Justin Trudeau: No Trade Deal With U.S. That “Doesn’t Continue Exemptions for Canada’s Cultural Industries”…

All our propaganda are belong to us…

In comments yesterday about the likelihood of Canada joining the U.S-Mexico trade agreement, Justin from Canada stated emphatically that his country would not join any trade agreement that removes Canadian protectionist policy on “cultural industries”.

What are Justin’s “cultural industries“? Well, that would be control over media and telecommunications. In essence, Canada wouldn’t want any of that pesky free-market media stuff interfering with the state-run propaganda broadcasts.  Yup, you can’t make this stuff up folks…

CANADA – […] The prime minister also said his government won’t sign an updated free trade accord with the U.S. and Mexico if the deal doesn’t continue exemptions for Canada’s cultural industries, which aims to protect Canada’s publishing and broadcast industries.

That too was entrenched in the original Canada-U.S. free trade deal that preceded NAFTA. Giving up the exemptions would be tantamount to giving up Canadian sovereignty and identity, Trudeau said.

“It is inconceivable to Canadians that an American network might buy Canadian media affiliates, whether it’s newspapers or TV stations or TV networks,” he said.

“So we’ve made it very clear that defending that cultural exemption is something that is fundamental to Canadians.” (read more)

Nice to see it all out in the open.  Canada can’t have that pesky free-market speech stuff getting in the way of the progressive state-run media. Rather hilarious, and simultaneously reaffirming of progressive ideology when you think about it.

The far-left worldview has always been reliant upon on control over the thoughts of the citizens under their authority.  This open admission by Justin Trudeau is a direct affirmation of all criticism levied against the political left.

Whether it be in the authoritarian control over social media, or in direct state control over broadcast and print media the progressive worldview simply cannot compete on an open field of ideas. Deploying a fancy catch-phrase like “cultural industries”, is only meant to obfuscate the inherent hypocrisy between what is espoused and what is actually true.

In related matters, the U.S. and South Korea trade deal (KORUS) has been finalized by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.  Additionally, the U.S. agreement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is progressing as an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Washington, DC – Today, the Office of the United States Trade Representative and Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy published the agreed outcomes of the negotiations to amend and modify the U.S.-Korea (KORUS) Free Trade Agreement.  These outcomes include amendments and modifications to KORUS as well as additional agreements and understandings to improve implementation of the trade pact. (continue reading press release)

More in-depth details of the KORUS Agreement Available HERE.

A joint media statement between the ASEAN Economic Ministers (AEM) and the United States Trade Representative is AVAILABLE HERE.

A general reminder/explanation.  CTH focuses a great deal of time and attention to the trade and economic side of political policy because almost all of the issues that matter are founded upon the economics of political policy.  If you drill down through all moonbat political opposition to President Trump and his U.S. economic agenda you will discover the root cause is based around economics, financial interests and control therein.

As with the Canadian example above, the ideology of progressive, democrat-socialists is an ideology of authoritarian control that is only possible if the same entities control the economic constructs that enable them to exist.  Remove their control over the financial aspects, and you deconstruct the foundation that supports the ideology.

“It is inconceivable to Canadians that an American network might buy Canadian media affiliates, whether it’s newspapers or TV stations or TV networks,” Trudeau said.  This same sentence could be repeated by any number of communist authoritarians.

Think about it… and discuss/share with your family.

There are, quite simply, trillions of dollars at stake.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in 1st Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Canada, Cultural Marxism, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2018, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, media bias, Mexico, NAFTA, Political correctness/cultural marxism, President Trump, Socialist, Trade Deal, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, wobbly word alert. Bookmark the permalink.

460 Responses to Justin Trudeau: No Trade Deal With U.S. That “Doesn’t Continue Exemptions for Canada’s Cultural Industries”…

  1. val66 says:

    I just don’t see the problem with Canada wanting to keep their protectionist policies on their own industries. Trump wants to do the same thing so American industries don’t go extinct.
    Sure, the trade off is a greatly reduced Canadian auto industry, but that’s the situation Canada’s in and set up by NAFTA. If they want to protect Telecom, Banking, and Dairy, they shouldn’t be judged on how they make their social judgements.

    US Media, US Banking cartels, and big US agriculture could flood Canadian markets and eliminate native Canadian industries. If you say, well Canada will save more jobs by keeping the auto industry, then you’re making the same argument as US free traders. That, we’ll be ahead in net jobs with free trade. So, I would support Canada’s protectionism of their “cultural industries.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • patsfaninpittsburgh says:

      Maybe Justin from Canada wants to protect broadcast jobs so there are reporters hard at work interviewing auto workers who are no longer employed.

      Tricky Justin from Canada.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Elle says:

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with Justin protecting their interests just like we our own. But I think you are missing the forest through the trees. He just threw the Dairy and soft wood industries under the bus but kept the “cultural industries”. Why was that? Maybe he doesn’t want anyone able to report that rather than sit down and negotiate in good faith so that both sides could profit, he huffed and he puffed and he blew their economy.

      Liked by 8 people

      • A Belle says:

        Good point.

        “Da’ hell with dairy and wood, we need to protect the media!” So a bunch of liberal media outfits in the US won’t be able to buy a few liberal media outfits in Canada, be still my heart…

        Justine just caved, the game is over.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Jonah Kyle says:

        He cares more about placating US socialists and tech giants (redundancy noted) than Canadian citizens.

        Liked by 1 person

      • jd says:

        Agreed. The whole reason to have Tariffs is to protect the industry, farming, culture you have as a nation against other nations dumping cheap goods. If Canada wants to keep their communication it would be like us wanting to keep the Federal Reserve. Our Federal Reserve is owned by several large Wall Street and European banks. Obviously, it would be better if it were established under the Hamilton-Franklin National Bank idea, as at first.

        NPR, at the beginning, 1980’s was great. Then the CIA moved into management. So, the Deep State is a third factor.

        So, we can think, government, market is best. Actually, none of these systems will save us because both government and market controls are needed. And, the Deep State is always left out of the arguments, when they are controlling almost everything. But, historically, that has been the problem since Jackson. Americans, just don’t know it and London and little brother Wall Street are not going to educate us.

        Like

      • Davey says:

        Trump himself expects leaders to work hard for the benefit of their citizens.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jay says:

        As a Canadian, I can tell you that Trudeau is not protecting the interests of Canadians, but rather the culture of special interest groups by refusing to remove supply management. Canada needs a real leader who cares about the will of the people, someone like Maxime Bernier. Surveys show that an overwhelming percentage of Canadians, (73%) don’t support supply management which offers Canadians nothing except high prices on dairy products.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Budklatsch says:

          Well, as it has been going China is buying up the canadian businesses. That is their choice evidently.

          Like

        • Msupertas says:

          Your country is home to THE greatest 3-piece progressive(the only way I use the word)rock band in the history of the world…past…present…future. THE mighty and unimitable RUSH, even for the total libs they are. Thank you for that Canada and may someone MCGA as our great President is MAGA!!!

          Liked by 1 person

          • Cranky Canuck says:

            So you like Rush but as you call them “total libs” it’s clear you don’t know much about them. May I suggest you use your preferred search engine and look for Rush – Ayn Rand and do some reading. I suspect when your done you will be an even bigger Rush fan. Oh and Trudeau is a dick.

            Like

      • Mashall says:

        And like the US Middle Class Worker rejected Clinton, Turdeau is subject to being booted out. Canada….Just do it!

        Liked by 2 people

      • John VI says:

        Its a vote problem. With no electoral college in canada, the 2 biggest provinces, ontario and quebec select the political party in charge. It doesnt matter how the rest of the country votes, those two choose the government for the election. So when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement, or really anything, politicians in ontario will throw the entire rest of the country under the bus to keep the voters in those two provinces voting for them. PERIOD. Softwood lumber? BC and alberta, who cares? Dairy? BC, Alberta, Saskachewan, Manitoba. Not enough votes, no one cares. Fisheries? Newfoundland, PEI, New Brunswick. No one cares. Auto Industry? ONTARIO. Holy shit! Something must be DONE! And the only reason princess Sparkle socks got elected is the liberal press in Canada. Of COURSE hes gonna cover their asses. That is a sever co-dependant relationship if ever you saw one.

        Like

    • Matt says:

      >>>>If they want to protect Telecom, Banking, and Dairy, they shouldn’t be judged on how they make their social judgements.<<<<<

      I don't disagree, but at the same time, there is no requirement that the U.S. keep NAFTA and enter into a deal with Canada if the U.S. doesn't like the terms. It is a two-way street.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I Will Not Comply says:

        Matt says: “It is a two-way street”.
        Your right Matt, but it wasn’t until President Trump installed a lane going the other direction. The new lane is almost complete. MAGA!

        Liked by 1 person

    • rioosodog says:

      Canada will treat us fairly, or they will be going down! It is not our responsibility to prop up Socialist governments!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jay says:

        As a Canadian, I agree with your comment, and so do most Canadians who don’t want supply management, as part of NAFTA anymore than your great President Trump does. Supply management only protects the relationship between special interest groups and Trudeau’s government. This fosters socialism.

        Liked by 1 person

        • rioosodog says:

          Thanks for the comment. I would add that as long as the Elites control large portions of the economy they have power over the people in those industries. I come from a farming community in the US and I understand the issues. I am truly hoping that a fair compromise solution is adjudicated, however I am tired of the US always being the target of the robber barons in this world taking wealth from us because “they can”! We give more wealth away than ANY country in the world. We patrol the seas of the entire globe to protect shipping, we maintain satellites that the entire world uses…..

          Like

    • iswhatitis says:

      val66 says: “I just don’t see the problem with Canada wanting to keep their protectionist policies on their own industries. Trump wants to do the same thing so American industries don’t go extinct.”

      ***

      I think I missed part of the conversation.

      What protectionist policies of President Trump are you talking about?

      All I’ve been hearing is RECIPROCITY. That isn’t “protectionism”, it’s “fair trade”.

      Please elaborate on the protectionist policies of President Trump that you refer to. I may even learn something. 🙂

      Liked by 8 people

    • KingBroly says:

      If Canada likes their propaganda, they can keep their propaganda. But we should be able to do the same (NYT hint hint) and force divestment from foreign entities for the media.

      Liked by 3 people

    • SwampRatTerrier says:

      Those are just poker chips.

      Like

    • Maquis says:

      Stalin approves this message.

      Like

    • Chris Lilley says:

      Your rationale is non-sense. NAFTA dramatically altered the middle class of the U.S. by outsourcing automobile manufacturing jobs to Canada, Mexico and ultimately China once there was a realization that both Mexico and Canada could cheat on their rule of origin agreements. Automobile manufacturing disappeared from the U.S. as a result. I reference auto assembly as a true U.S. “cultural industry” of which we allowed to evaporate to off-shore. The same has happened with textiles, with durable goods, with disposable goods (including cell phones). This renegotiation is about “fair” trade. Shouldn’t U.S. have the same access to Canadian markets as Canada has to U.S. markets? If Canadian products and services are desired by Canadian citizens and businesses, they can make the choice on their own without having their access to markets limited to what their government decides.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jay says:

        Agree. When Trudeau says he’s just protecting Canadian culture, he’s really saying that he’s protecting the liberal, totalitarian agenda of socialism that no Canadian would knowingly ever vote for.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Budklatsch says:

        Agree 100%

        Like

      • Tim Cunningham says:

        Chris: NAFTA outsourced no auto manufacturing jobs to Canada whatsoever. The two countries had enjoyed free trade in cars since the Canada US auto pact of 1965, something a cousin of mine helped negotiate.

        Like

    • eagle931 says:

      You are comparing oranges to apples. It is one thing to want to protect American industry in the generic sense and another to prohibit foreign ownership of a given firm. Pres. Trump wants to retool the U.S. economy by bringing manufacturing jobs back into the country; however, that doesn’t mean that he wants ownership of specific companies to be American. Examples of foreign-owned manufacturing in the U.S. abound, such as Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Honda, British Aerospace, Budweiser and others too numerous to count. As for “cultural industries”, the New York Times is owned by a Mexican national, and several other newspapers are foreign-owned as well; the same goes for the Spanish-language Telemundo TV network. Reuters and AP wire services are foreign-owned and based in London, England, and quite a few U.S. magazines are owned by foreign entities. Yet, somehow we don’t seem to be in danger of losing our cultural identity and no one cares who owns it. Yet, somehow American participation or ownership of Canadian “cultural industries” outlets is a danger to Canadian identity? In short, Sundance is correct that the real motivation for Trudeau’s concern for Canada’s “Cultural Industry” is nothing more than an attempt to control information.

      Liked by 2 people

    • BillsFanClarence says:

      The general idea of free trade rests on the fundamental principle that different nations have varying components supporting their economies. Some are rich in minerals and basic commodities while others are stronger in the intellectual components of production. Since the nature of the world economies is so diverse, countries have many different sets of comparative advantages, see: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/comparative-advantage/.

      In general, it is a huge mistake to earmark any industry for protection with the exception of those that support national defense. Every country has an obligation to its citizens to protect its borders, by force if necessary. However, even in the case of defense industries, such protectionism occurs at a cost to the country. Each country has at its core the ability to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis and derive its own value judgments case by case. If Canada decides to protect industries selectively, then they also must be prepared to pay the cost. The United States is under no obligation to subsidize that economic choice. In the past, it was a long-standing policy to take these “small” issues in stride at the cost of our small businesses and countless working families.

      Individually many of these “deals” seem innocuous. Collectively, they have decimated entire US cities and a large cross-section of the American population. President Trump is seeking to end this corrosive and unfair economic condition. I am sorry that Canadians may feel bad about this but pushback is long overdue.

      Like

    • Jay says:

      What “cultural industries?” Do you mean CBC, our state run media and everything else that flows from that?

      Like

    • Jenny R. says:

      Here’s the deal: I’m American, and I could care less what happens, ultimately, to Canada. As long as it doesn’t infringe upon our interests, then hey, live long and prosper. However:
      We look out for our own people first; if other countries want to negotiate with us, then we have already shown we are willing to negotiate (we get a little, you get a little, neither of us gets everything). Such deals mean that all parties get to live long and prosper, which probably for the best.
      Canada does not appear to want to play that way….so…no deal.
      If it destroys Canada, then that is too bad — but they had a chance to not make it so, several chances in fact, and they have declined (and thrown shade to boot). So now, let them crumble into dust for all I care.
      Maybe they will eventually come to their senses, but not while standing on our backs.
      It’s a new world, squirrel, and America wants its nuts back.

      Like

    • CRC says:

      This Canadian disagrees. The CBC can go and burn in hell for all I care. It is a socialist, western Canadian hating institution propped up by taxpayers and is viewed by almost no one. CNN almost looks sane in comparison (I said almost…)

      Like

    • Substitute Drama Teacher. says:

      Juthtin the stupid from Trudopia is a globalist clown who is allowed to speak out of both sides of his mouth. Juthtin is a globalist puppet who has stated that “Canada is a Post National State with no core identity”… and yet here he is declaring that so called “cultural industries” will be protected at all costs. Which is it, a “post national state with no core identity” or land of “cultural industries”? Why does he feel the need to protect “cultural industries” when you are without a core identity? Canada is a Marxist State where some tribes and some “cultures” are more equal than others and without billions of taxpayer dollars poured into these artificial “industries” they would simply disappear. Canada is a corrupt joke with a corrupt corporate Media that makes the likes of CNN look positively fair and balanced… Must protect the propagandists (CBC, CTV, Globall, Bell Media) at all costs thats why Media Union thug Jerry Diaz is part of the Trudopian Globalist negotiating team. Corrupt to the core.

      Like

    • Electra says:

      Ostensibly, at least, Trump is NOT trying to establish a protectionist regime. He’s trying to establish free trade, and he’s using tariff as a weapon to achieve this. I’m pretty sure I disagree with this. The USA prospered behind a high wall of tariff for almost 200 years. But given the tyranny of free trade orthodoxy within the Republican party, Trump could hardly do otherwise.

      Like

    • Darklich123 says:

      Sure. I’d support it too if he had an ounce of leverage. He doesn’t. He should bend over and let the adults run North America for a little while

      Like

  2. Eyebrows has kind of played right into Trump’s hands- why help him stay in power- things are bad in Canada- they are about to get much worse- Just like his idol Obama, he is tanking the country- and will surely be voted out and a conservative put in as soon as Canadians begin to feel the discomfort of his policies- it’s kind of a WIN-WIN

    Liked by 4 people

    • Davey says:

      During the next federal election, the Conservatives just have to point at all the empty auto plants and (correctly) blame Trudeau and his Liberals.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Substitute Drama Teacher. says:

      Canadians are far too divided, politically unsophisticated and brainwashed to elect someone other than Juthtin the Turdo. Canadians will vote for their own extinction, they’ve been doing it for decades.

      Like

  3. Paul Killinger says:

    Newspapers are a failing industry and broadcast news has become a commodity. Like us, Canadians can choose any news sources that interest them..

    So if this is all Trudeau’s asking for, it’s nothing more than a “figleaf.” It’s over, and he’s ready to sign whatever’s put in front of him.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lady Sid says:

      We have a summer cottage on Lake Erie that is within range of both Detroit’s radio stations and Windsor ONT. Some American shows are broadcast from WCKLW-800 AM (Coast to Coast at 1 AM nightly is one I know of) and during the ad breaks, any “American brands” being broadcast are covered over by cheesy elevator music. I see the difference b/c I live in TN and hear entirely different ad breaks at home. The Canadian ads consist mainly of announcing some street fair in Windsor or a plumbing supplier. I guess they don’t want to learn about any “US cultural industries”! The daytime shows are pathetic, Lynn Martin trying to interview the woman on the street about some insignificant event or new regulation. . . . yawn. I would do myself in if I had to live in Canadia (my son’s term;-) They are a petty and passive-aggressively nasty bunch in my experience.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Derek Hagen says:

        This is one Canadian who has loved Americans and the US of A since he was 10 years old, many decades ago now. So there is that.

        Like

        • BytheNbrs says:

          As an American, I will embrace anyone who desires liberty over socialism for their country. Though you are Canadian, we are the same tribe. Best, BytheNbrs

          Like

      • Substitute Drama Teacher. says:

        Without American culture English speaking Canadians would not have any culture at all… they are completely and utterly lost… As Trudeau says… a “post National State with no core identity”… yep, just a bunch of taxpayer funded tribes and special interest groups where some our more equal than others. Canada is an ethno nationalist State since 1982 when Juthtins Father imposed his Charter of Group Rights.

        Like

  4. Curt says:

    Thank you again Sundance!! Yes, its becoming patently obvious that Socialism/Liberalism cannot survive or move forward without control of ALL the media. What’s even more obvious is that these lopsided trade deals that take advantage of America give rise to our Socialist/Communist rivals by using the ill gotten gains to straighten their position and further their agenda. America, because of these unevenly loaded one sided trade deals is essentially participating and paying for its own demise! Trump understands all this and more…………..

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Barry from Victoria says:

    The thing is that the Liberals are only interested in protecting the liberal media. We had one excellent conservative TV station, Sun News, that was denied a place on Canadian cable systems by the CRTC- the entity that supposedly promotes Canadian content. It has since reinvented itself as the online Rebel Media of Ezra Levant. Previous to that there was a wonderful conservative/Christian publication called variously The Alberta Report, Western Report, etc that was put out of business when the Post Office refused to allow them a second class mail rate. Run by Ted Byfield and his family, it was instrumental in cracking the Liberal stranglehold on our politics and then led to the formation of The Reform Party and eventually the Conservative governments of Stephen Harper.
    Incidentally, I’m writing this from a Starbucks, where I have recently noticed I can no longer access Breitbat News. It comes on briefly and then winks out. Anybody else having that problem?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. jb books says:

    I find this quote telling…
    “It is inconceivable to Canadians that an American network might buy Canadian media affiliates, whether it’s newspapers or TV stations or TV networks,” he said.
    Well, presuming then that his fellow citizens who own these media entities are equally protective of their “cultural industries”, then they would never sell to an American media affiliate, so he has nothing to worry about, does he. Does he?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maquis says:

      It wouldn’t just be buying existing state propaganda organs, it would also be the certainty that it would enable the creation a nouveau of non-Communist Compliant Media, even, GASP, by Canadians themselves. The State owns Canadian thought, they feel, and Trump is seeking to free even Canadians from their government straitjackets.

      Why, Canadian Patriots might even buy into/create an American information promulgation organization and move it into Canadian markets under the post-NAFTA deal.

      “All your hopes are belong to us.” -Trudope

      Liked by 1 person

  7. peaceandquietplease says:

    spending much time over the last few years in Canada and I can tell you the majority of Canadians watch American produced TV programming… from the Bachelor to Ellen to Wicked Tuna to the Simpsons …to name just a few. To say there is anything cultural about Canadian TV viewing is a joke.

    Print and radio, from my experience, they spend more time talking US politics then on their own… very odd to me… and most programming sounds like NPR…state run radio and group think…

    Like

    • Davey says:

      Agreed. Most TV programming is American. When I think of Canadian culture in TV programming, I think of The Littlest Hobo, and The Hillarious House of Frightenstein.

      Like

      • Davey says:

        Damn, almost forgot The Beachcombers.

        Like

      • Canada used to make wonderful TV shows for kids and teenagers. I used to love to watch “Are You Afraid of the Dark?” and the sketch show where somebody always got green goo poured over him or her. The TV series they made of Anne of Green Gables and other L.M. Montgomery books were wonderful. But I doubt they’re making shows anymore as good as those 1980’s and 1990’s shows were. For kids’ TV it used to be a mark of quality if the show was Canadian or Australian. But with the SJW ideology getting pushed through publicly funded media, I don’t think they can produce the same quality anymore.

        Like

      • Laurie says:

        Lol. I remember those and also The Beachcombers, The Red Green Show, Davinci’s Inquest and Heartland.

        Like

      • Will Warburg says:

        Trudge is afraid that we might have more Trailer Park Boys

        Like

  8. jmclever says:

    This might have something to do with Justin’s defense of “cultural indistries.” Where there’s tax money, there’s lined pockets.

    https://www.ep.com/home/managing-production/canada-incentives/

    https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/lights-camera-massive-film-subsidies

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mashall says:

    Knowing that Socialist Countries (aka Communist Lite, Communist Jr.) are Economic Failures (Running out of other people’s money), should we NOT enable them with Capitalist American Taxpayer Dollars?… or deny them at every reasonable opportunity?
    Reasonable according to MAGA!

    Like

  10. Mightymustardseed says:

    🇺🇸Trade fairly or 🇺🇸MADE IN USA🇺🇸

    MAGA

    Liked by 1 person

  11. tunis says:

    What’s the difference between Canadian media and ours? Like our “free and open” broadcast, telecom and print media companies are not propagandists?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. el bochie says:

    Oh, just slap a 30 percent tariff on all things Canadian and the douchebag will sing a different tune

    Like

  13. Boris Dabot says:

    Pravda!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Garrison Hall says:

    ‘ . . . the ideology of progressive, democrat-socialists is an ideology of authoritarian control that is only possible if the same entities control the economic constructs that enable them to exist . . .”

    AKA: Fascism

    Like

  15. Chris says:

    Yes your right, but Canada has always been culturally fragile, with the “Canadiana” section of the magazine rack. They are afraid of being smoked by American media. And I guess that’s a reasonable concern. That said, Justin from Canada has gotta go.

    Like

  16. Summer says:

    Hmm… I don’t know. Foreigners (globalists, Muslims, China etc.) running the propaganda machine is not any better than a state-run propaganda machine. There is no such thing as independent media any more — they are just the paid employees — presstitutes — following their owner’s direction. And the owner’s best interests are ensured by the close (ideological and umm… financial) ties to the preferred politicians and the “intelligence community” — a corrupt symbiotic relationship which is doubly harmful to the national interests and the national security if the owner is a foreign national.

    Look at who owns WaPo or the NYT and what they do.

    I can see Justin’s point even if I despise the man himself and his socialist agenda.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Pristach says:

    Yeah… let’s kick Don Cherry off Hockey Night in Canada.. that gasbag!

    MAGA

    Like

  18. Tim Cunningham says:

    May a Canadian who loves the goals that President Trump is attempting to reach (equality for all under the law as well as truly free and fair trade) supply some needed background that US readers might not know?

    1) Not all Canadians are Liberals or Socialists. Although our federal government is (alas) Liberal, we have a fair number of conservatives up here, including the government of one of the the most critical provinces (Ontario). In addition, two more key provinces will likely flip conservative in the next year or so.

    2) Canadians know that we subsidize some of our industries in ways Americans object to and claim amount to providing an advantage to Canadians exporting to the US. What isn’t often realized by Americans is that Canadians also know that, over the years, US companies have, with federal compliance, developed several ways to counteract those advantages, the most recent of which, your 15% cut in your corporate tax rates, pretty much destroys any advantage our companies gain from the subsidies in question.

    3) It is necessary to remember that there will be a political cost to the President if the current negotiations do not succeed. A lot of jobs in US border states are tied into free trade in cars and other non-cultural items and they, and the President’s popularity and electoral prospects, may take a significant hit if the negotiations fail. For this reason, a deal that wins on auto and dairy and other items is a win for President Trump, but no deal is a loss. To achieve this, a compromise will be necessary at some point. I am certain that your President is well aware of this reality and wants to find a solution.

    4) Unlike the US system, a Canadian government can fall anytime during its mandate if enough MP’s vote against it on a key bill. In the case of proposed changes to NAFTA, the dairy lobby effectively controls a large number of Liberal MP’s from the key province of Quebec and the auto industry exerts a similar control over a large number of Liberal MP’s from the equally key province of Ontario. If either of those two lobbies are sacrificed by any Canadian government to retain a free trade relationship with the US, then the government will need a quid pro quo in order to survive the fallout (i.e., an immediate election that will turn on the merits of Mr. Trump’s proposals. Please note that a Canadian election on this issue should be avoided at all costs because the result will likely be a minority Conservative or Liberal government which will be unable to pass a NAFTA amendment against the controlling block of NDP Quebec and vengeful rest of country Liberal MP’s. Such a Parliament will end negotiations and create trade barriers, something neither side wants.) Since the damage to the Canadian economy will be far greater if the auto industry is the target, the dairy industry must be sacrificed, but doing so will destroy the Trudeau government’s prospects in an election if no quid pro quo acceptable to Quebec Liberal voters is provided by the US as the necessary fig leaf.

    5) While I am no fan of PM Trudeau, I retain some respect for the senior civil servants in our federal Department of External Affairs (corresponding to your State Dept.). They seem to have realized that if there is going to be any compromise at all by the US it will not be on cars or dairy, (where compromises cannot be made by the US if it is to achieve its goal of fair trade) but it might be achievable on cultural industries.

    6) Defending Canadian culture and cultural industries against US infiltration and control is a stance that is not original to the present Liberal government. It is neither a recent, nor a partisan issue. It began under a Conservative government as long ago as the 1930’s with the creation of the CBC, and it has remained one of the few issues on which the majority of Canadians, of all political stripes, may be found in agreement, at least in principle. If any Canadian government, of whatever party, must fight the Canadian dairy lobby on the issue of free trade, it must be able to say that it won the exemption for cultural industries. If any American wants to know why we take this stance, ask yourself this: can you honestly answer that you would blandly approve of a free trade deal that would inevitably result in every single one of your major cultural producers being purchased by foreign businesses? And given what your own MSM, Hollywood and publishing industries are doing to conservatives right now, is it any wonder that Canadian conservatives do not want our cultural producers to become US branch operations? We have enough trouble keeping our own producers somewhat tied to reality as things are.

    Like

    • Kaco says:

      No, can’t disagree, and I don’t like the idea of U.S. founded media bought out either. I don’t like what’s been bought out as it is, including our oil wells or refineries. No thanks. Trade shouldn’t mean, buy us out. You can invest and create your own brand here, but don’t take over what we have. I consider it also a matter of national security. Can you imagine if majority of our propaganda is foreign owned? It would be even worse.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sylvia Avery says:

        I don’t like that all of our media is owned by foreign interests. Obviously I don’t want state run media, but I can’t feel good about getting my news and opinion and analysis from the Chinese Communist Party or George Soros or Carlos Slim. Of course, I also don’t like getting it from Jeff Bezos, either.

        I guess I’m hard to please. I’d just like an honest media.

        Like

    • patsfaninpittsburgh says:

      Tim

      Per Sundance……this really comes down to closing the NAFTA loophole.

      Liked by 2 people

    • railer says:

      Trudeau is already head of a minority government, his party has no majority, so the fear of another minority government is unfounded. Yes, his government will probably get whacked at the end of all this, if Trump fully executes his policies here. Yes, Quebec will start up with the separatist talk again. It’s Canada. That’s all business as usual. Nothing better than Albertans, Ontarians, Quebecois and Maritimers at each others’ throats again. Such means your version of the Swamp is being drained, which is a good thing.

      Like

      • Tim Cunningham says:

        Friend Railer, you are incorrect on two points.
        1) At present the Liberals have a majority government with 184 of 340 seats (plus or minus one or two won or lost in by elections since).
        2) You are also incorrect that this issue involves our version of the swamp. It doesn’t: the problem actually goes back to an agreement that pre-dates not only the launch of Canada but the launch of the US as well. When the British took over Quebec in 1763, they granted the new province control of their language and culture to the government of the new colony – a stance carefully repeated in the original BNA act and the Confederation Act. No Canadian federal government can afford to betray that understanding because it will not survive doing so. And there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Conservative majority government, which is the only government that could pass a NAFTA amendment bill, would be elected in the aftermath of such a disaster.
        3) I notice you did not address my key point: President Trump needs a win-win NAFTA deal. Perhaps I didn’t make the point clear enough. The US states that have a lot to lose if no Canada US trade deal is in place are Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, some of which President Trump won by small margins. What happens to MAGA if two or more of those states turn blue in this years election or the one two years out?

        Like

        • Tim, I too am pro- PDJT

          I agree with you on points 1 and 2 ( I am Canadian), but on point #3, how will the states you mention be adversely affected by no Canada US trade deal? What products?

          I only see that Ontario may have a lot to lose in his automobile manufacturing, with those plants closing down and going to the States.

          Thanks for your informative comments.

          Like

        • railer says:

          Thanks for the correction on the counts in Parliament. I guess I always think of the Ontario/Quebec historical split, and never considered today’s Liberal government as a unified party in the majority because of that split, but you’re correct the raw numbers give the Liberals a majority.

          Your second consideration is immaterial to a bilateral trade agreement with the US, at least for the US. It has much to be considered regarding internal Canadian politics, as I’ve spoken of often enough in here, but that roiling politics must be let free, and is pure Canadian. A deal with the US can be had, and yes it would likely destroy Trudeau’s government not least because of the reemergence of Quebec separatism, but again, that is pure Canadian. It must be. It’s not a disaster. It must be. It’s existed all along, and will likely always exist, God willing. It is the people of Canada expressing their unique identities, not being held captive to an Ottawa Swamp’s edicts and authoritarianism. Yes, Trudeau’s destroyed, but that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. The anglophone/francophone/Anglican/Catholic tensions must be allowed to breathe, not be beaten down by such immature progressives as Trudeau (or Obama). These are historic schisms. You insult people when you attempt to resolve them from the top down, with “That’s not who we are” proclamations and nonsense political rhetoric. People know who they are, and they don’t need Trudeau to tell them who they are.

          As for your third point, Trump doesn’t need Canada’s signature on an agreement, and if anything, he’ll be helped politically in those states you mention, if he walks away from a bad deal. He will likely gain Minnesota, Maine and perhaps make minor headway in the Northwest. Meanwhile, Canada will lose assembly plants currently shipping vehicles to the US, and Trump’s imagery of a Chevy currently built in Ontario now being built here in Michigan will sell huge. You misread politics here in the US, I fear. Trump and the US don’t need Canada. It’s as simple as that. He’s made that plain and in the midst of election season, nobody but the most heavily entrenched careerist politicos dares to contradict him, which should give you pause as to your position. He’s timed this out beautifully. It’s time for Trudeau to fall on his sword.

          Like

    • Elle says:

      Tim says, “For this reason, a deal that wins on auto and dairy and other items is a win for President Trump, but no deal is a loss. To achieve this, a compromise will be necessary at some point. I am certain that your President is well aware of this reality and wants to find a solution.”

      Yes, President Trump has always wanted to reach a good agreement with Canada, but Canada acted like Nike is acting now. It’s hard to tell if the actions are driven by stupidity, sheer spite, or the mistaken belief that the self-destructive temper tantrums will be received with glorious applause. Obviously Canada thought they could show Trump and get better deals elsewhere.

      Now, everyone is talking about what will work to the mutual benefit of both countries. Shouldn’t that have been the starting point? You have to give Trump credit, his Overton Window hasn’t moved and now everyone else is begging to see the view through it.

      Like

      • Elle says:

        One more thought. I suspect that Trump will punish Canada in some significant way. Not because he wants to, but because it would send a message. To make it inconsequential to play nasty games affects future negotiations with China and everyone else.

        Like

      • Tim Cunningham says:

        Hi Elle: Note that the PM Trudeau’s statement is a response to a statement by President Trump that the US must win on dairy and auto. In that context, his stance is not a confrontation like Nike moving CK front and centre, but rather a signal that the PM is willing to negotiate a compromise.

        Like

        • Elle says:

          I think it is great that Trudeau is willing to negotiate a compromise and, like most Americans, I’d love to see awesome trade happening between our two countries. My point was that as-awesome-as-possible trade agreements should have been the STARTING POINT between the two countries – not where we begin only after Canada attempts to royally screw us but ..oops…suffers an epic failure and instead winds up crushed, humiliated and listening to the lamentations of their genderless.

          Mutually beneficial trade is where Trump WANTED to start. My point was that it would not be wise for Trump to allow vicious efforts by Canada to go unpunished. If he does that, then the message sent to China and everyone else is, go ahead and try to screw us and IF you fail, no problemo, we’ll still start from square one.

          But then, I’m not sure Trudeau hasn’t already punished your country enough with his allowing Mexico to get the best deals while Justin postured, preened and vacationed with his family in India.

          Like

    • Darklich123 says:

      The Chinese already own everything in your country. It’s already lost. Burn down your cultural institutions and rebuild. Your modern liberals are conditioning you to self censor before the Great Fire Wall of China is imposed on you. As a small population western state you will be the first test case of absolute tyranny. Good luck.

      Like

  19. DocJoe says:

    The good thing about Canada is the majority of the people live along the border. Us radio/broadcastTV blankets the border, and Canadians can get the US message even if the other means of media distribution are censored.

    This made me think of a question. If US media companies are bought by foreign countries (Like Mexico) do they have constitutionally protected free speech?

    Liked by 2 people

  20. scott467 says:

    “What are Justin’s “cultural industries“? Well, that would be control over media and telecommunications. In essence, Canada wouldn’t want any of that pesky free-market media stuff interfering with the state-run propaganda broadcasts. Yup, you can’t make this stuff up folks…”

    __________________

    It’s not Canadian culture he seeks to protect, but rather his OWN culture.

    The maintenance, continuation and enjoyment of wealth and power is certainly a ‘culture’, one which Trudope (and more specifically, his handlers and puppet-masters) intend to protect at all costs.

    Any tool used to benefit and further that effort is therefore a ‘cultural industry’.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maquis says:

      Yup. If this was a serious concern for Canadian interests, he’d offer PDJT a compromise: ban foreign ownership of designated media enterprises, while banning government ownership (Communism) or government control (Faschism) of same.

      Liked by 2 people

  21. Mashall says:

    The BBC is a Powerful Venomous Globalist Serpent.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mashall says:

      The British have lived under the Police State Electric Eye for quite a few years and I actually believe it helped the Brexit vote. My theory is, that UKIP or another group on social media directed voters to refuse to use the provided pencil to mark their ballot and instead use an ink pen to reduce fraud. The voter counters perceived they were on camera and did not cheat enough to overcome the Brexit Win.
      I also believe that the British Police State Camera Eye is recording far, far, more crime that it is reporting. The Delusion, Denial, and Deceit, that exist in reporting disproportionate amount of Black Crime and Violence in America, is even more concealed in the British Police State.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Mashall says:

        To be clear, I think the Delusion, Denial, and Deceit of the British Police State Media/BBC refuse to show the Disproportionate Muslim. Non-White, Forced-Immigrant, Criminality that exists.
        The existence of constant surveillance keeps the civilized mostly in awe and checked. Yet the forced-imported non-civilized don’t grasp or refuse to care about the Electric Eye as they commit crime. The BBC and Crown cover it up in the name of Globalism and Political Correctness.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Maquis says:

        Not even a full day into a planned week in England we hit the Channel for the second time that day and never looked back. From endless cameras to private security for the smallest shops and Muslim hordes, very bad feeling. One of the sites we visited was amongst those blown up on 7/7, only three days later.

        Much happier wandering France, pitching a tent whenever and darn near wherever. Doubt I could do that again though, sadly. that Muslim horde thing, vous savez?

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Kaco says:

    Here’s something that I missed:

    FCC Approves For the First Time 100% Foreign Ownership of US Broadcast Stations

    By David Oxenford on February 24, 2017
    Posted in AM Radio, FM Radio, Multiple Ownership Rules, Public Interest Obligations/Localism, Television
    The FCC yesterday released its first decision approving 100% foreign ownership of a group of US broadcast stations. This comes after significant relaxation of the FCC’s interpretation of the foreign ownership limits which, less than 4 years ago, had been interpreted to effectively prohibit foreign ownership of more than 25% of a company controlling broadcast licensees (see our article here about the 2013 decision to relax the restrictive policy). In yesterday’s decision, the FCC approved the application of an LLC controlled 100% by a husband and wife, both Australian citizens, to acquire complete control over several companies that are the licensees of 7 AMs, 8 FMs, 13 FM translators, and 1 TV translator in Alaska and Texarkana, Arkansas and Texas. The FCC’s approval requires that these individuals get FCC approval if any other foreign owners are added to their company, but otherwise imposes no other significant conditions on this acquisition. Given the simple 50/50 ownership of a husband and wife in a closely held company, the ownership reporting and analysis conditions imposed on public companies who have been allowed to exceed the 25% threshold in the past (see our article here and here) were not required in this case.

    What is perhaps most interesting is just how routine this process has now become. Very recently, the FCC approved investment by a Cayman Islands based fund of more than 5%, up to 49%, of the ownership in Pandora (which owns a company that holds a radio station). These approvals come on top of several other acquisitions by foreign investors of non-controlling interests in broadcast licensees. As long as these owners are approved by various US government agencies as not presenting security risks, the approvals don’t seem to be an FCC issue. The FCC noted in yesterday’s order that allowing this kind of foreign ownership brings new sources of capital into the US broadcasting industry, and may encourage other countries to relax their ownership rules to allow investment by US companies in broadcast companies serving other countries. What a difference a few years can make!

    Like

  23. scott467 says:

    “That too was entrenched in the original Canada-U.S. free trade deal that preceded NAFTA. Giving up the exemptions would be tantamount to giving up Canadian sovereignty and identity, Trudeau said.”

    ___________________

    Does this guy even hear himself?!?

    You mean like you did when you swore allegiance to the queen of some other country?

    The present form of the Oath of Allegiance, which derives from that which was, and still is, taken by parliamentarians in the United Kingdom, is:

    ……………………………………..
    I, [name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.[

    Appointees to the Queen’s Privy Council must recite the requisite oath:[12]

    I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.
    ……………………………………….

    In the actual video, he goes even further than the two oaths above.

    Australia and New Zealand have nearly identical oaths.

    I have seen people claim that these countries are sovereign, while their leadership pledges loyalty to another country.

    I don’t get it, what’s the argument?

    These are colonies of England, straight up, no kidding around.

    Imagine for ONE freakin’ second that the duly elected president of the United States stood up and took that same oath.

    Does any American think for one second that would not be an open admission that America is a subject of the queen of England?

    What other way could it POSSIBLY be interpreted?

    No other way, that’s how.

    And if that’s true for America, it is identically true for Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    If anyone claims otherwise, what is the argument, what is the case?

    Like

    • Tim Cunningham says:

      Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the Queen of Canada as well as England. As such is our true head of state although she exercises that office through the Governor General. If you read the Constitution Act of 1982, the Queen acts in Canada on the advice of her Canadian Ministers and the British government has no say in their decisions.

      Liked by 1 person

      • scott467 says:

        “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second is the Queen of Canada as well as England.”

        _________________

        Thank you Tim, I appreciate your willingness to engage on this subject.

        For the life of me, I don’t understand how we can call things what they aren’t, or see things plainly and not call them what they are.

        And words either have meaning, or they don’t.

        Here is Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition:

        ………………………..
        QUEEN. A woman who possesses the sovereignty and royal power in a country under a monarchical form of government. The wife of a king.
        ………………………..

        This is not a controversial word, or even a rare one. Much of human history has consisted of leadership of sovereign nations by kings and queens.

        Queen of Canada either means Elizabeth II possesses the sovereignty and royal power over Canada, or it doesn’t.

        It’s not complicated.

        If she is the queen of Canada, then she is the Sovereign of Canada. That’s what these words mean. If they meant something else, would they not use different words?

        To suggest, imply, infer or otherwise argue that Elizabeth II *is* the Queen of Canada, but *not* the Queen of Canada, is nonsensical and hopelessly contradictory.

        It would be no different than saying Trump is the president but he’s not the president.

        The word ‘president’ has a clearly defined and even lawful meaning. Trump either *is* the president, or he isn’t.

        Elizabeth II either is the Queen (and therefore Sovereign) of Canada, or she isn’t.

        How does anyone convince themselves that these plain words don’t have plain meanings?

        Like

        • Tim Cunningham says:

          She is the Queen of Canada, no question. But the Queen’s “sovereign and royal power” as head of state (in both Britain and Canada) is not the same thing as the American President’s active Executive role as head of State as well as head of government in the American system. While the American President can act unilaterally in some significant matters of state, the Sovereign in a British system can almost never do so, as the Sovereign must almost always act of the advice of his or her ministers (The principle power the sovereign had, until very recently in both Canada and the UK, is that under certain conditions he or she could force a general election under certain circumstances no longer extant). Other than such situations, the Sovereign’s power’s are usually held to be limited to “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage” and “the right to warn.” (Bagehot, The English Constitution, p.75)

          Liked by 1 person

          • scott467 says:

            “Other than such situations, the Sovereign’s power’s are usually held to be limited to “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage” and “the right to warn.” (Bagehot, The English Constitution, p.75)”

            ____________________

            If that is true, then she is not a Queen, and she is not Sovereign.

            These words have meaning in Law.

            ………………………..
            QUEEN. A woman who possesses the sovereignty and royal power in a country under a monarchical form of government. The wife of a king.

            Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition
            ………………………..

            The queen possesses sovereignty. Sovereignty LITERALLY means absolute power, specifically WITHOUT ‘limitation’.

            ……………………………………………………………..
            SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international
            independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal
            affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L.Ed. 440; Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Cold., Tenn., 325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 Cal. 218, 79 Am.Dec. 123; State v. Dixon, 66 Mont. 76, 213 P. 227.
            ………………………………………………………………

            So it is, quite literally, IMPOSSIBLE to be “Sovereign” and be “limited” in power in ANY way whatsoever.

            To be ‘limited’ is to deny Sovereignty.

            To deny Sovereignty is to deny that Elizabeth II is Queen.

            This BLACK LETTER, black and white. A thing (e.g., queen, sovereign) cannot be what it isn’t (e.g., ‘limited’ in power).

            So either she is the Queen, in which case she is Sovereign, and the whole ‘construct’ of Parliament is a ruse (which I suspect it is), or she is NOT Sovereign at all, in which case she is not a Queen, either.

            A person cannot be ‘sovereign’ and ‘queen’ AND be ‘limited’ in power or authority.

            I realize that everyone has been told, for decades, that the queen is essentially a figurehead.

            Either she is, or she isn’t.

            If she is, if she abdicated her Sovereignty (which I don’t believe she would ever do), WHERE is that document? Surely it would be as important as the Treaty of Paris wherein King George III recognized the independent SOVEREIGN 13 united States at the end of the Revolutionary War.

            This is serious business. Powerful people don’t play around with things like ‘Sovereignty’. Where is the document?

            And if such a document CAN be produced, if Elizabeth abdicated or otherwise renounced her sovereignty, then why is anyone pledging fealty to her personally, by name and by her official Sovereign title?

            Are these not basic, straightforward questions?

            Should they not have simple, straightforward answers?

            Like

      • scott467 says:

        ” As such is our true head of state although she exercises that office through the Governor General.”

        __________________

        As the Sovereign of Canada, she can exercise her power and authority through whomever she pleases, that is the prerogative of a Sovereign.

        .

        “If you read the Constitution Act of 1982, the Queen acts in Canada on the advice of her Canadian Ministers and the British government has no say in their decisions.”

        __________________

        And if you read Jack Dorsey and Sheryl Sandberg’s testimony before Congress today, they don’t manipulate Twitter and Facebook.

        Let’s break this down.

        “…the Queen acts in Canada on the advice of her Canadian Ministers”

        In this relationship, who is the Sovereign, and who is the subordinate?

        If the Canadian ministers are the Sovereign, then they can dispense with the queen. They can put her in a shoebox if they want. Sovereign is all powerful. A Sovereign doesn’t need to consult with anyone, much less give advice to anyone.

        Clearly the Canadian ministers are NOT the Sovereign in this relationship. That leaves the queen, who is in fact and in deed the Sovereign — which we could know from her title as ‘queen’, without having to engage in the deductive exercise of eliminating the Canadian ministers from the possibility of being the ‘Sovereign’ first.

        This is critical: no Sovereign is compelled to act upon the advice of subordinates, in anything. Look at this charade that has been created, and ask yourself, why would this be so?

        Why make a game of this, to pretend like Canadian ministers are telling the Sovereign what to do, and then the Sovereign does it, and that’s how everything works?

        If that is the case, if the Sovereign is simply a rubber stamp, who does whatever her (possessive!) Canadian ministers tell her to do, then who’s the boss? Who *is* the Sovereign?

        This is silly.

        Clearly this ‘system’, this ‘relationship’ has been contrived to present an image of independence, while preserving in whole the absolute authority of the Sovereign, which is the QUEEN of CANADA.

        If it was not so, if Queen Elizabeth was subordinate to the Canadian ministers, then they could (and should!) tell her to BUZZ OFF and mind her own business.

        But they can’t do that, not even if they wanted to… which they probably don’t, since they swore an oath of allegiance to her.

        ………………………..
        QUEEN. A woman who possesses the sovereignty and royal power in a country under a monarchical form of government. The wife of a king.

        SOVEREIGNTY. The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the international
        independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal
        affairs without foreign dictation; also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 455, 1 L.Ed. 440; Union Bank v. Hill, 3 Cold., Tenn., 325; Moore v. Shaw, 17 Cal. 218, 79 Am.Dec. 123; State v. Dixon, 66 Mont. 76, 213 P. 227.

        The power to do everything in a state without accountability, —to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story, Const. § 207.
        ………………………..

        Like

      • scott467 says:

        “…and the British government has no say in their decisions.”

        __________________

        No doubt; the British government doesn’t even really have a ‘say’ in their own country… which is part of a kingdom… which is called ‘The United Kingdom’… which is ruled by a Sovereign… whose name is Queen Elizabeth II.

        Is there any reason to think that the British Parliament is any less independent of the Queen than the Canadian Parliament, or the Australian Parliament, or the New Zealand Parliament, for that matter?

        The Queen is Sovereign, by definition.

        Is there any document, any agreement in writing, recorded anywhere, wherein the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, gave up, relinquished or otherwise abdicated her Sovereignty?

        Either she did, or she didn’t.

        Any such document can either be produced, or it can’t.

        If she did, if she abdicated her Sovereignty, then why on earth are these supposedly independent nations swearing fealty to her personally, by her Sovereign name and title?

        Just because it’s quaint, or nice, or a nod to traditions of the past?

        I don’t think so. It doesn’t work like that.

        Remember, we’re talking about authority and P O W E R.

        And there is no ‘nice’ involving power.

        So what’s really going on here?

        Is it not plain to see?

        Is it not an amazing thing that so many look at it, and believe or pretend that it is something other than what it plainly is on its face?

        Like

    • Laurie says:

      the usual meaning of the word Queen and kingdom doesn’t apply to Canada and the Queen. She is like a figurehead and has no power over Canada. I guess we keep her for tradition’s and history’s sake. She has no governmental power in Great Britain either.

      Liked by 1 person

      • scott467 says:

        “the usual meaning of the word Queen and kingdom doesn’t apply to Canada and the Queen. She is like a figurehead and has no power over Canada.”

        _______________

        Yes, that’s the dogma, that’s the story, that’s the narrative.

        Where’s the evidence for this story?

        No one ever produces that.

        Not once, not ever.

        I feel like I’m the one pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes, while everyone else is wildly applauding the emperor’s outfit.

        .

        “I guess we keep her for tradition’s and history’s sake. She has no governmental power in Great Britain either.”

        ___________________

        You guess?

        Isn’t it the kind of thing one ought to *KNOW*?

        See, this is what I’m talking about.

        It’s like mass-brainwashing. You’ve told the same thing so many times, for so long, that you have internalized it without ever actually questioning it.

        And the implications of being wrong are (apparently) so psychologically damaging that people instinctively contradict anyone who questions this unsubstantiated ‘belief’.

        But no one actually examines WHY they believe what they do.

        It’s incredible what people will tell themselves in order to maintain their illusions.

        Or I’m completely wrong.

        But if I’m wrong, then…

        What is the ARGUMENT? What is the CASE to support the belief?

        Nobody can even offer one. All anyone does is make naked assertions as if they are fact.

        Can I really be the only one who finds that strange?

        Liked by 1 person

  24. So be it Canada! No NAFTA for you!

    Liked by 1 person

  25. scott467 says:

    “Nice to see it all out in the open. Canada can’t have that pesky free-market speech stuff getting in the way of the progressive state-run media. Rather hilarious, and simultaneously reaffirming of progressive ideology when you think about it.”

    __________________

    However… there is a point to be made here, a principle or national security objective that ought to apply to America and every other sovereign nation (if it can truly be said that there are any at this point in time).

    Free markets and all that jazz aside, it is I N S A N E to allow another nation to control YOUR country’s major communication platforms.

    Would we allow Russia (the currently most popular whipping boy of the Leftist fascists) to own our major media companies?

    I am not suggesting in any way that the STATE should run ANY media company, that’s nothing but a guaranteed propaganda tool.

    But FOREIGN ownership of ANY media platform ought to be outlawed as a matter of National Security.

    To do otherwise is to hand a razor to our enemies and tilt our heads back to give unimpeded access to our throat.

    The power of the media is not credibly disputed; look at the war we’re in right now, and how we got here.

    To allow that media to be in the hands of foreign interests is not just irresponsible, it’s not just criminally negligent, but how is it not tantamount to Treason?

    Like

    • Maquis says:

      Tend to agree, Scott, but our own putative masters of the universe do treason quite well on their own. Fakebook, Twitsters, Gargle, the whole lot of ’em, treasonous evil bastards. Not that Trudope objects to their politics or tactics, he just doesn’t want the competition.

      Like

  26. kea says:

    So we just gained more auto industry… thanks barney!!!!

    Like

  27. MaineCoon says:

    Let’s just jump to the end, 25% tariff on auto industry. Let’s let Amb. Lightheizer (sp) off the hook from having to deal with Princess purple dress.

    Like

  28. ATheoK says:

    “removes Canadian protectionist policy on “cultural industries”.

    Cultural?
    Enzymatic wood digestion cultures?
    Yogurt cultures?
    Rennet cultures for making cheese?
    Pasteurizing milk cultures?
    Bank waiting line cultures?
    Peat moss cultures?

    When I visited Canada, I was surprised by the lack of international liquors and the abundance of Canadian spirits and wines.
    Perhaps drinking is a cultural industry?

    Well, keep your protectionist policies, Canada.
    Next up, reciprocal tariffs.
    A 300% tariff on milk products might get Canda’s attention.
    But, not as much as that initial 25% on automobile parts, assemblies and whole vehicles…

    It’s always amazing when delusional people insist on drowning because they refuse to accept equality of common air.

    Poor Canadians. We hope you get your leader’s priorities sorted.

    Like

  29. CanaCon says:

    However one defines Canadian culture, Princess Justine obviously doesn’t really give a rat’s a$$ about it, as evidenced by him immigration policies.

    Like

  30. tav144 says:

    Looks like confirmation to me: “Is Nike Looking to Expand it’s Growth in Asia?”

    Like

  31. Tim Cunningham says:

    She is the Queen of Canada, no question. But the Queen’s “sovereign and royal power” as head of state (in both Britain and Canada) is not the same thing as the American President’s active Executive role as head of State as well as head of government in the American system. While the American President can act unilaterally in some significant matters of state, the Sovereign in a British system can almost never do so, as the Sovereign must almost always act of the advice of his or her ministers (The principle power the sovereign had, until very recently in both Canada and the UK, is that under certain conditions he or she could force a general election under certain circumstances no longer extant). Other than such situations, the Sovereign’s power’s are usually held to be limited to “the right to be consulted, the right to encourage” and “the right to warn.” (Bagehot, The English Constitution, p.75)

    Like

  32. Mike says:

    Best if Trump annexes Canada and makes it a protectorate.

    Like

  33. jameswlee2014 says:

    Shut up and do what you’re told, kid.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s