View Poll Results: Justin Trudeau

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Alpha

    1 33.33%
  • Beta

    1 33.33%
  • Gamma

    1 33.33%
  • Delta

    1 33.33%
  • ILE

    0 0%
  • SEI

    1 33.33%
  • ESE

    1 33.33%
  • LII

    1 33.33%
  • EIE

    1 33.33%
  • LSI

    0 0%
  • SLE

    0 0%
  • IEI

    0 0%
  • SEE

    1 33.33%
  • ILI

    0 0%
  • LIE

    0 0%
  • ESI

    0 0%
  • LSE

    0 0%
  • EII

    2 66.67%
  • IEE

    1 33.33%
  • SLI

    0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Justin Trudeau

  1. #1
    Haikus Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    527
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default Justin Trudeau

    Canada's new and handsome prime minister.

    Thoughts?












    Last edited by silke; 08-31-2019 at 02:52 PM. Reason: updated links

  2. #2
    netflix and don't touch me Emmym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Video is not available.
    someday the grapes will be wine
    and someday you will be mine


    EII-Ne 2w3 - 9w1 - 7w8 so/sx

  3. #3
    Haikus Pink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    527
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emmym View Post
    Video is not available.
    Oh no Here's another one:


  4. #4
    netflix and don't touch me Emmym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    TIM
    EII-Ne
    Posts
    287
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ILE lol
    someday the grapes will be wine
    and someday you will be mine


    EII-Ne 2w3 - 9w1 - 7w8 so/sx

  5. #5
    xerxe xerxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ministry of Love
    Posts
    6,257
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Best part of his election: we can finally put away the notion that women are uniquely sexually-objectified in politics.
    I never realized how many idiots there were until I logged on to the Internet. -- Edsger Dijkstra, Dutch Computer Scientist and pioneer in network communication (possibly apocryphal)

  6. #6
    Haikus silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,756
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Probably SEE sx/sp 3w2. He reminds me of this ILE e3 dude and also of an SLE guy I dated a while ago whose college pics looked a lot like the photos of young Trudeau. Most sure of him being EP sx/sp.




    his wife looks to be an extravert and so/sx (LSE?)


  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    TIM
    IEI-Fe 964 so/sx
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #8
    Haikus silke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    TIM
    Ni-IEI sx/sp
    Posts
    4,756
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    aw I'm at a loss here as to who is cuter



  9. #9
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,523
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah he is dreamy.... He also had a famous prime minister for a Father, so lets see how the liberals do. I see him as ESFj/ESFp because why not start there? The SF camp is a good place for him. Otherwise he is an NF over an NT. ST is just out of the question unless its LSE.

  10. #10
    rien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    Delta NF
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    se_001.jpg
    I think he looks striking... ly similar to this Filatova SEI portrait.

  11. #11
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,523
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Attachment 6769

    With wife, Sophie.

  12. #12
    President of WSS Jack Oliver Aaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    431
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    He is a passionate, animated and idealistic politician, very much a man of the people. Highly charismatic. He focuses on a more progressive message than other liberals, and says that there will be 'great change'. He is dedicated to appearing as a prime minister who all of Canada should get behind (showing he can speak French fluently) and who is unafraid to make radical decisions based on populist political aims, such as his appointment of a 50/50 cabinet.

    It is interesting that his enthusiasm often dies down when interviewers ask about more trivial things, such as the size of his office, and whether it felt bigger when it was his father's. He is also shown to be quite restless, feeling the need to get down to important, more meaningful work.

    I think that EIE is very clear here.
    Founder & President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    TIM
    IEI-Fe 964 so/sx
    Posts
    987
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  14. #14
    from toronto with love ScarlettLux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    TIM
    Beta sx 3w4;7w8
    Posts
    3,409
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Bump!


    Dress pretty, play dirty ღ
    Johari
    Nohari

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,743
    Mentioned
    965 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    EN*P
    Last edited by Sol; 12-26-2018 at 08:18 PM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  16. #16
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    24,619
    Mentioned
    592 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    He look sei
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  17. #17
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,850
    Mentioned
    256 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    EP. Not sure which one - SEE 3w2 sounds good.

  18. #18
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    fatherlessness (our communistic elitist socionics dogma)
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Justin Pierre James Trudeau

    Justin Pierre James Trudeau: ESE, LII-Ne, EII-Ne, or EIE

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/...l-obamanation/

    NOVEMBER 11, 2015

    Canada Under Trudeau: Liberal Revival or Liberal Obamanation?
    by GREG FELTON

    Nothing unifies a divided people quite like a common enemy. Fighting the enemy focuses people’s energies and generates a common frame of reference that delivers moral clarity. However, once the enemy is vanquished the unifying frame of reference vanishes along with it. Suddenly, a new, “peacetime” frame of reference fills the void, and old divisions redevelop, maybe even some new ones. Canadian voters are just now coming to appreciate that while winning a war may be hard, winning the peace is even harder.

    After ridding the country of Stephen Harper’s toxic dictatorship, the electorate is now divided over what, exactly, to make of Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government. Optimists believe that it represents a return to a sane, humane Canada whereas pessimists think it will generally hearken unto the same corporatist cabal that Harper did. To some degree Trudeau’s victory is analogous to Barack Obama’s presidential victory in 2008 after the end of the Bush error… er, era. A short analysis of the expectation, election and fallout of the U.S.’s first black president provides useful insight into what’s in store for Canada.


    In 2008, Senator Barack Obama was the Democratic standard bearer for a return to rational government after George W. Bush’s eight-year régime, which was notorious for warmongering, anti-Muslim fear mongering, treason, zionist servility and corporatism, among other things. Although not all of these traits were unique to Bush, they reached such extremes that the political establishment decided that the so-called Republican Party was unfit to remain in power. This belief was confirmed when the party chose Sen. John “Insane” McCain to challenge for the White House.

    Endorsements for Obama crossed party and political lines, running the gamut from communists to The Economist and included members of McCain’s own party, like Bush’s one-time Secretary of State Colin Powell. Typical of the establishment view was the New York Times endorsement editorial:

    “We believe [Senator Barack Obama] has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems. In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate [Sarah Palin] so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress. Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.”

    The editorial’s endorsement of promised reforms under Obama was significant because the paper had been the chief cheerleader and disinformant—take a bow, Judith Miller!—for Bush’s military aggressions, economic gangsterism, repression of civil liberties, World Trade Towers/Pentagon attack and passage of the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act. Powell, himself, even lied to the UN to justify attacking Afghanistan, and the Times dutifully reported the lie as if it were legitimate news.

    For voters, and the international community at large, Barack Obama was the Great Black Hope, and his election was hailed as a victory for civil rights, minority rights, reasoned government and an end to irresponsible military adventurism. However, this near-giddy optimism was not based on any realistic understanding of Obama the politician. For voters, electing the first black president in a racist country and getting rid of the Bush junta mattered far more than any substantive assessment of Obama’s politics.


    Any expectation that Obama would be much different from Bush was dashed almost immediately when he announced that he would not launch an investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks to find out who really did it. Obama said he was not going to look backwards; he was going to look forwards, and with that dismissal the whitewash of establishment guilt became government policy, as did the ensuing police-state terrorism.

    In addition, as a senator from Illinois, Obama voted for Bush’s $700-plus billion “rescue” package for banks and other financial institutions even though their greed and predatory behaviour were entirely responsible for their misfortune. Once elected Obama’s administration accepted the egregious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and even expanded it to cover loans to keep General Motors and Chrysler from going under. The following excerpt is taken from a list of 23 false promises Obama told to get into office… [ https://www.activistpost.com/2013/11...Out-To-Be.html ]

    #2 “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”

    #8 “We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”

    #10 “We will close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.”

    #12 “We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”

    #14 “We reject sweeping claims of ‘inherent’ presidential power.”

    #16 “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans.”

    #17 “If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home; we will end this war. You can take that to the bank.”

    #19 “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”


    The irony is that even if voters had understood Obama’s politics, it would not have made any difference because McCain and Palin were unelectable. Obama’s 2008 victory was, therefore, less an election than a necessity, and any talk of reform must be seen as just an election ploy. The upshot is that electing Obama made not a damned bit of difference. He continued or expanded many of Bush’s repressions, such as warranties wiretaps, surveillance of American citizens, drone strikes, and military commissions. In fact, the U.S. became even more repressive under Obama, who added civil rights abuses, such as prosecution of whistleblowers, criminalization of peaceful political protest, blacklisting, targeted killing of Americans overseas and secretive GPS tracking of individuals.


    http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/...9/trudeau.html

    from SPARTACIST CANADA (Summer 2016) [No. 189]:

    In the run-up to the 2015 federal election, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party voted to support the Conservative government’s infamous Bill C-51, essentially a CSIS/RCMP wish list of draconian revisions to the criminal code. Trudeau promised that, once in power, his government would amend “problematic” sections of the law. Half a year later, the Liberal government hasn’t touched a hair on the head of the Tories’ hallmark “anti-terror” legislation. In fact, “sunny ways” Trudeau and his cohorts, with their ostentatious pursuit of no-fly lists, deportation orders and frame-up prosecutions targeting Muslims, just picked up Harper’s repressive agenda where the Tories left off.

    C-51 (the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015) gives the RCMP, CSIS and other repressive agencies of the capitalist state a vastly freer hand to go after what can only be called “thought crimes.” Comments that were once merely the exercise of free speech can now be deemed by the police to be “promotion or advocacy” of terrorism, and hence criminal offenses. But even this low bar doesn’t have to be crossed for the cops to ruin your life. In fact, state agents no longer even have to claim an actual crime has been or will be committed in order to make an arrest—they need only assert that a suspect “may” commit an offense.

    Before C-51 became law, civil-rights attorneys Clayton Ruby and Nader Hasan sounded the alarm about its sinister intent:

    “Six Muslim young adults stand in front of a mosque late at night in heated discussion in some foreign language. They may be talking about video games, or sports, or girls, or advocating the overthrow of the Harper government. Who knows? There is no evidence one way or another. Just stereotypes…. Yesterday, the Muslim men were freely exercising constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Today, they are arrestable.”

    —“Bill C-51: A Legal Primer,” policyalternatives.ca, 17 February 2015

    Even more ominously, once the cops arrest you on the basis of “fear of terrorism,” not only are you stripped of the right to a trial, they don’t even need to charge you. Instead, on applying to a judge, they can force you to submit to a take-it-or-leave-it choice between going to jail or signing a so-called “peace bond.” The latter involves a vast array of arbitrary restrictions on personal liberty that can last up to five years. These can include wearing a GPS bracelet, reporting regularly to an RCMP agent, surrendering one’s passport, observing a ban from social media or other internet activity and “keeping the peace and being of good behaviour.” Failure to comply with any one of the imposed conditions is itself a criminal offence.


    Punishment Without Crime

    Under the Liberals, the police-state powers of C-51 are rapidly expanding the legal twilight zone for the hounding, arrest and prosecution of Muslim youth. And once in the cops’ crosshairs, no matter how innocent of wrongdoing, you can’t protect your name from being splashed across the media as a terrorist.

    Police in Montreal made headlines in March by locking down the entire neighbourhood of Pierrefonds, evacuating 200 people from their homes and temporarily closing a train station. The reason? A video posted on Facebook showed, they claimed, “someone apparently handling explosive materials.” The massive evacuation and search turned up nothing. Nonetheless, 20-year-old student Omar Elabi was charged with “inciting fear of terrorism” because his home was allegedly traced as the source of the video.

    The same month, the RCMP detained Kevin Mohamed of Toronto under the “fear of terrorism” provisions…for owning a hunting knife. The RCMP eventually dropped its demand for a peace bond and kept Mohamed locked up through a retroactive terrorism charge based on a family trip to Turkey he took with his mother two years earlier.

    Another peace bond victim, Aaron Driver of Winnipeg, found himself on the wrong side of the law for using Twitter. A young convert to Islam, he was never charged and will not be tried. Nonetheless, due exclusively to expressing his opinions over the internet, Driver was compelled to sign a peace bond or face jail time. “If I fought it, they would have added even more conditions than I’m already under,” he told the CBC. Among other things, Driver is banned from using social media and cannot possess a phone or computer without written permission from the RCMP.

    Another feature of the rulers’ “war on terror” is the use of sting operations. Cops and their agents are free to generate “terrorism” out of thin air by approaching, entrapping and inciting vulnerable individuals to agree to acts they otherwise would never have contemplated, let alone carried out. In one especially egregious case, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody, an impoverished and methadone-dependent couple in B.C., were sensationally convicted of an attempt to blow up the provincial legislature in Victoria. The charges were only laid after months of manipulation, material support and incitement by a police agent posing as an Islamic spiritual guide.


    Who Are the Real Terrorists?

    The odds of being a victim of an actual terrorist attack in this country are lower than those of being killed by a lightning strike, a fact you’d never guess from the hysteria whipped up every time the media reports the arrest of anyone associated with the “T” word. And that’s exactly the point. We have emphasized repeatedly that the “war on terror” is in fact no war at all, but a political construct aimed at instilling fear, regimenting the population and justifying government repression.

    As we wrote in “Canada’s Creeping Police State” (SC No. 184, Spring 2015), C-51 “is a sweeping attack on free speech and other civil liberties. The bill targets publications, web postings and even private conversations sympathetic to causes that the capitalist rulers deem to be ‘terrorism.’ It authorizes the CSIS secret police to go after any activity that ‘undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada’ or interferes with the country’s ‘economic or financial stability’.”

    In other words, behind the camouflage of artificially generated hysteria over terrorism, the capitalists are preparing a vastly broader assault on the rights of workers and the oppressed. Under the provisions of this law, workers’ strikes and picket lines and other acts of self-defense against the bosses can be defined as “terrorist” acts. The same goes for blockades of roads, railways or pipelines by Native people struggling for land rights. The bourgeoisie is literally slapping a “terror” label on whatever might threaten their class rule or the sanctity of private profit.

    The phony “war on terror” makes vivid the Marxist understanding of the capitalist state, the core of which consists of repressive institutions—the police, prisons, courts and army—dedicated to upholding bourgeois rule. From the squalid living conditions experienced by Native people on remote reserves to unfettered cop terror against black youth in Toronto, from busted unions and slashed pensions to the growing ranks of minimum-waged and under-/unemployed workers, the dreams of providing a decent life for yourself or your kids under this rotten system become ever more distant. Hence the rulers’ need for an ever larger “stick” of police coercion.

    All workers and oppressed people thus have a clear and urgent interest in combatting C-51 and the whole panoply of the bosses’ repressive laws. As communists, we have nothing in common with political Islam or the other forms of religious reaction that some young people have embraced. Such doctrines are an expression of despair amid dismally low levels of class and other social struggle. But we emphatically denounce the witchhunting of Muslim youth, whatever their political views, by the bourgeois state. And it’s worth pointing out that the bearers of Canadian passports volunteering to join the Israeli Defense Forces in their war on the Palestinian people, or the fascistic Azov Batallion affiliated with the far-right NATO-backed regime in Ukraine, will never be targets of C-51.

    The main terrorist force in the world today is U.S. imperialism, for which Canada acts as a loyal junior partner. Since September 11, 2001, the “war on terror” has morphed from the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan into an array of proxy conflicts, civil wars and “targeted killings” that now stretches from Afghanistan to Yemen to Mauritania—at a cost in death, desolation and human suffering that can scarcely be imagined, let alone counted. In all these conflicts, we stand in opposition to the imperialists’ depredations and demand the withdrawal of all U.S., Canadian and other imperialist forces.

    The cancerous growth of a police state in the guise of “anti-terror” laws is but the domestic face of this crusade. Arbitrary mass surveillance and rampant racist profiling are now a fact of daily life from bus stations to airports to shopping malls. Through massive data collection via telephones and the internet, the real and virtual tentacles of this apparatus—concentrated in the hands of the “Five Eyes” countries (the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand)—now reach to almost every corner of the planet.

    Trudeau’s Liberals and Harper’s Tories are but two faces of Canadian capitalism. State repression is intrinsic to this barbaric social system which is rooted in the exploitation of the working people and buttressed by the oppression of minorities. Endless pleas to rein in the cops through inquiries, greater oversight and “accountability” have solved, and can solve, nothing. The road forward lies through social struggle led by the working class, which due to its central position in industry, transport and communications has vast potential social power that can be unleashed on behalf of all the oppressed.

    Class struggle today is at a low ebb, thanks in large part to the betrayals of the pro-capitalist labour leaders and their political allies in the NDP. But as the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 demonstrated, at some point outrage at the grinding hardships and crimes of capitalism will boil over into workers struggle on a massive scale. At such points, the capitalists will seek to unleash even greater forces of repression to turn back the tsunami of mass struggle. The vital question will be: which class rules?

    To sweep aside the capitalist system, the only effective weapon known to history is a workers party standing at the head of all the oppressed. Armed with the program of Marxism, the working class can lead a socialist revolution to overturn the capitalist state, inaugurate its own class rule and establish a rationally planned economy organized in the interests of the vast majority. Extended internationally, this will open the road to an egalitarian communist society in which the state itself, and all other forms of organized coercion are relegated to the museum of antiquities.



    http://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-...s-deal/5506886

    Canada Sells Weapons to State Sponsor of Terrorism: Class Action Law Suit against Ottawa over $15 Billion Saudi Arms Deal [Feb. 2016]

    The Canadian government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the object of a class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court pertaining to the $15 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. An action in Federal Court is also contemplated.

    According to Toronto’s Globe and Mail:

    Opponents of Canada’s $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia are taking Ottawa to court in an attempt to block shipments of the combat vehicles, a move that could force the governing Liberals to explain how they justify the sale to a human-rights pariah under weapon-export restrictions.


    The action is led by law Professor Daniel Turp together with students of the University of Montreal:

    He will announce the legal challenge on Saturday and intends to file it with the Federal Court within three weeks.

    Mr. Turp and his group are calling on critics of the deal across the country to rally behind their challenge, which they are calling operation Armoured Rights, pointing to how poorly Saudi Arabia treats its own citizens and the civilian carnage of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen. (Globe and Mail)


    Amply documented, Saudi Arabia is the state sponsor of Al Qaeda affiliated “opposition groups” in Syria including the Islamic State (ISIS). Riyadh –acting in liaison and on behalf of Washington– plays a central role in the financing of the Islamic State (ISIS) as well as the recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of terrorist mercenary forces deployed in Syria and Iraq.

    What this signifies is that Canada is selling weapons to a country which is supporting and sponsoring terrorist organizations. Moreover Saudi Arabia is currently involved in a war of aggression against Yemen in blatant derogation of international law.

    The links of Saudi Arabia to the terrorists are amply documented and will no doubt be raised in the class action court hearings.

    According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

    “The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr. Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at University of Mainz, Germany, Deutsche Welle)

    According to Robert Fisk, the IS caliphate project “has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia”:

    …[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.

    From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 12, 2014)

    Moreover, in 2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails. A secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against government forces in Syria.

    The prisoners had reportedly been offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria. As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom”.

    Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad? In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research, September 11, 2013)


    Weapons “Made in Canada”

    Ottawa’s deal with Saudi Arabia is coordinated with Washington. It essentially serves the Pentagon’s military agenda in the Middle East, it channels billions of dollars to the US military industrial complex.

    The weapons are “Made in Canada” produced by General Dynamics Land Systems, London, Ontario., a subsidiary of US defense contractor General Dynamics.

    General Dynamics has subsidiaries in 43 countries including Canada.

    Ottawa’s official stance is that these weapons which include “combat vehicles with machine guns and anti-tank cannons” are to be used by Saudi Arabia solely for purposes of national defense. They are not be used against civilians.



    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/18/...-attacks-paris

    Prime Minister advocates against hatred and racism in aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Paris

    Manila, Philippines
    18 November 2015

    The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today advocating against acts of hatred and racism directed at specific Canadians in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris:

    “Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, I have noted with deep regret a number of highly disturbing acts aimed at certain Canadians, including the fire at the mosque in Peterborough, the smashing of windows at a Hindu temple in Kitchener, and the attack on a Muslim woman in Toronto.

    “Diversity is Canada’s strength. These vicious and senseless acts of intolerance have no place in our country and run absolutely contrary to Canadian values of pluralism and acceptance.

    “The Government of Canada strongly condemns such actions and, along with law enforcement agencies, will protect the rights of innocent Canadians being subjected to such abuse.

    “Canadians understand that religious groups around the world suffer persecution regularly at the hands of violent extremists. Our focus must be on stopping the people responsible for the terror, and continuing to fight hate by embracing Canadian values.”


    from Trumping Trudeau by Ezra Levant; pages 27-33:

    It’s one thing for Trudeau to pander to Iranian journalists, or to appease the Iranian-born MPs in his caucus. But Trudeau’s most persuasive advisor—his brother, Alexandre—is a passionate Iran-booster who has worked for the dictatorship in a propaganda capacity.

    Alexandre’s specialty is making obscure, anti-western documentaries. None have done particularly well at the box office. But they’re a useful guide for what the Trudeau family thinks about the world. He made an anti-American film called Embedded in Baghdad and an anti-Israeli film called The Fence. But his masterpiece on Iran, called The New Great Game, is particularly noteworthy. It’s a fan’s admiration for Iran and how it doesn’t bow down to Israel or America. It sounds like a first year college student’s regurgitation of a left-wing professor’s talking points. But The New Great Game is different: it was made in cooperation with the Iranian government’s official propaganda arm, Press TV (as well as other state broadcasters from the region, including Al Jazeera, which is controlled by the dictatorship of Qatar).

    It’s one thing for Canada and the U.S. to have a legitimate policy disagreement about foreign affairs. But Trudeau’s affection for Iran is so personal, it’s an emotional connection; one that’s not driven by Canada’s national interests. It’s rooted in his brother’s loving affection for Iran as the plucky Muslim country that has the courage to stand up to Israel and America. It’s pushed by Trudeau’s Muslim caucus, which is the largest in Canadian history. It’s comprised of several Iranian-born MPs, including Maryam Monsef, the cabinet minister who claimed to have been an Afghan refugee, only to have it revealed that she was in fact born in Iran, and repeatedly travelled freely to that country—an unusual privilege that suggests friendly ties to Iran’s government.

    Donald Trump has repeatedly said he aims to crush the Islamic State. But other than that rogue terrorist enclave, there is no other place on Earth with which Trump is more likely to go to war than Iran. Of all the foreign affairs differences with the U.S., this is the one most likely to come to a crisis the soonest.


    ISRAEL

    The Liberal Party has always had a split personality on Israel. On the one hand, for a generation, the party’s centre of gravity was Montreal, a city with a large and active Jewish community that disproportionately donated to the Liberals. Trudeau kept that tradition alive by appointing Stephen Bronfman, an heir to the Bronfman liquor family, as his chief fundraiser.

    On the other hand, the Liberals have always had a streak of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in their foreign policy. It was the Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King that had an unofficial policy of “none is too many” when it came to Jewish immigrants to Canada, including turning away boatloads of refugees fleeing the Holocaust. And in more recent years, the Liberal Party’s Third Worldism sided with Arab dictatorships over Israel, the lone democracy in the Middle East — or, at best, chose the position of “honest broker” between that democracy and the terrorist groups opposed to it. Under the Liberals, Canada became famous for abstaining at the United Nations—refusing to side with Israel in wave after wave of resolutions condemning the Jewish state.

    There’s a new factor at play now, too: while the Jewish population of Canada remains static at around 350,000 people, the Muslim population has soared to over 1.3 million—more than doubling since 9/11. That demographic imbalance is showing up in the Liberal caucus, as well: in 2015, the Liberals elected ten Muslim MPs, including Omar Alghabra, the former president of the explicitly anti-Semitic Canadian Arab Federation. The Liberal Jewish caucus includes just six MPs. Those numbers will only become more lopsided over time.

    Stephen Harper’s pro-Israel credentials had earned him significant support among Canada’s Jewish community, including from traditionally Liberal supporters. So Justin Trudeau made the conscious decision not to compete against Harper; but rather to concede the Israel vote to Harper and zero in on the anti-Israel vote.

    In his campaign to become Liberal leader in 2013, Trudeau assiduously courted the Muslim vote, crisscrossing the country, going mosque to mosque, with Alghabra as his Muslim lieutenant. Trudeau would boast about all the mosques he had visited, rattling off their names with pride—including Montreal’s controversial Assuna Wahhabi mosque, which is listed by the U.S. government as a place where Al Qaeda has recruited terrorists. Even after that mosque was revealed in a CBC investigation to be preaching extremist and violent messages, Trudeau stood by his decision to campaign there—and at other extremist locations. Trudeau wouldn’t just attend mosques as a respectful outsider; he’d sometimes dress up in a full desert-style abaya, a flowing gown more suited to an Arabian desert than the Canadian tundra. And he’d actually join in Muslim prayer, including the Shehada—a prayer that, if Trudeau actually said it and meant it, would meet the sharia requirement for conversion to Islam.

    Of course, Trudeau is not a Muslim—nor does he follow any faith, including the Catholicism into which he was born. But he knows the symbolism of Islam. For Mother’s Day in 2013, Trudeau circulated a bizarre photo of his own mother and wife wearing hijab-style veils over their heads. Trudeau surely didn’t mean it—it was just another costume party for him, just as he dressed up in pink for gay pride parades. But the message he was sending to Muslims was crystal clear: after ten years of a pro-Israel Prime Minister, they finally had their candidate. And in 2015’s federal election, the math paid off. Stephen Bronfman’s Jewish money plus all the Muslim votes helped put Justin Trudeau into office.

    Trudeau didn’t immediately bolt from Harper’s pro-Israel record. He didn’t want to spook the Jews, especially his Jewish donors. As a senior Liberal advisor told the Globe and Mail two months after Trudeau’s 2015 win, “first we want to make sure we’ve got the Jewish vote back.”

    That caution didn’t last long. Trudeau soon put the Canadian ambassador to Israel, Vivian Bercovici, under a gag order, and his office began a whisper campaign against her, before finally firing her. Choosing a hand-picked ambassador is the prerogative of any Prime Minister. In fact, it would have been inappropriate for Trudeau not to have done so, given the policy changes he was about to put in place. It wouldn’t have made sense to have a pro-Israel ambassador doing anti-Israel things.

    Like announcing a $25 million gift to the UN agency that runs schools in the Gaza Strip, called UNRWA. On the face of it, that sounds like a humanitarian exercise that any Canadian could support—though plenty of Canadian parents might ask why their schools can’t get more funding. But the UN schools in Gaza are overseen by Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza as a dictatorship. And the UN schools themselves are often run by Hamas terrorist agents, who allow Hamas to store weapons, including sophisticated rocket launchers, in the schools themselves—not only to hide them, but to ensure that Israel does not attack them, for fear of hitting the children and teachers. Hamas, in other words, uses UNRWA schools as human shields. That’s on top of UNRWA’s explicitly anti-Semitic curriculum, which teaches the destruction of the Jewish state as casually as it teaches math and spelling.

    In 2009, Canada scaled back its financial support for these schools in response to Hamas’s terrorism against Israel, and cut it off completely in 2010. Trudeau’s decision to come roaring back with $25 million was big news. But even bigger—or at least stranger—was Trudeau’s timing. He had been Prime Minister for a year, yet he chose the week after Donald Trump’s election to make the announcement. It was part of Trudeau’s anti-Trump whirlwind—visiting Cuba, funding Hamas schools, praising China. It was a busy week. Why would he do this, other than as a passive-aggressive reaction to the defeat of his U.S. mentor and ally, Hillary Clinton?


    Trump has specifically condemned U.S. foreign aid to Gaza calling it a “bad move” that will only wind up in the hands of Hamas terrorists. But then again, Trump doesn’t have senior party members like Alghabra, or Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who, when visiting Lebanon, actually said he “was ashamed to be a Canadian,” and claimed that Israel had committed “state terrorism.” And then there’s Denis Coderre, the Liberal mayor of Montreal who proudly marched in an anti-Israel parade where Hezbollah terrorist flags were flown. They’re hard to miss—they actually have a picture of a machine gun on them. But hey, a vote’s a vote.


    The Liberal Party’s historical position of ambivalence between Israel the democracy on the one hand, and Muslim dictatorships and terrorist groups on the other, worked well enough when the rest of the west’s leaders were morally ambivalent, too. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, no foreign leader visited the White House more frequently than Yasir Arafat, the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Had Hillary Clinton won, Barack Obama’s anti-Israel stance would have continued, and Trudeau would be right in sync with “world opinion.” But that didn’t happen.

    There’s a new era now. In the dying days of his lame-duck term, Obama ended decades of precedent and refused to veto an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations Security Council. It was one last shot at Obama’s nemesis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it immediately earned a rebuke from Trump, who condemned Obama and told Israel to “stay strong” until his inauguration. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, kept at it, giving an hour-long rambling speech condemning Israel as intransigent and “right wing.” It was the diplomatic equivalent of a tantrum, but it had an unintended result: Theresa May, the new U.K. Prime Minister, publicly condemned Kerry in rather undiplomatic language: “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”


    Pages 34-40:

    Saudi Arabia isn’t a particularly important country to Canada; it exports some oil to our East Coast refineries and will continue to do so as long as environmental extremists prefer tanker ships full of OPEC conflict oil to pipelines full of Canadian ethical oil. And Saudi Arabia buys military equipment from Canada, including a $15 billion armoured vehicle deal, negotiated under the Conservatives and continued by the Liberals.

    America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is much deeper: the U.S. has imported trillions of dollars worth of Saudi oil over the years and, until recently, the U.S. military guaranteed the dictatorship’s security with military bases on Saudi soil. American ships continue to patrol the dangerous waters of the Persian Gulf, acting as unpaid escorts for Saudi oil tankers.

    American obsequiousness towards Saudi Arabia is bi-partisan. There is a Saudi tradition of giving enormous donations to U.S. presidents of both parties when they retire. These are styled as gifts to their presidential libraries, but they’re really a delayed bribe. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the funds were paid in advance—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia “donated” $25 million to her family’s foundation in the run-up to her presidential campaign. No big deal—at $50/barrel, that’s about 12 hours worth of Saudi oil sales to the U.S., a small price to pay to get in good with the next president.

    That’s certainly what the Saudis thought—and they must have been excited that Clinton’s closest aide and advisor, Huma Abedin, grew up in Saudi Arabia, and even worked in the family business, editing their pro-Muslim Brotherhood journal.

    Like everyone else, the Saudis thought Clinton and Abedin had the election in the bag; Donald Trump was so obviously going to lose. So it was safe for the Saudi royal family to join in the social media shaming of Trump—it was just so fun and tempting. It was the opposite of politically risky: it would cement the Saudis in Clinton’s good books.

    So no one less than Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal—a billionaire businessman, the grandson of the first king of Saudi Arabia and half-nephew to all the kings since—chose to make a smart investment: he was going to shame Donald Trump on Twitter, to please the Clintons.

    “You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win,” he wrote, apropos of nothing. Nearly 20,000 people retweeted that outburst. But he wasn’t done yet. After Barack Obama made a pro-Muslim speech, Al-Waleed tweeted, “President Obama Your mosque speech shames Donald Trump comments against 1.4 billion Muslims. Thank You for Your wise leadership.”

    Back in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, when a billionaire prince insults you, you bow down and say “thank you,” if you say anything at all. They don’t have a lot of freedom of the press over there and they certainly don’t talk back to their “royalty.” It’s a bit different being a brash billionaire in New York, where being mouthy is part of the civic identity and no one is above criticism. And Donald Trump—well, in a city of trolls, he’s Yoda. “Dopey Prince Alwaleed Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected,” Trump tweeted back. And then he added a zinger: “Has your country, Saudi Arabia, taken ANY of the Syrian refugees? If not, why not?”

    It’s not just classic Trump—tit for tat, with massive retaliation. That’s about self-respect, and the respect that Trump demands from others. That’s a style—very different from Barack Obama’s very famous deep bow to the King of Saudi Arabia when they first met. Donald Trump bows to no one, as no American has done since their Revolutionary War.

    But it’s also a sign that the status quo—the cozy U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relationship since the 1940s—is over. And as Trump fires the starter pistol for an American oil and gas renaissance, the economic relationship is about to change, too.

    Whose side will Justin Trudeau be on?


    CHRISTIANS

    Donald Trump isn’t a particularly devout Christian. During the campaign, he gave a speech at a Christian university and quoted a Bible chapter, pronouncing it “two Corinthians,” as it was written, not “second Corinthians,” as it’s commonly spoken. That would be like pronouncing the “j” in “hallelujah”—people might think you’ve never actually heard the word spoken before. It would have been fodder for more liberal late-night TV comedians, but of course they had never been to church to hear it pronounced properly, either.

    Trump’s approach to Christianity is probably the same as Winston Churchill’s, who said he wasn’t a pillar of the church, but a buttress—he supported it, but from the outside. For Trump, going back years, that has meant standing up for religious Christians who are being persecuted throughout the Muslim world. “Another radical Islamic attack, this time in Pakistan, targeting Christian women & children. At least 67 dead, 400 injured. I alone can solve,” he tweeted in 2016, with characteristic showmanship. But the thing is, Christian victims of Islamic terrorism have had precious few public champions—even the Pope himself has been reluctant to publicly raise the subject.

    Trump has made it a focus of his. When Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor (who was a convert from Islam), was jailed by Iran for the crime of setting up churches, Trump made it his personal mission to have him released. For two years, Trump promoted his cause, meeting with the pastor’s wife, giving her publicity, demanding that Barack Obama include Abedini’s release in any negotiations with Iran. Trump’s main PR weapon was his Twitter account, where he raised Abedini’s issue no fewer than 14 times. It wasn’t just a passing fancy.

    Justin Trudeau takes the opposite approach. We are witnessing a genocide in the Middle East, committed by Muslim extremists and targeting not only Christians, but also other minorities, like the Yazidi people. Under Stephen Harper, and particularly Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, these persecuted minorities were given preferential immigration status. But Trudeau’s campaign strategy was the opposite of Harper’s. Harper already had a lock on the Christian vote—so Trudeau was going for the Muslims.

    At a campaign stop in Toronto just ten days before the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked if he’d continue Harper’s policy of favouring persecuted minorities. Trudeau’s reply was blunt: “absolutely not,” he said, calling Harper’s approach “disgusting.” He meant it.

    Not only did Trudeau withdraw Canada’s CF-18 military jets from the war against the Islamic State terrorists, he refused to even call the systematic murder of Christians by ISIS a genocide. Even John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, said that ISIS was committing genocide—against Yazidis, Christians and even against Shi’ite Muslims. Months later, Trudeau recanted and grudgingly agreed that the Islamic State was trying to wipe out Yazidis; but he specifically refused to acknowledge that Christians were being victimized—even though the Islamic State had released snuff movies of their terrorists slitting the throats of Christians in an elaborately staged ceremony, where the goal of ending Christianity was explicitly described.

    There is no symbolic statement Trudeau won’t read and no apology that he won’t freely give—expressing emotions is his thing. But he becomes suddenly hard-hearted when it’s Christians who need help. Denying that Christians are suffering from an Islamic genocide seems particularly stingy, but in the end, it’s only symbolic. In a shocking announcement in December 2016, Trudeau restricted private sponsorship of Middle Eastern refugees to 1,000 people, even as he continued to flood Canada with government-chosen refugees. On the face of it, that surprise announcement makes no sense: if Trudeau wants to bring in tens of thousands more refugees from war-torn Syria, why wouldn’t he allow private families and community groups to get involved—to raise money to cover the costs and, most importantly, to personally commit to helping to integrate those new arrivals once they land? If Trudeau wanted more Syrians, why wouldn’t he let Canadians help?

    The answer is shocking, but not surprising: it’s because privately sponsored Middle Eastern refugees are disproportionately Christian Arabs. Christians are not only being attacked by the Islamic State in their villages. Even if they make it to a United Nations refugee camp, they’re often attacked by other refugees who themselves are Islamic extremists, with the tacit approval of UN refugee camp staff who are overwhelmingly Muslim themselves.

    It’s those Christian refugees—refugees twice; once from the Islamic State and again from the UN system itself—that local community groups in Canada tend to support, especially churches. And it’s those groups that Trudeau is limiting. There will be tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who pour into Canada in 2017. But Trudeau will ensure that as few as possible are Christian. It’s almost like the old Liberal policy about Jewish refugees during the Second World War has been brought back, but this time it’s about Christians. For Trudeau, “none is too many.”


    Pages 48-60:

    . . . the greatest environmental activist in the Canadian government is Trudeau’s own principal secretary, his best friend since university, Gerald Butts.

    Butts is the radical environmentalist who was the driving force behind Ontario’s Green Energy Act, when he was a senior advisor to that province’s premier, Dalton McGuinty. That law saw massive subsidies for experimental wind and solar power, in a province that had some of the cheapest electricity in the world—coming from the century-old hydroelectric dams at Niagara Falls and the largest clean coal-fired power plant in North America. Butts has moved on to bigger things, but according to Ontario’s auditor general, the extra cost of shutting down economical fossil fuel-based energy and subsidizing eco-schemes was $37 billion by 2014, with another $133 billion to come over the next 15 years. That’s $170 billion—or more than $30,000 for every household in Ontario. It’s like another mortgage payment for families and it’s forced many Ontarians into energy poverty.

    Butts left Ontario politics to lead the extremist World Wildlife Fund-Canada, a foreign funded, anti-oil lobby group. While there, Butts popularized “Earth Hour,” where people were literally encouraged to turn off all electricity for an hour—to sit in the dark, in the cold—as some sort of renunciation of industrial society. It never caught on; Canada is just too cold and too large a place to live without energy. But that wasn’t ever really the goal: the goal was the demonization of energy, to redefine the use of electricity as some sort of sin, to condition people to think of it as an indulgence and prepare them for using less of it.

    While at the WWF, Butts developed an international network of fellow travellers. He cultivated billionaire donors from around the world, including the radical, San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, New York’s Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Butts was a charter member of the Rockefellers’ “Tarsands Campaign,” a multi-million dollar anti-oilsands pressure campaign that used propaganda and litigation to oppose Canadian oilsands production, pipelines and refineries.

    It was while Butts was at the WWF that he issued his famous statement that the problem with pipelines like Northern Gateway wasn’t any specific objection, such as the route of the pipeline, or any hypothetical risk of an oil spill. It was the fact that the pipeline had anything to do with oil at all: “the real alternative is not an alternative route. It’s an alternative economy,” he said.

    Just that? Just the total overhaul of the entire economy—from cars and trucks, to airplanes and ships, to agriculture and industry, to home furnaces and factories? Butts’ messianic zeal for destroying fossil fuels is one part centrally planned economics, one part alchemy-style fantasy science and one part lucrative lobbying. But it’s been a disaster for Ontario homeowners and businesses, which have been saddled with the equivalent of a second national debt because of it. And now Butts and Trudeau have the whole country in their gun-sights.

    Canada is blessed with the third-largest oil reserves in the world—172 billion barrells, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s information agency. Only Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have more. By comparison, the United States is ranked tenth, with just 40 billion barrels of proven reserves. And no other country in the top ten is a liberal democracy. When it comes to ethical oil—oil that isn’t controlled by OPEC dictatorships—Canada has half of the world’s reserves. And Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna want to keep it in the ground.

    That’s Trudeau’s approach to energy: he’s stacked his government with environmental extremists, and he’s made carbon taxes and global warming his signature issues.

    Donald Trump? Put it this way: he nominated Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, to be his secretary of state. Trump says he chose Tillerson for his experience and his leadership qualities—his oil background will likely be useful mainly in that Exxon took Tillerson to countless countries around the world, where he made real political and business connections. But appointing Tillerson shows Trump’s complete disregard for the whims of political correctness. For Trudeau, it would be unthinkable to appoint an unabashed fossil fuels man as the country’s chief diplomat—it would be like hiring a tobacco executive.

    But Tillerson is just the beginning. Trump nominated former Texas governor Rick Perry as his energy secretary. Texas is well-known as an oil-producing state, but when Perry was elected governor in 2000, oil production had been on a long, steady decline, producing just over a million barrels per day. By the time Perry left office in 2015, that number had tripled. Texas now produced more oil each day than most OPEC countries. That’s the result of a free enterprise spirit and the proliferation of fracking technology. But it was Perry who kept the environmentalists and regulators at bay, unlike U.S. states such as New York, where fracking has been banned.

    Like Tillerson, Perry is comfortable with oil and gas; he knows more about it than the junk science hucksters in the media and he’s not likely to be wooed by noisy anti-oil lobbyists. But perhaps most obviously, Perry and Tillerson show Trump’s executive style: hiring proven leaders in their field. He’s not appointing oboe players or social justice lawyers to manage oil and gas policy.

    Trump nominated lawyer Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is the attorney general of Oklahoma who just happens to be suing the EPA in court. Pruitt’s lawsuit is technical: it alleges that the EPA’s anti-energy regulations violate the jurisdiction of states like Oklahoma. They’re a one-size-fits-all policy designed to attack the energy industry, particularly coal. Pruitt once compared the EPA’s approach to a “gun to the head.” The man who is suing the EPA will soon be running the EPA.

    It’s no small thing—the department employs 15,000 bureaucrats and has an $8 billion annual budget. It’ll still exist, and it’ll still be the world’s largest, best-funded and most aggressive environmental enforcement agency. It’ll just be focused on real pollution, not the fake, politicized pollution of carbon dioxide.

    Any one of those three key appointments would be a strong statement of Trump’s support for fossil fuels. But taken together, it’s unmistakable: America is going to mine coal, frack oil and gas, and build as many pipelines as investors want to. The economic miracle of America’s recent fossil fuel revolution—including in unexpected places like Pennsylvania’s Marcellus gas fields—is going to continue, and with it will come cheap, plentiful energy.

    That Pennsylvania energy boom is a major reason why Trump won the presidential election there, the first time a Republican has done so since 1988, and it’s a perfect example of the difference between Trump and Trudeau when it comes to energy.

    Pennsylvania has been part of the rust belt for a generation, as the state’s old industries—coal and steel—were squeezed between cheap foreign competitors and environmental regulators set on demonizing heavy industry.

    When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he told a liberal San Francisco newspaper about his hatred for fossil fuels: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” And Obama wasn’t just targeting the coal miners and coal-fired power plants—he had it in for energy users, too. “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” he said. In 2016, Hillary Clinton doubled down in a televised debate, saying, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

    Obama and Clinton were using the same kind of language used by Gerald Butts and Catherine McKenna—the language of United Nations bureaucrats and environmental activists that gets knowing nods in university faculty lounges, where the phrases “coal miners” and “steel workers” are an insult, political shorthand for Archie Bunkers that any self-respecting metrosexual politician would demonize.

    Pennsylvania, with a football franchise called the Steelers, still voted for Obama—twice. But counties in the western part of the state, where fracking for natural gas started to sprout up, began trending Republican. Take Washington County, Pennsylvania. In the 2008 presidential election, the county split pretty much 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In 2012, as the fracking boom really took off, the county went Republican by a 13% margin. By 2016, Trump won by a whopping 25% margin, or 24,000 votes. Pennsylvania tipped into being a red state by just 65,000, so between Washington County and other nearby fracking regions, it was the energy industry that did it. Pennsylvanians took Obama and Clinton at their word when they threatened oil, gas, coal and steel—and they saw how the Democrats have been the party that wants to ban fracking, too. Like Texas, Pennsylvania has had an economic renaissance, with 200,000 jobs created in the industry and the abundance of cheap, clean natural gas has reduced energy prices for the average Pennsylvania family by $1,000/year. That’s what won the state for Trump: whatever skepticism the people of the Midwest might have had for the brash Manhattan billionaire and reality TV star, they knew he wasn’t going to shut down any factories or mines.

    Fracking is one of those subjects that divides people socially—like pick-up trucks, hunting or Walmart. Blue collar people—people who work in the outdoors, people who wear hard-hats—know fracking is just the name of a drilling process, no scarier than anything you’d find in an industrial factory. But even a car can be made to sound scary to someone who has never opened up their hood to see the mysterious internal combustion engine inside. Combustion—does that mean it might catch fire?

    But fracking was invented in the 1940s and has been done millions of times. Most natural gas in Canada is fracked. But the word itself sounds dangerous, even vulgar. An emotionally driven, low-information politician like Trudeau would obviously find that troubling.

    Natural resources are mainly a provincial matter in Canada, but Trudeau has made his position clear: he supports a ban on the industry. In 2014, he told reporters that, “in terms of fracking and shale gas, we need to make sure that we have all the information, that there is proper science done.” But “we” do have all the information—it’s the 70th anniversary of fracking. It’s far safer, for example, than coal mining, a hazardous occupation that continues to claim lives every year. It’s easy to believe that Trudeau doesn’t know anything about it, but do unemployed workers really need to wait until their Prime Minister does a Google search?

    Trudeau is never short of excuses for why energy projects can’t proceed. With fracking, he says it needs more studying. But even after an energy project goes through a staggeringly long, independent review by experts, Trudeau can find a new excuse. The Northern Gateway pipeline proposal was first submitted to the National Energy Board in 2009 and it was painstakingly reviewed for five full years, with tens of thousands of pages of technical documents and countless witnesses appearing before an independent panel. There was an entire parallel process reviewing the pipeline through the lens of Aboriginal issues. Thousands of Canadians (and even foreigners) submitted testimony. The experts agreed: it was an environmentally safe, economically necessary project. And still Trudeau vetoed it.

    So much for “the proper science.” What business would spend five years applying to build a project in Canada, jump through every regulatory hoop at great cost and meet all the legal, scientific and environmental demands made of it, if it knew that at the end of the process, a whimsical Prime Minister might wave his hand, like some unimpressed Roman emperor at the Colosseum, and simply kill the project dead?

    Trudeau doesn’t really want to study fracking. He wants to stop it—“studying” it is just an easier way to say so. Sometimes he doesn’t even pretend to study something. After Trump’s election, while Barack Obama was waiting for the moving vans to take his stuff out of the White House, Obama started going through his bucket list—things he couldn’t do as president, that he might as well try to do, even in some symbolic way, in his last few days in office. So Obama, alongside Trudeau, issued an order banning any future drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. It was just another of the hundreds of unilateral executive orders made by Obama, a controversial approach to governing increasingly used by him over the years, as he lost control over Congress. Whether or not Obama in fact had the legal authority to suddenly kill all drilling in the Arctic will become a moot point the moment Trump becomes president. What was done by a presidential order can probably be undone by a presidential order. It wasn’t true lawmaking by Obama; that takes time and effort, compromise and consultation. It was a pitiful act of showboating—one last attempt to get attention by a vain president concerned about his legacy.

    But what’s Trudeau’s excuse? Why did Trudeau rent out Canada’s oil and gas policy just to help his friend Obama with a PR stunt? How is that consistent with Trudeau’s claims that he wants science-based policy?

    Trudeau didn’t even consult with the local communities, which were completely ambushed by the stunt. Obama was aiming one last rocket at Big Oil, but Trudeau hit northern Aboriginal communities, which rely on natural resource extraction for jobs. Canada’s three northern premiers were only told about the announcement hours before it was made. Even the Liberal premier of the Yukon couldn’t hold his tongue, denouncing not only the substance of the ban, but the way it was imposed on the north, as well.


    Merven Gruben, the former mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, explained the price that would be paid for Trudeau’s PR gift to Obama: “We’re trying to be self-reliant and get off social assistance. You get all these environmentalists, and Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund are doing all this stuff and shutting this down, and then they take off. They’re not going to feed us.” Gruben knows that the world’s environmentalists simply use Aboriginals as cannon fodder—they don’t really care about their welfare. What Gruben may not have known is that the former president of World Wildlife Fund-Canada, Gerald Butts, is Trudeau’s best friend and principal advisor. That’s all the consulting Trudeau needed to do.


    Trump will repeal Obama’s stunt ban. Trudeau probably won’t. And that’s the thing: it’s almost a certainty that America is about to enter a golden era of energy production, whether it’s coal, conventional oil and gas, or fracked oil and gas. Trump’s energy policy platform from the election is strikingly simple: “Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.” And Trump takes dead aim at oil imports, too: “Become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.” And you can add to that Trump’s promise of a major corporate tax cut and his stated support for pipelines like Keystone XL.

    Trump’s energy policy is explicitly hostile to conflict oil from OPEC countries. But unless Canada harmonizes its energy approach to America’s, it’s a sure thing that we’ll get blindsided by Trump’s energy nationalism, too. Ten years ago, before American fracking cut the price of natural gas by two thirds, a series of specialized ports were built along the Atlantic coast, for receiving massive tankers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from OPEC countries like Qatar. After the ports were built, the increased production from Pennsylvania and other fracking states cut the price so low that imported gas couldn’t compete. But those ports can be retooled to export natural gas and oil. And U.S. oil is already exported to Canada by rail—including oil fracked in North Dakota’s Bakken Formation.

    Right now, the United States is still the world’s largest consumer of oil, and even with the fracking boom, it still imports millions of barrels each day. But every year that Canada’s own oil industry is hobbled—whether it’s environmentalists like Butts blocking pipelines, or oil investments being scared off by carbon taxes—is another year that the U.S. industry can catch up and meet that demand on its own. One day Canada’s largest oil and gas customer will also become Canada’s largest oil and gas competitor, as American tankers start to ship oil and gas overseas, going to the markets that just won’t wait ten or twenty years for Canadian pipelines to be built.

    But it’s not just the oil and gas production itself that will move from Canada to the U.S. So will the jobs and the investments. It’s happening already. Calgary, Canada’s energy capital, has an unemployment rate of over 10%. In North Dakota, it’s 3%, and it’s not much higher in Texas. The world price for oil is the same; the difference is that companies in Alberta are scaling back their investment plans, or cancelling projects altogether, in response to anti-oil taxes and regulations that have been enacted already, and fears over what’s still to come.

    In December 2016, Norway’s mighty Statoil company left Alberta. But at the same time, Statoil is investing in oil projects in Iraq—a country that announced seven new major oil and gas investments that month alone. It’s incredible, but true: seven companies in one month decided that Iraq—home of the Islamic State terrorist group; a place where suicide bombers attack almost daily; neighbour of Iran, with its nuclear ambitions—is a less risky place to invest than Canada.

    It’s been months since Trump’s win, but Trudeau and Butts are determined to keep pressing ahead with their carbon taxes and their enthusiastic adherence to global warming treaties that now seem about as meaningful as a high school Model UN club. Just days after Trump’s election, Trudeau told reporters that, “one of the things people in Canada and indeed around the world understand is that there is tremendous economic disadvantage from not acting in the fight against climate change.”

    “Acting in the fight” is apparently a euphemism for Trudeau’s carbon tax. But no one—not even Trudeau—seriously suggests that Canada’s carbon tax on its own will make any difference at all to the world’s climate. Trudeau’s arguments are typically about showing goodwill and leading by example. But no other country in the world seems to be going along with Trudeau’s economic self-sabotage. No other country has a carbon tax. Australia briefly implemented one, and repealed it just as quickly. Even Barack Obama didn’t dare impose a carbon tax on the U.S., and Trump surely won’t. What is the point of Canada doing so now, given Trump’s clear plans to go in the opposite direction?

    Trudeau’s explanation got even stranger as it went on: “We know that putting a price on carbon pollution is a way to improve our response to economic challenges, to create good jobs going forward and to show leadership that quite frankly the entire world is looking for, along with the solutions that go with it.”

    But that just doesn’t make any sense: how does putting a tax on energy “improve our response” to anything, let alone “creating good jobs”? Who told him that—his oboe-playing energy minister, or his social justice activist environment minister?

    A few weeks later, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall had the temerity to point out the insanity of proceeding with a war on Canadian energy at the same time the U.S. unleashes its own industry. “Let’s not be naïve as Canadians. We need to be competitive with them,” he said.

    Trudeau didn’t seem to have a reply rooted in economics or business, saying, “I think all Canadians know Canadian climate policy will be set by Canadians not by whoever happens to be president of the United States.” That’s obviously true; but it doesn’t answer Wall’s point about keeping up with our largest customer and competitor. And hadn’t Trudeau just said that the real reason to have high carbon taxes was to somehow inspire other countries with our self-sacrifice? Wasn’t the whole global warming scheme an international UN treaty, just Trudeau’s favourite sort of thing anyways?

    But that’s what happens when the Prime Minister isn’t a builder, has never signed the front of a paycheque and has never balanced a budget—either his own, or anyone else’s. The United States is gearing up for the biggest energy boom since the time of John D. Rockefeller, and Canada wants to sit this one out. That’s quite a decision for an energy-exporting country. For close to fifteen years, the oilsands and its exports is what kept the Canadian economy going—it was a source of high-paying jobs and countless contracts to firms across the country, ranging from engineers, to lawyers, to airlines. And of course there were the taxes and equalization payments that made sure Canada was the last G7 country to be hit by the Great Recession, and the first one to get out of it.

    Letting all that idle in the name of a defunct UN treaty doesn’t seem to be in Canada’s national interest. The next election is less than three years away; it’s possible Trudeau can finesse things by borrowing enough money to keep appearances up. But that can only last so long.

    Gerald Butts’s green schemes managed the impossible: to turn Ontario, once the economic engine of Canada, into a have-not province, our very own rust belt. Turning Alberta into the same thing might feel good to anti-oil extremists. But who does everyone think is going to pay the bills? If only Trudeau had a businessman in cabinet to ask for advice.



    from Losing True North: Justin Trudeau’s Assault on Canadian Citizenship [2016] by Candice Malcolm; pages 33-43:

    It is important to identify the enemy we are fighting, and to correctly diagnose the enemy’s motive. Here is a column I wrote on this very subject in the Toronto Sun following the terrifying string of Islamic terrorist attacks around the world.

    Islamic terrorism is not our fault
    January 16, 2016

    A Canadian is among the dead in an Islamic terrorist attack on Thursday in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Daesh, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State, has taken responsibility, marking their second deadly foreign attack this week. Just two days earlier, a suicide bomber targeted tourists outside Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque.

    The Jakarta attacks were described by those on the ground as a “Paris-style massacre,” with explosions and gunfire simultaneously rocking the Southeast Asian city. What a sad reminder of our time—that Paris, once known as the City of Light and Europe’s cultural capital, has now become synonymous with mass murder and senseless attacks against civilians going about their daily lives.

    These attacks show a departure in strategy by the so-called Islamic State. Daesh was once only concerned with a ground war in Iraq and Syria, and building their ‘caliphate,’ or Islamic kingdom governed by fundamentalist Sunni teachings. But they are now launching more and more attacks outside the Middle East.

    The assaults against Istanbul and Jakarta also contradict a common narrative—that Daesh’s terrorist attacks are mere retaliation for western sins.

    A popular opinion on the political left is that Islamic State terrorists only attack those who stand in their way. Those who don’t participate in the coalition bombing campaign, such as Costa Rica and Sweden, some argue, do not get attacked.

    A Russian airliner was brought down over Sinai last year because of Putin’s involvement in Iraq and Syria. Paris was attacked because of France’s role in the coalition airstrikes.

    And the San Bernardino attack was a result of America’s long involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

    Some Canadians are susceptible to this narrative. A recent poll found that 10 per cent of Canadians who oppose our involvement in the bombing mission cite “fear of backlash” as the reason.

    If we interfere in Daesh’s rampage over there, the thinking goes, they will come over here and attack us.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that it seeks to rationalize, and even justify, the acts of radicals and extremists. It also simply doesn’t stand up to the facts.

    Islamic terrorism is not a grievance-based conflict. It is not driven by inequality or exclusion. Like the 9/11 hijackers, Daesh terrorists typically come from middle class backgrounds and educated families.

    These radical Islamists are fighting an ideological war. They kill innocent victims because they want to overthrow our society and impose their radical Islamic values onto others. They want us all living under their Sharia.

    Turkey and Indonesia—both considered among the most secular and moderate of the world’s Muslim countries—have not provoked Daesh.

    The opposite is true. Russia recently accused Turkey of being a secret terrorist ally and propping up Daesh by buying their oil.

    Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, has not offered military support or joined the U.S.-led bombing coalition in Iraq and Syria. Instead, they’ve focused on fostering peace and tolerance at home, and avoided getting drawn into the conflicts of the Middle East.

    Neither is standing in Daesh’s way. But just like France and the United States, these countries are still targeted.

    Islamic terrorists are provoking a global war against non-believers, including against moderate Muslims. If you reject and refuse to cower to their archaic and oppressive laws, you are their enemy.

    The sooner we come to terms with these truths, and stop pretending this is all our fault, the better equipped we will be to fight and win this war.


    Winning Hearts (Not Minds)

    Justin Trudeau’s humanitarian impulses make him a hero among the world’s progressive elites. It makes us feel good to help others, and Trudeau has mastered the art of feel-good politics.

    In a campaign to win over the hearts and minds of Canadians, Trudeau managed to win over our hearts with his compassion, at the expense of our minds.

    Despite his having the unanimous endorsement of adoring elites, many thinking Canadians have yet to endorse Trudeau’s refugee policy. That’s because Trudeau has failed to acknowledge any of the valid safety concerns and security implications.

    When it comes to our safety and security, Trudeau and his team seem to have other priorities: Justin Trudeau would rather go to a photoshoot at the airport with newly arriving Syrians than have a serious discussion about national security.

    The Trudeau Liberals refuse to deal with these threats responsibly, because doing so would be counter to their political objectives.

    Acknowledging a national security threat would be an implicit acceptance of all the risks to Canada that come along with Trudeau’s decision to rush in tens of thousands of refugees without proper planning, without thorough security checks and without planning for their integration into our society.

    Besides, Trudeau’s vacuous philosophy of “sunny ways” does not lend itself to such deep and serious thinking and planning.

    Trudeau’s approach to politics—style over substance—does not easily align with a serious risk assessment of counter-terrorism, asymmetrical warfare, and migration policy in the 21st century.

    This is the man, after all, who said Stephen Harper only joined the U.S.-led bombing coalition against Daesh because he wanted to “whip out our CF-18s to show them how big they are.”

    This is the man who once suggested that Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, after invading Ukraine—a sovereign state—because Putin was mad the Russian men’s hockey team lost at the 2014 Sochi Olympics.

    This is the man who, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, reminded his CBC audience of the importance of reflecting on the “root causes” of terrorism.

    Just read, word for word, what Justin Trudeau said in response to the simple question, after the Boston terrorist attacks, “what would you do?” if he were the Canadian prime minister.


    “First thing, um, you offer support and sympathy and condolences and, you know, can we send down, you know, EMTs (emergency medical teams) or, I mean, as we contributed after 9/11? I mean, is there any material immediate support we have, we can offer?

    And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now we don’t know now whether it was, you know, terrorism or a single crazy or, you know, a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean, all of those questions.

    But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?

    I mean, yes, we need to make sure that we’re promoting security and we’re, you know, keeping our borders safe and, you know, monitoring the kinds of, you know, violent subgroups that happen around.

    But we also have to monitor and encourage people to not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group, whether it be the West or the government or Bostonians or whatever it is, because it’s that idea of dividing humans against ourselves, of pointing out that they’re not like us and, you know, in order to achieve our political goals, we can kill innocents here. That is something that no society in the world that is healthy, regardless of ideology, will accept. And yet, it is something that is happening increasingly across this world.”


    This is the raw, unedited Justin Trudeau. And this is how he actually thinks and talks … that is, when he isn’t repeating canned lines or reading from a teleprompter.

    In the wake of a deadly terrorist attack on a major U.S. city, Justin Trudeau diverged into a rambling, incoherent, high school-level diatribe about tolerance and trying to understand terrorists.

    Sure, Trudeau admits we should, you know, promote security and, you know, keep our borders safe, and stuff … but he fails to mention the victims, their families or the immense suffering these terrorists inflicted upon innocent civilians.

    And of course, he doesn’t address how a radical Islamist ideology drives these terrorists.

    Trudeau can barely muster the courage to condemn this violence, instead criticizing those “dividing humans against ourselves”—blaming both radical Islamists and western democracies at the same time.

    If Trudeau had been Canada’s prime minister back then, his top priority would not be to find and stop the enemy, but instead to rationalize violence and think about the root causes. Rather than ordering the police and the security forces to track down terrorists, Trudeau would have wanted us to meditate about the ways we were at fault and the ways that western society was to blame for those who feel “completely excluded.”

    With this track record, should we really be surprised that now-Prime Minister Trudeau wants to throw our doors open to the masses of migrants streaming out of the Middle East?

    Without any real concern that some of these migrants may be radicalized terrorists?

    Trudeau thinks that so long as he’s in charge—as long as he’s there at the airport to offer a big hug to all newcomers—that the terrorists will put down their weapons, become law-abiding Canadians, discover a new appreciation for freedom and democracy and, of course, join the Liberal Party of Canada.

    Trudeau doesn’t take the threat of radical Islamic terrorism seriously, because he seriously thinks that his Liberal multiculturalism is the antidote to violent jihad.


    IMMEDIATE SECURITY THREATS

    In the real world, there are serious challenges that limit the Canadian government’s ability to properly vet and screen Syrian refugees.

    The U.S. Senate committee on Homeland Security conducted hearings in January 2016, and heard testimony from leading Canadian and American national security scholars and officials on Trudeau’s expedited refugee settlement plan and its implications for U.S. national security.

    While Canada’s Immigration Minister John McCallum brushed off the hearing as “a Tea Party operation,”* the bi-partisan committee openly discussed their concerns with Trudeau’s capacity to keep our shared continent safe.

    * “Canada’s Syria refugee plan raises concerns of ‘shortcuts,’ homeland security committee hears,” CBC News. Feb. 3, 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...cuts-1.3431698

    Analysts on both sides of the border are demanding proof, not just assurances, that the Trudeau government is not taking shortcuts or sacrificing security to achieve its political objectives.

    McCallum thinks that by dismissing our American allies and neighbours as a bunch of right-wing fear-mongers that he can shrug off the unavoidable risks associated with resettling refugees from a war zone, in the middle of an active war.

    The inconvenient truth is that Canada has never had the ability, and does not have the ability today, to properly screen and vet 25,000 Syrians in just four months, much less screen another 25,000 refugees in the 10 months to follow.

    FBI director James Comey said that U.S. intelligence services would have trouble screening 10,000 Syrians in one year.

    Meanwhile, despite being one-tenth the size of the United States—and without the resources of the FBI, CIA, NSA, U.S. Army Intelligence, or the Department of Homeland Security—Canada is forging ahead with a plan to admit five times that many refugees in just 14 months.

    Trudeau’s sunny optimism aside, it is impossible for the government to ensure, on that timetable, that no jihadist agents will enter Canada, disguised as refugees.

    This isn’t just a stab in the dark. Daesh itself has boasted, repeatedly, that it is sending its militants into the West amidst the chaos and confusion of the refugee crisis.

    With millions of people flooding out of the Middle East, Daesh has given interviews and explained its strategy of planting agents in with the flow of refugees. “Just wait,” said a Daesh militant to a BuzzFeed reporter in early 2015. They are working with smugglers to embed fighters into the tide of refugees. “They are going like refugees,” he said, “we will send them on the next ship.” [“ISIS Operative: This is how we send Jihadis to Europe,” BuzzFeed News. Jan. 29, 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/i...ope#.wx2n6K5Ed ]

    Plain-clothed terrorists, after all, look strikingly similar to bona fide Syrian refugees. Rob Wainwright, chief of the European Union’s police agency Europol, recently confirmed these fears by stating his agency knows of at least 5,000 Daesh jihadists who have snuck into Europe using the refugee route. This is the terrifying consequence of Europe’s mindless approach to refugee policy.

    Europe’s leaders, through an open border policy and a hands-off approach to integration, have put their own citizens on the front line of a hot war.

    Under Stephen Harper, and successive immigration ministers Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander, Canada took a more cautious approach.

    But just because we have historically had a better security apparatus and integration strategy than Europe, it does not make us immune to jihadi violence. The same tactics can and do apply to refugees coming to North America.

    Consider that Canada accepts refugees through the United Nation High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). We select refugees from the UNHCR camps and communities in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

    Lebanese cabinet minister Elias Bou Saab has warned that Daesh has infiltrated UNHCR camps in Lebanon. He suggests that approximately two per cent of the 1.1 million Syrian refugees camped in Lebanon have connections to Daesh. That means that upwards of 20,000 UNHCR refugees may be Islamic State jihadists in disguise.

    There are terrorists amid the refugees; even refugees who have been preapproved by the United Nations and hand-picked for resettlement. This fact is undeniable. That we want to help ease the suffering around the world does not change this fact. And as conservative journalist Ben Shapiro likes to say, the facts don’t care about our feelings.

    Likewise, public opinion polling indicates that up to 20 per cent of the Syrian population believes that Daesh has a positive influence in their country.* Furthermore, according to the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 13 per cent of Syrians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have a positive opinion of Daesh. [“13 Percent of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS: Poll,” https://clarionproject.org/13-percen...ort-isis-poll/ ]

    * “One in five Syrians say Islamic State is a good thing, poll says,” Sept. 15, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-poll-says/

    It turns out that some Syrians like extreme terrorist groups. Even refugees are products of their upbringing and of their society; in this case, a society ripe with ethnic hatreds, sectarian violence and centuries of a cruel and barbaric tribal warfare.

    One in five Syrians directly supports Daesh. Presumably, many more have positive perceptions of other terrorist groups.

    Many likely agree with radical elements of Daesh’s religion and ideology. There is a reason that Syria is caught up in a long and bloody civil war; Syria’s civil society is marred with ancient blood feuds and intolerance toward others. Many possess an ideology that is incompatible with the West.

    Just because one side in the conflict is being murdered and chased away doesn’t make them liberal-minded. In the case of Syria, the refugees are coming from the same villages, the same madrassas and sometimes the same families as the terrorists.

    Coming from the same family as a terrorist obviously does not make you guilty by association. It does, however, require that Canadian officials be extremely vigilant in screening and vetting your application to come to Canada.

    Herein lies the reality of the struggle of asymmetrical warfare. The enemy is no longer easily recognizable. Wars are no longer declared, fought, won or lost and ended with formal surrenders. There are no longer presentations of swords, negotiations of reparations and treaties or ends of war marked with dancing and celebrations.

    In the 21st century, wars are ongoing, our enemies live among us and civilians are drafted to the front lines. Innocent people, unarmed women and children, are targeted first and foremost. They are the softest targets.

    Many Canadians will point to our long and proud history of resettling refugees—loyalists coming up from the United States after their revolutionary war, 250,000 Europeans following the Second World War, the Vietnamese boat people in the early 1980s and so on—to show that Canada has always welcomed newcomers with open arms.

    This is absolutely true, with one major distinction.

    Canada historically has opened its doors after a war has ended. The war against Daesh and radical Islam is still being fought.

    Most Canadians believe that something must be done to assist the Syrian refugees—that we should not wait until the war is over to offer our help.

    But the way the Trudeau government is selecting refuges from Syria to resettle into Canada should raise some eyebrows.

    Canada’s refugee policy does not seek to help those most at risk in Syria. Rather, we select the refugees at the front of a queue organized by a very flawed agency—the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.

    The vast majority of Syrian refugees registering with the UNHCR and pouring into refugee camps are Sunni Muslims who are being targeted by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—a Shi’ite Muslim from the Ba’ath Party. Daesh, built out of the rubble of this civil war in Syria, attracts the most radical members of this Sunni population.

    Most Sunni Muslims are not terrorists. The majority reject Daesh and its violence. But some do have links to Daesh. Others believe in the same fundamentalist doctrine of Islam.

    These Sunni Muslims dominate the UNHCR camps and are often hostile to outsiders.

    Meanwhile, Daesh is committing genocide against the Yazidi people—an ancient Kurdish tribe with mixed Christian beliefs—as well as Assyrian Christians and other ethnic minorities in the region.

    Daesh is intentionally targeting and slaughtering ethnic minorities, and forcing these ancient Christian communities to desperately flee for safety. In the Sunni-dominated UNHCR camps, these persecuted minorities have little support and nowhere to go.

    First-hand accounts of the situation in Syria tell us that Christian refugees avoid the UN camps out of fear of intimidation: discrimination from local Syrian UN employees and abuse from other refugees.

    In fact, most Christians in Iraq and Syria do not even bother registering with the UN. Of course, the UN denies any wrongdoing, but the numbers show a different story.

    Of the millions of Syrian refugees registered with UNHCR camps in neighbouring Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, only 1 per cent are Christians.

    In 2015, Christians made up more than 10 per cent of Syria’s population. In a typical war zone, you would expect refugee camps to be disproportionately filled with persecuted ethnic and religious minorities. Not the other way around.

    Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British non-profit organization that works with Syrian refugees, publicly spoke out against the UN, saying that local Syrian Christians are scared by “the strict Muslim environment dominating the camps.”

    Under the UN’s watch, Christians are being bullied for not wearing Muslim clothing, harassed for the way they pray, pressured by those trying to convert them and intimidated by those forcing them to abide by a strict interpretation of Islam.

    The UN is failing to secure its camps and keep refugees safe. And yet, Canada’s official refugee resettlement policy is to only select refugees referred by the UNHCR.

    We know that Daesh is committing genocide against Christian communities in the Middle East. Both the UN and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have conceded this sad reality. Yet Trudeau’s focus remains on helping only those who have registered with the United Nations.

    Rather than helping the most in need, rather than sponsor the refugees we know are not members of Daesh—the persecuted minorities such as the Yazidis and Assyrians—Trudeau’s policy focuses squarely on resettling refugees chosen from amongst the same Sunni community whose more militant members are terrorizing Christians in the region.

    Under the Harper government, and particularly thanks to the efforts of Jason Kenney, Canada developed a policy to seek out the most at-risk and threatened religious minorities for resettlement into Canada. We made a concerted effort to provide assistance to the most vulnerable people and bring the most persecuted minorities to safety in Canada. But everything changed when Trudeau was elected.

    Trudeau has said outright, on the 2015 election campaign trail, that he does not agree with sponsoring persecuted ethnic and religious minority groups to be refugees in Canada.


    Pages 50-6:

    Consider one case where officials put Canadian security ahead of compassion for a refugee applicant with terrorist associations. The case involved a gay Palestinian Christian convert who fled the West Bank to come to Canada as a teenager. Canadian officials deemed that he was inadmissible because he had been trained as a child to become an agent in the terrorist group Hamas.

    The boy’s family was Hamas royalty; his grandfather helped found the group and his uncles were all active terrorists in Israel.

    Despite his grooming, however, the boy rejected his family’s wishes, ran away from home and eventually moved to Canada where he asked for asylum. But Canada’s immigration officials said no. They rejected his refugee application and tried to deport this young man because of his prior training, terrorist affiliations and inconsistencies in his story over the years. They put Canada’s national security ahead of everything else.

    I believed the young man should be permitted asylum. When CNN reported the story, it contacted his radical Palestinian parents, who threatened to kill their son if he ever returned. Canada has a policy that it does not deport someone to an unsafe place where their life would be threatened, and thus, after a long ordeal, the young man was permitted to stay in Canada.


    SELECTION AND INTEGRATION

    Our security officials do the best work they can under the circumstances, but they are limited in their capacity. Aside from the risk that Daesh terrorists will thwart our immigration system, infiltrate Canada and carry out a deadly attack, there is an equally menacing threat that comes alongside mass migration from Syria and the Middle East.

    Just as some migrants may try to bring their war with them, others carry tribal feuds, ancient hatreds and deep illiberalism to their new home.

    This is an ever-present but rarely mentioned threat that comes from resettling populations from regions prone to conflict and war. The risk of Canada’s refugee resettlement program may persist long after the crisis in Syria fades away.

    In just 14 months, Canada will have resettled up to 50,000 Syrian refugees. To use the Lebanese cabinet minister’s math, if two per cent of these refugees are Daesh agents, that could mean that 1,000 terrorists will have managed to sneak into Canada. But to use the British public opinion data from the summer of 2015, if 20 per cent of Syria’s population supports Daesh, that also means that 10,000 of the 50,000 refugees may be radicalized or possess a hateful and intolerant worldview.

    A good migration policy has two fundamental pillars: first, you select the best people for resettlement. Then, you properly welcome and integrate these people into your society.

    Both components are equally important—selection and integration. So far, Trudeau is getting them both wrong.

    When it comes to selection, even if Canada’s immigration and security officials could guarantee with certainty that no terrorist will enter Canada disguised as a Syrian refugee, they can’t guarantee the refugees do not possess an illiberal and hateful worldview.

    Our immigration officials interview potential refugees—through a translator—but they do not ask questions about a person’s ideology or worldview. A few basic questions about living in a western pluralist society would go a long way toward stopping a potential tide of intolerance from flowing into Canada.

    Here are five basic questions that should be asked of all newcomers, before they are accepted and admitted into Canada:

    1. Do you think men and women should have equal rights?
    2. Do you believe in religious freedom for everyone?
    3. Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Are you okay with that?
    4. Your neighbour may be African or Chinese. Are you okay with that? Your child may go to school, sit together and play with a Jewish child. Are you okay with that?
    5. Will you uphold Canada’s laws and respect Canadian values?

    Sure, a newcomer may lie about their beliefs in order to gain entry into Canada, but at least they will know what to expect when they arrive here.

    Canadian pluralism should be presented to newcomers before they are invited to migrate here. If newcomers cannot or will not accept our values, they should not be allowed to board their flight to Pearson International.

    Canadians are fortunate that, as a society, we have developed a peaceful and pluralistic culture. We have, by and large, pushed bigotry and hatred into the dark, marginal caves and recesses of our society where few dare to venture. It would be a great shame to start importing these views via mass migration.

    The Nobel laureate Milton Friedman taught that open border policies are incompatible with the welfare state. If a nation offers a rich smorgasbord of government handouts to all citizens, and also allows open borders, people from all over the world will arrive to take advantage without contributing to the host society, its economy or its public finances.

    To combat the free-rider problem, a welfare-state society would soon be forced to draw borders around its benefits and handouts, and create distinctions and various classes of citizenship—which is precisely what Liberal politicians like Justin Trudeau claim to stand against.

    But this is what we see in Europe, where open-border policies have led to several generations of migrants living in Switzerland, Sweden and Germany, without ever receiving citizenship. Second-class citizenship for immigrants in these nations is a fact of life.

    We are only as strong as our population is educated. If we throw open our doors to hateful and intolerant people, in a generation or two, Canada will regress into a backward country.

    A transformed populace could vote away our freedoms and elect tyrants like those who rule the lands these refugees have fled. If we import the bitter attitudes and tribal feuds that led to civil war in Syria, we may well eventually import their war as well.

    That is why we must select peace-loving people who want to leave war behind. People who embrace Canada’s culture and values.

    This doesn’t mean we should exclude Muslims. It does, however, mean that we must exclude some Muslims.









    Last edited by HERO; 12-30-2018 at 05:28 PM.

  19. #19
    WE'RE ALL GOING HOME HERO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    fatherlessness (our communistic elitist socionics dogma)
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Justin Pierre James Trudeau: ESE, LII-Ne, EII-Ne, or EIE

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/...l-obamanation/

    NOVEMBER 11, 2015

    Canada Under Trudeau: Liberal Revival or Liberal Obamanation?
    by GREG FELTON

    Nothing unifies a divided people quite like a common enemy. Fighting the enemy focuses people’s energies and generates a common frame of reference that delivers moral clarity. However, once the enemy is vanquished the unifying frame of reference vanishes along with it. Suddenly, a new, “peacetime” frame of reference fills the void, and old divisions redevelop, maybe even some new ones. Canadian voters are just now coming to appreciate that while winning a war may be hard, winning the peace is even harder.

    After ridding the country of Stephen Harper’s toxic dictatorship, the electorate is now divided over what, exactly, to make of Justin Trudeau’s new Liberal government. Optimists believe that it represents a return to a sane, humane Canada whereas pessimists think it will generally hearken unto the same corporatist cabal that Harper did. To some degree Trudeau’s victory is analogous to Barack Obama’s presidential victory in 2008 after the end of the Bush error… er, era. A short analysis of the expectation, election and fallout of the U.S.’s first black president provides useful insight into what’s in store for Canada.


    In 2008, Senator Barack Obama was the Democratic standard bearer for a return to rational government after George W. Bush’s eight-year régime, which was notorious for warmongering, anti-Muslim fear mongering, treason, zionist servility and corporatism, among other things. Although not all of these traits were unique to Bush, they reached such extremes that the political establishment decided that the so-called Republican Party was unfit to remain in power. This belief was confirmed when the party chose Sen. John “Insane” McCain to challenge for the White House.

    Endorsements for Obama crossed party and political lines, running the gamut from communists to The Economist and included members of McCain’s own party, like Bush’s one-time Secretary of State Colin Powell. Typical of the establishment view was the New York Times endorsement editorial:

    “We believe [Senator Barack Obama] has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems. In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate [Sarah Palin] so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress. Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain’s campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.”

    The editorial’s endorsement of promised reforms under Obama was significant because the paper had been the chief cheerleader and disinformant—take a bow, Judith Miller!—for Bush’s military aggressions, economic gangsterism, repression of civil liberties, World Trade Towers/Pentagon attack and passage of the unconstitutional USA PATRIOT Act. Powell, himself, even lied to the UN to justify attacking Afghanistan, and the Times dutifully reported the lie as if it were legitimate news.

    For voters, and the international community at large, Barack Obama was the Great Black Hope, and his election was hailed as a victory for civil rights, minority rights, reasoned government and an end to irresponsible military adventurism. However, this near-giddy optimism was not based on any realistic understanding of Obama the politician. For voters, electing the first black president in a racist country and getting rid of the Bush junta mattered far more than any substantive assessment of Obama’s politics.


    Any expectation that Obama would be much different from Bush was dashed almost immediately when he announced that he would not launch an investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks to find out who really did it. Obama said he was not going to look backwards; he was going to look forwards, and with that dismissal the whitewash of establishment guilt became government policy, as did the ensuing police-state terrorism.

    In addition, as a senator from Illinois, Obama voted for Bush’s $700-plus billion “rescue” package for banks and other financial institutions even though their greed and predatory behaviour were entirely responsible for their misfortune. Once elected Obama’s administration accepted the egregious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and even expanded it to cover loans to keep General Motors and Chrysler from going under. The following excerpt is taken from a list of 23 false promises Obama told to get into office… [ https://www.activistpost.com/2013/11...Out-To-Be.html ]

    #2 “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”

    #8 “We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”

    #10 “We will close the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years.”

    #12 “We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years.”

    #14 “We reject sweeping claims of ‘inherent’ presidential power.”

    #16 “We support constitutional protections and judicial oversight on any surveillance program involving Americans.”

    #17 “If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home; we will end this war. You can take that to the bank.”

    #19 “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”


    The irony is that even if voters had understood Obama’s politics, it would not have made any difference because McCain and Palin were unelectable. Obama’s 2008 victory was, therefore, less an election than a necessity, and any talk of reform must be seen as just an election ploy. The upshot is that electing Obama made not a damned bit of difference. He continued or expanded many of Bush’s repressions, such as warranties wiretaps, surveillance of American citizens, drone strikes, and military commissions. In fact, the U.S. became even more repressive under Obama, who added civil rights abuses, such as prosecution of whistleblowers, criminalization of peaceful political protest, blacklisting, targeted killing of Americans overseas and secretive GPS tracking of individuals.


    http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/...9/trudeau.html

    from SPARTACIST CANADA (Summer 2016) [No. 189]:

    In the run-up to the 2015 federal election, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party voted to support the Conservative government’s infamous Bill C-51, essentially a CSIS/RCMP wish list of draconian revisions to the criminal code. Trudeau promised that, once in power, his government would amend “problematic” sections of the law. Half a year later, the Liberal government hasn’t touched a hair on the head of the Tories’ hallmark “anti-terror” legislation. In fact, “sunny ways” Trudeau and his cohorts, with their ostentatious pursuit of no-fly lists, deportation orders and frame-up prosecutions targeting Muslims, just picked up Harper’s repressive agenda where the Tories left off.

    C-51 (the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015) gives the RCMP, CSIS and other repressive agencies of the capitalist state a vastly freer hand to go after what can only be called “thought crimes.” Comments that were once merely the exercise of free speech can now be deemed by the police to be “promotion or advocacy” of terrorism, and hence criminal offenses. But even this low bar doesn’t have to be crossed for the cops to ruin your life. In fact, state agents no longer even have to claim an actual crime has been or will be committed in order to make an arrest—they need only assert that a suspect “may” commit an offense.

    Before C-51 became law, civil-rights attorneys Clayton Ruby and Nader Hasan sounded the alarm about its sinister intent:

    “Six Muslim young adults stand in front of a mosque late at night in heated discussion in some foreign language. They may be talking about video games, or sports, or girls, or advocating the overthrow of the Harper government. Who knows? There is no evidence one way or another. Just stereotypes…. Yesterday, the Muslim men were freely exercising constitutional rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Today, they are arrestable.”

    —“Bill C-51: A Legal Primer,” policyalternatives.ca, 17 February 2015

    Even more ominously, once the cops arrest you on the basis of “fear of terrorism,” not only are you stripped of the right to a trial, they don’t even need to charge you. Instead, on applying to a judge, they can force you to submit to a take-it-or-leave-it choice between going to jail or signing a so-called “peace bond.” The latter involves a vast array of arbitrary restrictions on personal liberty that can last up to five years. These can include wearing a GPS bracelet, reporting regularly to an RCMP agent, surrendering one’s passport, observing a ban from social media or other internet activity and “keeping the peace and being of good behaviour.” Failure to comply with any one of the imposed conditions is itself a criminal offence.


    Punishment Without Crime

    Under the Liberals, the police-state powers of C-51 are rapidly expanding the legal twilight zone for the hounding, arrest and prosecution of Muslim youth. And once in the cops’ crosshairs, no matter how innocent of wrongdoing, you can’t protect your name from being splashed across the media as a terrorist.

    Police in Montreal made headlines in March by locking down the entire neighbourhood of Pierrefonds, evacuating 200 people from their homes and temporarily closing a train station. The reason? A video posted on Facebook showed, they claimed, “someone apparently handling explosive materials.” The massive evacuation and search turned up nothing. Nonetheless, 20-year-old student Omar Elabi was charged with “inciting fear of terrorism” because his home was allegedly traced as the source of the video.

    The same month, the RCMP detained Kevin Mohamed of Toronto under the “fear of terrorism” provisions…for owning a hunting knife. The RCMP eventually dropped its demand for a peace bond and kept Mohamed locked up through a retroactive terrorism charge based on a family trip to Turkey he took with his mother two years earlier.

    Another peace bond victim, Aaron Driver of Winnipeg, found himself on the wrong side of the law for using Twitter. A young convert to Islam, he was never charged and will not be tried. Nonetheless, due exclusively to expressing his opinions over the internet, Driver was compelled to sign a peace bond or face jail time. “If I fought it, they would have added even more conditions than I’m already under,” he told the CBC. Among other things, Driver is banned from using social media and cannot possess a phone or computer without written permission from the RCMP.

    Another feature of the rulers’ “war on terror” is the use of sting operations. Cops and their agents are free to generate “terrorism” out of thin air by approaching, entrapping and inciting vulnerable individuals to agree to acts they otherwise would never have contemplated, let alone carried out. In one especially egregious case, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody, an impoverished and methadone-dependent couple in B.C., were sensationally convicted of an attempt to blow up the provincial legislature in Victoria. The charges were only laid after months of manipulation, material support and incitement by a police agent posing as an Islamic spiritual guide.


    Who Are the Real Terrorists?

    The odds of being a victim of an actual terrorist attack in this country are lower than those of being killed by a lightning strike, a fact you’d never guess from the hysteria whipped up every time the media reports the arrest of anyone associated with the “T” word. And that’s exactly the point. We have emphasized repeatedly that the “war on terror” is in fact no war at all, but a political construct aimed at instilling fear, regimenting the population and justifying government repression.

    As we wrote in “Canada’s Creeping Police State” (SC No. 184, Spring 2015), C-51 “is a sweeping attack on free speech and other civil liberties. The bill targets publications, web postings and even private conversations sympathetic to causes that the capitalist rulers deem to be ‘terrorism.’ It authorizes the CSIS secret police to go after any activity that ‘undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada’ or interferes with the country’s ‘economic or financial stability’.”

    In other words, behind the camouflage of artificially generated hysteria over terrorism, the capitalists are preparing a vastly broader assault on the rights of workers and the oppressed. Under the provisions of this law, workers’ strikes and picket lines and other acts of self-defense against the bosses can be defined as “terrorist” acts. The same goes for blockades of roads, railways or pipelines by Native people struggling for land rights. The bourgeoisie is literally slapping a “terror” label on whatever might threaten their class rule or the sanctity of private profit.

    The phony “war on terror” makes vivid the Marxist understanding of the capitalist state, the core of which consists of repressive institutions—the police, prisons, courts and army—dedicated to upholding bourgeois rule. From the squalid living conditions experienced by Native people on remote reserves to unfettered cop terror against black youth in Toronto, from busted unions and slashed pensions to the growing ranks of minimum-waged and under-/unemployed workers, the dreams of providing a decent life for yourself or your kids under this rotten system become ever more distant. Hence the rulers’ need for an ever larger “stick” of police coercion.

    All workers and oppressed people thus have a clear and urgent interest in combatting C-51 and the whole panoply of the bosses’ repressive laws. As communists, we have nothing in common with political Islam or the other forms of religious reaction that some young people have embraced. Such doctrines are an expression of despair amid dismally low levels of class and other social struggle. But we emphatically denounce the witchhunting of Muslim youth, whatever their political views, by the bourgeois state. And it’s worth pointing out that the bearers of Canadian passports volunteering to join the Israeli Defense Forces in their war on the Palestinian people, or the fascistic Azov Batallion affiliated with the far-right NATO-backed regime in Ukraine, will never be targets of C-51.

    The main terrorist force in the world today is U.S. imperialism, for which Canada acts as a loyal junior partner. Since September 11, 2001, the “war on terror” has morphed from the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan into an array of proxy conflicts, civil wars and “targeted killings” that now stretches from Afghanistan to Yemen to Mauritania—at a cost in death, desolation and human suffering that can scarcely be imagined, let alone counted. In all these conflicts, we stand in opposition to the imperialists’ depredations and demand the withdrawal of all U.S., Canadian and other imperialist forces.

    The cancerous growth of a police state in the guise of “anti-terror” laws is but the domestic face of this crusade. Arbitrary mass surveillance and rampant racist profiling are now a fact of daily life from bus stations to airports to shopping malls. Through massive data collection via telephones and the internet, the real and virtual tentacles of this apparatus—concentrated in the hands of the “Five Eyes” countries (the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand)—now reach to almost every corner of the planet.

    Trudeau’s Liberals and Harper’s Tories are but two faces of Canadian capitalism. State repression is intrinsic to this barbaric social system which is rooted in the exploitation of the working people and buttressed by the oppression of minorities. Endless pleas to rein in the cops through inquiries, greater oversight and “accountability” have solved, and can solve, nothing. The road forward lies through social struggle led by the working class, which due to its central position in industry, transport and communications has vast potential social power that can be unleashed on behalf of all the oppressed.

    Class struggle today is at a low ebb, thanks in large part to the betrayals of the pro-capitalist labour leaders and their political allies in the NDP. But as the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917 demonstrated, at some point outrage at the grinding hardships and crimes of capitalism will boil over into workers struggle on a massive scale. At such points, the capitalists will seek to unleash even greater forces of repression to turn back the tsunami of mass struggle. The vital question will be: which class rules?

    To sweep aside the capitalist system, the only effective weapon known to history is a workers party standing at the head of all the oppressed. Armed with the program of Marxism, the working class can lead a socialist revolution to overturn the capitalist state, inaugurate its own class rule and establish a rationally planned economy organized in the interests of the vast majority. Extended internationally, this will open the road to an egalitarian communist society in which the state itself, and all other forms of organized coercion are relegated to the museum of antiquities....



    http://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-...s-deal/5506886

    Canada Sells Weapons to State Sponsor of Terrorism: Class Action Law Suit against Ottawa over $15 Billion Saudi Arms Deal [Feb. 2016]

    The Canadian government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the object of a class action lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court pertaining to the $15 billion sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. An action in Federal Court is also contemplated.

    According to Toronto’s Globe and Mail:

    Opponents of Canada’s $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia are taking Ottawa to court in an attempt to block shipments of the combat vehicles, a move that could force the governing Liberals to explain how they justify the sale to a human-rights pariah under weapon-export restrictions.


    The action is led by law Professor Daniel Turp together with students of the University of Montreal:

    He will announce the legal challenge on Saturday and intends to file it with the Federal Court within three weeks.

    Mr. Turp and his group are calling on critics of the deal across the country to rally behind their challenge, which they are calling operation Armoured Rights, pointing to how poorly Saudi Arabia treats its own citizens and the civilian carnage of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen. (Globe and Mail)


    Amply documented, Saudi Arabia is the state sponsor of Al Qaeda affiliated “opposition groups” in Syria including the Islamic State (ISIS). Riyadh –acting in liaison and on behalf of Washington– plays a central role in the financing of the Islamic State (ISIS) as well as the recruitment, training and religious indoctrination of terrorist mercenary forces deployed in Syria and Iraq.

    What this signifies is that Canada is selling weapons to a country which is supporting and sponsoring terrorist organizations. Moreover Saudi Arabia is currently involved in a war of aggression against Yemen in blatant derogation of international law.

    The links of Saudi Arabia to the terrorists are amply documented and will no doubt be raised in the class action court hearings.

    According to London’s Daily Express “They [the Islamic State terrorists] had money and arms supplied by Qatar and Saudi Arabia.”

    “The most important source of ISIS financing to date has been support coming out of the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia but also Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates,” (According to Dr. Günter Meyer, Director of the Center for Research into the Arabic World at University of Mainz, Germany, Deutsche Welle)

    According to Robert Fisk, the IS caliphate project “has been bankrolled by Saudi Arabia”:

    …[M]eet Saudi Arabia’s latest monstrous contribution to world history: the Islamist Sunni caliphate of Iraq and the Levant, conquerors of Mosul and Tikrit – and Raqqa in Syria – and possibly Baghdad, and the ultimate humiliators of Bush and Obama.

    From Aleppo in northern Syria almost to the Iraqi-Iranian border, the jihadists of Isis and sundry other groupuscules paid by the Saudi Wahhabis – and by Kuwaiti oligarchs – now rule thousands of square miles. (Robert Fisk, The Independent, June 12, 2014)

    Moreover, in 2013, as part of its recruitment of terrorists, Saudi Arabia took the initiative of releasing prisoners on death row in Saudi jails. A secret memo revealed that the prisoners were being “recruited” to join jihadist militia (including Al Nusrah and ISIS) to fight against government forces in Syria.

    The prisoners had reportedly been offered a deal — stay and be executed or fight against Assad in Syria. As part of the deal the prisoners were offered a “pardon and a monthly stipend for their families, who were allowed to stay in the Sunni Arab kingdom”.

    Saudi officials apparently gave them a choice: decapitation or jihad? In total, inmates from Yemen, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Iraq, and Kuwait chose to go and fight in Syria.(See Global Research, September 11, 2013)


    Weapons “Made in Canada”

    Ottawa’s deal with Saudi Arabia is coordinated with Washington. It essentially serves the Pentagon’s military agenda in the Middle East, it channels billions of dollars to the US military industrial complex.

    The weapons are “Made in Canada” produced by General Dynamics Land Systems, London, Ontario., a subsidiary of US defense contractor General Dynamics.

    General Dynamics has subsidiaries in 43 countries including Canada.

    Ottawa’s official stance is that these weapons which include “combat vehicles with machine guns and anti-tank cannons” are to be used by Saudi Arabia solely for purposes of national defense. They are not be used against civilians.



    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/11/18/...-attacks-paris

    Prime Minister advocates against hatred and racism in aftermath of the terrorist attacks on Paris

    Manila, Philippines
    18 November 2015

    The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, issued the following statement today advocating against acts of hatred and racism directed at specific Canadians in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris:

    “Following the terrorist attacks in Paris, I have noted with deep regret a number of highly disturbing acts aimed at certain Canadians, including the fire at the mosque in Peterborough, the smashing of windows at a Hindu temple in Kitchener, and the attack on a Muslim woman in Toronto.

    “Diversity is Canada’s strength. These vicious and senseless acts of intolerance have no place in our country and run absolutely contrary to Canadian values of pluralism and acceptance.

    “The Government of Canada strongly condemns such actions and, along with law enforcement agencies, will protect the rights of innocent Canadians being subjected to such abuse.

    “Canadians understand that religious groups around the world suffer persecution regularly at the hands of violent extremists. Our focus must be on stopping the people responsible for the terror, and continuing to fight hate by embracing Canadian values.”


    from Trumping Trudeau by Ezra Levant; pages 27-33:

    It’s one thing for Trudeau to pander to Iranian journalists, or to appease the Iranian-born MPs in his caucus. But Trudeau’s most persuasive advisor—his brother, Alexandre—is a passionate Iran-booster who has worked for the dictatorship in a propaganda capacity.

    Alexandre’s specialty is making obscure, anti-western documentaries. None have done particularly well at the box office. But they’re a useful guide for what the Trudeau family thinks about the world. He made an anti-American film called Embedded in Baghdad and an anti-Israeli film called The Fence. But his masterpiece on Iran, called The New Great Game, is particularly noteworthy. It’s a fan’s admiration for Iran and how it doesn’t bow down to Israel or America. It sounds like a first year college student’s regurgitation of a left-wing professor’s talking points. But The New Great Game is different: it was made in cooperation with the Iranian government’s official propaganda arm, Press TV (as well as other state broadcasters from the region, including Al Jazeera, which is controlled by the dictatorship of Qatar).

    It’s one thing for Canada and the U.S. to have a legitimate policy disagreement about foreign affairs. But Trudeau’s affection for Iran is so personal, it’s an emotional connection; one that’s not driven by Canada’s national interests. It’s rooted in his brother’s loving affection for Iran as the plucky Muslim country that has the courage to stand up to Israel and America. It’s pushed by Trudeau’s Muslim caucus, which is the largest in Canadian history. It’s comprised of several Iranian-born MPs, including Maryam Monsef, the cabinet minister who claimed to have been an Afghan refugee, only to have it revealed that she was in fact born in Iran, and repeatedly travelled freely to that country—an unusual privilege that suggests friendly ties to Iran’s government.

    Donald Trump has repeatedly said he aims to crush the Islamic State. But other than that rogue terrorist enclave, there is no other place on Earth with which Trump is more likely to go to war than Iran. Of all the foreign affairs differences with the U.S., this is the one most likely to come to a crisis the soonest.


    ISRAEL

    The Liberal Party has always had a split personality on Israel. On the one hand, for a generation, the party’s centre of gravity was Montreal, a city with a large and active Jewish community that disproportionately donated to the Liberals. Trudeau kept that tradition alive by appointing Stephen Bronfman, an heir to the Bronfman liquor family, as his chief fundraiser.

    On the other hand, the Liberals have always had a streak of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in their foreign policy. It was the Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King that had an unofficial policy of “none is too many” when it came to Jewish immigrants to Canada, including turning away boatloads of refugees fleeing the Holocaust. And in more recent years, the Liberal Party’s Third Worldism sided with Arab dictatorships over Israel, the lone democracy in the Middle East — or, at best, chose the position of “honest broker” between that democracy and the terrorist groups opposed to it. Under the Liberals, Canada became famous for abstaining at the United Nations—refusing to side with Israel in wave after wave of resolutions condemning the Jewish state.

    There’s a new factor at play now, too: while the Jewish population of Canada remains static at around 350,000 people, the Muslim population has soared to over 1.3 million—more than doubling since 9/11. That demographic imbalance is showing up in the Liberal caucus, as well: in 2015, the Liberals elected ten Muslim MPs, including Omar Alghabra, the former president of the explicitly anti-Semitic Canadian Arab Federation. The Liberal Jewish caucus includes just six MPs. Those numbers will only become more lopsided over time.

    Stephen Harper’s pro-Israel credentials had earned him significant support among Canada’s Jewish community, including from traditionally Liberal supporters. So Justin Trudeau made the conscious decision not to compete against Harper; but rather to concede the Israel vote to Harper and zero in on the anti-Israel vote.

    In his campaign to become Liberal leader in 2013, Trudeau assiduously courted the Muslim vote, crisscrossing the country, going mosque to mosque, with Alghabra as his Muslim lieutenant. Trudeau would boast about all the mosques he had visited, rattling off their names with pride—including Montreal’s controversial Assuna Wahhabi mosque, which is listed by the U.S. government as a place where Al Qaeda has recruited terrorists. Even after that mosque was revealed in a CBC investigation to be preaching extremist and violent messages, Trudeau stood by his decision to campaign there—and at other extremist locations. Trudeau wouldn’t just attend mosques as a respectful outsider; he’d sometimes dress up in a full desert-style abaya, a flowing gown more suited to an Arabian desert than the Canadian tundra. And he’d actually join in Muslim prayer, including the Shehada—a prayer that, if Trudeau actually said it and meant it, would meet the sharia requirement for conversion to Islam.

    Of course, Trudeau is not a Muslim—nor does he follow any faith, including the Catholicism into which he was born. But he knows the symbolism of Islam. For Mother’s Day in 2013, Trudeau circulated a bizarre photo of his own mother and wife wearing hijab-style veils over their heads. Trudeau surely didn’t mean it—it was just another costume party for him, just as he dressed up in pink for gay pride parades. But the message he was sending to Muslims was crystal clear: after ten years of a pro-Israel Prime Minister, they finally had their candidate. And in 2015’s federal election, the math paid off. Stephen Bronfman’s Jewish money plus all the Muslim votes helped put Justin Trudeau into office.

    Trudeau didn’t immediately bolt from Harper’s pro-Israel record. He didn’t want to spook the Jews, especially his Jewish donors. As a senior Liberal advisor told the Globe and Mail two months after Trudeau’s 2015 win, “first we want to make sure we’ve got the Jewish vote back.”

    That caution didn’t last long. Trudeau soon put the Canadian ambassador to Israel, Vivian Bercovici, under a gag order, and his office began a whisper campaign against her, before finally firing her. Choosing a hand-picked ambassador is the prerogative of any Prime Minister. In fact, it would have been inappropriate for Trudeau not to have done so, given the policy changes he was about to put in place. It wouldn’t have made sense to have a pro-Israel ambassador doing anti-Israel things.

    Like announcing a $25 million gift to the UN agency that runs schools in the Gaza Strip, called UNRWA. On the face of it, that sounds like a humanitarian exercise that any Canadian could support—though plenty of Canadian parents might ask why their schools can’t get more funding. But the UN schools in Gaza are overseen by Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza as a dictatorship. And the UN schools themselves are often run by Hamas terrorist agents, who allow Hamas to store weapons, including sophisticated rocket launchers, in the schools themselves—not only to hide them, but to ensure that Israel does not attack them, for fear of hitting the children and teachers. Hamas, in other words, uses UNRWA schools as human shields. That’s on top of UNRWA’s explicitly anti-Semitic curriculum, which teaches the destruction of the Jewish state as casually as it teaches math and spelling.

    In 2009, Canada scaled back its financial support for these schools in response to Hamas’s terrorism against Israel, and cut it off completely in 2010. Trudeau’s decision to come roaring back with $25 million was big news. But even bigger—or at least stranger—was Trudeau’s timing. He had been Prime Minister for a year, yet he chose the week after Donald Trump’s election to make the announcement. It was part of Trudeau’s anti-Trump whirlwind—visiting Cuba, funding Hamas schools, praising China. It was a busy week. Why would he do this, other than as a passive-aggressive reaction to the defeat of his U.S. mentor and ally, Hillary Clinton?


    Trump has specifically condemned U.S. foreign aid to Gaza calling it a “bad move” that will only wind up in the hands of Hamas terrorists. But then again, Trump doesn’t have senior party members like Alghabra, or Borys Wrzesnewskyj, who, when visiting Lebanon, actually said he “was ashamed to be a Canadian,” and claimed that Israel had committed “state terrorism.” And then there’s Denis Coderre, the Liberal mayor of Montreal who proudly marched in an anti-Israel parade where Hezbollah terrorist flags were flown. They’re hard to miss—they actually have a picture of a machine gun on them. But hey, a vote’s a vote.


    The Liberal Party’s historical position of ambivalence between Israel the democracy on the one hand, and Muslim dictatorships and terrorist groups on the other, worked well enough when the rest of the west’s leaders were morally ambivalent, too. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, no foreign leader visited the White House more frequently than Yasir Arafat, the terrorist leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Had Hillary Clinton won, Barack Obama’s anti-Israel stance would have continued, and Trudeau would be right in sync with “world opinion.” But that didn’t happen.

    There’s a new era now. In the dying days of his lame-duck term, Obama ended decades of precedent and refused to veto an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations Security Council. It was one last shot at Obama’s nemesis, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it immediately earned a rebuke from Trump, who condemned Obama and told Israel to “stay strong” until his inauguration. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, kept at it, giving an hour-long rambling speech condemning Israel as intransigent and “right wing.” It was the diplomatic equivalent of a tantrum, but it had an unintended result: Theresa May, the new U.K. Prime Minister, publicly condemned Kerry in rather undiplomatic language: “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.”


    Pages 34-40:

    Saudi Arabia isn’t a particularly important country to Canada; it exports some oil to our East Coast refineries and will continue to do so as long as environmental extremists prefer tanker ships full of OPEC conflict oil to pipelines full of Canadian ethical oil. And Saudi Arabia buys military equipment from Canada, including a $15 billion armoured vehicle deal, negotiated under the Conservatives and continued by the Liberals.

    America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia is much deeper: the U.S. has imported trillions of dollars worth of Saudi oil over the years and, until recently, the U.S. military guaranteed the dictatorship’s security with military bases on Saudi soil. American ships continue to patrol the dangerous waters of the Persian Gulf, acting as unpaid escorts for Saudi oil tankers.

    American obsequiousness towards Saudi Arabia is bi-partisan. There is a Saudi tradition of giving enormous donations to U.S. presidents of both parties when they retire. These are styled as gifts to their presidential libraries, but they’re really a delayed bribe. In the case of Hillary Clinton, the funds were paid in advance—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia “donated” $25 million to her family’s foundation in the run-up to her presidential campaign. No big deal—at $50/barrel, that’s about 12 hours worth of Saudi oil sales to the U.S., a small price to pay to get in good with the next president.

    That’s certainly what the Saudis thought—and they must have been excited that Clinton’s closest aide and advisor, Huma Abedin, grew up in Saudi Arabia, and even worked in the family business, editing their pro-Muslim Brotherhood journal.

    Like everyone else, the Saudis thought Clinton and Abedin had the election in the bag; Donald Trump was so obviously going to lose. So it was safe for the Saudi royal family to join in the social media shaming of Trump—it was just so fun and tempting. It was the opposite of politically risky: it would cement the Saudis in Clinton’s good books.

    So no one less than Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal—a billionaire businessman, the grandson of the first king of Saudi Arabia and half-nephew to all the kings since—chose to make a smart investment: he was going to shame Donald Trump on Twitter, to please the Clintons.

    “You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win,” he wrote, apropos of nothing. Nearly 20,000 people retweeted that outburst. But he wasn’t done yet. After Barack Obama made a pro-Muslim speech, Al-Waleed tweeted, “President Obama Your mosque speech shames Donald Trump comments against 1.4 billion Muslims. Thank You for Your wise leadership.”

    Back in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, when a billionaire prince insults you, you bow down and say “thank you,” if you say anything at all. They don’t have a lot of freedom of the press over there and they certainly don’t talk back to their “royalty.” It’s a bit different being a brash billionaire in New York, where being mouthy is part of the civic identity and no one is above criticism. And Donald Trump—well, in a city of trolls, he’s Yoda. “Dopey Prince Alwaleed Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected,” Trump tweeted back. And then he added a zinger: “Has your country, Saudi Arabia, taken ANY of the Syrian refugees? If not, why not?”

    It’s not just classic Trump—tit for tat, with massive retaliation. That’s about self-respect, and the respect that Trump demands from others. That’s a style—very different from Barack Obama’s very famous deep bow to the King of Saudi Arabia when they first met. Donald Trump bows to no one, as no American has done since their Revolutionary War.

    But it’s also a sign that the status quo—the cozy U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relationship since the 1940s—is over. And as Trump fires the starter pistol for an American oil and gas renaissance, the economic relationship is about to change, too.

    Whose side will Justin Trudeau be on?


    CHRISTIANS

    Donald Trump isn’t a particularly devout Christian. During the campaign, he gave a speech at a Christian university and quoted a Bible chapter, pronouncing it “two Corinthians,” as it was written, not “second Corinthians,” as it’s commonly spoken. That would be like pronouncing the “j” in “hallelujah”—people might think you’ve never actually heard the word spoken before. It would have been fodder for more liberal late-night TV comedians, but of course they had never been to church to hear it pronounced properly, either.

    Trump’s approach to Christianity is probably the same as Winston Churchill’s, who said he wasn’t a pillar of the church, but a buttress—he supported it, but from the outside. For Trump, going back years, that has meant standing up for religious Christians who are being persecuted throughout the Muslim world. “Another radical Islamic attack, this time in Pakistan, targeting Christian women & children. At least 67 dead, 400 injured. I alone can solve,” he tweeted in 2016, with characteristic showmanship. But the thing is, Christian victims of Islamic terrorism have had precious few public champions—even the Pope himself has been reluctant to publicly raise the subject.

    Trump has made it a focus of his. When Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor (who was a convert from Islam), was jailed by Iran for the crime of setting up churches, Trump made it his personal mission to have him released. For two years, Trump promoted his cause, meeting with the pastor’s wife, giving her publicity, demanding that Barack Obama include Abedini’s release in any negotiations with Iran. Trump’s main PR weapon was his Twitter account, where he raised Abedini’s issue no fewer than 14 times. It wasn’t just a passing fancy.

    Justin Trudeau takes the opposite approach. We are witnessing a genocide in the Middle East, committed by Muslim extremists and targeting not only Christians, but also other minorities, like the Yazidi people. Under Stephen Harper, and particularly Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, these persecuted minorities were given preferential immigration status. But Trudeau’s campaign strategy was the opposite of Harper’s. Harper already had a lock on the Christian vote—so Trudeau was going for the Muslims.

    At a campaign stop in Toronto just ten days before the 2015 election, Trudeau was asked if he’d continue Harper’s policy of favouring persecuted minorities. Trudeau’s reply was blunt: “absolutely not,” he said, calling Harper’s approach “disgusting.” He meant it.

    Not only did Trudeau withdraw Canada’s CF-18 military jets from the war against the Islamic State terrorists, he refused to even call the systematic murder of Christians by ISIS a genocide. Even John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, said that ISIS was committing genocide—against Yazidis, Christians and even against Shi’ite Muslims. Months later, Trudeau recanted and grudgingly agreed that the Islamic State was trying to wipe out Yazidis; but he specifically refused to acknowledge that Christians were being victimized—even though the Islamic State had released snuff movies of their terrorists slitting the throats of Christians in an elaborately staged ceremony, where the goal of ending Christianity was explicitly described.

    There is no symbolic statement Trudeau won’t read and no apology that he won’t freely give—expressing emotions is his thing. But he becomes suddenly hard-hearted when it’s Christians who need help. Denying that Christians are suffering from an Islamic genocide seems particularly stingy, but in the end, it’s only symbolic. In a shocking announcement in December 2016, Trudeau restricted private sponsorship of Middle Eastern refugees to 1,000 people, even as he continued to flood Canada with government-chosen refugees. On the face of it, that surprise announcement makes no sense: if Trudeau wants to bring in tens of thousands more refugees from war-torn Syria, why wouldn’t he allow private families and community groups to get involved—to raise money to cover the costs and, most importantly, to personally commit to helping to integrate those new arrivals once they land? If Trudeau wanted more Syrians, why wouldn’t he let Canadians help?

    The answer is shocking, but not surprising: it’s because privately sponsored Middle Eastern refugees are disproportionately Christian Arabs. Christians are not only being attacked by the Islamic State in their villages. Even if they make it to a United Nations refugee camp, they’re often attacked by other refugees who themselves are Islamic extremists, with the tacit approval of UN refugee camp staff who are overwhelmingly Muslim themselves.

    It’s those Christian refugees—refugees twice; once from the Islamic State and again from the UN system itself—that local community groups in Canada tend to support, especially churches. And it’s those groups that Trudeau is limiting. There will be tens of thousands of Syrian refugees who pour into Canada in 2017. But Trudeau will ensure that as few as possible are Christian. It’s almost like the old Liberal policy about Jewish refugees during the Second World War has been brought back, but this time it’s about Christians. For Trudeau, “none is too many.”


    Pages 48-60:

    . . . the greatest environmental activist in the Canadian government is Trudeau’s own principal secretary, his best friend since university, Gerald Butts.

    Butts is the radical environmentalist who was the driving force behind Ontario’s Green Energy Act, when he was a senior advisor to that province’s premier, Dalton McGuinty. That law saw massive subsidies for experimental wind and solar power, in a province that had some of the cheapest electricity in the world—coming from the century-old hydroelectric dams at Niagara Falls and the largest clean coal-fired power plant in North America. Butts has moved on to bigger things, but according to Ontario’s auditor general, the extra cost of shutting down economical fossil fuel-based energy and subsidizing eco-schemes was $37 billion by 2014, with another $133 billion to come over the next 15 years. That’s $170 billion—or more than $30,000 for every household in Ontario. It’s like another mortgage payment for families and it’s forced many Ontarians into energy poverty.

    Butts left Ontario politics to lead the extremist World Wildlife Fund-Canada, a foreign funded, anti-oil lobby group. While there, Butts popularized “Earth Hour,” where people were literally encouraged to turn off all electricity for an hour—to sit in the dark, in the cold—as some sort of renunciation of industrial society. It never caught on; Canada is just too cold and too large a place to live without energy. But that wasn’t ever really the goal: the goal was the demonization of energy, to redefine the use of electricity as some sort of sin, to condition people to think of it as an indulgence and prepare them for using less of it.

    While at the WWF, Butts developed an international network of fellow travellers. He cultivated billionaire donors from around the world, including the radical, San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, New York’s Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Butts was a charter member of the Rockefellers’ “Tarsands Campaign,” a multi-million dollar anti-oilsands pressure campaign that used propaganda and litigation to oppose Canadian oilsands production, pipelines and refineries.

    It was while Butts was at the WWF that he issued his famous statement that the problem with pipelines like Northern Gateway wasn’t any specific objection, such as the route of the pipeline, or any hypothetical risk of an oil spill. It was the fact that the pipeline had anything to do with oil at all: “the real alternative is not an alternative route. It’s an alternative economy,” he said.

    Just that? Just the total overhaul of the entire economy—from cars and trucks, to airplanes and ships, to agriculture and industry, to home furnaces and factories? Butts’ messianic zeal for destroying fossil fuels is one part centrally planned economics, one part alchemy-style fantasy science and one part lucrative lobbying. But it’s been a disaster for Ontario homeowners and businesses, which have been saddled with the equivalent of a second national debt because of it. And now Butts and Trudeau have the whole country in their gun-sights.

    Canada is blessed with the third-largest oil reserves in the world—172 billion barrells, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s information agency. Only Venezuela and Saudi Arabia have more. By comparison, the United States is ranked tenth, with just 40 billion barrels of proven reserves. And no other country in the top ten is a liberal democracy. When it comes to ethical oil—oil that isn’t controlled by OPEC dictatorships—Canada has half of the world’s reserves. And Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau and Catherine McKenna want to keep it in the ground.

    That’s Trudeau’s approach to energy: he’s stacked his government with environmental extremists, and he’s made carbon taxes and global warming his signature issues.

    Donald Trump? Put it this way: he nominated Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, to be his secretary of state. Trump says he chose Tillerson for his experience and his leadership qualities—his oil background will likely be useful mainly in that Exxon took Tillerson to countless countries around the world, where he made real political and business connections. But appointing Tillerson shows Trump’s complete disregard for the whims of political correctness. For Trudeau, it would be unthinkable to appoint an unabashed fossil fuels man as the country’s chief diplomat—it would be like hiring a tobacco executive.

    But Tillerson is just the beginning. Trump nominated former Texas governor Rick Perry as his energy secretary. Texas is well-known as an oil-producing state, but when Perry was elected governor in 2000, oil production had been on a long, steady decline, producing just over a million barrels per day. By the time Perry left office in 2015, that number had tripled. Texas now produced more oil each day than most OPEC countries. That’s the result of a free enterprise spirit and the proliferation of fracking technology. But it was Perry who kept the environmentalists and regulators at bay, unlike U.S. states such as New York, where fracking has been banned.

    Like Tillerson, Perry is comfortable with oil and gas; he knows more about it than the junk science hucksters in the media and he’s not likely to be wooed by noisy anti-oil lobbyists. But perhaps most obviously, Perry and Tillerson show Trump’s executive style: hiring proven leaders in their field. He’s not appointing oboe players or social justice lawyers to manage oil and gas policy.

    Trump nominated lawyer Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is the attorney general of Oklahoma who just happens to be suing the EPA in court. Pruitt’s lawsuit is technical: it alleges that the EPA’s anti-energy regulations violate the jurisdiction of states like Oklahoma. They’re a one-size-fits-all policy designed to attack the energy industry, particularly coal. Pruitt once compared the EPA’s approach to a “gun to the head.” The man who is suing the EPA will soon be running the EPA.

    It’s no small thing—the department employs 15,000 bureaucrats and has an $8 billion annual budget. It’ll still exist, and it’ll still be the world’s largest, best-funded and most aggressive environmental enforcement agency. It’ll just be focused on real pollution, not the fake, politicized pollution of carbon dioxide.

    Any one of those three key appointments would be a strong statement of Trump’s support for fossil fuels. But taken together, it’s unmistakable: America is going to mine coal, frack oil and gas, and build as many pipelines as investors want to. The economic miracle of America’s recent fossil fuel revolution—including in unexpected places like Pennsylvania’s Marcellus gas fields—is going to continue, and with it will come cheap, plentiful energy.

    That Pennsylvania energy boom is a major reason why Trump won the presidential election there, the first time a Republican has done so since 1988, and it’s a perfect example of the difference between Trump and Trudeau when it comes to energy.

    Pennsylvania has been part of the rust belt for a generation, as the state’s old industries—coal and steel—were squeezed between cheap foreign competitors and environmental regulators set on demonizing heavy industry.

    When Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he told a liberal San Francisco newspaper about his hatred for fossil fuels: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” And Obama wasn’t just targeting the coal miners and coal-fired power plants—he had it in for energy users, too. “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” he said. In 2016, Hillary Clinton doubled down in a televised debate, saying, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

    Obama and Clinton were using the same kind of language used by Gerald Butts and Catherine McKenna—the language of United Nations bureaucrats and environmental activists that gets knowing nods in university faculty lounges, where the phrases “coal miners” and “steel workers” are an insult, political shorthand for Archie Bunkers that any self-respecting metrosexual politician would demonize.

    Pennsylvania, with a football franchise called the Steelers, still voted for Obama—twice. But counties in the western part of the state, where fracking for natural gas started to sprout up, began trending Republican. Take Washington County, Pennsylvania. In the 2008 presidential election, the county split pretty much 50-50 between Republicans and Democrats. In 2012, as the fracking boom really took off, the county went Republican by a 13% margin. By 2016, Trump won by a whopping 25% margin, or 24,000 votes. Pennsylvania tipped into being a red state by just 65,000, so between Washington County and other nearby fracking regions, it was the energy industry that did it. Pennsylvanians took Obama and Clinton at their word when they threatened oil, gas, coal and steel—and they saw how the Democrats have been the party that wants to ban fracking, too. Like Texas, Pennsylvania has had an economic renaissance, with 200,000 jobs created in the industry and the abundance of cheap, clean natural gas has reduced energy prices for the average Pennsylvania family by $1,000/year. That’s what won the state for Trump: whatever skepticism the people of the Midwest might have had for the brash Manhattan billionaire and reality TV star, they knew he wasn’t going to shut down any factories or mines.

    Fracking is one of those subjects that divides people socially—like pick-up trucks, hunting or Walmart. Blue collar people—people who work in the outdoors, people who wear hard-hats—know fracking is just the name of a drilling process, no scarier than anything you’d find in an industrial factory. But even a car can be made to sound scary to someone who has never opened up their hood to see the mysterious internal combustion engine inside. Combustion—does that mean it might catch fire?

    But fracking was invented in the 1940s and has been done millions of times. Most natural gas in Canada is fracked. But the word itself sounds dangerous, even vulgar. An emotionally driven, low-information politician like Trudeau would obviously find that troubling.

    Natural resources are mainly a provincial matter in Canada, but Trudeau has made his position clear: he supports a ban on the industry. In 2014, he told reporters that, “in terms of fracking and shale gas, we need to make sure that we have all the information, that there is proper science done.” But “we” do have all the information—it’s the 70th anniversary of fracking. It’s far safer, for example, than coal mining, a hazardous occupation that continues to claim lives every year. It’s easy to believe that Trudeau doesn’t know anything about it, but do unemployed workers really need to wait until their Prime Minister does a Google search?

    Trudeau is never short of excuses for why energy projects can’t proceed. With fracking, he says it needs more studying. But even after an energy project goes through a staggeringly long, independent review by experts, Trudeau can find a new excuse. The Northern Gateway pipeline proposal was first submitted to the National Energy Board in 2009 and it was painstakingly reviewed for five full years, with tens of thousands of pages of technical documents and countless witnesses appearing before an independent panel. There was an entire parallel process reviewing the pipeline through the lens of Aboriginal issues. Thousands of Canadians (and even foreigners) submitted testimony. The experts agreed: it was an environmentally safe, economically necessary project. And still Trudeau vetoed it.

    So much for “the proper science.” What business would spend five years applying to build a project in Canada, jump through every regulatory hoop at great cost and meet all the legal, scientific and environmental demands made of it, if it knew that at the end of the process, a whimsical Prime Minister might wave his hand, like some unimpressed Roman emperor at the Colosseum, and simply kill the project dead?

    Trudeau doesn’t really want to study fracking. He wants to stop it—“studying” it is just an easier way to say so. Sometimes he doesn’t even pretend to study something. After Trump’s election, while Barack Obama was waiting for the moving vans to take his stuff out of the White House, Obama started going through his bucket list—things he couldn’t do as president, that he might as well try to do, even in some symbolic way, in his last few days in office. So Obama, alongside Trudeau, issued an order banning any future drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic. It was just another of the hundreds of unilateral executive orders made by Obama, a controversial approach to governing increasingly used by him over the years, as he lost control over Congress. Whether or not Obama in fact had the legal authority to suddenly kill all drilling in the Arctic will become a moot point the moment Trump becomes president. What was done by a presidential order can probably be undone by a presidential order. It wasn’t true lawmaking by Obama; that takes time and effort, compromise and consultation. It was a pitiful act of showboating—one last attempt to get attention by a vain president concerned about his legacy.

    But what’s Trudeau’s excuse? Why did Trudeau rent out Canada’s oil and gas policy just to help his friend Obama with a PR stunt? How is that consistent with Trudeau’s claims that he wants science-based policy?

    Trudeau didn’t even consult with the local communities, which were completely ambushed by the stunt. Obama was aiming one last rocket at Big Oil, but Trudeau hit northern Aboriginal communities, which rely on natural resource extraction for jobs. Canada’s three northern premiers were only told about the announcement hours before it was made. Even the Liberal premier of the Yukon couldn’t hold his tongue, denouncing not only the substance of the ban, but the way it was imposed on the north, as well.


    Merven Gruben, the former mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories, explained the price that would be paid for Trudeau’s PR gift to Obama: “We’re trying to be self-reliant and get off social assistance. You get all these environmentalists, and Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund are doing all this stuff and shutting this down, and then they take off. They’re not going to feed us.” Gruben knows that the world’s environmentalists simply use Aboriginals as cannon fodder—they don’t really care about their welfare. What Gruben may not have known is that the former president of World Wildlife Fund-Canada, Gerald Butts, is Trudeau’s best friend and principal advisor. That’s all the consulting Trudeau needed to do.


    Trump will repeal Obama’s stunt ban. Trudeau probably won’t. And that’s the thing: it’s almost a certainty that America is about to enter a golden era of energy production, whether it’s coal, conventional oil and gas, or fracked oil and gas. Trump’s energy policy platform from the election is strikingly simple: “Unleash America’s $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, plus hundreds of years in clean coal reserves.” And Trump takes dead aim at oil imports, too: “Become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.” And you can add to that Trump’s promise of a major corporate tax cut and his stated support for pipelines like Keystone XL.

    Trump’s energy policy is explicitly hostile to conflict oil from OPEC countries. But unless Canada harmonizes its energy approach to America’s, it’s a sure thing that we’ll get blindsided by Trump’s energy nationalism, too. Ten years ago, before American fracking cut the price of natural gas by two thirds, a series of specialized ports were built along the Atlantic coast, for receiving massive tankers of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from OPEC countries like Qatar. After the ports were built, the increased production from Pennsylvania and other fracking states cut the price so low that imported gas couldn’t compete. But those ports can be retooled to export natural gas and oil. And U.S. oil is already exported to Canada by rail—including oil fracked in North Dakota’s Bakken Formation.

    Right now, the United States is still the world’s largest consumer of oil, and even with the fracking boom, it still imports millions of barrels each day. But every year that Canada’s own oil industry is hobbled—whether it’s environmentalists like Butts blocking pipelines, or oil investments being scared off by carbon taxes—is another year that the U.S. industry can catch up and meet that demand on its own. One day Canada’s largest oil and gas customer will also become Canada’s largest oil and gas competitor, as American tankers start to ship oil and gas overseas, going to the markets that just won’t wait ten or twenty years for Canadian pipelines to be built.

    But it’s not just the oil and gas production itself that will move from Canada to the U.S. So will the jobs and the investments. It’s happening already. Calgary, Canada’s energy capital, has an unemployment rate of over 10%. In North Dakota, it’s 3%, and it’s not much higher in Texas. The world price for oil is the same; the difference is that companies in Alberta are scaling back their investment plans, or cancelling projects altogether, in response to anti-oil taxes and regulations that have been enacted already, and fears over what’s still to come.

    In December 2016, Norway’s mighty Statoil company left Alberta. But at the same time, Statoil is investing in oil projects in Iraq—a country that announced seven new major oil and gas investments that month alone. It’s incredible, but true: seven companies in one month decided that Iraq—home of the Islamic State terrorist group; a place where suicide bombers attack almost daily; neighbour of Iran, with its nuclear ambitions—is a less risky place to invest than Canada.

    It’s been months since Trump’s win, but Trudeau and Butts are determined to keep pressing ahead with their carbon taxes and their enthusiastic adherence to global warming treaties that now seem about as meaningful as a high school Model UN club. Just days after Trump’s election, Trudeau told reporters that, “one of the things people in Canada and indeed around the world understand is that there is tremendous economic disadvantage from not acting in the fight against climate change.”

    “Acting in the fight” is apparently a euphemism for Trudeau’s carbon tax. But no one—not even Trudeau—seriously suggests that Canada’s carbon tax on its own will make any difference at all to the world’s climate. Trudeau’s arguments are typically about showing goodwill and leading by example. But no other country in the world seems to be going along with Trudeau’s economic self-sabotage. No other country has a carbon tax. Australia briefly implemented one, and repealed it just as quickly. Even Barack Obama didn’t dare impose a carbon tax on the U.S., and Trump surely won’t. What is the point of Canada doing so now, given Trump’s clear plans to go in the opposite direction?

    Trudeau’s explanation got even stranger as it went on: “We know that putting a price on carbon pollution is a way to improve our response to economic challenges, to create good jobs going forward and to show leadership that quite frankly the entire world is looking for, along with the solutions that go with it.”

    But that just doesn’t make any sense: how does putting a tax on energy “improve our response” to anything, let alone “creating good jobs”? Who told him that—his oboe-playing energy minister, or his social justice activist environment minister?

    A few weeks later, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall had the temerity to point out the insanity of proceeding with a war on Canadian energy at the same time the U.S. unleashes its own industry. “Let’s not be naïve as Canadians. We need to be competitive with them,” he said.

    Trudeau didn’t seem to have a reply rooted in economics or business, saying, “I think all Canadians know Canadian climate policy will be set by Canadians not by whoever happens to be president of the United States.” That’s obviously true; but it doesn’t answer Wall’s point about keeping up with our largest customer and competitor. And hadn’t Trudeau just said that the real reason to have high carbon taxes was to somehow inspire other countries with our self-sacrifice? Wasn’t the whole global warming scheme an international UN treaty, just Trudeau’s favourite sort of thing anyways?

    But that’s what happens when the Prime Minister isn’t a builder, has never signed the front of a paycheque and has never balanced a budget—either his own, or anyone else’s. The United States is gearing up for the biggest energy boom since the time of John D. Rockefeller, and Canada wants to sit this one out. That’s quite a decision for an energy-exporting country. For close to fifteen years, the oilsands and its exports is what kept the Canadian economy going—it was a source of high-paying jobs and countless contracts to firms across the country, ranging from engineers, to lawyers, to airlines. And of course there were the taxes and equalization payments that made sure Canada was the last G7 country to be hit by the Great Recession, and the first one to get out of it.

    Letting all that idle in the name of a defunct UN treaty doesn’t seem to be in Canada’s national interest. The next election is less than three years away; it’s possible Trudeau can finesse things by borrowing enough money to keep appearances up. But that can only last so long.

    Gerald Butts’s green schemes managed the impossible: to turn Ontario, once the economic engine of Canada, into a have-not province, our very own rust belt. Turning Alberta into the same thing might feel good to anti-oil extremists. But who does everyone think is going to pay the bills? If only Trudeau had a businessman in cabinet to ask for advice.



    from Losing True North: Justin Trudeau’s Assault on Canadian Citizenship [2016] by Candice Malcolm; pages 33-43:

    It is important to identify the enemy we are fighting, and to correctly diagnose the enemy’s motive. Here is a column I wrote on this very subject in the Toronto Sun following the terrifying string of Islamic terrorist attacks around the world.

    Islamic terrorism is not our fault
    January 16, 2016

    A Canadian is among the dead in an Islamic terrorist attack on Thursday in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Daesh, also known as ISIS or the Islamic State, has taken responsibility, marking their second deadly foreign attack this week. Just two days earlier, a suicide bomber targeted tourists outside Istanbul’s famous Blue Mosque.

    The Jakarta attacks were described by those on the ground as a “Paris-style massacre,” with explosions and gunfire simultaneously rocking the Southeast Asian city. What a sad reminder of our time—that Paris, once known as the City of Light and Europe’s cultural capital, has now become synonymous with mass murder and senseless attacks against civilians going about their daily lives.

    These attacks show a departure in strategy by the so-called Islamic State. Daesh was once only concerned with a ground war in Iraq and Syria, and building their ‘caliphate,’ or Islamic kingdom governed by fundamentalist Sunni teachings. But they are now launching more and more attacks outside the Middle East.

    The assaults against Istanbul and Jakarta also contradict a common narrative—that Daesh’s terrorist attacks are mere retaliation for western sins.

    A popular opinion on the political left is that Islamic State terrorists only attack those who stand in their way. Those who don’t participate in the coalition bombing campaign, such as Costa Rica and Sweden, some argue, do not get attacked.

    A Russian airliner was brought down over Sinai last year because of Putin’s involvement in Iraq and Syria. Paris was attacked because of France’s role in the coalition airstrikes.

    And the San Bernardino attack was a result of America’s long involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

    Some Canadians are susceptible to this narrative. A recent poll found that 10 per cent of Canadians who oppose our involvement in the bombing mission cite “fear of backlash” as the reason.

    If we interfere in Daesh’s rampage over there, the thinking goes, they will come over here and attack us.

    The problem with this line of thinking is that it seeks to rationalize, and even justify, the acts of radicals and extremists. It also simply doesn’t stand up to the facts.

    Islamic terrorism is not a grievance-based conflict. It is not driven by inequality or exclusion. Like the 9/11 hijackers, Daesh terrorists typically come from middle class backgrounds and educated families.

    These radical Islamists are fighting an ideological war. They kill innocent victims because they want to overthrow our society and impose their radical Islamic values onto others. They want us all living under their Sharia.

    Turkey and Indonesia—both considered among the most secular and moderate of the world’s Muslim countries—have not provoked Daesh.

    The opposite is true. Russia recently accused Turkey of being a secret terrorist ally and propping up Daesh by buying their oil.

    Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim country, has not offered military support or joined the U.S.-led bombing coalition in Iraq and Syria. Instead, they’ve focused on fostering peace and tolerance at home, and avoided getting drawn into the conflicts of the Middle East.

    Neither is standing in Daesh’s way. But just like France and the United States, these countries are still targeted.

    Islamic terrorists are provoking a global war against non-believers, including against moderate Muslims. If you reject and refuse to cower to their archaic and oppressive laws, you are their enemy.

    The sooner we come to terms with these truths, and stop pretending this is all our fault, the better equipped we will be to fight and win this war.


    Winning Hearts (Not Minds)

    Justin Trudeau’s humanitarian impulses make him a hero among the world’s progressive elites. It makes us feel good to help others, and Trudeau has mastered the art of feel-good politics.

    In a campaign to win over the hearts and minds of Canadians, Trudeau managed to win over our hearts with his compassion, at the expense of our minds.

    Despite his having the unanimous endorsement of adoring elites, many thinking Canadians have yet to endorse Trudeau’s refugee policy. That’s because Trudeau has failed to acknowledge any of the valid safety concerns and security implications.

    When it comes to our safety and security, Trudeau and his team seem to have other priorities: Justin Trudeau would rather go to a photoshoot at the airport with newly arriving Syrians than have a serious discussion about national security.

    The Trudeau Liberals refuse to deal with these threats responsibly, because doing so would be counter to their political objectives.

    Acknowledging a national security threat would be an implicit acceptance of all the risks to Canada that come along with Trudeau’s decision to rush in tens of thousands of refugees without proper planning, without thorough security checks and without planning for their integration into our society.

    Besides, Trudeau’s vacuous philosophy of “sunny ways” does not lend itself to such deep and serious thinking and planning.

    Trudeau’s approach to politics—style over substance—does not easily align with a serious risk assessment of counter-terrorism, asymmetrical warfare, and migration policy in the 21st century.

    This is the man, after all, who said Stephen Harper only joined the U.S.-led bombing coalition against Daesh because he wanted to “whip out our CF-18s to show them how big they are.”

    This is the man who once suggested that Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, after invading Ukraine—a sovereign state—because Putin was mad the Russian men’s hockey team lost at the 2014 Sochi Olympics.

    This is the man who, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, reminded his CBC audience of the importance of reflecting on the “root causes” of terrorism.

    Just read, word for word, what Justin Trudeau said in response to the simple question, after the Boston terrorist attacks, “what would you do?” if he were the Canadian prime minister.


    “First thing, um, you offer support and sympathy and condolences and, you know, can we send down, you know, EMTs (emergency medical teams) or, I mean, as we contributed after 9/11? I mean, is there any material immediate support we have, we can offer?

    And then at the same time, you know, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes. Now we don’t know now whether it was, you know, terrorism or a single crazy or, you know, a domestic issue or a foreign issue, I mean, all of those questions.

    But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded, completely at war with innocents, at war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?

    I mean, yes, we need to make sure that we’re promoting security and we’re, you know, keeping our borders safe and, you know, monitoring the kinds of, you know, violent subgroups that happen around.

    But we also have to monitor and encourage people to not point fingers at each other and lay blame for personal ills or societal ills on a specific group, whether it be the West or the government or Bostonians or whatever it is, because it’s that idea of dividing humans against ourselves, of pointing out that they’re not like us and, you know, in order to achieve our political goals, we can kill innocents here. That is something that no society in the world that is healthy, regardless of ideology, will accept. And yet, it is something that is happening increasingly across this world.”


    This is the raw, unedited Justin Trudeau. And this is how he actually thinks and talks … that is, when he isn’t repeating canned lines or reading from a teleprompter.

    In the wake of a deadly terrorist attack on a major U.S. city, Justin Trudeau diverged into a rambling, incoherent, high school-level diatribe about tolerance and trying to understand terrorists.

    Sure, Trudeau admits we should, you know, promote security and, you know, keep our borders safe, and stuff … but he fails to mention the victims, their families or the immense suffering these terrorists inflicted upon innocent civilians.

    And of course, he doesn’t address how a radical Islamist ideology drives these terrorists.

    Trudeau can barely muster the courage to condemn this violence, instead criticizing those “dividing humans against ourselves”—blaming both radical Islamists and western democracies at the same time.

    If Trudeau had been Canada’s prime minister back then, his top priority would not be to find and stop the enemy, but instead to rationalize violence and think about the root causes. Rather than ordering the police and the security forces to track down terrorists, Trudeau would have wanted us to meditate about the ways we were at fault and the ways that western society was to blame for those who feel “completely excluded.”

    With this track record, should we really be surprised that now-Prime Minister Trudeau wants to throw our doors open to the masses of migrants streaming out of the Middle East?

    Without any real concern that some of these migrants may be radicalized terrorists?

    Trudeau thinks that so long as he’s in charge—as long as he’s there at the airport to offer a big hug to all newcomers—that the terrorists will put down their weapons, become law-abiding Canadians, discover a new appreciation for freedom and democracy and, of course, join the Liberal Party of Canada.

    Trudeau doesn’t take the threat of radical Islamic terrorism seriously, because he seriously thinks that his Liberal multiculturalism is the antidote to violent jihad.


    IMMEDIATE SECURITY THREATS

    In the real world, there are serious challenges that limit the Canadian government’s ability to properly vet and screen Syrian refugees.

    The U.S. Senate committee on Homeland Security conducted hearings in January 2016, and heard testimony from leading Canadian and American national security scholars and officials on Trudeau’s expedited refugee settlement plan and its implications for U.S. national security.

    While Canada’s Immigration Minister John McCallum brushed off the hearing as “a Tea Party operation,”* the bi-partisan committee openly discussed their concerns with Trudeau’s capacity to keep our shared continent safe.

    * “Canada’s Syria refugee plan raises concerns of ‘shortcuts,’ homeland security committee hears,” CBC News. Feb. 3, 2016. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...cuts-1.3431698

    Analysts on both sides of the border are demanding proof, not just assurances, that the Trudeau government is not taking shortcuts or sacrificing security to achieve its political objectives.

    McCallum thinks that by dismissing our American allies and neighbours as a bunch of right-wing fear-mongers that he can shrug off the unavoidable risks associated with resettling refugees from a war zone, in the middle of an active war.

    The inconvenient truth is that Canada has never had the ability, and does not have the ability today, to properly screen and vet 25,000 Syrians in just four months, much less screen another 25,000 refugees in the 10 months to follow.

    FBI director James Comey said that U.S. intelligence services would have trouble screening 10,000 Syrians in one year.

    Meanwhile, despite being one-tenth the size of the United States—and without the resources of the FBI, CIA, NSA, U.S. Army Intelligence, or the Department of Homeland Security—Canada is forging ahead with a plan to admit five times that many refugees in just 14 months.

    Trudeau’s sunny optimism aside, it is impossible for the government to ensure, on that timetable, that no jihadist agents will enter Canada, disguised as refugees.

    This isn’t just a stab in the dark. Daesh itself has boasted, repeatedly, that it is sending its militants into the West amidst the chaos and confusion of the refugee crisis.

    With millions of people flooding out of the Middle East, Daesh has given interviews and explained its strategy of planting agents in with the flow of refugees. “Just wait,” said a Daesh militant to a BuzzFeed reporter in early 2015. They are working with smugglers to embed fighters into the tide of refugees. “They are going like refugees,” he said, “we will send them on the next ship.” [“ISIS Operative: This is how we send Jihadis to Europe,” BuzzFeed News. Jan. 29, 2015. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mikegiglio/i...ope#.wx2n6K5Ed ]

    Plain-clothed terrorists, after all, look strikingly similar to bona fide Syrian refugees. Rob Wainwright, chief of the European Union’s police agency Europol, recently confirmed these fears by stating his agency knows of at least 5,000 Daesh jihadists who have snuck into Europe using the refugee route. This is the terrifying consequence of Europe’s mindless approach to refugee policy.

    Europe’s leaders, through an open border policy and a hands-off approach to integration, have put their own citizens on the front line of a hot war.

    Under Stephen Harper, and successive immigration ministers Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander, Canada took a more cautious approach.

    But just because we have historically had a better security apparatus and integration strategy than Europe, it does not make us immune to jihadi violence. The same tactics can and do apply to refugees coming to North America.

    Consider that Canada accepts refugees through the United Nation High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). We select refugees from the UNHCR camps and communities in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

    Lebanese cabinet minister Elias Bou Saab has warned that Daesh has infiltrated UNHCR camps in Lebanon. He suggests that approximately two per cent of the 1.1 million Syrian refugees camped in Lebanon have connections to Daesh. That means that upwards of 20,000 UNHCR refugees may be Islamic State jihadists in disguise.

    There are terrorists amid the refugees; even refugees who have been preapproved by the United Nations and hand-picked for resettlement. This fact is undeniable. That we want to help ease the suffering around the world does not change this fact. And as conservative journalist Ben Shapiro likes to say, the facts don’t care about our feelings.

    Likewise, public opinion polling indicates that up to 20 per cent of the Syrian population believes that Daesh has a positive influence in their country.* Furthermore, according to the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, 13 per cent of Syrians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey have a positive opinion of Daesh. [“13 Percent of Syrian Refugees Support ISIS: Poll,” https://clarionproject.org/13-percen...ort-isis-poll/ ]

    * “One in five Syrians say Islamic State is a good thing, poll says,” Sept. 15, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-poll-says/

    It turns out that some Syrians like extreme terrorist groups. Even refugees are products of their upbringing and of their society; in this case, a society ripe with ethnic hatreds, sectarian violence and centuries of a cruel and barbaric tribal warfare.

    One in five Syrians directly supports Daesh. Presumably, many more have positive perceptions of other terrorist groups.

    Many likely agree with radical elements of Daesh’s religion and ideology. There is a reason that Syria is caught up in a long and bloody civil war; Syria’s civil society is marred with ancient blood feuds and intolerance toward others. Many possess an ideology that is incompatible with the West.

    Just because one side in the conflict is being murdered and chased away doesn’t make them liberal-minded. In the case of Syria, the refugees are coming from the same villages, the same madrassas and sometimes the same families as the terrorists.

    Coming from the same family as a terrorist obviously does not make you guilty by association. It does, however, require that Canadian officials be extremely vigilant in screening and vetting your application to come to Canada.

    Herein lies the reality of the struggle of asymmetrical warfare. The enemy is no longer easily recognizable. Wars are no longer declared, fought, won or lost and ended with formal surrenders. There are no longer presentations of swords, negotiations of reparations and treaties or ends of war marked with dancing and celebrations.

    In the 21st century, wars are ongoing, our enemies live among us and civilians are drafted to the front lines. Innocent people, unarmed women and children, are targeted first and foremost. They are the softest targets.

    Many Canadians will point to our long and proud history of resettling refugees—loyalists coming up from the United States after their revolutionary war, 250,000 Europeans following the Second World War, the Vietnamese boat people in the early 1980s and so on—to show that Canada has always welcomed newcomers with open arms.

    This is absolutely true, with one major distinction.

    Canada historically has opened its doors after a war has ended. The war against Daesh and radical Islam is still being fought.

    Most Canadians believe that something must be done to assist the Syrian refugees—that we should not wait until the war is over to offer our help.

    But the way the Trudeau government is selecting refuges from Syria to resettle into Canada should raise some eyebrows.

    Canada’s refugee policy does not seek to help those most at risk in Syria. Rather, we select the refugees at the front of a queue organized by a very flawed agency—the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.

    The vast majority of Syrian refugees registering with the UNHCR and pouring into refugee camps are Sunni Muslims who are being targeted by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad—a Shi’ite Muslim from the Ba’ath Party. Daesh, built out of the rubble of this civil war in Syria, attracts the most radical members of this Sunni population.

    Most Sunni Muslims are not terrorists. The majority reject Daesh and its violence. But some do have links to Daesh. Others believe in the same fundamentalist doctrine of Islam.

    These Sunni Muslims dominate the UNHCR camps and are often hostile to outsiders.

    Meanwhile, Daesh is committing genocide against the Yazidi people—an ancient Kurdish tribe with mixed Christian beliefs—as well as Assyrian Christians and other ethnic minorities in the region.

    Daesh is intentionally targeting and slaughtering ethnic minorities, and forcing these ancient Christian communities to desperately flee for safety. In the Sunni-dominated UNHCR camps, these persecuted minorities have little support and nowhere to go.

    First-hand accounts of the situation in Syria tell us that Christian refugees avoid the UN camps out of fear of intimidation: discrimination from local Syrian UN employees and abuse from other refugees.

    In fact, most Christians in Iraq and Syria do not even bother registering with the UN. Of course, the UN denies any wrongdoing, but the numbers show a different story.

    Of the millions of Syrian refugees registered with UNHCR camps in neighbouring Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, only 1 per cent are Christians.

    In 2015, Christians made up more than 10 per cent of Syria’s population. In a typical war zone, you would expect refugee camps to be disproportionately filled with persecuted ethnic and religious minorities. Not the other way around.

    Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British non-profit organization that works with Syrian refugees, publicly spoke out against the UN, saying that local Syrian Christians are scared by “the strict Muslim environment dominating the camps.”

    Under the UN’s watch, Christians are being bullied for not wearing Muslim clothing, harassed for the way they pray, pressured by those trying to convert them and intimidated by those forcing them to abide by a strict interpretation of Islam.

    The UN is failing to secure its camps and keep refugees safe. And yet, Canada’s official refugee resettlement policy is to only select refugees referred by the UNHCR.

    We know that Daesh is committing genocide against Christian communities in the Middle East. Both the UN and the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry have conceded this sad reality. Yet Trudeau’s focus remains on helping only those who have registered with the United Nations.

    Rather than helping the most in need, rather than sponsor the refugees we know are not members of Daesh—the persecuted minorities such as the Yazidis and Assyrians—Trudeau’s policy focuses squarely on resettling refugees chosen from amongst the same Sunni community whose more militant members are terrorizing Christians in the region.

    Under the Harper government, and particularly thanks to the efforts of Jason Kenney, Canada developed a policy to seek out the most at-risk and threatened religious minorities for resettlement into Canada. We made a concerted effort to provide assistance to the most vulnerable people and bring the most persecuted minorities to safety in Canada. But everything changed when Trudeau was elected.

    Trudeau has said outright, on the 2015 election campaign trail, that he does not agree with sponsoring persecuted ethnic and religious minority groups to be refugees in Canada.


    Pages 50-6:

    Consider one case where officials put Canadian security ahead of compassion for a refugee applicant with terrorist associations. The case involved a gay Palestinian Christian convert who fled the West Bank to come to Canada as a teenager. Canadian officials deemed that he was inadmissible because he had been trained as a child to become an agent in the terrorist group Hamas.

    The boy’s family was Hamas royalty; his grandfather helped found the group and his uncles were all active terrorists in Israel.

    Despite his grooming, however, the boy rejected his family’s wishes, ran away from home and eventually moved to Canada where he asked for asylum. But Canada’s immigration officials said no. They rejected his refugee application and tried to deport this young man because of his prior training, terrorist affiliations and inconsistencies in his story over the years. They put Canada’s national security ahead of everything else.

    I believed the young man should be permitted asylum. When CNN reported the story, it contacted his radical Palestinian parents, who threatened to kill their son if he ever returned. Canada has a policy that it does not deport someone to an unsafe place where their life would be threatened, and thus, after a long ordeal, the young man was permitted to stay in Canada.


    SELECTION AND INTEGRATION

    Our security officials do the best work they can under the circumstances, but they are limited in their capacity. Aside from the risk that Daesh terrorists will thwart our immigration system, infiltrate Canada and carry out a deadly attack, there is an equally menacing threat that comes alongside mass migration from Syria and the Middle East.

    Just as some migrants may try to bring their war with them, others carry tribal feuds, ancient hatreds and deep illiberalism to their new home.

    This is an ever-present but rarely mentioned threat that comes from resettling populations from regions prone to conflict and war. The risk of Canada’s refugee resettlement program may persist long after the crisis in Syria fades away.

    In just 14 months, Canada will have resettled up to 50,000 Syrian refugees. To use the Lebanese cabinet minister’s math, if two per cent of these refugees are Daesh agents, that could mean that 1,000 terrorists will have managed to sneak into Canada. But to use the British public opinion data from the summer of 2015, if 20 per cent of Syria’s population supports Daesh, that also means that 10,000 of the 50,000 refugees may be radicalized or possess a hateful and intolerant worldview.

    A good migration policy has two fundamental pillars: first, you select the best people for resettlement. Then, you properly welcome and integrate these people into your society.

    Both components are equally important—selection and integration. So far, Trudeau is getting them both wrong.

    When it comes to selection, even if Canada’s immigration and security officials could guarantee with certainty that no terrorist will enter Canada disguised as a Syrian refugee, they can’t guarantee the refugees do not possess an illiberal and hateful worldview.

    Our immigration officials interview potential refugees—through a translator—but they do not ask questions about a person’s ideology or worldview. A few basic questions about living in a western pluralist society would go a long way toward stopping a potential tide of intolerance from flowing into Canada.

    Here are five basic questions that should be asked of all newcomers, before they are accepted and admitted into Canada:

    1. Do you think men and women should have equal rights?
    2. Do you believe in religious freedom for everyone?
    3. Gay marriage is legal in Canada. Are you okay with that?
    4. Your neighbour may be African or Chinese. Are you okay with that? Your child may go to school, sit together and play with a Jewish child. Are you okay with that?
    5. Will you uphold Canada’s laws and respect Canadian values?

    Sure, a newcomer may lie about their beliefs in order to gain entry into Canada, but at least they will know what to expect when they arrive here.

    Canadian pluralism should be presented to newcomers before they are invited to migrate here. If newcomers cannot or will not accept our values, they should not be allowed to board their flight to Pearson International.

    Canadians are fortunate that, as a society, we have developed a peaceful and pluralistic culture. We have, by and large, pushed bigotry and hatred into the dark, marginal caves and recesses of our society where few dare to venture. It would be a great shame to start importing these views via mass migration.

    The Nobel laureate Milton Friedman taught that open border policies are incompatible with the welfare state. If a nation offers a rich smorgasbord of government handouts to all citizens, and also allows open borders, people from all over the world will arrive to take advantage without contributing to the host society, its economy or its public finances.

    To combat the free-rider problem, a welfare-state society would soon be forced to draw borders around its benefits and handouts, and create distinctions and various classes of citizenship—which is precisely what Liberal politicians like Justin Trudeau claim to stand against.

    But this is what we see in Europe, where open-border policies have led to several generations of migrants living in Switzerland, Sweden and Germany, without ever receiving citizenship. Second-class citizenship for immigrants in these nations is a fact of life.

    We are only as strong as our population is educated. If we throw open our doors to hateful and intolerant people, in a generation or two, Canada will regress into a backward country.

    A transformed populace could vote away our freedoms and elect tyrants like those who rule the lands these refugees have fled. If we import the bitter attitudes and tribal feuds that led to civil war in Syria, we may well eventually import their war as well.

    That is why we must select peace-loving people who want to leave war behind. People who embrace Canada’s culture and values.

    This doesn’t mean we should exclude Muslims. It does, however, mean that we must exclude some Muslims.












    https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...ship-1.1535116

    LII V.jpg

    Justin Trudeau.jpg

    Justin Trudeau basic-bro-trudeau.jpg

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by HERO; 12-30-2018 at 05:28 PM.

  20. #20
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,547
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Maybe IEE


  21. #21
    Haikus VenusRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    EII 4w5 Sx/So
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESE?

    Based off of very superficial impressions, he gives off that Si 'caregiver' vibes (it's possible I could be confusing this with Fe though, my second thought for his type would be Beta NF). Energy also seems calm and collected instead of Se which tends to spill forth and push through in the environment. Fe because the charisma he has seems quite Fe to me, as opposed to Te, which would simply be more straightforward.
    Last edited by VenusRose; 12-26-2018 at 07:57 PM.

  22. #22
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    220
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous View Post
    ESE?

    Based off of very superficial impressions, he gives off that Si 'caregiver' vibes (it's possible I could be confusing this with Fe though, my second thought for his type would be Beta NF). Energy also seems clam and collected instead of Se which tends to spill forth and push through in the environment. Fe because the charisma he has seems quite Fe to me, as opposed to Te, which would simply be more straightforward.
    I’ve come to the same conclusion.

    His consistent push for diversity and inclusion also seems philosophicaly a democratic quadra habit. *We are stronger the more diverse we become. * *Everyone should be given fair and equal opportunities * *Be kind to each other and respect differences*

    He comes across as diplomatic, non-committal to any one value besides fairness, never answers with a straight non-scripted answer (kind of a ‘ah shucks’ responses), something Ive observed many times over with ESEs. Strong control of Fe.

    Any thoughts on his wife?

  23. #23
    Formerly Chuck's Sneeds Feed and Seed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    286
    Mentioned
    32 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Don't know shit about VI but his face reminds me of this girl I know and I'm pretty sure she's SEE.

    I AM THE KING OF ALABAMA


  24. #24
    Marep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sx/Sp E9w1
    Posts
    240
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EIE-Fe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •