It's clear

Mark Carney does not want a trade deal with the U.S.  If he did, he would never have put Janice Charette and Dominic Leblanc in charge.

Janice, or as I call her "Miss Piggy" because she looks like that character, and Dominic, or "Ernie", the guy who has spent 18 months getting absolutely nothing accomplished, are not going to get anything done because Trump can't stand either of them.  With him, everything is personal, which is why he loathes Carney.

Sorry, but does she not resemble Miss Piggy?  

I know I can be a mean b-tch, but why would you send someone who looks like that to negotiate the biggest trade deal in Canadian history?  I mean, why?  With that hair, she looks like an unprofessional slob.

And as for "Ernie", he's primarily a hail-fellow-well-met-back-slapper.  Practically lives in Washington and can't get it done.  Their latest position is they want all current tariffs lifted and the 50% proposed halted.

Our man Ernie in Washington.

That's not a negotiating position, it's an ultimatum.  Naturally, Jamieson Greer has completely rejected it.  And why wouldn't he?  Negotiating is give and take and they're giving nothing.  Why not put American liquor back on the shelves?  That would be a great start and benefit both American and Canadians, but so far Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee have dug in and accomplished crickets.

In the end, it doesn't matter what these two "negotiate".  Trump will do whatever he wants.  Or not.

The biggie that the U.S. objects to is our ridiculous supply management system, which artificially keeps egg and dairy prices high and bars American competition in those two sectors.  Yesterday, Premier Fréchette doubled down on Quebec's position that this policy cannot be touched.

So, as I say, Carney -- currently languishing in dry dock in Italy -- doesn't want a deal. 

Nothing's changed

For all the talk about economic diversification, Canada still relies on its basic resources.  Alberta, for example, just announced its $7 billion deficit will now poof into a $9.7 billion surplus thanks to an increase in the price of oil.

So much for diversification.  We still rely solely on that stuff under our feet -- and so does the rest of the country.  What a way to run a railroad!

___________________

Oh, I almost forgot.  "Miss Havisham" reared her ugly head this morning.  While I was at the pool, B's ex called to revisit what had happened 46 yeas ago.  Forty-Six years!!!!!  She went on about how Nancy had lost a pair of then six-year-old Sarah's socks.  Sarah is now 52.  

Since their divorce, this person has remained mired and stuck in the past, like 'Great Expectations' Miss Havisham.  There she sits in her home (paid for by us), mulling over perceived slights and surrounded by cobwebs, decaying furniture and ratty Christmas decorations.

B's ex, sitting with her cobwebs.

In grade eight, our home room teacher, the peerless Miss Anderson, read a few chapters of 'Great Expectations' every Friday afternoon.  I was riveted and it all came back when the ex called this morning to cry about trivial episodes from 46 years ago.  She obviously needs psychiatric help, but, of course, will never seek it.

B told her to "f-ck off" and she replied, "How dare you speak to me like that!" Before he hung up, she announced triumphantly that she had told everyone at the Gatineau Fish & Game Club -- where B had been the president and where we had vacationed as a blended family of six for 25 years -- that she was, "The original Mrs. Marley-Clarke; the other one doesn't count."  They had been married for nine years.  B's daughter, a shameless non-member, has been bringing her up there for the past seven years on the back of a member's privilege and that's how the ex introduces herself.  

Get an effing life!

Yep, folks, she's insane.  Just put her number on call block.  I thought we had been rid of her decades ago, but no, she re-appears like the demon that never goes away. 

 

Did you know....

....where the chairman of Brookfield lives, the guy who replaced Carney as CEO when he ran for Liberal leader?  Did you know where that guy, Bruce Flatt, lives?  Why, he lives in luxury in Tuscany!

Gee, what a coincidence!  Imagine, they just happen to be vacationing together!  Isn't that amazing?!

The journalist in me always gets her man, so I dug into this to find out why Carney chose Tuscany and not Harrington Lake, the prime minister's official summer residence, renovated at a cost to the beleaguered taxpayer, standing in line at the local food bank, to the tune of $11.7 million!

Tuscany, the PM's vacation paradise.

Of course, the lazy media did not look into this.  In fact, they questioned nothing and dug into nothing.  Konrad von Finkenstein, the "Ethics" commissioner, actually approved this.  Hey, Konrad, you work for us, not the PM.  To the Canadian media I say, hang your collective heads in shame, you slothful journalists.  You didn't even bother pulling back the curtain.  But I was trained by the very best at Maclean Hunter in Toronto and that's why I did.

That's the kind of sneaky guy Carney is.  I had an inkling of this a number of years ago, when B was VP of the Rockcliffe Tennis Club.  Knowing every member, B spotted a couple of guys playing who he knew were not members.  One was Pinchas Zukerman and the other?  Mark Carney.

"You have 15 minutes to clear off this court," said B.  Otherwise I will call the police.  "Well, we're friends of a friend who is a member," they offered.  "Sorry, that's not how we operate at this club," B rejoined.  "You have to be with the member and pay the fee, or you have to be a member, so please clear off."

Finally, they did.  So, as I said, this is the kind of guy Carney is:  An entitled toff who skirts any rule he encounters.

So, all you sheep who continue to believe in the guy who cannot get a deal with the U.S., who traipses off on vacation when Trump's crippling tariffs are about to drop and the country is on fire, give your heads a shake.  Pull off the blinkers and face what Canada has become.

I feel like crying.  

  

  

Not interested

So, economic genius Mark Carney is, "Not interested in a narrow trade deal."  He wants the whole enchilada.  He has drawn a line in the sand as trade talks heat up, according to an article in 'The Globe and Mail'.

What a stupid way to negotiate.  

"We're not interested in a very targeted deal without connections to other sectors," he added.  "We want to address autos, steel, aluminum and forest products.  Will we get that by August 19th?  We'll see.  But we want to have pathways in order to get that."

What does that even mean?  Pathways?  To where?  For what?  What it actually means is that he knows he can't get sector-specific deals, so pretends he doesn't want them.  "I hope so," was all the incompetent Dominic Leblanc could muster, when asked if an agreement were possible by August 19.  Remember when the deadline was July 1st, 2025!?  Ya, blew right through that pipe dream.

Carney's "plan".  Pathetic.

What a stupid way to "negotiate".  As I have said, "hope" and "we'll see" are not strategies.  They are blatant admissions of defeat.  And just to drive home reality, Trump called Carney "nasty" five times in a speech in Las Vegas.

Carney's "plan" has gone from "elbows up" to "knees down and pockets picked".  He needs to get real and take sector-specific deals where he can because he's never going to get everything lifted -- especially by taunting and insulting Trump at every opportunity.  Remember when Carney said, "Who cares?" when asked about trade talks.  Ya, that guy.

Why do so many people still support him?  He wears nothing but 'The Emperor's New Clothes'!  

Even Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said he wants to make interim deals with Canada, so why will Carney not do so?  As I said, because he can't.  He has failed dramatically and is now shrugging his way out of it.

We're so effed with this dunce.

        

Something's very wrong here

Having let 24 Sussex slide into ruin for years, Carney has now pledged to renovate it.  How?  By shiving Canadians for money -- above and beyond what we already pay in taxes -- to send in nickels and dimes to pay for it out of our already picked-bare pockets.

All this while shipping billions to other countries, regardless of how corrupt they are, like Ukraine, Ethiopia, Haiti and the DR Congo.  This is obscene.  But we all know why he is doing it, so he can be well-qualified for the most corrupt jobs in the world, i.e., the World Bank, WEF, European Union, United Nations and International Monetary Fund, when he quits this one.

And what do I read today?  Why, the British government is going to renovate Earnscliffe, just down the road, at the cost of millions and they're picking up the tab, so far at least.  Earnscliffe, by the way, was the residence of Canada's creator and first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald.  It is also where he died in 1891.  That should really be the official residence of the PM, but we sold it to them in 1930 for $90,000.

There is a move afoot, however, in Britain that British citizens should not be paying for the renovation for a property that is of historical significance to Canada.  With left-wing nut job Andy Burnham now the prime minister, we'll see if he quashes the project.  

We've been to Earnscliffe many times because we were friends with several high commissioners.  We used to have them up to our cottage in Quebec and over for cocktails quite often.  Yes, Earnscliffe is indeed beautiful and I am glad to see that the renovations will not change the facade, unlike what is likely to be erected at 24 Sussex when an architect is finally chosen for the job.  I predict a monstrosity.

And speaking of fleecing Canadians, Carney has just handed the CBC another $150 million, boosting it to a grand total of $1.57 billion!  All this to be a shill for the Liberals, which it most certainly is.

More money for Rosie.

Carney said the additional funding was to ensure it functioned as "fact checker".  For what?  For whom?  The only "facts" it will check will be what the opposition says.  I mean, they're not going to "fact check" themselves!  The funding is also to ensure the CBC continues to support the government and trash the opposition.

The CBC was originally formed as a Crown Corporation to serve remote communities which were of no interest to commercial radio.  It was meant to ensure all Canadians had access to news, but that purpose has long disappeared.  Nevertheless, still we fund it.  We should no longer, but fat chance that will change.

Yes, folks, as long as Carney and company are in power, don't get your news from any place except independent media.

  

Really? Scary stuff!

 

Sen. Ersnt Seeks To Hold Fauci In Contempt

The Catholic League stands with Sen. Ernst in seeking to hold Dr. Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to disclose his role in gruesome research conducted on unborn children. Here is our response.

Senator Joni Ernst

260 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Ernst:

Thank you for questioning Dr. Anthony Fauci about his role in overseeing NIH experiments that inserted human aborted parts into mice for coronavirus research. His refusal to answer was expected. Fortunately, you are asking the DOJ to pursue a contempt case against him. The Catholic League fully supports your request.

In the summer of 2021, news reports surfaced about a study done by the University of Pittsburgh that fused unborn baby parts into lab rodents to grow adult human skin and cells from organs such as spleens and livers. It was carried out by an agency (NIAID) under the tutelage of Dr. Fauci.

When I learned of this, I wrote to Pennsylvania Auditor Timothy L. DeFoor asking for an investigation into charges that the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine was operating a fetal “chop shop.” He sent my letter to the school’s chancellor, the dean of the medical school and a press official at the University. After an investigation by a legal group, it was determined that no laws were broken. I hasten to add that the University is currently under federal investigation for allegedly harvesting fetal tissue for research purposes.

Alas, the probity of Dr. Fauci is still on trial. Thank you for your leadership. We are with you all the way.

Sincerely,

William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

President

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.

This was our "classy" finance minister and deputy PM in the House of Commons.  You could not make this up!

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."