In honour of the Soviet KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov I bring you Bill Maher:

And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods’ text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote: “I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I f*** that ass that I own. Then I’m going to tell you to shut the f*** up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.” Unquote. [laughter]

And this, I believe, perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party. [applause]

Yes, it does. That’s what they should be saying to the Republicans: “Shut the f*** up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, ‘global warming is real.’” [applause]

The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if cap-and-trade bill isn’t popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.

So don’t stop. We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war, and we need to put terrorists and other human rights violators on trial in civilian courts — starting with Dick Cheney. [applause]

Democrats, in conclusion, Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: Drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th. And by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.

But of course, it’s Ann Coulter who should be locked up for hate speech.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org

Like every self-appointed messiah before them, these militant environmentalists view with chill contempt those others who cannot see their truth, who won’t bow to their self-assigned imperatives. It’s not just that they won’t abide those who differ from them. They want them actively punished.

Rex Murphy, National Post, April 17, 2010

On the Goldman Sachs SEC charges:

Goldman has become the focus of demonization by the Obama administration at a time when the Democrats want to introduce yet another massive “reform” package. But reform does not always mean improvement, and the massive bill as now structured could turn banks considered “too big to fail” into taxpayer-backed public utilities, and lead to bureaucrats overseeing lending policies.

Peter Foster, April 27, 2010

Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world.

It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we’ve got whole generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all intent on “remaking America.”

Elizabeth Scalia, May 24, 2010

On the heels of Ford’s better-than-expected third quarter profits and its promise of solid profitability by 2011, 68% of Americans adults hold a favorable opinion of the one company that passed on a government bailout. Ford continues to far outdistance public perceptions of General Motors and Chrysler.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 24% view Ford unfavorably.
But just 34% of Americans have a favorable opinion of GM, while 56% view the automaker unfavorably.
Chrysler’s ratings are even lower, with just 29% who view the company favorably. Sixty-three percent (63%) view Chrysler unfavorably.

Rasmussen Reports, November 4, 2009

What is the matter with Michael Ignatieff that this is so? What’s missing from the portrait? Why, with so fresh and unspotted a leader, do the Liberals lack energy, borrow what little drama they possess from the tired, sham outrages of Question Period? It’s difficult to pinpoint. It’s not because of the “just-visiting” ads. They speak more to the narrowness of his opponents than to the flaws of their target. Nor has he been seriously spattered by cherry-picked quotations from some of his writings – his musings on the torture debate, for example – or his inclination toward the first person plural, the “we” in his writings, while tenured in America. They’re predictable “hit points” but they don’t really resonate. It isn’t any perceptible difficulties (I leave the spat over Quebec nominations out of the mix for now) with his caucus.

What has he to say to Canadians? Why did he come home? How is a Canada with Michael Ignatieff as its leader a better, different Canada than one without him? What’s special, distinct and intrinsic to his personality and style that adds something to the country he proposes to lead? Mr. Ignatieff has not only not answered these most basic questions. He signals by style and statement that he hasn’t worked out the answers for himself, not to speak of his fellow citizens.

Rex Murphy, September 28, 2009

In this critique of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, Rex Murphy has identified the essence of what the Liberal Party in Canada has come to represent over the last few decades. They are a party without a clear vision for Canada, as I have written before. When in opposition they seem to have a grasp on what they don’t want to do: they would scrap the GST; they would withdraw from the free trade deal; etc. But when in power they promptly do the opposite. Perhaps then Ignatieff is the perfect leader for the Liberals. As his record indicates his is “flexible” in his ideology, ready to reverse his position as soon as it appears it might score some political points. And perhaps the Liberal Party is exactly where it belongs – sitting in the opposition benches – as it appears all they are capable of is opposing.

President Ahmadinejad has said things, particularly about the state of Israel, the Jewish people, and the holocaust, that are absolutely repugnant. It is unfitting that somebody like that would be giving those kind of remarks before the United Nations General Assembly. Canada does not want to be equivocal at all in terms of our view on that; we find it disgraceful, unacceptable, and we’re going to be absolutely clear on that.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, September 23, 2009

The FLQ Manifesto is undeniably part of Quebec’s history. It is a text that evokes a particular time — one that, in fact, does so splendidly, evoking the feverish, fetid atmosphere of the late Sixties with a suddenness and a brutality that makes one glad those days were so long ago. It is perfectly proper that the manifesto should be recited as part of a general airing of important historical texts, as it was once recited to help save the life of James Cross, the still-living British diplomat kidnapped by the Front de liberation du Quebec on Oct. 5, 1970.

Source.

I too, support the argument that we must not forget our past.

To understand the FLQ and it’s violent actions, it’s important to first understand the ideology they were loyal to. The FLQ were first and foremost a radical Marxist movement. For the FLQ and most Marxist groups, the primary objective is to defeat capitalism – using any means possible. For the FLQ, the goal of Quebec sovereignty provided the “noble” cover to their part in the much wider global struggle against capitalism.

Much of the FLQ Manifesto reads as though it were lifted directly out of Marx’s A Communist Manifesto:

We are the workers of Québec and we will continue to the bitter end. We want to replace the slave society with a free society, functioning by itself and for itself; a society open to the world.

Our struggle can only lead to victory. You cannot hold an awakening people in misery and contempt indefinitely. Long live Free Québec!

Long live our imprisoned political comrades. Long live the Québec revolution!

Long live the Front de liberation du Québec.

In addition to capitalism, the other enemy of Marxism is organised religion. In this passage the FLQ takes a swipe at both enemies in one sentence:

We are terrorized by the capitalist Roman church, even though this seems less and less obvious (who owns the property on which the stock exchange stands?)

In fact, there is very little reference to Quebec as a “distinct society” in the FLQ Manifesto. Instead it is quite clearly a call for “workers” to rise up against their “bosses”. Quebec nationalism is merely a smokescreen.

This pattern of seeking out what appear to be noble causes can been seen throughout history in the Marxist battle against capitalism. The most recent example of this wolf in sheep’s clothing is the battle over how to deal with climate change, which is rather ironic considering the environment records of the communist world.

While the FLQ now appears to be a historical footnote, it’s important to understand that it’s underpinnings are still very much alive and kicking today.

The reason we were meeting was to see if I might be able to offer any advice to help her market the new school.

Talking to Sheileen and listening to her describe her vision and her dedication to education convinced me there certainly was a place for her new offering in the education market in her area – Toronto. Sheileen has years of experience as both a teacher and as an education administrator, in fact she had run her own successful school (at the high school level) in the past.

The challenge Sheileen faces, however, is that the “market” for education does not come close to resembling a true competitive market. The Ontario government fully funds public and Catholic primary and secondary education through general taxation. In other words, whether you have a child enrolled in a publicly funded school or not, you’re already paying for it. If a parent choses to send a child to an independent school they have to pay for it on their own. This is hardly a level playing field when it comes to education, and this is also discriminatory:

Against the backdrop of this obvious inequity, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee issued a report in 1999 criticizing Ontario’s educational policy as blatantly discriminatory. The committee recommended that Ontario either extend public funding to all independent schools irrespective of religious orientation or withhold such funding from all such schools.

Source.

This has long been a concern of parents who choose to enroll their children in independent schools, and has made it very difficult for independent schools to compete fairly for students.

And now, as if the financial disadvantage wasn’t enough, the Ontario Government has introduced another way to discourage parents from choosing an independent education option for their children:

Ontario will start requiring high school credits and grades received from private schools to be flagged on student transcripts with the letter “P” starting this fall.

Education Minister Kathleen Wynne confirmed Tuesday that the move was in response to public concerns that some private schools were providing “easy marks” for a fee. Such fees can run up to $2,000 for a three-week summer Grade 12 English course.

Source.

So because “some private schools” are not upholding adequate standards, the government will flag ALL private school grades with a “P”. Instead of identifying and dealing with only the offending schools, the government will stain the reputation of all private schools.

This is clearly an unfair policy, and I believe it is more about boosting public school enrollment than it is about “improving transparency”.

So what advice can I offer Sheileen? What marketing angle or creative campaign could possibly overcome these very real obstacles to success? I will continue to ponder that one.

——-

To learn more about Sheileen’s new school, please visit:
www.alderwoodtoronto.ca

As Jennifer Rubin points out:

The White House’s attempt to paint ordinary citizens who come to speak out against ObamaCare as pawns of the insurance industry takes on a comical air when one considers the president’s own background and tactics. As Charles Krauthammer remarked:

There is a certain irony in an administration denouncing ordinary Americans who get together to express what they believe and to confront authority, when that administration is led by a man who began his career as a community organizer, whose job, as I understand it, is to take ordinary Americans, get them together to express what they believe, and express demands against the authorities.

So it’s unbelievably hypocritical. And, of course, as we just heard, this only happens when you have a conservative protest. It is called a mob. If it’s a liberal protest, it is called grassroots expressing themselves.

Remember, just a year ago under the Bush administration, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. And today it is a kind of either organized anger, it’s a facsimile of anger, it’s unpatriotic, it’s whatever.

Ultimately, the “blame the voters” tactic is self-defeating, if not downright embarrassing. The White House can’t demean the voters whose support they need. They must persuade and engage, not spy on and smear the town hall attendees.

Source.