So, What's the Deal With Canada's Reputation? Redux

Apparently, the revelation that Canada has the best reputation in the world really bothers the far-left.

Really bothers them.

In an etching at Dr Dawg's kennel, John Cross has evidently taken umbrage at your not-so-humble author taking some time out to acknowledge the fact.

As it turns out, Cross expected that Canada would fare poorly in any attempt to measure and compare the global reputations of the world's countries. He was -- and still is -- one of the very Canada-bashers now absorbing a healthy dosage of crow.

Not that they aren't doing whatever they can to try to wriggle free of the ultimate implications of the results of the survey. Cross complains that, of all things, human rights was not featured as a subject of the survey. Apparently, in the mind of John Cross, that is some kind of game breaker.

As in so many things, Cross has apparently declined to acknowledge which way the global wind is blowing. In a world where the United Nations human rights council is populated by the worst human rights abusers in the world, it seems that human rights has become devalued as the currency of global morality.

This is very unfortunate, particularly for Canada. If the UN and its apologists had any sense of moral probity in relation to these important principles, Canada would be one of a couple dozen countries in the world considered eligible to chair that particular committee.

Unless one considers the myth of Omar Khard's torture -- for which there is no evidence -- or the myth of Canadian involvement in torture in Afghanistan -- again, for which there is no evidence.

Cross also commits a genetic fallacy in attempting to attack the source of the information used to compile the Reputation Institute's report. He claims that the survey used only respondents from G8 countries, but this is false. The report was compiled from responses from 42,000 respondents worldwide.

It's not at all unfair to keep in mind that John Cross is an individual who does exceedingly poorly with any facts that refute whatever popular far-leftist narrative he may be pushing at any given time.

His favourite seems to be that of man-made climate change, and it behooves a responsible thinker to remember that Cross has been an apologist for climategate, and invested considerable energy in propping up the long-disproven hockey stick model of climate change; a model long shown to have absolutely zero scientific merit, and was reached through omitting an entire time period.

So, yeah. John Cross and evidence. Not really bosom buddies.

Which is the amusing thing about it all. Cross and his cohorts in Canada's far-left have obsessively insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been allegedly-disastrous for Canada's global reputation.

What they've never offered is the evidence. Never offered any evidence that Canada's global reputation is suffering; never offered any evidence that it's because of Stephen Harper.

And now that it's been shown that Canada's reputation has suffered no less than each and every country governed by the kind of welfare state government they want Canada's to emulate, they're all-too eager to simply dispense with the evidence, even if they know deep down that they can't.

Deep down, John Cross simply must know that he can't sweep this one under the rug, although it is amusing watching him try.

So What's the Deal with Canada's Reputation?

Canada most reputable country in the world according to global poll

Since 2006, it's been a familiar siren song from the left to Canadians, trying to lure voters away from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party:

"Harper is destroying Canada's global reputation. And we -- the Liberal Party, NDP, or whomever else -- are the ones to restore it. Please vote for us."

Harper has now been in power for more than five years. And these complaints about the effect Stephen Harper's tenure in 24 Sussex Drive have turned out to be nothing more than pure, unmitigated bullshit.

In a study that measured the public esteem, trust, admiration and good feelings toward 50 countries, Canada came out on top. Number one. The best country in the world in terms of its global reputation. The survey was run by the Reputation Institute.

Canada is regarded better than Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, or New Zealand. Most of these countries have had leaders far more of the sort preferred by those citing imaginary harm done by Harper to Canada's reputation.

No one should expect many of these people to wake up and smell the global rejection of this narrative. Some of them just don't get it at all.

No one should be surprised. These are people who prefer to smirk about a preachy lecture delivered to Harper regarding the Kyoto protocols by countries who stood to be fiscal beneficiaries of the treaty at the World Economic Forum in Davos to the standing ovation he received at the same event.

These are people who focus on the handful of far-left whackos protesting the oilsands over the countries and businesses lining up to be oilsands' customers, and the millions of people who consume oilsands oil.

What's the deal with Canada's reputation? Canada's reputation is excellent. Five years of Stephen Harper hasn't done the kind of harm the far-left has bemoaned at every opportunity.

This revelation actually changes nothing: the far-left will still continue to make this claim, and Canadians will continue to do the appropriate thing: and ignore them.

The Gory Underside of the Arts Communities' Oppression Fantasies

As various individuals purporting to represent Canada's arts community attempt to monopolize more and more media time with staged scandals and contrived outrage, it's becoming more and more clear that many Canadian artists seem to be both prone and eager to imagine themselves as an oppressed community in Canada.

The most public examples have been self-appointed "martyrs" Margie Gillis and Franke James. The former averaged more than $90,000 a year in arts grants over a 13-year period between 1998 and 2011. The latter is apparently outraged that the federal government chose not to fit the bill for her to take her mediocre anti-oilsands art on a self-lionizing tour of Europe.

But as it pertains to the tendency of some Canadian artists to imagine themselves as an oppressed minority, James and Gillis are but the tip of the iceberg.

An interesting case study is that of a band calling itself Trike. Originating from Vancouver, Trike now mostly plays in Europe.

In 2009, Trike announced they were going to stay in Europe. They haven't been missed.

They also apparently didn't lose interest in Canada. In July 2010, they uploaded a music video to YouTube entitled "Get Out, Get Out".

It's amazing that something like this could fester, largely unnoticed, on YouTube for more than 14 months.

The first thing that stands out about the video is the song. The first thing that stands out about the song is that, frankly, it's shit. God-awful shit. Irredeemable shit. Anyone who makes it past the 0:55 mark of the video should be applauded for their endurance.

After that, the next thing that stands out is the deranged nature of the video. While the two members of Trike drone on about murdering someone, someone wearing a hastily-constructed Stephen Harper mask smashes their keyboard and murders the band, stabbing them multiple times with multiple knives.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the video is meant to suggest that Stephen Harper is killing Canada's arts community. Frankly, it's a comical notion.

In 2009, when the band announced its "exile" to Germany, they declared that Canada had become "anti-art".

“Canada is our home, but it’s going through a bit of a right-wing, bureaucratic, anti-art phase right now, which would make it next to impossible to live as artists.”

Those lacking the sense of entitlement that has come to afflict the Canadian arts know differently. Canada isn't going through an "anti-art phase", and no anti-art phase would be necessary to make it impossible for Trike to live off their art.

The banality and mediocrity of Trike's art is what does that. Trike can't live off their music not because Canada has become "anti-art", but because their music is just so goddamned awful.

The trinity figures of Margie Gillis, Franke James and Trike seem to bring an unsurprising reality to light: bad artists rely on government grants to keep them out of having to seek work in industries more appropriate for their talents... like fast food.

Bad artists also seem to rely on a shared sense of ideological vanity to make their art more marketable to those who share their political beliefs. In a video posted after the 2011 election, band member Xania Keane declares that she was considering moving back to Canada, but can't live in a country with a conservative government.

(She apparently hasn't taken note of Angela Merkel.)

Keane says she isn't coming back to Canada, and apparently expects people to care. It doesn't seem like many do. It all works out pretty well for Canadian music fans, who are now spared from having to be subjected to Trike's tripe.

Warren Kinsella & His Desperate Dog Whistle Politics

As the Ontario provincial election seemingly tightens at the midway point of the election, Warren Kinsella is becoming more and more desperate.

It's actually rather ironic. Earlier in the campaign, "desperate" was his favourite word. He took to Twitter to declare the deseperation of the Tim Hudak-led Progressive Conservative Party.

Now, it's Kinsella and Premier Dalton McGuinty who are becoming desperate. But mostly Kinsella.

In a posting on his blog, Kinsella wails about the federal Conservative Party's treatment of a video taken at a barbecue Toronto Mayor Rob Ford held in July.

The guest of honour at the barbecue was Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who spoke about the upcoming Ontario election, and rallied guests to support Tim Hudak in defeating the Liberal government of Ontario.

Harper spoke of the need for a conservative hat trick in Ontario.

Kinsella's desperation in raising this video becomes clear when one considers that this non-story first came up in early August and it is now late September.

Frankly, it is precisely that: a non-story. There is nothing reasonably controversial about this video. Unless, of course, one is a Liberal voter or war room worker.

It's reminiscent of a past story in which a left-wing partisan snuck a video camera into a Conservative Party event in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper revealed that -- *gasp!* -- he and his party were working toward winning a majority goverment.

The story was not only a non-story, it was non-news. Everyone knew that Harper and the Tories had been working toward a majority government. Harper coming out and saying so was threatening only to left-wing partisans. Treating a video in which he said what everyone already knew as if it were remarkable or scandalous was nothing more than blowing the left-wing dog whistle.

Harper's words simply alert Kinsella and the left-wing partisans he's counting on to something only they will perceive as dangerous.

Now, in the middle of an election campaign, Kinsella is offering up video of Harper saying he'd like to see a conservative government in Queen's Park. In other words, video in which Harper simply says what everyone already knows. Kinsella is simply blowing the left-wing dog whistle, and in his desperation he's blowing it hard.

It's certainly Kinsella's hope that Harper's "conservative hat trick" comment will scare NDP voters into the Liberal fold. Looking at the poll numbers, looking at the embarrassing incidents his party has fallen victim to, Kinsella knows, as many other people know, that this is his party's best hopes of holding onto even a minority government, let alone holding on to their majority.

As for the federal Tories' efforts to shut the video down, chalk that up to an effort to discourage left-wing activists from resorting to the creepy means of hidden cameras in search of "gotcha" non-stories.

For Warren Kinsella, desperate times seem to call for desperate measures.

Blue Scare Alert: Harper Not"Reviving Nazi Fascism" but Maoist Fascist Says He Is

Alan Sears: Putting Far-Left Rhetoric In Perspective

Sears reveals far-leftist mentality focused on the promotion of hatred of enemies

Writing -- where else? but -- on Rabble.ca, Ryerson University sociologist Alan Sears offers his conribution to a "reinventing democracy" series Rabble has been carrying ever since they beheld what they regard as the horror of a Stephen Harper majority government.

Sears goes on at length about his desire to build "infrastructure of dissent" that will entirely overturn the capitalist system, and usher in some kind of far-leftist utopia that people like Sears refuse to acknowledge that only they really want.

But beyond that, Sears makes it rather clear: far-left rhetoric is as much about promoting the hatred of those they deem to be their enemies:

"I have a dream about the end of Harper, in which he is driven from office, a reviled figure.

His will be a name invoked by parents to scare their little children. He will live on as a historical footnote in the style of RB Bennett and Calvin Coolidge, his ideological predecessors remembered for doing exactly the wrong thing in the face of a global slump, in Bennett's and Coolidge's cases the 1930s Depression."

Very few people who have been paying attention needed someone like Sears to put the rhetoric of the far-left in perspective. The full extent of the anti-Harper hatemongering has been crystal clear to those paying attention, especially during the 2011 federal election, when websites like ShitHarperDid often took to blatantly lying in order to promote hatred of the Prime Minister.

Sears writes of a fantasy in which the left -- as people like Sears imagine in -- forces its way into every facet of society and identifies its enemies. He quite literally uses the word "enemy".

"At one point, the Left had a real presence in neighbourhoods and workplaces, and was a serious reference point in union meetings, movement activism and broader political discussion. The perception that there was a socialist alternative meant that the persistence of capitalism was in question," Sears writes. "Now, it is taken for granted and, to be blunt, the Left is largely marginal and fragmentary; stuck in old modes of thinking and infected with a sectarian ethos that seeks out the enemies on our side rather than focussing on solidarity against the real enemy."

The "real enemy", of course, is anyone who doesn't share Sears' political beliefs.

Which is really everything one needs to know about people like Alan Sears. To him, conservatives are not merely fellow citizens who disagree with him. They are the enemy, and they are to be swept away in a mass political revolution that makes all of his utopian political dreams come true.

As the would-be guardian and would-be gatekeeper of the left, some would suggest Murray Dobbin -- the curator of the "reinventing democracy" dialogue -- should seek to contain and isolate such extreme and, quite frankly, fascist views.

He's chosen not to. And it's not shocking. If Dobbin made responsible editorial decisions, Rabble just wouldn't be Rabble.

"Stone Cold" Steve Harper Makes His Own Rules:

The collective role of the Canadian left is played by Michael Cole. The role of the Canadian public is played by Jerry "The King" Lawler and Booker T.



(This happened more than a year ago, but recent goings-on inspired this video re-cut.)

Lunatics Behaving... Like Lunatics

With amusing regularity, one of the far-left's favourite political tactics is to set out to capture footage of conservatives behaving badly.

Courtesy of Jeff Jedras we get a vision of how the 200 far-lefties who turned out in Ottawa to fawn over Brigette DePape behaved. It was not, by any means, a positive picture.

Clearly visible in the video, which Jedras (himself not a Conservative) filmed while walking to the convention to cover it as an accredited blogger, are basically the standard far-left sore losers.

"Fuck you, shame on you, go to hell," one man shouts at Tories as they peacefully walk to their convention.

"I hope you choke on your money!" an unseen woman can be heard shouting.

At one point what sounds like a faint "you are Godless" can even be heard.

Each individual Conservative who peacefully passes by their fuming throng is serenaded with shouts of "shame!". (Apparently, Conservatives should be ashamed to win elections, fair and square.)

It's a comical reminder of the extreme double-standard deliberately promoted by the far-left. If conservative protesters were to appear at the upcoming NDP convention, they would instantly declare it to be an act of bullying and intimidation. When far-left protesters present at the Conservative Party convention are subjected to actual bullying and actual acts of verbal intimidation, it's simply brushed off as inconsequential.

Jedras, to his own exemplary credit, doesn't shy away from the aggressive protesters, nor did he hide the evidence of the far-left's typical behaviour, as Rabble does.

In viewing Rabble's own video of the protest, it becomes clear that mr "fuck you, shame on you, go to hell" was not by any means a random protester. Rather, it was Dan Sawyer of Take Back the Capital, who was given a stage to speak on.

Jeff Jedras may be solidly on the left, but he hasn't descended into the depths of hatred those further left than he have resorted to. Nor does he hide it, as many would.

(After all, Rabble did.)

Contempt

Brigitte DePape could be charged with contempt of Parliament

When (now former) Senate Page Brigitte DePape seized the national spotlight today by holding up a "Stop Harper" sign on the Senate floor during the speech from the throne, Canada's far left should have been hoping that DePape would have something truly unique and worthwhile to say.

Instead, during an appearance on CBC's Power & Politics, DePape spouted the same exhausted demagogic rhetoric that failed to win the 2011 election, running through the same "Stephen Harper disrespects Canada" rhetoric back-to-back while tacitly refusing to answer any questions.

"Harper's agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation," DePape declared in a press release. "We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations."

To anyone who doesn't actually follow Canadian politics, these charges would seem alarming indeed. Cutting social programs is a tough political sell for any government.

To anyone who has paid attention to Canadian politics, these charges seem comically alien to anything resembling fact. The brutal social program cuts forecasted when Prime Minister Stephen Harper first took office have never materialized. No such cuts were called for in the throne speech.

As it turns out, DePape just doesn't have what the far-left despeartely wishes she has to offer: just some disjointed ramblings about the need for an "Arab spring" in Canada. (We just had what those rising up in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya want: an election. No "Arab spring" required.)

All she has to offer the far-left -- and they will gleefully accept it -- is selfish demagogic glory-hounding and genuine contempt for Parliament.

In fact, in disrupting the speech from the throne could be construed as impeding Parliament in its role. After all, Parliament must pass a motion adopting the speech from the throne, and if they're distracted from it, they've been impeded.

Considering the far-left's disingenuous penchant for declaring the Conservative government to have been in contempt of Parliament, it seems like a good opportunity to educate them on a genuine case of contempt of Parliament. Call it a teachable moment for Canada's far-left.

Quite naturally, they won't be happy about it.

They won't clue into the fact that it isn't about DePape's politics: she's entitled to them. It's about her actions. It isn't her job as a Parliamentary Page to use her job to oppose the Conservative agenda. It's her job to help Parliament function, not impede it.

It's very different from the opposition approach, wherein contempt was based largely on the government's politics, not on its actions. (When you can't convince Ned Franks -- one of the top advocates of Parliamentary privilege in the Commonwealth -- of the virtue of the complaints, you haven't got a prayer.)

This doesn't necessarily mean that DePape should be charged with contempt of Parliament. Frankly, it does seem petty. Then again, so is running up some truly candy-ass "contempt" complaints, then ramming them through a Partisan committee out of sheer political desperation.

It is a stark reminder of the far-left's approach to Parliamentary contempt. If it's from their side it's to be applauded. If it's from conservatives, it's to be fictionalized.

Which is also a remidner of who really has contempt for Canadians.

Amnesty Still Playing Partisan Politics

Amnesty International continues to hector Candian government

Full disclosure: I write this post as a member of the University of Alberta chapter of Amnesty International, of which I have been a member since 2008.

Having failed to influence the outcome of the 2011 federal election, it seems that Amnesty International is settling for trying to invoke a feeling of buyer's remorse in the Canadian electorate.

Salil Shetty, Secretary General of Amnesty International, has accused Canada of not being a strong enough guiding force in terms of human rights advocacy.

Oddly enough, Shetty's complaints largely seem to deal with things that have little, if anything, to do with Canada.

"The human rights revolution now stands on the threshold of historic change," Shetty announced. "But there is a serious fight-back from the forces of repression. The international community must seize the opportunity for change and ensure that 2011 is not a false dawn for human rights."

"A critical battle is underway for control of access to information, means of communication and networking technology as social media networks fuel a new activism that governments are struggling to control," he continued. "As seen in Tunisia and Egypt, government attempts to block Internet access or cut mobile phone networks can backfire — but governments are scrambling to regain the initiative or to use this technology against activists."

"In 2010 progress (in Canada) on key concerns was disappointing," Amnesty International Canada Secretary General Alex Neve said. "The year was marked by failing leadership by Canada on human rights issues."

Salil goes on to note Wikileaks revelations -- if one could call them that -- that the regimes of countries such as Tunisia tortured political detainees.

"Some of the documents made clear that countries around the world were aware of both the political repression and the lack of economic opportunity, but for the most part were not taking action to urge change," Shetty declared. "One leaked cable showed that the then-Canadian envoy, the US ambassador and the UK ambassador all acknowledged that the Tunisian security forces torture detainees; that diplomatic assurances that the government will not torture detainees sent back to Tunisia are 'of value' but unreliable; and that the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] does not have access to detention facilities run by the Ministry of Interior."

Of course, this seems to beg an important question: what does this have to do with Canada? The answer seems to be "not very much".

Canada has not been deeply involved with Tunisia. It has not transferred detainees to Tunisian prisons, nor to Libyan prisons.

In fact, when Libyan President Muammar al-Ghadafi resorted to strafing peaceful protesters with fighter jets, Canada rushed to respond by helping implement a no-fly zone with its fellow NATO partners. Nor has Canada acted blindly within this mission, aborting CF-18 airstrikes that posed unacceptable risks to civilians.

Frankly, Amnesty has too big a plank in its own eye to be complaining about the speck in Canada's. Their relationship with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners -- who recently mocked up assassination photos of US President Barack Obama.

To be fair, Salil Shetty has likley considered very little of his comments very deeply. More likely, it's the work of Neve, who was a guest of then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff at his Canada 150 conference.

Neve also committed Amnesty Canada as a signatory to the Voices/Voix petition, which complains about the government's cuts to various activist groups.

Apparently, Amnesty Canada has adopted the position that funding advocacy groups on an ideologically-preferential basis is some sort of human right. Which is, of course, complete and utter rubbish.

Perhaps Shetty and Neve are just confused about what their role should be in an increasingly complex, increasingly polarized political environment. Fortunately, your not-so-humble scribe can explain to them how Amnesty International should be budgeting their time:

Time spent promoting human rights -- actual human rights: 100%. Time spent engaging in partisan politics: 0%. Simple. Salil Shetty and Alex Neve had better figure this out for themselves very quickly, or they had better do something else altogether:

Resign.

Stephen Harper's New Challenge: The "Vision Thing"

Certainly, Stephen Harper has always been more of a Margaret Thatcher type than a John Major type.

But in the wake of winning his first majority government, Harper may be about to face his greatest challenge yet: the "vision thing".

Now, more than ever, Harper will have to navigate between the hopes of his supporters and the fears of his detractors. Harper, has to date, approached this majority government with humility, declaring that it's now up to his government to earn the trust of Canadians.

"My friends, it's been a long campaign but now we can turn the page on the uncertainties and repeat elections of the past seven years and focus on building a great future for all of us," Harper declared. "Canadians have chosen hope, a united Canada, a strong Canada. We must be the government of all Canadians, including those that did not vote for us. We shall be faithful to the trust that you have proposed in us."

But now Harper will be expected to deliver on the expectations of social conservatives. Admittedly, it's been these expectations that have been at the core of darkest nightmares of Harper's detractors.

According to Conservative Values of Canada executive director David Krayden, abortion is going to become an issue. It won't matter if Harper wishes it or not.

"Stephen Harper has said no (to abortion laws) but a lot of his caucus is pro-life, a lot of his supporters are pro-life," Krayden declared. "I think it's time for those who don't think abortion is not on the table to realize it's catch-up with the rest of the Western world where there are some restrictions on abortion."

Krayden's voice is joined by Joseph Ben Ami of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies.

"I know professed atheists who are strongly pro-life and at least would like to see the government allow a dialogue," Ben Ami added. "If I had a wish list, top of my list would be the opportunity to have an intelligent debate about human rights commissions and tribunals."

"We should be having an open, honest and intelligent debate about immigration; I don't think we have a well-managed immigration policy," he added.

Both Krayden and Ben Ami seem to hunger for a government more conservative than Harper has been to date.

"This is an opportunity to have a truly conservative government," Krayden announced.

"At some point in time, you have to stand for something more substantial than the mere fact you are not the Liberals," Ben Ami agreed.

Krayden and Ben Ami may be pleased to learn just how many Canadians agree that these are issues that must be addressed. What Canadians have yet to make clear is just how far they think Canada should go on these particular issues. Neither David Krayden nor Joseph Ben Ami are likely to get everything they want on any of these issues. They will have to compromise.

By the same token, however, so will the social progressives who have championed the far-left cause. In fact, they will have to compromise for the first time in nearly forty years. It's far overdue.

But compromise is precisely what Harper's vision will have to be from this point forward. If he successfully reaches a compromise on the issues that truly matter to Canadians, it will be the gateway to a larger majority government. If he fails, it will be the gateway back to a minority, or to political oblivion altogether.

From 2011 onward, the "vision thing" matters more than ever. It's up to Stephen Harper to deliver.

Heather Mallick Doesn't Really "Get" This Whole "Canada" Thing

Mallick publishes bombastic post-election fear tantrum... in Britain

Canadians familiar with Heather Mallick have long been aware of one central fact: namely, that Mallick isn't any good with them.

Writing an op/ed in Britain's Guardian newspaper, Mallick peddles her fair share of whoppers -- such as suggesting that the Conservative Party can afford to cut the per-vote subsidy because it collects so many donations from corporations. Not only do the Conservatives not accept donations from corporations (this would be illegal under campaign finance law), it's the Liberal Party that has historically collected the most such donations.

So, once again: facts. She's not good with them.

But facts aren't the only thing that Mallick doesn't get. She really doesn't "get" this whole "Canada" thing, either.

In her tirade, Mallick claims that Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- whom she desbribes as "a Canadian version of George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect" -- wants to Americanize Canada. Or, at the very least, de-Canadianize it.

Her evidence? She's not good with evidence, either.

The closest she comes to actually offering any is noting that Harper "once sneeringly referred to Canada as a typical northern European 'welfare state'."

Which is at least partially true. Harper did say that. The difference is that he wasn't sneering; he wasn't speaking these words out of contempt, but rather out of concern.

In the full speech -- trotted out every time there's an election by panicked leftists hoping to alarm Canadians -- Harper expresses his concern over Canada being a country that over-spends on social spending while suffering from slow economic growth.

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it," Harper remarked. "Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."

This isn't some dark secret in Stephen Harper's past. It's not some skeleton in his closet. These remarks are public knowledge, and have been for a long time.

Yet these comments just haven't had the effect on Canadians that Mallick and her far-left friends would like them to. Publicizing them has been intended to drive Canadian voters -- in the mind of Mallick truly good socialists at heart -- into the arms of the Liberal Party and NDP in droves.

It hasn't worked out that way.

The comments were first given prominent treatment in 2004, after Harper had ascended to the leadership of the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party, reeling from corruption charges, was reduced to a minority government.

They tried again in 2006. This time, Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister of Canada, winning a minority government.

They tried again in 2008. Harper remained the Prime Minister, this time with a stronger minority.

They tried again in 2011. This time, Harper won a majority government.

Every time the left has trotted out these comments, Harper has garnered a little more support from the Canadian electorate. If anything, they seem to be driving more Canadians to Harper than away from him.

If Canadians are really such good socialists at heart, as Mallick seems to believe, how could this be the case? Simople. Canadians aren't really the socialists Heather Mallick has grown accustomed to.

As it turns out, Harper's "de-Canadianized" Canada is more like Canada than the one Mallick claims Harper is destroying. History holds this idea up to be true.

No one has made the case for this more spendidly than Brian Lee Crowley. In The Canadian Century, Crowley makes the case that the enduring vision for Canada has been the vision of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one in which taxes are kept low, Canada benefits from free trade with its neighbours, and Canadians accept responsibility for their own destinies.

No one should expect Heather Mallick to understand these kinds of complex factual arguments. She still has yet to realize that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wasn't born in Calgary.

Cannon's Fizzle Leaves Room for New Minister

Stephen Harper has tough choice to make

In the 2011 federal election, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon turned out to be a dud.

Which is unfortunate. While by no means perfect, Cannon was pretty good as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Among the highlights of his tenure was scaring Libyan President Muammar al-Ghadafi away from setting foot in Canada, then committing six CF-18 Hornets to enforcing the no-fly zone that is preventing Ghadfi from continuing to massacre unarmed protesters with fighter jets, as well as making it possible for amred rebels to run him out of Libya for good.

But the citizens of Pontiac were left with the task of deciding who their Member of Parliament would be. The decision they reached was not Lawrence Cannon, but rather Mathieu Ravignat, a former communist and one of the many largely-anonymous NDP candidates to win in Quebec.

This, of course, leaves Prime Minister Stephen Harper with a tough decision to make: he needs a new Minister of Foreigh Affairs. With the world in the state it's currently in, he'll need to choose very wisely.

The first impulse of many would be to assume that Harper will appoint the new Ajax-Pickering MP Chris Alexander -- who knocked off Mark Holland last night -- to fill this role. While Alexander has no experience as a Parliamentarian and no experience as a Minister, he does have experience as Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan.

Even as a rookie, he's a real contender for the job.

But his lack of experience places a notable obstacle in his past. Being a Minister is often as much about whether the Minister can defend his actions in Question period as it is about what the Minister does.

If Harper decides to adopt discretion as the better part of valour and not appoint a rookie MP to such a crucial post, the question may wind up being not who will be Foreign Affairs Minister, but who will be Minister of National Defence.

Simply put, if Chris Alexander is not named Foreign Affairs Minister, it will almost certainly be Peter MacKay. Fortunately, Harper has two capable replacements to take MacKay's place.

Edmonton-Centre MP Laurie Hawn's defense of the F-35 deal has infuriated opponents of the purchase precisely because he soundly demonstrates the need for the jets, establishes the F-35 as the plane for Canada, and doesn't give undue attention to underqualified technical nay-sayers.

Vegreville-Wainright MP Leon Benoit is unquestionably a dark horse for the role. But he shouldn't be. As a Reform Party MP, Benoit served as National Defence Critic. At a time when the Chretien government was purchasing used and non-seaworthy submarines from Britain, Benoit was the man tasked with standing up for the Canadian Forces to a government determined to maintain them (or not) on the cheap.

In a perfect world, Lawrence Cannon would continue as Foreign Affairs Minister. But thanks to Mathiew Ravignat (in this instance), a perfect world it is not. Fortunately, Prime Minister Harper has some options to look to.

Blue, Baby, Blue

Stephen Harper Got the Job Done

As Canadians wake up to the reality of a Conservative majority government in Ottawa, the same old question as always looms. When will the next election be?

Only the answer is different: not until 2015.

With just shy of 40% of the popular vote -- eerily similar to the Nik Nanos numbers from before the election -- the Harper Conservatives were able to lay claim to 54% of the seats.

This will, of course, spark the same predictable responses from those who smugly lectured Canadians that the only thing they get to directly vote for in a Canadian election is our local Member of Parliament -- so had Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff moved to form a coalition government after having lost the election, that would have been just hunky-dory -- will have an entirely different civics lecture for the rest of us.

That lecture will be that the "first past the post" system delivers unjustly skewed results, and allows the party that gathers the support of a minority of Canadians -- a large minority of Canadians, but a minority nonethesss -- can thus govern with a domineering majority.

Naturally, their own previous civics lesson will be lost entirely on them.

The left -- and especially the far-left -- did everything they could to try to avert this Harper majority. They've tried organized vote-swapping, left-wing youth vote mobs, and outright lying to the Canadian people. All was for naught.

Despite all their efforts, Stephen Harper got the job done. He convinced the Canadian people to give his party the largest caucus of individual representatives; one larger than all the others combined.

Naturally, they will tell us that things should be different: that perhaps a left-wing coalition should be governing in its stead, despite the fact that the only thing they could really agree on is "not Harper".

Suffice to say, "not Harper" is not even nearly sufficient as a basis on which to form a government. Fortunately, in the 2011 federal election, Canadians would have none of it.

In winning this majority, Stephen Harper has now entirely eclipsed Lester Pearson as the most successful minority Prime Minister in Canadian history. Pearson tried as hard as he could to win a majority, and never got one.

Harper has now chaulked up not only the longest-serving minority government in Canadian history (2008-2011), but has now won a majority.

He got the job done.

Conservatives Earning Support on Israel Issue

Under Tories, Canada a loyal ally to Jewish state

Canadians of many political inclinations often express concern at election time that foreign policy is not prominent enough at election time.

This election, it has taken turns at centre stage. But in many ridings, such as Ken Dryden's riding of York Centre, foreign policy -- particularly pertaining to Israel -- is rarely far from the forefront.

In Toronto-area riding York Centre, the Liberal vote has largely been about two groups: the Italian vote and the Jewish vote.

"The biggest change that's happened is that at one time, there were two very strong Liberal supporting communities in this riding, one was the Italian community and the other was the Jewish community," Dryden remarked. "The Italian community is still strong for the most part in supporting the Liberals and the Jewish community, many of them have shifted and are supporting the Conservatives."

As noted here previously, some of that shift can be attributed to dirty campaigning by the Conservatives. There's no reason whatsoever to write the Tories a free pass for it.

But some of that shift can be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives are earning that support by virtue of strong policy on Israel.

The fact that the Conservative Party policy on Israel -- namely, that Canada will support its allies instead of remaining silent when it matters -- appeals to the people who understand best precisely how important Israel is.

This isn't to say that the Liberal Party has, by any means, entirely derelicted the Israel issue. It was a Liberal Party government that outlawed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in Canada. That clearly counts.

But so does moral support when Israel acts to defend itself. This is something the Liberals proved far less willing to provide. For example, in 2006, after Israel had moved to protect itself from attacks by Hezbollah, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of "war crimes". He later apologized for the remark. Two years later.

By the same mark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Israel's response to be "a measured response". Which, regardless of the outrage of the far-left, it was.

In 2006, Israel was actually discharging its responsibilities under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which basically states that the sovereignty of states is dependent on the government acting to protect its citizens, and respect their human rights.

Simply put, if Israel had not acted to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, the international community would have been responsible to do it. Unfortuantely, the international community would have been unlikely to act discharge that responsibility.

With Dryden facing the most difficult election of his political career, he may be reaping the whirlwind of Ignatieff's failure to act as a strong ally of Israel. Conservative candidate Mark Adler may be reaping the benefits of Harper's support.

"When I go door to door in the Jewish area, people are totally aware of the Harper record on Israel and the previous Liberal administration's record on Israel," Adler said. "The Jewish community is aware of Michael Ignatieff's comments with respect to Israel, claiming that Israel has committed war crimes in Lebanon."

There is, by no means, any guarantee that the Israel issue will carry the riding in York-Centre, or anywhere else. But the Tory shift in support in the Jewish community has been hard-fought, and (mostly) well-earned.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 6

Continuing the Nexus series fact checking the claims made on the Shit Harper Did website, we once again delve into Aboriginal issues.

In one particular claim, the site seems to infer that Harper is insensitive to the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women:

The clear intent is to suggest that if Harper isn't funding Sisters in Spirit, he isn't concerned at all about missing or murdered Aboriginal Women.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, in 2010 the Harper government devoted $10 million to address the issue of murdered and missing Aboriginal women. The funds were to be spent on the establishment of a missing persons' branch of the RCMP, as well as investments into fighting domestic violence in aboriginal communities.

As it pertains to Sisters in Spirit, it's actually a rather simple idea: criminal investigations are best pursued by the people with the authority to conduct such investigations. In Canada, police lead criminal investigations, not well-meaning but ill-equipped and ill-trained groups. End of story.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 5

In previous episodes of the Nexus fact check into the Shit Harper Did website, we uncovered dishonest claims about science funding, the G20 summit, and torture in Afghanistan. We've also explored some poorly-supported appeals to religious bigotry.

But in order to conduct the most recent ShitHarperDid fact check, we have to first set the table. To do that, we pay a visit to our old friend Audrey of Enormous Thriving Plants.

Joining a few other far-left bloggers in creeping the facebook page of Conservative Candidate Wally Daudrich, Audrey notes that he identifies Red Dawn as one of his favourite movies, the Tea Party as one of his interests, and Fox News as his favourite media outlet.

Yet there's greater hilarity afoot than simply the creeping of Daudrich's Facebook page. It has to do with a ShitHarperDid claim about water on aboriginal reserves:

Frankly, even one aboriginal community in Canada without safe drinking water is one too many. But the purpose of this claim is clearly to suggest that Harper has done nothing to fix this problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government of Canada spent $735.6 million between 2008-10 dealing with this very problem. The results speak for themselves. While there were 49 First Nations communities under water advisories in March 2010 -- still 49 too many -- this number is down from 193 in 2006.

That's a 75% reduction in Aboriginal communities with high-risk drinking water systems since 2006. Which kind of makes one wonder about what the Liberal Party was doing during their 13 years in power.

Or what Niki Ashton, the NDP MP for Churchill has been doing. From Daudrich's Facebook page:

While the Harper government was budgeting funds to tackle the water problems in Garden Hill, Manitoba and elsewhere, NDP MPs like Niki Ahston were voting against the funding bills.

Facts like this don't even seem to phase the people behind the ShitHarperDid website. They promote the Liberal Party -- who allowed water safety in First Nations communities to deteriorate -- and the NDP -- whose MPs have voted against funding projects to fix the problem -- as better options than the Conservatives, who have made tremendous progress in fixing the problem.

It's just another lie the Harper haters tell.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 4

Today on the Nexus series fact-checking the Shit Harper Did website, we examine the site's descent from specious half-truths and outright lies into sheer religious bigotry:

Of course, all of this is based on the work of Douglas Todd.

As if to provoke some very severe doubts about the nature of Todd's work, it seems that his claims about the Alliance Church's beliefs regarding an apocalypse are corroborated only by works by himself. That's suspicious, particularly when Todd tips his hand when he attempts to also link Harper's religious beliefs to Sarah Palin.

It would be bad enough if it weren't just blatant dog-whistle politics. It's also poorly supported.

Todd offers examples of work by Vision TV's Randall Mark and Fraser Valley University professor Ron Dart. Mark's and Dart's works on this subject are not peer-reviewed, and themselves cite no sources.

In other words: they don't pass scholarly muster.

Not that anyone should expect such scholarly matters to be of any concern to the people behind ShitHarperDid. After all, the website is all about dog-whistle politics -- about making statements that would rightly be rejected by most people as utter rubbish, yet serves to get the far-left base all fired up for the election.

As it turns out, however, the joke may actually be on the creators of Shit Harper Did: the far-left base is already fired up to vote. It's moderate voters they desperately need, and moderate voters are likely to be repulsed by the kinds of lies being told at the Shit Harper Did website.

What's been seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Ther are more.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 3

As the Shit Harper Did website continues to spew innuendo, half-truth and outright lies at the Canadian people, the Nexus is continuing its fact-checking mission into the claims made on the site.

The site previously lied in suggesting Harper was involved in police abuses during the 2010 G20 Summit, and ignoring net funding increases to science in Canada.

Today, we explore a far more insidious lie from the website:

The site reiterates claims that Harper and the Conservative Party were complicit in the torture of detainees in Afghanistan, and repreats the sensational claims of former Diplomat Richard Colvin.

Unsurprisingly, the site omits a few facts. Such as the fact that it was a Liberal government, under the leadership of Paul Martin, that actually signed a Prisoner Transfer Agreement that provided insufficient oversight of the treatment of prisoners after they were transferred from Canadian to Afghan custody.

Moreover, they had even been warned about the prevalence of torture in Afghan prisons by former diplomat Eileen Olexiuk. They ignored her.

This is very different from how Prime Minister Stephen Harper handled reports of torture. When revelations that Afghan prisoners transferred by Canadian soldiers were being tortured reached Harper, his government immediately re-negotiated the PTA.

But don't expect to hear that from the people behind Shit Harper Did. They're too busy lying to the Canadian public.

Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 1

Considering the raw hatred frequently being expressed for Stephen Harper over social networking sites like Twitter this election season, it shouldn't be shocking to see a website like ShitHarperDid.ca attract such a quick following.

What is remarkable is the steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies that the website offers up.

Frankly, the ShitHarperDid website has proven to be so dishonest that one could fact-check its claims for days. Here at the Nexus, we'll be doing precisely that.

We start off with a familiar fib:

The CBC story in question about the "evolution scandal" (it wasn't a scandal) does a splendid job of telling about half of the story.

The other half of the story is that Goodyear later affirmed his belief in evolution, explaining that evolution is on ongoing process. Thinking themselves clever, the far-left responded by trying to excise the function of adaptation from the theory of natural selection.

In other words, they actually attempted to butcher scientific theory in order to pose as the defenders of it. Amazing.

As for the cuts the website complains of, the Harper government did, indeed, cut $148 million in 2009... from three specific agencies. While increasing bulk spending on science (including establishing 40 new Canada Research Chairs, and investing extensively in scientific infrastructure) by $3.5 billion.

In other words, Canadian science gave up $148 million in funding to receive $3.5 billion in new funding. But who's counting? Not the people behind ShitHarperDid.

As for the Environment Canada scientists, no organization in the world allows its employees to speak as if acting as official spokespersons without first obtaining the proper authorization. Moreover, plenty of climate alarmists have tried to muzzle any scientists who don't agree with them, but again: who's counting? Really?