Ma famille (mes parents et mon frère de cinq ans plus jeune) sont partis pour une dizaine de jours mardi dernier en Gaspésie, afin d’aller, comme à chaque année, visiter mes grands-parents paternels qui demeurent à Pointe-à-la-Croix, juste à la frontière du Nouveau-Brunswick (Campbellton-Atholville). La différence, c’est que, pour la première fois, je ne suis pas du voyage. Eh non. Il a fallu que je reste à Roberval pour travailler et gagner des sous pour aller à l’université. Oh, remarquez que je ne m’en plains pas, c’est quand même cool d’avoir toute la maison à moi tout seul pour 10 jours. Je prévois d’ailleurs faire un feu de camp une de ces soirées et inviter mes amis à coucher. Mais la maison paraît tellement vide…

—

My family (my parents and my 5-year-younger brother) has left home for ten days last Tuesday to visit my paternal grand-parents in Pointe-à-la-Croix, in the Gaspésie region just across from the New Brunswick border (Campbellton-Atholville). The main difference with what we usually do is that this time, for the first time, I’m not part of the trip. Alas, no. I had to stay home in Roberval to work and put some cash aside for school. I’m not complaining though, It’s kinda cool to have the whole house for myself for 10 days. I’m also planning to invite my friends over for a sleep-in after we make a bonfire outside one of these nights. But the house seems so empty…

Let me take a few moments to wish all my American neighbors and those who really can’t wait to become American (just like me!) a safe, proud, joyous and above all, very happy Fourth of July.

(I was supposed to light a bonfire and throw a Fourth of July party tonight for the occasion, but due to many thunderstorms and downright shitty weather in my part of the world, I won’t. Oh well, at least I still was able to put my American car flag on my Dodge Spirit this morning. Yeah, I get weird looks from other drivers and passers-by, but I don’t care.) 

May the grand and good nation of which we celebrate the 230th anniversary today continue to be an inspiration to us all freedom lovers and guide the world towards a better tomorrow.

ROCK ON, AMERICA! LONG LIVE THE GOOD OLD U.S. OF A.!

Je publie ici un courrier des lecteurs paru dans le Journal de Québec d’aujourd’hui, 29 juin 2006, en page 17. Je le reprends parce que je suis entièrement d’accord avec l’auteur de ce courrier, et je crois que plus de gens devraient être au courant de sa situation, qui est aussi la mienne jusqu’à un certain point. Voici donc:

"Comme beaucoup de Québécois, j’ai assisté au spectacle de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste sur les plaines d’Abraham. Étant un contribuable du généreux système québécois, je deviens de moins bonne humeur lorsque j’entends sur scène le discours politique arriéré et d’exclusion que livrent certains artistes. Ayant moi aussi payé le party, et étant Québécois, je suis frustré de constater le peu de respect que les Cowboys Fringants ont pour les autres Québécois qui ne pensent pas comme eux à propos de Stephen Harper, de Kyoto, de la guerre au terrorisme ou de la sécession du Québec du reste du Canada. Cela gâche ma fête. Ce n’est pas à des artistes subventionnés, des bébés gâtés, de venir me dire quoi penser et me faire sentir coupable de ne pas être un "bon Québécois" séparatiste, gauchiste, anti-Bush et péquiste. Ce discours politique qui divise devrait être exclu de la fête et non pas moi, qui suis aussi un Québécois, qui d’ailleurs paie le party.

Jean-Philippe Bélanger, Charlesbourg"  

Quand je parle de pensée unique gauchisante québécoise, eh bien voilà exactement ce que je veux dire. Le Québec n’est pas une société tolérante pour quiconque pense différemment de la masse. Je déteste d’ailleurs profondément les Cowboys Fringants pour cette attitude plutôt self-righteous qu’ils savent à merveille imposer pour faire frustrer ceux qui ne pensent pas comme eux. Cette même pensée unique et rare acceptation et respect de mes idées et opinions constituent aussi l’une des raisons qui me poussent à vouloir partir du Québec, vu ma différence de vue. J’ai moi aussi de la difficulté avec les partys de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste parce que 1. je n’aime pas la musique québécoise et que 2. je ne peux m’entendre avec les autres politiquement parlant, même si je suis encore souverainiste.

Je serais curieux de rencontrer ce gars-là et de jaser avec. Je suis sûr qu’on aurait plusieurs points en commun.

Comme si cette dernière ne coûtait déjà pas assez cher, les Québécois vont devoir payer une taxe supplémentaire sur l’essence qu’ils achètent. Eh oui. Celle-ci coûtera au moins 1 cent de plus le litre en dedans des frontières du Québec.

Eh qu’on est donc chanceux!

Le motif: financer les 200 millions de dollars que coûtera "initialement" (on ne dit pas combien ça coûtera plus tard, je devine que ce sera beaucoup plus) le plan du premier ministre Charest pour appliquer le fameux Protocole de Kyoto.

Là c’est le bout. Vraiment, j’en ai ma claque de vivre dans cette province de demeurés écolo-socialistes. Je l’avais prédit que ça coûterait cher, mais cibole, jamais j’aurais cru que premièrement ça viendrait aussi vite et que deuxièmement ils augmenteraient l’essence, qui est après tout le moteur de l’économie le plus important.

Je vous jure, à voir aller le gouvernement du Québec, des fois on dirait que c’est la mort pure et simple de l’économie de la province qu’ils veulent. Déjà qu’on dit que l’essence est trop chère et que ça pourrait causer une récession dans l’économie, je ne comprends absolument pas leur logique. S’ils tiennent tant que ça à respecter leur foutu Protocole de Kyoto dont les buts sont, je le répète, inatteignables et insignifiants, pourquoi n’utilisent-ils pas ou ne développent-ils pas de nouvelles technologies pour réduire leurs émissions au lieu d’aller maudire UNE AUTRE TAXE (j’en reviens pas encore) sur le dos des pauvres contribuables québécois qui n’en peuvent plus de payer, payer et toujours payer? Le plus stupide dans tout ça, c’est que M. Charest a carrément supplié les pétrolières de ne PAS refiler aux consommateurs la nouvelle redevance gouvernementale. Mais qu’est-ce qu’il pouvait bien s’imaginer?

J’en revenais juste pas de voir Jean Charest et l’insignifiant porte-parole de Greenpeace au Québec Steven Guilbault ensemble dans un couloir le sourire fendu jusqu’aux oreilles. Honnêtement, si le gouvernement commence à s’acoquiner avec des gens aussi anti-progrès et "à côté de la track" que M. Guilbault simplement pour s’attirer des votes, je vais perdre toute confiance envers lui. Pire encore, j’entends dire que si Stephen Harper règle le déséquilibre fiscal et la question linguistique, le Québec aura comme nouveau cheval de bataille l’environnement et le développement durable comme motifs principaux pour un nouveau référendum.

Désolé, mais s’ils décident de baser la souveraineté du Québec là-dessus, cette fois-là j’embarquerai pas. C’est bien beau l’environnement et tout, et oui il faut le protéger, mais y’a des christie de limites.

P.S. Message aux écolos et fanatiques du "développement durable", concept aussi vide de sens que possible: pour qu’il y ait un "développement durable", il faut d’abord qu’il y ait un développement tout court. Créer une opposition systématique à tout développement (comme présentement au Québec) n’est donc absolument pas la bonne manière de faire prospérer une province.  

—

Source:

LESSARD, Denis et BELLAVANCE, Joel-Denis

Kyoto: le plan Charest décrié - La Presse, 16 juin 2006

Salut, chers compatriotes québécois, francophones et francophiles!

Laissez-moi profiter de cette occasion pour vous souhaiter une très joyeuse Fête Nationale du Québec 2006. J’ose espérer en cette journée que le Québec se réveillera bientôt et que de grands changements de mentalité et de vision se produiront, afin d’assurer l’avenir et la prospérité économique de cette belle province.

Bonne journée à tous!

Well, it seems so, according to the 2007 Best Social Science Doctorate Programs by Yahoo! Education.

And I’m seriously thinking of considering them for my Master’s in Political Science, after I graduate from Bishop’s University, since they are rated third in the United States for that program. The first two are, obviously, Harvard and Stanford. Surprisingly, Political Science program ratings at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor are better than Yale, the university I’d like to attend most, which stands at fifth position, which is, after all, not to be scoffed at.

But the fact remains that the University of Michigan does incredibly well for a state-supported school. And this university is much easier to get in than other Ivy League institutions: While Yale, Harvard and Princeton admit roughly 10% of their applicants, UMichigan admits a whopping 57%. And Ann Arbor seems a very nice college town.

I want to do my MA in Political Science in the United States (better for getting jobs there when I graduate) and possibly a doctorate too. I was, of course, considering Yale, Princeton and Harvard for the U.S., and will apply there, but I needed some more, shall we say… realistic choices. I would also apply to McGill and/or Concordia as my safety school. But I needed something in between. So when I discovered UMichigan, with an admittance rate of 57% and still generous financial aid packages, I was pretty thrilled. They will be getting an application form in 2009 or 2010 from me that’s for sure.

And for those who have been brainwashed into thinking only rich people have access to an education in the United States, and that Yale and Harvard really cost $40,000 a year to attend, well let me tell you this. The latter is true, but only if you can afford it. That’s right. Out of roughly 3,655 full-time students enrolled at Harvard in 2005 that applied for aid, 3,288 were judged to have a need, and all of them had their need fully met. The average financial aid package at Harvard hovers around $30,000 a year. And that’s not all. For a university that supposedly charges 40k a year to attend, the average financial debt amount that Harvard graduates have to pay back is no more than $8,769. Pretty good for the best university in the world. Pretty darn good.

So if I do get in Yale or Harvard, the sky’s the limit.

But it’s getting in that’s the trick.

P.S. If you guys know of any well-renowned universities in the U.S. or Canada that are moderately easy to get into, not too expensive and that offer a quality Political Science program, please, let me know!

—

Sources:

The 2007 Best Social Science Doctorate Programs by Yahoo! Education

Have you been to this website? They’re trying to lure left-wing Americans into thinking Canada is the perfect socialist paradise and they’re trying to have them move here.

The only thing is that they are beautificating the truth so much it’s almost scary. See for yourself.

Here’s what they list as reasons to move to Canada:

"High quality of life. Low crime rates. Progressive social policies. A strong economy. There’s a lot to love about Canada. Here are just some of the reasons why you might want to join us:"

Yeah right, high quality of life, but very, very low buying power. The low crime rates depend on where you settle. And the progressive (read: leftist-utopist-money-wasting) social policies are going out the door, thanks to the right decision Canadians took last January. Somebody please tell those moonbat dipper-heads Canada has a Conservative government now. It’s about time.

"Medicare
Canada enjoys a publicly-funded health care system that guarantees all Canadians coverage for medically necessary services in a timely fashion no matter where they live in the country."

This is laughable. I’d take American-style health care which is profit-driven (major incentive for better quality and timeliness) any day over the socialist system Canada has now.

"Foreign Policy
Canada treasures its reputation as a peacekeeper and provider of humanitarian aid around the world. As a strong supporter of multilateralism, Canada elected not to send troops to Iraq when the United Nations Security Council failed to pass a resolution to intervene with military force."

Multilateralism isn’t always good, and from what I’m starting to witness, the United Nations are becoming more and more of a burden.

"Environmental Policy
Canada has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 240 million metric tons a year by 2010. Canada has also undertaken the largest conservation agreement in the world by promising to protect approximately 600 million hectares of northern boreal forest which account for more than half of the country’s land base. The western province of British Columbia in 2002 exceeded the UN biodiversity target by putting 13% of its land into protected parks."

Ah, the insignificant and stupid Kyoto Protocol, so dearly cherished by every liberal airhead. To this day, I still wonder why. It just plain amazes me they included that in their list when we can very well forecast that Canadians will be paying for it through the nose in a couple years through all kinds of taxes (it’s already getting started here in Québec), while Americans will be laughing at us for getting screwed by environmental extremists and actually buying their crap. Good move, liberal Canada! Now it’s the Conservatives that have to get us out of this mess. The Kyoto Protocol will harm the economy and have us pay even MORE TAXES! I can hardly imagine such a thing in an already way too overtaxed country like Canada, but it appears to be the way things are going right now…

"Gay Rights
Canada is a world leader in recognizing rights for gays and lesbians. The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Same-sex common-law couples have the same rights, benefits and obligations as common-law heterosexual couples under Canadian law. Same-sex marriages are now legal in six provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan) and one territory (the Yukon). Same-sex couples are allowed to adopt children in four provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia)."

Ok, homosexuals have a really good reason to move to Canada here. But not heterosexuals, which, last time I checked, made up the majority of the American population. But then again, if they want to marry so bad, they can save themselves the border-crossing hassle and move to Massachusetts or some other more liberal state. However, I have to say that, although I’m strongly conservative on fiscal issues, I’m very libertarian and secular on moral issues. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuality or gay marriage.

"Drug Policy
Canada was the first country to allow and regulate the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. A Senate Committee report released in 2002 recommended the legalization of marijuana; the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police both support the decriminalization of marijuana; and the federal government has committed to introducing a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana."

I can’t believe I’m actually reading this. Are they looking for hardcore drugheads to populate Canada or what?

"Abortion Rights
Canada has no law restricting abortion, which is considered a medical procedure and is subject to medical regulations."

Here, they are catering to teen moms who just don’t want that baby. I’m pro-choice, but that is just plain stupid. And who’s going to plan a move in the middle of their pregnancy?

"Gun Control
Canada prides itself as a country with relatively little violence that is committed to maintaining public safety. Under the Firearms Act, every firearm in the country must be registered and all Canadian gun owners must be licensed. It is illegal to lend a firearm to someone who does not have a valid Firearms License. Visitors to Canada are also subject to the Firearms Act. They must apply for a temporary firearms license and declare any firearms they bring into the country."

Another masterpiece from the Liberal tools that governed this country for way too long. The totally irrelevant gun registry. Speaks for itself, I think.

"Cultural Diversity
Unlike the “melting pot” concept of the United States where cultural heritage is always secondary to the larger American identity, Canada considers its culture a colourful mosaic, where everyone’s heritage is a vibrant component to be celebrated and cherished. Secure and comfortable in our diversity, multiculturalism has become a cornerstone of the Canadian identity. In fact, the United Nations has named Toronto, Canada’s largest city, the most multicultural city in the world. Officially a bilingual country, Canadians have the right to federal government services in both English and French."

Oh, the evil, evil concept of the American melting pot. Well, I believe Canada should copy it. It works a lot better than multiculturalism if you ask me. And try getting French government service in Lethbridge AB or English service up here in rural Québec. Good freaking luck. But that’s just normal, and I believe official bilingualism (which is nothing more than "storefront bilingualism") should be scrapped anyway. There should be no French service in Lethbridge and there should be no English service in rural Québec. Period.

"NO Capital Punishment
Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976 after a parliamentary free vote. By contrast, the death penalty is a sentencing option in the United States, both federally and in 38 states. (Amnesty International considers the death penalty a human rights violation.)"

Yeah? So? I strongly support the death penalty for murder and I believe Amnesty International is totally clueless. (Are they trying to lure criminals into moving up here?)

"NO Federal Deficit
Canada is the only G7 country to run seven consecutive surplus budgets. It has not run a federal deficit since 1996-97. The United States deficit is expected to reach $422 billion in 2004."

Wow, one of the first real, tangible reasons for Americans to move to Canada. But if I were one of them, I don’t think I would care very much as long as it doesn’t affect my everyday life.

To sum it up, this website really looks like it was put together by some big time liberal airheads. I couldn’t find anything on it that makes sense.

Pretty sad, but what do you expect from left-wing moonbats?

Vu que les médias québécois ne se sont vraiment pas pressés au portillon pour reprendre la gaffe monumentale du groupe environnementaliste alarmiste Greenpeace dans leurs pages, pensée unique et gauchisme rampant obligent, au moins vous pourrez l’apprendre ici.

Ça s’est passé lors d’une visite du président George W. Bush à la centrale nucléaire de Limerick, en Pennsylvanie, afin de promouvoir sa politique en matière de production d’énergie atomique pour mieux subvenir aux besoins du pays.

Le groupe écologiste, dont on connaît bien l’aversion maladive envers tout ce qui n’est pas "sain" de leur point de vue pour l’environnement, même si ça ne fait aucun sens d’un point de vue autrement plus normal, s’est tout de suite déplacé sur les lieux pour "accueillir" le président et les médias, afin de faire passer son message anti-nucléaire.

"Cette source d’énergie volatile et dangereuse n’est pas la réponse aux besoins énergétiques du pays", déclarait un communiqué distribué par les militants de Greenpeace, dénonçant la "menace" posée par les réacteurs nucléaires que Bush visitait.

Mais tout de suite après cette fallacieuse assertion, on aurait pu croire que les fanatiques de Greenpeace qui avaient préparé le communiqué n’arrivaient pas à trouver "l’argument massue" idéal pour marquer l’imaginaire des destinataires de leur message, puisqu’on pouvait lire le passage suivant, repris tel quel, parenthèses incluses:

"Dans les vingt ans suivant la tragédie de Tchernobyl, le pire accident nucléaire du monde, il y a presque eu (INSÉREZ UN FAIT ALARMISTE ET APOCALYPTIQUE ICI)".

Steve Smith, le porte-parole de Greenpeace qui a transmis le communiqué, a balayé l’incident du revers de la main et l’a blâmé sur un collègue qui ne cherchait qu’à faire une blague et s’amuser.

Après correction, la version finale ne faisait curieusement plus mention de l’apocalypse, mais plutôt de la possibilité de fissure des réacteurs et d’écrasement d’avions.

Ai-je réellement besoin de commenter?

Greenpeace et les autres groupes environnementalistes se foutent bien de la réalité. Ce qu’ils veulent, c’est faire passer leur propagande coûte que coûte, que celle-ci soit fondée ou non. Si assez de gens peuvent les croire et embarquer dans leur jeu, c’est gagné. Sinon, ils utiliseront d’autres méthodes jusqu’à ce que ça fonctionne. Ces gens-là ne veulent pas notre bien. Ils veulent notre argent et du pouvoir. C’est tout.

Voilà donc le vrai visage des "environnementalistes professionnels" et de leur industrie tentaculaire présente sur toute la planète dévoilé au grand jour. Pas trop reluisant, hmm?

Pas trop difficile de comprendre non plus pourquoi Patrick Moore, l’un des fondateurs de Greenpeace, a quitté le navire en 1986, citant son dégoût envers l’extrémisme environnemental qui anime désormais la machine…

Je vous laisse volontiers tirer vos propres conclusions.

—

Sources:

Wikipedia - Patrick Moore (environmentalist) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

"Greenpeace’s fill-in-the-blank public relations meltdown", by Jeff SHIELDS, Philadelphia Daily News, May 29th, 2006.

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14691089.htm

Uh-huh, he really fits in along with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, not to mention the corrupt gang from Québec who brought us the sponsorship scandal.

And coming from me, that’s not a compliment.

For those who aren’t aware of the story, here’s why I’m saying this:

Joe Volpe, the "Honorable" MP for Eglinton-Lawrence (Toronto riding) and potential Liberal leadership contender (not anymore, HA!), has recently accepted $5,400 in political individual donations (the maximum amount allowed by law) from two 11-year-old twin daughters of an Apotex CEO or former CEO, which is a pharmaceutical company based out of Weston ON. When the affair was discovered by the media and some bloggers, in turn starting to draw a lot of political pressure on Mr. Volpe’s campaign, leading to the creation of a hilarious political satire website on the matter at http://www.youthforvolpe.ca, only then Mr. Volpe reluctantly decided it was better to refund the money. But that unfortunately didn’t stop him from defending the donations of the children, therefore sadly following the Liberal pattern of corruption and pathetic cover-ups and acting exactly like we’ve come to expect the most corrupt individuals in that party to act, unfortunately tarnishing even further the image of the already highly-frowned-upon political class in Canada.

Believe it or not, Mr. Volpe has justified these donations by saying the children in question had been moved by a speech he delivered at their school. Mistake number one. Of course, nobody bought it. (Does he think we’re all stupid?). How could children raise such an amount of money for a political candidate? This doesn’t make any sense, any way you take it.

The donations were most likely channeled through an impressive network of people related to Apotex and the Joe Volpe campaign, which is, I’m sure you’ll agree, perfectly legal but highly immoral and totally unworthy of an individual ultimately aiming to become the Prime Minister of Canada.

The scheme used is a little hard to make out, but there’s a very well-rendered schema of the network. Head here. (Hat tip to Small Dead Animals)

But wait, he’s done even worse. When it was brought to the attention of the Joe Volpe campaign managers that there was a website satirizing the whole thing, and at the same time making thousands upon thousands of Canadians aware of Volpe’s actions, they used some good-old Liberal "mafia-inspired influence" and had the website pulled off the web by the CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) on the pretext of "defamation", notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Volpe had pretty much already "defamated" himself on his own. Mistake number two. So much for his sympathy for free speech in Canada.

So http://www.youthforvolpe.ca is no more. But fear not! As always on the Internet, various mirror websites of the now defunct website have popped up in a very small period of time. By trying to silence and hide what could have been a minor slide in his leadership bid campaign, Mr. Volpe has made things a LOT WORSE. I’ve really got to give credit to my fellow Blogging Tories for being so swift. So here’s the best mirror Youth For Volpe website I’ve found so far: http://www.youthforvolpe.net. Enjoy!

The Western Standard didn’t parody them as Librano$ for nothing. They truly deserve that reputation and namesake. See the poster here.

Now I really think Joe Volpe belongs in there. That’s totally the party for him. When I first learned about it all, I was infuriated, but really not all that surprised.

And I do believe I wasn’t the only one. Heck, probably even Liberals themselves might be infuriated about this. So I got this little idea. Given the fact that pretty much every blog at Blogging Tories (that includes myself) was buzzing with posts and comments about the Volpe-Apotex affair, I became curious to see if the Liberals were as frustrated by this as we Conservatives were. I headed over to Liblogs (http://www.liblogs.freethought.ca/) and began searching their first page for recently published comments about it all. I found ONE. It was on Jason Cherniak’s blog, at http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/. His post, entitled Like it or not, Volpe represents us, very reluctantly and timidly disapproves of Volpe’s actions. He also half-heartedly invites other Liberal bloggers to condemn his actions.

There’s something I’m afraid I’m not quite getting here. Pardon me, dear political adversaries, but in a situation like that, shouldn’t you be rushing to take every opportunity you get to strongly disavow, discredit and disapprove of such actions and such lowlife personalities, so you can try and restore people’s faith in your party? Shouldn’t you throw him out of your ranks? Or would you prefer not say anything and hide in the shadows to save the ass of a fellow Liberal, thus portraying the whole party as corrupt? From the way things are going, I personally think it’s going to be a VERY long time before the Liberals are put back in power, regardless of who they choose as a leader. And they’ll only have themselves to blame for it all.

As for Mr. Volpe, one can only cringe at the thought of what he would do to save his own sorry ass in an awkward situation if he’s elected PM.

I think we’ll never know, fortunately. Joe Volpe has pretty much involuntarily thrown in the towel if you ask me. And I don’t think he’ll be pursuing any kind of political career after what happened.

That’s a "shame", he was a "true Liberal".

—

Sources:

"Liberal Censorship?" at Let Freedom Reign - http://www.no-libs.com/

Youth For Volpe Mirror site: http://www.youthforvolpe.net

UPDATE (2006-05-27) Canadian Christian Conservative has quoted and supports some of the ideas expressed in this post in one of his own, titled "Ignatieff and Kyoto". Link here. Thanks CC!

—

Isn’t it just marvelous? The Harper government is doing EXACTLY what it said it would do. And that’s why I’ve really been longing for Environment minister Rona Ambrose to finally pull the plug on Kyoto, once and for all.

Now, it looks like that’s precisely what they’re aiming for and I sure can’t hide the fact that I’m totally ecstatic over it.

From my point of view, I can only congratulate and praise the present Canadian government on sticking to their guns despite the tsunami of literally blind public support for the overly-flawed Kyoto protocol, of which more than a large part sadly originates from my home province.

I have also recently read in La Presse that Stephen Harper was seeking to disable what they call the "Kyoto 2" protocol talks, and that under his stewardship, Canada would vie for the burial of Kyoto after 2012 and block any attempt from the international community to impose ambitious greenhouse gases reduction targets on the country after that deadline passes.

But what really irks me is the unfair interpretation of Harper’s environmental actions by the left-leaning media (ie: CBC Radio-Canada, Le Devoir, La Presse, etc). It looks like every major news media in Canada have decided together to treat the Harper government’s position on the matter as a "weakness on the environmental issue".

Oh really? Well let me tell you this: it all really boils down to the reporting individual’s point of view. For example, what environmentalist organizations like Greenpeace see as a "weakness" towards the environment, I see as a MAJOR STRENGTH. The strength to finally have the guts to do what we damn well think is good for us and not bow down before the insanely marxist elucubrations and the creeping shortsightedness of the international community as demonstrated by their literally religious veneration of one of the most irresponsible frauds in history. To them, Kyoto (and other bureaucratic meaningless nonsensical treaties to be are The Ultimate Truth, The Only Way and The Savior. Believe and you will be Saved.

But that does not reduce greenhouse gases. The vast majority of the countries that ratified the protocol when it all started have yet to reduce even slightly their emissions. Why, you ask? They don’t need to! Why do you think countries in Africa and Russia signed it? They produce virtually no greenhouse gases and could sell their Kyoto-given "rights to pollute" to rich Western nations (U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Spain and more) who do pollute a lot (but produce accordingly). So this doesn’t call for reduction of greenhouse gases, it calls for a massive TRANSFER OF WEALTH from RICH WESTERN WORLD NATIONS (us) towards POOR THIRD-WORLD NATIONS and Russia. The main goal of Kyoto calls for nothing more than that, and nothing less. Greenhouse gas reduction is just a pretext used to demonize rich Western world nations who would not sign the protocol. But even then, only one of the nations refusing to ratify the protocol got a real scolding and a monstrous slap in the face from the "global warmers". I’ll let you guess which one it is.

I’ll voluntarily leave aside here the important notion most people have long stopped considering which consists in the fact that nobody to this day has ever been able to prove that human activities are actually causing global warming, and that despite what environmentalists would like us to believe, there are about as many scientists siding with them as there are siding with their "enemy". Hell, for all we know, a slight natural increase of the sun’s activity might be causing all of it. Or maybe, like I believe, it’s all natural temperature variations. Why would we expect Earth temperatures to be stable when they just never have been?

Finally, I’ll repeat it one last time so read carefully, you inane, stupidly blinded, dogmatist enviro-freaks: YOU DO NOT HAVE THE MONOPOLY ON IDEAS TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT NOR DO YOU HAVE IT WHEN IT COMES TO FINDING MEANS OF APPLYING THEM. Simply because YOU call something or someone "green" or an "enemy of the environment" doesn’t freaking mean it actually is. Especially not when your only known manner of "fighting global warming" (for which we STILL can’t even know for sure whether we’re responsible, mind you) is through bureaucratic, shady wealth-transferring-to-the-poor-third-world-nations treaties like the overly skewed, impossibly flawed, covert and politically and ideologically-driven Kyoto fiasco you UNBELIEVABLY still haven’t let go of yet despite its proven total lack of efficiency!

The Kyoto circus is dead so get over it, sissies. And no, there won’t be a sequel.

We’ve had more than damn enough of this clownish, meaningless and dizzying ride.

Rona, take us out NOW.

-

Sources:

"Stephen Harper prêt à faire dérailler Kyoto 2", by François CARDINAL, La Presse, Saturday May 20th, 2006, Front Page.