A recent cartoon in the New York Post has been deemed “offensive” by American race hustlers, prompting calls for the popular newspaper to issue an apology. Critics allege that the cartoon, which features a bullet-riddled chimpanzee and refers to the recent ’stimulus’ bill passed by the U.S. Congress, contains racist overtones and compares President Barack Obama to an ape.

Now, if I had just had my face ripped apart by a chimpanzee, I might find this attempt at humour to be a little insensitive. But racist? Any “racism” here is clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Even if the chimp in this picture is intended to symbolize President Obama (which I sincerely doubt), how is comparing a black man to an ape any more “racist” than comparing a white man to an ape?

Unless one believes that people of African origin are actually more similar to apes than other humans, I fail to see what the problem is. Except maybe that Obama’s supporters are too touchy and indignant to accept satire that would be “fair game” when applied to any other politician.

The New York Post should not apologize.

Rather than striving to cut costs and regain financial sustainability, North America’s biggest auto company will use its newfound taxpayer-funded slush fund to offer loans at below-market interest rates – as low as 0% in some cases. So even if you can’t afford a new car, GM will bend over backwards to make sure you get one…

It all sounds eerily similar to what subprime mortgage brokers were doing a few years ago. And once again, governments (both U.S. and Canadian) are pumping money into the system to encourage it.

Even Justice Minister, Rob Nicholson, who has been conspicuously absent from the the HRC vs. free speech debate up until this point, supported the resolution at yesterday’s policy convention.

Although I have some concerns about the wording of the policy motion (which doesn’t explicitly call for the repeal of Section 13, but rather the removal of the CHRC’s authority on the matter), there is no denying that this is a big step towards restoring free speech rights in Canada. A year ago, most Canadian politicians were completely ignorant of this frightening threat to freedom. Now, Canada’s governing party is making it a priority to fix this problem.

Congratulations to all Conservatives who worked on (and voted for) this policy initiative.

If you support the restoration of freedom of expression in Canada (regardless of your political affiliation), please take a moment to contact the Prime Minister and encourage him to act on this important matter. Be sure to mention that repealing Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is the only sure way to protect the free speech rights of Canadians.

Torontonians are understandably upset about the high rate of violent crime in their city. But, predictably enough, the city’s left-wing political machine is aiming its rage in all the wrong directions. Liberal Party strategist, Warren Kinsella, invoked this weekend’s unfortunate violence as an excuse to renew calls for a nationwide ban on handguns.

But as any sane freedom-loving Canadian should understand, Kinsella’s position laughably illogical. Before you start blaming handguns for this murder, consider the suspected shooter:

Police have issued a Canada-wide arrest warrant for second-degree murder for Kyle Weese: a 25-year-old man considered “violent and extremely dangerous” with a long criminal record. They released his photo and vowed to track him down, in a case police say is reminiscent of the death of Jane Creba, a bystander killed in a crowd of Boxing Day shoppers in 2005. Mr. Weese is under a weapons prohibition. (source)

It’s pretty clear that Mr. Weese wasn’t supposed to be carrying a handgun. But that didn’t stop him. Criminals get their hands on illegal weapons no matter what, and a handgun ban would not have prevented this tragic event.

But if Kinsella believes that changing laws would have prevented this crime, I’ll play his silly game.

In the moments before she was killed, Ms. Zaveda was standing just outside the door of a bar smoking a cigarette, which would have been illegal inside. If it weren’t for the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, which infringes on property rights by prohibiting smoking in private business establishments, Baily Zaveda would probably be alive today.

If government simply respected individual liberty, would this murder have been more or less likely to happen? Think about it rationally for a moment.

Obama laments that the U.S. Supreme Court under Earl Warren “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution,” which limits the jurisdiction of the courts, preventing them from redistributing wealth. Acknowledging that such a fundamental change of course in American jurisprudence is highly unlikely, Obama suggests that politicians and community organizers should establish a “coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Take a look at this video for the relevant part of the interview:

There is little doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will work fervently on establishing a socialist coalition in the Democrat-controlled Senate and House of Representatives. He’ll also appoint Supreme Court Judges who share his dream of judiciary which ignores the Constitution and redistributes money.

In recent months, many Americans have been unnerved by Obama’s personal ties with people like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. But those links were largely circumstantial – maybe just cases of innocent bad judgment on Obama’s part. This latest revelation, however, is a clear and unambiguous promotion of socialistic principles in politics and in the judiciary.

Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and all other Americans who believe in what the Founding Fathers stood for should think long and hard before voting for Obama…

Now, with a stronger minority government (143 seats), Harper is doing more of the same, claiming that “unfettered capitalism” is the cause, and more international government the solution, of the current global financial crisis.

Does he really believe this? I prefer to think not (especially given that I voted for the guy). But he’s going along with the crowd of misguided European leaders who believe that “laissez faire is finished,” and the public will be better protected by more government intervention in financial markets.

Austrian economists, who have been predicting a major economic correction for some time now, know that it is over-regulation of the macroeconomic sphere that has caused most of the financial problems of the last 100 years. They know that when government inflates the money supply and suppresses interest rates, people will borrow more, save less, and make unwise investments that they can’t really afford.

The naïve (and somewhat socialist) idea that everybody “deserves” to own a home regardless of their financial situation, and that government has some natural power to print money out of thin air to help them achieve this end, is a recipe for recession.

And yet, politicians continue to pretend that they can solve the problem with bigger government and more regulation, not to mention foolish and unsustainable bank bailouts.

Too bad we don’t have a political party in Canada that will stand up for economic reality.

But as I alluded to earlier in the campaign, it is largely a lack of decisiveness and principle that has caused the Conservatives to lose their momentum, and prevented any other party from picking it up.

Take the issue of arts funding for example. While in power, Harper’s Conservatives cut back on government grants to arts programs, triggering a small wave of anger in arts communities across Canada, but leading to lasting resentment in Quebec where “culture” reigns supreme. Bloc Quebecois leader, Gilles Duceppe, capitalized on this sentiment perfectly, painting the Tories as anti-Quebec culture, and presented himself as the candidate to prevent Harper from gaining a majority and gutting the province’s unique heritage.

Harper responded by backing off, explaining that he wasn’t really “against the arts,” but just reevaluating spending. But instead of being all apologies, he should have said something along the lines of:

“Our party believes in the ability of Quebecers to preserve their own arts and culture without handouts from a centralized federal government. We will reduce taxes across the board and put Quebec culture back in the hands of Quebecers where it belongs.”

Although somewhat risky, a statement promoting decentralized federalism and economic self-determination could have paid off big time for the Tory leader, as it would have demonstrated that he was being true to his principles, rather than simply “hugging the center” and declining to take a stand.

Freedom of speech is another vital issue where Mr. Harper could have stood up for what is right, while gaining votes at the same time. Most Canadians who have heard about Section 13 of the Human Rights Act (which makes it a quasi-criminal act to say anything “contemptuous” against certain groups of people) realize that this sort of legislation is a very dangerous attack on liberty.

Even immigrants and racial minorities, who supposedly benefit from this “right not to be offended,” have every reason to be skeptical of such laws. Why, after all, do new immigrants bother traveling all the way to Canada, if not for the fundamental freedoms that our country offers? And with the mainstream media firmly on side, how could the Tories go wrong with a proposal to scrap Section 13?

On economic issues, Harper may have redeemed himself to a point, but only by proposing less than the other leaders. Dion wants to experiment with a reckless carbon tax (punishing Western Canadians, and making Canadian products less competitive in the global market), while Layton wants to hike taxes on businesses, which would likely increase unemployment and further erode the pensions and investments of Canadians.

If a recession is unavoidable, Harper will ride it out, where Dion or Layton will make it much worse. As the soundest economist, Harper has likely captured enough respect to squeak through with another minority government. And with the opposition split between four parties, he might even do a little better than he deserves.

American taxpayers were skeptical, but Congress finally caved in to partisan pressures on Friday and passed the bailout bill. Today’s result suggests that the main argument used to justify such a move (a return to market stability) might have convinced Congress, but has failed to convince the market itself. (The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed almost 370 points lower today.)

The reality is that investors are smarter than politicians. They understand free market economics, and they understand that big government can’t solve economic problems.

I expect that many investors were hoping for a post-bailout surge in the markets, allowing them to regain lost ground, sell out quietly, and break even on their investments. But that’s not how markets work. So long as intelligent investors are playing the market, its value will reflect all information that is known by said investors.

Congressman Ron Paul argued on Friday that the bailout plan would only prolong the upcoming recession, while continuing to overextend an unsustainable credit-based economy at the expense of taxpayers. Paul blames the Federal Reserve and its manipulation of interest rates for the current crisis, and believes that the only way out of this mess is a painful free market correction (the sooner the better)…

Today’s response to the bailout (by intelligent investors) only demonstrates that Ron Paul is right.

First there was Dana Larsen, the NDP candidate from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who was forced to resign due to previous involvement with drug culture. Then there was Kirk Tousaw, another NDP candidate from Vancouver—Quadra, who had to give up his nomination after videos surfaced of him smoking marijuana with drug legalization activist, Marc Emery.

Most recently, we’ve seen Chris Reid, the Conservative Party candidate from Toronto Centre, resigning his nomination after the exposure of several controversial articles on his blog, advocating the right to carry handguns and supporting private involvement in the Canadian health care system, among other issues.

My intention is not to defend these men… I don’t know enough about any of them to give a strong opinion, and since they are no longer candidates, their personal character traits are no longer particularly relevant. But it’s important to take note of the willingness of both the NDP and the Conservatives to brush aside and punish candidates who express principled opinions that are politically inconvenient.

Also please understand that I’m not trying to stick up for the Liberals here… when it comes to principled governance, their ship sailed away a long time ago.

But isn’t the NDP supposed to stick up for the rights of “the common people?” And shouldn’t Stephen Harper retain some of the principles of the Reform Party, under whose banner he was originally elected back in 1993?

Both Layton’s NDP and Harper’s Conservatives seem perfectly willing to suppress dissent, hoping to keep potential “problem politicians” out of office, even if it means losing a riding or two. This only substantiates Liberal MP, Keith Martin’s belief that our current parliamentary system is designed to keep MPs “stupid and busy,” preventing them from spearheading any real change.

As a libertarian, I am quite sympathetic to candidates who hold reformist views towards issues like drug legalization, gun rights, and choice in health care. Our country’s main political parties, however, seem to hold the exact opposite view.

To quote 1964 U.S. presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” That’s the message we should be giving to our politicians.

The motive behind this proposed legislation, according to Harper, is the popularity of individually-packaged tobacco products (at “kid-friendly prices”) among Canadian teenagers. But this is just one more of those dumb policies where you have to step back and ask yourself: “what are they really hoping to achieve?”

It’s already illegal to sell tobacco to minors, yet teens who want tobacco products (including good old fashioned non-flavoured cigarettes) always manage to get them. Forcing tobacco manufacturers to put cigarillos in packages of five or ten won’t prevent this from happening.

If a retailer is irresponsible enough to sell tobacco products to children in the first place, what’s to stop them from cracking open the government-mandated packages and selling individual cigarillos under the table? Ditto for private citizens who agree to purchase tobacco products for kids.

This legislation will not prevent children and teens from getting their hands on tobacco products. It will only serve to inconvenience adults who want to purchase a legal product in an individual package.

It’s parents and families, not the State, that are responsible for educating children about the dangers of tobacco products. Stupid and arbitrary regulations won’t help.