"BioPanentheism... Describes how God is living vicariously through Us!"
I like everything Carney has done so far... (As if my opinion is worth a hill of beans!) except today when that bitch at the White House said: "Canada caved!"
Well... she might be right... But, there's no way she should have said it like that... after all... "them's fightin words!"
***
OH!
Ran across this picture of the 401 in Toronto... when I first got my driver's license!
Trump just broke off trade talks with Canada so I went to my personal A.I. SAL-9000 and asked:
Sal, with the current trade deal negotiations between Canada and the U.S., would it be a better idea to remove all trade barriers and tariffs? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of that?
SAL said:
Completely removing all trade barriers and tariffs between Canada and the U.S. would be a bold shift—here’s a nuanced look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a move:
1. Economic efficiency & consumer gains
Without tariffs, the principle of comparative advantage allows each country to specialize, increasing output and overall welfare heritage.org+15en.wikipedia.org+15m.economictimes.com+15.
Canadian consumers would benefit from lower prices on U.S. goods (and vice versa), reducing inflation pressures. The Bank of Canada noted that tariff-induced cost increases could significantly feed into consumer prices reuters.com.
2. Boost to trade and growth
Canada is the U.S.'s second-largest trading partner, responsible for ~75% of Canadian exports barrons.com+15m.economictimes.com+15facebook.com+15. Removing tariffs could increase export volumes, helping GDP and supporting jobs.
The Bank of Canada estimated U.S. tariffs alone could shave 1.1% off Canada’s GDP; elimination would help avert this downside bankofcanada.ca+15m.economictimes.com+15reuters.com+15.
3. Supply chain stability
Integrated supply chains—especially in sectors like automobiles, energy, metals—would function more efficiently, boosting competitiveness axios.com+15energypolicy.columbia.edu+15blackbuckinc.com+15.
4. Strengthened bilateral relations
A barrier-free regime would ease tensions over digital‑tax and dairy conflicts, reducing retaliatory threats and fostering cooperation.
5. Attracting investment
Predictable, open markets are a magnet for investment. Businesses are more confident planning cross‑border operations without trade frictions.
1. Loss of protected sectors
Industries currently shielded—like Canadian dairy, poultry, and eggs under supply‑management—would face intense competition from U.S. producers ft.com+7ft.com+7wsj.com+7en.wikipedia.org.
Similarly, U.S. steel, aluminum, and manufacturing sectors could suffer.
2. Adjustment costs
Freeing trade could cause short‑term dislocation in sensitive industries, requiring job retraining and social support. While in the long run gains offset these effects, the short‑term pain can be politically challenging en.wikipedia.org.
3. Loss of revenue and policy tools
Tariffs currently provide some government revenue and can be used strategically, for example in negotiating digital‑tax concessions. Removing them limits flexibility.
4. Political backlash
Sudden liberalization could provoke backlash in regions with vulnerable industries, triggering populist or protectionist pushback (as seen with Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs) theaustralian.com.au+1axios.com+1.
5. Strategic leverage lost
Tariffs are a bargaining chip in broader negotiations. Without them, it may be harder to secure concessions on issues like digital services taxation.
Under USMCA and WTO, most goods already cross tariff-free—exceptions include autos, dairy, steel, and aluminum (where tariffs were imposed in early 2025) ft.com+4apnews.com+4axios.com+4ft.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3. Complete removal would likely require treaty renegotiation (e.g., USMCA review due in 2026). However, full free trade would maximize the economic benefits from integrated markets.
| Pros | Cons |
|---|---|
| Consumer price relief, inflation control | Disruption to protected and strategic industries |
| GDP growth, trade volume increases | Short-term job losses & adjustment costs |
| Streamlined cross-border supply chains | Loss of policy flexibility and revenue |
| Stronger Canada-U.S. partnership | Potential political backlash |
Economically, yes—the consensus among economists favours free trade for its efficiency gains and growth benefits.
Politically and socially, the reality is more complex:
You’d need transition policies: training programs, targeted support, and phased liberalization to ease industry adjustment.
Negotiating side agreements could protect genuinely vulnerable sectors (e.g., supply‑managed agriculture) while opening others.
Both governments must manage domestic political pressures to avoid backlash.
Removing all trade barriers could unlock significant economic benefits, including stronger growth, lower prices, and deeper integration. But success hinges on managing the inevitable disruptions and crafting compensatory policies to support affected sectors. If both countries are willing to negotiate thoughtfully, a phased, strategic removal could ultimately be a win-win
By Allan W. Janssen
As Donald Trump floats back into the political spotlight with talk of a renegotiated U.S.-Canada trade deal "within 30 days," Canadians would be wise not to hold their breath. We've been here before—empty deadlines, bluster at the podium, and a looming threat of tariffs aimed at our industries, jobs, and sovereignty.
But what if—for once—Canada were the one to lay down the terms?
Let me be clear: Canada is not a vassal state. We are a resource superpower. Our hydroelectric dams light up American cities. Our oil keeps U.S. refineries humming. Our lumber frames their homes. Our potash grows their food. And our rare earth minerals will one day power their electric vehicles and smart bombs.
If Trump and his entourage of economic nationalists want to weaponize trade again, it's time Canada responded in kind—with something they can't ignore.
Imagine a 50% export tariff on Canadian oil, gas, electricity, potash, lumber, and rare metals headed south. Overnight, fuel prices rise, construction slows, and Midwestern farmers feel the pinch. The American supply chain, already fragile from global shocks, would be hit squarely where it hurts: inputs.
This isn't about starting a trade war. It’s about defending ourselves in one that Trump has already signaled he's willing to reignite.
Canada has long played the polite partner. We've endured steel and aluminum tariffs, Buy America schemes, softwood lumber disputes, and thinly veiled threats to our dairy sector. We’ve met these provocations with reason and compromise—sometimes too much of it.
But what if we flipped the script?
The World Trade Organization may frown on unilateral export tariffs. Fine. Let’s build strategic pricing mechanisms, carbon border adjustments, or export quotas that achieve the same goal. Let’s use climate goals, energy security, and market stability as the rationale—because they are.
And let’s not just prepare these measures quietly behind the scenes. Let’s signal them publicly. Because the mere threat of retaliation—when backed by real economic muscle—can be more effective than the act itself.
This isn’t economic brinkmanship. It’s economic realism.
Yes, we must accelerate LNG terminals to Asia. Yes, we must strengthen our internal east-west pipelines and transmission infrastructure. Yes, we must decouple from American overdependence wherever possible. But we must also be prepared to use the power we already have—now, not 20 years from now.
Let the Americans know: if no trade deal is reached within 30 days, Canada is prepared to impose strategic export controls. We are not begging for fairness. We are demanding it.
To be a serious country in today’s world, you need more than resources—you need the courage to use them. Just as the U.S. uses its dollar, military, and markets to enforce its interests, Canada must be prepared to use its natural resource dominance to protect its own.
Let’s stop being polite. Let’s start being powerful.
By Allan W. Janssen
The global aviation market isn’t just about wings, engines, and aerodynamics—it’s also about politics, protectionism, and power. With all the recent “crap about tariffs” in the air again, we’re left wondering: could these trade wars seriously hurt Boeing, while giving Airbus a free ride?
Boeing relies on a global supply chain. Tariffs on imported aluminum, titanium, semiconductors, or sub-assemblies raise production costs. When tariffs hit suppliers in countries like China, Canada, or the EU, Boeing eats the costs—or passes them on to customers, weakening its competitiveness.
When the U.S. enacts tariffs, trading partners retaliate. In the past, Europe and China have both slapped duties on U.S. aircraft, making Boeing jets more expensive overseas. Airbus, being European, sidesteps that problem in its home markets—and sometimes even in foreign markets angry at the U.S.
Boeing’s business model depends on exports—over 70% of its aircraft go to non-U.S. buyers. Trade friction makes international governments and airlines think twice about big orders, especially when the political risk seems high. Airbus looks safer by comparison.
China is one of Boeing’s biggest markets. But when U.S.-China relations go cold, China uses aircraft orders as leverage. It delays or cancels Boeing orders—and often rewards Airbus instead. The bigger the tension, the bigger the win for Airbus.
Boeing and Airbus have spent decades fighting at the WTO over government subsidies. Tariff escalation gives the EU an excuse to re-engage legally and economically—putting Boeing in the crosshairs while Airbus continues to receive broad political and financial support from European governments.
Airbus spreads its manufacturing across France, Germany, Spain, and the UK. This makes it less exposed to any one country's economic shocks or tariffs. While Boeing may face steel or tech tariffs from multiple countries, Airbus keeps flying under the radar.
The EU backs Airbus as a strategic industrial champion. In a trade war, European governments double down on supporting Airbus through loans, subsidies, and procurement preferences. That keeps Airbus stable even in choppy international waters.
In today’s geopolitical climate, many countries want to reduce dependence on the U.S. Airbus becomes the natural alternative: apolitical, diversified, and reliable. Nations like India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia have recently shifted new orders toward Airbus for this very reason.
If the United States pursues more aggressive tariffs and protectionist policies—especially under a second Trump administration—Boeing could find itself caught in the jet wash of politics. Every retaliatory measure from China or the EU makes Airbus look like a safer, smarter option.
It’s not just about who makes the better plane. It’s about who can sell more of them in a world where politics and trade matter as much as engineering.
And right now, Airbus has the advantage.
This post originally appeared on Allan’s Canadian Perspective and is syndicated on Children of the Divine. To support independent analysis and creative philosophy, follow Allan’s work on Medium and Substack.
Hey kids... wanna know just how fucking stupid Trump's MAGA supporters are?
— MAGA Cult Slayer🦅🇺🇸 (@MAGACult2) June 14, 2025
War
By Allan W. Janssen
Donald Trump’s decision to hike tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum to a punishing 50% is not just an attack on our workers—it’s a slap in the face to one of America’s most dependable allies.
The move is economically irrational, diplomatically reckless, and strategically short-sighted.
But let’s be clear: Canada does not need to respond with fury.
We need to respond with focus.
We are not powerless.
In fact, we are holding many of the cards.
Canada is more than a quiet neighbour.
We are a foundational pillar of North America’s energy, resource, and security architecture.
U.S. states depend on us every day for hydroelectricity, natural gas, softwood lumber, potash, critical minerals, and clean drinking water.
Our pipelines heat their homes.
Our forests build their cities.
Our electricity lights their nights.
We could shut off the tap.
But we shouldn’t.
Instead, we should play the long game—and play it smarter.
Rather than matching chaos with chaos, Canada should implement a layered strategy that hurts where it counts, without abandoning our values or alliances.
Start with targeted counter-tariffs, precisely aimed at Republican strongholds.
This isn’t new.
It worked in 2018, when Canada slapped tariffs on bourbon, motorcycles, and ketchup, products close to home for Trump-aligned industries.
If the tariff man wants a fight, we should make sure his voters feel it.
Then, move to export leverage.
Canada should review and potentially restructure electricity and resource contracts, especially to U.S. states that benefit from below-market rates.
If Ontario or Quebec were to renegotiate nighttime electricity exports to New England under a new premium pricing model, the message would be clear: you want to double our tariffs, you pay double for our power.
A border carbon adjustment is also overdue. If Canada imposes a climate-linked fee on imports like American steel and oil, we align with our environmental goals and the global economic consensus, while pushing back on artificially cheap, high-emission goods from across the border.
Let’s not forget legal tools. The USMCA and WTO were written to handle this kind of arbitrary trade aggression.
Canada should immediately file a formal dispute and rally allies like Mexico, the EU, and Japan.
Let Trump explain to the world why he’s sabotaging a rules-based system he helped rewrite just five years ago.
Some might argue for more dramatic action.
Shutting down power lines to New England for a few hours on a weekend would certainly grab headlines.
But that’s a move better suited to dictators than democracies.
Canada’s strength lies not in its silence... but in its stability.
We do not win by matching bluster, but by mastering consequence.
A power disruption could escalate tensions into a full-blown trade war, risking Canadian jobs, U.S. retaliation, and a collapse of trust that would take decades to rebuild.
It’s a bluff we don’t need to play—because our strength isn’t in threats, it’s in leverage, law, and logic.
Trump has floated ideas that insult Canadian sovereignty, ranging from absurd suggestions of “annexation” to more recent comments questioning our role in NATO.
These are not the words of a partner; they are the postures of a bully.
Canada must stand tall—not to provoke, but to remind our American friends: the relationship is mutual, not one-sided.
And if respect is withdrawn, so too must our favours.
Our retaliation should be precise, principled, and patient.
Let the world see Canada for what it truly is, not just the United States’ neighbour, but its equal in courage, conscience, and capability.
This is one American’s take on this debacle.
By Robert Meadows (Circuit Court Judge, Florida).
"Have you ever stopped to consider how lucky we Americans are to have the neighbours we have?
Look around the globe at who some folks have been stuck sharing a border with over the past half century:
North Korea / South Korea
Greece / Turkey
Iran / Iraq
Israel / Palestine
India / Pakistan
China / Russia
"We’ve got Canada!
Canada. About as inoffensive a neighbour as you could ever hope for.
In spite of all our boasts of “American exceptionalism” and chants of “America first,” they just smile, do their thing and go about their business.
They are, on average, more educated, have a higher standard of living, free health care, and almost no gun problems.
They treat immigrants respectfully and have already taken in over 35,000 Syrians in the last two years.
"They’re with us in NATO, they fought alongside us in World War I, World War II, Korea, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, Afghanistan, the Kosovo War and came to our defense after 9/11. There was that one time when Canada took a pass on one of our wars: Vietnam. Turned out to be a good call.
"They’ve been steady consumers of American imports, reliable exporters of metals and petroleum products (they are the biggest importer of U.S. products from 37 states), and partnered with NASA in our space missions.
"During 9/11 many aircraft were diverted to Newfoundland, an island province off Canada's east coast where Americans were housed in people's homes for two weeks and treated like royalty. In return for their hospitality, this administration slapped a 20% tariff on the products of Newfoundland's only paper mill, thereby threatening it's survival.
"And what do Canadians expect of us in return? To be respected for who and what they are: Canadians. That’s what I call a good neighbor.
"But the King of Chaos couldn’t leave well enough alone. Based on his delusions of perpetual victimhood, out of the clear blue, he’s declared economic war on Canada. On CANADA! And he did it based on Canada being a national security risk to the US! For no good reason, other than the voices in his head that told him it was a war he could win. So why not do it, then?
"Again, we’re talking about Canada.
Our closest ally, friend and neighbour!
Certainly, Allan. Here's a comprehensive three-way comparison of the Saab Gripen E, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon, specifically tailored to Canada's defense, financial, industrial, and political needs in 2025. I’ve broken this down by major factors that Canada must consider when selecting a fighter platform.
Before diving in, let’s remind ourselves of Canada's unique defense profile:
NORAD obligations require long-range patrol and interoperability with the U.S.
NATO commitments require multirole flexibility and combat-readiness.
Sovereignty enforcement over vast Arctic and maritime zones.
Budget sensitivity and industrial offsets (jobs, tech transfer).
Desire to reduce U.S. dependency under current trade/political strains.
| Jet | Origin | Cost | Multirole? | NATO-Interoperable? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saab Gripen E | Sweden | $85–95M CAD | Yes | Fully NATO-capable | |
| Dassault Rafale F4 | France | $100–120M CAD | Yes | Yes | |
| Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 4/5 | Germany/UK/Italy/Spain | $130–150M CAD | Yes | Yes |
| Category | Gripen E | Rafale F4 | Eurofighter Typhoon T4/5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Range (combat) | ~1,500 km | ~1,800 km | ~1,390 km |
| Max Speed | Mach 2 | Mach 1.8 | Mach 2 |
| Payload | 7.2 tons | 9.5 tons | 9.0 tons |
| Radar | AESA (Raven ES-05) + IRST | AESA (RBE2-AA) + IRST | AESA (Captor-E) + IRST |
| Stealth / RCS | Low RCS, small frame | Moderate stealth | Larger RCS, no stealth shaping |
| Suitability for Arctic Ops | Excellent | Good | Moderate (cold weather upgrades exist but limited field use) |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is ideal for cold-weather, dispersed operations. Rafale leads in payload and versatility. Typhoon is the fastest but was originally designed for air dominance, not strike flexibility (improved since Tranche 3/4).
| Category | Gripen E | Rafale | Eurofighter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tech Transfer | High – Sweden offers full IP transfer | Medium – France offers partial transfer | Low – Euro consortium unlikely to share deep tech |
| Domestic Assembly | Possible (Brazil & Czech deals had local assembly) | Limited – Dassault resists foreign assembly | Unlikely – complex supply chain across Europe |
| Canadian Jobs Potential | High – Saab committed to local production | Medium – Dassault offers offsets | Low – Mostly European jobs |
| Export Collaboration | Yes (Saab promotes joint export deals) | Possible, but France retains control | No – tight European export control |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E is the best option if Canada wants domestic production and long-term tech independence. The Rafale is decent but more centralized. Eurofighter is European-centric and less flexible industrially.
| Category | Gripen E | Rafale | Typhoon |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquisition Cost (fleet of 88) | ~$8–9B CAD | ~$10–11B CAD | ~$12–13B CAD |
| Operating Cost/hr | ~$7,500 CAD | ~$17,000 CAD | ~$20,000+ CAD |
| Maintenance Footprint | Low (single engine, modular design) | Medium (twin-engine, complex avionics) | High (expensive parts, complex logistics) |
| Lifecycle Cost (30 years) | Lowest | Mid | Highest |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen E wins on affordability and ease of maintenance. Rafale is acceptable but costly. Typhoon is expensive both upfront and over time.
| Factor | Gripen E | Rafale | Typhoon |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. Independence | High | High | Medium (UK is a U.S. ally) |
| Five Eyes Compatibility | Medium – improving | Medium – independent systems | High – UK is Five Eyes |
| NATO Interoperability | Excellent | Excellent | Excellent |
| Export Freedom | High – Sweden rarely restricts buyers | High – France acts independently | Medium – EU consortium restrictions |
| Diplomatic Leverage | Moderate | High (France is assertive) | Complicated (multi-country consortium) |
➡️ Verdict: Rafale and Gripen give Canada independent leverage. Typhoon is too politically entangled for a truly sovereign Canadian procurement.
| Factor | Gripen E | Rafale F4 | Typhoon T4/T5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Architecture | Yes – easy to integrate 3rd party systems | Somewhat open | Closed – heavily Euro-standardized |
| AI/Autonomy Features | Yes (future-proofed for drone teaming) | Yes (F5 roadmap) | Improving with Project Centurion, but slower |
| Sensor Fusion | Very good | Excellent | Good |
| NATO Data Link / Interop | Full | Full | Full |
| Upgrades Timeline | Rapid (Saab has agile dev cycles) | On track for F5 | Slow – needs consortium approval |
➡️ Verdict: Gripen offers flexibility and agility. Rafale is well-integrated but slower to adapt. Typhoon suffers from bureaucratic inertia.
| Criteria | Best Choice |
|---|---|
| Cost | Gripen E |
| Industrial Benefits | Gripen E |
| Multirole Combat Performance | Rafale |
| Range and Payload | Rafale |
| Sovereignty / Arctic Ops | Gripen E |
| Future Growth / Modularity | Gripen E |
| Political Independence | Tie: Gripen / Rafale |
| Ease of Integration into NORAD/NATO | Rafale / Typhoon |
🇸🇪 Saab Gripen E – Best for sovereignty, cost-efficiency, cold-weather readiness, and local industrial impact. A pragmatic choice for an independent and cost-sensitive Canada.
🇫🇷 Dassault Rafale F4 – Excellent multirole capabilities and combat range, but costlier with fewer industrial concessions. Strong option if performance trumps price.
🇪🇺 Eurofighter Typhoon – Advanced but expensive and politically complicated. Less suitable for Canada's independent defense and industrial goals.
