Drug Dealing by the Government

While the federal government pimps for marijuana interests, the provincial government claims it simply cannot live off the avails of  drug dealing.  The Ontario Attorney General claims: "The revenues that are going to be raised (from marijuana taxes) most likely are going to be reinvested back in ensuring that we are protecting youth and the vulnerable."

It's a poor investment if all profit goes to rectify damage caused by the original action.

In fact, our money-addicted Ontario government will receive millions in revenue.  It is telling us that, on one hand, drugs do harm, while the other hand grasps the money.  The harm to our "youth and the vulnerable" is collateral damage.  Why did Premier Kathleen Wynne not voice objection to its legalization?

The  millions in revenue will be used to assuage the catastrophic effects of legalization.  Many of those dying each day from drug overdose began their downward odyssey with marijuana.

Another reason to legalize a drug about which science admittedly does not know the full effect.  How many tobacco company lobbyists have paid for access to the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Over the years, the government has spent millions of dollars to discourage smoking. We now have it legitimizing the re-appearance of discredited tobacco interests and their prospect of financial gain beyond the dreams of avarice.

It required but a few years for the computer industry to be controlled by a handful of conglomerates. So too, tobacco interests will inevitably control the "party drug" trade. After all, they did finance those early protests. To what extent are they financing existing operations?

All the while, government revenue will continue "protecting youth and the vulnerable" and pay for their rehabilitation.  Another example of privatizing profit while socializing the problem.  These costs should be charged directly against corporate profits, and not as a deductible expense.

Where is the outcry in the media against this mischief?  Are they quiet in anticipation of bolstering sagging revenues from the promotion of the non-smoking uses of this drug?  How else to explain the publicity showered on this looming menace?  We regularly see in newspapers and on television screens acne covered youngsters trying to look mature blowing smoke into the cameras or chewing on drug-laced cookies, all the while making tough-guy statements to the compliant media.

Thank you, Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne.  Future addicts and their families will sing your praise.

The Prime Minister to apologize for executions?

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues his apologies. Last year, he apologized for Canada's exclusion of Asians a century ago. These would-be economic migrants attempted to enter Canada illegally. In other words, they attempted to break the law of the time.

The Prime Minister will soon meet the demand of gay activists for compensation and apology for the incarceration of homosexuals when that behaviour constituted a breach of the Criminal Code. In other words, they broke the law of the time.

Capital punishment has been abolished. The Prime Minister must compensate and apologize to members of the families of those who were executed. Taking the lives of convicted murders is now punished by prison. Applying the Prime Minster's logic, the lives of those executed were ended wrongfully even though hanging was the law of the time.

Let us end the apology binge

"The idea of apologies is demeaning of those at whom it is directed," according to Andrew J.M. Wheatcroft of Stirling University, Scotland. "They also deny the notion of the past and simply extend the present backwards."

Prime Minister Justine Trudeau recently issued an apology for Canada's denial of entry to a boat-load of Asians more than a century ago. He said, in part, "Canada's government was, without question, responsible for the laws that prevented these passengers from immigrating peacefully and securely."

A Toronto Star columnist complained that law was discriminatory because it prevented their entry.

Of course, the government was responsible for our immigration laws. Of course, the law prevented their entry. Of course, laws are discriminatory against those who seek to violate them.

The legislation was enacted for the benefit of Canadians, not would-be illegal economic migrants.

Let us hope this ends the recent binge of misguided apologies.

Real Canadians and others

The current debate over certain wording in O Canada has attracted many letters to the Toronto Star. Among those published on May 14 was mine:

Yes amend the national anthem to include both sexes. One thing more is necessary to make it totally inclusive. For millions of Canadians, Canada is their home but not native land. The words should offer the option and read "our home and native (chosen) land". 

Exercising rare restraint, I omitted a second suggestion:

We need also delete the word "home". To Canadian citizens living permanently in a  foreign land, such as Lebanon, Canada is not their home. Yet they feel free to call on Canada whenever trouble lurks. Such occurred during a crisis in 2007. These 15,000 Canadians of convenience waved their moth-riddled maple leaf flags and demanded safe evacuation to Cyprus. They were, at a cost of $80- to 100-million to tax-paying Canadians whose real home is Canada. 

These freeloaders, and plenty of others in Hong Kong for example, pay no Canadian taxes and have pseudo-Canadian addresses in order to fleece our healthcare system whenever needed.

To discourage this mischief, the residency requirement to qualify for citizenship must be increased from three years to ten. Passports must show a minimum of six months' Canadian residency every three years. 

Prime Minister Justine Trudeau has proclaimed, "A Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen. is a ..." 

Not so, Mister T.  

A real Canadian citizen contributes to Canada, not some foreign country.

Democracy, but not for all

Published in the Toronto Star, February 28, 2016 Re: Let all MPs decide freely, Editorial Feb. 21 In demanding a free vote on the issue of assisted suicide, the Star editorializes that “If ever there was an issue that calls for MPs to examine their consciences and vote according to their personal values, this is it.” Curious, the Star did not extend such liberality to would-be candidates who had examined their consciences and would have voted according to their personal values with regard to abortion.  Indeed, the Star lauded Justin Trudeau when he barred such would-be Liberal candidates from seeking office. Democracy has many faces, some of them ugly.

More censorship at the Toronto Star

The issue here is the Toronto Star's apparent double-speak. The photograph that appears in the Star shows Justin Trudeau in a Pride Parade alongside a young women with her breasts exposed. The Star blurred out her nipples. Thus my unpublished letter of August 8, 2015. 

Re Topless photos with Trudeau cause Internet commotion, Aug. 7:

The Toronto Star promotes the Pride parade as a "family event." In other words, you recommend we take our children to see topless women in the flesh. Yet, when it comes to publishing photographs of this "family event," you indulge in censorship, as in this case. Can you explain this double-dealing scented with a whiff of hypocrisy?