themselves the duplicity of the left and the liberal mass media. Future elections will continue to use the same negative methods to tarnish conservative views and policies. The next Canadian Federal election will see the same tactics from the Liberals who will be desperate to obfuscate the failures of a vacuous Prime Minister, and his alleged attempt at obstruction of justice.

As for Russian interference in national elections, it will be the norm rather that the exception. Western governments must be vigilant because this is the new warfare as used by Vladimir Putin. It is not so much as trying to elect one candidate to the detriment of another, but rather an attempt to disrupt democracy and cause chaos. But the biggest threat to democracy is the leftist liberal mass media, which cannot see the forest for the trees. They have become so enamored by progressive policies that they will do anything to stop conservative policies being discussed let alone being implemented.

Citizens in the free world should be very afraid not only of foreign governments’ interference in their democracy, but be cautious of the enemy within – the liberal mass media.

Collusion and Obstruction, are they just words?

For the past two years the media has been obsessed by the words collusion and obstruction of justice. The focus of the reports has been Trump and the alleged Russian connection during the 2016 presidential election, and his firing of the FBI Director James Comey. However the Canadian media has vastly ignored what was under their noses at home.

Now that the anticipated Mueller report is out, finally the Canadian media can now focus on the SNC Lavalin/Liberal government scandal. Was there collusion and obstruction of justice? Well the recent events seem to clearly point in that direction.  While the Democrats are still fighting the findings of the Mueller report, which found no collusion and no clear evidence of obstruction of justice by the President, perhaps it is time for the Canadian public to understand what is really happening in this country.

SNC Lavalin is a Canadian Company based in Quebec which operates internationally. It is alleged that during their business dealings with foreign governments, officials have used bribery to obtain contracts. The law strictly forbids Canadians and Canadian companies to use bribery in foreign countries. As a result of SNC’s dealings in Libya, the company may be facing criminal charges. But under an agreement which came into law last fall, SNC Lavalin could apply for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) which would allow the company to pay its way out of lengthy and costly criminal trials. It is further reported that the DPA law may have been passed to allow SNC Lavalin to avoid the trials, because employees of the company had been donors to the Liberal party.

The former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, was removed from her position in a Cabinet re-shuffle, and caused a tsunami of events that saw the Prime Minister and others defending their actions. It seems that many actors, including the Prime Minister were  involved  in a  systemic cabal to pressure  Wilson –Raybould to grant a DPA to SNC Lavalin. Those who have lost their jobs a s result of testimonies are the PMO chief of Staff  Gerald Butts and the top civil servant, and  Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, who had become too political in his position .

After disclosures and the release of a recorded conversation between Wilson-Raybould and Wernick, it became quite apparent that it was no longer a whiff of a scandal but in fact a full blown scandal of collusion and obstruction of justice. To further exacerbate the situation The President of the Treasury Board Jane Philpott resigned in solidarity with the former Justice Minister. In response to these resignation and the growing scandal the Prime Minister made the decision to eject the two former High Level Ministers from the Liberal party and said : ““The trust that previously existed between these two individuals and our team has been broken, whether it’s taping conversations without consent, or repeatedly expressing a lack of confidence in our government or me personally as leader,”

What Canadians should be concerned about this whole affair, is this scandal is very reminiscent of the Watergate case. High level resignations and tape recorded conversations. As reported by the Washington Post “In the most traumatic government upheaval of the Watergate crisis, President Nixon yesterday discharged Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and accepted the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus.”..

Perhaps with the Prime Minister suing the Opposition Leader, Andrew Scheer, for defamation, Canadians will possibly get the real truth. However we should not hold our breath, because a court case may not come forward before the elections in October or sooner.

The question is why does the Canadian media focusses so much on United States scandals and yet just gleans  tit-bits on Canadian possible collusion and obstruction of justice. Maybe the Canadian media has different meanings for these infractions.