December 21, 2015

Interim leader Rona Ambrose on Liberals “making it up as they go along” -- and the task of rebuilding the right

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

Recently, I sat down with Interim Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose for a substantive discussion about her experiences and impressions of the Trudeau government so far, what Canadians can expect in the years ahead and what’s next for the party. 

We review the stark philosophical contrasts between the Conservatives and every other party on several policy fronts and despite some concerns, she shares her reasons for optimism in what she believes will be an exciting time ahead for the Conservative Party and the conservative movement in general. 

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

Canada needs a conservative infrastructure to influence the culture!
SIGN UP at RebuildTheRight.ca to be part of this new movement

"Don't blame me: I voted Conservative"
The t-shirt that says it all -- ONLY from TheRebel.media store!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-12-23 13:42:10 -0500
DEBORAH GRAUPNER

You can read? Will wonders ever cease?
commented 2015-12-23 11:45:15 -0500
AB Patriot – I just wanted to let you know that I never read your responses, so knock yourself out!
commented 2015-12-22 21:13:14 -0500
SHARON MOORE

And so…another progressive has their pantaloons in a knot – btw, all progressives tend to wear pantaloons, because they are considered gender-neutral underwear. As for calling on women to kill their husbands – you’re a fan of Kathleen Wynne, I take it? And you see nothing wrong with mothers aborting their children? Oh, my. What we reveal when we go off half-cocked. (There I said that word – don’t be frightened now, little lady.)

As for your sage advice about not allowing citizens to have a tax cut, because they will do something stupid with their own money, if you’re the sort of person that is participating in the conservative movement in Canada, than everything really is finished. But this is the problem with conservatives: (in Canada) they are like liberal-progressives in that they are calling for a nanny-state to look after everyone. Just keep all that social spending coming, because if conservatives don’t do it (and take the credit for it) the Liberals or NDP will. It’s your kind that is the product of public education: indoctrinated morons running around and showing off how stupid they are. I take it you’re a huge fan of Michelle Rempel? Than go start her fan club, already – call it “Twits R’Us”.

So, you admit Harper’s moving to the Left was all about getting power. Bingo! The truth is out. Well, it seems that once he got power, Harper didn’t have a clue what to do with it, apart from doing everything that was liberal. You say, “some conservatism is better than none” – well, talk about being thankful for half-measures and utter failures. You know Harper only has a masters degree, which are a dime a dozen, btw. And he’s worked in government his whole life, which proves he’s one to embrace low expectations. At least it got him the first real job he’s ever had – until he pissed it away in a dumb-assed election call. A seventy-seven day election was a good move how? That’s like playing Russian Roulette with five bullets chambered.

As for you calling JT a “twit”, well, conservatives these days are surrounded by twits. And unless there is a severe, extraordinarily cruel, and complete housecleaning of the conservative movement in Canada, I can see the CPC merging with the Liberals before long. And for good reason, too – their single brain cell got lonely, and the Liberals single brain cell would be good company.
commented 2015-12-22 20:31:25 -0500
Wow, AB patriot! You must be a real lady killer on online dating sites (sarcasm, in case you didn’t realise it). If you are married, your wife should have a monument built for her for putting up with your knuckle dragging shite.
Considering all of the great achievements women HAVE done since laws came in dictating that you can’t beat us anymore which prevented us from accomplishing anything except be a housewife, (although in my humble opinion, giving every women a 45 would have solved that problem) here is one thing we parasitic women can do. We can flush a toilet. This is something your mother should have done after you popped out.
As far as the Conservatives go, you obviously have not been paying attention. You live in a progressive country with a lot of dumb people in it. If you gave them an across the board tax cut they would not notice it as much as targeting the audience with boutique tax credits and cutting the GST . I didn’t like it, but this is part of what kept the Tories in power for almost a decade. There are plenty of things I would have liked the Conservatives to do. But I know, and Stephen Harper knew (who is 100 times smarter than you are), that if he did the things you and I wanted him to do he would NEVER. ACHIEVE. POWER. EVER. Duh. Some conservatism is better than none, especially considering what the alternative is and unfortunately we are living it. BTW, some ‘twit did win the election. And he’s a man.
commented 2015-12-22 19:15:25 -0500
DEBORAH GRAUPNER

Let the women do it? We’ll be an a facsimile of a Soviet Gulag before you know it.

Women are parasites, by nature. They do not build, create, invent…nothing really of value. They are not builders, engineers, nor anything else of consequence. If women ran the world, we’d still be living in mud huts and working by candlelight.

With women, the government will do everything…I wouldn’t be surprised if someone came up with the Ministry of Good Diet, to make sure everyone ate the right things…the things the government says they should eat. No one would make more than a certain income, because it’s unfair to do better than anyone else. All cars would be a certain size – small – so no one will feel inadequate. And everyone will have to learn how to swim, because all the bridges would fall in and no one will know how to build another one. (But why have a bridge when you can swim?)
commented 2015-12-22 18:46:51 -0500
DEBORAH GRAUPNER

I could run, and I would destroy them – in a perfect world, where citizens knowledge the primacy of the Individual, and the criminality of government.

However, Canada is infected with progressivism, where nobody even thinks to do anything without the government’s approval. Government runs your life; regardless of the party in power, it have one mission and one mission alone: to accumulate power and expand imperially. Harper failure was that he took, really the only well-paying job he’s ever had, and decided to do nothing with it. He governed as a liberal and expected the whole CPC caucus to do likewise. He decided that ruinous centrism was more important than conservatism and governed accordingly. Boutique-tax credits? Why not just legislate a pure tax-cut? No tricks, no liberal baffle-gab. Harper never saw a deficit he didn’t life – why? He’s a liberal. He should have, at the very least, balanced the budget the moment he had a majority. Instead, he went off on some warm and fuzzy “Action Plan” that only proved Harper was never a conservative. A wholesale roll back of regulations? Never happened. Harper was only interested in staying employed. And then, the most idiotic election campaign ever – what a delusional twit. He’s an utter failure – why is anyone even talking to him? Why has he not been turned out of the CPC caucus? Why have they not demanded his resignation? He is unworthy to sit as a conservative, as is everyone in the CPC caucus. Get rid of them all and start over again.
commented 2015-12-22 17:32:21 -0500
AB Patriot – why don’t you run, since you seem to think that you have everything and everyone’s motives figured out? Maybe if some real men came forward to lead, then we wouldn’t need the women to do it.
commented 2015-12-22 17:00:04 -0500
What all conservatives NEED to recognize was that Harper was an utter failure as PM. His government did little to push back government – if anything, government’s powers grew and was protected during the CPC’s tenure. (Boutique tax-credits and constant interference in the economy are just two examples of Harper’s stupidity.) The CPC stood for nothing, save for staying in office, so they could do a lot more nothing. In the end, they were no more than LBANs. (Liberals By Another Name) Or, more succinctly, CINOs. And notice that there is no stampede toward the leadership – no new blood coming into the party? Why? Because the CINOs have closed ranks and are preventing any advance of the conservative brand that they defend, which is just the Liberal brand. One need only look to the utterly incompetent Michelle Rempel of every that’s wrong in with the party. One day, and on the CBC no less, she’s a cheerleader for the Liberals’ refugee initiative. The next moment, in the House, she’s trying to criticize the initiative. She can’t be a cheerleader and a critic at the same time. And then, she tries to pull the feminist guilt-trip card when her feelings are hurt. Well, boo-hoo, little lady – you were caught being dishonest and you paid for it. Run home and cry about being in the wrong party, now. What a twit! And there’s too many like her in the CPC that must be turfed out before a great cleansing can begin.
commented 2015-12-22 16:32:18 -0500
REBELATION;
Ooops. The aging process is not user friendly…or maybe it’s all the wrestling matches with knot head horses I lost…carelessness is not something I would readily admit to.
If I may redirect that comment to you…who my addled brain I originally meant it for…
And I bet we have many of the same items on that list.
commented 2015-12-22 15:49:56 -0500
Dan. Your last comment was to Patriot or to me?
I think some are beating up on AB Patriot. He’s got some good points, including that today’s conservatives aren’t very conservative, and you don’t “walk it back” by being, or pretending to be – a Lefty. You give everyone a real good smack and knock it back (think Donald Trump). How many of us are disappointed in things Harper coulda / shoulda but didn’t do?
I got a list . . . . .
commented 2015-12-22 15:10:59 -0500
AB PATRIOT;
For clarification purposes:
Was my "grave error in reading Hayek " in reading him, or in my understanding of his book – or not?
When you say, “… the beginning of The Road to Serfdom.”, is this what you’re referring to?
“… The supreme tragedy is still not seen that in Germany it was largely people of good will who, by their
socialist policies, prepared the way for the forces which stand for everything they detest. Few recognize that the rise of fascism and Marxism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period but a necessary outcome of those tendencies…”
As for my “…own description of “conservatives”…”, you will note the quotation marks after my ‘two cents worth’, which was a two minute copy/paste of that wiki page…the confusion about conservatism, liberalism is the problem.
In any event, I’m glad someone’s listening and thinking, and your comment only acts to intensify the basic truth and imperativeness of my statement: “…this is definitely the kind of discussion that needs to be had for conservatives…”, if not for our very country!
I hope you will forgive my unsophisticated grasp of economics, I have no high school diploma and spent many years working in the bush with horses and cows…
commented 2015-12-22 13:05:29 -0500
PETER NETTERVILLE

What the CPC proposed is a completely undesirable form of conservative that will do nothing to advance the movement. No where was the word “individual” mentioned with any importance. When the CPC thinks of the individual, it’s meant in a not serious sort of way. What they should stand for is the diminishment and destruction of the apparatus of government, expose the criminality of the civil service, and declare that government is opposed to the aspirations of the Individual. The Individual is paramount, stands over everyone and everything, and has the absolute power in the face of opposition. (Freedom does come from he barrel of a gun.) If the CPC declared that they are in favour of the dissolution to Canada to further conservatism, I’m all for it; because that’s the only way it’s going to happen. (And it with any luck, it still will happen, as Canada is a toxin.)

Since the CPC wants to elect MPs to comfortable public office, and a place at the trough, their statement of principles serves that purpose. If you’re willing to vote for a bunch of CINOs and grant them cushy jobs where they can get paid to do nothing, go for it. Self-delusion is really your thing.
commented 2015-12-22 12:55:08 -0500
EDWARD JOBIN

Since your pea-sized brain didn’t catch on…oh, whatever, you can’t.

It’s a rig. Ambrose is trying to legitimize herself by running to the left. (to be at the centre) She’s one of those conservatives that wants the government to do stuff, like liberals want the government to do stuff. She’s a liberal, what would do things different from the Liberals. Well, actually, almost like the Liberals. Maybe sort of like the Liberals. Of heck, why doesn’t she just cross the floor right now, and take Rempel, Kenney, and others with her. JT has taken in CPC MPs before – he a pretty generous sort in that way.
commented 2015-12-22 12:08:47 -0500
@ Dan Mancuso – Though it is important to read the historical origins of the various definitions of conservatism, they do not describe very well the current Conservatives in Canada. Those are to whom I was referring in my earlier comments.

@ab Patriot – I do not are with you definition of a “true conservative”, but I do agree that the current federal Conservative must start with a clear definition of conservatism. They have done this already. Those documents are posted at the following link. http://www.conservative.ca/our-party/governing-documents/

The problem is that when the Conservatives took office in Feb 2006, they did not govern fully as their own constitution dictates. Then they proceeded to increase the size of government and break their own constitution in other ways as well. If they held to their constitution, then they would govern more like most conservatives in Canada would like.

What you propose by ridding society of all government would result in anarchy, survival of the strongest. I am not on that mind. I prefer order. But I no not prefer a government that continues to grow and continues to exert more and more control over the lives of the citizens within its’ jurisdiction. This is possible without the abolition of all government as you propose.
commented 2015-12-22 10:48:19 -0500
In any event event I wish AB Patriot a long and happy life. He will need twenty of them to accomplish his lofty goals and even the chances are none. Why not try to reach for the attainable?
commented 2015-12-22 10:45:28 -0500
Drew Wakariuk: Of course we pay for it, and the government regulates it. Who is going to be in control if not the government? Anybody who wants to? Of course not we need a regulatory body to stop any idiot from doing anything they want. What AB Pattriot has proposed is so ridiculous it barely deserves answering because it will never ever come to be. So to waste time and words is unnecessary? Drew whose currency are you going to use? I think we are long past the bartering with goats and pigs. So whose currency are you going to use? And please explain to me how you are going to get the public to vote for this knowing that many of them are going to be out of a job? I think the purpose of this discussion was to talk about how to rebuild the right’s influence in society not to totally dismantle society. This suggestion of AB Patriot’s is nothing but a wasteful distraction. As if the right didn’t have enough divisions and difficulties to deal with without reaching out and trying to embrace the absurd.
commented 2015-12-22 07:33:23 -0500
If the Right wants to be united, it had better start by defining what conservatism is, and do so in a manner that separates it from what is defined as liberal-progressivism. The current crop of conservatives has no problem with socialized medicine, an expansion of the welfare state, legislating a feminist agenda upon society, regulation of everything, the curtailment of individual Liberties…in fact, they have become liberal-progressives themselves. There is no one in the CPC that has any interest in defining conservatism, short of assuring that they are reelected and can remain at the trough of public finance. Or, crossing the floor and siding up to the same that trough that the Liberals are slopping in right now – Ambrose and her ilk are proof of that.
commented 2015-12-22 00:04:27 -0500
Dan. I’m shocked! For starters, I usually quite enjoy your comments, but you’ve made a grave error in reading Hayek. Go back to the beginning of The Road to Serfdom. In his day, Lefty’s were referred to as conservatives, and Righty’s were considered Liberals. Go back and read your own description of “conservatives” – you’ve described today’s Lefty’s to a T. Go back to the intro to The Road to Serfdom, you’ll see this explanation there.
commented 2015-12-21 22:38:07 -0500
Edward Jobin we pay for that stuff with our taxes, the government does not pay for it.
commented 2015-12-21 22:37:47 -0500
AB PATRIOT (and PETER NETTERVILLE) ;
You present an interesting and unorthodox take on conservatism. Some points you make I can’t help agree with, some I wouldn’t admit to agreeing with in public, and some that are a bit out there. But this is definitely the kind of discussion that needs to be had for conservatives…I offer my two cents here:
“…Conservatism is a political ideology which maintains as its defining trait an opposition to drastic societal change.1 Conservatives generally seek continuity of the status quo while the changes they do advocate usually seek a return to some past period which they believe to be ideal. Conservatism also promotes the power of government as the chief mechanism for limiting unwanted change and maintaining their version of the ideal society, and as such it is often associated with statism.2 Another primary trait of conservatism is the belief in the existence of superior individuals whose values and ways of life should be protected and promoted. Furthermore many conservatives believe that these individuals should also have a greater influence on political affairs.3
Views of conservatism by members of the Austrian School[edit]
Many thinkers related to the Austrian School of Economics have expressed their views on conservatism with a common emphasis being on how it differs from the classical liberal tradition and also how this ideology often is an impediment to individual freedom.45
In Friedrich Hayek’s book ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ he included the postscript Why I Am Not a Conservative in which he outlined his many disagreements and concerns with the conservative viewpoint. He emphasizes his belief that conservatism is counter to his view of spontaneous order, which he believes is one of the most essential components of a free and prosperous society, and he states the following:
This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy.—Friedrich Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
Hans-Hermann Hoppe takes a different view of conservatism than do many other Austrian School thinkers, but this is largely due to him rejecting the traditional definition of conservatism. He believes that conservatism viewed as an opposition to change or preservation of the satus quo is largely empty in meaning as the status quo is never the same at different times or places. Or as he put it: Because different laws, rules, and political institutions are in place at different times and/or different locations, what a conservative supports depends on and changes with place and time. To be a conservative means nothing specific at all except to like the existing order.—Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed
Due to the the perceived empty meaning of the traditional definition of conservatism, Hoppe advances a different definition which relates to his concept of natural order: “Conservative refers to someone who believes in the existence of a natural order, a natural state of affairs which corresponds to the nature of things: of nature and man.”6 Conservatism defined in this manner differs significantly from the colloquial definition in that it specifies what conservatives want to maintain, i.e. the natural order, rather then an abstract and constantly changing status quo." wiki
Terms like ‘spontaneous order’ and ‘natural order’, etc., are defined in this link: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Conservatism
The current orthodoxy is not working, and certainly not for The People…
commented 2015-12-21 21:15:16 -0500
The liberals are a shameful , illogical, ideological bunch of kleenex blowers… and that juvenile, rock star idiot PM THINKING he can lead a country….just listen to those who have grounded , practical, specific statements about how this country can survive….no this is NOT meant for libby voters…. cause they could not understand logic if it was explained to them as if they were three year olds…
commented 2015-12-21 20:36:57 -0500
Lead the way Ms Ambrose, lead us back to some form of sanity. Liberal policy will ruin Canada permanently, we must hope that it will not be to late and we have not reached the point of no return, before the next election.
commented 2015-12-21 19:59:11 -0500
Good to see the conservative interim boss get interviewed by the rebel.
commented 2015-12-21 19:48:37 -0500
CATHY ROCHFORD

Considering that the interim CPC leader is also a liberal buffoon, you can have them as bookends.
commented 2015-12-21 19:47:05 -0500
PETER NETTERVILLE

This about all or nothing. Is that how all this got started? We can do something or them, and them, and them, and then them, and those people, and them, and them, and them… see how far a little bit can get out of control?
commented 2015-12-21 19:44:49 -0500
PETER NETTERVILLE said “Your conclusion is a bit stretched. First, you have not proven anything, but you have logically concluded, somewhat inaccurately, that governments exist to increase their power. Current experience might indicate that, but the true function of a government as defined in the constitution is to provide only the services necessary to protect the society and provide governance.”

Now, it appears that you taking liberties with the facts. The reality is that government – the culture of government – is all about accumulating power and expanding their budgets, as well as staff. What other tangible evidence is there that the government even exists? Governments are, as history has proven time and time again, imperial in their nature. Though many, and perhaps you, will declare that government serves the citizens, I propose the question how do you know? When government seeks to regulate your life, your business, your private affairs, and then tax you (by force) to pay for all that regulation, as well as its administration, I will argue that it’s clear that it’s the citizens who are serving that government. And that government can control them, push them around, take them to court, and imprison them for merely slightly the power of that government. Does the government serve the citizen, then?

True conservatives seek to limit, diminish, and end government; anything less is hardly conservative; if anything, since we know that government knows only to grow, it cannot be trust to limit or diminish itself, and will resist any effort to do so. Again, history has proven this to be true.

Are people “benevolent” “altruistic” or reasonable? They don’t have to be, because government will do it for them – and often against their will. But you seem to believe that benevolence and altruism are a good – are they really? Universal benevolence and altruism accomplishes one thing and one thing only: a mass of social parasites feeding off of the few who are compelled to contribute. Why do anything if someone else can do it for you, while someone else pays for it? Charity is simple-minded, mush-headed, addle-minded nonsense – that is the sort of thinking that drives the liberal-progressivist agenda that has lead to financial, if not moral, bankruptcy.
commented 2015-12-21 19:32:47 -0500
AB Patriot, from having read all your other reply posts to others, I see that you love to take someones words and run to the extreme with them. Is it all or nothing with you?
commented 2015-12-21 19:22:38 -0500
AB Patriot said, “You do realize that the only mission of any government is to grow itself, its budget, and its power? Correct?”

A true Conservative government is not, though I have to admit that we have not seen a true Conservative government in my life time (and that is a long time).

AB Patriot said, “Since I have proven that government is the enemy of all individuals, and all conservatives, to be truly conservative, should oppose the existence of government, it is better to have individuals govern themselves, in complete and total freedom. All laws are an infringement on the individual, where the individual is perfectly free to enforce their rights, by reasoned argument or by force of arms. Power comes from the barrel of a gun, but so does freedom.”

Your conclusion is a bit stretched. First, you have not proven anything, but you have logically concluded, somewhat inaccurately, that governments exist to increase their power. Current experience might indicate that, but the true function of a government as defined in the constitution is to provide only the services necessary to protect the society and provide governance..

But the more heinous conclusion … or maybe inaccurate is a better term … you express is that “all conservatives, to be truly conservative, should oppose the existence of government”. That is not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion from your initial argument would be that a true conservative would be opposed to the continual expansion of the government. And to that, I agree.

Your conclusion that "it is better to have individuals govern themselves, in complete and total freedom. " will only work if the people are benevolent and altruistic in nature (always looking to do the good for their society) otherwise chaos would most definitely ensue until one or more people establish order through a fiefdom or tribal type system, the strongest rules. Antinomianism does not work. A government must exist in one form or another.
commented 2015-12-21 19:13:30 -0500
Good to hear from the new interim conservative leader. She makes total sense, unlike the liberal buffoon PM.
commented 2015-12-21 18:35:12 -0500
J KAY

So, you have no problem with Ambrose supporting a government action to interfere with the activities and trade of a business ? My goodness. Will the professional do-gooding ever end? Seems to be it’s up to India to decide whether or not they want to import products made of asbestos – they know what it is and they can make their own decisions.

It seems that you like Ambrose because she’s a liberal busy-body. JT would be so proud of you.