Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Daily Digest September 20, 2011

on, equivocation or reservation of any kind


U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America:
The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights


>>>>>>>>>>INFOS <<<<<<<<<< []


From: Robert Ede
Subject: 90K a day? ridiculous!

Harper gov't hires 'cuts' consultant at $90,000 a day to trim federal spending
....."As always, our government is committed to maintaining an open, fair and transparent procurement process while obtaining the best possible value for Canadians."

Deloitte must also provide an information specialist to advise on "disposing of information," and "co-ordinating Access to Information and Privacy Act requirements." The expert will also be "responsible for the efficient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records."
Someone told me bureaucrats were gonna get bonuses for implementation no article yet so don't know if its true. But if so: NO!  NO!!  NO!!! . . .
From: Ron Thornton

Hi Joe:

I must admit I had to laugh when I heard the NDP are out there fighting for even more Parliamentary representation for those poor beleaguered souls in Quebec. I must say that your argument as to what is truly the Quebecois nation, being those who share that cultural background and NOT those who make up the Province of Quebec, is right on and, to me at least, resolves the question.

If being "a nation" means having more and more seats in Parliament, then I'm guessing my aboriginal relatives have something to add to their "to-do" list. After all, we represent 4% of the population, and that should be worth at least 15 seats, don't you think?

Ron Thornton
Edmonton, Ab

From: "S Booiman"
Subject: Quebec

What goes around . . .
It is about time that some one tells Quebec that they are no more than the
Rest of the Country. We have heard enough over the last 125 years about
Quebec special status because, as they claim are of French heritage, whom
lost the battle 1763 and joined the British on the end to become on of them. All
that has little to do of those that are indeed French, but mainly with the political
left leaning. often Nazi style. demands of Quebec City politicians and some fanatic
"French" residents. Those "French" bilingual, largely our bureaucrats, are smart
enough to cross the border and move to English speaking Canada were the jobs are,
and again fanatics. demanding to be served in French. But over the last 40 years of
enforced bilingualism costing from 1969 to 2010 some $ achieving
nothing. Time to clear they air and expect all to become Canadians among Canadians,
with that removing the blanket of multiculturalism, the convenient excuse not to
become one of the majority, those that reach out and "welcome" them.

From: Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: [On-Guard] What goes around---

Joe--I have a headache after reading this crap.  Will Harper agree when Quebec goes to the UN for statehood(am not making light of the Palestinian situation).
Just what we need--more pigs at the trough.  I imagine the argument for more MPs is so 'they can serve us better'?  If 308 of them can screw us up so badly what will more of them do other than cost us so much more for nothing.

How can anyone make something so stupid 'clear'?  That a province of a country be designated as a Nation already states that it is not part of Canada.  How they scramble to get votes!  I doubt if he will say or do anything.  His words are gospel to him and he means what he says--I just hope it bites him where the sun don't shine.


From: Henry Atkinson
Subject: Fwd: Calls to and from Canada:  A must read

Begin forwarded message:

From: Thomas
Date: September 19, 2011 5:48:28 PM EDT (CA)

Calls to and from Canada A MUST read!

A lot of us do not realize this option is open to us.

Any time you call an 800 number

(for a credit card, banking, charter communications, health and other insurance, computer help desk, etc. etc.. )

and you find that you're talking to a foreign customer service representative

(with an accent difficult to understand/ perhaps in India, Philippines, etc),

please consider doing the following:

After you connect and you realize that the Customer Service Representative is not working in Canada..

(you can always ask, if you are not sure about the accent), please, very politely

(this is not about trashing other cultures)

say, "I'd like to speak to a Customer Service Representative in Canada."

The rep might suggest talking to his/her manager,

but, again, politely say, "Thank you, but I'd like to speak to a Customer Service Representative in Canada ."


That's the rule and the LAW.

It takes less than one minute to have your call re-directed to Canada .

Tonight when I got redirected to a Canadian Rep, I asked again to make sure - and yes, she was from Calgary .

Imagine what would happen if every Canadian Citizen insisted on talking to only Canadian phone reps, from this day on.

Imagine how that would ultimately impact the number of Canadian jobs that would need to be created ASAP.

If I tell 10 people to consider this and you tell 10 people to consider doing this - see what I mean...it becomes an exercise in viral marketing 101.

Remember - the goal here is to restore jobs back here at home - not to be abrupt or rude to a foreign phone rep. You may even get correct answers, good advice, and solutions to your problem - in real English.

From: Robert Ede
Subject: "Regime Change" for Ontario

We are headed for a minority (hung) legislature.
Good and so be it.

Perilous times ahead and leadership will be necessary

Dalton has no vision and no promises that we can rely upon.

The PCs are stumbling and there is no appetite (nor the environment) for C.S.R part 2.

The NDP ... Well they are the UnionD.P and are not going to be 1990-lucky again.

So the solution is an all-the-talents government, one where we elect the 'person' locally
who most feels they way we do and have the cabinet formed on a prorata basis based
on the seats in the assembly.

Let the speaker hold a ballot for who should chair that cabinet.

We need the most suitable members to decide on the hard choices ahead:
debt financing, health coverage funding, energy, waste, municipal autonomy
and fiscal mgmnt, anticipatible taxation and spending plus plain old honourable
respect for the citizen/subjects of the Crown.

Further suggestion raise the 'majority vote' approval level to two thirds -now that's consensus!

Robert Ede
Subject: Palestinian State Declared ..... in 1947!!! (G Jonas NatPost Sept 3/11)

Palestine goes the unilateral route
National Post

George Jonas  Sep 3, 2011 – 10:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Sep 2, 2011 6:03 PM ET

.....A Palestinian state needs no legitimization, least of all from the UN General Assembly. That august body has recognized a Palestinian state for 64 years — not surprisingly, since it was the one that created it. On Nov. 29, 1947, the UN-GA passed Resolution 181, recommending the termination of the British mandate in Palestine and the partitioning of its territory into two states, one Arab, the other Jewish.

Resolution 181 drew up detailed boundaries for the two states, as well as a blueprint for an economic union. It even set aside an international area comprising Jerusalem and environs, to be administered by the UN. The partition plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (without much enthusiasm, perhaps, but accepted all the same) and rejected rather bitterly by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. .....
The British didn't like the partition plan, either, but accepted it — or, to be more precise, didn't resist it. By then, His Majesty's government mainly wanted to be rid of the burden of governing people it has grown to regard, perhaps understandably, as ungovernable. Britain terminated the Mandate unilaterally, some months ahead of the UN schedule, on May 14, 1948. The following day Israel declared statehood, and within hours five Arab armies invaded it. The Arab-Israeli war has been flowing and ebbing ever since.
The point of recounting this bit of history is to indicate that Palestinian statehood hasn't been at issue for 64 years. The UN voted for it in 1947 and the Jews said yes. .....

A Palestinian state has been recognized for a long time; it just doesn't exist. A Jewish state has existed for a long time; it's just not recognized — at least, not by the people whose recognition counts, the people next door. Palestinians need existence, for they already have recognition, and they can only get it from Israel, not the UN. Jews need recognition, for they already have existence, and they can only get it from their Palestinian neighbours. There should be room for a deal there, even in the Middle East — if, that is, the Arab/Muslim world were really looking for a two-state solution rather than the dissolution of one.

National Post

Rebecca Gingrich
Subject: Please take 30 seconds: Support the Palestinian bid for statehood / Prenez 30 secondes: appuyer la reconnaissance d'un État palestinien

Subject:  Don't worry, be happy?  Of course, Carney is from Goldman Sachs--the same ones that started this mess!

IMF slashes Canada's economic prospects

More on this topic Date: Tue. Sep. 20 2011 7:23 PM ET
Canada's jobless rate will creep upwards this year as the nation's economy grows far slower than anticipated, the International Monetary Fund predicted on Tuesday.
The lending group slashed Canada's economic growth forecast, reducing it to 2.1 per cent this year and 1.9 per cent next year. The numbers stand in contrast to the agency's earlier prediction of 2.8 per cent growth this year and 2.6 per cent the next.
Subject: Killing in Libya shows the best of Canada's military tradition?????

Canada's role in Libya not 'best' of our military tradition

Tue, Sep 20 - 8:31 AM

Last Wednesday, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy made their somewhat less than triumphant entry into Tripoli.
As the entire pretext for the Libyan conflict has been that of a popular uprising to oust a demented dictator, Cameron and Sarkozy could not possibly portray themselves as victorious conquerors.
No, to keep within the official script, it was the Libyan people who freed themselves and therefore the U.K. and French delegations were only in Tripoli to pledge their support to the new, pro-democracy, former rebels-turned-transitional government.
During his one whirlwind visit to Trapani, Italy, to address the Canadian troops participating in the Libyan mission, Prime Minister Stephen Harper echoed the same NATO narrative. On Aug. 31, Harper told service members: "You held the ring while the Libyans fought their own fight with their oppressor."
Harper went on to say that this represented "the best of Canada's military tradition."
Had it been the case that Canada had helped NATO ensure that Libyans were left to determine their own fate without outside interference, it might have been a noble cause. However, even the most casual observer of the Libyan conflict knows that, from the outset, NATO's goal was regime change and, to that end, a cluster of rebel fighter groups were given full support.
The UN-authorized "no-fly zone" was only intended to prevent President Moammar Gadhafi from using his air force to exact revenge on rebel-held territory.
However, under the command of Canadian Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, this mandate was arbitrarily expanded to allow NATO aircraft to engage any and all pro-Gadhafi military targets. Similarly, the NATO warships imposing the UN-sanctioned arms embargo chose to only enforce their mandate against Gadhafi loyalists.
Although initially denied, the U.K. and France now admit they violated the arms embargo by supplying the rebels with weapons, munitions and trainers.
To prevent Gadhafi from utilizing his cash reserves to finance his war effort, the international community also froze all of his foreign assets.
In terms of communication, NATO assisted the rebels by shutting down all Internet connections in Gadhafi-held territory, disrupting cellphone service and obliterating the government's television and radio broadcast capabilities.
In support of the rebels, NATO provided the factions with a wealth of high-tech intelligence, including satellite and unmanned aerial vehicle imagery.
In other words, far from simply "holding the ring" for six months, NATO actively blinded, deafened, starved and pummelled Gadhafi's forces and supporters to enable the Libyan rebels to gain the upper hand.
Only in Harper's mind could that be construed as "the Libyans fought their own fight."
What is even more significant is the fact that, despite the NATO leaders' wishes for a speedy conclusion, pro-Gadhafi forces are still fighting. At the time of their Tripoli visit, Cameron and Sarkozy were escorted by a phalanx of their own riot police while Apache helicopters circled ominously in the skies above the Libyan capital.
The statements of support from Cameron and Sarkozy included the pledge to the former rebels for continued NATO air support in the continuing battle against Gadhafi loyalists.
At the time of writing, those loyalists continued holding out in the cities of Bani Walid, Sirte and Sebha. Still at large, Gadhafi is still encouraging his fighters to resist via the only means available to him ­ a Syrian radio station.
Frustrated at their inability to make advances against the city of Bani Walid, former rebel commanders have told reporters they intend to shell the city with heavy artillery. Given the fact that there are still about 75,000 civilians living in the city, this act would inevitably result in the death of many innocent Libyans.
This, of course, is exactly what NATO claimed it was preventing.

As for Harper's notion that this Libyan conflict is in keeping with "the best of Canada's military tradition," I could not disagree more.
Scott Taylor is an author and editor of Esprit de Corps magazine.
Subject: Killing innocent people is profitable?

Canada to extend Libya mission by three months

CTV web poll results: 38 per cent are approving war in Libya and 62 per cent are against.
 These numbers sound familiar to me!Read the commentss