The RCMP: Gunning for a Stephen Harper Election Victory?

>>> Well what does the United States stand for?<<< 
 
We have decided to adopt the policy of defining ourselves as “not-Canadian” because you have shown how well the reverse works for you. 
 
>> The whole wold is on CRACK<<< 
 
I got your crack right here Wayne…. 
 
<a href="http://www.outlawslegal.com/evil/mooning.jpg">http://www.outlawslegal.com/evil/mooning.jpg</a>

robin mathews asks
Could it be the RCMP is working for the Right, for Stephen Harper, in the present election?

the question i would ask, are the RCMP working for the Americans ??? are there traitors in the RCMP, and CSIS who are working for the Americans ????

here are some actual facts about Harper and the Conservatives....

Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

Close advisors schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change'.

What do close advisors to Stephen Harper and George W. Bush have in common? They reflect the disturbing teachings of Leo Strauss, the German-Jewish émigré who spawned the neoconservative movement.

Strauss, who died in 1973, believed in the inherent inequality of humanity. Most people, he famously taught, are too stupid to make informed decisions about their political affairs. Elite philosophers must decide on affairs of state for us.

In Washington, Straussians exert powerful influence from within the inner circle of the White House. In Canada, they roost, for now, in the so-called Calgary School, guiding Harper in framing his election strategies. What preoccupies Straussians in both places is the question of "regime change."

Strauss defined a regime as a set of governing ideas, institutions and traditions. The neoconservatives in the Bush administration, who secretly conspired to make the invasion of Iraq a certainty, had a precise plan for regime change. They weren't out to merely replace Saddam with an American puppet. They planned to make the system more like the U.S., with an electoral process that can be manipulated by the elites, corporate control over the levers of power and socially conservative values.

Usually regime change is imposed on a country from outside through violent means, such as invasion. On occasion, it occurs within a country through civil war. After the American Civil War, a new regime was imposed on the Deep South by the North, although the old regime was never entirely replaced.

Is regime change possible through the electoral process? It's happening in the U.S., where the neocons are succeeding in transforming the American state from a liberal democracy into a corporatist, theocratic regime. As Canada readies for a federal election, the question must be asked: Are we next?

The 'noble lie'

Strauss believed that allowing citizens to govern themselves will lead, inevitably, to terror and tyranny, as the Weimar Republic succumbed to the Nazis in the 1930s. A ruling elite of political philosophers must make those decisions because it is the only group smart enough. It must resort to deception -- Strauss's "noble lie" -- to protect citizens from themselves. The elite must hide the truth from the public by writing in code. "Using metaphors and cryptic language," philosophers communicated one message for the elite, and another message for "the unsophisticated general population," philosopher Jeet Heer recently wrote in the Globe and Mail. "For Strauss, the art of concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity."

The recent outing of star New York Times reporter Judith Miller reveals how today's neocons use the media to conceal the truth from the public. For Straussians, telling Americans that Saddam didn't have WMD's and had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, but that we needed to take him out for geopolitical and ideological reasons you can't comprehend, was a non-starter. The people wouldn't get it. Time for a whopper.

Miller was responsible for pushing into the Times the key neocon lie that Saddam was busy stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. This deception helped build support among Americans for the invasion of Iraq. Miller was no independent journalist seeking the truth nor a victim of neocon duplicity, as she claimed. She worked closely with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and responsible for coordinating Iraq intelligence and communication strategy. Libby is a Straussian who studied under Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank, and before that, deputy secretary of defense, where he led the 'Invade Iraq" lobby. Wolfowitz studied under Strauss and Allan Bloom, Strauss's most famous student.

Miller cultivated close links to the neocons in the administration and at the American Enterprise Institute, the leading Washington-based neocon think tank. AEI played the key role outside government in fabricating intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq. Straussian Richard Perle, who chaired the Defence Policy Board Advisory Committee until he was kicked off because of a conflict of interest, is a senior fellow at AEI and coordinated its efforts. Miller co-wrote a book on the Middle East with an AEI scholar. Rather than being a victim of government manipulation, Miller was a conduit between the neocons and the American public. As a result of her reporting, many Americans came to believe that Saddam had the weapons. War and regime change followed.

'Regime change' in Canada

As in the U.S., regime change became a Canadian media darling. Before 9-11, the phrase appeared in Canadian newspapers less than ten times a year. It usually referred to changes in leadership of a political party or as part of the phrase "regulatory regime change." Less than a week after 9-11, the phrase began to be used in its Straussian sense, as if a scenario was being choreographed.

From 19 mentions in Canadian newspapers in 2001, regime change soared to 790 mentions in 2002 and 1334 mentions in 2003. With the Iraq invasion accomplished that year, usage tailed off in 2004 (291 mentions) and in 2005 (208 mentions to November 10).

There's one big difference between American and Canadian Straussians. The Americans assumed positions of power and influence in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Canadians have not had much opportunity to show (or is that hide?) their stuff. That may change with a Harper victory.

Paul Wolfowitz's teacher, Allan Bloom, and another Straussian, Walter Berns, taught at the University of Toronto during the 1970s. They left their teaching posts at Cornell University because they couldn't stomach the student radicalism of the '60s. At Toronto, they influenced an entire generation of political scientists, who fanned out to universities across the country.

Two of their students, Ted Morton and Rainer Knopff, went to the University of Calgary where they specialize in attacking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They claim the charter is the result of a conspiracy foisted on the Canadian people by "special interests." These nasty people are feminists, gays and lesbians, the poor, prisoners and refugee-rights groups who are advancing their own interests through the courts at the expense of the general public, these Straussians allege.

The problem with their analysis is that the special interest which makes more use of the courts to advance its interests than all these other groups combined -- business -- receives not a mention. Deception by omission is a common Straussian technique. The weak are targeted while the real culprits disappear.

Harper's mentors

Harper studied under the neocons at the University of Calgary and worked with them to craft policies for the fledgling Reform Party in the late 1980s. Together with Preston Manning, they created an oxymoron, a populist party backed by business.

Ted Morton has turned his attention to provincial politics. He's an elected MLA and a candidate to succeed Premier Ralph Klein. But he did influence the direction of right-wing politics at the federal level as the Canadian Alliance director of research under Stockwell Day.

When Harper threw his hat in the ring for the leadership of the Alliance, Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School's informal leader, became his closest adviser. Harper and Flanagan, whose scholarship focuses on attacking aboriginal rights, entered a four-year writing partnership and together studied the works of government-hater Friedrich Hayek. Flanagan ran the 2004 Conservative election campaign and is pulling the strings as the country readies for the election.

Political philosopher Shadia Drury is an expert on Strauss, though not a follower. She was a member of Calgary's political science department for more than two decades, frequently locking horns with her conservative colleagues before leaving in 2003 for the University of Regina.

Strauss recommended harnessing the simplistic platitudes of populism to galvanize mass support for measures that would, in fact, restrict rights. Does the Calgary School resort to such deceitful tactics? Drury believes so. Such thinking represents "a huge contempt for democracy," she told the Globe and Mail's John Ibbotson. The 2004 federal election campaign run by Flanagan was "the greatest stealth campaign we have ever seen," she said, "run by radical populists hiding behind the cloak of rhetorical moderation."

Straus and 'Western alienation'

The Calgary School has successfully hidden its program beneath the complaint of western alienation. "If we've done anything, we've provided legitimacy for what was the Western view of the country," Calgary Schooler Barry Cooper told journalist Marci McDonald in her important Walrus article. "We've given intelligibility and coherence to a way of looking at it that's outside the St. Lawrence Valley mentality." This is sheer Straussian deception. On the surface, it's easy to understand Cooper's complaint and the Calgary School's mission. But the message says something very different to those in the know. For 'St. Lawrence Valley mentality,' they read 'the Ottawa-based modern liberal state,' with all the negative baggage it carries for Straussians. And for 'Western view,' they read 'the right-wing attack on democracy.' We've provided legitimacy for the radical-right attack on the Canadian democratic state, Cooper is really saying.

A network is already in place to assist Harper in foisting his radical agenda on the Canadian people.

In 2003, he delivered an important address to a group called Civitas. This secretive organization, which has no web site and leaves little paper or electronic trail, is a network of Canadian neoconservative and libertarian academics, politicians, journalists and think tank propagandists.

Harper's adviser Tom Flanagan is an active member. Conservative MP Jason Kenney is a member, as are Brian Lee Crowley, head of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and Michel Kelly-Gagnon of the Montreal Economic Institute, the second and third most important right-wing think tanks after the Fraser Institute.

Civitas is top-heavy with journalists to promote the cause. Lorne Gunter of the National Post is president. Members include Janet Jackson (Calgary Sun) and Danielle Smith (Calgary Herald). Journalists Colby Cosh, William Watson and Andrew Coyne (all National Post) have made presentations to Civitas.

The Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee is not mentioned in relation to Civitas but might as well be a member, if his recent column titled "George Bush is not a liar," is any evidence. In it, Gee repeats the lies the Bush neocons are furiously disseminating to persuade the people that Bush is not a liar.

Neo-con to Theo-con

The speech Harper gave to Civitas was the source of the charge made by the Liberals during the 2004 election -- sure to be revived in the next election -- that Harper has a scary, secret agenda. Harper urged a return to social conservatism and social values, to change gears from neocon to theocon, in The Report's Ted Byfield's apt but worrisome phrase, echoing visions of a future not unlike that painted in Margaret Atwood's dystopian work, A Handmaid's Tale.

The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent.

Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked.

Regime change, one step at a time.

So Harper is selling out to immigrants too.....

spam!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

More spam!
not a lick of truth in it!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

Triple Spam!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

By this time one aught to be chantin
Spam, spam, spam ....
to the tune of Stout-Hearted Men
Sheesh!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

Most astute!
Damned Straight TOO!

can we kiss and make up?

at least to the next time you choose to display your mean streek.

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

SPAM!
And I quote

"Words like "" and "" are guarantees that the person
posting isn't interested in debate, only in insulting people. If there
are good points to be made, they can be made without stooping to such
childish insults, and they won't look like one-off troll spam in the
process"

I see.

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

spam AND report abuse

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

selling sounds so "Going to be"
Sold Out,
We must keep tenses in order
Joined the team

wentBorg!

---
Your mantra has been your opinions are stifled due to their contrary nature, when they are actually stifled for being without perceivable foundation

Shouldn't a good nationalist be saying "Klik" instead of spam?

Good lengthy post up above, however, the one fatal flaw is trying to plug a political party into a political philosophy a la Leo Strauss. Like most political philosophers Strauss was simply sucking up to power, a modern Machiavelli. It gives you good tenure, and if you are doubly suspect -being jewish AND german just after world war 2, then it's the surest way to a the nice soft chair.

All of these ideas were around long before Strauss, just read 'Manufacturing Consent' for the lengthy footnotes. Those in power have been using all the means available to keep the people in check since the people GOT any power. In Canada they have very little power, we have almost no means of effecting government policy here, even at the local level. Of course in the states they have far more mechanisms, which is why the propaganda is so rampant. However, like canadians, half of americans don't even bother at federal elections, knowing full well what it is, a farce played out by two people who represent almost nobody.

The chief problem with the 'article',which was far more interesting than this thread's header, is that it paints the liberals out as patron saints and conservatives as evil two headed mutants. Go ask a person on EI, or the poor, or a senior, about the 'liberal state'. It's a fiction and hasn't existed for over twenty years. Mulroney was far more a 'liberal' than Martin and Chretien. We can take as examples something like gay marriage, which was carefully orchestrated to add fuel to the 'bigot' fire laid against Harper. That many were calling for 'civil unions' rather than marriage, with all the rights of marriage (such as Britain) was lost in the arguments. Also lost was the fact that the feds were stridently against gay marriage right up to the point where the supreme court ruled. In this the federal government very slowly and reluctantly followed the majority of provinces, which were leagues ahead. In Ontario most of the provincial liberals, including McGuinty, voted against gay marriages.

Conservatives are strident because those are the views of LOTS of canadians. Ironically, they are at the point where they need not have policies of their own, had they simply said 'we're not crooks like the other guys-we'll do what they did without the corruption' and they'd be shoe-ins.

The 'secret' agenda is hardly a secret, they've been saying it from day one, even day one of the election. What scares those who comment on it is the fact that it isn't secret and a majority of canadians could support it. This isn't surprising, our 'democratic arena' is largely populated by our aging population and immigrants, the only groups who are 'duty bound' to be part of the process. The rest of us, even those who are getting older, have to muster up the energy even to be involved in the farce, and young people don't bother at all. We need not have yet another debate on the reasons.

That the geezer vote goes between liberals-who ARE a police state (just ask any protestor) and the conservatives who want MORE of a police state is hardly a surprising fact.Thanks to Toronto we now have a 'law and order' campaign, which just goes to show just how much Ontario fits into the political scheme of things. Ironically, conservatives hold mostly rural ridings, where gang violence is pretty much an empty topic. Which is how you know that it is propaganda from Global and The Post, who are trying to use it as a leverage to crack those Ontario ridings.

The liberal/conservative differences are quite slight, Paul Martin was saying he was going to get rid of every handgun before the shooting in Toronto even happened. The difference, as Harper says, is that EVERY issue seems to be of interest to Martin-until after the election. As we know, all we have to do is go to 'howdtheyvote.ca' and you can see that in virtually ALL the legislation the cons and libs both vote together, only NDP and Bloc vote against them. On the 'social issues' there are some that liberals took BIG conservative steps, but the cons voted AGAINST them, using the excuse that the laws weren't draconian enough, but really because it takes away their thunder.

The only real fissure, from which the cracks spread, is the fact that the two parties are simply run by two different industries, the Power Corporation, and the energy consortium out west. The conservatives though are far more populist, many businesses simply back them because westerners do. Here it's quite obvious where the western alienation comes from - the lack of representation, and a history of getting screwed over.

The one thing that must be remembered is that all of this is coming from the newest political force-the people. Canadian 'power' has always been scared of that one political force that can come out of nowhere-TRUE liberalism. The population is far more pacifist and egalitarian, fortunately for the government they have no way to impact policy. Even in the states we must remember that everything that is being done now is being done in the open, and just about any commentator who has done some reading will tell you that they've been doing these things for years. NOW they HAVE to do them in public, something they have never had to do before. This actually bodes well for americans, although certainly not for the selected opponents who serve to distract the population in times of constant war.

In Canada the same political forces are active, the internet, citizen groups,etc., so the search is on for the 'enemy' to distract us. This is why conservatives serve a viable purpose to the REAL puppet masters because in Canada it takes a simple form-if you are conservative then your 'enemies' are the enemies of the US, if you are liberal, the 'enemies' are the conservatives. Either way, the central purpose is served of having people vote on 'gut feelings' rather than issues. Sorry, that wasn't supposed to be so long.

Good post Robin. Dare to suggest (and offer evidence as well) that the RCMP might have an agenda (other than their legal mandate)and you are suddenly attacked by all the advocates of using logical fallicies as debating techniques. Don't let them get you down.
A vote for the conservatives or the liberals is a vote for deep integration with the USA and an endorsement of corruption, IMHO! Voting for other federal political parties may result in the same ends but as no other parties have ever formed a federal government I have no evidence to base a conclusion on.

I need to make a correction. In my haste I wrote "threw out" when in fact the judged stayed the decision because the accused's right to a timely trial as guaranteed under the charter was violated. Bear in mind a "timely trial" is arbitrary and the crown attorney argued that the pedophile's rights were not violated in this case considering the added fact that the investigating detective fell ill. What is important to keep in mind here is that the victim's rights (two children mind you) wasn't considered. The pedophile's rights were the deciding factor in the judge's decision.

And no Marcac I will not give you the court case number because this is too personal (as if you'll look it up anyways). I knew all the parties involved very well especially the accused. If you are trying to call my bluff because you think I'm lying then to hell with you. I'll tell you this. The hearings were held at the Downsview court house located at 1000 Finch in Toronto in 2004. Good enough for ya Sherlock?