“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith dated November 13, 1787

The struggle between liberty and tyranny shows no sign of abating…

Mac, my mistake was thinking there would be a peace dividend after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But the enemy always arises again, just in a different disguise.

Will the LPC cease to be a significant power? It is possible but I haven’t heard the “death knell” yet… That signal would be the creation of a liberal version of the Reform Party.

When Trudeau patrioted the Charter he left a “bolt hole” and it has to do with the GG.  When the Charter was patriated it left all the power in the PM’s hands “as planned”.

Stupid is as stupid thinks.  

“Well ya”…the GG is our final resort (but not so much).  The truth is that because of the wording in the Charter we come to realize that IF  the PM disagrees with the GG he can fire her.  All he has to do is pick up a phone and the Queen is compelled to comply.

The point:  Harper can replace our GG with someone of his own choosing with a simple phone call if she (or he) tries to screw him. 

Did you know that?  

And who made that arrangement?

You get one guess but  I’ll give you a hint.

‘It has to do with the natural governing party’ and it has come back to bite them in the ass.

Do you also know that Harper has the samer power as Trudeau and he’s using it?

Do you know that?

If you read the MSM and take what they say as “gospel” you are in for  a rude awakening because things are NOT as they appear.  Trudeau gave Harper the power and he can call an election anytime he wants.

Did you  know that?

If you didn’t check out Jean Chretien.  You may be surprised.

He used the power three times and would have used it a fourth time had Paul Martin not stabbed him in the back because of “9/11″ and Harper in the background.

Do you know that?

I’ll give you another clue. Do you know that the the Liberal Pary of Canada started to “self destruct” right around the time that Harper took over the “Alliance” and are you aware that the big boys want nothing to do with a party that is spinning in neutral.

I am and voters should pay attention.
 

I think what you and the other Harper haters count on is that people do not know timeline nor the surrounding circumstances of that letter.   Most think it was during the Parliamentary meltdown of the Libs when they were ignoring the various non confidence votes and clinging desperately to power in the spring.

So we have had a real coup attempt in which the media calls out various left wing constitutional “experts” to somehow suggest that based on the King Byng affair  that sedition coalitions actions were somehow constitutional – and doing their best to mitigate the damage.

Then on the other hand we have a letter that is rather ambigously worded where one must assume – with no evidence whatsoever- that Harper had the very worst of intentions in mind  – which is precisely what you and the MSM engage in.

And you imply its the same thing  – and call other people partisan?

@ward: You sir are to be congratulated, when the Canada games allows mental gymnastics it will most certainly be as a result of your efforts – your explanation was wonderful and I really hope you won’t mind when I quote you as others deserve the opportunity to learn from this.

Nowhere did Stephen Harper say that he wanted to install himself into power, by specifically circumventing the electorate.  Nowhere does the word coalition exist.  Nowhere is there a specific plan about how the power sharing would work.  There was no plan here and no evidence of the intent to form a coalition.  So no treason there.

I believe that the letter was in regards to the fact that the opposition was concerned that Martin was going to call a another snap election to try to hobble the opposition.

Martin had just done that  calling for the June election only 3 ½ years into the Liberal majority.  The goal here was to capitalize on the newly minted Conservative party’s relative unprepared ness both financially and as a new party trying to unify under a single banner.

It backfired and Martin ended up with a minority.  However the LPC still had the financial clout to call another election in short succession that the opposition would have had a very difficult time fighting only a few months after having fought one.  Basically the same idea as the first one that backfired but with the financial advantage now much stronger for the  Libs.

Re the Oppositions letter, I read it that none of the opposition parties were wanting to go to the polls again a scant 3 months after  the previous election, and that the GG should consider her options in denying Martin the right to call another unnecessary election so quickly – a move by Martin that had absolutely no precedent. ( I do not know if the GG could deny   PM Martin his bid to dissolve Parliament – the above para is a presumption on my part that she may have been able to) .

 
 
 
Or if Mr. Martin was going to try to force the election and the GG was not able to deny him his wish, that the GG should remind Mr. Martin that she may just decide to allow Mr. Martin to dissolve Parliament, but that given there was no reason to that she just might allow the opposition to step in and fill the power vacuum created by Martin.
 
The goal of the Oppositions letter of the day was not to try to steal power from an existing government but to force the newly elected Liberals to govern by killing the second snap election gambit/scenario.
 
So no there was no treason or evidence of intent of it in the 2004 letter.

Layton is in the perfect position to prop up Harper as long as he gets something out of it, and you can bet your arse that if Harper survives confidence votes its because he’s cut some sort of deal with Layton for his block of votes.

@ward: Just curious ward. When Harper put his name on a document with Duceppe and Layton on September 9, 2004 asking the GG to, “as constitutional practice has determined”,  look at him and the other opposition parties who had “been in close consultation” with each other with an eye to allowing them to form a government, was he acting in a “treasonous” manner?