For a balanced point of view

There are many Trump haters out there. I for one do not like many of President Trump’s tweets and the way that he does politics. I am not going to defend his tactics but I must say at the onset that I like many of policies, which in many cases are required to rectify many of the problems that face us all. But what I object to is the constant rants from the left more specifically by Andrew Cohen, who seems to have been granted a regular column in the Calgary Herald. His latest one is entitled “Trump targets Urban America”.

I acknowledge that Mr. Cohen is a professor and the author of a book about J. Kennedy, but what we should know is that there are always two sides to the story. While Mr. Cohen praises the revival of certain cities in America, he also portrays Mr. Trump as a bigot and a racist without much proof. President Trump has brought forward many issues that were ignored by his predecessors, and which today when brought to light are causing much consternation and angst in America, but which in reality are true.

To start with, U.S immigration laws have been neglected for political gains by both Republicans and Democrats. The once un-acknowledged crisis on the border with Mexico is now accepted as a full blown one, but the rhetoric continues: that Trump’s policies are racist in nature. This is a constant refrain from the left who believe that we should have no borders.

As for the case against Trump for his attack on urban America, we should look at the facts, despite the latest from presidential candidate Biden who said that he prefers ‘truth over facts’. Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco are but a few cities that are reeling under debt, gang related shootings, drug trafficking, and homelessness. Despite Mr. Cohen’s claim that these cities are beacons of an urban renaissance, he ignores the fact that the real decay was caused by Democrats who run these places.

My point in writing this column is that Canada is going to be in the throngs of a federal election, which will undoubtedly involve many of the same issues being debated south of the border.  I do not wish that the vitriol used in the Stares comes to Canada during the campaign, because I am certain that in many instances the Conservative platform will be equated to that of the Republicans, while we are going to ignore the failures associated with some of the socialist policies put forward by the Liberal party, and the Democrats.

As we go forward it would be nice to see the Calgary Herald publish more columns about real Canadian issues and not the state of affairs in the United Sates, especially coming from the likes of the Washington Post and the New York Times which are coming under attack from both sides of the aisle even in their own country for their bias reporting. Should we want to continue informing the public about our neighbor to the South, perhaps we should have a more balanced reporting of the facts especially from more independent writers.

Racism, identity politics and the Left

Slavery is one of the most abject systems ever devised by man. Too often it has been used to be the starting point for describing racism, especially in the United States. Racism: the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities based on inherent superiority of a particular race are now used by many on the left to oppose everyone who disagrees with their views and ideology.

In light of what is happening in the United States with regards to Trump’s tweets and feud with the so-called ‘Squad’, it is important that we take a step back and examine the use of the word racism in politics. At the onset of this discussion, I must make it quite clear that I do not condone the tone used by Trump to explain his policies, but I do support the tenure of his policies and his condemnation of attacks against him, Israel and conservatism in general. To this effect we should look at the trend and escalation of the term racism to describe conservative policies around the world.

Obama, the first black President of the United States, was elected by a majority of white voters, given that the black community makes only approximately 14% of the entire U.S population. So America is not a racist nation. The continuous use of the term ‘white privilege’ by the left is often used to demonize capitalism. It is a demographic fact of life that there are more Caucasians than other minorities in the U.S. Over the years that will change, but it does not mean that we should demonize the achievements of a white majority. Those who talk about ‘reparations’ and ‘white privilege’ should ask themselves: How many white men died in the civil war to abolish slavery? How many of today’s colored people have ancestors who owned slaves?

While it has been slow for African Americans to make significant progress in certain areas, there is no doubt that there are many successes that have been achieved by blacks in all fields of endeavour. However, today skin color is being used to change the values of Judeo-Christianism, capitalism and to bring forth socialist policies. The left continuously proclaims that all policies dissimilar to theirs are racist. It is not racism that is at the root of the current problems but rather the rise of socialism and the use of a new tool – political correctness. The left believes that freedom of speech is only theirs to use, nobody else’s. Racism is the new ‘gag’ to silence conservatives.

Let us look at the current calls of racism: The left in many western countries have seen their failed attempt to bring forth socialism; as a result they are using the fight against racism to institute polices that favor “Open borders policies” and “sanctuary cities” which in effect means the destruction of national sovereignty. Just because most illegal immigrants are people of color, it does not mean that laws should be allowed to be broken to accommodate them. Homelessness is not a racist issue it is a social issue which includes mental health, drug addiction among other symptoms.

In the corporate world we see the new trend of blaming racism to explain the lack of success by certain groups, Recently it was revealed that racism may be at the root of white privilege in the cannabis industry.- too many white men . There is no doubt that racism exists in many parts of our society, but it is not always the root cause of failure.

While the world is consumed with the debate between the four Democrat Congresswomen who make up the ‘Squad’, we ignore the fact that under Trump there has been an increase in Black and Hispanics employment that the average wage is on the increase.

 The media is focussed on Trump’s tone but not his achievements. What is disturbing is that while  in Canada we have not reached the level of debate based on racism,  I cannot discard the view that in the coming months the Liberal and the NDP will portray the Conservative Party of Canada as being xenophobic, and racist. Canadians should watch carefully how the debates are framed and open their eyes to real policies and not tone or labels. The success of a nation is not based on division but rather in the unification of ideas and values and racism in any form, real or created by political rhetoric must be rejected outright.

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.