Goddess

As someone who dealt with pretty much every prominent MSM outlet in Canada, I can say with certainty that we've reached the strangest moment in our Media history. The primary legacy media newspaper outlets- are unlikely to survive on ad revenue alone, and are at least somewhat economically dependent on the Canadian government. As a result, any story that threatens to take down their banker (The Liberal government) is anti-thetical to their mutual survival. This may help to explain some part of my experience with them re: my 'In Trudeau's Kitchen' story. If someone brings a story that threatens to bring the Liberals down, they are all at risk of possibly going out of business if it gets published. I can also say with certainty that many of the journalists that have their stories rejected by their editors/publishers are not happy about it. I know this because they tell me that, and because a significant number of them, including journalists at newspapers noted above, told me SHOCKING stories about prominent Federal politicians. Not just cursory things, but the kind of things that would both enrage and ignite the people of Canada if they knew. Canada, we have a problem. Our MSM may only be able to stay in business if they don't tell you the truth about our political leaders. Yet, without that information, our nation will not survive. What shall we do to break this impasse?

10th Lib MP Cited On Ethics | Blacklock's Reporter He was fined $200 for this. 🙄

Just days after the OECD called our PBO office "one of the strongest institutions of its kind", the now vacant office issued this announcement: He was very good at calling out Liberal BS, so they are kneecapping the office. Very convenient for Carney. He won't have to answer to anyone as he transfers our CPP into his own bank account.

BC Coroner announced today that he is calling for an inquest into this situation.

Yes, we are well aware that you are against any industry in Canada. It's why you vote for the party who wants no industry in Canada. But you also want FREE everything for everybody. For instance, You said Lesbians fleeing the "persecution" of the US should get free everything. Where do you think that money is going to come from?

The Liberals sell virtue. The NDP sells outrage. Neither sells growth.

L Wayne Metheson on "X": The Liberals and NDP have managed something almost impressive: a country sitting on uranium, potash, nickel, oil, gas, grain and hydro… acting like a resource-poor nation begging for relevance. The video summary lays it out clearly. Canada is rich in resources yet losing global market share. It takes over 20 years to approve and build a mine. LNG projects stalled. Capital leaving. Enbridge frustrated. BC importing electricity while blocking new generation That’s not bad luck. That’s policy. The U.S. becomes energy dominant. We become regulatory dominant. They build. We review. They export. We consult. Then we wonder why GDP per capita drifts and food bank lines grow. And here’s the part that should irritate any serious Canadian, left or right: even PM Carney acknowledge overregulation, yet reform never arrives Recognition without action is political theatre. This is what happens when ideology outranks arithmetic. Cheap, reliable energy is the base layer of prosperity. Industry, farming, manufacturing, data centres, everything runs on it. You throttle energy, you throttle growth. Then you blame corporations, capitalism, or “global forces” for the slowdown you engineered. The Liberals sell virtue. The NDP sells outrage. Neither sells growth. And the media? According to the summary, weak on accountability That vacuum lets policy failure hide behind press conferences and hashtags. This isn’t about oil versus environment. It’s about whether Canada wants to be a serious country or a symbolic one. You can regulate intelligently and still build. The U.S. proves that. You can protect the environment and approve projects in under two decades. Australia proves that. We choose paralysis. If you want a simple step? Demand timelines. Not vibes. Demand measurable output. Not intentions. And when a government blocks prosperity, stop rewarding it.

"The CBSA arrested Sarkaren Vir Singh, 29, of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and Chamkaur Singh, 25, of Belleville, Ontario." Like I keep saying, Canada has allowed large scale migration of individuals from Punjab, India, who are involved in drug trafficking and other criminal actives, to fund the Khalistani movement." These people are neither Canadians, nor Indians. They live in the imaginary land of Khalistan where narcotics is the main stream of income.

L Wayne Matheson on "X": The current Liberal line suggests Japan is lining up to build cars in Canada because we’re nice, stable, and morally impressive. That sounds good at a podium. It falls apart under basic arithmetic. Japan has been clear. No reliable access to the U.S. market, no plant. It is that simple. Ontario is not the destination. It is a staging ground inside a North American supply chain built around American demand. Remove seamless export south and the economics collapse. Companies do not build billion-dollar facilities to serve a 40-million-person market when 330 million sit across the border. So when Melanie Joly implies Japan’s investment calculus is independent of U.S. access, that is not optimism. It is spin. And spin is not a strategy. Let’s talk structure. Toyota and Honda account for the overwhelming majority of Canadian auto assembly. That tells you Canada’s role. We are a node in a continental production system. Our value proposition is integration, predictability, and cost efficiency. Not vibes. Yes, Canada has strengths. Critical minerals. Skilled labour. Energy resources. A relatively stable legal system. But those are inputs. The foundation is market access. If Washington signals trade friction, tariffs, or shifting rules of origin, capital recalculates instantly. And here’s the uncomfortable part. When Ottawa flirts with policy ambiguity toward China, piles on regulatory costs, and drives up energy prices while claiming industrial leadership, it sends mixed signals. Japanese firms are balancing geopolitical risk carefully. If Canada looks strategically confused, that risk premium goes up. Capital goes elsewhere. This is the Liberal blind spot. They talk confidence. Investors price risk. Foreign investment is not an applause line. It is a cost-benefit equation. Tariffs, labour productivity, logistics efficiency, energy pricing, tax treatment, and regulatory stability all go into the model. If the numbers don’t work, the plant doesn’t get built. Full stop. Canada does not compete as a moral brand. We compete as a high-functioning production partner inside North America. That means: Lock in durable U.S. market access. Keep energy and input costs competitive. Cut regulatory drag. Stay geopolitically clear. Stop overselling and start aligning policy with economic reality. The real risk is not that Japan misunderstands Canada. It’s that Ottawa misunderstands how capital actually moves. Foreign capital is not sentimental. It is disciplined. So here’s the question the Liberals never answer plainly: when the spreadsheets are opened in Tokyo, does Canada still win on cost, risk, and access? If the answer is no, no amount of press conferences will fix it.

Probably a good idea. I was just reading yesterday about a man in Canada who claimed asylum from some African country but has been back to vacation there 6 times in the last few years. I didn't save the info, so no link, sorry. But making a stricter definition of asylum seeker would prevent this kind of fraud.

Carney in India. Carney announces $100 billion in Canadian Pension Funds will be invested in India. I guess we are going to learn the hard way, like Sweden did. (See below.) Carney's Net Zero agenda has failed all over the world, investors are pulling out of his GFANZ amid US investigations for fraud. Canada is the last place that Carney can cash in on his Net Zero dreams. And what does Canada get in return? Carney announced - We get more Indians. Apparently, Canada has no tech or AI people. Ambassador to India was just on CBC and said that he believes Canada can take in an additional 60 million Indians. Look up Mark Wisman (recently appointed Ambassador to the US by Carney) and the Century Initiative, which the Liberal party has relied heavily on in setting immigration policy in Canada. They advise Canada needs 100 million people and Wisman has publicly stated that vetting is too time-consuming and unnecessary - just bring them in. Swedish Pension Funds Suffer SEK 197 Billion Loss: Impact on Retirees & Economy Sweden’s Pension Funds: The Cost of a Green Gamble Sweden's Pension Funds Face Eye-Watering Losses After Investing Heavily in Net Zero Projects - Energy News Beat In a stark warning to global investors chasing the green dream, Sweden’s pension funds are reeling from massive financial setbacks tied to ambitious net-zero initiatives. Once hailed as pioneers in sustainable investing, these funds poured billions into high-risk clean energy ventures, only to watch them crumble amid market realities. These investments, spanning battery manufacturing and green steel industries, were predicated on optimistic assumptions: aggressive EU decarbonization policies, generous subsidies, and booming demand for electric vehicles. None of these materialized as expected, with weakened EV sales and subsidy cuts exacerbating the crisis. While exact total losses across all Swedish pension funds remain unaggregated in public reports, estimates point to billions in kronor evaporated—described by analysts as “eye-watering” and potentially requiring taxpayer bailouts via Sweden’s national debt office, which guaranteed portions of these ventures. The lack of returns is glaring: instead of high rewards from a “high-risk, high-reward” strategy, these projects have delivered zero yields and steep write-downs, socializing losses among pension savers while private executives pocketed earlier gains. Sweden’s centre-right government is now reconsidering the role of pension funds in national development goals, signaling a shift away from such speculative green bets.

I heard him talk about it at the rallies.....?? You watch CBC for your main news source, don't you?

I've always voted for whichever party has the policies I think we need at that time. I've voted Liberal, NDP and Conservative. At this point in time, yes - I don't like the Liberals. I don't like what they've done for the last 11 years. I find it odd that so many think they're doing a fab job.

When did Poilievre say we should not deepen foreign relationships?

No, not in those words. But he implied it so strongly that more than half of Canadians now believe America is our greatest enemy.

I think the definition of globalist has changed slightly. It used to mean politicians who advocated for economies that took into account other countries in their planning and strategies. That was good. Today, it's changed to politicians who MAINLY advocate for other countries. Their own country comes last. This is the Liberals. Spending tens of billions on other countries while our own systems and infrastructure crumbled. And billions on favouring immigrants and refugees and fake asylum seekers over Canadian citizens. Carney is no different. I don't believe he gives a flying f&*k about Canadians. We don't need another globalist in power. We've had 11 years of it now and Canada is circling the toilet bowl. Housing, the economy, jobs, healthcare, the education system.....all gone downhill. Adding expensive bureaucracies that achieve nothing, increasing gov't workers without delivering better services, the 2nd highest paid gov't on the planet. We need to start looking after our own country more. And that will never happen under the virtue-signaling Liberals. I don't think there's even one cabinet member or backbencher who isn't in this for the sole purpose of using their position to pig out at the taxpayer money trough. Would the current Conservatives be any different? I don't know. But I am 100% sure the current Liberals don't give a f*&K about Canadians.

World travel tripled under the Liberals.

I don't think I am. Fear of Trump, fear of America was his main platform in the election. He was the only one who could save us from them. It was very successful. Recent polls show more than half of Canadians now think America is our greatest threat. Not China. Yes, I think it was difficult for him to say he supports the US action in Iran. I'm not sure why he said that. I don't believe Canada is relevant enough for anybody in the world to give a sh!t what Canadians think on anything. I suspect he only said it to try and walk back some of his "America is our enemy" rhetoric. No it's not. It's been around for a long time. I just looked and it was first coined and defined in the 1940's. No Conservative has ever said our only trading partner should be the US and I certainly never said that. So the entire premise of your attempted insult is wrong. The fact of the matter on trade is that the US should be our largest trading partner. And we should be theirs. They're right next door. Geographically, it makes the most sense. Obviously diversified trade is good and we have always had that. Finding new trade partners or finding new trade with old partners is good. Poilievre's last speech I thought was very good. Yes, diversifying our trade is necessary. What wasn't necessary was encouraging Canadians to light their hair on fire and poop their pants every time Trump tweeted. Someone has to be the adult in the room and not match childishness with childishness. That was the gist of Poilievre's speech and that was the gist of his platform last election. The biggest criticism of him was that he wasn't freaking out enough about Trump tweets. To me, that was his biggest positive. But I tend to lean more stoic.

We will have to friendly bet on this one. 🙂 It's too late for him to walk back the "America is our enemy" rhetoric. He's already convinced half of Canadians of that. And I will really have to disagree on the "he's a conservative at heart" line - I read his book. He is, most definitely, NOT. He's a globalist. Their goals are far from conservative.

I don't. I enjoy the debate with just about everyone here. 🙂 That's why I've been here so many years. Not yet. Carney's still working on that. But it's getting close. Getting Canadians to hate Americans is working very well. Not yet. Carney's still working on that. But it's getting close. Getting Canadians to believe China is no threat to us is working very well.

Yes. And that relationship is over. They are no longer our economic partners and will not receive our cooperation on military/security. Not in that speech. But it's clear he wants deepening ties to China. And NOT with the US. They are now our enemy, ready to storm our border at any second. Hie entire election campaign was based on "The Americans are going to invade us." I am. Our NEW relationship with the US is basically a divorce. A really ugly divorce. So if you're saying we still have a relationship with the US, then I guess, yes. The new relationship is like our EX after a messy, dirty divorce - we hate them, we bad-mouth them and we rebound into China's arms. Which is exactly what I said at the start, before your semantics lesson.

I think a lot of people don't realize that Beijing has always had world domination aspirations and has been working away at that for centuries, decades. If anyone wants to take us over, it's the Chinese. I think America just wants a strong, resource rich Western hemisphere to be able to ward off the Chinese.

I don't think the pro-China Canadians realize how much of a mistake yet. Once they're all in "re-education camps" they'll prolly still be like "It would have been so much worse with the Americans. Thank gawd Carney hooked us up with the Chinese! Elbows up!"

Not sure I'm following you. If you're making the distinction that the OLD relationship is over and now there is a NEW relationship, then.....maybe. Except Carney was very clear that the NEW relationship does not include our economy or military/security cooperation and he's repeatedly told Canadians that the Americans are our enemy who is trying to take us over. And he's convincing Canadians that our closest relationship is now China. To the point that Canadians now hate Americans and prefer the Chinese. Doesn't sound like much of a relationship to me. Sounds more like a divorce.

The more I think about this illustration, the weirder it is. Like, if your wife said to you "Our old relationship is over." That's pretty generic. It implies you still have a relationship, but it's different somehow. But if your wife says, "Our old relationship is over. Specifically - our financial relationship is over and our sexual relationship and living together relationship is over." The specifics given leave no doubt that, really, the whole relationship is over. Not just different.