Preamble: This Charter has 10 main points but can be added to as circumstances warrant. These points are:
1 All floor crossers must hold an elected position and have been elected under any political parties banner.
2 All floor crossers must be adept in lying to their constituents who believed they were electing her/him under their party banner.
3 All floor crossers will explain away their treachery by saying they made a “principled decision.”
4 All floor crossers will say they can do more for the people they double crossed by saying a cabinet position in the ruling party is worth it. (You bet it is)
5 All floor crossers will say they are “flabbergasted” at the criticism they are receiving for “doing the right thing.”
6 All floor crossers will be entitled to get help from “ethical” and “principled” corporate and moneyed elites who will say: “The floor crossers made a wonderful move.”
7 All floor crossers will be described by some as: “doing it for the sake of the country”
8 All floor crossers will be entitled to criticize other floor crossers now on the losing side.
9 All floor crossers on the losing side will be entitled to re-cross the floor when a convenient offer is made to them. These offers must be, a cabinet position or some other post worthy of their floor crossing talents and with increased remuneration.
10 All floor crossers will receive advice from old political prostitutes oops I mean political pros. who have experience in chicanery, deceit and distortion.
Addendum to the Floor crossers Charter:
It is to be noted that all floor crossers will receive much criticism from the party they just left and the people who voted for them. Their new party who plotted the double cross with them, will welcome them with open arms and perhaps kisses, this being a gender neutral society. Many people of their “new” party who once hated their guts will now defend their “morals,” “ethics,” and “principles” in doing what they did. Though the question must be asked: What does this say about the “morals,” “ethics,” and “principles” of the people now praising the floor crossers? Still, these people will go to the wall to defend the floor crossers because their party is now in power, and power has no principles. To those who say floor crossers are hypocrites, the floor crossers can reply, “We are joining a party of hypocrites, so why are you picking on us? Our “new” party also ditched their principles.”
“Principled” people and supporters of the “new” party in power will be annoyed and upset at any writings critical of floor crossers because now they are in their party. Any critics will be described as “partisan zealots.” Other criticism will be described as being, “superficial” and “over the top” and the floor crossers will be told to “hang in there.” Floor crossers have not only achieved “respectability” but respectable people now supporting them, have now become like them, “ethically challenged.” But hey, that’s what floor crossing does. It taints the so-called “democratic” process. Destroys a persons credibility and the credibility of those who support the floor crossing. It makes a mockery of the elected process and the electors who voted for the party of their choice. And finally it “legitimizes” lying, cheating and electoral fraud and turns it into a “virtue.” That’s why we need to have a Floor crossers Charter.
Stephen Gray
February 15, 2006.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Evil of “Choice”
“Woe to those who call evil good” (Isaiah 5:20).
The word “choice” is frequently used by proponents of the abortion industry. Has this industry successfully camouflaged what abortion is by using the word “choice?” After all, who could be against “choice?” But, what is this “choice” that these people are promoting? Is it healthy? Is it ethical? Is it decent? Of course not. What is healthy, ethical or decent about having a “choice” to kill a child in the womb? Yet, abortion supporters advocate this type of killing, provided that this life is not wanted. The use of language to dehumanize victims is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, words have been used to dehumanize those slated for killing. “Useless eaters” was used by the Nazis to justify their killing of human beings. And a slogan used by abortion advocates in today’s society is, “Every child a wanted child,” the idea being that if the unborn are not “wanted,” the “final solution” is to kill them in the name of “choice.”
The atrocities committed under the slogan “freedom of choice” have resulted in over 100,000 innocent lives killed yearly by abortionists in Canada, and untold millions world-wide. This massive genocidal execution program for the innocent “unwanted” is presided over by governments of all political stripes. These same governments who say the Holocaust must never be forgotten overlook that they are party to the massive holocaust of innocent unborn children.
“Politics have no relation to morals” (Machiavelli).
“I support freedom of choice on abortion” is the boast of many politicians on the election trail. “Vote for me and ‘choice’ will continue,” is their message; in other words, killing will continue. Many of them voice platitudes about “human rights” but when it comes to that tiny human in the womb, the only “right” they will apportion to him is to be killed by “choice.” (Note: In Canada, spotted owls, grizzly bears, and other animals have more protection than children in the womb.)
When politicians speak of supporting “choice,” on abortion, what that actually means is permitting unborn children to be cut up and carved to pieces, or killed by other methods such as poisoning by saline solution. Others are murdered by having their skull pierced by sharp scissors and their brains suctioned out (partial birth abortion). Barbarity is being practiced and human sacrifices are made.
“Today in seventeen European countries, there are more burials than births, more coffins than cradles” ( Pat Buchanan in his book, The Death Of The West, page 9).
The consequences of “choice” are there for all to see. Many years of killing the unborn has resulted in an ever-increasing aging population in many parts of the world.
Here in Canada, there is a lack of workers for many jobs. Some in the “investigative” media blame this on “low fertility.” However, no connection is made by the media that if you kill millions of unborn human beings over the years, the result will be an aging population, and a lack of workers. Speaking of workers, trade unions here in Canada are big supporters of “freedom of choice,” and now these union “experts” are complaining about union membership declining. They are the authors of their own misfortune.
Furthermore, in some countries, females are the present day “unwanted,” and are killed by abortion. This has resulted in an imbalance in their populations of more boys than girls. One wonders where the radical feminists who speak of “equality” are when these innocent females are slaughtered by discriminatory “choice?”
The idea that human life is disposable has created a frightening reality for today’s aging population: perhaps the generation raised to believe that parents can kill their children will soon act on the idea that children can kill their parents. It seems euthanasia is not far off, showing that society will reap what it sows.
To see the heinous act of “choice” go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen J. Gray
Dec. 21, 2007.
The word “choice” is frequently used by proponents of the abortion industry. Has this industry successfully camouflaged what abortion is by using the word “choice?” After all, who could be against “choice?” But, what is this “choice” that these people are promoting? Is it healthy? Is it ethical? Is it decent? Of course not. What is healthy, ethical or decent about having a “choice” to kill a child in the womb? Yet, abortion supporters advocate this type of killing, provided that this life is not wanted. The use of language to dehumanize victims is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, words have been used to dehumanize those slated for killing. “Useless eaters” was used by the Nazis to justify their killing of human beings. And a slogan used by abortion advocates in today’s society is, “Every child a wanted child,” the idea being that if the unborn are not “wanted,” the “final solution” is to kill them in the name of “choice.”
The atrocities committed under the slogan “freedom of choice” have resulted in over 100,000 innocent lives killed yearly by abortionists in Canada, and untold millions world-wide. This massive genocidal execution program for the innocent “unwanted” is presided over by governments of all political stripes. These same governments who say the Holocaust must never be forgotten overlook that they are party to the massive holocaust of innocent unborn children.
“Politics have no relation to morals” (Machiavelli).
“I support freedom of choice on abortion” is the boast of many politicians on the election trail. “Vote for me and ‘choice’ will continue,” is their message; in other words, killing will continue. Many of them voice platitudes about “human rights” but when it comes to that tiny human in the womb, the only “right” they will apportion to him is to be killed by “choice.” (Note: In Canada, spotted owls, grizzly bears, and other animals have more protection than children in the womb.)
When politicians speak of supporting “choice,” on abortion, what that actually means is permitting unborn children to be cut up and carved to pieces, or killed by other methods such as poisoning by saline solution. Others are murdered by having their skull pierced by sharp scissors and their brains suctioned out (partial birth abortion). Barbarity is being practiced and human sacrifices are made.
“Today in seventeen European countries, there are more burials than births, more coffins than cradles” ( Pat Buchanan in his book, The Death Of The West, page 9).
The consequences of “choice” are there for all to see. Many years of killing the unborn has resulted in an ever-increasing aging population in many parts of the world.
Here in Canada, there is a lack of workers for many jobs. Some in the “investigative” media blame this on “low fertility.” However, no connection is made by the media that if you kill millions of unborn human beings over the years, the result will be an aging population, and a lack of workers. Speaking of workers, trade unions here in Canada are big supporters of “freedom of choice,” and now these union “experts” are complaining about union membership declining. They are the authors of their own misfortune.
Furthermore, in some countries, females are the present day “unwanted,” and are killed by abortion. This has resulted in an imbalance in their populations of more boys than girls. One wonders where the radical feminists who speak of “equality” are when these innocent females are slaughtered by discriminatory “choice?”
The idea that human life is disposable has created a frightening reality for today’s aging population: perhaps the generation raised to believe that parents can kill their children will soon act on the idea that children can kill their parents. It seems euthanasia is not far off, showing that society will reap what it sows.
To see the heinous act of “choice” go to: http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen J. Gray
Dec. 21, 2007.
The Corporate Communists/Fascists
“The authoritarian elites on both sides operate an ‘over world’ of organized conspiracy which mirrors the underworld of organized crime.” Charles Levinson in his book “Vodka Cola.”
The book “Vodka Cola” revealed in intimate detail the financial connections between the multi-national corporate elites in the west and the communist dictators in the Soviet Union before the “fall of communism.” Yet, these same corporate elites at that time were telling all and sundry about the “dangers of communism” while at the same time profiting from their business deals with the communist dictators.
On pages 54 and 55 of Vodka Cola there is a detailed list of: “Western multinationals with Moscow offices” at the time of the so-called “Cold War.”
And during the second world war some of these multi-national corporations were hand in glove with Hitler’s Germany so states the book: “Trading With The Enemy” by Charles Higham. The beginning of the book states: “ From the Standard Oil executives who diverted precious fuel to the enemy and the Ford Motor Company plants that supplied trucks to keep the German war machine running, to the ITT executives who streamlined Nazi communications and helped perfect the robot bombs that devastated London; from the Chase National Bank executives who held millions of dollars in gold--some of it refined from the fires of Auschwitz--in trust for the Reich at war’s end, to the top-ranking government officials who kept their deals running smoothly….”
So, what did the American government at the time do about all this corporate chicanery? Page 13 of “Trading with The Enemy states: “…the government did sanction such dubious transactions-both before and after Pearl Harbour. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941,actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.”(emphasis added)
I believe, these multi-nationals mentioned in this book were traitors to their country. One wonders how many families lost loved ones because of the treachery committed by these multi-national business elites?
“The multi-national companies are, therefore, the core of modern capitalism and have replaced the Western nation - state as the real political power centers of the age.”
( Charles Levinson page 16, “Vodka Cola.” )
Now fast forward to today and the multi-national corporate communists/fascists have found another dictatorship to profit from. Many are now firmly ensconced in communist China. China is a country where the organs are ripped from some of the people without their consent. Where a one child policy has resulted in forced abortions. Where slave labour has been reported: “Thirty-one dirty and disorientated workers have been rescued from a brickwork factory in China, where they were being held as virtual slaves.”[1]
Where dissidents are tortured and it was reported that an alleged torturer was welcomed to Canada. The Epoch Times of May 29, 2007 had this to say:
“…Chinese official Bo Xilai was served with legal papers Monday, questions remain as to why the Chinese Commerce Minister accused of crimes against humanity was allowed to enter Canada in the first place. Despite the fact that Bo was one of a number of high-ranking Chinese officials who have been on an RCMP watch list, he freely entered the country with a trade delegation from China last Friday.” The Epoch Times article goes on to state: “Bo is accused of overseeing a systematic campaign of torture against adherents of Falun Gong, a Chinese meditation practice, in the northeast Chinese province of Liaoning, where he was governor from 2001 to 2004.” [2]
What we are seeing in our world today is a continuation of multi-national greed. Money and profits count far more than corporate ethics. They do not care who they rub shoulders with as long as there is money to be made. The Guardian, a U.K newspaper had this to say: “a new threat is emerging which neither Britain nor other western states have prepared for - the spread of Chinese and Russian power and influence. The theatre of battle is the City of London. Over the past decade, the UK has allowed its capital city to become the home for many of the world's most cut-throat and dodgy global financiers….all in the name of global capitalism.” [3]
“ Global capitalism,” I believe has become a danger to a free society. When big business involves itself in “trading with the enemy” and invests in countries with slave labour and other atrocities then we ourselves could be next on their policy agendas. But maybe, I am being to cynical, after all we will be getting a “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), that should keep us safe and free! And we do have a “Charter of Rights.“ So all is well. Eh?
The evidence from the books I have quoted from is only a small part of the unethical and unprincipled practices being enacted across the world today. Nothing has changed. Oh sure, we elect politicians but the corporate communists/fascists rule.
Endnotes:
1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6733045.stm
2 http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-29/55849.html
3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2134875,00.html
Note: I would suggest to readers of this article to try and get copies of the Books “Vodka-Cola” and “Trading with the Enemy.” I have had these books in my library for over 20 years. If people read the books they will realize how vast this multi-national network of power is.
Stephen J. Gray
July 27,2007.
The book “Vodka Cola” revealed in intimate detail the financial connections between the multi-national corporate elites in the west and the communist dictators in the Soviet Union before the “fall of communism.” Yet, these same corporate elites at that time were telling all and sundry about the “dangers of communism” while at the same time profiting from their business deals with the communist dictators.
On pages 54 and 55 of Vodka Cola there is a detailed list of: “Western multinationals with Moscow offices” at the time of the so-called “Cold War.”
And during the second world war some of these multi-national corporations were hand in glove with Hitler’s Germany so states the book: “Trading With The Enemy” by Charles Higham. The beginning of the book states: “ From the Standard Oil executives who diverted precious fuel to the enemy and the Ford Motor Company plants that supplied trucks to keep the German war machine running, to the ITT executives who streamlined Nazi communications and helped perfect the robot bombs that devastated London; from the Chase National Bank executives who held millions of dollars in gold--some of it refined from the fires of Auschwitz--in trust for the Reich at war’s end, to the top-ranking government officials who kept their deals running smoothly….”
So, what did the American government at the time do about all this corporate chicanery? Page 13 of “Trading with The Enemy states: “…the government did sanction such dubious transactions-both before and after Pearl Harbour. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941,actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted.”(emphasis added)
I believe, these multi-nationals mentioned in this book were traitors to their country. One wonders how many families lost loved ones because of the treachery committed by these multi-national business elites?
“The multi-national companies are, therefore, the core of modern capitalism and have replaced the Western nation - state as the real political power centers of the age.”
( Charles Levinson page 16, “Vodka Cola.” )
Now fast forward to today and the multi-national corporate communists/fascists have found another dictatorship to profit from. Many are now firmly ensconced in communist China. China is a country where the organs are ripped from some of the people without their consent. Where a one child policy has resulted in forced abortions. Where slave labour has been reported: “Thirty-one dirty and disorientated workers have been rescued from a brickwork factory in China, where they were being held as virtual slaves.”[1]
Where dissidents are tortured and it was reported that an alleged torturer was welcomed to Canada. The Epoch Times of May 29, 2007 had this to say:
“…Chinese official Bo Xilai was served with legal papers Monday, questions remain as to why the Chinese Commerce Minister accused of crimes against humanity was allowed to enter Canada in the first place. Despite the fact that Bo was one of a number of high-ranking Chinese officials who have been on an RCMP watch list, he freely entered the country with a trade delegation from China last Friday.” The Epoch Times article goes on to state: “Bo is accused of overseeing a systematic campaign of torture against adherents of Falun Gong, a Chinese meditation practice, in the northeast Chinese province of Liaoning, where he was governor from 2001 to 2004.” [2]
What we are seeing in our world today is a continuation of multi-national greed. Money and profits count far more than corporate ethics. They do not care who they rub shoulders with as long as there is money to be made. The Guardian, a U.K newspaper had this to say: “a new threat is emerging which neither Britain nor other western states have prepared for - the spread of Chinese and Russian power and influence. The theatre of battle is the City of London. Over the past decade, the UK has allowed its capital city to become the home for many of the world's most cut-throat and dodgy global financiers….all in the name of global capitalism.” [3]
“ Global capitalism,” I believe has become a danger to a free society. When big business involves itself in “trading with the enemy” and invests in countries with slave labour and other atrocities then we ourselves could be next on their policy agendas. But maybe, I am being to cynical, after all we will be getting a “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), that should keep us safe and free! And we do have a “Charter of Rights.“ So all is well. Eh?
The evidence from the books I have quoted from is only a small part of the unethical and unprincipled practices being enacted across the world today. Nothing has changed. Oh sure, we elect politicians but the corporate communists/fascists rule.
Endnotes:
1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6733045.stm
2 http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-29/55849.html
3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2134875,00.html
Note: I would suggest to readers of this article to try and get copies of the Books “Vodka-Cola” and “Trading with the Enemy.” I have had these books in my library for over 20 years. If people read the books they will realize how vast this multi-national network of power is.
Stephen J. Gray
July 27,2007.
Harper’s “Conservatives”
“He [Harper] can be slippier [sic.] than a greased pig” (Paul Wells, Maclean’s Magazine, September 17, 2008).
Conservative leadership is the buzz word of the election campaign. And Mr. Harper is being touted as a “leader.” So let us examine what Mr. Harper the leader says and does on a number of issues:
Free Speech: “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” [1]
Yet, the Harper government intervenes against free speech: “The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B'nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” (Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28).
Bilingualism: “As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Stephen Harper) [2]
Now Mr. Harper says this: “My friends, for me a prime minister should speak French,” Harper said, calling French “the founding language of this country” (Source: The Gazette, Sept 8, 2008 [3]).
Same-sex marriage: “I don't see reopening this question [of same-sex marriage] in the future.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News Dec. 7, 2006 [4]).
Sexual orientation and its illegitimate offspring “same-sex marriage” were never in the Charter, yet we had the silly spectacle of a supposedly “conservative government introducing a motion on this that they knew would be defeated. A government with principles would have used the not-withstanding clause to return sanity to this country. But unfortunately Mr. Harper is on record as saying, regarding this nonsense called same-sex marriage, “I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue” (Lifesite News December 16, 2005, [5]).
The Status of Women: This group achieved increased funding under the Harper Conservatives as witness the following quote from a minister’s speech: “As a demonstration of our firm commitment to the success of Status of Women Canada, Budget 2007 provided $10 million in funding to the Agency, bringing the total budget to $29.9 million, a record for Status of Women [emphasis added] Canada” (Speech for The Honorable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, on the occasion of an appearance before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 5, 2008, [6]).
Abortion: “The Conservative government won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote…” (Stephen Harper, [7]).
And we thought we lived in a democracy? Or is it a hypocrisy?
And talking about hypocrisy, based on the evidence we have seen from Mr. Harper’s government, are they really a conservative government? Or is it back to the days of the Red Tories and the Mulroney government? A former Reform party member and MP had this to say about Mr. Harper: “he will be remembered as an opportunistic, masterful tactician who, in the course of only three years completely purged the Conservative party of its Reform ideals and restored the Mulroney model of government.” (Lee Morrison, former Reform M.P. in the Calgary Herald, September 14, 2008 [8]).
Furthermore, a former Mulroney supporter is now in “charge of various files…” Read this:
“[Senator] Ms. LeBreton is one of the women Mr. Harper put in Cabinet and trusts. She was a staunch Progressive Conservative, most closely tied to Brian Mulroney, and made it into Mr. Harper's inner circle despite her vocal opposition to his vision to unite the right (the former Reformer Party/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives). Mr. Harper appointed her Conservative leader in the Senate and put her in charge of various files,...” (National Post, September 22, 2008).
This makes one wonder, is Ms. LeBreton now in charge of the abortion “file?” Ms. Breton has said this on abortion:
“… there are certain issues, particularly those that concern women and children, and those of particular concern to women, and here I will use the abortion issue as an example, where even if 99.9 per cent of the members of my party were going one way, I would not support any policy that did not give women the right to choose” (http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=147&art=983).
And on the “right to choose,” Mr .Harper is on the record as saying this: “Let me be very clear on the positions I’ve have taken on that. I want there to be no misunderstanding. I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose” (June 27, 2006, LifeSiteNews, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/060627a.html).
Mr. Harper is heading for a majority government. But on moral issues is there really any difference between the “conservatives” and the other parties? Are we now immersed in “throw the dogs a bone politics” where we are being promised all kinds of goodies with our own tax dollars and moral issues are not even discussed? Are we back to what a former Reform M.P. called in his Calgary Herald article, “Liberal, Tory, same old story?” And will social conservative people buy the “story” that we have a “conservative” party to vote for and allow themselves to be fooled a second time by the Harper “conservatives?”
For, as Andrew Coyne wrote in MacLean’s of September 10, 2008,
“…Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals,…” [9]
Stephen J. Gray
October 6, 2008
Endnotes:
[1] B.C. Report, magazine article by Terry O’Neill) http://www.axionet.com/bcreport/web/990111f.html
[2] http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2008/03/bilingualism-harpers-new-god.html
[3] http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5cc31fca-80a5-448b-ab5b-ffce081a7502
[4] http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/samesexmarriage_vote_061207/20061207?hub=TopStories
[5] http://www..lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05121606.html).
[6] http://www..swc-cfc.gc.ca/newsroom/news2008/0205_e.html
[7] http://www..lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06011707.html
[8] http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story..html?id=55305055-5bff-4b78-8427-7f3c15bcd213
[9] http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080910_115261_115261
Conservative leadership is the buzz word of the election campaign. And Mr. Harper is being touted as a “leader.” So let us examine what Mr. Harper the leader says and does on a number of issues:
Free Speech: “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” [1]
Yet, the Harper government intervenes against free speech: “The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B'nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” (Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28).
Bilingualism: “As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Stephen Harper) [2]
Now Mr. Harper says this: “My friends, for me a prime minister should speak French,” Harper said, calling French “the founding language of this country” (Source: The Gazette, Sept 8, 2008 [3]).
Same-sex marriage: “I don't see reopening this question [of same-sex marriage] in the future.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News Dec. 7, 2006 [4]).
Sexual orientation and its illegitimate offspring “same-sex marriage” were never in the Charter, yet we had the silly spectacle of a supposedly “conservative government introducing a motion on this that they knew would be defeated. A government with principles would have used the not-withstanding clause to return sanity to this country. But unfortunately Mr. Harper is on record as saying, regarding this nonsense called same-sex marriage, “I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue” (Lifesite News December 16, 2005, [5]).
The Status of Women: This group achieved increased funding under the Harper Conservatives as witness the following quote from a minister’s speech: “As a demonstration of our firm commitment to the success of Status of Women Canada, Budget 2007 provided $10 million in funding to the Agency, bringing the total budget to $29.9 million, a record for Status of Women [emphasis added] Canada” (Speech for The Honorable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, on the occasion of an appearance before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 5, 2008, [6]).
Abortion: “The Conservative government won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote…” (Stephen Harper, [7]).
And we thought we lived in a democracy? Or is it a hypocrisy?
And talking about hypocrisy, based on the evidence we have seen from Mr. Harper’s government, are they really a conservative government? Or is it back to the days of the Red Tories and the Mulroney government? A former Reform party member and MP had this to say about Mr. Harper: “he will be remembered as an opportunistic, masterful tactician who, in the course of only three years completely purged the Conservative party of its Reform ideals and restored the Mulroney model of government.” (Lee Morrison, former Reform M.P. in the Calgary Herald, September 14, 2008 [8]).
Furthermore, a former Mulroney supporter is now in “charge of various files…” Read this:
“[Senator] Ms. LeBreton is one of the women Mr. Harper put in Cabinet and trusts. She was a staunch Progressive Conservative, most closely tied to Brian Mulroney, and made it into Mr. Harper's inner circle despite her vocal opposition to his vision to unite the right (the former Reformer Party/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives). Mr. Harper appointed her Conservative leader in the Senate and put her in charge of various files,...” (National Post, September 22, 2008).
This makes one wonder, is Ms. LeBreton now in charge of the abortion “file?” Ms. Breton has said this on abortion:
“… there are certain issues, particularly those that concern women and children, and those of particular concern to women, and here I will use the abortion issue as an example, where even if 99.9 per cent of the members of my party were going one way, I would not support any policy that did not give women the right to choose” (http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=147&art=983).
And on the “right to choose,” Mr .Harper is on the record as saying this: “Let me be very clear on the positions I’ve have taken on that. I want there to be no misunderstanding. I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose” (June 27, 2006, LifeSiteNews, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jun/060627a.html).
Mr. Harper is heading for a majority government. But on moral issues is there really any difference between the “conservatives” and the other parties? Are we now immersed in “throw the dogs a bone politics” where we are being promised all kinds of goodies with our own tax dollars and moral issues are not even discussed? Are we back to what a former Reform M.P. called in his Calgary Herald article, “Liberal, Tory, same old story?” And will social conservative people buy the “story” that we have a “conservative” party to vote for and allow themselves to be fooled a second time by the Harper “conservatives?”
For, as Andrew Coyne wrote in MacLean’s of September 10, 2008,
“…Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals,…” [9]
Stephen J. Gray
October 6, 2008
Endnotes:
[1] B.C. Report, magazine article by Terry O’Neill) http://www.axionet.com/bcreport/web/990111f.html
[2] http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2008/03/bilingualism-harpers-new-god.html
[3] http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=5cc31fca-80a5-448b-ab5b-ffce081a7502
[4] http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/samesexmarriage_vote_061207/20061207?hub=TopStories
[5] http://www..lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05121606.html).
[6] http://www..swc-cfc.gc.ca/newsroom/news2008/0205_e.html
[7] http://www..lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/jan/06011707.html
[8] http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story..html?id=55305055-5bff-4b78-8427-7f3c15bcd213
[9] http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp?content=20080910_115261_115261
Does a Mini-Dictator Rule Canada?
“This government will not open, will not permit anyone to open the abortion debate” (Stephen Harper, quoted in Lifesite News, Sept. 29,2008: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08092912.html).
In a supposed democracy one would think that all issues would be up for discussion and debate. Is this leader afraid to let the truth of this horrendous act of abortion be exposed? There are over 100,000 abortions yearly in Canada. These little innocents are slaughtered by dismemberment, decapitation, poisoned by saline solutions and some have even been born alive and left to die. We are a supposedly civilized society yet this barbarity is permitted, and worst of all the leader of the country says he “will not permit anyone to open the abortion debate.” How sick is that?
And the Globe and Mail of Sept. 29, 2008 said this:
“Mr. Harper's spokesman Kory Teneycke clarified in an email to The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper would ‘whip’ his front bench so that none of his cabinet ministers would support any private member's bills that could re-open the [abortion] debate.”
And this article by David Akin, entitled, “Conservatives seek to head off abortion issue,” stated, “…Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's chief spokesman, said that Harper would whip his front bench -- i.e. his cabinet -- to prevent an abortion bill from becoming law…”(September 29, 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/29/david-akin-conservatives-seek-to-head-off-abortion-issue.aspx)
We have no law on abortion in this country; the baby can be murdered right up to the moment of birth and this so-called “conservative” government would “whip” to “prevent an abortion bill becoming law.” Sounds obscene, doesn’t it? Despite all the evidence available on the humanity of the unborn child--ultrasound as well as operations on the unborn (Note see “The Wonder of Life in the Womb” at
http://www.lifesitenews.com/fetaldevelopment/samuel.html)-- this “government” would deny the child in the womb any rights or protection.
Protection in this country is given to spotted owls, grizzly bears, whales, eagles and many other species. But, the child in the womb has no protection and politicians even boast they are in favor of “the right to choose” to kill the unborn child. And this supposed “conservative” government even “closes debate about fetal rights.”
The Globe and Mail of August 25, 2008 had this to say:
“As election speculation hits fever pitch, the Harper government has cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women” (www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080825.wnicholson0825/BNStory /National/).
Women who are pregnant need protection and so do the innocent children they are carrying. But it seems this “conservative” government is terrified of doing the decent and honorable thing regarding this heinous crime of abortion as witness the words of P.M. Harper at beginning of this article. He would rather muzzle his MPs than discuss the killing of the innocents by abortion. If he will not “permit” any “debate” on this issue, then one wonders what other issues will he declare out of bounds? And will those MPs in his government, who still believe in free speech finally show some courage and speak out for democracy? And finally, I ask the question based on the evidence: Does a mini-dictator rule Canada?
Note: To see the horrific slaughter of the innocents by abortion go to:
http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen J. Gray
October 17, 2008
In a supposed democracy one would think that all issues would be up for discussion and debate. Is this leader afraid to let the truth of this horrendous act of abortion be exposed? There are over 100,000 abortions yearly in Canada. These little innocents are slaughtered by dismemberment, decapitation, poisoned by saline solutions and some have even been born alive and left to die. We are a supposedly civilized society yet this barbarity is permitted, and worst of all the leader of the country says he “will not permit anyone to open the abortion debate.” How sick is that?
And the Globe and Mail of Sept. 29, 2008 said this:
“Mr. Harper's spokesman Kory Teneycke clarified in an email to The Globe and Mail that Mr. Harper would ‘whip’ his front bench so that none of his cabinet ministers would support any private member's bills that could re-open the [abortion] debate.”
And this article by David Akin, entitled, “Conservatives seek to head off abortion issue,” stated, “…Kory Teneycke, the Prime Minister's chief spokesman, said that Harper would whip his front bench -- i.e. his cabinet -- to prevent an abortion bill from becoming law…”(September 29, 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/09/29/david-akin-conservatives-seek-to-head-off-abortion-issue.aspx)
We have no law on abortion in this country; the baby can be murdered right up to the moment of birth and this so-called “conservative” government would “whip” to “prevent an abortion bill becoming law.” Sounds obscene, doesn’t it? Despite all the evidence available on the humanity of the unborn child--ultrasound as well as operations on the unborn (Note see “The Wonder of Life in the Womb” at
http://www.lifesitenews.com/fetaldevelopment/samuel.html)-- this “government” would deny the child in the womb any rights or protection.
Protection in this country is given to spotted owls, grizzly bears, whales, eagles and many other species. But, the child in the womb has no protection and politicians even boast they are in favor of “the right to choose” to kill the unborn child. And this supposed “conservative” government even “closes debate about fetal rights.”
The Globe and Mail of August 25, 2008 had this to say:
“As election speculation hits fever pitch, the Harper government has cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women” (www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080825.wnicholson0825/BNStory /National/).
Women who are pregnant need protection and so do the innocent children they are carrying. But it seems this “conservative” government is terrified of doing the decent and honorable thing regarding this heinous crime of abortion as witness the words of P.M. Harper at beginning of this article. He would rather muzzle his MPs than discuss the killing of the innocents by abortion. If he will not “permit” any “debate” on this issue, then one wonders what other issues will he declare out of bounds? And will those MPs in his government, who still believe in free speech finally show some courage and speak out for democracy? And finally, I ask the question based on the evidence: Does a mini-dictator rule Canada?
Note: To see the horrific slaughter of the innocents by abortion go to:
http://www.AbortionNo.org
Stephen J. Gray
October 17, 2008
Big Tony asks The Godfather: Are We Really in a Legitimate Business?
Relaxing in their offshore tax free and money haven and enjoying the sun by the pool are the now legitimate family firm of The Godfather and Big Tony.
Big Tony: “Boss, I know you said we are now in a legitimate financial business, but I have my doubts.”
The Godfather: “Tony what is your problem?”
Big Tony: “I thought we had left the rackets behind. But, I have been reading financial reports that some of these financial institutions were getting Triple A ratings from some respected financial rating agencies for that rotten toxic useless toilet paper, called “asset backed” and “super investments.”
The Godfather: “Tony, smarten up. These financial institutions feed off each other. Think of them as one big financial family of marketeers. And surely it is good business practice to give an excellent rating report and keep the fees flowing back and forth? After all, nobody sells crap on the Street!”
Big Tony: “Boss are you saying, it is good to cook the books. I mean we were jailed at one time for manipulating our company reports.”
The Godfather: “Tony, we are respectable now. I wish you would stop harping back to the old days. Nobody cooks the books, these are the finest financial minds at work.”
Big Tony: “Sounds like some kind of fraudulent work to me.”
The Godfather: “Tony, I wish you would stop using words like fraudulent. Business does not operate in this manner.”
Big Tony: “Okay, Boss. Does plundering, pillaging and looting the system sound better?”
The Godfather: “Tony, respectable financial experts don’t loot the system. They are in a legal financial business, that’s why I took the family legitimate.”
Big Tony: “Boss, I know we are legitimate, but somehow, I get the feeling that some of these people we are associating with should be in jail.”
The Godfather: “Why is that Tony?”
Big Tony: “Well, some of these brilliant financial institutions were selling and promoting their useless crappy paper. Some made huge profits, now they are getting bailed out by taxpayers money. And some of these financial institutions also have subsidiaries offshore. Do you think that some of that bailout money could be going offshore? What a scam that would be!”
The Godfather: “Tony, respectable financial people do not get involved in scams. Some of them even advise governments. Certainly, some of the big financial boys have money offshore but that’s how the system works. You don’t expect them to pay taxes or take a hit for the credit crunch, do you?”
Big Tony: “Boss, if these guys steal any of our money I think we should call for a hit.”
The Godfather: “Tony, stop using words like steal and hit. The financial industry is above reproach. Remember, we are legitimate now and in good company. What more could you ask for?”
Big Tony: “Okay boss. But, why do I have the feeling that we are surrounded by racketeers?”
The Godfather: “Tony, stop using words like racketeers. These are honest financial analysts and advisers who know the system. Just be thankful we are legitimate players in it.”
Stephen J. Gray
January 4, 2009.
Big Tony: “Boss, I know you said we are now in a legitimate financial business, but I have my doubts.”
The Godfather: “Tony what is your problem?”
Big Tony: “I thought we had left the rackets behind. But, I have been reading financial reports that some of these financial institutions were getting Triple A ratings from some respected financial rating agencies for that rotten toxic useless toilet paper, called “asset backed” and “super investments.”
The Godfather: “Tony, smarten up. These financial institutions feed off each other. Think of them as one big financial family of marketeers. And surely it is good business practice to give an excellent rating report and keep the fees flowing back and forth? After all, nobody sells crap on the Street!”
Big Tony: “Boss are you saying, it is good to cook the books. I mean we were jailed at one time for manipulating our company reports.”
The Godfather: “Tony, we are respectable now. I wish you would stop harping back to the old days. Nobody cooks the books, these are the finest financial minds at work.”
Big Tony: “Sounds like some kind of fraudulent work to me.”
The Godfather: “Tony, I wish you would stop using words like fraudulent. Business does not operate in this manner.”
Big Tony: “Okay, Boss. Does plundering, pillaging and looting the system sound better?”
The Godfather: “Tony, respectable financial experts don’t loot the system. They are in a legal financial business, that’s why I took the family legitimate.”
Big Tony: “Boss, I know we are legitimate, but somehow, I get the feeling that some of these people we are associating with should be in jail.”
The Godfather: “Why is that Tony?”
Big Tony: “Well, some of these brilliant financial institutions were selling and promoting their useless crappy paper. Some made huge profits, now they are getting bailed out by taxpayers money. And some of these financial institutions also have subsidiaries offshore. Do you think that some of that bailout money could be going offshore? What a scam that would be!”
The Godfather: “Tony, respectable financial people do not get involved in scams. Some of them even advise governments. Certainly, some of the big financial boys have money offshore but that’s how the system works. You don’t expect them to pay taxes or take a hit for the credit crunch, do you?”
Big Tony: “Boss, if these guys steal any of our money I think we should call for a hit.”
The Godfather: “Tony, stop using words like steal and hit. The financial industry is above reproach. Remember, we are legitimate now and in good company. What more could you ask for?”
Big Tony: “Okay boss. But, why do I have the feeling that we are surrounded by racketeers?”
The Godfather: “Tony, stop using words like racketeers. These are honest financial analysts and advisers who know the system. Just be thankful we are legitimate players in it.”
Stephen J. Gray
January 4, 2009.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Market Discussion By the “Financial Experts”
“Financial experts” have been telling us recently where “the market” is headed. The favorite words of the B.S. merchants (politicians included--listen next time you see or hear them) are these: “As we go forward,” or “Moving forward.” Here is some of their “wisdom” on “going forward.” But what does it all mean?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B.S.T.V. News interviews two financial experts on where the market is going:
Interviewer: “I have Charlie Con-them and Bertha Baloney from Offshore World Market Financial Services and Banking to help you invest in the new year. Charlie, where do you see or believe we are headed?”
Charlie Con-them: “I would say now is the time to buy as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “Why Charlie?”
Charlie Con-them: “This downward spiral, I believe, is nearing its lowest point; therefore, the only way to go is up.”
Interviewer: “That seems like a good point, Charlie, but is that necessarily true?”
Charlie Con-them: “In my view it’s true. You have to get the people back into the markets; being positive sells and the market needs and feeds off their money.”
Interviewer: “Charlie, you are a beacon of hope. Now over to Bertha: what’s your take on the market?”
Bertha Baloney: “There is a lot of negativity out there but this can be balanced by having a positive attitude to one’s losses as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “Are you telling the people who have lost money and whose investments and pensions have tanked to be positive then, as they go forward?”
Bertha Baloney: “That’s what I’m saying. Every downturn has an upturn. Moving forward is the only answer.”
Interviewer: “Wow! Well said, Bertha. I’m sure our viewers are pleased to hear that going forward is the solution. Charlie, can you give us a sense going forward of when the upturn will be?”
Charlie Con-them: “I see it happening right now, but it is an invisible rise that comes to fruition through confidence as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “So Charlie you would say going forward is important?”
Charlie Con-them: “Hell, if we can’t go forward where else can we go? We must go forward and move on to success.”
Interviewer: “Bertha, do you see us moving forward to success?”
Bertha Baloney: “Success is just around the corner. Therefore as we move forward it will meet us face to face.”
Interviewer: “Bertha, your financial wisdom never ceases to amaze me. So your message is this then: Success is staring us in the face going forward.”
Bertha Baloney: “Not only that, it is here. And it will take us forward into the future.”
Interviewer: “The future is going forward, as you say, Bertha. But do we learn anything by looking back? Anyway, what’s your take Charlie?”
Charlie Con-them: “My take has been exceptionally good. It’s the best year I ever had selling financial toxic paper, and getting huge fees for doing so ”
Interviewer: “Charlie, I meant your take on looking back.”
Charlie Con-them: Looking back, I would say this downturn has been good for us. I am taking a sabbatical in the sun and waiting for my next opportunity to consolidate my gains as soon as the stiffs, oops, I mean the players, get back into the market. But, I digress. governments have seen the value of the free markets and are now bailing them out. This should tell the people that their tax dollars are safe with us, as we move forward.”
Interviewer: “Spoken like a true financial expert, Charlie. What do you think Bertha?”
Bertha Baloney: “Government money is a boon to the markets, and at least we don’t have to worry about socialism. So, I say free markets and taxpayers’ money is a great combination; it’s a win-win situation for us. We must be forward-looking at all costs.”
Interviewer: “So what would you say to the losers out there, whose costs have been enormous?”
Bertha Baloney: “Cheer up. Have faith in the market; it needs your support at this time, as we travel forward.”
Interviewer: “Final word to you Charlie.”
Charlie Con-them: “I say let the marketplace decide and God Bless the taxpayers as we go forward.”
Stephen J. Gray
January 27, 2009.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B.S.T.V. News interviews two financial experts on where the market is going:
Interviewer: “I have Charlie Con-them and Bertha Baloney from Offshore World Market Financial Services and Banking to help you invest in the new year. Charlie, where do you see or believe we are headed?”
Charlie Con-them: “I would say now is the time to buy as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “Why Charlie?”
Charlie Con-them: “This downward spiral, I believe, is nearing its lowest point; therefore, the only way to go is up.”
Interviewer: “That seems like a good point, Charlie, but is that necessarily true?”
Charlie Con-them: “In my view it’s true. You have to get the people back into the markets; being positive sells and the market needs and feeds off their money.”
Interviewer: “Charlie, you are a beacon of hope. Now over to Bertha: what’s your take on the market?”
Bertha Baloney: “There is a lot of negativity out there but this can be balanced by having a positive attitude to one’s losses as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “Are you telling the people who have lost money and whose investments and pensions have tanked to be positive then, as they go forward?”
Bertha Baloney: “That’s what I’m saying. Every downturn has an upturn. Moving forward is the only answer.”
Interviewer: “Wow! Well said, Bertha. I’m sure our viewers are pleased to hear that going forward is the solution. Charlie, can you give us a sense going forward of when the upturn will be?”
Charlie Con-them: “I see it happening right now, but it is an invisible rise that comes to fruition through confidence as we go forward.”
Interviewer: “So Charlie you would say going forward is important?”
Charlie Con-them: “Hell, if we can’t go forward where else can we go? We must go forward and move on to success.”
Interviewer: “Bertha, do you see us moving forward to success?”
Bertha Baloney: “Success is just around the corner. Therefore as we move forward it will meet us face to face.”
Interviewer: “Bertha, your financial wisdom never ceases to amaze me. So your message is this then: Success is staring us in the face going forward.”
Bertha Baloney: “Not only that, it is here. And it will take us forward into the future.”
Interviewer: “The future is going forward, as you say, Bertha. But do we learn anything by looking back? Anyway, what’s your take Charlie?”
Charlie Con-them: “My take has been exceptionally good. It’s the best year I ever had selling financial toxic paper, and getting huge fees for doing so ”
Interviewer: “Charlie, I meant your take on looking back.”
Charlie Con-them: Looking back, I would say this downturn has been good for us. I am taking a sabbatical in the sun and waiting for my next opportunity to consolidate my gains as soon as the stiffs, oops, I mean the players, get back into the market. But, I digress. governments have seen the value of the free markets and are now bailing them out. This should tell the people that their tax dollars are safe with us, as we move forward.”
Interviewer: “Spoken like a true financial expert, Charlie. What do you think Bertha?”
Bertha Baloney: “Government money is a boon to the markets, and at least we don’t have to worry about socialism. So, I say free markets and taxpayers’ money is a great combination; it’s a win-win situation for us. We must be forward-looking at all costs.”
Interviewer: “So what would you say to the losers out there, whose costs have been enormous?”
Bertha Baloney: “Cheer up. Have faith in the market; it needs your support at this time, as we travel forward.”
Interviewer: “Final word to you Charlie.”
Charlie Con-them: “I say let the marketplace decide and God Bless the taxpayers as we go forward.”
Stephen J. Gray
January 27, 2009.
Did Any of the Bailout Money Go Offshore?
“Most of America's largest publicly traded corporations -- including several that are receiving billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to finance their recovery -- have set up offshore operations that could help them avoid paying U.S. taxes on their profits, a government study released yesterday found.” [1]
We are seeing billions, or should that be trillions, of taxpayers’ dollars handed over to banks and other financial institutions? The mantra of the monied elites has always been this: “Let the marketplace decide.” But now that the “free enterprisers” of the financial marketplace are wallowing in taxpayers’ dollars surely there has be open accountability where that money is going? But it appears that is not so.
“In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it ‘unacceptable’ that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went….
“‘My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?’ …
“When Sanders pressed on whether Bernanke would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, ‘No,’…” [2]
A CBS news article of Feb 23, 2009 said this about offshore banks and tax havens:
“… guess who's turned up in a new government report about tax havens?
“Eleven giant recipients of your bailout tax dollars - American Express, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Together they've collected more than $227 billion. Even as they benefit from tax money, they operate hundreds of subsidiaries in places widely known for helping people evade taxes.” [3]
The peoples’ tax dollars are being handed over to these huge financial conglomerates. Meanwhile, the ordinary person is losing their jobs and many have lost their homes. Many small businesses have had to shut down. (no bailouts for them?). Surely there is something wrong when financial conglomerates with numerous subsidiaries offshore are getting taxpayers’ dollars? Which begs the questions: Should these offshore banking and tax havens be allowed? And should the taxpayers’ be allowed to know how much money is in these offshore banking and tax havens? And is any of the bailout money which comes from taxpayers dollars being sent offshore?
Stephen J. Gray
graysinfo@gmail.com
March 7, 2009.
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/16/ST2009011603928.html
[2] http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNes/idUKN0349765020090303?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/23/eveningnews/main4822689.shtml
More info at: http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/01/16/Report_Over_corporations_have_havens_0215.html
We are seeing billions, or should that be trillions, of taxpayers’ dollars handed over to banks and other financial institutions? The mantra of the monied elites has always been this: “Let the marketplace decide.” But now that the “free enterprisers” of the financial marketplace are wallowing in taxpayers’ dollars surely there has be open accountability where that money is going? But it appears that is not so.
“In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it ‘unacceptable’ that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went….
“‘My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?’ …
“When Sanders pressed on whether Bernanke would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, ‘No,’…” [2]
A CBS news article of Feb 23, 2009 said this about offshore banks and tax havens:
“… guess who's turned up in a new government report about tax havens?
“Eleven giant recipients of your bailout tax dollars - American Express, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Together they've collected more than $227 billion. Even as they benefit from tax money, they operate hundreds of subsidiaries in places widely known for helping people evade taxes.” [3]
The peoples’ tax dollars are being handed over to these huge financial conglomerates. Meanwhile, the ordinary person is losing their jobs and many have lost their homes. Many small businesses have had to shut down. (no bailouts for them?). Surely there is something wrong when financial conglomerates with numerous subsidiaries offshore are getting taxpayers’ dollars? Which begs the questions: Should these offshore banking and tax havens be allowed? And should the taxpayers’ be allowed to know how much money is in these offshore banking and tax havens? And is any of the bailout money which comes from taxpayers dollars being sent offshore?
Stephen J. Gray
graysinfo@gmail.com
March 7, 2009.
Endnotes:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/01/16/ST2009011603928.html
[2] http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasRegulatoryNes/idUKN0349765020090303?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/23/eveningnews/main4822689.shtml
More info at: http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/01/16/Report_Over_corporations_have_havens_0215.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)