02.19.2019 08:51 AM

BREAKING: shocking #LavScam leak!



3 Comments

  1. Luke says:

    Is that real?

  2. Marge T says:

    Process of Elimination

    One can learn much about political organizations and the nature of power simply by observing who’s in and who’s out. Stalin stayed in while Trotsky was out – way out to Mexico until a long tentacle of Stalin plunged an ice axe into Trotsky’s head. Hitler and SS stayed in while Ernst Röhm and SA were out – Night of the Long Knives.

    It’s a season of purges in Ottawa. Jody Wilson-Raybould is out. The Inner Party felt she was “difficult”, didn’t speak French and was an outsider in the Quebec-Ontario-centric world of Canadian politics. An Indo-Canadian politician I’ve surveilled for some years lamented the “Indian problem” and referenced the “Kalinga Institute” – world’s largest “residential institute”.

    Gerald Butts is out. The Inner Party was never sold on
    Butts, son of a coal miner and, as Wilson-Raybould, an outlier from the far edge of the country. A little scruffy, grubby, would he know which fork to use? As progressive parties everywhere, Liberal Party of Canada has little time for the white, working class. Hillary Clinton calls them Deplorables. Katie Telford, now most powerful PMO member, reflects the gradual purge of males for a female-dominant power.

    The oxymoronic Justice Committee shows clearly who’s survived another round of political Russian roulette. Pakistan-born MP Iqra Khalid is the star. Female, brown and Muslim she checks most of the Intersectional boxes. Few dare critique the Pakistan-born MP for fear of being accused of Islamophobia. Khalid scolded the committee saying “in camera discussions are very normal”, that seeking a robust investigation “amounts to bullying”, and denounced “the hay that is being created out of nothing.” To spell it out: Liberal MPs beyond any oversight is the goal.

    Indeed, there is a cult of the woke, brown female in Canadian politics. Liberal Hedy Fry is the longest-serving female in Parliament winning eight consecutive elections. Fry rose to fame via the popular fantasy that “crosses are being burned on lawns as we speak” across Western Canada. In the Liberal version of the movie Deliverance, white Canadians drink moonshine, shoot guns beyond the city limits, beyond the pale, and like nothing better than a spot of cross burning. This narrative informs the Wilson-Raybould purge – savages beyond the progressive, urban enclaves.

    There is a growing chorus to purge Justin Trudeau himself. After all, he represents “white privilege” and l’ancien régime. Putting it all together, Aboriginals out. White males, especially working class males, out. White females and coloured males occupy a tenuous grey area. Really, only females of colour will do. Hedy Fry until like age 90. Iqra Khalid for Prime Minister. Considering the female “visible minority” population is just 11% total population, a really quite spectacular concentration of power. Mind, just as Hitler and Stalin didn’t last forever, Canadians may weary at being harangued by the Iqra Khalids of the land. Conceited, Machiavellian, bigots that they are.

  3. barn E. rubble says:

    Apparently I’m not alone in understanding how DPA’s work, or better, were supposed to work. My understanding was the law was introduced to help SNC-L, specifically, avoid trial. If not solely for SNC-L’s benefit. But if it couldn’t be used, as written, for the SNC-L case then who was it written for? No company specifically in mind but there in case something were to come up in the near future? Seems unlikely. Perhaps something else is afoot? Our host knows how such things go from idea into law and can explain it clearly. Would the DPA legislation/law have to go thru Justice before being added/buried in an Omnibus finance bill? I’m wondering if when DPAs were first mentioned to those in the DOJ they saw it for what it was and weren’t comfortable with it. Further, who else could have written the law so that the DOJ could not use it for the SNC-L case even if they (or their replacement) wanted to? And if it did have to go thru Justice dept. would sand-bagging the DPA originators be reason for demotion? Were subsequent ‘conversations’ not about using the DPA – because they couldn’t – but about amendments to the law so they could be used? I don’t understand how the PM/PMO could have ‘directed’ anyone to decide on an issue if they knew the decision was not theirs to make however directed, or not. Does this mean they didn’t know the DPA law (as written) could not be used in the SNC-L case? I’d be pissed.

    As per the note pictured: Seriouly? Someone thought DPAs could be applied to individuals? I’m surprised, “Just ask’n . . ” wasn’t added at the bottom. You know, in case someone wanted to know why they were asking . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*