Saturday, December 6, 2008

Let Them Put Their OWN Money Into Their OWN Collection Plate

Presently, the Sierra Club of Canada fraudulently benefits from charitable status by drawing membership monies through its so-called educational “Sierra Club Foundation”, then deploying that money to promote partisan political activity, ie., telling people who not to vote for. Federal political parties also enjoy similar tax benefits for promoting their ideologies. Churches push their world views and benefit from the tax subsidies of non-believers. Multicultural groups and ethnic lobbies promote a particular belief system or a set of values and receive tax money for doing so. In some provinces independent schools that promote a religious faith receive tax revenue collected from people of competing faiths and people who reject religion. The governing parties in every provincial legislature and in the House of Commons publish thinly veiled partisan propaganda paid for by all taxpayers that they call neutral information, information that should be edited by a non or bi-partisan editorial board. There is one quote that describes these ethics, or lack of them. And naturally, it didn’t issue from Canada: It came from Thomas Jefferson,

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Ask this question: What is the quid pro quo for being on the take? Does government ever give, without it asking something in return? Do corporations? Would an organization that makes noise, revolutionary noise, about challenging the way things are run receive favoured tax treatment? Why does the Sierra Club receive charitable status for not opposing mass immigration and Immigration Watch Canada not receive charitable status for opposing it? The latter does not support or reject any political parties while the former certainly does. Perhaps because it is deemed “respectable”, as my local Sierra Club group boasted that it was. Respectably accepting Ottawa’s bringing in half a million consumers into the country every year and respectably making no comment about a British Columbia family having their 18th child in August. Talk about increasing your footprint. Turning a blind eye to the cheap labour agenda of growing the labour pool through mass immigration and birth incentives is premium the environmental groups pay for taking their charity money. But if they make noise on federal government climate change policy as the BC Sierrans did this fall, a federal government grant magically gets cancelled.

Anytime you accept a government grant you are accepting hush money. Soviet writers learned that. Canadian political parties, environmental NGOs, and churches are no different than the advocates that the Chinese, or the Soviet and Eastern European authorities used to appoint on your behalf if you were charged with a crime. It offers a pretence of protection. But they are on a leash and can go only so far. Government-subsidized opposition is Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Not to be trusted with your best interests at heart. Or your money.

See also Between 2004 and 2008, Canadians will have spent $290 million on subsidies to federal political parties

No comments: