The US has decided not to comply with rules it formerly agreed to and will ignore NAFTA rulings in regard to softwood lumber.  As a consequence, American home buyers are penalized, on average, $1000 when they buy a new house. So what does Canada propose doing about it?  We (meaning the Liberals) will fight those nasty Yanks by - you guessed it - punishing Canadians! This will possibly be done by applying hefty tariffs to corn-based products and wines. Will the Americans notice? It's very unlikely. We are a minor market for them. Any drop in exports to Canada will quickly be compensated for by buyers elsewhere.  So what real objective will Canada achieve? Absolutely nothing apart from our cost of living going up a bit. It's just another tax-grab.

You know where these additional revenues flowing in to Ottawa will go: straight to Quebec ... and into the pockets of friends of the Liberal Party, Bombardier, etc. 

• We now read reports that Jean's husband is an associate of the FLQ terrorists who kidnapped and strangled Pierre LaPorte but he has been circulating the theory these crimes were perpetrated by the Canadian government to discredit separatism.

• Both Jean and her husband are French citizens. This is no crime, to be sure, but makes for a very odd choice in GG considering the past of these people and the role France has played in our unity crisis.

During Jean's term of office it is not only possible but highly probable there will be another referendum on secession called in Quebec. If history has anything to tell us, France will yet again meddle in our affairs with veiled military threats and support for the "Yes" side. How will our "First Family" reconcile its conflicting loyalties in such a situation? How will Jean deport herself as representative of our head of state and, therefore, representative of the Canadian nation? Will she prove "Quebecois first" (as she has already proclaimed)? Haitian? French? What will her obligations as a French citizen mean?

It's obvious this appointment is just another step in the ongoing process of turning Canada over to Quebec and its secessionists. Evidently, the Prime Minister sat down in secret with his Liberal friends from Quebec and came up with a name likely to soothe the separatist beast or which, at least, it could not object to.  Canadian institutions and traditions mean nothing to this government which grows increasingly aloof from democratic practice

Michaelle Jean may very well prove a fine Governor General (replacing Adrienne Clarkson) but the appointment smells of "business as usual" in Ottawa. This is not a person at all well-known in Canada. She does, however, have these essential qualities consistent with the framework guiding federal decision-making:

• Works for the CBC, the Liberal party's tax-payer funded cheering-section.

• Is from Quebec and identifies herself as "Quebecois first, Haitian second"

• Her husband is a film-maker known for sympathetic portrayals of Quebec's secessionist movement

• Has negligible experience/knowledge of Canada outside the Toronto/Montreal corridor

• Has publicly expressed anti-American sentiment and hosted shows with such content

This looks like nothing more than the usual centrist thinking the Liberals have conditioned Canadians to accept, complete with pandering to Quebec secessionists and ensuring nothing happens at Rideau Hall that might might make the Liberals uncomfortable or cause voters in "The Blob" to fear any part of Canada except for their own will receive attention.

In an interview, Jean said she is "Quebecois first" and "Haitian second". No mention of being Canadian or how that would rank. Two days later another Haitian-born Montreal broadcaster delivered the morning CBC "Commentary" and rattled on for 5 minutes about how this appointment made her so "proud to be Haitian". You'd think Canada's many initiatives aimed at ensuring everyone - including Haitian refugees - receives a fair opportunity to succeed and just treatment before the law would make you proud to be Canadian - or am I missing the point?

Why am I not surprised that on "Heritage Day" the CBC airs yet another smug, sneering criticism of the US on "Commentary". Wouldn't it have been appropriate actually to feature something upbeat having to do with our heritage or is that too difficult?

Maybe. How about the very serious problems with our "heritage" then? For example, why doesn't Quebec celebrate Heritage Day with us or, for that matter, Canada Day? Why doesn't Quebec accept the Canadian constitution and why does it choose representing itself in parliament with secessionists? How's that for "heritage"? We despise each other so much we can't even share a national holiday. How would that be for a relevant topic, Mothercorp? Of course, we'll never have a "Commentary" along those lines, will we? Best to stick your head in the sand poke at your neighbors instead. That's the Canadian way.

If the Americans wanted to broadcast a nasty, insulting piece about Canada on, let's say, their Memorial Day they'd have plenty of ammunition.

What is it with us anyway that we have to be so petty and spiteful?
 

July 28, 2005  - "America's Nuisance Neighbor"

Barely has the dust settled on the London bombings than the CBC, mouthpiece of the Liberal Party, has issued a stiff encyclical to its journalists (any violation thereof presumably punishable by stoning) not to use the word "terrorist" or its derivations in connection with such incidents because doing so would suggest they are "taking sides in a dispute".  So, some  Islamist mercenary dreaming of 70 hairy virgins (Why can't these guys laid in the here and now anyway?) straps a few kilos of high explosive on his back and quite deliberately blows up a bus or train packed with civilians and this is symptomatic of a "dispute"?  Does the CBC really want to suggest the possibility that religious wackos who do these sorts of things might have a motivation civilized people would find acceptable?

Well, it does seem that in Canada, at least, there is a significant constituency finding Islamic terrorism quite alright.  The polls recently informed us a majority of Quebecers (feeding off the communist dominated French press which the French themselves do not read) do find the London bombings were justified so maybe the CBC just doesn't want to offend Quebec. After all, it's that sensitivity which is the driving force in Canadian politics and CBC journalism today. Having turned Canada over to Quebec, the government now wants to brainwash us with naive and bigoted Quebec public opinion by means of its public broadcaster.

We are fighting WWIII and anyone who doesn't believe that should start listening to the mullahs and the imams. Furthermore, we are letting "moderate" Islam off the hook too easily. The day after the bombings a Calgary Muslim Pooh-bah flapped his robes and publicly declared his disapproval of the attacks because it "grieves my heart when innocent Muslims are killed" (there were Muslim victims on the trains). I guess it doesn't matter if infidels are blown to bits or he would have worded that differently. Why doesn't the CBC examine the ambivalence of "moderate" Muslims toward terrorism or would that also be "taking sides in a dispute" - or offensive to the Liberal voter in Quebec?

A couple of months ago Anne McLellan screamed (she always screams yet it was Preston Manning's voice everyone detested) "Why does Stephen Harper hate Canada!?" This has become the new mantra of Liberal supporters. Even Adam Radwanski has jumped on this bandwagon.  If you criticize Liberal policies  you are by definition a traitor. But wouldn't it be even easier to suggest the Liberals hate Canada? After all, they are in a position to demonstrate with their actions in government how they feel about the country. Consider these examples:

(a) Dismembering Canada's armed forces. How can loving your country mean leaving it defenseless? When Denmark took over Hans island last year all Canadians could do was wring their hands.

(b) Twisting our democratic system all out of shape on behalf of people who despise Canada and say they want to leave ... Quebec secessionists.

(c) Shamelessly looting the treasury for partisan political and personal gain then having the gall to claim this was on behalf of "national unity" (how does paying two or three times for imaginary work done on a non-existent contract promote national unity?).

(d) Placing the privacy rights of armed and dangerous (according to the RCMP) war criminals ahead of the safety of Canadians.

(e) Operating a regime of state censorship and regulatory control in the area of media distribution that closely resembles what existed behind the Iron Curtain before it fell.

Paul Martin has struck a new low in appointing this failed former leader of the Alberta Liberal Party to the Senate. In his June 30 Senate speech Mitchell questioned the patriotism of conservatives and, among other things, accused westerners (Albertans in particular) of opposing multiculturalism, public health care, bilingualism and a whole lot of other nonsense which he identified as "western alienation". He then went on to praise Quebec, a province that actually has laws discouraging use of languages other than French and in which privately funded health care is now rampant.  He generally acted like an enemy of Alberta rather than a representative thereof - but then, he's a Liberal and we should know better than to expect a Liberal would behave any other way.

Mitchell was an executive with the notorious Principle Group around the time it was defrauding countless investors of their life-savings although he did manage to brush off the brown lumps that began sticking and went into provincial politics when the company collapsed. He should fit right in with Gagliano, Guite and the rest of the Chretien mob.

Hardly a day passes but we hear yet more news regarding Karla Homolka and her tribulations. The real problem is that liberal Canadians cannot figure out whether to suck or blow:

(a) First, they line up at the polls to vote for lefty politicians soft on crime and who support any initiative aimed at shortening sentences or easing measures aimed at making criminals accountable for their acts.

(b) Next, when these same criminals, deemed "likely to re-offend" and "still dangerous" are released upon serving their brief time, there is outcry and demand to have these offenders tagged, tracked by the cops and their privacy violated by any and every means.

Give me a break. If you want criminals leniently treated then live with the consequences. Homolka "paid her debt to society" in accordance with the rules Canadians approved. She plea-bargained for 12 years in the slammer, not 12 years plus harassment for life. Leave her alone. Dozens of known terrorists deemed "armed and dangerous" by the RCMP freely roam Canada and Justice minister Cotler refused publishing pictures or names because that would violate their privacy rights under the Charter. Is Homolka really more of a threat? Whence this double standard? What are Canadians thinking of when they endorse this sort of crap?

July 5, 2005  - Who's a Wacko?

The Calgary Herald's lead editorial today is inspired by the Canadian Council of Chief Executive's recent call for Canadians to take action as their government descends into impotence and decay. Herewith a choice excerpt:

" ... reasoning that the mere passage of years is sufficient cause for celebration, (Canadians) will note the 138th anniversary of this country's founding with revelry and a witless patriotism that confuses a culture of entitlement with national greatness.

That flake, Sasha Trudeau, is now offering to free Hassad Almrei on bail. Almrei trained with Al-Qaeda, entered Canada on a forged passport and his documented behavior convinced the judiciary he was a threat to national security. But Sasha finds his pal Hassad "tolerant". Read the Al-Qaeda training manual, Sasha. You have been taken, like most of your lefty ilk.

Almrei is no ordinary detainee. Granting him access to civilian court proceedings might very well require exposing to the enemy information of use to them. Let's not forget fundamentalist Islam has declared war on western democracies, aided by our tolerance of almost everything, access to military technology and oil wealth.

My greatest fear on behalf of Canada is that one of the remaining Trudeau spawn will assume the Liberal throne one day soon and usher-in a brief era of true fascism. We're almost there already but that would be the last straw. The Yanks will respond by bull-dozing the parliament buildings and I'll be right there helping them with a pick-axe.

Political columnists and "letters to the editor" have been lambasting Stephen Harper for questioning the legitimacy of Quebec separatists voting on legislation affecting all Canadians. Although Mr. Harper's flirtation with courage is likely to prove brief it is refreshing just the same. Not only do secessionists influence what laws we will and will not have but they also sit on numerous committees having to do with finance, defense and health care etc. yet, their only reason for being is to advance Quebec's interests and ultimately, tear the country apart. That Canadians so meekly tolerate and even defend this blackmail and outright abuse of our democratic system is a testimony to how much our self-esteem as a nation has rotted away. No one is denying the right of Quebecers to vote for whomever they wish but for them blatantly to send secessionists to parliament is unacceptable and - illegitimate. If that is how they wish being represented they should muster up the guts once and for all to secede rather than interfering in the affairs of another nation, which they never cease reminding us we are. No one is stopping them from going.
 

June 28, 2005  - The shoe is on the other foot

It wasn't more than a few days ago Liberals were yukking it up over Conservatives flogging a dead horse in form of the same-sex marriage issue. After all, the Supreme Court has ruled on that matter once and for all.  It's really fun now watching the Liberals - and that jumped-up windbag Ujjal Dosanjh in particular - squirming and squealing over possible ramifications of the court's decision regarding private health care insurance in Quebec. There is nothing in politics so dogmatic, sanctimonious and blindered as a socialist. Having one of their favorite oxen gored by their own court was a great way to end this year's session of parliament. Their summer is ruined, let's hope;-)

June 24, 2005  - There's no satisfying The Blob

More calls from the likes of Kinsella and Marsden for Stephen Harper to change his spots. No more tossing a football in his business suit. No more wearing an ethnic head-dress at special events. Blah, blah.  These are all red herrings. How do these critics explain Canadians swarming to the polls to elect Jean Chretien who was widely publicized doing the following (in his business suit every time):

(a) Falling over the backsides of horses in Normandy while trying to seize the reins from the coach driver.

(b) Hijacking a bicycle in Shanghai and riding away from the owner and police.

(c) Reviewing Canadian troops in Bosnia with his helmet on backwards.

(d) Falling on his face attempting to play basketball in a "photo-op"

(e) Strangling a heckler.

(f) "Canada leads the world in the exploration of space". A real Chretien boner delivered on one of his boondoggles to Japan.

Not one word of derision from Kinsella or anyone else all that time.

Chretien represented Canada for three dreary terms with this sort of jackass behaviour and it certainly did no harm to his electoral performance in Central Canada but ...  Stephen Harper is a loser because he tosses a football while wearing a jacket?  Let's not fool ourselves. Harpers' real sin is that he might just dare representing a few Western Canadian interests in Ottawa. That's the real reason The Blob  won't vote for him but they don't want to admit it outright because that would be "divisive".

June 20, 2005  - Wasting trees and time on Quebec again

Some Canwest papers today featured an article by James Ferrabee entitled "Talk of separation hurts Quebec most". The theme (which we have all heard a thousand times) was that perpetual secessionist threats cause money and the educated to leave Quebec. Ho hum. Does Ferrabee really think anyone outside Quebec could possibly be interested? Why is he telling us this? This is a self-inflicted wound. If Quebecers don't like it they have a simple solution: shut up about secession - put a sock in it (I will supply the sock). Practically every crisis, incident of corruption or scandal and the perversion of democracy itself in this country has its origins in Quebec. We'd all be better off if they just left anyway and the sooner the better.

June 14, 2005  - Mild Beatings are OK

While Ontario dithers over whether or not to permit use of Sharia law by resident Muslims in settling civil and domestic disputes, Hatim Zaghloul, head of the Muslim Council of Calgary and writing for the Herald suggests we infidels are laboring under several misconceptions concerning Sharia. He then goes on to explain that Sharia demands women be obedient to their husbands because Mohammad has assured us the latter are "stronger" and provide the "means" by which women live. A woman who is disobedient and unresponsive to reproach must only be "lightly" beaten. Well, that's a relief! Nice having that clarified.

This just in: Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean has announced Canada may henceforth ship its submarines to trouble spots by cargo ship rather than sailing them there. He did not mention if the submarines would actually be armed and put in the water once they got there but in consideration of military spending cutbacks and the condition of these tubs combat deployment does seem unlikely. They will remain on deck in a true "show of soft power". That's brilliant. No need to repair those leaks leaks anymore and the cost of crews can be dispensed with. Substantial numbers of the enemy can be counted on to die laughing, avoiding even more expense and effort.

To Pat O'Brien's credit he left the Libranos to sit as an independent (for now) rather than negotiating a cushy position in the inner circle of one of the Opposition parties. But his reason for leaving partakes of the same general ignorance afflicting many Kanuckistanis, to the effect that:  Paul Martin does not have "a democratic mandate" for pushing through a legislated re-definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

The plain fact is this train has left the station - like it or not. In Canada the final (and in some cases first) arbiter of what can and cannot be legislated is determined by 9 Supreme Court judges, appointed by the prime minister without any public examination of their views or judgements in previous positions. Interpretation of the loosely worded Charter of Freedoms and Rights is made by these judges who are accountable to no one. As justice Minister Cotler bragged a few weeks ago, Canada is well set on the path to abandoning parliamentary democracy in favor of a "constitutional democracy". Pierre Trudeau hated democracy and the Charter was his means of ensuring parliament ("a bunch of nobodies" in his words) was permanently diminished.

Whether this will all prove good or bad for Canada must be left to the history books. Ditto for the redefinition of marriage which the Supreme Court has already approved. What we do know for certain is that no amount of plebisciting, cocktail party debate, election promisies or challenges by the Opposition can ever change the court ruling allowing Paul Martin to do what O'Brien and others oppose - re-define marriage to include same-sex couples.

If O'Brien and others uncomfortable with the way Canada now works don't like it and are looking for someone to blame I suggest looking in the mirror. None of this came to be at the point of a gun but in the polling booth. Suck it up.

No surprise here that Bernard Laundry has been eased out of his post as leader of the PQ (you know he was forced;-)) to make way for the articulate, subtle and persuasive communist Gilles Duceppe who will easily win a leadership contest should he choose contesting. Want more predictions?

Now the Liberals are trying to spin this latest seedy affair into an invasion of their privacy and a "sting". Well, maybe it was a sting and it's not impossible Grewal & family really did want a deal (they seem pretty seedy themselves). But none of that excuses the Liberanos for leaping at this like a trout to the fly. And as for their insistence Grewal would never have been offered a cabinet post because of his inexperience, well ... that's just pathetic in consideration of the fact Stronach has no experience either yet landed HR.

May 29, 2005 - Deja vous all over again?

"They are probably considered to be the Kennedys of Canada" gushes Nancy Wajsman, wetting herself over the Justin Trudeau/Sophie Gregoire nuptuals. 

How Kanuckish! The papers are full of advice to Stephen Harper along the lines that "Canadians do not like angry white men". Shouldn't we all be angry at what has been going on? Would a happy brown woman prove a more acceptable leader of the Opposition?  Should we just paste on a grin and pretend everything is OK? The plain fact is the Canadian populace refuses holding the Liberals to account for their actions and will accept any excuse to avoid considering alternatives. Just what will it take? Quite apart from the obvious fraud, money laundering and legally questionable inducements offered Opposition members if they will switch sides this current Prime Minister is proving no less disastrous than the former. He consorts with terrorists, hobnobs with "bonehead" Bono, praises (twice) our WWII forces for taking the beaches of Norway and arrives a day late for WWII commemorative services in Europe (making Joe Clark look cool). After promising to address the "democratic deficit" and to consider his mandate failed if he does not reconcile differences between the West and Central Canada he fought his first election campaign by - guess what - demonizing the West - just like his nemesis, The Jeanfather. In his desperation to win the next election he now indulges in giveaways promising return of deficit budgeting. And dumb Canucks lap it up. Hey! We're awright, Jack!

May 25/2005 - "The Newest Liberal"

Belinda Stronach landed herself on the front cover of this week's Canuckanized issue of TIME magazine (page 21). As always - it's mostly about Quebec and a little bit of Ontario. To quote Ms. Stronach:

"The consequences in Quebec of an election threaten our national unity."

"I felt the party needed to grow and the issues that we needed to deal with that would connect with voters, particularly in my community in Ontario."  (sic).

Not one word about "the democratic deficit" or corruption that has touched our most sacred democratic institutions.

This morning's CBC "Commentary" featured a journalist from Halifax pleading the case we must not have another federal election until "Quebec secessionists have been soothed" (his exact words). Haven't we been trying to "soothe" Quebec secessionists for decades? Didn't ADSCAM grow out of a massive attempt to "soothe" Quebec by pouring even more of our tax dollars into that problem and back under the table again into the Liberal's war-chest? Just how much more "soothing" is needed? Paul Martin has already promised an election this year. How would a few more months of "soothing" do the trick?  What would it take? Appoint Duceppe Prime Minister? Deport everyone who does not speak French? Round up and imprison all members of the Conservative Party? Or have them shot? A couple of $billion more to Bombardier? Send the army into Calgary to secure a couple of seats for the Liberals here? I'm sure you would find a lot of support in this so-called country for most or all of those desperate measures to "reach out" to Quebec.

Martial Law?

Since all Canadian taxpayers must pony-up to keep Bombardier afloat shouldn't all Canadians have a crack at the benefits and at control of the company?  At present, the company maintains a stratified regime of qualified shares, ensuring that control of the company does not leave hands of "the family" in Quebec. Bombardier should begin acting like a proper Canadian citizen and put all its shares on the open market -  voting shares to all who want to buy them - if it is to receive any more public money. Anything less and this is just supports another scam on behalf of buying powerful business influence inside Quebec for the purpose of keeping the Liberals in power - but that's hardly a new thing.

Of course, this would risk control of Bombardier becoming subject to influence from outside Quebec but isn't Bombardier already exerting control over the rest of us through its ties to the Liberals? Why should this be a one-way street?

Today Belinda Stronach crossed the floor of the House to sit as a Liberal Cabinet Minister (how nice!) where she would probably have been more comfortable to begin with. Her public reason? Apparently to "put the country first" by thwarting Opposition attempts to cause an election this June. Especially interesting was her additional observation that the Conservatives do not yet have a base in Quebec and thereby lack credibility as a national Party.  I cannot recall a single instance of Ms Stronach ever criticizing the Bloc Quebecois running as a national party (and receiving Canadian taxpayer dollars to fund its campaigns) even though it has candidates only in Quebec. The Liberal Party holds only one constituency in Alberta but this does not, apparently, persuade Ms. Stronach to question the Liberal's legitimacy either.

A principle argument used against Ms. Stronach becoming leader of the Conservatives was that she lacked experience but this does not seem to bother the Liberals who find her competent to take on an important cabinet position having never even sat on the government benches. It would be interesting to know what qualifies her for the job (as if we don't know!).

Of course, it's "all about Quebec" as usual. As a thoroughly trained Centrist  Stronach could not for long endure a Party environment proposing change to the existing regime of corruption, pandering and backroom deals intended to keep things just as they are.  As G. B. Shaw once remarked "The dog will return to his vomit" and Stronach was missing hers.

Wonder what she and Peter McKay are going to talk about next time they're on a hot date? For how long did McKay know this and why didn't he, as second-in-command warn his boss? Will McKay cross over too?