She also showed how successive Canadian governments waged war on equality since the 1980s, and in her last book before her newest one she took aim at why the US invaded and occupied Iraq. Its catchy title is "It's the Crude, Dude: war, big oil, and the fight for the planet." It's no secret America's wars in the Middle East and Central Asia are to control what Franklin Roosevelt's State Department in 1945 called a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history - the huge amount of Middle East oil alone and veto power over how it's disbursed and to whom.
"Holding the Bully's Coat - Canada and the US Empire" is her eighth book. She writes about a country slightly larger than the US in geographic size with around one-tenth the population and one-twelfth the GDP. It also shares the world's longest relatively open, undefended border extending 3145 miles. In her book, McQuaig explains how corporate-Canada, its elitist "comprador class," the Department of National Defense (DND), and mainstream commentators want Canada to be Washington's subservient junior partner. The result is Ottawa abandoned its traditional role in peacekeeping, supporting internationalism, as a fair-minded mediator and conciliator, and it's continuing downhill from there.
Today Canada's allied with the Bush administration's belligerent lawlessness in its phony "war on terrorism." It's not part of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq but joined Washington's war of aggression and illegal occupation in Afghanistan. In February, 2004, it partnered with the US and France ousting democratically elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti, then became part of the repressive Blue Helmet MINUSTAH paramilitary force onslaught against his Lavalas movement and Haitian people under cover of "peacekeeping." More on that below.
In "Holding the Bully's Coat," McQuaig further explains how Canada lost its moorings. As an appendage of the US empire, it abandoned its traditional commitment to equality, inclusiveness, and rule of law. She wants her country to disgorge this virus plaguing it - its uncharacteristic culture of militarism, loss of sovereignty and one-sided support of privilege, returning to its roots to reclaim its once proud status now lost. Its leaders might recall former Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz's lament saying: "Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the US." Closeness plagues Canada, too. It can't choose neighborhoods but can still go its own sovereign way.
This review covers McQuaig's important book in detail so readers can learn what afflicts America affects Canada as well. It's a cancerous disease, and all people everywhere suffer for it.
McQuaig starts off noting the "significant shift in how Canada (now) operates in the world (having) moved from being a nation that has championed internationalism, the United Nations and UN peacekeeping to being a key prop" in George Bush's "war on terrorism." It belies Canada's now sullied reputation "as a fair arbiter and promoter of just causes (and as a) decent sort of country." She laments how the conservative Harper government aids the beleaguered White House, joined its war of aggression in Afghanistan, and continues distancing itself from its European allies "with whom we have a great deal in common."
Canada and the continent have "compelling similarities" shown in stronger social programs, "aspirations for greater social equality," and wanting "a world of peaceful co-existence among nations." In contrast, America continues growing more unequal, focusing instead on achieving unchallengeable economic, political and military supremacy in line with its imperial aims for world dominance. Nations daring to step out of line, risk getting flattened the way it's now happening to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Canada's tilt to the right began in earnest in the 1980s under conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney and his relationship with Ronald Reagan. Corporate American elites fondly remember his December, 1984 appearance at the New York Economic Club where one writer said business heavyweights were "hanging from the rafters" to hear what he'd say. They weren't disappointed, and it's been mostly downhill since. Back then, the order of the day was mainly business, but it no longer would be as formerly usual with Mulroney delighting his listeners announcing "Canada is open for business." He meant US corporations were welcome up north, the two countries would work for greater economic integration, and America's sovereignty henceforth took precedence over its northern neighbor.
Before Stephen Harper took office in February, 2006, McQuaig notes Canada's foreign policies began tilting to the right under Liberal prime minister Paul Martin. He replaced Jean Chretien in December, 2003, stepping down after 10 years in office just ahead of the federal "sponsorship scandal" over improper use of tax dollars that doomed the Martin government after an explosive report about it was released in February, 2004. While still in office, Martin's April, 2005 defence policy review stressed the integration of Canada's military with the US. He also approved redeploying Canadian Afghan troops away from "peacekeeping" in Kabul to fighting Taliban forces in southeastern Helmand province. Based on Taliban gains, since its resurgence to control half the country, he and Harper may live to regret that decision.
McQuaig notes the absence of any evidence Canadians approve. In fact, polls consistently show they're "increasingly wary of our involvement in Afghanistan (and too close an alignment) with the United States." Their feeling may be heightened under Harper's "flag-pumping jingoism" aided by the country's dominant media championing the war effort much like their counterparts in the US. Public approval doesn't count in Canada any more than it does in America. What George Bush wants he's mostly gotten so far, and Stephen Harper is quite willing to go along.
http://www.rense.com/general77/bully.htm
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 28, 2007]
Note: http://www.rense.com/ge...

Here is the issue I've been told is Vive's raison d'etre Canadian sovereignty!<br />
well belly up to the bar buddies but no crap about this party or that party as they all are sellouts<br />
<br />
I pasted the bit below because it id central to the time of the New Zealand expireiment <br />
please see <br />
<a href="http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_1/clancy.pdf">http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/Vol2_1/clancy.pdf</a><br />
<br />
and <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/EJROT">http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/EJROT</a>(newdesign)Vol2_1_front.asp<br />
<br />
Superior Knowledge? not so named by I, but rather a couple (wink wink) of conspirators(?)who enjoy axe grinding <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"Canada's tilt to the right began in earnest in the 1980s under conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney and his relationship with Ronald Reagan. Corporate American elites fondly remember his December, 1984 appearance at the New York Economic Club where one writer said business heavyweights were "hanging from the rafters" to hear what he'd say. They weren't disappointed, and it's been mostly downhill since. Back then, the order of the day was mainly business, but it no longer would be as formerly usual with Mulroney delighting his listeners announcing "Canada is open for business." He meant US corporations were welcome up north, the two countries would work for greater economic integration, and America's sovereignty henceforth took precedence over its northern neighbor." <br />
<p>---<br>I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
---
I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
Now here is a double entendre for all<br />
I'm "trying"<br />
This question of sovereignty goes much deeper for me. The Idea (concept) of a sovereign nation where all are bound together sounds good in theory and yet in practice we are at one anothers throats over this issue or that, this province against the other(s) and goes down onward to so that within families in may be this sibling against the other.<br />
I have come to the conclusion that a nation of sovereign individuals knowing who they are as appose to a nation as we are would eliminate much, if not all of the conflicts of today <br />
I realise that my assertion requires further explanation and hope to be able to provide that by the thoughts of men (and women for those who seen to believe I hold misogynist* <br />
beliefs
<br />
<a href="http://buildfreedom.com/power/powerx/1.html#July2comment">http://buildfreedom.com/power/powerx/1.html#July2comment</a> <br />
David T. Freeman: 'The Great Voting Hoax':<br />
"However, as time passed, the misleaders, oppressors, and exploiters, learnt better and less obvious ways to mislead, oppress, and exploit. They became better organised, and more efficient in their ways. They realised that by co-operating with each other, in large numbers, that their efforts were much more effective. They also discovered ways to hide many of the bad things they do - such as by making up many extra words, which supposedly meant entirely different things - where really they didn't, but most people unquestionably accepted their words/concepts as "valid" and "appropriate". They organised themselves into a hierarchy of "power" and "authority", with the "head" of this arrangement calling himself by a name of "king" or "emperor". The others had names of "queen", "duke", "prince", "princess", "lord", "archbishop", "bishop", "earl", "viscount", "count", "baron", "knight", etc. Anyone who had one of these "titles" was somehow perceived to be "special" and "important" - their "status" was "elevated" in the minds of "lesser humans" - who "lowered" themselves when in the presence of someone "important". They defined which areas of land were "their territories", "realms", etc. The general belief was that the "king" had a "Divine Right from God" to "rule over" everyone in "his realm". An extensive religious system was established in support of all this, which also served to "educate" everyone about these ways. They also instituted great systems to administer all their slaves - who were no longer called slaves - they were now called: "vassal", "serf", or "subject". The "king's" will was "law" - which "must" be obeyed by everyone else - or they would be clubbed, hung, tortured, slain, burnt, etc. (or at least that's what was threatened!)" <br />
The following satire indicates how a Deep Questioner might describe consensus human politics:<br />
<br />
Some where in my wed wanderings I found an article on knowing who you are with luck I may find it again for presentation here <br />
Dio<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*here is an oddity I came across in a piece written by Robert Anton Wilson There is no Antonym for misogynist and yet there are plenty of men haters <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.synonym.com/synonym/">http://www.synonym.com/synonym/</a> <br />
Antonym<br />
Antonyms of noun misogynist<br />
<br />
Sorry, I could not find antonyms for 'misogynist'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
Shift from being a "subject" or "citizen", to being a Sovereign Individual - most of this shift occurs in your own mind! Freedom isn't something you can be given, it's what you seize! You are free and sovereign by nature! Unlike the first three options, you don't have to educate or change anyone or anything but yourself. Stop believing in all the terrocrat "systems", their pretended "laws", etc.; discover that all coercive political "systems" (not just "voting") are frauds and hoaxes, and withdraw your support from them, both mentally and physically (financially). Think and live free right now by learning about and applying Freedom Technology. You always have the option to stop "complying" - you owe it yourself. <br />
Of course there's a great deal more to all of this, but before I refer you to some of the details, here are some words of wisdom, especially for those who are trying to change or fight the (pretended) "system": <br />
Albert Einstein is reported to have observed on many occasions: "You can NOT solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that has created the problem." <br />
"All efforts to cure a disease without removing the cause, will always be inadequate." - Lysander Spooner, 1846 <br />
[What if the problems and diseases are primarily the contents of individual human minds?] <br />
"Political activity alone cannot make a man free." - Booker T. Washington <br />
"What counts alone is the innovator, the dissenter, the harbinger of things unheard of, the man who rejects the traditional standards and aims at substituting new values and ideas for old ones." - Ludwig von Mises <br />
"The thought of how far the human race would have advanced without government simply staggers the imagination." - Doug Casey, 1979 <br />
"If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom." - Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty. <br />
"Stop fighting tyranny and start building freedom." - A. J. Galambos <br />
"The who knows what freedom is will find a way to be free" - Robert LeFevre<br />
From me; and to my detractors, Eh rural? "Those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing the new road." Voltaire<br />
It is hardly a question of superior knowledge as some here choose to think but rather of superior inquisitiveness perhaps.<br />
<a href="http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl01.htm#mind-r">http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl01.htm#mind-r</a> <br />
There are two fundamentally different approaches to freedom: <br />
a. Attempt to persuade politicians to change the system in order to give us liberty; <br />
b. Discover that you are free by nature and acquire freedom technology to live free in an unfree world.<br />
Both approaches involve education. In the first approach people attempt to educate others about the morality and merits of liberty. In the second approach people educate themselves about the practical knowledge, methods, and skills (freedom technology) for living free. The two approaches are mutually enhancing. There are many organizations practicing the first approach, and a few that emphasize the second. Our organization focuses on the second approach. <br />
An outgrowth of the second approach is the creation of free institutions to serve the needs of the free. Financial services organizations that enable people to handle their finances without coercive interference are such institutions. Organizations that teach people how to legally protect their income and assets against government theft and robbery are other examples<br />
<br />
So far no luck in finding the knowing who you are stuff , maybe later.<br />
Dio <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
<br />
<a href="http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl04.shtml">http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl04.shtml</a> <br />
<br />
#TL04: HOW TO FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE<br />
<br />
The Sovereign Individual Paradigm <br />
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, <br />
But in ourselves that we are underlings." <br />
- William Shakespeare <br />
A paradigm is a system of belief or a way of viewing the world. The feudal paradigm is that there is a King who essentially owns and controls everything and everybody. People are the subjects of the King. The King may delegate some of his powers to a Lord. Peasants, landholders, and merchants have to pay tribute to the Lord and/or the King. <br />
<br />
The sovereign individual paradigm states: <br />
(a) I am the master of my life. <br />
(b) I own my life, mind, and body - and the fruit of my labor. <br />
(c) I am free to do anything provided I do not violate the rights of others or harm them. <br />
<br />
So, How Do You Find Out Who You Are? <br />
You could think of yourself as a self-programmer. During your lifetime you have surrounded yourself with programs. How you view your environment, other people, and institutions like the state, are programs that profoundly affect how you view yourself<br />
.<br />
<br />
Your limitations are in your programs. You created them yourself - or you received and accepted them from others. Your self-esteem is determined by how you view and measure yourself. Having essentially created your limitations yourself, you can remove them. <br />
<br />
<br />
I seek to learn, improve, and implement the greatest practical ideas of my favorite psychologists, philosophers, thinkers, healers, and freedom-fighters: Jeremy Bentham, Steve Biko, Ιttiene de la Boιtie, Edward de Bono, Nathaniel Branden, Harry Browne, Guy-Claude Burger, Lewis Carroll, Noam Chomsky, W. Edwards Deming, Buckminster Fuller, Robert Fritz, T.C. Fry, Mohandas Gandhi, F.A. Hayek, Robert Heinlein, Shad Helmstetter, W.G. Hill, Claude Hopkins, L. Ron Hubbard, Julian Jaynes, Thomas Jefferson, Alfred Korzybski, Rose Wilder Lane, Timothy Leary, Abraham Maslow, Friedrich Nietzsche, William of Ockham, Thomas Paine, Jean Piaget, Karl Popper, Ezra Pound, Ayn Rand, Robert Ringer, Murray Rothbard, Irwin Schiff, Harry Schultz, Martin Seligman, Herbert Shelton, Lysander Spooner, Max Stirner, Jonathan Swift, Thomas Szasz, Lao Tzu, Hans Vaihinger, Voltaire, N.W. Walker, Frank Wallace, Win Wenger, Robert Anton Wilson, etc. <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges
I'm always surprised when some of her articles get ink in the Toronto paper. It's
refreshing!
---
"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere
Here's an excerpt, saying what I've been saying all along:
----------
Over five dozen peacekeeping operations have been undertaken since the first one with far too little or nothing to show for at least most of them, including where peacekeeping was most needed. The article couldn't cover them all so chose five other examples:
-- UNAMIR IN Rwanda
-- UNIMIK in Kosovo
-- MONUC in the Democratic Republic of Congo
-- UNMIS in Sudan, and
-- MINUSTAH in Haiti the article focused mainly on.
They all were and are dismal failures or worse.
-----------
"Dismal" failures. I couldn't have said it better. People believe we are 'Peacekeepers' because they have been conditioned toward that, Pavlovian style. That was the excuse Cretin gave to underfund the military. "Peacekeepers don't need tanks".
But look at every battle in 'war', and everyone save Dunkirk was a success. We are 'Peacemakers'. Peacemakers need a big stick, and a good shield. Because one can't keep a peace that doesn't exist.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.