Loonie Toon McGuinty

CALGARY - He's a desperate man searching for a scapegoat.

Faced with 300,000 manufacturing industry job losses in his nine-year reign as Ontario's premier, Dalton McGuinty is frantic for someone or something to blame -- even when the blame defies logic.
Once the economic envy of Canada, Ontario has landed in a gutter of unemployment under McGuinty's Liberal leadership, with this month's Caterpillar locomotive factory closure in London, Ont., the most recent blow.
A government off the rails as far as the economy goes, the man who helped make Ontario a have-not province is clearly desperate -- and Alberta's controversial oilsands make for an easy target.
"If I had my preferences, as to whether we have a rapidly growing oil and gas sector in Western Canada or a lower dollar benefiting Ontario, I'd tell you where I stand -- with a lower dollar."
This was McGuinty's peevish reaction to Alberta Premier Alison Redford asking for Ontario's support on selling the oilsands to the world, given the industry's role as Canada's provider.
It makes economic sense for the East, said Redford, citing a Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) study showing Ontario will enjoy the lion's share of oilsands benefits outside of Alberta.
Over 25 years, Ontario will reap $63 billion in economic spinoffs and 65,000 jobs from the oilsands, with the CERI study indicating B.C. and Quebec enjoying a major fiscal bump from Alberta's boom.
But 65,000 new jobs pales when you've been at the political helm for 300,000 job losses, a hemorrhage that McGuinty's critics blame on liberal policy and a refusal to make Ontario more business friendly.
But not McGuinty. Ask the premier and pro-liberal union leaders, and they lay the blame squarely on the high Canadian dollar, pushed to parity by oilsands. It's all Alberta's fault for being successful.
McGuinty calls the strong Canadian dollar a "petro dollar," having gone from 67 cents in 2003 to parity, making it harder for Ontario to compete with dirt cheap Asian manufacturing markets.
And so the Ontario premier is biting the hand currently feeding his have-not province, where pink slips have become a way of life.
McGuinty will certainly accept the handouts, but he refuses to offer support to an industry which largely funded $2.2 billion in federal equalization payments to Ontario last year alone.
"The only reason the dollar is high, it's a petro dollar, driven by the global demand for oil and gas to be sourced in Western Canada," McGuinty said.
A desperate man, seeking a simple answer, so the votes don't slip away.
And it is a simpleton's excuse, this apparent belief that if the oilsands were to vanish, Ontario would stop looking like the Costa Concordia, with only smooth sailing ahead.
If true, how does McGuinty explain the nearly identical manufacturing industry meltdown taking place just south of Ontario in the U.S., where oilsands and high loonies are not a factor?
There, politicians have no Alberta to blame, and instead must rely on policy and tax benefits to attract employers, plus workers willing to accept lower pay -- the very reason Caterpillar left Ontario for Indiana.
McGuinty may be a petulant, politically-motivated ingrate, but thankfully, not all Ontarians agree.
On Monday, Ontario's Progressive Conservative leader called the oilsands a "national treasure," saying McGuinty is seeking someone to blame after his government's spending created a $16-billion deficit.
"It's very clear -- after Alberta, Ontario gains the most from that natural resource in Alberta, the oilsands," said Tim Hudak, Ontario's official Opposition leader.
"I'm a proud Canadian and I think that's a great resource for our country as a whole, and Ontario has a lot to gain from it too."
Hudak told reporters that McGuinty's habit of trying to deflect blame for Ontario's woes is pathetic.
"I just think this is a sad response by the premier -- I'm just tired of him blaming other provinces for the situation he's dug us into," said Hudak.
"We've got a jobs crisis in our province and calling the oilsands an embarrassment as Dalton McGuinty's government has done is wrong.
"Let's support it, let's create jobs."
McGuinty though, isn't looking for new jobs. He's just searching for a scapegoat.

Some Of The Effects Of Multiple Sclerosis In Our Life.

I have Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis. That means the M.S. gets more debilitating day by day as there are no drugs for my type that slows down the progression of M.S. I'm not a candidate for The Liberation Therapy - I had an Ultrasound that determined my neck arteries are open and they need to be pinched in order to receive this very simple operation. I was diagnosed in 1998. As of today, Feb. 27, 2012 I am in a wheelchair. My legs have no strength, I have very limited use of my right arm and hand (I'm right-handed) - I have difficulty operating and clicking a mouse. As a result, I need to use my left hand even though the strength has been reduced, I can use my left to sign documents but only my initials. I need to use a portable lift that can pick me up and set me down in either my wheelchair, or, in an easy chair in the T.V. room. I need help to have a shower. Caregivers come in 4 times per day to look after my personal needs. If I choose to sit in the wheelchair, since it doesn't have a tilt, I use a chest strap to hold me up as I can't do this myself. I can't afford to buy a wheelchair as it can cost around $18,000 per. This is paid through Alberta Aids to Daily Living. This chair is very basic as AADL only buys the least expensive one. Since it's been five years when I last applied for one, I can apply for another.
Our finances have been destroyed. When we sold our home to move into this one, a required bungalow, we were almost mortgage free. Since moving in 2003, 10 years later, we have maybe $90,000 in equity. That's not very much and we'll only have access to it if we sell. My wife can't work as she has her own health issues that prevent her from working. CPP brings in only 1088 and Social Assistance tops that up somewhat. I'm 53, my wife is 52.
In order to secure an income, I've been trading stocks, including currencies, with the help of a relative's husband who is VERY knowlegable in trading for at least 25 years. His computer knowledge was (is) virtually unmatched. Even though I had what seemed to be a very favorable influence here, the trading hasn't gone as well as planned. In 2006, I had bought a stock trading program that made it a perfectly good thing to buy right after I had to quit work at Telus due to the M.S. affecting negatively on my hands. I knew that I needed to secure an income and I thought this was the way to go. I was already in a manual wheelchair. I use a power one now.
I'm disappointed with the M.S. Clinic AND the M.S. Society. There really hasn't been any real, tangible, "cures" for M.S. although they would attest to the contrary. The M.S. continues to get worse along with our finances. Yeah, you could say the money given to this charity goes to M.S. research. Some of it does, but, most of it goes to keep researchers in high paying jobs. Am I jaded? Does our situation look like I shouldn't be? Ciau.

Enviro's Blown Out Of Proportion Rhetoric

If we fully develop Alberta's oilsands and burn the oil they produce, we will raise the temperature measurably all over the planet. That's the conclusion of an analysis by University of Victoria scientists Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart and published in the journal Nature.

Rather a big deal, one would think. But that's not what we read in the media this week.
The banner headline on the front page of the Globe and Mail: "Science rides to aid of oilsands."
Weaver and Swart found that burning all the economically accessible oil in the oilsands would raise the average global temperature by .02 C to .05 C, the Globe noted. "By comparison, burning all of the world's enormous coal resources would raise temperatures 15 degrees, while consuming the new global bounty of shale gas would produce a lift of just under three degrees. (Using up economically accessible reserves of natural gas and coal will raise temperatures .16 and .9 per degrees, respectively.)"

Seen that way, the oilsands look totally insignificant. And that was the way the story was portrayed throughout the media: Everybody relax. The oilsands are no big deal. Science says so.

Now, Friedrich Nietzsche got a little carried away when he said "there are no facts, only interpretations," but he had a point.
To understand facts, we must interpret them. And even when we interpret facts in good faith, interpretations can vary widely.

So how are we to interpret Weaver and Swart's study? The no-big-deal interpretation is one way to see it. But it's not the only way. There are others, including the one I opened this column with.
And yet it was the no-big-deal interpretation that dominated media reports. Why? Was it the insidious manipulation of the oil industry? A conspiracy in the corporate media?

No. It was James Hansen and Bill McKibben. They're responsible.
Hansen is the NASA climatologist who has led the charge against climate change from the earliest days. McKibben is a renowned environmentalist who heads 350.org, one of the leading climate change advocacy organizations.
Obviously, Hansen and McKibben do not believe the oilsands are no big deal. And we can surmise that both men were appalled to to see "science says oilsands are no big deal" in the media this week. But still, they were responsible.

That's because James Hansen famously called the oilsands a "carbon bomb." If they are fully exploited, he said, it's "game over." And Bill McKibben repeated these claims constantly when he led the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline.

Keystone was a remarkable victory for McKibben and Company. The forces arrayed against them were formidable. But the environmentalists succeeded in elevating the issue, stigmatizing the oilsands, and bringing political counter-pressure to bear on the White House.
During that struggle, some climate scientists and activists criticized the rhetoric of Hansen and McKibben. The oilsands are significant, they said. But a "carbon bomb"? And "game over"? That's wildly out of proportion. It's hype.

But McKibben and Company won. And you can't argue with success. Lots of environmentalists saw the fight against Keystone as a model for the future.
I hope they're reconsidering now.

Hansen and McKibben won a tactical victory by portraying the oilsands as a mammoth threat that could produce catastrophic climate change.
But they also set a benchmark. It was inevitable that when a proper analysis was done the results would be compared to that benchmark.
And it was inevitable that there would be headlines like "Science rides to aid of oilsands."

And that isn't the only damage Hansen and McKibben's hyperbole will do to their cause. Having made wildly inflated claims, and then been so publicly contradicted by solid science, Hansen and McKibben will find their credibility has taken a big hit.
And they can be sure that the next time they make any claim about the oilsands, or anything else, this will be flung at them from every direction.
They won a tactical victory. But it cost them a strategic defeat.
This is an old story in the environmental movement.

In 1968, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which forecast famine and collapse if radical change wasn't undertaken immediately. Ehrlich's powerful language helped make The Population Bomb a smash.
Millions of copies were sold. Ehrlich's advocacy group - "Zero Population Growth" - mushroomed. Ehrlich became a prominent leader in the burgeoning environmental movement.

But as the years passed, events turned out differently than Ehrlich expected. His predictions failed. The strong, clear, confident, and frightening language he used - the language which had done so much to grab attention and advance the cause - started to look ridiculous. And Ehrlich became a useful weapon in the arsenal of anti-environmentalists.

Whenever an environmentalist says climate change is dangerous. Whenever a scientist worries about feeding a global population of nine billion. Whenever anyone anywhere issues a warning the anti-environmentalists don't want people to take seriously. They mock Paul Ehrlich.
The logic is false, of course. The fact that Paul Ehrlich was wrong doesn't mean others who raise an alarm are wrong. But it's a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. And Paul Ehrlich gave it to them.

Hyperbole works in the short term. There's no doubt about that. It gets attention and action. But the long term is something else entirely.
And if the struggle against climate change is about anything, it's about the long term.

More Native Nonsense

Sober Perpective On Oil Sands Emissions

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Stewart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oil sands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oil sands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That’s about half the total amount of warming over the last century.
When only commercially viable oil sands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C. In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees. Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.
“The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming,” Dr. Weaver said. “The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas.”
He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal – not the oil sands – that governments have to worry about. As well, there’s so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.
“One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas,” Dr. Weaver said. “As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we’re less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them.”

Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.
Dr. Weaver’s analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn’t count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.
He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oil sands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oil sands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
“We’ve heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tar sands it’s going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, ‘Well, let’s take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?’ and the numbers are what they are.”
He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.
“This idea that we’re going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We’ll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.
“I have always said that the tar sands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels.”

I'm Just Say'in, These Are Afterall, The Stats

Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat: Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components. Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges. When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6% >From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam ,  with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana -- Muslim 10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8% At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7% >From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83% Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses

THIS POST AND THE ONE ABOVE ARE FROM THE SAME ARTICLE

re the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

'Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'

It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?

Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus , Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).

NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...?  Just wondering.
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already??

That should make the US ' homeland much safer, huh!!
Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago?

Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Also: This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities. Can a good Muslim be a good American? This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:
Theologically - no . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon God of Arabia
Religiously – no… Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)
Scripturally - no… Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
Geographically – no… Because his allegiance is to Mecca , to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially - no… Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews..
Politically - no…Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America , the great Satan.
Domestically - no… Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34)
Intellectually - no… Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically - no… Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and expression.. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually - no… Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.
Therefore, after much study and deliberation....
Perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS
in this country. - - - They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and good Americans.
Call it what you wish, it's still the truth. You had better believe it. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand.
Can a muslim be a good soldier???

Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood and Killed 13. He is a good Muslim!!!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within.
SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

More Politically Correct Pandering

Everyone needs to read this ..... & pass it on !  It Happened this January 2012

And to think that Fox News was the only channel that reported this. Brassy!

In my opinion, the Muslims are all getting very brave now.  Read Tedd Petruna's story below.  Can you imagine, our own news media now are so politically correct that they are afraid to report that these were all Muslims?  Unbelievable.  Thank God for people like Tedd Petruna.

I, Gene Hackemack, received this email from my good friend Tedd Petruna.  He is, a diver at the NBL (Neutral Buoyancy Lab) facility at NASA Houston.  I used to work with Tedd who happened to be on the AirTran Flight 297, from Atlanta to Houston.

"One week ago, I went to Ohio on business and to see my father.  On Tuesday, the 17th, I returned home.  If you read the papers the 18th you may have seen a blurb about where an Air Tran flight was canceled from Atlanta to Houston due to a man who refused to get off of his cell phone before take- off.  The story was only on Fox News.  That was NOT what really happened.

I was seated in 1st class coming home.  Eleven Muslim men got on the plane in full Muslim attire.  Two of them sat in 1st class and the rest seated themselves throughout the plane, in coach class, all the way to the back.  As the plane taxied out to the runway, the stewardesses gave the safety spiel that we are all so familiar with.

At that time, one of the men, in 1st class, got on his cell and called one of his companions back in coach.  He proceeded to talk on the phone in Arabic very loudly and very, very aggressively.  This activity took the 1st stewardess out of action for she repeatedly told the man that cell phones were not permitted at that time.  He ignored her as if she were not there.  The man, who answered the phone back in the coach section, did the same and this took out the 2nd stewardess.  Further back in the plane, at the same time, two younger Muslims, one in the back on the aisle, and one sitting in front of him by the window, began to show footage of a porno video they had taped the night before.  They were very loud about it.

Now, Muslim men are only permitted to view porno women prior to Jihad.  If a Muslim man goes into a strip club, he has to view the woman via mirror with his back to her.  (Don't ask me, I don't make the rules, but I've studied Muslims.)

The 3rd stewardess informed the two men that they were not to have electronic devices on at this time.

One of the men said "shut up infidel dog!"

The stewardess attempted to take the camcorder and the Muslim began to scream in her face in Arabic.  At that exact moment, all eleven of the men got up and started to walk throughout the cabin.  I guess that because of the noise, the flight crew must have decided that there was something amiss and changed the plane's directions to head back to the terminal.

The commotion and noise was reaching a feverish pitch, and at this point I had had enough!  I got up and started towards the back of 1st class, when I heard a voice behind me, from another Texan twice my size, say "I got your back."  Then I grabbed the man, who had been on the cell phone, by the arm and said "You WILL sit down in your seat or you WILL be thrown from this plane!"  As I "led" him around me to take his seat, the fellow Texan grabbed him by the back of his neck and his waist and headed him back to his seat.  I then grabbed the 2nd man and said, "You WILL do the same!"

He protested loudly, but my adrenaline was flowing now and he was going to go also.  Just as I escorted him forward, the plane stopped, the doors opened and three TSA agents and four police officers entered the cabin.  Myself and my new Texas friend were told to cease and desist for they had the situation under control.

I was quite happy to oblige actually.  There was still some sort of commotion in the back, but within moments, all eleven Muslim men were escorted off the plane.  The TSA agents then had their luggage unloaded.  We talked about the occurrence and were in disbelief that it had happened.

Then suddenly, the door opened again and in walked all eleven Muslim men!  Stone faced, eyes front and robotic, (the only way I can describe it) they were reseated.  The stewardess from the back had been in tears and when she saw the men, she was having NONE of it!  Since I was up front, I heard and saw the whole ordeal.  She told the TSA agents that there was NO WAY she was staying on the plane with the Muslim men.  The agent told her that they had searched the men and were going through their luggage with a fine tooth comb.  However, nothing had been found and that the men were allowed to proceed on to Houston.

The captain and co-captain came out of the cockpit and told the agent, "We and our crew will not fly this plane!"  After a word or two, the entire crew, luggage in tow, left the plane.  Five minutes later, the cabin door opened again and a whole new crew walked on.  Again, this was where I had had enough!  I got up and asked the TSA agent, "What the hell is going on?

I was told to take my seat.  The airlines and TSA were sorry for the delay and we would be home shortly.  I said "I'm getting off this plane".  The stewardess sternly told me that she could not allow me to get off.  Now I'm really mad!  I said "I am a grown man who bought this ticket, who's time is mine with a family at home and I am going through that door, or I'm going through that door with you under my arm, but I AM going through that door!"

And then I heard a voice behind me say "So am I!"  Then everyone behind us started to get up and say the same thing.  Within two minutes, I was walking off that plane where I was met by more TSA agents who asked me to write a statement about the incident.  I had five hours to kill at this point waiting for the next flight to Houston, so why the hell not give them my statement.  Due to the amount of people who got off that flight, it was canceled.  I was supposed to be in Houston at 6 PM, but I finally got there at 12:30 AM.  If you don't believe this, look up the date and then Flight 297 from Atlanta to Houston.

If this wasn't a terrorism dry run, I don't know what one is.  The terrorists wanted to see how TSA would handle it, how the crew would handle it, and how the passengers would handle it.  I'm telling this to you because I want you to know. The threat IS real.  I saw it with my own eyes."

Tedd Petruna 

I suggest you keep this going until this incident reaches the email of all POLITICIANS and the news media!

Ontario's Tax Funded Foolishness

Much more coal than oil is burnt in Ontario to create electricity. It fuels 5 plants in Ontario: Nanticoke, Lambton, Atikokan, Lakeview, and Thunderbay. Coal burning creates nitrogen oxide (NOX), a key contributor to smog; sulfur dioxide (SOX), which causes acid rain; and carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. Burning coal also releases other pollutants such as mercury. (This is a potent neurotoxin that accumulates and concentrates as it travels through the food chain.)

While scrubbers can be installed on coal plants to reduce nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide cannot be removed. The coal industry often talks of "clean coal" but removing the carbon dioxide would require overcoming some of the basic laws that govern chemistry and thermodynamics. To be totally honest, the industry really should use the phrase "less filthy coal".
Ontario's coal plants cannot even be described as "less filthy". There are plans to install nitrogen oxide scrubbers on 4 of the 12 units at Nanticoke and Lambton, but that would leave the remaining 8 units without any controls. And installing this technology slightly reduces thermal efficiency. This means more coal must be burned to achieve the same output. This, in turn, increases the emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Sulfur dioxide has been reduced by switching to lower sulfur coals but electric power generation in Ontario still continues to be the largest single emitter in the province.

Coal generators in Ontario cause roughly 20% of the province's emission of nitrogen oxides. At high summer temperatures this reacts with other chemicals in the air to create ground level ozone, a lung irritant that has been associated with breathing difficulties and asthma. The Canadian Medical Association estimates that every year approximately 2000 Ontarions die prematurely from smog. Thousands more Ontario citizens have smog-related breathing problems that result in a reduced quality of life.

Acid rain, smog, mercury, climate change---whenever we turn on a light in modern-day Ontario we are substantially contributing to these problems.

Oh, I didn't mention that this environMENTALly conformist Province is 200 Million in debt. There are MANY programs where the proper research was implemented and it, became a failed (another) use of tax dollars. But what difference does this make 'cuz Suzuki LOVES Ont. and McGuinty too.
There was the programme where land owners could send their green power to a grid to lower their power bills. That SOUNDED nice until it was discovered that the grid could receive the green energy. Again, millions was wasted in harnessing this green energy.

Can. Tax Dollars Go To Support Oxycontin Hooked Reserves

OTTAWA - Smugglers rampantly dodge legal authorities and funnel narcotic prescription pills into First Nations communities, researchers say, and changes to the Canadian drug market could have a ripple effect.

More than 50% of the adult population in many First Nations communities are addicted to the painkiller OxyContin, according to Simon Fraser University addiction researcher Benedikt Fischer.
"We know that a lot of the OxyContin illegal supplies are flown into the First Nations communities or shipped up there by mail in very clandestine and creative ways like sewn into diapers or sent in food items," Fischer said. "There's also dealers flying up with a couple of suitcases of pills for a day."
Fischer says the opiate medication, which can be snorted or shot up to amplify its effect, is used by some aboriginal children as young as 10 years old.

Canadian manufacturer Purdue Pharma recently announced it will stop making OxyContin beginning in March. The drug company is planning to roll out a new, less abusive form of the medication called OxyNEO but First Nations leaders fear there will be withdrawal issues once OxyContin is no longer available.
"This is already quite a disaster," Fischer said. "What we know is likely to happen is that people will switch to other drugs and potentially, depending on what is shipped up there, that may include amphetamines, cocaine or heroine."

This week, Health Canada moved to tighten rules for First Nations people seeking to obtain funding for the prescription medication. It will now grant funding on a case-by-case basis, but typically only in extreme circumstances like cancer treatment and palliative care.
The government department says prescriptions aren't at the root of uncontrolled drug issues on reserves, but they recognize upcoming changes to the market could impact users.
"There is little concern of withdrawal for clients switching therapy from OxyContin to OxyNEO when taken as prescribed by a physician," Health Canada spokesman Stephane Shank said. "It is possible that some clients who obtained OxyContin through other sources may go through withdrawal when OxyContin is removed from the Canadian market."
Fischer believes infrastructure and resources are needed to address deep-rooted drug issues in remote First Nations communities.

Kristy.Kirkup@sunmedia.ca
On Twitter: @kkirkup

So, not only are they stoned most of the time, which results in being couch potatoes, neglect of families, personal responsibilities, ANY kind of motivation to provide or look after themselves, on top of ALL this, we are PAYING for this abuse thru OUR TAX DOLLARS! But, nooo, says the NDP - the current Gov't needs to have their hands slapped because the Aboriginal community isn't being looked after well enough. Where or what was Charlie Angus doing, you know, the NDP MP in N. Ont. for SEVEN years while this was going on? Maybe he and the NDP were in one chorus criticizing the Gov't for it's inaction on Aboriginals while the Gov't was sending 30 odd million per to these well-deserved (sic) oxycontin hooked (and whatever else) communities?

Incomes Of Some Heads Of Charities They Serve (Self Serving?)

Keep these facts in mind when "donating". As you open your pockets

for yet another natural disaster, keep the following facts in mind; we

have listed them from the highest (worse paid offender) to the lowest

(least paid offender).

The worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, UNICEF - CEO,

receives $1,200,000 per year, (plus use of a Rolls Royce for his exclusive

use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumored to be well

over $150,000.) Only pennies from the actual donations goes to the UNICEF

cause (less than $0.14 per dollar of income).

The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO

of the American Red Cross... for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was

$651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including

all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and

kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family,

for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to

related charity causes.

The third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, Brian Gallagher,

President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary ( U. S. funds),

plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it

is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses

(1 in Canada , and 1 in the U. S. A. ), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership,

3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses... and so on. This

equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

 

Obama Rewards (Likes?) Crooked, High Profile Executives

Where are Jim, Tim, and Franklin now? 

Here's a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who
brought down Wall Street.
Franklin Raines - was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae.
Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when
auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae's accounting
activities. Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in
benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the
accounting scandal became clear.
Tim Howard - was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a
strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure
a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie. Investigations by federal
regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that
management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and
Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard's Golden Parachute was
estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later
forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that
Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation
from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million
when it fact it was $21 million." Johnson is currently under investigation
for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie
Mae.  Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES?Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD?Howard is a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama under Franklin Raines.
JIM JOHNSON?Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to
run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee.

Kinda makes you sick to your stomach.
Our government seems to be rotten to the core !
Are we stupid or what? The Vote in 2012..it is the most important U.S. election
of their lives...

Enviro "charities"

Vivian Krause (fair-questions.com) has been following the money trail between large U.S. Foundations and influential Canadian environmental groups. For awhile nobody paid attention, but they are now. There are questions about motives and transparency  Last week she was before the Committee on Natural Resources that turned out to be a very testy especially by opposition MP's. They take exception to the work that Vivian is doing and the facts of her research. This should information shouls all out in the open as we are told by MP's, but it's not. She has had to pay a fee to the U.S. to retrieve old tax records, none of it is available from Canadian tax records. The 100's of millions of dollars come from a Hedge Fund Billionaire and huge enviro groups.She has been asking Tides Canada, who has been the recipient of over 60 million to post their most recent American tax returns as they aren't doing that. So, it is definately NOT out in the open. All that Rev. Can. tells about the money is what it's for not who it came from. Much of the funding goes to stopping the Northern Gateway Pipeline. The Oak foundation used 16 million to fund The Westcoast Environmental Law Research Foundation that supplied Greenpeace to support the efforts against the pipeline. Some people say well it's foreign investment to support foreign charities. Actually ALL charity is to REDUCE poverty or advance education or religion. They receive tax breaks to show their good works. Charity should go to the countries that need it most. The world over needs charity, NOT Canada. Lyberal David McGinty says this is legal if the Canadian "charity" is also represented in the States.Instead of discussing the substance of the issue they prefer to deflect asking if she's a lawyer or a tax accountant. This tactic  does sway badly needed investment capital. Here you have specific climate groups swaying public opinion. The Oak Foundation funded Greenpeace to disavow (refuse to acknowledge) Fortune 500 companies to close down Alberta Oil. To get Institutional investors to not invest in the "Tar Sands" by creating a legislative ban on oil tankers on the west coast. There needs to be made categories in order to invest in.

Oil Sands Economic Impact to Canada

According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, as oil sands production grows, employment in Canada as a result of new oil sands investments in production and processing is expected to grow from 75,000 jobs in 2010 to 905,000 jobs in 2035, with 126,000 jobs being sourced in provinces other than Alberta. New oil sands development is expected to contribute more than $2.1 trillion (2010 dollars) to the Canadian economy over the next 25 years – about $84 billion per year. The oil sands industry will pay an estimated $766 billion in provincial and federal taxes and royalties in the same period, which contributes to quality of life and services across Canada.

Today the oil sands are the largest employer of building trades in the country. CAPP (Canadian Producers of Petroleum Production) and the Canada’s Building Trades are concerned about the lack of skilled worker availability in the future. The two organizations are presenting an energy and skilled trades conference later this month in Ottawa to discuss labour issues and potential training, fiscal and immigration solutions.

Canada’s oil sands provides and continues to create significant long-term, well-paid, skilled jobs in Canada and the United States,” said Dave Collyer, CAPP’s president. “One of our industry’s most pressing issues is in fact a lack of skilled people to fill the jobs we have today and foresee in the future.

We STILL get the usual rhetoric from the Left against the 'Sands. Today, the 'Sands have a friend in Harper and this is good for Canada's economy and bad news for EVERY person or organisation that doesn't like the 'Sands. Aboriginals receive Billions and Billions of dollars per year through the Canadian Gov't. These funds are bolstered by revenues derived by the Oil Sands. And they are protesting The Gateway Pipeline. Ludacris reasoning brought to it's extreme contradiction.

More Inmate Benefits

Did you know that there is a Federal EI program that allows Inmates to receive DOUBLE the benefits over regular applicants. That's DOUBLE. Your IN jail because you've victimized society. So, victim's and their families are being taxed so their ABUSER's can receive DOUBLE the EI benefits. This means criminals are to get paid by US to do their chosen, illegal, activity. The Lyberals and NDP say don't revoke these benefits 'cuz this action will prevent them from assimilating into society. There already are many other Gov't programs for these people to access, we don't need to INSULT the many VICTIM's of the crimes by paying the criminals to do their deeds.
This is just MORE Lyberal past policy that looked at looking after the criminals and not caring about the victim's of crime. Trudeau (yech!) instituted this skewed focus in 1971, when the then Justice Minister told Canadians that the Gov'ts focus would be on the criminal, not the victim. - Yeah, thanks for comin' out.
Don't do the crime, if your not prepared to do the time AND punishment.

Can. Enviro. Group Funding from the Rockefeller Group (U.S.)

This clip below outlines in graphic detail a report put together by the Rockefeller Group that outlines it's strategy to target the Oil Sands and prevent, or more specifically to eliminate it's existence through funding Canadian Environmental Groups. These organisations claim to be charities, which is a joke, so they receive millions from the Rockefeller Group to attack the 'Sands. The Canadian and Alberta Government's are also complicit in this crime, that really, makes NO sense at all! This is Ezra Levant and the information contained in this clip is astounding.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/billionaire-boondoggle/

More Native (missplaced) Wisdom

Recently, Colin Craig, the Prairie Director of The Canadian Taxpayers Federation received a letter in regard's to the Enoch Cree Nation in Northern Alta., sent from someone from the Enoch reserve out of "pure frustration". From a pop. of ONLY 1700, Chief and band council, on average, receive a salary of, get this, $130,000, that's tax free. For someone who pays tax, and all of us do except the deemed superior ones in Canada, that would be $190,000. The Chief (thief) Ron Morin was paid, after all his perks and honourariums billed the gov't (us) for $270,000. Everyone else on the reserve who are not part of the "in crowd" or the few "priveledged ones", live in squalor. To top this all off, the wise brain trust (band council) is PROTESTING the Northern Gateway Pipeline. After all, there IS Oil and Gas production presently ON the reserve. What?? They are protesting gov't actions and "poo-pooing" private industry that through jobs would give the Aboriginals lifeblood. Hypocrisy at it's finest. The NDP use this line of thinking quite regularly. A HUGE change in priorities is warranted here. This too, is about Democratic accountability and transparency from Band Council, to their own members.