"Economic researchers (see this, for example) believe when we reach a ratio of 90%, our economy will slow down."

Uh - I am guessing that we may be there already - maybe not at 90%, but certainly at the economic slow down part. Who knows how much poison is bad - and define "bad" or "economic slow down"  compared to what?. We can argue the practicalities all we want, but the fact is that it is immoral to extract resources from the citizenry at the point of a gun. And it doesn't work if happiness and prosperity is what you want. Most in government are interested in neither of those, unless it is for themselves or their buddies.

The revolution is coming. I eagerly await our new overlords - each one of us, over ourselves.

You are right. Immigration laws have to be changed big time - completely overhauled. There should be a trial period of time when deportation is much easier. Due process is necessary and just, but you lie? Buh bye.

I am not advocating status quo or open the flood gates with no recourse. In that vein, your proposal and Claire's are good to get a discussion about this going.

And Canada is pathetic when it comes to turfing bad people who are little more than criminals. I am an advocate of freedom, but the civil libertarians who help to keep those people in our country make my skin crawl. We do have to get serious about this stuff. Immigrants must respect our culture and our laws or they are not welcome and they will be sent packing.

My point would be that your examples are unacceptable and should be dealt with by force, to enforce freedom. I am not all kumbaya, lets hug in a multi-cultural world. I have no problem with shutting down radical mosques, deporting miscreants to their hate-filled countries if that is their origin - no compromise with evil.

Now you might say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of a cure. I would say that scatter shot prevention as you propose has a high price and that a pound of cure can be worth a ton of prevention. America has every right and in fact an obligation to protect itself and its free citizens - I just disagree with your proposal of banning Muslim immigration.

The statists and collectivists persisted. Some of their ideas remained active even within the republic and its ideals. From within and from without, there were threats. But that will always be so. That is particularly the nature of being different - being exceptional. You will have those around you who are threatened by a different world view, and some of them will be openly hostile.

So what? - I don't mean to be flippant, but the world is full of threats - human and not. The founding principles of the United States are both idealistic and practical as befits a good explanatory model. Freedom is even more valuable and more important in the modern world. Retreating behind walls is not an option. The safety of fortress America is an illusion.

Your greatest strength is the embrace of man as a free individual protected by a free republic. We can argue the specifics of that protection. Freedom leads to risk, but less freedom poses much greater dangers.

Claire, you are my kind of person. I love this piece and I love your comments in response. I am going to go a bit blue sky here.

America was a radical experiment - it was not founded as a conservative nation. The ideas and the people who made America the greatest country on earth were not afraid of the future, or of new ideas, or messiness. The old order of Europe and monarchies was overthrown and the people as individuals were given the power over their own lives with the protection of a republic.

The rest of the world is being introduced more and more to these ideas and to the potential of what humans and humanity can achieve. We are living in revolutionary times - some conservative values are timeless and need to be preserved - others need to be re-examined. But that is always true - the difference now is that ideas are freer to circulate.

America needs to rediscover its greatness, the founding principles which made it the exceptional home to the highest potential in the human spirit. Confidence and a ruthless commitment to ideals and principles will triumph - walls and fear will not. America is our best hope.

Hmm, I will resist the temptation to respond in kind. But I will say that I speak as a Canadian who identifies strongly with the United States and Americans. I am proud to be pro-American and I am open about that at all times in my country. I am very aware of what makes America great and I would like to see my own country follow the principles of your country much more closely, if not many of your current actions.

Sometimes a sympathetic and empathetic outsider can better recognize the truth. And I understand that there are many Americans here who oppose your suggestion as well. Long live America as it was conceived by your founders! Eh.

So change welfare, medicare and education - those are bigger threats than Islam per se.

Your proposal is understandable but wrong and bad for your country. It undercuts a fundamental ideal of the greatest country and the beacon of freedom in the world. Such a blanket ban would be ineffective in the short run and very damaging in the medium and longer term.

Vetting immigrants is wise - blanket bans such as this are not in your best interests now and certainly not in the future. The FDA, socialism and all other features of statism are based on prevention and social engineering at the point of a gun. Such ideas are antithetical to human life and success and the source of American exceptionalism.

This is an understandable proposal given the frustration with the current lack of will to address Islam head on, but it is not the solution.

Thank you for that! John Cleese or not, that is worthy of the man. It is very believeable that he is the author.

Having spent much of my high school years reciting Monty Python sketches with friends, I will never forget seeing them live at their peak in my hometown in Canada before they hit big in U.S.

All the prime sketches were included and they did three encores. Our hands were practically bleeding, begging for another, when the large overhead screen they had as part of the show flashed: "PISS OFF!" and the house lights immediately came on.

Seeing my comedy gods live was only matched by seeing the Who with Keith Moon. John Cleese is brilliant.

I feel your pain. When it comes to politics, my cynicism knows no bounds. I wish we had a Tea Party movement to keep them in line. But I have to give the Conservatives credit - I really thought that we would have some handicapped minority government. I had not been following the polls that much, but I feared that a Liberal NDP minority was possible. I really thought Harper had blown it, but I was happy to be wrong. I was so pessimistic that I watched only hockey last night until my son texted me with the good news.

Harper seems pretty low key and hopefully smart enough to keep things tidy. He seems to run a tight ship. I have all my fingers crossed, but I am hopeful. We have a good ship, with an able experienced captain, when the seas are likely to become much rougher - steady as shows goes.

Good point take. May I call you take?

I agree 100%. It is way past time to start rolling back legislation like this. I am sure we agree that there is never a time to make such legislation. No nation that calls itself free should even consider such restriction of free speech. It is chilling that those who hold a monopoly on the legal use of force would have such power over ideas and communicating those ideas.

I would love to see a gradual rolling back of all kinds of government regulation starting with thought control like this. It can be done if the will is there - baby steps, but start with this giant leap. Good point Mr. cannoli!

Hey I miss me too.

I think you and Dan are arguing about the glass being half full or half empty. I agree with Dan. I have found all of his posts reflect my analysis as well. Canada is hardly the poster child for perfect limited government, but we are doing a lot better than most and our government as well as our people can take some of the credit. Dan shares my concern that the present Conservative government could certainly set us on a path of destruction or let us slowly drift there. There are dangers.

Time will tell, but this election carries with it a great deal of good news and very little bad for the health and prosperity of Canada. The election also promotes our good relationship with the United States. The Conservative Party is consistently more pro-American than any other here - something I fully support.

Sorry - no. The success of the NDP is like the town nerd who is in nirvana because he got to first base with the town's "easy" girl.

Quebec has no consistency in its voting other than caprice and "what's in it for us?" Quebec has overwhelmingly supported all three major parties in the last two decades and the fourth separatist party which is dead for now. If there are red and blue states in the U.S., Quebec is paisley. The NDP could remain the second major party replacing the Liberals. This is not a big deal. In power as they are in some provinces, they are much more pragmatic and much less radical than E.J. Hill suggests.

Canada is doing very well right now, partially due to good fortune, but also due to relatively good policies and reasonable government over the past two decades. This election result predicts more of the same.

Finally, I can vouch for all of Dan Hanson's posts here. The man knows of what he speaks.

Ok Dan, this is officially a lovefest. Long gun registry should absolutely go for the reasons you say and your earlier thoughts are spot on. I could not and would not say it any better.

So if you are willing, if Harper screws up, you can be Prime Minister and I can be deputy. I'll have more time to sit around and smoke my pipe. Maybe we can both get invites to a Royal wedding or something. I won't ask for a lot of perks.

But here's hoping that we can both stay on the sidelines.

Dan I share your concerns. The saving grace will be that the general global financial turbulence we are in for should dampen enthusiasm for big spending and big debts - I hope.

My biggest concern is that the Conservatives become intoxicated with their "mandate" starting expensive legacy programs and making enemies of many of their supporters (including me) with social conservatism. The Conservatives can do a great deal to improve the lives of every Canadian if they do not over-reach. As I have counseled before - baby steps. In Canada we have the luxury of that. In most parts of the world, governments are going to be forced into draconian measures.

My only words to Mr Harper are "don't screw things up!" I am all for change in many areas, but slow and steady will win the race. Lead, but gently and intelligently. Canada is in a wonderful position and can build on that if we are virtuous and wise.

Dan, again I completely agree - we are in for interesting times and hopefully good ones. I wouldn't write off the Liberals quite yet, but there is a good chance they are a spent force. In my province of Manitoba, the Liberals are a spoiler party - they can tip races either way, between the Conservatives and the NDP.

We are governed by the NDP and they are a tolerable bunch who are pragmatic. My politics are such that none of the mainstream parties come close to my ideal, but the NDP are hardly wide-eyed radicals when they are in power. The potential is there to be sure - they say scary stuff and only do a bit of it.

You are right that many of the NDP winners will be detrimental to their party's success with most voters. And for now the BQ and separatism are dormant. The NDP have reaped the rewards. Quebec votes capriciously - always will.