- Con'd Once Again by Harper

Submitted: 8:11am, PDT, 29 Jun.'10 CBC News
PM hails G20 deficit reduction targets, Fresh protests trigger police crackdown, June 28, 2010
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/27/g20-economics.html

Harper and the Con's would claim, no matter what, that the G20 meeting was a success and worth the billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' hard earned money. That is the only thing about what Harper says we can be certain of. And as far as the other countries saying the same thing, if someone just spent billions on throwing a private party for you in downtown Toronto, would you insult them on the way out.

No public statement from Harper and the Cons can be taken at face value and must be questioned, as has been demonstrated so many times with the Harper MEP's. The Harper extreme manipulation of the message has become supreme.

In actuality the G8-G20 this last weekend simply re-enforced and institutionalized that all the Countries may do things their own way and in their own time. This is not the advent of a Global Village, but the acknowledgment and assertion of individual sovereignty of each country - vis.:


"While [Harper] insisted the G20 leaders have a common goal of strengthening the world's economy, the prime minister acknowledged that "everything is voluntary" in the statement.

. . .

Statement allows for 'tailored' policies

The communiqué recognizes that not all countries are in the same position, which means the policies could be "tailored" to each country's circumstances.

. . .

Instead, the G20 statement said countries can decide on their own whether to pursue a financial levy or follow "other options."

This attitude of "I want to do it my way", has been Harper's approach all along (in the form of "my-way-or-the-highway") as we have seen with Global Warming and the Bank Tax.

Harper keeps saying that the Bank Tax will be passed on to the consumers, which may be. But I have not seen a place where Harper, Flaherty or any of the Con's have offered a suggestion as to the amount by which goods and services to Canadians would be increased. I suspect it would be 'de minimis'. All I have heard is the extremist, right-wing, ideological "no tax".

Reductio ad Abserdum of Gov't spending, in and of itself, is a basic tenet of the Harper brand of Conservatism as can be seen from the Mike Harris - Preston Manning papers a few years ago. Harper's objective is to 'de minimize' Canadian federal government and abdicate power to individual Provinces.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html