Gary Graham (@Gsqd) profile picture

Corporate/Commercial lawyer. Tilts towards less government/more freedom. Retweeting does not signify agreement, just interest.

Joined April 2011
Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)Photo by Gary Graham (@Gsqd)
Similar honey traps used in Canada. Just ask a couple of former MPs.
News that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang potentially became a Chinese intelligence target has renewed concerns over Beijing's human espionage campaigns against the United States and its high-profile figures. Huang admitted in a Nov. 8 memo to staff that he had an extramarital affair with a woman suspected by U.S. intelligence of operating for China. Nvidia's board subsequently launched an independent probe into reports that its chief executive was targeted by a foreign intelligence operation, while President Donald Trump confirmed the FBI is looking into related matters. At the center of the controversy is Huang Le, also known as Alice Huang, an unrelated former executive at Singapore-based AI firm Megaspeed, a significant buyer of Nvidia's advanced semiconductors. Citing unnamed sources, a Nov. 6 New York Times report identified her as an operative recruited by China’s Ministry of State Security. The episode highlights Beijing's reliance on traditional human intelligence alongside cyber operations, specifically utilizing romantic or sexual relationships—known as honey traps—to compromise influential targets, map personal vulnerabilities, and build avenues of influence. Andrew Harding, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, noted that using personal relationships for espionage is a established tactic for Beijing, warning that the CCP will actively exploit personal weaknesses to reach individuals holding critical technology or strategic access. 'Long-Term Plan' Experts stress that individuals holding sensitive roles in both government and critical commercial sectors remain prime targets for covert entrapment. While the U.S. executive branch enforces strict foreign-contact reporting rules—leading to the dismissal of a U.S. diplomat in late 2025 over an undisclosed romance with a CCP-linked woman—members of Congress do not hold formal security clearances, leaving open exposure gaps. A prominent precedent involves suspected operative Christine Fang, who cultivated connections across California political circles in the early 2010s, including fundraising for former Rep. Eric Swalwell before his election to Congress. Declassified FBI files revealed Swalwell admitted to a past sexual relationship with Fang before entering the House, though no criminal charges were brought and Fang returned to China in 2015. Analysts point to Fang's operation as a clear example of Beijing's long-term intelligence posture, investing years into cultivating emerging figures before they reach positions of significant national power. Defense Contractors Beyond political figures, military personnel and cleared defense contractors represent recurring targets for Chinese entrapment efforts. In a 2014 case cited by defense analysts, former U.S. Army Lt. Col. and Pacific Command contractor Benjamin Pierce Bishop pleaded guilty to passing classified military secrets to a 27-year-old Chinese graduate student with whom he maintained a romantic affair. Bishop illicitly shared plans regarding U.S.–South Korea military readiness, Pentagon strategy files, and classified imagery of a Chinese naval asset retrieved directly at the woman's request, ultimately receiving a federal prison sentence exceeding seven years. 'Systematic Intelligence Mechanism' Shen Ming-shih of Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research described honeypots as a routine and institutionalized tool within the Chinese intelligence playbook. Operations typically begin with patient surveillance, using academic conferences, industry gatherings, or digital platforms to establish initial contact and assess personal vulnerabilities rather than demanding immediate classified material. Former Australian defense intelligence official Paul Johnstone recounted similar approaches on social networks and dating platforms, noting operatives frequently pose as coming from Hong Kong to disarm foreign targets and extract perspectives on defense policy. Exploitation of 'Human Weaknesses' Security analysts warn that counteracting honey traps remains uniquely difficult because the operations are masked by personal affection and legitimate commercial partnerships. Feng Chongyi, an associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney, observed that the tactic directly weaponizes human emotional frailties, complicating the burden of proof for Western investigators. Because democratic legal frameworks protect private associations and require clear criminal thresholds to intervene, experts emphasize that preventing such covert influence operations remains an enduring challenge. theepochtimes.com/china/behi…
20
Gary Graham retweeted
The journalism tax credit now extends to Bell, Rogers, Corus and Quebecor: $501M over five years, $85M a year permanently. Nearly every major news organization now depends on federal support. Companies reliant on government are less likely to criticize it. michaelgeist.ca/2026/11/from…
197
826
142
2,198
136,078
I'll probably lose followers for saying this but Canada trying to join the EU is the most retarded idea of all time We don't become a more independent and sovereign country by adding another Government to rule above ours Canadians please wake up
1,129
2,506
126
13,003
101,585
“To be sovereign is not to be alone.” Orwellian attempt to move the Overton window. Not buying it.
This Demagogue is working hard to redefine what sovereignty is. These are not mere political statements. We need to ask, who is ultimately deciding what is in Canada's national interest? Canadians and their elected representatives or an international network of governments and institutions? Carney is trying to convince Canadians of the latter.
1
38
‼️NUKES FIRED!! --- Alberta just tabled Bill 33 and it NUKES DEI and wokism across the public sector. The Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2026 (No. 2) bans preferential hiring and promotion based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other “personal characteristics” in government agencies, schools, universities, municipalities, and Crown entities. Banned outright: Ameliorative (DEI) hiring and promotion programs Mandatory training on DEI, unconscious bias, or cultural competency Any required training that dictates political, historical, or social opinions or pushes identity-based moral superiority and preferential treatment Merit is back. Ideological loyalty tests are out. This is the most BASED law of 2026!
173
580
49
3,234
61,872
Get organized. Complain to the CTRC/ your MP. Leveraging a license to make a fundamental Cdn experience beyond reach of most. Don’t expect a lot of help 🥁 up support from the gov funded media or those pirating around the prob. Watch Network!
So let me get this straight @Rogers @Sportsnet. I pay for cable, I pay for @PrimeVideo, and I still can't watch the @Leafs game tonight unless I pay for a + subscription? When does it end? #growthegame #Leafs
2
77
Gary Graham retweeted
On my way to the office this morning, I passed a group of young people protesting, a Palestinian flag draped over their shoulders. And I asked myself a question I can't shake: why does this generation always fall into the same trap? No matter the history. No matter the context. Even the ones from wealthy families, who went to the best schools, who were dealt every good card. Always the same trap. I don't think it's stupidity. I think it's a mechanism. And a mechanism can be taken apart, piece by piece. A. The observation: everything the state touches becomes unaffordable. Look at economist Mark Perry's famous chart, the one people call "the chart of the century." It tracks US prices since 2000. At the top, what explodes: hospital services, college tuition, textbooks, childcare, housing. Increases of +100%, +150%, up to +250%, far above general inflation. At the bottom, what collapses: TVs, software, phones, toys, clothing. A TV today costs a fraction of what it did in 2000, for an infinitely better product. Look at what separates the two groups. It isn't technology. It isn't complexity. It's one variable: how much the state is involved. At the top, sectors that are subsidized, regulated, shielded from competition, where the state funds demand and blocks supply. At the bottom, sectors where companies fight every single morning to serve you better and cheaper. B. The mechanism: why it's systematic. When the state subsidizes demand without freeing supply, prices rise. Every time. Guaranteed student loans, and universities raise tuition. Housing aid plus blocked building permits, and rents skyrocket. Administered healthcare, and bureaucracy eats the budget before it ever reaches the patient. In France it's even more vicious, because the price doesn't disappear: it hides. You never see the hospital bill, you pay it through payroll contributions. You never see the cost of school, you pay it through taxes. Public spending at 57% of GDP, one of the heaviest tax burdens in the world, more than €3.4 trillion in debt. And the result? Overflowing ERs, falling PISA scores, young people who can't afford to live in the city where they work. The market didn't fail in these sectors. It was never allowed in. C. Suffering demands a culprit. A 22-year-old lives all of this in their bones. They can't find a place to live. Their degree either buries them in debt or opens no doors. The future feels blocked. That suffering is real, and I don't deny it for a second. But human beings can't stand suffering without a culprit. They need a face. A scapegoat. And this is where everything is decided: who taught them how to read the world? D. Whoever tells the story picks the villain. Schools are public. Universities are public. Culture runs on grants. Film goes through funding committees. Public broadcasting shapes the narratives. The people handing down the interpretive framework are, overwhelmingly, paid by the very system that creates the problem. Do you really think that system is going to name itself as the culprit? No. It names the capitalist. The boss. The landlord. "The rich." The multinational. The commercial West. Same role, same casting, every time. E. One lens, a thousand causes. And this brings me back to that flag. A generation taught to read every situation through a single lens, oppressor on one side, rich, Western, capitalist, oppressed on the other, will apply that lens everywhere. To housing. To climate. To conflicts on the other side of the world. The cause changes, the lens stays. That's why the trap is always the same: it's not the cause that draws them in, it's the way of thinking that was installed in them. F. The perfect inversion. Here's the irony. Capitalism is the force that drove down the price of almost everything it touched. The state is the force that blew up the price of almost everything it captured. And young people blame the first for the crimes of the second. It's like blaming the firefighter for the fire because you saw him at the scene. G. The ballot box confirms it. In the US, a few weeks out from the midterms, a large share of urban young voters is getting ready to vote Democrat for more state, more spending, more regulation. New York elected a self-described socialist mayor, carried by young voters, on promises of rent freezes and city-run grocery stores. Rent freezes, the policy that has made housing scarcer everywhere it's been tried. The cure that worsens the disease. In France, it's the same play in two acts. Part of the youth votes for the radical left, which promises more state. Another part votes for the center, which promises to "manage" the state well, and has dug the debt deeper than ever. Two different ballots, one shared assumption: the problem is the market, the solution is the state. H. The way out. These young people aren't stupid. They're right to be angry. They're just aiming at the wrong target. The day they understand that their rent, their tuition and their hospital are expensive precisely because the state runs them, their anger will change direction. They'll stop protesting against those who create. They'll start protesting against those who capture. That day, the greatest intellectual scam of our time will be over.
704
4,402
604
16,591
1,823,998
Gary Graham retweeted
My post about France went viral. Thousands of likes. Many Americans told me: "Democrats aren't socialists. America will never be France." I want to answer that seriously, step by step. Start with a simple observation. Look at what has gotten cheaper in America over the last 25 years: TVs, phones, software, clothes, toys. Now look at what has exploded: college tuition, healthcare, childcare, housing. What separates the two lists? The first lives in competitive markets. The second is exactly where government is most involved: subsidies, mandates, licensing, zoning, regulation. College. Washington lends students almost unlimited money. Universities know the money will always come, so they raise tuition and hire more administrators. The student pays the bill for twenty years. More government money, higher prices. Housing. Why can't a nurse buy a home in the city where she works? Not because of capitalism. Because of zoning laws, permits, environmental reviews, years of procedure to build a single building. The most expensive places to live in America are the places where it's hardest to build. When building is nearly illegal, prices explode. Healthcare. The patient almost never sees the price. A third party pays, regulations limit who can compete, and costs climb year after year with no one able to say no. So here is the trap. The problems you suffer from are not the failure of free markets. They are the places where the market has already been replaced by the state. And the solution you're being offered is more of the same. That's the Trojan horse. It always works the same way. A real problem. A generous-sounding promise. A program that makes things worse. Then the failure of that program becomes the argument for the next one. People who lived under communism in Poland learned to recognize the lie and the mask the lie wears. The lie never presents itself as a lie. It presents itself as compassion. In France we are at the end of that road. Debt we can never repay. Young people who can't afford a home. Our best people leaving. And every few years our cities burn. Nobody voted for this. They voted for one more generous promise, fifty years in a row. If you're a Republican, share this with the Democrat in your life. Not to win an argument. To start a conversation. If you're a Democrat, I'm not asking you to switch teams. I'm asking you to look at the pattern. Wherever the state took over, life became unaffordable. Don't fix the failures of government with more government. Stay American. Ask for less state, not more.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you. I come from your future. In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream. Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them. The promise was protection. The result is stagnation. The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe. I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has. Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France? Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
892
8,810
679
29,609
1,117,230
The @CDNConstFound really seems to get it done on these court challenges. They get outcomes.
Ottawa's attempt to sidestep the Constitution has been defeated once again. For the second time, the courts have rejected the federal government's attempt to claim powers that belong to the provinces. This is a major victory for Canadian federalism and a powerful affirmation of the constitutional limits on government power.
2
8
271
George Orwell, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek and Frédéric Bastiat give you four excellent tools for cutting through Canadian political language. Orwell: Watch the words. Sowell: Ignore intentions. Examine results and trade-offs. Hayek: Be suspicious when politicians think they possess enough knowledge to manage millions of people’s decisions from the centre. Bastiat: Look beyond what you can immediately see. Ask what the policy costs, what it prevents, and what would have happened otherwise. Apply those four tests to Canadian politics. “Affordability” can mean spending more government money, cutting a tax, sending you a cheque, controlling a price or subsidizing something. Orwell asks: What does “affordability” actually mean here? Sowell asks: Does the policy really make Canadians better off after all the costs are counted? Hayek asks: How does Ottawa know the right price, subsidy, industry or investment for millions of different Canadians? Bastiat asks: What don’t we see? What would taxpayers, businesses and families have done with that money instead? “Investment” sounds better than “government spending.” Fine. Investment in what? How much? Who decided? Who takes the loss if it fails? “Compassion” describes an intention. It doesn’t tell you whether a program works. “Fairness” sounds unquestionably good. But fairness to whom? Who pays more? Who receives more? What behaviour does the policy encourage? “Common sense” is another slogan until somebody explains the actual policy. “Corporate greed” can describe genuine misconduct, but it can also become a convenient explanation that ignores taxes, regulation, wages, competition, monetary policy, supply constraints and government decisions. “Crisis” may describe a real emergency. It can also create the political urgency needed to push through measures that would receive much more scrutiny under ordinary circumstances. “Misinformation” should mean a factual claim that can be demonstrated to be false. It should never become shorthand for “an argument we don’t want to answer.” “Dangerous” tells you somebody wants you to fear an idea. Ask for the evidence. And when somebody calls an argument “simplistic,” ask them to identify exactly what is wrong with it. Sometimes a simple argument is wrong. Sometimes the complicated language is there because the simple question is uncomfortable. This applies to Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, premiers, bureaucracies, CBC, private media, corporations, unions and people on social media. It also applies to the politicians you like. Especially the politicians you like. Strip away the language and ask: What is actually being proposed? What will it cost? Who pays? Who benefits? What incentives does it create? What knowledge would government need to make this work? What consequences aren’t immediately visible? What would people have done with their own money and resources instead? What evidence says the policy works? What happens when it fails? Orwell teaches you to examine the language. Sowell teaches you to examine incentives, trade-offs and consequences. Hayek teaches you the limits of centralized knowledge. Bastiat teaches you to look for the unseen cost. Put all four together and you have a pretty good bullshit detector for Canadian politics.
27
139
21
402
7,776
Gary Graham retweeted
We haven’t started to grapple with the fact that there was a terror attack targeting Jews in Canada this week that would have been a massacre but for police guarding the synagogue. Years of failed leadership have led to the normalization of antisemitism on both the left and right
130
339
20
1,886
57,577
Gary Graham retweeted
One of American jurist Antonin Scalia’s most consequential contributions was to give law students and aspiring jurists an intellectual framework for challenging the prevailing progressive jurisprudential consensus. Many instinctively disagreed with it but lacked the ideas and vocabulary to articulate an alternative. His judgments and writings helped equip a generation that would reshape American constitutional law. If a comparable intellectual shift is to come to Canada, three recent lectures deserve attention. The first two are Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Rowe’s March 2026 lectures on the relationship between the Charter and liberal democracy. The @RunnymedeSoc has released them together as a podcast episode: runnymedesociety.ca/en/the-c… The third is a recent lecture by former Supreme Court Justice Russell Brown, hosted by @GeoffSigalet and the @ubc_ccl. It's a tour de force on the separation of powers, its relationship to individual liberty, and the need to scrutinize power exercised by every branch of government—including the courts: youtube.com/watch?v=-AjKVTmy… What makes this kind of intellectual work important is its capacity to turn instinctive dissent into a developed constitutional argument. Students and aspiring jurists need to encounter serious alternatives to the assumptions that prevail in their classrooms and profession. Scalia showed how consequential it can be to give people the intellectual confidence—and the vocabulary—to disagree. Rowe and Brown deserve tremendous credit for doing the same.
2
16
61
3,169
“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” say “the hijackings led to passenger jet crashes” per CBC exec memo to CBC journos. This with public funds. You’ve got to be kidding. We are a laughing stock.
1
123
Gary Graham retweeted
Canada as a single 51st state is a non-starter. Any serious union would have to be at least six states. If Washington offered currency parity, let us keep our gun laws, and barred arriving Americans from social benefits for several years, there is an argument that some people would be materially better off than under a continued Canadian decline. That is not the same as saying Canadians would accept it. And I believe that Canada can and will reverse its decline, so I would not vote for it, and I doubt the rest of the country would either. The more dangerous hypothetical is Alberta. If Ottawa doesn't get off their back, a U.S. sweetheart deal, the above terms plus a $100k one-time integration tax rebate for all Albertans above the age of 18, or something -- that might just be enough to peel the province away. Something like that would be a huge win for Trump and the beginning of the end of Canada. But to be clear, we're venturing deep into the tenebrious thicket of far-fetched hypotheticals here.
Replying to @ConradMBlack
As a 37-year-old Canadian who read both national newspapers, daily, from when I was a child to my early twenties, having read many of your columns (parents had a daily subscription for both the Globe and National Post), my observation in summary of the last 30 years has been a trainwreck in slow motion. Wouldn’t we be better off as Americans/the 51st state?
306
91
34
943
241,813
Simply have to match dollar for dollar. Has always been the way. Works to discredit and deter tariffs.
Well done, Prime. Minister. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Canada clearly made a serious, good faith effort to get greater stability and market access, and remains ready to find a fair, balanced agreement. But we are not cravenly surrendering in the face of constant economic and political aggression. Responding to the new US tariffs with counter tariffs is exactly the right thing to do at this time. People in the Trump Administration keep expressing outrage that Canada is the only country in the world apart from China to retaliate against US tariffs. Damn right we are. Makes me proud to be Canadian. #ProudToBeCanadian #StrongAndFree
139
This may seem like small ball but you need to grasp what a seismic shift this is No previous GOP administration would have ever touched Cofnas with a ten foot poll but the Trump admin is offering a full throated defense in the name of free speech In politics this is a pitch you watch sail by because the political upside of defending Cofnas is basically zero and it could cost you a news cycle, but the Trump admin does it without blinking because it's the right thing to do You can be frustrated with the foreign policy decisions, but never let anyone lie to you and tell you that there is no difference with Trump in charge
The United States Mission to Belgium condemns, in the strongest terms, Ghent University’s retaliation against an American scholar following his accurate whistleblower reporting on academic fraud. The United States government regularly funds and supports research, academic exchanges, and other engagements with overseas universities. Dishonest, corrupt institutions that engage in, or reward, scapegoating mob behavior are not desirable partners for us. This is particularly true where the purpose and effect of the scapegoating is to punish accurate journalism unearthing academic dishonesty. We are therefore reviewing any relationships we have with Ghent University. Bad-faith idealogues will try to make this a referendum on the content of Cofnas’s scholarship – or polemical distortions of it. That’s wrong. Free speech means that controversial views are protected. And Cofnas’s views were known to Ghent University when he was hired. The ultimate purpose of freedom of speech is to overturn lies, fraud, and false ideologies. This is precisely what Cofnas was doing, and precisely the reason his home institution wants to silence him. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
133
793
22
7,872
229,964
Gary Graham retweeted
‘Elbows up’ is not a defence strategy. Some comments to my post on John Ralston Saul have surprised me. It’s clear that many Canadians don’t know that the USA has subsidised Canada’s failure to protect itself for so long that the Pentagon no longer even bothers to comment on it. For Liberal Ottawa types like John finally thinking about defense and wondering whether we should shop elsewhere for aircraft, let’s look at some actual numbers of who is protecting Canada: - US Air Force: roughly 4,800 aircraft. US Navy aviation: about 2,500 aircraft (3,700 if you include the Marine Corps). 8500 of the most advanced aircraft in the planet have been underwriting the defence of Canada’s coastline, the Arctic, and the NORAD mission for decades. Canada’s entire air force sits at roughly 360 aircraft. When you discount the decade of Liberal policy and woke generals reducing serviceability to 40%, you get to around 150 that can fly. That means ~150 airframes of mixed age and readiness defend Canadian territory. This doesn’t meet our NORAD and NATO commitments. Even worse, it’s a death wish for Cdn pilots facing a 5th gen Chinese or Russian fighter in the Arctic. But John wants cheap spare parts? He wants to avoid deeper integration with American systems and supply chains? Why? Cultural insecurity and personal anti-American sentimentalism is not strategy. It is a luxury belief. European spare parts and alternative air platforms do not change Canadas geography or the threat picture we face. American overwatch has created a decades long entitlement mentality in Ottawa. That’s over now. Our coming military alliance with the United States will outlast any single president. The Carney government has done the right thing and taken a necessary step on funding. The next step for Canada is critical: full interoperability with the USA in data, air, and naval forces built around our strongest ally and the best available equipment — which remains American — with deliberate deals to integrate supply chains and produce more of what we need, including spare parts, here in Canada. Anything less than this is luxury beliefs, not defence.
The delusional notion of Canadian military sovereignty that comes out of some effete corner of Ottawa once in a while is wild. Forget the lefty fever dream ‘threat’ from the USA. The US special operations division alone dwarfs Canada’s entire armed forces in every category including air. The Pentagon is long past giving zero f’s about where we get our spare parts. They just want us, for once, to get some and attach them to our aged-out airplanes - and get functional enough to contribute to anything without requiring them to airlift us to it. The real threat to Canadian military sovereignty is internal: a lost decade of Liberal govt bizarre choices that reduced air force morale, procurement and equipment to a farcical 40% force/equipment readiness and absolute dependency on the USA and NORAD in Colorado Springs.
21
87
5
302
18,913
Marijuana is disgusting. Regular use is a one way door to becoming a retard and a loser. Go out. Have a glass of wine. Be social. Get some sun. Take an uber. Fin.
Truly a saddening chart. Weed is a loser drug. It makes you tired, lethargic, boring, and it smells terrible. The decline of cigarettes is nice, but we could use a few more drinks and a little less ganja.
4,130
777
545
18,391
6,317,237