11/25/2005

An Amazing Comment

Everyone needs to read this copy of a letter that was left on my blog today. It is in response to a comment left by Beryl Wajsman. For those who don't feel like clicking, I will post the message in its entirety below.

Dear Beryl,
A copy of my correspondence to the PMO, some time ago June 1st, 2005. For your reflection:
Dear Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General of Canada

A copy of my correspondence to the Prime Minister and Leaders of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition forwarded for your perusal.

I believe we are at the end of the democratic coil.

Yours truly,

Hans Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hans Rupprecht CFP [mailto:hancor@msn.com]
Sent: June 1, 2005 9:55 AM
To: 'martin.p@parl.gc.ca'
Cc:

Subject: State of Government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hans Rupprecht CFP [mailto:hancor@msn.com]
Sent: June 1, 2005 9:45 AM
To: 'duceppe.g@parl.gc.ca'
Subject: State of Government


Dear Prime Minister Paul Martin,

Stephen Harper, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois
Jack Layton, Leader of New Democratic Party

It would appear that the learned Prime Minister Paul Martin is really a Tory in disguise. PM Paul Martin’s conversion to the Tory cause, is reminiscent of his namesake on the road to Damascus. Suddenly, we have Paul Martin the "Peeler" attempting to govern without significant confidence in the House of Parliament. The Prime Minister is doing a fine imitation of his 19th century counterpart PM Robert Peeler; albeit without a significant moral compass for his party.

We will have to do a little better than the equivocating compass of moral relativism, which suggests certain objects only have value when one chooses to place value on them. The offering of patronage from the PMO through use of "plausible deniability" and so called "same sex" marriage debate comes to mind. Now we have the bald faced deal brokering by the Gurmant Grewal tapes, subject to "public deniability" for all to see. I extend my salutations to the government for sinking to a new criminal low; in its efforts to hijack democracy. Moreover, seeing that marriage is a provincial power per S. 92(12) of the Constitution Act 1867 all promises against religious discrimination will be rendered a nullity. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to consult with Pope Benedict XVI on the nullification of marriage, for he has clearly mislead on the issue of constitutional responsibilities. Are we the public to assume that there is no moral objectivity outside of oneself, save the lowest common denominator as expressed by the government?

To wit, one only need note the performance of Belinda Stronach newly minted Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Belinda has single-handedly reinvigorated the 19th century "Bed-Chamber Crisis" by creating one of her own. Given that Ms. Stronach has yet to finish her degree; it would seem that she has some skills development to work on herself. As a starting point, if I may be so bold to suggest, be a little less strident in the placement of those stiletto Gucci heels, as they clearly have the capacity to cause significant pain. Please choose a better epitaph than the "Ministry of Silly Walks." An alternate interpretation, is to suggest we have government by the corporation, for the corporation; the hidden hand of federal politics.

Next we have the proposed legalization of marajuana. Of course I am delighted to contemplate that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces may be “higher than a kite” as he decides whether we go to war or not. Given that our previous Prime Minister Jean Chretien has suggested he would be the first to light up after legalization gives me pause to wonder about the quality of advice given in the PMO. To contemplate a stoned Prime Minister involved in Ballistic Missile Defence... "Oh lets press the launch button!" Well thank God Almighty we have avoided this certain disaster given my previous writings on the BMD subject. We hardly need discover new and inventive ways in which to incinerate ourselves.

Further paralleling PM Robert Peel, the Irish Potatoe famine has as its corollary the crisis in Darfur, Sudan. Repeal of the Corn Laws is hardly the prescription of the past. Surely to God we are not, as part of the international community, going to let the planting season pass only to leave an estimated 2 million displaced to simply starve. This will only serve to add insult to the 180,000 lives already lost to blatant bloody mindedness. Our commitment as a nation, to the security of persons and human life, at home and abroad, has to be more significant than to suggest to Almighty God: "Return to Sender." While welcome, it will take more than underwriting funding for the African Union mission; some significant on the ground troop strength through the United Nations or other force combination has to make its way there in very short order. Using the existing African Union force to integrate new peacekeepers might be the place to start. 2700 soldiers spread out over a nation the size of France is not going to do the trick. The alternative is to add Sudan to the humanitarian disasters of Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, etc. If the western world nations don’t make a concerted effort in this regard, we are no better than the so called despot regimes we so often decry, for we have become in Burke’s words mere bystanders. Or to use the Irish phrase, we don’t "give a tinker’s damn." Given that Prime Minister Paul Martin has visited Darfur himself; he is no doubt aware of the grave consequences of not acting. It is quite one thing to condemn verbally a despotic regime; it is quite another to ignore the egregious errors this same regime manifestly commits. It means precious little to appeal to God for guidance in one’s throne speeches, when we studiously ignore our God given intelligence to provide solutions. One needs no Divine miracle, when the correct solution is to give governments a good collective kick in the backside to do it’s duty. Through systematic under funding of the military, a fact the Prime Minister himself has admitted to, we have created the inability to respond over the past decade. We as a nation should be loading planes of peacekeepers now; before it is too late. We quite simply need to place "boots on the ground," before the planting season window of opportunity irrevocably closes.

No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

The Constitution Act 1867 suggests that per s.91 that the House of Parliament has the power to make laws in respect of "Peace, Order and Good Government." One might reasonably make the case we have been delivered unto "War, Chaos and Bad Government."

Most recently we have had non-confidence motions passed which suggested that due to the lack of progress with Liberal Party and governmental corruption that "..the government should resign." This was subsequently reaffirmed in 3 motions to adjourn the House. What part of the statement "get ye gone" does the government have such great difficulty in understanding?

Evidently, we are rewriting Westminster Parliamentary tradition; now to be replaced by the dictum "Government will enjoy the Queen’s pleasure to govern; so long as it is politically convenient to delay, through whatever means necessary legal or not, until suitable defections are secured, from members of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition." Ostensibly, this new precedent will be extended into the future by months and years. I congratulate the government on overthrowing Parliamentary convention, not to mention laws against bribery, and replacing it with, in the words of historian Michael Bliss, "proto-tyranny." The current Liberal Party, as practiced, has crossed the democratic version of the river Styx. Welcome to Hades, ladies and gentlemen, the temperature should be rising shortly.

Indeed, now we have president Chirac suggesting he will resist the democratic will of the people, in the event they vote "No," in a referendum on the European Constitution. How far will this poison to democracy spread? So this is democracy, only accepted when it accords with the will of the elite?

Moreover, we have the following announcement made on May 25th, 2005: The federal Liberals would consider ignoring a House of Commons defeat should they lose any of the several coming votes that are matters of confidence between now and the end of the spring session, Chief Government Whip Karen Redman says!!! We won’t be taking any lessons from the Parliamentary pedants who inhabit the government benches.

The aforementioned statement in effect suggests that we will inaugurate a period of "taxation without representation." I congratulate the Chief Government Whip for renewing and modernizing the 1837 Rebellion. Perhaps we should be loading our muskets with ball and shot right about now; given the government has departed the democratic mortal coil.

I gather we now have the rationale for the ill reputed gun registry.

Ms. Redman’s statement has to number among the most inflammatory and incendiary since the demagogues mounted the Bema on the Pynx, Acropolis.

But an attempt to turn the right of election into such a farce and mockery as a fictitious fine and recovery, will, I hope, have another fate; because the laws which give it are infinitely dear to us, and the evasion is infinitely contemptible.

...I see no other way for the preservation of a decent attention to public interest in the Representatives, but THE INTERPOSITION OF THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE ITSELF, whenever it shall appear, by some flagrant and notorious act, by some capital innovation, that these Representatives are going to over-leap the fences of the law, and to introduce an arbitrary power. This interposition is a most unpleasant remedy. But, if it be a legal remedy, it is intended on some occasion to be used; to be used then only, when it is evident that nothing else can hold the Constitution to its true principles. Edmund Burke, THOUGHTS ON THE PRESENT DISCONTENTS

This government has passed on! This government is no more! This government has ceased to be! This government is expired and gone to meet its maker! This government is a stiff. This government is bereft of life, this government rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed the government to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! The government’s metabolic processes are now history! The government is off the twig! The government has kicked the bucket, the government has shuffled off it’s mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!! This government has had its lot, it is no longer, it is expired, it has departed. THIS IS AN EX-GOVERNMENT!! (With apologies to Monty Python’s parrot sketch.)

Auguring the potential establishment of a dictatorship, per the residual power of the crown per S. 91(29) Constitution Act 1867 to suspend all Charter Rights per S.33 of the Constitution Act 1982 is hardly in keeping with the Westminster Parliamentary tradition. As the Queen and public might be want to say: "WE are not amused."

To paraphrase one Globe and Mail editorial: The government would spit in the face of the Queen, Parliament and the people and call it respect.

Edmund Burke might make this observation: "Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, can never willingly abandon it."

Some Internet bloggers, have even gone so far as to suggest: "Where is Guy Fawkes when you really need him?"

Perhaps a more apt description of our government is "Rump Parliament" harking back to Oliver Cromwell. The only difference being that now one must adhere to a corrupted secular rather than religious orthodoxy.

My family has over the course of five generations variously survived the machinations of Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Erich Honnecker. We will be taking no more lessons in despotism and blind stupidity, as we have completed our historical tour of duty. We have greater self respect than mere cannon fodder of ages past and have the medals to prove it.

Well if the unlearned government has passed into the self-styled role of the Philistines of Parliament; we will simply have to declare ourselves "freemen and freewomen" of Canada. So government now proposes taxation without representation; or rather simply theft of democracy itself. By the Chief Government Whip’s own statement to defy future confidence votes, we have become a stolen nation. But seeing as the government has been doing this on the sponsorship file it comes as no surprise. Quite frankly, you can take this proposition straight to Hell.

So let me recap my family’s experience of government under the Liberal Party rule:

1. They failed to provide funding for adequate health services for my mother, and required notice of supervised neglect before accepting her as a patient. (Year 2000)

2. The government through the offices of Canada Revenue Agency, has suggested by logical inference, that I kill my son to secure the Disability Tax Credit. (Year 2003) To date I still await an apology for CRA’s venture into criminality. Further CRA has again failed to approve the DTC for my son Nicolaas notwithstanding the recommendations 2.5 of the Technical Advisory Committee on Tax Measures for Persons with Disabilities and a $9-22.5 Billion spending spree to secure a "cats claws in the wooden panelling" margin in the House. (2005)

3. The government has allowed systematic corruption of the electoral process in my home province Quebec; bringing the spectre of the break up of the country, due to its fundamental inability to believe in a balanced federalism. (1994 – 2002) It has further tainted its authority by circumventing a free and fair electoral process.

4. The government has demonstrated that it was willing to entertain assisted suicide through offices of the Attorney General demonstrating it’s general low regard for the security of the person and or human life.

(Fall 2004)

5. The government has failed to pursue a substantive "boots on the ground" effort to avert a 2 million person human disaster in Darfur, Sudan. We have about two weeks to cobble something together, before it all just slips away. Planting season is not coming back. Despite my pleading back on December 10, 2004 and the urging of numerous others, such as David Kilgour MP to name but one, we have failed to adequately redress the appalling conditions present. Indeed, UN Secretrary General Kofi Annan has described conditions as “heart wrenching”. While funding is welcome, the time to act is now.

6. The government now proposes further undemocratic behaviour, with respect to further confidence votes under cutting the notion of democracy itself; advancing in effect the proposition of taxation without representation. So much for the promise of correcting the democratic deficit; it would appear to have rather significantly increased to the point of disenfranchisement.

7. The government through the office of the PMO has perniciously pursued patronage appointments in consideration of abstentions on the May 19th, 2005 confidence vote.

When the government comes to its senses please let me know. I await your considered reply.

One regrettably has to come to the conclusion, that we have been led by rogues and fools.

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" Oliver Cromwell

Yours sincerely,
Hans Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

3 comments:

Jesse Gritter said...

What's this all about?

Ruth said...

It's about the ongoing struggle for power within the government... particularly within the Liberal Party.
Read Wajsman's original comment. Something similar showed up in at least one other blog that I am aware of, but to be honest I forget which one. Several months ago he also gave a radio interview and said a lot of similar things.
When the Gomery Report was released, in a big PR show, Martin decided to kick a bunch of people out of the Liberal party. This is the first time anything like has ever happened, and it's not even certain if such a thing is allowed. What seems clear is that those he kicked out were definitely not Martin supporters. At least a few had nothing to do with Adscam and were not named in Gomery's report. It also seems clear that there is growing unrest within the Liberal party with regards to its democratic direction, or lack thereof.
I should start pulling together some of these odds and ends into one big piece and post my thoughts.

Beryl Wajsman said...

INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS OF MONTREAL
INSTITUT DES AFFAIRES PUBLIQUES DE MONTRÉAL
1411 rue Peel, édifice Marine, bureau 502, Montréal, Qc, H3A 1S5

22 April 2005
Montreal

Institute Bulletin No. 291

DARE TO CALL IT TREASON
THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY OF
CANADIAN POLITICS



“You have dishonoured this place by your contempt. You are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. A pack of mercenary wretches. Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? You have grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. Upon the peril of your souls depart from this place. You have sat here too long to be of any use. Go I say! In the name of God, go!

~ Oliver Cromwell


This week we witnessed a singular act of courage in the Canadian political landscape. Perhaps born out of necessity, but no less brave for it, the former Director-General of the Liberal Party of Canada’s Quebec wing Benoit Corbeil, at great personal risk – admitting to mistakes committed - gave us an inside look at the attempted usurption of our country. If we have the courage to understand; the conscience to act; and the compassion to realize that even worthy efforts are not without shortcomings; we may still be able to take our country back.

The grave import of his revelations not only help to clarify many of the unanswered questions that leap out at us from the confusing and contradictory testimony we have witnessed at the Gomery Commission, but also bring into stark relief the suspicions held for many years on the political street regarding the internecine relations between Chrétien, Martin and “les hommes dans les ombres” and their influence over the compromise of Canadian consequence and the subversion of the sovereignty of the people’s suffrage.

Corbeil alleged that a relatively small group of highly influential political, corporate and legal mandarins had as their foundational, over-reaching purpose the “…acquisition of power over this country; the consolidation of that power; and most importantly the exploitation of that power…” And how that power was obtained and manipulated through control of the institutions of what he termed the “…réseau Libéral …” the Liberal network.

A network that operated at the national level using the various provincial wings as facades to conceal the real work of their machine. A machine whose core was the Federal Liberal Agency for Canada with the complicity of the party executive and the electoral commission. A machine that had its own fund-raising apparatus depositing in Ottawa; whose orders were to be strictly obeyed at the regional and local levels; and whose members included the highest ranking elected and operational representatives of both the Chrétien and Martin camps.


If Corbeil is correct about the aims of this group, that “…met behind the closed doors of the most powerful law firms in the land and decided judgeships, contracts, grants and mandates…”, it would explain why Chrétien gave his fierce and bitter rival, Paul Martin, a man he personally detested, the control over the policies of the public purse. Arguably a job almost as important as his own. Were certain respected “eminences grises” involved in this “merger”?

Both men’s public links to certain members of the group Corbeil alludes to have been known for years. However, what has been generally known only to the professional political street are the private intimacies of these two men to that same circle. Names, of course, cannot be mentioned here because paper trails are scarce.

Corbeil’s allegations that all leaders at the top of the Liberal Party were aware of, and acquiesced in, all the strategies and tactics that led to the first Federalist win in Québec in the 2000 election in twelve years would make sense. For not only did Chretienites and Martinites realize they had no future without a country to govern, the mandarins who ran the machine realized that in order to continue to profit from the maintenance and manipulation of power over a country, they needed a country to maintain in order to manipulate.

It would also be fair to speculate that a decision was made to enlist the talents of both Chrétien and Martin to keep this momentum going. Chrétien for his considerable political skills in organizing and propagandizing, and Martin for his financial acumen at fine-tuning the budget priorities and ordering, or re-ordering, the necessary fiscal rules and regulations that would be of benefit to this group. One could be forgiven for concluding that a “cold” peace was imposed. Chrétien and Martin were necessary sides of the same coin.

A peace that produced two parallel and positive results for the men in the shadows. Chrétien accomplished his political task of maintaining political stability and nearly eviscerating the separatist option in Quebec. Martin pushed forth the money agenda so important to those who had invested so much of their treasure in this endeavour.

Retroactive tax changes for the movement of capital. More generous regulations for off-shore corporate havens. Transfers of surpluses from the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance funds coincidently coupled with the greatest growth in corporate welfare in the history of Canada. Export Development Guarantees for questionable deals for sick companies. Subsidizing the China trade to allow cheap labor pools for Canadian vested interests. Added fiscal advantages for wealthy Canadians. In short, generationally and foundationally systemic changes for the benefit of the privileged.

Compared to the gravity of the above, the deals that Chretienites and Martinites alledgedly benefited from through communications companies and contracts to consulting firms like Earnscliffe might be characterized as mere tips to keep the hired helps’ collective beaks wet. As pollster Allan Gregg once wrote in the Globe and Mail, the amount of money supposedly wasted according to Sheila Fraser would be equivalent to $15 lost in a $100,000 stock account. He calculated it at .015% of the Federal budget from 1995-2000.

So why all the fuss and bother and the $85 million spent so far on Gomery? What is becoming clear from many sources, Corbeil being just one, is that much of this was a tragedy of hubris.



It has been a source of speculation for some years that after the near disaster of the 1995 Referendum, leading businessmen began to take play a more intimate and active role in the operational and strategic decision-making of the Liberal Party. Particularly to assure that money would always be available in case of another sovereigntist challenge. It is well known that Mr. Chrétien had been quite shaken not just by the narrow outcome of that 1995 vote, but by the sorry financial state of the “NO” Committee some six weeks before the vote at the time of the famous 150,000 person rally in Montreal.

The men who rescued the situation came from the financial world. They had a comfort level with Martin that many have said did not exist with Chrétien. For them Martin seemed to be the steadier steward and, equally important, they understand each other’s cultural shorthand. As a result of all this, Martin’s position in the “concordat” with Chrétien was substantially strengthened.

The cold peace imposed on Chrétien and Martin seemed to reign until Martin starting pushing the envelope in 1999 to get Chrétien to quit, believing that the latter had reneged on a supposed promise to leave after two terms. The same conflict we are now seeing in Britain between Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown.

The Martinites sniping gained momentum amid the leaks aimed at Gagliano. They took advantage of the situation tin order to undermine Chrétien’s credibility. They piggy-backed on the attacks against the most caricaturistic member of Chrétien’s team. They had no real objections to Gagliano. In fact, most had heard that if Chrétien would leave, Gagliano would support Martin. They were friendly. But Gagliano was the soft underbelly of the Chrétien defenses. He was an easy target. And more importantly he was choice fodder for the press.

As matters escalated and spun out of control, Chrétien made the mistake of letting the new Public Works Minister Dan Boudria send the whole mess to the Auditor-General even though she had already twice investigated sponsorship and found the problems corrected. The press latched on to the small stuff of the story: the ad companies, the jobs for friends, because it was easy. They missed the big picture behind the scenes. Because for all the enmity behind the two camps, both Chrétien and Martin still realized they had residual common interests. And those interests demanded that the central vehicle of control, the Liberal Party, remain in tact and in power.

That was why Chrétien offered Martin to stay in office an extra few months and handle the fallout from Fraser’s report. It would be better for the party. But Martin wanted the office so badly he said no. But then he made his “Boudria” mistake. He listened to his junior political staffers and appointed the Gomery Commission thinking he’d score political points. What he forgot was how intertwined both camps were.

He never imagined that the Gomery blowback would expose the institutional intimacies between the two camps, as we saw from the fourth day of Jean Brault’s testimony, where Brault implicated half-a-dozen Martin intimates as alledgedly being in contact with, or benefiting from, the same big, bad agencies. And now we have the same House Accounts committee that Martin closed down in its investigation of the ad agencies, starting its own investigation of Martin’s relationship with Earnscliffe and the activities of his top aides.

The powers in council rooms apart threw up their hands at trying to herd these fighting cats together early in 2004. But as further proof of the institutional memory of Martin, he realized he had to do something to keep the core of the party in tact. He realized that just as Chrétien had offered to stay through Fraser, it was now time for Martin to be a good soldier. That is why at the end of the Ottawa phase of Gomery, Martin actually applauded Chrétien’s testimony to the Liberal caucus as “…a tremendous job for Canada…” punched the air with his fist and led the caucus in a standing ovation for the former Prime Minister.


And here is the heart of the Pandora’s Box that Benoit Corbeil has so boldly opened. It’s not about the money. As Allan Gregg wrote, the money is not the issue. Hewlett-Packard ripped off the Department of National Defense for more money than the ad agencies and in a shorter time. The gun registry was $1 billion over budget with no inquiries. Martin’s “mis-statement” on CSL receiving $167 million, not $167,000, in contracts on his watch was dismissed as an accounting oversight. When the Landry government suffered through the Oxygene Neuf scandal the Premier fired those responsible, after using the appropriate police and judicial procedures to ascertain guilt without ruin to reputations, and refused to call an inquiry because he rightly said “…public inquiries quickly become public inquisitions…”

Money is part of every aspect of life in liberal economic democracies, including politics, and shall always remain so. As I’ve said in speaking to social action groups, if you have the money to spend $100 on hockey tickets, get 1000 people together and get $25 from each and give it to the candidates of your choice. You’ll have clout. There is nothing wrong with using the tools of the powerful for the benefit of the vulnerable. We need not sink into the mire of false pieties.

The over-riding concern that Corbeil alludes to is of a different dimension entirely. An almost pre-meditated institutionalized plan to permanently subvert our state imperatives and priorities to the dictates of one willful group. And the arrogance of that mindset permeating our elected representatives as well. Ministers dictating directives to agencies of law enforcement; investigations set up apart from normal judicial procedures; curtailing of due process; engagements between elected representatives and corporations. In short, a Liberal Party that has nothing liberal about it. It is about as “liberal” as the Institutional Revolutionary Party that ruled Mexico for 70 years as the tool of the vested interests was “revolutionary”. Words, images and circuses for the diversion of the masses.

Canada has been taken through the looking-glass. Black is White. White is Black. The risk, the great and agonizing danger we face today, is that relief from the prejudices already suffered; renewal of constitutional rights already abridged; restoration of rule of law already corrupted; and revival of the sovereignty of our suffrage already compromised, may come too late. The governance of our commonweal is becoming a mystery to the uninitiated and a snare to the unwary. The system of justice it is grounded in, a two edged sword of craft and oppression.

To call the bodyguards of lies that have led this nation to such levels of low limitation and narrow circumstance treasonous, may not be too harsh a judgment.

It is perhaps time to remember the words Oliver Cromwell spoke to Charles I and say to these men in the shadows and those they control,

“You have dishonoured this place by your contempt. You are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. A pack of mercenary wretches. Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth? You have grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. Upon the peril of your souls depart from this place. You have sat here too long to be of any use. Go I say! In the name of God, go!

Beryl P. Wajsman
President
Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal
(www.iapm.ca)

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives