Home > abuse of power, Canada, Government, Uncategorized > Pauline Marois Queen Of Quebec Or Just A Ventriloquist’s Dummy?

Pauline Marois Queen Of Quebec Or Just A Ventriloquist’s Dummy?


Quebec Flag.jpg 2I have been talking about political circuses along with the elected clowns and illusionists that work in those political circuses for some time now, because that is what Canadian politics appears to resemble these days.  I would be remiss not to talk about Quebec’s Pauline Marois, because she is the ring master of the 3 ring political circus in Quebec.  Pauline Marois says that she is, “A determined woman with a plan,” but when questioned she get’s coquettish and tries to act like a delicate, fragile lady to dignified to answer those types of personal questions, instead of responding to the  questions like the overly ambitious female barracuda that I think that she is.  I am of the opinion that this woman has done whatever her political party advisers told her she had to do to get to the top of her political arena and will do whatever it takes in the future to stay there. I believe that she has thrown her friends and political allies under the bus, rid herself of rivals from within her party who would vie for her leadership and possibly win in a fair race, or be popular, or powerful enough to dare to oppose one of her ideas for Quebec. To this end I believe that this old girl has abandon any pretense of truth, honesty and giving a damn about Quebec, or Quebecers’. I pity Pauline Marois the woman who I believe gave up her conscience, traded her morality and her desire to do good for the people of Quebec and allowed herself to be portrayed as a racist, capable and ruthless enough with a tough enough skin to  deny the Anglophone and Allophones of her province their rights under the laws of Canada.

Is Pauline Marois the Queen of Quebec, or just a ventriloquist's dummy?

Is Pauline Marois the Queen of Quebec, or just a ventriloquist’s dummy?

When it comes to politics it is my belief that Pauline Marois is no leader and does not seem to have a vision of what Quebec should look like of her own, or has abandoned it to the allure of position.  When Pauline Marois spoke for herself she believed that being bilingual was important for all Quebecers’ and for Quebec, but that was way back them and this is now.  If Madam Marois has any voice of her own I have yet to hear it and I see no evidence that she has the heart to, or shown the desire to advance any of her own beliefs.  I honestly believe that Pauline Marois is the Parti Québécois’ illusion. Pauline Marois is the dummy that sits upon the knee of her party and waits for the hand shoved up her back to move her lips and provide her with a voice from which she can speak her parties wishes.  I feel sorry for this puppet, who thought that she could eat the forbidden fruit and not have to pay the price. Pauline Marois gave up the power of her convictions in my opinion and made a deal with a political devil that now controls everything about her. Look at the Queen of Quebec when she speaks publicly and notice how she talks without conviction, like a person reading lines  that she neither believes in, or understands. I believe that Marois is afraid to ad-lib, or leave the prepared script, because her leaving the script in the last election to say it was time to go for a referendum cost her a majority government. Yes I feel sorry for poor Little Pauline Marois the little girl who dreamed of being queen of Quebec, but ended up merely a ventriloquist’s dummy, with no heart, soul, or voice of her own.

"La Closerie" - The Small Estate."

“La Closerie” – The Small Estate.”

In her personal life I believe that Pauline Marois is a greedy conniving woman who is indeed on a mission and her mission seems to be that  if she cannot be the queen of  Quebec in terms of the absolute power in her own country newly formed country  then she feels that at the very least she should live the lifestyle of a queen.  This was evident in the castle looking mansion she and her husband built on her estate.  From the sneaky round about way the land was bought, to the  accusations of the man who says that her husband tricked him into signing a paper stating that he lived in an unheated run down shack on the property during a time he did not, begged that questions be answered by Pauline Marois and her husband.

Facts:

  1. Instead of buying the land designated farmland for themselves, they get a friend to do it for them, so it looks better politically says the friend that purchased the land for them.
  2. The friend applies for a permission to build a house on the land and is refused, because of a law that is protecting rapidly disappearing Quebec farmland. The law states that someone had to be living on the land in a house before the law came into being in order for the law not to apply.
  3. This friend of the Marois’s get’s some man to sign a paper saying he lived in a house on the land during the specified time required forcing the reversal of the previous decision disallowing the rezoning of the farmland.
  4. Once the permission to rezone is granted this friend immediately sells the property to the Marois for the amount of money he bought it for before rezoning, instead of the value after the rezoning a difference of approximately $700,000.00
  5. The man whose name who was supposed to be living on the property during the time required to make the rezoning legal comes forward and insists that he was tricked into signing the document. He and further swears that  he did not read the document that stated that he lived in a run down building, with no power or running water on the property during the time in question year round.
  6. This man claims that it was Pauline Marois’s husband who approached him with the document and that it was Pauline Marois husband who gave him a $1600.00 gift for his troubles.
  7. Pauline Marois and her husband decide to use land expropriated and slated for a highway project as the entrance way onto their property and put up a gate and private property signs even thought they do not own the public land and it is they who are the trespassers.
  8. Fence up they proceed to build a road to their house, and duck ponds on the side of that road as though the property belongs to them.
  9. During an election campaign Pauline Marois deliberately tried to mislead reporters by pretending to live in a modest house she owned taking them on a tour of it, when she was already living in her castle on her estate. Reporters were never given a tour of her estate which her and her husband call, “La Closerie” – The Small Estate.” If you want to know every detail of this underhanded deal go to this link and just read the lengths of which Pauline Marois’s husband goes to first to hide the fact that he is actually purchasing the land, the less than honest manner he employs to get it rezoned and tell me honestly and with a straight face that this whole thing was done transparently and legally.  How estate was built on public, farm lands – Vigile.net

The latest unproven and unsubstantiated rumor is that Pauline Marois called this election to avoid  her and her husband Claude Blanchet from having to go before and answer the questions of the National Assembly’s Committee concerning her and husband’s knowledge and possible interference with the set-up of the Charbonneau Commission.  Now like I have stated this is all unproven, but a question that every Quebecer should be asking themselves and Pauline Marois is why do these questionable, shady deals keep coming to light with her and or her husband’s name attached to them; (a) the questionable way they bought the land, (b) got the zoning changed (c) tax payer public land being used by her and her husband as the private entrance to “La Closerie” – The Small Estate,” their private estate and now this Charbonneau Commission thing.

Two Questions that the opposition parties want answered are:

  1. Did Premiere Pauline Marois’s husband, businessman Claude Blanchet, and the FTQ, try to enlist Marois and her Parti Québécois in 2009 to help  them thwart the set-up of a public inquiry into corruption in Quebec’s construction industry, because the FTQ’s solidarity fund had made a major investment in one of Claude Blanchet’s businesses?
  2. Why would FTQ president Michel Arsenault say that the PQ would not want a public inquiry into construction corruption, because “they will be hit, too,” and “because we have a deal with Blanchet?”

Marois’s election call last week killed the National Assembly committee and the order for Marois and her husband Claude Blanchet to testify and she is not talking about it and no news agency, or news paper is pushing the issue! Pauline Marois has repeatedly denied there was a deal and has said the PQ was never asked to stop a corruption inquiry from happening, calling the claim “ridiculous.”  I say that where there is smoke there is usually fire and I wonder why there have been no questions from the press to Pauline Marois about this matter? I would hammer her at every turn and force her to answer if I was a citizen at her hand shaking sessions and every time one of her candidates held a news conference, or coffee shop talk, or tried to shake my hand I would ask him or her what is the story on the Blanchet/FTQ deal.  I guess the case could be argued that the time was right for an election with Marois’s and her party’s ratings showing both high  in the polls with the possibility of winning a majority, but in the same breath with lots of time left on her present mandate one could ask why not clear up the dark cloud of suspicion hanging over her and her husband’s head and go before the National Assembly Committee and answer the questions that they were ordered to do by the National Assembly?  Why carry this suspicion into an election unless the 50% of suspicion that could be caused by calling the election and shutting down the committee is the better choice, because going before the National Assembly and answering the questions put to them would prove to 100% of Quebecers’, that Pauline Marois and her husband did try to thwart the set-up of a public inquiry into the corruption in Quebec’s construction industry, because the FTQ’s solidarity fund had made a major investment in one of Claude Blanchet’s businesses and this meant that as the FTQ president Michel Arsenault said,  “they will be hit, too,  because we have a deal with Blanchet?”

Which story is more important and which story do Canadians need investigated by media?

Which story is more important and which story do Canadians need investigated by media?

In closing I would offer up this thought, “When a reporter suggested that the mayor of Toronto was smoking crack the news went viral and the pursuit of Mayor Rob Ford almost looked like a witch hunt and continues to this day.  When challenged about their motives and tactics the members of the press and their agencies all took the position that the right of the people to know what is going made it their duty to report the story. Does the press now say that what is going on with the allegations concerning Pauline Marois credibility and the fact that her or her husband may tried to thwart the set-up of a public inquiry into the corruption in Quebec’s construction industry, because the FTQ’s solidarity fund had made a major investment in one of Claude Blanchet’s businesses, has no public interest and does not need to be pursued with the same determination as the Rob Ford crack story and its never-ending spin-off stories?  Makes you kind of say, what is up Canada.”

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: