Posted on 07/23/2006 3:22:44 AM PDT by Clive
The surest sign a society may truly be changing comes when it's discovered its old, tried and true incantations don't work any more.
I saw a lot of this back in the '60s, when frantic citations about "the traditional Canadian home and family," about our "reputation for sound government" and about our "moderation" were repeatedly uttered, but seemingly nowhere heard.
I saw it again in the '90s when the Klein government took office in Alberta and began sizable cuts in welfare and other provincial services. The usual pitiful photos appeared, with heart-rending stories attached, and everybody waited for Ralph to back down. He didn't. The media hype no longer worked.
I saw it again in the mid-'90s when big cuts to the CBC began, and the "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting" ran the customary full-page ads with the customary 500 or so names (Pierre Berton, Margaret Atwood and Patrick Watson in the lead), appealing for restoration of the traditionally big CBC budget. The silence in response was deafening.
Obviously, nobody but those within the CBC circle gave a damn. She might take a long time dying, but seemingly old Mother Corp was doomed.
Finally, and amusingly, I saw it again last week when Harper declared support for Israel, and implicitly for the Bush government.
In the Toronto media particularly all the notes on the organ were sounded.
Had he fallen into the American orbit? Had he forgotten Canada's role as "peace-keeper" or "neutral broker" between mutually hostile nations? Didn't he care that some 25,000 Lebanese-Canadians were being bombarded by Israeli rockets? Media commentators ominously portrayed his stand as a "big political gamble."
Louder and louder they played the tune, but only the predictable voices replied: the Liberals, the Liberal media, the NDP and their academic patsies. Among the peasants and plebs -- "ordinary" Canadians -- nobody joined in. "The dogs howled," as the saying used to go, "and the caravan moved on."
Next day, one headline said it all: "Harper refuses to budge." What an appallingly "unCanadian" thing to do!
Budging, after all, had become the Canadian Way. Witness our last prime minister, who was such a dependable and inevitable budger.
Harper was also, it appears, being especially unCanadian in another way.
He was acting on principle. Observing that Hezbollah, an army of thugs paid and equipped by Iran and Syria, had begun firing rockets into residential areas of Israel, killing almost exclusively civilians, he declared that the Israelis had responded appropriately.
Yowl, wail, moan went the media, but the incantation didn't work. "Harper refuses to budge" was the astonishing headline.
Canada was becoming a country again.
Aside from principle, of course, Harper was undoubtedly aware of certain other facts. For one, 250,000 Lebanese-Canadians live in the Montreal area, yet a Lebanese protest march against what he was doing, fervidly denouncing him and his government, turned out only 1,000 people -- not much of a showing.
For another, three-quarters of Lebanese-Canadians are Christians, and thus fervently opposed to Hezbollah.
Next day, six Lebanese-Canadian organizations issued a joint statement warmly endorsing Harper's actions.
For a third, after the 2004 election left the Martin government with a bare one-seat majority, a Muslim spokeswoman boasted a concerted Muslim effort had secured three Toronto seats for the Liberals. So they had in effect elected the government, and she wanted the Liberals to pay heed.
She apparently forgot that the Tories might also paid heed to it.
What puzzles many Christians, however, is why the Muslims support the Liberals. Muslims are supposed to be conservative and pro-family in their values.
So why would they back the party that champions gay marriage, abortion and other anti-family legislation? Why, that is, are they supporting the party that aids and abets those qualities most at odds with Islamic morality?
There is one possible explanation. Extremist Islamic elements look to the eventual establishment of an Islamic state. What is most likely to cause the collapse of present-day Canadian society?
Plainly, it's the corruptive moral squalor embraced by Liberal governments. Thus the more Liberal our country becomes, the closer it moves to chaos, out of which an Islamic society could arise.
Therefore, they vote Liberal. In the short-term, it might keep the Tories out. In the long-term, it might bring the Qur'an in.
-
"Duty, honor, country" -- Gen. MacArthur
"England Expects That Every Man Will Do His Duty" -- Admiral Nelson
"We need to budge on this. Why doesn't everybody agree with me?" -- Ted Byfield
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is one possible explanation. Extremist Islamic elements look to the eventual establishment of an Islamic state. What is most likely to cause the collapse of present-day Canadian society?
Plainly, it's the corruptive moral squalor embraced by Liberal governments. Thus the more Liberal our country becomes, the closer it moves to chaos, out of which an Islamic society could arise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
......Oh, ya just gotta love *that*!!! :D
...'Speaking Truth to Degenerates'. eh?
Exactly right. It's in the interests of muslims to elect weak liberal governments everywhere. Look at the results in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Sweden. Don't forget these leftist twits want to bring in more muslims more than anybody. If I ever wanted to destroy a country from within, I would try to get someone like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton in charge of it.
"It's in the interests of muslims to elect weak liberal governments everywhere. Look at the results in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Sweden. Don't forget these leftist twits want to bring in more muslims more than anybody. If I ever wanted to destroy a country from within, I would try to get someone like Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton in charge of it."
In other words, a one step back, two steps forward Leninist dielectric. Good thing that those in government in Canada now know about this strategy.
Canada back into the conservative camp along with US and Australia. Now it's New Zealand's turn to give Helen her marching orders.
There is no hope here. I have recently resettled in Rangiora just outside Christchurch for an engineer job. Christchurch, Rangiora, or even Kaikoura are not really that different from Auckland politically - all are indoctrinated with UN, Labour garbage and which confirms my suspicion that NZ is thoroughly left-leaning. I know some Freepers who are imagining NZ has "blue state - red state" analogies as well. Sorry to burst their bubbles, but such is NZ that the so-called "red" parts are probably not too different from Albany NY while the blue parts are like Cambridge MA.
I'm sure Harper knows all about this. He was observant enough to realize that the only districts in the western 4 provinces in Canada that voted liberal did so because the liberals filled them up with foreigners from the 3rd world.
Whether he will actually do anything is a different story though.
I don't know much about NZ politics. I am under the impression that NZ is farther to the left than Australia. Anyway, being from Canada I can tell you that although we have a conservative minority in regards to immigration, things haven't changed much.
Give them time. They have only been in office as a minority government a very short time.
Who are you? I have already forgotten who you are. ;-)
If posters have asked you not to ping them, please don't.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you - given that post #14 was an open Trollish lie ... unless, of course, the poster routinely pings total strangers at random.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.