What if Rob Ford was anti-immigrant?

Since the first debate where Rob Ford questioned the sustainability of Toronto's infrastructure with the population it already held, never mind any further growth, rival candidates and media pundits have been shouting from the roof tops that Rob Ford is anti-immigrant. By extension they have also linked him being anti-immigrant to the idea that he is racist.

Now, anybody who listened to what he said without a preconception that Rob Ford is Satan in disguise and therefore everything he says must be of the most villainous interpretations possible would know that he was not talking about immigration.

But let's say for a second that he was anti-immigrant. The big question from me would be: so what?

I'm a thirty-something, English speaking white male. I grew up in Dufferin County but only moved to the GTA a few years ago. That makes me an immigrant. Could it be gleamed from the interpretation of statements that in fact Rob Ford would be a racist for thinking it was a bad idea for me to move into Toronto with it's problems in infrastructure?

Of course not. Immigration is not about race. It's about population. It's a numbers focused question not a race question. As such, even if Rob Ford was speaking in an anti-immigrant tone, then it could not be considered racist.

Anyone-But-Ford: only if Smitherman folds

It has been the recurring chorus of the ever so unbiased Toronto Star that mayoral candidates Joe Pantalone, Sarah Thomson and Rocco Rossi should drop out of the race and let George Smitherman be the last man standing against Rob Ford. Today they reported that Sarah Thomson is in fact considering dropping out and casting her support behind Rocco Rossi.

The logic behind the Star's reporting is made that much clearer by the fact that Thomson is in fact 3 points ahead of Rossi. Yeah... you figure it out.

Still, the question does remain regarding how the other candidates would best defeat Rob Ford. The Star obviously has not thought this through past their unabashed slobbering over George Smitherman; much of the support for Pantalone, Thomson and Rossi would go to Ford if any of them dropped out.

In fact, as the Toronto Sun reports, 19.3% of voters' second choice is Rob Ford vs 15.3% for Smitherman. This makes it statistically impossible for an Anyone-But-Ford campaign lead by Smitherman to win.

If the other candidates dropping out won't defeat Ford, it seems to me that there is only one solution: George Smitherman should drop out now and lead the way throwing his support behind the most right-wing of the remaining candidates.

King George's camp seems to be the most entrenched ideologically. So, it is unlikely that his supporters would vote for Ford as a second choice. Moving politically left to right -- from him to the next most right-wing candidate beside Ford -- each candidate's supporters would more likely throw their support behind anyone but Ford which isn't true in the opposite direction of politically right to left. As such, if Smitherman and two other candidates dropped out and threw their support against the most right-wing of the remaining candidates, their supporters would likely see that candidate as the lesser of two evils.

Unfortunately for them, the closest thing to a right-wing candidate next to Rob Ford happens to be Rocco Rossi who is polling last at 8% of decided voters.

Ultimately, the notion of an Anyone-But-Ford campaign is simply another symptom of the rot in Toronto municipal politics. Any candidate who drops out of the race now to throw their support behind somebody else reveals them to be completely devoid of principle. They have worked hard with their campaign workers, their supporters and presenting their own vision for the city. To fold now shows a complete disregard and disrespect for all of these elements.

I can only imagine how their supporters would react if these so-called "leaders" they were bucking for followed somebody else and drove their campaign off a cliff. I know I wouldn't exactly be appreciative of that. And I can see many campaign supporters voting for Ford just out of spite for the disregard the other candidates are showing them, their ideals, their efforts and the entire notion of democracy.

***UPDATE***

As it turns out -- and I really should have expected as much from the Star -- the poll they put out is in huge disagreement with other polls. Hardly surprising when you look at how the Star is doing everything to skew every aspect of this mayoral contest. As such, their poll has shown a drop from the mid-to-high 40's down to around 39% for Ford.

I guess when you actually have a poll identified as being from "Toronto Star - Angus Reid", you have to know that they are polling for themselves and their ideals. Meanwhile a Nanos poll from the exact same time period shows Rob Ford's mid-to-high 40's lead as being rock solid.

The funny part of this being that the numbers in the Nanos poll -- showing Thomson behind Rossi -- are more in line with the Star's reasoning for Sarah Thomson to concede and throw support behind Rossi!

I guess when you want to pointless badmouth Ford you use your own numbers. But when you want to logically convince Thomson to drop out, you use somebody else's numbers. It's clear that the Star's poll is emotional and the Nanos poll is logical. And that's all you need to know to figure out whose numbers are right.

Unions: an expense in blood and money

I work in franchise development. This basically means that when somebody is interested in starting up their own business, I help them determine whether ours is right for them and they are right for us. It is a unique type of franchise in that it is a consultation franchise so one doesn't need a building, office staff, equipment or overhead.

As a global franchise, people from all over the world approach us for information on how to start up a business. This affords me a fantastic experience in that I speak with people from all over the world.

Last week I had a very interesting conversation with a gentleman from South Africa. This gentleman is a successful owner of two service stations and has operated them for years. At the end of October the leases for his two locations are set to expire. But instead of making efforts to renew the leases and continue on in this business, he has decided to let the leases expire, close down operations and look for another business.

Why? It's very simple: unionization.

South Africa is an extremely unionized country. Since August, the country has been crippled by a massive civil service union strike with workers demanding a wage increase of between 8.6% and 11% as well as up to $190 in housing subsidies.

And with hospital workers being a part of this group, it has gotten so bad that the South African National Defense Force has been called in to protect union workers who have been threatened with violence for defying their union's strike position. Additionally, the hospitals themselves are now serviced by military doctors who are filling in for hospital staff.

South African hospital officials are also claiming that the strike by hospital workers is responsible for up to ten deaths for lack of access to medical aid. As somebody from Toronto, that particular aspect of the strike hits particularly close to home considering our own public sector strike last year and how a man died after slow response by Toronto's EMS.

For the man I spoke with last year, he simply cannot afford to stay in business. He does make a monetary profit through his businesses. But monetary costs aren't the only expenses in life. And the cost in stress versus the monetary returns are simply too great for him to stay in business.

As he mentioned, anybody who runs a business in South Africa is subject to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) of South Africa. This governing body is designed to settle disputes between labor and management. However, as is with so many far-left governing bodies (our Human Rights Commissions, anyone?), it is really just a farcical, rubber-stamp organization where people can claim victimhood with the tribunal going through a facade of a process so they can award the complainants whatever they want.

This man told me that many business owners in South Africa spend a good portion of their year in front of the CCMA tribunals just answering for non-stop complaints. And they're not even legitimate complaints. His own final straw was when an employee of his was caught stealing from him.

The gentleman fired the thieving employee and had him charged by the police. The thief was convicted under the courts for stealing. But the thief then filed a complaint with the CCMA who ruled that the business owner's actions of firing the man were improper. The CCMA forced this business owner to rehire the thief!

This is eerily reminiscent of the wildcat labor strike at Air Canada back in 2005. At the time, Air Canada was taking action against employees who had been swiping time cards for coworkers who either showed up late, left early or didn't come into work at all. The ground crew walked off work for four hours effecting several flights and thousands of passengers. In the end, Air Canada agreed not to take punitive action against these employees so they would come back to work.

Now, this gentleman from South Africa is getting out of business. He's fed up with the bureaucracy of dealing with organizations such as the CCMA and the highly regulated, paper-pushing South African government which makes starting, operating and even ending a business an insanity inducing process. He wants something where he doesn't have to worry about carrying the deadweight of employees who don't want to work or governing bodies who are more interesting in giving workers what they want than what is right or wrong.

It is frustrating to see the attitudes of modern day unions. They claim that they are simply trying to ensure that workers get "fair" pay and conditions. But one would have to be a fool to look at modern unions and actually believe this. It is becoming increasingly clear that modern day unions want equal pay across the board, no matter the position or duties, with workers being free to do whatever they want -- even not showing up -- as long as they can come up with a decent enough excuse.

A few years ago I was debating with somebody who is pro-union whether or not workers should all get the same pay. His logic was that if somebody gets a job and puts in a full day's work, he should get the same pay and benefits as anybody else. I asked him straight-up whether he felt that they should get the same pay as the person who started the business. And he actually said that he did believe they should get the same.

Talk about a true socialist!

It amazes me how far society has come in terms of valuing people's contributions. Somebody who begrudgingly comes to work, punches in at 9 and leaves by 5 on the nose and puts in the bare minimum does not deserve to be rewarded for their efforts the same as somebody who worked hard for years, saved up enough money to build a business, took that high risk investment of starting the business and has now created opportunity for others who wouldn't have a job if it weren't for his/her actions.

The value is not the same in any regard! The business owner is the one taking the risk. The business owner is the one creating a means for others to make a living. Of course the business owner shouldn't take advantage of their workers. But it is the myth of the union mentality that the natural attitude of a business owner is to take advantage of their workers.

Why? It's very simple: that is the only justification for the existence of unions.

But what of the opposite? What about workers taking advantage of their employers? Do we have safeguards to prevent this? Not really. If a worker wants to have their time card swiped while not at work, shouldn't the owner have a say on whether to pay this person for work they never did? If a worker steals from the employer and is even found guilty by a court of law, should the business owner not have the right to keep a thief away from his business?

Union-minded people don't seem to care one bit about morality. It's about money. It always is.

As society becomes more and more aware of the expense that unions exact upon society -- both in blood and money -- it is becoming increasingly hard for society to accept their prima-donna attitudes. One need only look at this year's mayoralty race in the largely leftist city of Toronto to see that people are getting fed up with union power.

People are starting to recognize that the value for service just isn't there and that unions have taken too much control. And it isn't just a local phenomenon. One need only look at Europe's reluctance to assist Greece in the face of their massive debt burden. Greek unions simply don't care where the money is or where it comes from as long as they get what they think they're entitled to. And this hasn't sat very well across the EU. Germany most notably is sick and tired of being the engine of the EU economy while countries like Greece rest on their haunches.

Thankfully with the freedom of news sharing that the internet affords, people are more aware of what is going on in the world around them and why. And as it becomes increasingly difficult for unions and their leftist apologists in the media to argue their points for them, the public is learning the true cost of unionization. And it isn't a pretty picture.

One can only hope that the tide turns and people can build businesses without the fears of being a target for unwarranted oppression from the government and unions. I feel sorry for the gentleman in South Africa I was in talks with. To think a person would build up two businesses and then just walk away out of the frustration of union control... he brings a means to a living for these people and they run him out of town.

It's truly heartbreaking. In the end everybody loses.

Pub owner suing Ford: his lawyer reps Warren Kinsella

We already know that George Foulidis, owner of the Boardwalk Pub in Toronto, is threatening to sue Rob Ford for libel. Ford suggested that the process allowing Foulidis to renew his lease 20 years for $1.5 million less than he originally offered is corrupt. Representing Mr. Foulidis is lawyer Brian Shiller.

NewsTalk 1010 reported today that Brian Shiller also happens to represent somebody very familiar to Conservatives everywhere: Warren Kinsella.

And what is Warren Kinsella happen to be doing these days? Why, he's acting as campaign strategist for Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi.

What a coincidence!

Mind you, NewsTalk 1010 provided further information to say that it was somebody in Rob Ford's camp who recommended Shiller to Foulidis. But still... coincidence? I don't believe in such a thing. Especially not in politics.

If you eliminate coincidence, there are really only three possibilities here:

a) that Rob Ford's team did put Shiller onto Foulidis knowing that it would cast suspicion on both Kinsella and Rossi, thus eating up Rossi's support;

b) that Warren Kinsella and/or Rossi thought this issue could be used as another faux scandal involving Rob Ford in hopes it would drive voters away from Ford and actually were the ones to put Shiller onto Foulidis; or,

c) a third candidate thought they could take both Ford and Rossi down by having the lawyer attack Ford only to have his connections to the Rossi camp be revealed and orchestrated the Shiller/Foulidis connection, thus casting suspicion everywhere.

Mind you, I highly doubt the third scenario could every be true. Considering the limp-noodle antics of the other candidates, such a tactic would be far beyond the pedestrian brains of either them or their strategists.

Whatever way you spin it, Rob Ford is going to come out on top in the end with this story. As Sue-Ann Levy in the Toronto Sun has put it, the attention being given to this issue (a sole-sourced contract that went for $1.5 million less than what the leaser offered) only illuminates the ridiculous nature of how the city of Toronto is being run. And that only further bolsters Rob Ford's message of fiscal ineptitude of city council.

Of course, we must keep in mind that Foulidis hasn't actually launched a lawsuit. He is only threatening to sue Rob Ford. Personally, I can't think of anybody who would use just the threat of a lawsuit to control political news.

All sarcasm intended.

Lost track of how many faces...

It seems farcical.

The Liberals and leftists are wrongly accusing the Conservative government of being cozy with US special interests while they themselves are cozy with US interests. (h/t Coyne)

All this not a stone's throw away from the left embracing and protecting another US special interest group trying to interfere with Canadian politics... with that group lying to do so.

It really begs the question: how does the left stay upright with their feet planted firmly in the mouth of both of their faces?

Who is Rauf to lecture?

I was watching a clip on Fox News (shudder!) with Bill Hemmer discussing Imam Rauf's latest absurdities in telling Americans what is and what isn't holy ground. Hemmer had Dr. Zuhdi Jaffer of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy on the show and he really hit it on the head.

I'll leave it to his own comments as they are so very true:

I have to admit, that is about the best dressing down of Imam Rauf's nonsensical position I've heard yet. Rauf is using Islamophobia as a crutch to avoid having to address radicals within the Muslim faith. As long as he screams Islamophobia, the sheep will follow blindly to the abattoir.

Sure he was just quoting...

It's such an obvious misunderstanding. I mean, quoting something that you aren't agreeing with? Happens all the time.

Seriously.

If I was trying to make a point about the Sun newspapers and I quoted something that instead talked about the people who read the Sun... obviously I wasn't referring to the people. I mean, the quote says nothing about the Sun itself so it's so obvious that we should draw a conclusion about the Sun.

What that conclusion is... who knows? I don't know what's worse: saying (even quoting) something that suggests people are illiterate or believing that people are stupid enough to buy such BS.

Maybe Ian Davey can quote somebody to answer that for us.

The Truthers are still out there...

On my way into work yesterday I was listening to John Oakley on Talk640 and he had a guest who was going to debate any Truther out there. I didn't get to listen to that segment unfortunately as it would have been interesting.

I still can't believe that there are people out there buying the nonsense arguments that suggest 9/11 was an inside job, that the planes weren't planes, that United 93 was shot down, that the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by explosives and the lot. Even the most well thought out conspiracy about 9/11 can be explained typically by simple facts.

If you go to YouTube there's actually a great channel with videos that disprove every conspiracy theory you can think of that has been presented to suggest that 9/11 was anything but what we all know it really was. You can check it out here: TheTruthAbout911

But, I typically refer people to a fantastic argument that was made by Penn Jillette on Penn & Teller's Bullshit! whereby he says it like it is: the Watergate break-in disproves it all. After all, if the government couldn't hide a simple hotel break-in, how could they hide a conspiracy involving every single layer of government? Check it out here.

And as I mentioned in a previous posting, if 40,000 top secret documents about the War in Afghanistan can end up on Wikileaks, how is it that we haven't seen a single document indicating any government involvement in 9/11?

Some people need to find themselves something else to devote their time to. Maybe looking for cures to mental diseases?

The Double Standard: Bibles VS Quran

I was doing a little light reading today and it is hard to not see the glaring double standard of both the press and the Muslim world in regards to this week's Quran BBQ brouhaha.

In terms of the Muslim world, I found this great blog posting detailing how Muslims the world over frequently desecrate the Bible. (h/t Planck's Constant) I would like to hear the political and religious leaders of those countries blast the Muslims who carried out such acts.

Fat chance. Surely this is another case of, "Do as I say, not as I do." Muslims have no problem threatening violence if their holy book is burned. The Bible? Meh...

And in terms of the media, I don't remember the media or Obama coming out decrying last year's Halloween Bible Burning in North Carolina. After all, it's such an affront to the religious to desecrate the holy writings. The media would clearly not ignore this one.

Right?

Somehow I can't find a single mention of Obama decrying this clear desecration. I don't see a single article online from MSNBC or CNN that even mentions this. Surprise, surprise.

Where's ACTRA on the censoring of Sun TV?

Last year the arts community -- especially ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists -- came down hard on Stephen Harper's government Bill C-10 which would in part effectively cut funding to artistic endeavors that were contrary to public interests. Some, such as director David Cronenberg, went so far as to call this censorship.

Bill C-10 in no way would prevent artists from creating, displaying or performing their works. It was simply telling them that they would have to get support from other sources. That is not censorship. If it was censorship then the government would effectively have a responsibility to fund all artists on demand.

I'm an artist. And I get it.

But where is ACTRA and all these arts community figures now that Sun TV (erroneously called "Fox News North") is under attack by the media on all sides? Where is the arts community when we have so many people calling for this private, non-public funded news outlet to be prevented access to the airwaves?

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body."

Censorship is not the denial of funding from one source. It is suppression. No artist was being suppressed from performing or creating under Bill C-10. Sure they would have to find alternate sources to create their artistic works at the level of expense that would be optimum. But that's not suppression.

Suppression is when we have the media demanding a voice to be silenced. Suppression is when we have politicians wanting voices to be silenced.

And what has the arts community said against these expressions of desired censorship? Well, I'm more likely to hear the birds chirping outside ACTRA's downtown headquarters while standing beside one of Emirates A-380's when taking off on a runway at Toronto's Pearson airport than hear one of their representatives on TV defending Sun TV's free expression.

Why? Because they aren't the champions against censorship they claim to be.

Hypocrites.

Could the Quran BBQ get any worse? You better believe it!

Earlier today word came down that Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center had backed down from his plans to roast the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. For many people this is a positive development. It certainly was for me.

But you always have to read the fine print. And the whole series of activities that led to Rev. Jones' announcement today stinks.

Rev. Jones met with FBI officials today for half an hour of conversations. About what? Nobody's saying. Not Rev. Jones, not the FBI. Why not?

If the FBI was simply reiterating what everybody else has been saying about intolerance, insensitivity or the threat of violent activities in reaction to Jones' plans, there wouldn't be any reason to be secretive. And that leaves really only two realistic possibilities.

The first is that the FBI was informing Rev. Jones of a potential threat to his own life or other specific parties involved in the book burning. With general threats of violence already known, the only possible violent threats that might sway Jones would be specific, close and personal.

I don't buy it. If there were some eminent threat against Rev. Jones, he would be screaming it to every camera out there as an example that proves his point of view surrounding Islam being a violent religion. He'd want the public to know and the FBI would not be able to stop him.

The other option is that the FBI itself is coercing Rev. Jones into not taking action. This would not surprise me considering the man pulling the FBI's strings -- President Barack Obama -- himself has heavily criticized Rev. Jones' actions and given every indication of what he wants.

What kind of threat the FBI would make is anybody's guess. But the far left has criticized the FBI for supposed pressure tactics going all the way back to the Hoover years. Does it seem likely that the FBI is incapable? Hardly.

Now, some will point out the apparent deal to move the New York Park51 development that Rev. Jones trumpeted first between himself and the Park51 developers -- who denied it -- and later with Florida Imam Muhammad Musri -- who also denied any deal. In the face of both parties denying what Rev. Jones claims, Jones has stated that he was lied to but was still postponing the Quran burning until he can talk to these parties.

But who really believes that Rev. Jones -- who himself has called Islam the devil's religion -- would remain in a holding pattern based on what he has now called a lie only so he can deal with representatives of a religion he clearly has no respect for and in fact has a great hatred towards? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

If I was just called a liar on national TV by a person I believe was evil but who I supposedly had a deal with a few seconds ago, I would be fuming! And if I was the type of man Rev. Jones is, I might have burned a Quran right then and there out of spite. But the reaction of Jones tells me that he has other concerns on his plate that lie outside the realm of Muslim representatives that he obviously has no interest in.

Considering that the only other party to put real pressure on him today was the FBI, the process of elimination on whose influence is making the difference is fairly simple. If true, it would be clear that the government -- from the top down -- has focused its sites on this US citizen to prevent him from speaking his mind or performing actions that he has every legal right to do.

The exact opposite of what has happened in New York City in regards to the Park51 development!

The whole thing stinks. The layers of hypocrisy on both sides of this issue is just about enough to make me throw my hands up in the air and scream, "A plague upon both your houses!"

But the completely lack of leadership on the part of Barack Obama and the US government in general is nothing short of pathetic. Seventy percent of Americans don't want to see the Park51 complex developed near Ground Zero. And instead of either bowing to the will of the people or trying to lead them in a different direction -- basically showing a little backbone and standing on principle either way -- Barack Obama has once again shown himself to be the indecisive, non-committal coward that he is.

He could have gotten all of these parties into one room to talk with a snap of his fingers. The complete lack of guidance on this highly divisive issue is the final proof that Barack Obama has absolutely none of the leadership or moral character that it takes to be a leader.

Once again, he votes present.

"Do as I say, not as I do."

It amazes me that some of the same people who recognized the legal right of Muslims to build a mosque (community center... whatever) and said it was simply bad form and insensitive to do so are now defending Rev. Terry Jones and his Quran BBQ this Saturday, September 11th.

What does it say when we recognize the legal and human right of one group to do something while discouraging them not to do so out of sensitivity for others... but then turn right around and do the opposite to another group?

I thought we were better than that. I thought we were able to turn the other cheek. I thought we did unto others what we would have them do unto us.

Rev. Terry Jones (no, not the Monty Python comic) does have a legal right in the United States to burn books. And the left have certainly defended vigorously the right of people to desecrate sacred symbols so we're already well aware that he can do so. The question is, should he?

If you think Muslims should show a little sensitivity and not build near Ground Zero, defending Rev. Jones makes you a two-faced hypocrite. Nothing less.

The Left's guilt in the burning of the Quran

It has been impossible to read the news this week and not come across the asinine antics of Rev. Terry Jones from Florida and his plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Thankfully most people -- including our PM Stephen Harper -- have spoken out against it as both intolerant and just plain stupid when one considers what the obvious reaction of the Muslim world will be.

And of course the left will try and portray this as just another example of how dangerous and bigoted the right is in general.

But let's not hold any illusions here: the left is responsible for this cavalier attitude towards religious symbols in the West.

It wasn't very long ago that artist Andres Serrano introduced the world to his Piss Christ, a picture of a crucifix submerged in his urine, or Chris Ofili rolled out his The Holy Virgin Mary, a mixture of the Virgin Mary, blaxploitation and female genitalia pictures and dung. And some of the more well-known figures in the left-wing community -- such as actress Susan Sarandon -- actually staged protests in defense of this desecration.

Sorry. My mistake. The left calls it art.

But where were the vast numbers of editorials deploring these exhibits? I do remember it being reported. Vilified in the editorials? A handful maybe. Vast amounts of media personalities endlessly talking about how shameful and bigoted an act it was? Not even close.

The media had ample opportunity to show principle in calling out bigots. They had ample opportunity to stand up and say that desecrating sacred articles is not only uncalled for but simply repulsive and inflammatory. Instead, they chose silence. Even though there was an outcry from the Christian community, they remained silent.

And we all know... As you sow so shall you reap.

The actions of Rev Terry Jones are in no doubt deplorable. But make no mistake. This could have been avoided if the political left had done the right thing all along and stood up against bigotry in all forms. The left could have stood with the right in saying that they will not stand for sacred symbols to be treated with disrespect.

For them to point fingers now is a little rich.

Voting Present on World War III

Back when Barack Obama was still only the President Elect, he deemed it appropriate to call Iran's nuclear ambitions exactly as it is: unacceptable. And with nearly two years of talking about, conversing with and discussing in general we're still waiting to see exactly what it is about Iran getting the bomb that is unacceptable to Obama.

Perhaps everything up to Iran having a fully functional, tested and used bomb is acceptable.

But what about Russia?

In recent weeks Russia has decided that it will assist Iran's nuclear ambitions. This in clear understanding of Iran's two-faced "It's for peaceful purposes..." / "We have every right to build nuclear weapons..." stance. There can be no doubt that given the opportunity, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and will have no problem either using them directly or indirectly to target their enemies.

The most obvious side of this is that Israel -- now pretty much alone thanks to Obama -- will be forced to either launch a preemptive attack or in the face of developed nuclear weapons defend itself. In either scenario, Israel comes out looking bad. This gives Russia and all other anti-Israeli countries the perfect chance to come down hard on the Israelis.

But there's one thing on face value that doesn't make sense...

Iran is an Islamic republic which means that it will be first and foremost an ally to Muslim interests. Russia is presently engaged in a longstanding conflict with rebels within Chechnya, a largely Sunni Muslim population. It is no secret that the Muslim population within Chechnya despises Moscow. Even secularist Chechen rebels have been steadily converting to Islam.

Which begs the question... why would Russia arm the friend of it's enemies?

On face value, it makes no sense for Russia to help the Iranians become a nuclear superpower with the ability to launch nuclear attacks either directly or by proxy. One of the clearest targets of the Muslim population would be Russia itself who is responsible for what is perceived as Muslim genocide in Chechnya.

Now it doesn't make sense until you consider the possibility that Russia actually wants to be a target.

Now, I'm the first to admit that this has the obvious stench of conspiracy theories. But if you think about it, Russia is not happy with its status as a largely has-been superpower. The Russian government is not in a position to do en masse what it would do before, which is take whatever it wants by force.

But just as the United States had carte blanche to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, a Russia that has been the victim of a nuclear attack would have nothing stopping it from wiping out its Chechen foes. It would also have every justification to then invade Iran who would be seen as the face of the nuclear weapon itself.

Taking over both Chechnya and Iran, would certainly light a fire under every Muslim dominated country including the 93% Muslim Azerbaijan and 89% Muslim Turkmenistan. And any action by these countries against Russia -- either directly or through rebel activities -- would give Russia justification to invade both.

And that is the only thing standing between Russia having 100% complete control over the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

With Barack Obama being quite obviously a moral relativist, he would likely argue that Russia's actions in face of nuclear devastation are largely justified when compared to the United States' response to 9/11. After all, who could honestly see Barack Obama taking the United States to a gunfight with Russia? He would much rather find an excuse not to get involved.

But this of course would turn into a series of conflicts throughout the Middle East drawing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO member Turkey. And any attack against Turkey would obviously draw in the United States, Europe, Great Britain and Canada.

And boom... you've got World War III.

Obviously this seems hard to believe. But when you ask that one question of why Russia would supply the friends of its enemies with means to produce nuclear weapons, it all comes down to what opportunities it could present Russia. And having control over the near majority of the world's oil supply might just be too great a temptation for the financial strained Russia.

The only real preventative measure would be for Barack Obama to do something other than stand up on the world stage and vote present.

I'm not holding my breath.

It's a Wonderful Life: Or Why We Need More Billionaires

Since I was a young boy I always admired Frank Capra's classic It's a Wonderful Life. As a moral and spiritual story it is without parallel.

It only dawned on me today of a hidden lesson in capitalism contained within a specific segment of that film:

I was thinking today about the central argument of wealth-redistribution: what does any wealthy person in the world need all that money for. It was an argument that I myself had considered as valid for the longest time. After all, it's not like they could ever use all that money in their lifetime.

Today the central conceit of that argument finally hit me. Rich people don't actually have all that money.

If one takes the reactionary point of view that rich people are hoarding vast wealth for themselves and not spreading it around, sure you could believe that one never needs that money. But I can't really imagine Bill Gates owning a vault that on a weekly basis he runs into, diving into the money singing, "Look at me! I'm so rich! I can swim in my money! Yippee!"

Of course not.

In reality, they don't actually have that much money in their possession. That money is in investments here, there and everywhere. As such, rich people actually are using all of that money. And not in a self-centered way. It is being used via investment groups or banks to fund other businesses which in turn grows the economy resulting in further wealth for others. And this reclaimed wealth allows more people to invest which results in further growth which results in further prosperity.

As amazing as it is to say, Billionaires are themselves a form of wealth redistribution!

It all relates to that one scene in It's a Wonderful Life perfectly, to which I will paraphrase:

"The far-left is thinking about this all wrong. The money isn't in the rich people's pockets. It's not hidden away in some vault somewhere for them and them alone. It's in your homes. It's in your employers' businesses. It's the means by which you yourself are prosperous."

Every time a rich person buys property and builds a new house -- no, an angel doesn't get it's wings -- they are in effect redistributing their wealth to the people who supply the wood, to the companies that build the nails, to the chemical plants that develop the paint. Every time they furnish that house they redistribute their wealth to the stores they purchased them through, to the manufacturers who built their furnishing, to the raw material suppliers.

And in effect to every single person those channels employ.

By having all of this extra money, Billionaires take very little out of the economy while providing the means to actually build and grow the economy. It's the very reason why government stimulus spending is ridiculously inefficient when compared to broad-based tax cuts. Rich people actually have very little of their money available at any given time. Most of it is being used to build the economy. To grow businesses.

Dare I say... to employ people!

Until the far-left finally realizes that being rich doesn't mean hoarding but in fact means providing the means for economic growth, they will have little positive effect on the economy. We need more billionaires if only so that they can use their money to build the world's economy.

God knows the government ain't any good at it.

It's official: Obama is insane

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

So, you're the President of the United States. And there's a recession. You've just spent three-quarters of a Trillion dollars on stimulus spending and trumpeted the fact that you've saved 2 million jobs (translation: each job cost $379,000). The unemployment rate has risen from about 5-6% under the last administration to 9.6% under your administration even after this stimulus package.

The public disapproves of how you've spent so much, all signs indicate that the stimulus has been ineffective and you are facing midterm elections in less than 2 months. What do you do?

Well, if you were any sane man you would lick your wounds, admit that your approach has not produced the results you said it would and that you are going to retool your course and find a different approach. That's what any sane man would do.

Obama? Nah... he'd rather just toss out another $50 Billion.

Mind you, what he wants to put the money towards -- infrastructure -- is good. It's just that if he was going to do that he should have done it in the first place rather than wasting it on programs like employing non-Americans outside the US, build a firehall in an area that can't afford to hire firemen or weatherize homes to save $500 at the cost of $78,000 each.

It is as if Obama and the Democrats have a death wish. They have already damaged the ship with repeated iceberg strikes and still think that the path they are on is safe. And just like any gambling addict, they are sure that they are going to hit the jackpot soon. It's definitely going to be the next hand.

Okay, maybe the next hand.

No, no... the next hand for sure!

You can't spend your way out of an economic slump. It doesn't work on the individual front and it certainly doesn't work on the government front. Taking money out of the economy weakens the economy.

It doesn't matter if you as a government are going to spend that money because you're just adding more layers of bureaucracy between the money and its use. The public will either spend it right away or invest it with financial institutions who will reinvest it with others who will use the money again. Either way, the money will stimulate two or three economic activities before the government can even approve the spending for any single economic activity it would like to undertake.

But if your stimulus spending isn't achieving the results you thought it would, endlessly tossing good money after bad is nothing if not insane.

Free Speech VS Permissible Speech

It is somewhat disturbing to see the cavalier attitude that the political Left has with the idea of freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of Speech is defined as one of our human rights which Leftists will scream to high heaven they are the defenders of and the Right want to throw away.

However, the Left seems to be the ones who are eager to curtail freedom of speech further and further. First they push for hate crime legislation based upon what people say. And we can see the result being totalitarian enforcement by seemingly all-powerful organizations such as Canada's Human Rights Tribunal. They even have no issue in demeaning freedom of speech as an American Value.

(I'm sorry... is that supposed to be an insult?)

Then we see the Left wanting to restrict what one can say politically. The current brouhaha over Sun TV -- or as propagandists and their enablers call it "Fox News North" -- has revealed the political left for the opportunistic hypocrites that they are. The so-called defenders of human rights have revealed their true intention to transform the concept of freedom of speech into a freedom of leftists-speech.

But speech is either free or permissible. One can either be free to speak or permitted to speak. Just like life and death, married or not married, animal or mineral, there is no in-between for free speech and permissible speech. If one is under political pressure not to speak, that is an infringement on one's ability to speak freely. And at the very moment that speech is regulated, the absence of free speech is created.

It's as definable as something and nothing.

Some people will of course come back and say, "Well, what about Holocaust deniers? Do you think they should have the freedom to deny the Holocaust?"

Uh... yeah! They should! How else are we supposed to ensure that our children know that the Holocaust is real and that there are morons out there who refuse to acknowledge something with insurmountable evidence? In fact, letting Holocaust deniers speak gives us the best opportunity to deny them.

Sweeping a mess under the carpet doesn't clean up the mess. It just puts it somewhere else where it can build in the dark until it's a much bigger problem.

I'm an artist which of course means I'm a little bit sensitive to the notion of censorship. In my view, there can be no greater error in society than to deny expression. Whether we agree or disagree, we cannot give up this right. In conjunction to the right to life, it is the most important right in that afford all other rights.

If we cannot speak, we cannot fight for our rights. And if our speech becomes subjected to any other's opinion, we have lost everything.

The Left should celebrate an entity such as Sun TV. Unfortunately, they have failed the first test of freedom of speech, that being respecting the right to opinions they would disagree with. It is impossible for any person to be a champion of free speech at the same time demanding the prevention of opposing views.

The efforts of the Left to prevent Sun TV is nothing short of utter hypocrisy. And it is truly disgusting.

To become President Sarah Palin

First off, I am not endorsing Sarah Palin here. That is not what this post is about. This is about strategy.

Sarah Palin is a lightning rod for the American left. Every time her name comes up, venom. Every time she appears, venom. Every time it is suggested she could run for president, there is a storm of fire and brimstone of biblical proportions from the left-wing media.

And it is for this very reason that Sarah Palin should not run for President in 2012.

Which begs the question, what am I talking about in terms of Sarah Palin actually being President?

It's simple: the long game.

Stephen Harper has shown how sometimes it is not the short game that guarantees victory but rather a long, strategic chess game that runs your opponents into the ground via their own efforts. Harper has been a master in giving the Liberals enough rope to hang themselves. As such, Sarah Palin may in fact be the perfect game changer from the same fold.

There is little doubt anywhere that November is going to be bad for the Democrats. They are polling worse than has ever been seen for midterms. The pulse of the American public is that Barack Obama has not only sold them a bill of goods but has done so by enacting policies that are so far-left as to be contrary to everything that the USA is built upon.

As such, Sarah Palin -- the only name that appears relevant in US Presidential politics -- has become the target. The Democrats are after her. The media is after her. They are using up all their powder to destroy her. And yet she has changed the outcomes of every US electoral race since 2008. She is a voice that people listen to. And the left-wingers know it.

My opinion is that her best strategy is to let the left use up their powder on her. Let them focus on her. Let them drive all their efforts towards her... and then not run in 2012. This will give her all the attention of the American public as the media will have driven the public attention to her in droves and she will have humbled herself by not running. And humility is a virtue that Americans respect.

This will give her the ability to shape the entire 2012 Presidential race and influence voters to vote for whomever she feels would be the best candidate. The media will have little credibility in launching an attack against somebody who isn't even running and it will dilute the message of their Obama-favored agenda. And if Obama is replaced by her choice for President, the US will respect her more than they are willing to listen to the media.

In 2020 when her choice for the US President finishes his/her term, Sarah Palin will be in the absolute surefire winning position of being able to run with little ability of the media to tarnish her even a little bit. Their powder for attacking her will be spent in 2012 and she will have used the focus on her to completely change the US perception of her.

And her winning the Presidency will be a walk in the park.

Of course, this is all conjecture. I'm not a political strategist. But from what I have seen in how Stephen Harper has gained more and more of the approval of the Canadian public in the face of widespread media and political attacks, all the while being Prime Minister... Sarah Palin using the media microscope to dilute their effectiveness all the while not vying for the top prize will destroy their agenda from the inside out.

This will give her the time to redefine the US public opinion of her the way Harper has amongst Canadians. That's the only thing standing between her and being POTUS.