ethical oil - Simpson = Globe and Mail Jan 11/12

I looked at Simpson's article and was not impressed. Firstly, he is always anti-Harper and takes
any chance he has to criticize him. However that is not the immediate question. Is he right? For a long
time Harper has been pushing ethical Canadian oil as opposed to Saudi unethical oil. I support that. As Simpson
says (in his holier than thou position) the Harper government did try to influence the U.S. government to
buy its products. It will do the same thing with China next month. That is a long way away from other governments,
in particular Saudi Arabia and perhaps Soros, funding U.S. and Canadian environmental groups to try to prohibit
the production and sale of Canadian oil in any way possible including by lengthening the American and
Canadian judicial processes of environmental review . So yes, Simpson can complain that Harper's sales efforts
are too strong but theyare not equivalent to financial support to our environmental groups by unknown financial sources.

So no, I don't think that "Foreign money' is a hypocritical diversion. I think it is a realistic problem and
I am glad that Harper is facing and combatting it because I don't want to see a five year assessment that
would essentially destroy Canada's benefit from the oil sands while allowing the Saudis to earn millions
of dollars to support the ideology of jihad and Islamism throughout the world.

Re; Globe Sept 28th - Simpson on Harper and Israel

Simpson's analysis is only a partial truth that agrees with his prior opinions and prejudices. First, it is very questionable whether anti-semitism has recently increased in Canada. the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism said it did, but their conclusion seems to have ignored many of the most important contributors to their process. This doesn't directly relate to the popularity of Israel but the proof of its growing unpopoularity is certainly not there. Secondly Simpson assumes that Harper does not take into account citizens' opinions because there are more Muslims than Jews and Muslims vote 88% against him compared to Jewish 52% for him. But Simpson here has completely left out the majority of Canadians who are Christian and other religious minorities such as Hindus. Are these two religious groups irrelevant to Harper or only to Simpson? It is possible therefore that Harper takes their important views into account; it is not a black and white situation for him; and it is driven by both personal conviction and political calculation. In any case, as usual, Simpson has negatively prejudged Harper and his ability to see more than one side of an issue. Harper is much too smart a politican and much too moral a person to do that

Harper on Israel and anti-semitism

My letter to Prime Minister Harper

Thank you for your speech on Israel.

It made me proud to be a Canadian.

In my opinion it was one of the great speeches, if not the greatest since Churchill

and raises you to the level of one of the world's greatest moral statesmen.

Letter to Toronto Star Dec 18th

On the basis of climate change, I too think that the U.S. and Canada should fund the underdevelopped nations, without restrictions, with hundreds of billions of dollars. With these funds Indian companies will be able to buy more of our steel companies, China will be able to buy more Canadian resource companies, Egypt can better compete with our telecom companies, the Saudis will be able to send more Wahibis to support our mosques and infiltrate our universities, and with luck the North Koreans or the Iraquis will be able to buy our nuclear reactors. It is like the ads on television for many medicines - the medicine will help if the side effects don't kill you.

Letter to National Post Dec 18th

How can Mr. Harper not support a U.N. plan that will limit Canada's oil sands output and provide enough funding to enable underdeveloped countries like China to buy our resources, hotel chains and steel mills? How can he be so "passive"? Imagine the Canadian voters' jealousy when they look across the border to see the altruism of Americans who are giving 100 billion to underdeveloped countries while their own people are losing their homes because they are unemployed. Yes, we are disappointed that Mr. Harper is not trashing our economy in order to support all the poorer world countries, most of whom incidentally despise the west, all on the grounds of questionable global warming theories. Perhaps, when global warming forces our temperatures above the bitterly freezing temperatures that we now have across Canada, it will warm Mr. Harper's heart enough to have him follow the U.S. example and give our wealth away to others to squander, build nuclear weapons, or buy our economic treasures.

Letter to MacLean's re Harper's position on Global Waming

It seems like only yesterday that the Liberals accused Mr. Harper of not caring enough about Canadians because he were not spending enough money to protect Canadians from the serious economic disaster of a recession. Now that the recession has proved as mild as Mr. Harper predicted, Mr. Ignatieff is accusing Mr. Harper of gross overspending and having forgotten his and Conservative principles.
That tune seems to have played so well that again the Liberals are accusing Mr. Harper of not caring enough about global warming because he refuses to take the heart out of the Canadian economy over a now very questionable global warming caused by overuse of resources.

Whether it concerns a recession or global warming, the Harper government has acted cautiously to protect Canadians from being sacrificed on the alter of world hysteria. I think he deserves a lot of credit for his tough stand in protecting Canada from the latest
internationally fed, perhaps imaginary, crisis.

Third letter to the Globe - Copenhagen conference

After criticizing Harper for following the U.S., the Globe's editorial now criticizes him for not following Obama to the Copenhagen conference. Make up your mind. Contrary to your editorial, Harper is showing leadership by refusing to attend meetings of international flap-jaws and spending his time in potentially useful meetings.

Re: Toronto Star

Well, I have received a few free Toronto Stars and they did the expected. They printed my rather irrelevant letter and didn't print the important one. Today there was an article by Siddiqui where Human Rights Watch said they spend a proportionate amount of time on Israel as they do other places. umm lets see - New Jersey is about the same size as Israel and has 1/3 more population than Israel. How much time does Human Rights Watch spend monitoring New Jersey? I have been boycotting the Star for years. Its foreign news has moved from moderate left to extreme left. I would suggest that it is not only not worth paying for and thereby supporting but it is not worth reading.

Printed letter
If we let short term workers into Canada who in practice stay here and become undocumented, isn't the answer to ensure Canada's unemployed get the jobs, and not as Siddiqui suggests, to let them in as permanent immigrants?

Not printed letter


Linda McQuaig has an interesting argument. She believes that Harper is an extremist because he supports the continued existence of a member of the United Nations - Israel. I presume that supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist organizations, is therefore a moderate stance. Harper even objects to universities that hold meetings to publicize Israel's anti-apartheid policies. The fact that Israel is not an apartheid state, and gives its minorities more rights than any of its neighbours seems only relevant to extremists like Harper and irrelevant to moderates. Another reason for accusing Harper of being an extremist is that he opposes anti-Semites. Again, I presume that moderates must support anti-Semites as part of their liberal attitudes towards terrorists, enemy agents, and the ill-used Khadr family. Lastly McQuaig accuses Harper of not supporting the Goldstone report. Imagine not supporting a report based on hearsay evidence from sources that have proven previously to lie to make their points. Moderates know that Hamas and Hezbollah have always told the truth about Jenin and Israel's other actions. Only extremists and Islamophobes would question the truth of anything that comes from the mouth of an Arab terrorist. Linda McQuaig has accused Harper of being an extremist when he has acted with due regard for the facts and the nature of the people he is dealing with. How have the words "Moderate" and extremist" become reversed by our left leaning intellectuals?