On A Monday

It goes on….

While the loss of life in Algeria is tragic, it is important to keep in mind that the terrorists, who have taken their cues from a seventh century war-monger and who value no human life at all, would never have negotiated with states who were willing to surrender what would otherwise be unthinkable:

The charred bodies of victims were discovered as the terrorists either blew up or burnt their captives – some in retaliation for the Algerian offensive to try to free them. 

One witness told how a Briton was forced to call out to colleagues to entice them from their hiding places before being shot dead in cold blood. 

Another Westerner was shot while trying to give first aid to the injured. 

Others were killed as they tried to flee while survivors spoke of having Semtex and other explosives strapped around their necks or bodies. 

DNA tests were having to be carried out on many of the victims because their injuries were so severe and the search for bodies was hampered by the fact the terror group had booby trapped the site.

Sadly, these victims of terrorism never had a chance. Any negotiation would have been fruitless both pragmatically and morally. What would the states affected have offered thugs who murdered so freely?

Al Qaeda is not dead. Benghazi. Mali. Algeria.

It is believed that Syrian president dictator Bashar al-Assad used a nerve gas, Agent 15, on his own people:

A secret cable sent to the State Department in Washington last week, indicates that it is likely that Assad used chemical weapons in an attack on the city of Homs on 23rd December, 2012.

The cable was produced by US officials in Turkey and signed by the US consul general in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner. The report is based on interviews conducted with activists, civilians, doctors and aid workers on the ground.

An Obama administration official, who reviewed the secret cable, revealed that it makes a “compelling case” that Assad indeed resorted to a form of poison gas, although it is impossible to confirm “100 per cent”.

The weapon in question is Iraqi Agent 15, chemically either identical or closely related to BZ, and is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

(Sidebar: don’t worry. Obama will not do a thing about this. Rest easy.)

Saddam Hussein also used that gas:

President Saddam Hussein was last night accused of stockpiling a new nerve gas called Agent 15, capable of paralysing victims into a zombie-like state. Intelligence sources have warned the allies preparing for an attack on his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has possessed the capability to make large quantities of Agent 15 since the 1980s. 

George Robertson, Secretary of State for Defence, told MPs: " ... At the time of the Gulf war Iraq may have possessed large quantities of a chemical war mental incapacitant agent known as Agent 15." Immediate effects of exposure include weakness, dizziness, disorientation and loss of co-ordination. Officials said large doses could prove fatal, and could render victims into a zombie-like state.

Something to think about.

Say it ain’t so!

Unfortunately, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute, Obamacare might have negative consequences for our healthcare system in Canada.

The report — included in a collection of essays titled 'The U.S. Election 2012: Implications for Canada' — suggests that America's new healthcare plan could increase costs in Canada.

Report author Steven Globerman — who is also a professor at the Western Washington University — suggests that Obamacare could lead to healthcare service scarcity because of greater demand and because lower payments to service providers could encourage consolidation in the sector. Globerman says longer wait times in the U.S. invariably mean longer wait times in Canada.

"The emergence of rationing and waiting times in the US might also increase the costs of Canadian health care by constraining provincial governments from using spare capacity in the US as a buffer against “excessive” waiting times in Canada. Rather than relying upon sending Canadian patients to the United States to deal with excessive wait times, provincial governments will presumably need to add domestic capacity or else increase waiting times for Canadians to receive medical treatment.

The demand for procedures such as CT scans that some Canadians acquire outside of provincial insurance plans could increase in Canada if those procedures become less readily available through US clinics. This development would intensify concerns about “two-tier” Canadian health care."

Globerman also argues that industry consolidation along with a new tax regime could reduce competition in United States and, consequently, reduce pressure on providers to innovate with regard to healthcare services and medical equipment.

That also impacts us here:

"These anticipated changes have implications for Canada. The United States is the leading source of new health care products and services, including medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, and surgical and clinical techniques. Other countries, including Canada, benefit by importing products developed in the United States, often at marginal cost.

Canadian health care providers also benefit by waiting until new procedures and techniques are proven effective in the United States before adopting them in Canada. The ability of the Canadian sector to acquire technology and knowledge from the United States reduces required Canadian investment in expensive research and development, clinical testing, and the like, thereby making state-of-the-art health care services less expensive for Canadians. If the ACA reduces innovation in the United States, other countries will presumably need to spend more on health care innovation."

There’s your Plan B, useless gated-community Canadian leftists.

Let it be known that I am not one of those Canadians who thinks Obama is just “awesome”. He is a dreadful leader and human being. If any American reads this, know that not every Canadian thinks Obama is capable of tying his shoelaces let alone leading a country. He is a narcissistic socialist with dreams of grandeur and aims to destroy North America if he can. 

Chief Theresa Spense commands an audience still.

There is a difference between not being able to do one's job and just not willing to do it. If raving, Jew-hating unwashed masses blocking traffic and graffitting buildings don't merit arrests, then what good are the police? They have failed to uphold their end of the social contract.

China acts like a huge Richard (diminutive form) to South Korea by sending some lackey to meet with the president:

In her meeting with China’s Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun yesterday, President-elect Park Geun-hye said North Korea’s nuclear weapons development cannot be tolerated and that Seoul will take stern measures against Pyongyang’s additional provocations, according to her spokeswoman.

Blow them off, President Park. It’s not like China cares one way or another about any Korean.

Related: the “war against women” continues as Ed Royce’s bill to protect North Korean women and children is signed. My God. He’s a monster and must be stopped. There are pasty, pudgy Ivy League chicks out there who need help more than the North Koreans do!

Also related: things might really start to suck for Vietnam:

I quoted Dai Xu, a Chinese Air Force Colonel, as advocating a short decisive war against one of China's neighbors:

"Since we have decided that the U.S. is bluffing in the East China Sea, we should take this opportunity to respond to these empty provocations with something real. This includes Vietnam, the Philippines and Japan, who are the three running dogs of the United States in Asia. We only need to kill one, and it will immediately bring the others to heel." ...

This discussion highlighted something that hadn't occurred to me before: That an attack on Vietnam is the "logical" choice for China. From China's point of view, there would be several advantages:

• It would raise far less nationalism in the United States than would attacks on Japan or the Philippines.
• China has a score to settle with Vietnam, following the 1979 China-Vietnam war.
• The motive would be "kill a chicken to scare the monkeys," as the old Chinese saying goes.
• It would assert complete control over the South China Sea.
• China claims that America has been a troublemaker in the South and East China Seas, because these countries have been confronting China in the confident belief that they would be defended by the U.S. If the U.S. does not defend Vietnam, then the other countries would no longer feel confident, and would no longer challenge China.
• It would scare Japan, so that China could take control of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, and Japan would retreat.

It wouldn't be the first time China was hostile to Vietnam and given who now occupies the White House, it may be up to freer states in Asia to defend or support it if possible. 

I would like to state once more that we should not trade with China.

(With enormous amounts of thanks)