True

Reprinted from 'The Aristotle Foundation'.  (don't know why it transcribed like this?  Weird:

________________________

“Canadian courts consistently recognize universities’ authority to bar individuals from campus through trespass powers. In other words, a publicly funded space is not necessarily a publicly accessible space.”

“There is a structural problem in how universities apply the rules. Canadian universities do not reflect a broad ideological mix—studies show a pronounced ideological tilt in the academy. Across North America, radical activists increasingly shape campus norms.”

“University leaders operate within campus culture marked by ideological pressures. In such settings, officials may wield trespass powers more aggressively against speakers who challenge the dominant viewpoint.”   A typical left-wing professor.

“At minimum, the public should require universities to apply transparent criteria when excluding individuals. Universities should adopt objective definitions of safety and apply them through processes insulated, as much as possible, from prevailing ideological pressures. If institutions fail to do so, the responsibility shifts to lawmakers.”

In part, Quesnel concludes that “Canada should strive for universities that provide safe campuses, while respecting freedom of expression without ideological favour.”   For those who care about free speech and want it protected at our institutions of higher learning, this Reality Check is a valuable read.  The full report—No Trespassing? Overcoming the tension between free speech and campus safety—is now available at aristotlefoundation.org.

What about Canada?

"Our thoughts are with everyone affected by the devastating wildfires across France, Spain and the U.K.  We are deeply grateful to the firefighters, emergency services and volunteers working tirelessly in extraordinarily difficult conditions."

I was dismayed when I saw this post from Prince William about the tragedy of wildfires, but he only mentioned three countries -- two of which have nothing to do with the Monarchy.

Canada on fire.

Canada, on the other hand, has the King as Head of State and we currently have 918 active fires burning across Canada.  It is unacceptable for the future King to ignore this and I have to wonder who is running his office?  I tried to send an email to William, but you have to write in person and I know, having written many such responses to constituents for ministers, I would just get a nebulous response.  

But someone should remind the guy that he should have a peek at Canadian news now and then.  Whatever the guys in his office are getting paid, it's obviously too much.

____________________

A word about the insufferable and odious Chrystia Freeland.  She had the gall to pen an essay in 'The New York Times', raking Trump over the coals and calling him "Bully in Chief".  Talk about pot-and-kettle!  There was no bigger bully in Parliament than Ms. Freeland -- witness all the ADMs of Finance who immediately took early retirement the minute she walked in the door.

She's now pocketing a huge retirement package and earning big bucks taking money from all and sundry in Ukraine, while simultaneously serving as warden of the Rhodes Trust.  I wonder if she ran that by Carney?  If so, it was a dumb idea while Tweedledum and Tweedledee are in the middle of  "negotiations" in Washington.  Talk about poking the bear! 

Whatever you may think about Trump, he is the president of the United States and has a direct role in our economy.  Trashing him is not a good idea.  "The economics of Mr. Trump's tariff attacks on Canada are not really the point," she writes.  Really?  Yes they are, Ms. Freeland.  What did James Carville say back in 1992?  "It's all about the economy, stupid.

He was right.  He still is.  

What's in a name?

Unless you're Jackie Kennedy or Prince Philip, don't try and be a star in your spouse's orbit.  Jackie and the Duke are the only two people I can think of who were stars in their own right.  

Diana Carney shouldn't even try it.  She can't pull it off.

But she did, touring some arts centre or other in Charlottetown, when Mark turned up at the provincial premiers' conference for two hours to....to....uh....??  I have no clue why he was there?!  But there was Diana, acting like she mattered, "Engaging in official cultural and community activities," as the press release described them.  Spare me.

Frankly, she always looks like a bag lady -- even in Chanel (and that's an insult to respectable bag ladies everywhere).  When I was a child, we had a cleaning lady named Mrs. Cameron and my Mother and Aunts would give her hand-me-downs.  Diana reminds me of Mrs. Cameron, always looking ill-dressed and out-of-place.

And let's look at her name.  She calls herself "Diana Fox Carney".  Why?  Was she so famous that she had to keep her maiden name?  Puts me in mind of Adrienne Clarkson's husband, John Ralston Saul.  Also reminds me of a boss I had who was named "Monica Jones-Kisil".  She had kept her maiden name because she was apparently so famous she had to?  I mean, "Jones"?  That was a famous name??

And what's with the "Ralston" part of Saul's name?  He's really just "John Saul", as is Diana.  She's just "Diana Carney".

Looking at my name, here's the explanation:  

• Born to Shirley Ann Latimer and William Doyle, so I had two names at birth;
• Adopted by Thomas and Lillian Griffith, so I grew up "Nancy Griffith";
• Married Robert Russell, so I was "Nancy Russell"; and
• Now am married to Brian Marley-Clarke, so I am now "Nancy Marley-Clarke".

Brian's name goes back generations, when his great-great-grandmother in India, surname "Marley", was widowed with five children.  She subsequently married a barrister named "Clarke" and had another four children, so the family legally changed the names of everyone to "Marley-Clarke".  That's how that moniker evolved.

What's in a name?

So, I've had five names, folks.  When I married Brian, I wondered if I should go back to my maiden name, "Griffith", or take his?  I decided to take his.  Good decision?  I thought it was the only logical one at the time.  But I am sure people thought I was some sort of hyphenated-liberated type, who had kept her maiden name.  No, I was just a working stiff with kids, in bondage like every other working mother.

So, Diana, please just be "Diana Carney".  Forget the "Fox" bit.  It doesn't enhance you.

"Part of a larger puzzle"

That's what Mark Carney said about the new tariffs Trump has just announced, they're "part of a larger puzzle".  The only puzzle we have, is the trade one with the U.S. Carney can't piece together.  His bafflegab and obfuscation are breathtaking.  When a reporter asked him about a trade deal, he said, "Well, let me tell you what it's not."  Huh?!

The podcasts and press conferences I have watched leave me astounded!  He is completely incomprehensible.  This has to be on purpose because we all know he really doesn't want a trade deal.  Otherwise, why would he leave Dominic Leblanc in charge and add the incompetent Janice Charette to the team?

Our dunce-in-chief, Dominic Leblanc

Leblanc, as you know, has been the guy who hasn't got anywhere in 18 months.  Absolutely nowhere.  We have only one ratified trade deal and that is with Indonesia.  All the other "deals" are merely non-binding memoranda of understanding -- "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth.

Carney said he wouldn't rule out retaliation if the tariffs are imposed.  What does that even mean?  This is not a position, it's a "Maybe, I'm not sure, we'll see" comment.  He needs to take a stand.  Or not.  Saying you're not ruling something out is saying absolutely nothing.

A meaningless position.

He also said he'd had the chance to eliminate tariffs on a number of goods, but forwent those deals because he wanted to get them all eliminated.

How dumb can you get?  Take the deals where you can, man!  Reminds me of an old friend of B's who turned down the Order of Ontario because he was sure he was next in line for an Order of Canada.  Guess what?  Didn't happen.

Frankly, without specifying which deals he has not taken leads me to believe that's a complete lie.  I don't think any deals have been offered.  Carney is neither an economist, nor a negotiator.  He's a bureaucrat's bureaucrat.  Period the end.

She/her

So, this is the latest abomination I have to endure.  Women identifying as "she/her" or "they".  This is insanity.

I sent an email to the aquatics director at the local pool to ask why all the lanes were closed for swimming lessons and none left for lane swimmers.  She sent me back an email, with her name and "she/her" underneath it.

Isn't it obvious she's a "she/her"?  I guess not.  When I asked at the desk what this was about, I was told that, "Everyone is doing that now and you have to respect their self-identification".  I was aghast.

I am definitely too old for this sh-t.  And as a grammarian, I vehemently object!

In my old-fashioned world, a woman is a woman and a man a man.

Facts

This is re-printed from another source: 

WHAT DID MARK CARNEY SAY TO DONALD TRUMP?

" World Cup Luxury Box One Day. U.S. Tariffs on Canada the Next.

"Folks,

I can't believe it's happening again. Prime Minister Mark Carney's negotiation strategy appears to have flopped once again.

"On Sunday, Carney attended the FIFA World Cup Final and had a prime seat in the luxury box alongside President Donald Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum as Spain defeated Argentina. Between watching the match, handing out medals, and presenting trophies, it seemed like the perfect opportunity to build some goodwill and smooth out a few trade issues.

"We already know Carney didn't bring up CUSMA the last time he spoke with Trump on the phone. He caught some heat for that. I was hoping he would use this opportunity to step up and accomplish something.

"Instead, on Monday, Trump resurrected an old U.S. trade law from 1930.

"According to the White House, Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930:

"…to impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods of Canada in response to Canada's discriminatory treatment of American products. By doing so, President Trump is offsetting the burden and disadvantage on U.S. commerce from Canada's discriminatory treatment of U.S. commerce and is leveling the playing field for crucial American exports—cars, alcohol, and dairy."

"Interestingly, Mexico wasn’t hit with a new round of tariffs, despite President Sheinbaum attending the same event with Trump and Carney. U.S. and Mexican officials also resumed formal trade negotiations today. That raises an obvious question: Why do negotiations with Mexico appear to be moving forward while Canada is being hit with new tariffs?

"The President is pointing to the eight provinces that removed U.S. alcohol from government liquor stores, along with Canada's dairy supply management system, to justify the new tariffs.

"Most of those provinces removed U.S. alcohol from their shelves back in March 2025. Canada's dairy supply management system has been around since Christ was a carpenter. If those are the reasons for the tariffs, why now instead of last year?

"I want to know what Carney did…or didn’t say…to Trump at the game before this latest round of tariffs. Did he accidentally take a sip of Trump’s Diet Coke or eat the last cheeseburger?

"Carney responded by arguing that the United States is violating CUSMA and saying Canada has put forward “detailed and comprehensive proposals.” Fine. But where are the results? His statement does not name one concession he has won, one tariff he has removed, or one concrete breakthrough with Donald Trump.

"Mark Carney was elected because many Canadians believed he was the most qualified person to negotiate with Donald Trump. He compared himself to Winston Churchill. He promised “Elbows Up.” Instead, Canadians got another carefully scripted statement telling them more talks may happen in the coming weeks.

"But over the past year, Canada has faced repeated trade setbacks involving steel, lumber, the Digital Services Tax and, more recently, the Gordie Howe Bridge. Now we have another round of tariffs.

"If this keeps up, Mark Carney may go down as one of the least successful Canada-U.S. negotiators in modern Canadian history.

Trump stomping all over our "genius" economist PM

"Mark Carney is such a bad negotiator that if this were 1988 and he were managing the Edmonton Oilers, he probably would have traded Wayne Gretzky to the Los Angeles Kings for a used puck bag.

"Bottom line: Liberals will say Carney is doing a much better job than Pierre Poilievre would have. But I have a simple question:

"Could anyone actually be doing worse than Prime Minister Mark Carney?"

Another look at racism

Re-printed from 'The Catholic League', by Bill Donahue.  As a writer, I am vehemently opposed to this nonsense:

__________________________ 

July 17, 2026

"Liberals love to congratulate themselves for rejecting racism, charging conservatives for tolerating, if not abetting, racism. Yet the policies they favor—opposing school choice, relativizing marriage, dumbing down education standards, defending miscreant behavior—are racist in effect, if not in intent. It is not red-neck racist jokes that blacks need to fear—it is the policy agenda of their liberal “allies” they need to be wary of.

"The latest example of this is the push to normalize “Black English” in California. The goal of Black Californians United for Early Care & Education (BlackECE) is to challenge “harmful language hierarchies and affirm Black English as a legitimate, rule-governed language rooted in Black history, culture, and community.” It offers as an example of “Black English” such words as “she be working” and “they happy.”

"It has long been observed that various racial and ethnic groups have a dialect that differ in some ways from conventional English. There is nothing controversial about that, but it is not only controversial to reject the very idea of “conventional English”—it is downright subversive of academic achievement to insist that “unconventional English” should be legitimatized.

"Notice how those who support “Black English” talk about “harmful language hierarchies.” But there is nothing “harmful” about “language hierarchies.” They exist, and with good reason: they facilitate assimilation, making it easier to reach a consensus on what constitutes proper English.

"Therein lies the problem. Proponents of “Black English” are radical egalitarians who are aghast at the existence of hierarchies. Yet the inequality that marks all hierarchies is normal and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Age and sex are universal human characteristics, and they smack of hierarchal distinctions.

"The push for “Black English” is also part of the diversity mindset. Its proponents see assimilation as a problem to be conquered, which is why they promote multiculturalism. At bottom, they resent the superiority of Western civilization, which is why they seek to bolster its competitors.

"Ashley Williams is leading the cause for “Black English” in California. A closer look at what her real beef is suggests she is bedeviled by her upbringing—her family insisted on mastering the English language—and is now embarked on a cause that seeks to avenge her experience. She was taught at home that so-called Black English “wasn’t OK at the schoolhouse.”

"Her family did her a favor, but she doesn’t see it that way. She recalls being teased for “talking white,” and says she does not want her son to feel “shame” for voicing “Black English.”

"She has it backwards. Those who teased her are the problem and those who label blacks as “acting white” for succeeding need to be sanctioned. The answer is not to object to those who harass her son for saying, “they happy,” but to instruct her son to say, “they are happy.” To do so, however, would require her to acknowledge the legitimacy of conventional English, and that is too much for her to bear.

"This phenomenon is not new. In the 1980s, black anthropologists John Ogbu and Signithia Fordham found that black students underperform in school partly because those who do well are teased for being “white.” “Why are you working so hard on that school stuff? You think you’re white?” Columbia professor John McWhorter experienced the same labeling growing up as a black student.

"Lowering standards, which is what normalizing “Black English” does, helps no one, most especially black students. No radio or TV station worth its salt would ever hire someone who says, “she be working.”

"Most important, it is racist to maintain that blacks can’t learn to speak correct English when those who struggle to learn it—e.g., Spanish and Chinese speaking students—do so successfully all the time. It matters not a whit if those who advocate “Black English” have good intentions—what they are promoting is racist in effect."