I often say Americans are losing their ability to discern right from wrong.

I think it's true.

But if you want to see what an advanced state of moral relativism looks like, if you want to know where knee-jerk political correctness leads, if you want to get an idea of how the mental illness known as "progressive thought" can spread through an entire country, if you want to know where we're headed, look north, my friend.

This is evidenced by all kinds of pathological displays in Canada, a lovely nation I have visited frequently in recent years, a nation still with millions of people who know better than their federal government and decadent cultural institutions. You can see it in the country's embrace of same-sex marriage, in the rampant anti-Semitism, in the thought control of its "hate speech" codes, in its phony brand of multiculturalism, in its European-style appeasement of evil ideologies.

But, last week, we got to see a startling illustration of just how confused is the mind of the Canadian elite.

You probably heard something about it. Prime Minister Paul Martin, a weak-minded, weak-kneed politician who vacillates with the slightest breeze of controversy, announced Canada would not join the U.S. missile defense program.

When he sought the leadership of the Liberal Party, he was for it. But, like politicians we have known in this country, he looked at the polls, which indicate a majority of Canadians oppose joining with the U.S. in creating a defensive shield to shoot down incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In other words, Martin and, if we are to believe the polls, a majority of Canadians would prefer to leave themselves vulnerable to a nuclear attack than to, as the prime minister explained it, "weaponize space."

This might come as a real shocker to Canadians, but space was weaponized many years ago. The day the intercontinental ballistic missile was invented, space was weaponized. The point of an anti-missile defense system is to defang this monster, to protect innocent civilians from the hostile actions of an as-yet unforeseen enemy. It is to reduce the threat that space will be used to attack innocent Americans and Canadians with the most devastating weapons of mass destruction known to man.

Missile defense doesn't "weaponize" space. It does the opposite. It is a response to the weaponization of space. It is an answer to the weaponization of space.

Canadians can choose to put their heads in the sand with regard to the threats we face in an increasingly dangerous world in which more nations are, like it or not, developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. But having your head in the sand still leaves your posterior exposed. And that seems to be the part of the anatomy with which the Canadian elite is doing its thinking these days.

Under the proposed agreement, Canada would have been able to detect incoming ICBMs and protect itself without consultation.

U.S. Ambassador Paul Celluci reacted understandably to the news that Canadians would prefer to die under a hail of nuclear weapons than cooperate with the United States in building or operating an anti-missile defense shield.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming toward Canada," he said.

Of course, that's not the way Martin sees it.

"We are certainly intending to defend our sovereignty and our air space and if anything develops in our air space, we expect, as a sovereign state, to be notified and have influence on any decisions," he explained. "Canada's a sovereign nation and we would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our air space."

Let me translate this for you – even though the bilingual Martin said it in English: "You go ahead and build the missile defense shield, you nasty, imperialistic, barbaric, warmongering Americans. We don't want any part of weaponizing space. But, if a missile is headed into Canada, we insist you inform us and shoot it down at our command."

Canada is fortunate I am not in charge in Washington. My response to Martin's limp-wristed demand would be: "Fine, we'll let you know about those incoming missiles. But since we, too, live in a sovereign nation governed by a free people encompassing many diverse cultures and viewpoints, we'll set up a blue-ribbon, bipartisan committee to evaluate your 'requests' to shoot down those incoming missiles. Be sure to provide 24-hours notice of such requests."