From Canada Day To Diversity Day

Posted on by

From Canada Day To Diversity Day

by Marc Archambault

Canada Day Parade in Montreal 2018: “It is Mambo time!”
I went to the Canada Day parade from Fort Street to Dominion Square, Montreal, where there were thousands of pieces of free birthday cake dished out by a crew of mostly Latinos and Caribbeans with security team of Haitians. The clients evident were Chinese, Filipino, Muslims with hijabs and American tourists with cameras.

The parade was a quarter or more Chinese complete with dragons, representing communist order and ethnic regions. The rest was from dozens of countries around the world each waving their flag and proudly sporting their costumes, music and dances. Here are some videos by Chinese/Asians proudly showcasing their Culture.

The image below is taken from the “The Official Website of Jimmy Chan” where he basically brags (in 2016) about how “Canada Day” is now “Chinese Day”.
 Chinese Day Parade, July 1, 2016, Montreal
There were even Turks waving the Turkish flag wearing Ottoman fezzes, pretending to be Shriners..?! There were Iranians sporting their flag with lion of imperial Persian empire. There was one small authentic French Canadian band with Kiwanis and real quad-4-wheeler Shriners giving Canadian participation of less than 10% of the show. I did notice most of the Montreal police were Canadian, many stayed in their car, police cadets were on some street corners.
Indians were really proud to showcase their own culture rather than Canada’s:
The parade should have been called United Nations Day or Mass Migration Day — nothing to do with Canada.
Here are some video clips of the Montreal parade this year 2018 taken by foreigners implicitly claiming they now own Canada and that July 1st is their Day, for the benefit of their race and culture against “racist” Canadians.
                                                 Part 3, check Part 1 one and 2
Thirty years ago when the Canada Day parade was for Canadians it would have had school, college bands representing education and military groups; army, air, marine bands representing security; hospital/ health care facilities; church; larger iconic national businesses such as hydro, manufacturing, telecommunications, transport: rail, automotive, aerospace; mining/ smelting, banking; athletic/ sports; culture such as Cirque du soleil, Montreal symphony, country and folk; indigenous peoples. The true essence of national pride.
Today Canada has none of these to celebrate. Only third world multiculturalism.

For the founding European culture: pioneers, nation builders and defenders of the “true north strong and free” — it must be a sad day.

The government vision and plan for the rapid and dramatic transformation of Canada from an English/ French bi-cultural country to a multicultural post nation has taken place. It’s a gamble Canada will loose. It already feels now to be a country lost.

What I see is a bunch of foreign powers vying for control in the vacuum of what was once a country.

Here are some videos of past Canada Day parades before the imposition of Diversity. These videos are now extremely rare in the internet. It looks like the diversity commissars are deleting them from the historical record.

Reality is Now Racist

Posted on by

Reality is Now Racist

 

We live in a strange time.

The truth has become relative.

Reality is now something to deny and criticize.

Or, more accurately, reality is now racist, according to some people.

Earlier this week, the Conservative Party of Canada tweeted this image:

cpc-twitter.jpg

The image is of an actual illegal border crosser walking into Canada, placed overtop of Justin Trudeau’s infamous #WelcomeToCanada tweet.

The usual suspects on Twitter accused this ad of being “racist” because it included a picture of a border crosser. If you look closely, the man is African. (We didn’t even notice at first).

Like the overwhelming majority of border crossers, the man depicted — tastefully, without showing his face — is African.

This makes sense, since the top two source countries of asylum seekers entering Canada are Nigeria and Haiti.

What would these critics — including well-known and respected journalists — have preferred to see? That the skin colour of a migrant gets altered, so as not to offend politically correct sensibilities?

The allegation that this post is somehow racist is bewildering enough on its own.

But what happened next makes it worse.

After the slightest bit of pressure, the Conservative Party of Canada caved and took down the ad — tacitly admitting there was something wrong with it.

Seriously.

So now I ask: why do identity politics, political correctness, and the hyper-sensitive and out-of-touch liberal media get to dictate the Conservative playbook?

Re-take Control of the Border: Build A Wall or Declare the Entire Border A Port of Entry & Turn Back the Illegals

Posted on by

Re-take Control of the Border: Build A Wall or Declare the Entire Border A Port of Entry & Turn Back the Illegals

Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820

Website: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

100_0001

To All Members of Parliament:

No picture has so incensed Canadians or demonstrated the utter impotence, or worse,  of our gatekeepers than pictures of Mounties acting as glorified bellhops, carrying posh looking suitcases for illegals crossing over the New York State-Quebec border, having avoided the normal check point. Instead of pushing these illegals back or blocking their way, the RCMP were assisting them to enter Canada.  Some thought this was a little like finding out that police had driven the getaway car after a bank holdup.

The present government has lost control of our border with the U.S. In 2017, 18,149 people crossed illegally into Canada most from New York State to Quebec at Roxham Road and a much smaller number across the Manitoba border from North Dakota. As soon as these illegals are accepted as “refugee” claimants, they qualify for welfare, housing, medical and legal aid and schooling. Homeless shelters in Montreal and Toronto are full.

The searing injustice is, despite their first act is Canada is to disrespect our laws by the illegal entry, they immediately impose severe financial burdens on Canadian taxpayers. Wher else can you break into someone’s home and be guaranteed to be fed and sheltered and medicated?

The Safe Third Country Agreement was a reasonable attempt to handle some of the unreasonable burdens imposed on Canada by the disastrous 1985 Singh Decision which granted people showing up  and claiming “refugee” status all the rights of Canadians, except the right to vote. All they needed to do was touch Canadian soil and say were the magic words “I’m a refugee” and they were guaranteed a hearing and an appeal and welfare, legal aid, government housing, medicare and dental care better than many Canadian-born welfare recipients receive! The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S. required a person wishing to make a refugee claim in the first country (Canada or the U.S.) he entered. He could not shop around. A person from the U.S. presenting at a “port of entry” cannot make a refugee claim and, if he wished to do so, would be turned back.

The spirit of the agreement is clear. Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel makes a perfectly reasonable point — declare the entire border a “port of entry.” Second best would be to build a fence or wall along the area in Quebec where the illegals are crossing and back it up with troops or police to push intruders back. Hungary has effectively secured its southern border that way.

The duty of an army is to secure its country’s borders. Rather than meddling in a civil war in Mali, our army should be protecting the border.

Finally, to free ourselves from the ivory tower restrictions of the Singh Decision, Parliament should use the “notwithstanding” clause and stipulate that ALL would-be immigrants or refugees should apply and be vetted abroad.

As long as the Canadian government fails to take border security seriously, why should foreign opportunists? Large numbers of Nigerians are flying to the U.S. on tourist visas and making their way to the Canadian  border to sneak avoid the border crossing station, sneak across the border and claim “refugee” status. It little matters that Nigeria is a democratic country. The current wait time for the backlog is 30 months. That’s 30 months living off the Canadian taxpayer. Not a bad deal!

The time to act is now!

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

Director

Douglas Todd: Trudeau government goes silent on Canada’s 50,000 Syrian refugees

Posted on by

Douglas Todd: Trudeau government goes silent on Canada’s 50,000 Syrian refugees

How have things gone for Syrian refugees in Canada in the almost two years since the lone departmental report in December 2016? No one really knows

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s election promise to welcome ­25,000 refugees from Syria was aimed at showing voters his compassion. The followup photo opportunities he arranged in 2015 with smiling Syrian refugees, such as doctors, drew international headlines.

Once in power, Trudeau’s Liberals switched the name of the Immigration Department to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, to highlight their concern for those forced to leave chaotic home countries, especially Syria.

Given the grand gestures, you would be forgiven for believing the federal Liberals and the department responsible for refugees would be tracking the fate of the tens of the thousands of struggling Syrians that Canada has recently taken in.

But, after more than two weeks of inquiries by Postmedia, a media relations officer acknowledged the department has not produced any report in almost two years on the about 50,000 Syrian refugees now in Canada.

Canada’s auditor general is among the unamused. The Liberals had a plan to monitor whether the mostly Arabic-speaking refugees were learning English or French, working, receiving social assistance and going to school, but the government has failed to follow through, said auditor general Michael Ferguson. It is Ottawa’s responsibility, he said, to make sure Syrians refugees “integrate into Canadian society.”

The federal Liberals are not following the more transparent approach of Sweden and Germany, which took in the largest numbers of the 2.6 million mostly-Syrian asylum seekers who arrived in Europe in 2015 and 2016. The governments of those countries are providing extensive data on refugee outcomes, in addition to launching waves of job-training programs.

Related

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada did, to be fair, release a one-year-after report on Syrian refugees in December, 2016. It was moderately helpful, since it showed half the privately sponsored refugees had jobs in Canada. But employment fell to 10 per cent among the larger cohort of “government-assisted” refugees, who are typically less educated and often illiterate.

The early Ottawa report also touched on how, after refugees’ first year in Canada, they are cut off from direct stipends from the federal government.

How have things gone for Syrian refugees in Canada in the almost two years since that lone departmental report? No one really knows. That’s unlike in Sweden and Germany, where refugee programs are increasingly thorny electoral issues.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau greets refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war, at Pearson airport. Nathan Denette / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Sweden has discovered, for instance, that, despite creating hundreds of “fast-track” job-training programs for recent refugees, only one third of those who completed a two-year full-time integration program in 2017 were working or studying three months later.

Refugees in Germany have done a bit better, but three-quarters are working in jobs needing few skills and with poor prospects. Unemployment is exceedingly high.

How is integration going in Canada?

When Postmedia sought answers from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a media official provided the website of another public-relations official at another department, who recommended contacting Canadian academics, who either didn’t respond, had nothing to say or suggested contacting yet other academics. It’s known as “getting the runaround.” It may eventually bear fruit, but who knows?

One non-governmental source in B.C., however, did have some helpful informal insights about what’s happening in this  province, the destination of about one in 10 Syrian refugees.

Maggie Hosgood, who has helped coordinate more than 100 B.C. United Church congregations that have privately sponsored 65 Syrian families, said most refugees “are doing all right,” with good outcomes for children, especially girls, who attend public schools.

But most refugees, many of whom end up in Burnaby, are struggling to afford housing in hyper-costly Metro Vancouver. In addition, Hosgood estimated roughly one in four Syrian adults are on welfare.

Unlike the highly educated refugees who Trudeau mingles with for photo opportunities, most Syrian refugees have jobs that require few skills, such as cleaners or jobs in shops where they don’t have to speak English.

Many Syrians are struggling to learn English in the classroom, Hosgood said, regretting that the former federal Conservative government did away with a program in which refugees could, at the same time, learn both English or French and a trade.

There are positive exceptions. Some male refugees are bakers, candy makers or mechanics. One carpenter, Hosgood said, has developed a thriving business, learning English while he works. “He’s got plans.”

As German and Swedish government officials are discovering, Hosgood also confirmed many Middle Eastern “husbands don’t want their wives to work.” They think, she said, the woman should stay at home and the husband should provide for the family.

“The Canada Child Benefit has been a godsend for most families,” Hosgood said, echoing a study suggesting most Syrian parents come with three to four children, sometimes eight or 10. “Big families would be doing very well.”

Syrian mothers and fathers with four children can get about $50,000 a year in various taxpayer-funded social-service benefits. The Canada Child Benefit provides $6,400 a year for each child under six and $5,400 for children between six and 17, while provincial welfare programs can provide $7,000 to $12,000 a year to each adult.

Hosgood said many of the grateful Syrian refugees, who know how to stretch their money,  are now starting to sponsor relatives to come to Canada.

Integrating refugees into the well-off West requires playing the long game. European countries have found that refugees’ full entry into the taxpaying workforce often doesn’t approach the national average for a couple of decades.

Instead of posturing in photo opportunities, Canada’s governing politicians need to follow Europe and track what is happening on the difficult ground. It’s impossible to create effective integration programs if no one knows what’s working and what’s not.

dtodd@postmedia.com

twitter.com/douglastodd

MORE RELATED: Immigrants, refugees and the poor: Re-thinking compassion

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: ,

Phony Argument to Sway Christians

Posted on by

CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT

Category: Uncategorized

FUNDING STATE PROPAGANDA AND THE IDEOLOGY OF WHITE GENOCIDE

Posted on by


FUNDING STATE PROPAGANDA AND THE IDEOLOGY OF WHITE GENOCIDE

News item:  Isqra Khalid announces that 23 million dollars of our money will go to support “diverse communities” to promote “anti-racism” education and fight “systemic” racism and “religious discrimination.”    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33U9ZNMM-4o

unnamedunnamed

Bosom buddies. Justin Trudeau and Isqra Khalid.

 Who is channeling whom?

So  Isqra Khalid, the Liberal MP who put forward Motion 103  https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/01/canada-moving-toward-criminalizing-islamophobia , proudly announced the dispensation of  $23 million or money to anointed grievance groups. Repeat. $23 million. Chump change, right? Wrong.

Let’s put that $23 million in context.

As many of us will recall, when candidate Justin Trudeau promised that a Liberal government under his leadership would spend $13 billion of borrowed money on infrastructure projects, he was reminded of the huge scale of our federal debt, and asked if instead he should not endeavour to balance the budget. He dismissed those concerns with one pat answer. “Budgets balance themselves”.  Really? What a relief. I guess I shouldn’t worry about my negative cash flow or my growing line of credit debt. It will all work out in the end. Interest rates will remain at historic lows and my income steady. Sure my debt levels are worrisome but, as Mr. Micawber in said in Dickens’  David Copperfield, “something will turn up.”  Especially in Canada where, as Justin said in his victory speech, “Anything is possible.”

Let’s get real.

Trudeau needs to know that it is Canadian taxpayers —ordinary working Canadians and small business entrepreneurs——who service the debt.  The debt does not service itself. Even if the government’s optimistic projections prove true, these servicing charges will increase 35% by 2022, or $33 billion. This is $9 billion more than taxpayers already pay. Trudeau assures us that the size of the debt doesn’t matter. It the size of the debt in relation to the size of the economy that we should focus on. The “debt to GDP ratio”. So relax and go back to sleep.

But this contention is premised on continuing economic growth, fairly robust growth at that, considering the circumstances. Trudeau’s flip answer assumes that the economy will grow as he expects it will. Trudeau has not factored in the spectre of rising interest rates (which are creeping up) and the very real possibility  of losing American customers thanks to the collapse or unfavourable renegotiation of NAFTA.  We have a 2 trillion dollar economy, but American customers are responsible for 20% of our business ($400 billion). Moreover, as interest rates on American government bonds go up, Canada must raise its interest rates to match it, or the bond buyers who pay for our debt won’t buy our bonds. It’s called market competition, or shopping around. Simple stuff.

One question though.  Who buys are bonds? Not the poor. Not the working poor. Not ordinary working Canadians or small businessmen.  For the most part, it is the relatively WEALTHY who buy bonds. In fact, big banks and financiers encourage their clients to buy bonds, and are very happy that governments like Trudeau’s continue to borrow and issue T-bills as if they are going out of style. Quite ironic, when you think about.  A Leftist government grows the debt, which is serviced by working and small business class Canadians so that rich people can reap the dividends from government treasury bills.  In effect, the champions of wealth and income redistribution pursue a fiscal policy that amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from the people they claim to represent to the people they vow to heavily tax. Go figure.

Social democrats who claim to be the advocates of the downtrodden should think about that.  Runaway deficit financing is a rich man’s dream and a working man’s long term nightmare.  Wanton over-spending now will result in savage cut-backs down the line, with reduced incomes, higher classroom sizes, longer surgical wait lists, high government fees, higher public transportation fares—-you name it. One wonders how many socialist governments have to fall before that lesson sinks in. How many Leftist administrations, elected on the promise of more social services and public works projects, have to bite the bullet of austerity after the hangover of irresponsible spending wears off? It’s 2018 Justin, but you still cling to an obsolete 80 year old failed paradigm that usually fails politicians like you choose to ignore the other half of the Keynesian formula.  Yes, it might be advisable to borrow and spend your way out of a recession, but in good times, a government needs to CUT back spending to pay off the debt. Somehow, that seldom happens. I wonder why. Could it be anything to do with the fact you need the revenue to pay back friends, reward apparatchiks and expand an already bloated bureaucracy? After all, the burgeoning immigration and multi-cult propaganda industry needs its grants.

The Liberals (NDP and Greens) believe in a government-directed economy.  They believe that government is more competent to spend our money than we taxpayers are. So instead of leaving us with enough disposable income to hire the local mechanic to fix our car, or the local gutter cleaner to clean our gutters, or the local electrician to wire our house, for example, a Leftist government takes the money we would otherwise use to pay local businesses to do these things or provide services that we actually value and instead gives it to political and cultural groups who spread their ideology and reward them at the ballot box. (Consider the mutual back scratching arrangement that Liberal governments have had with the CBC).  While businesses in a market economy make money by making products or providing services that we want, business (and organizations) in a government-directed economy  they get their money by lobbying politicians.  And since businesses go where the money is, more and more businesses are hiring and funding lobbyists. Just what our economy needs, right?   Jusk ask Bombardier.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”.  By that measure then, there is nothing more morally repugnant than the Trudeau government.  Thanks to extortion, ordinary taxpayers are forced to pay for the propagation of other people’s ideologies. In Canada we are forced to pay for CBC Pravda, Indoctrination University, the inquisitors of Canada’s kangaroo courts, political parties, partisan environmental groups,  ethno-cultural organizations, pro-immigration lobbyists dozens and dozens of “anti-racism” and pro ‘diversity’ projects, and grievance mongers who feed off the white guilt inculcated by propagandists in the guise of high school and college teachers….for an endless parade of parasites.  Together they constitute a vastly expensive stratum of uselessness that weighs down on hard working Canadians who struggle to pay the rent or service their mortgage and simply put food on the table.

The most galling thing about this caste system is that the beneficiaries fancy themselves as moral paragons, as warriors in a noble cause, the cause of treason. The agents of an ongoing agenda of downgrading the contribution of “old stock” Canadians and their ancestors to this once great nation, and characterizing their legacy as one of racism, oppression and ‘privilege’.  When you think about it, these hypocrites owe their station in life not to what they know, but who they know in Ottawa or countless other epicentres of cronyism across the land.  The city councils and provincial governments who use our money to float the careers and hobbies of people we wouldn’t hire to mow our lawn. Their only job skill is their ability to sing the government’s tune. You know the lyrics. “Diversity is our strength.” Say that a thousand times and you might believe it.  That is, if you are blind man with the IQ of a grasshopper.

Our country is in trouble. Never mind  the government debt to GDP ratio. The household income to debt ratio is worse. Put together with the federal debt—which all of us are responsible for —our debt represents 300% of our entire economy. The worst in OECD. Worse than Greece!  Then along comes Isqra Khalid and her $23 million of political funding.  Think about $23 million could have done. Think about how many extra beds it would provide for a seniors care facility? Think about how many visual imaging machines it could provide for your local hospital. Think about how what ordinary taxpayers could do with even a fraction of that $23 million. Think of how far they could make it go.  It almost makes you cry.

I am crying all right, but my tears are tears of rage.

Tim Murray
July 5, 2018

Category: Uncategorized

Refugees–If you take them, they will come and keep on coming

Posted on by
Refugees–If you take them, they will come and keep on coming
Attention Fellow Canadian 
The author of this bulletin is James Bissett, one of Canada’s top experts on immigration and refugee policy. He is a former Canadian ambassador and was head of the entire Canadian Immigration Service from 1985 -1990. He strongly opposes Trudeau’s open border proclamation and he also strongly opposes immigration lawyers’ and other immigration lobby demands that Canada must abandon its safe Third Country Agreement with the US. He offers advice on what Canada has to do to stop the illegal migrant inflow at the Quebec–New York border.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By James Bissett
If you take them they will come. This reality explains the uneasy truth about mass migratory and refugee movements. What might be seen at first as a humanitarian gesture to help resolve a refugee crisis often mutates into an uncontrolled and unmanageable migratory flow of people seeking a better life- and if you keep taking them they will keep coming.
This is not a new revelation and it explains why the United States after initially welcoming thousands of Cubans and Haitians as refugees in the 1970s and 1980s realized the flow had to be stopped and did so by interdicting ships carrying the refugees and sending them back to their homelands. For a number of years now Australia, after receiving large numbers of asylum seekers has essentially stopped the flow by intercepting ships and preventing their cargo from landing.

In 1986, there were more refugees leaving Vietnam than there had been in the immediate years following the fall of Saigon in 1975. The large numbers had created an international crisis and serious backlash in the countries of first asylum. In 1989, under the auspices of the United Nations, it was decided to stop the flow and send back those who were unable to meet the UN Convention definition of “refugee.” This repatriation programme effectively ended the movement.
The practice of resettling refugees in countries enjoying a high standard of living has proven to lead to more arrivals, to encourage human trafficking, and to result in unacceptable high costs and potential hostility towards the newcomers. It was for these reasons that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has accepted that “third country resettlement” is not the preferred solution to a refugee crisis.
Prevention, containment, and local resettlement are the favoured options.
There are other reasons why providing protection in the first country of asylum is the first option and why it is assumed that refugees fleeing persecution should seek protection in the first “safe” country entered. Offering protection and care in a neighbouring country makes it easier and faster for the refugees to return home when stability is returned to their own country. However, the primary reason is that the costs are dramatically lower than resettlement in a more distant country.
It takes from $25,000 – $40,000 to settle a refugee in a third country, whereas the costs of protecting and caring for a refugee in a camp are a fraction of that amount. Accepting 10,000 government refugees will cost Canada close to $300 million dollars. Obviously, this amount would be much more effectively used by donating it to the UNHCR to help that agency care for the 60 million people under its jurisdiction – our contribution so far this year (2017) to the UNHCR’s annual budget has been a minimal 64 million dollars.
We should also be aware that the vast majority of the people now flowing into Europe had already found protection in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt. Their onward journey to reach Germany or Sweden is not to find protection from persecution or violence but to enjoy a better standard of living. This is not to condemn these unfortunate victims of a brutal civil war but to be aware that a mass migration of this kind can quickly get out of control and create chaos and instability in the receiving countries.
The current flow of many thousands of refugees from the violence in the Middle East and from hunger and famine in Africa is surely only the beginning of a massive population shift from the poor countries of the world to the more prosperous nations of the west. In the long term it may prove to be impossible to stop this population transformation but a quick end must be found to end the current crisis and this cannot be done allowing people to cross international borders with impunity and demand to have passage to their country of choice.
Territorial integrity and the sovereignty of borders have been the twin principles of international law since the treaty of Westphalia in 1648. They are enshrined in the United Nations Charter and have formed the very framework of our global security system. The current mass influx of close to a million migrants into the European Union so far this year poses a direct threat to these principles and, if not curtailed and managed, threatens the very basis of western civilization.
Although this is an immediate problem for Europe, it needs an international effort under the auspices of the UNHCR to resolve it. The staff and budget of the UNHCR must be urgently supplemented. The countries of first asylum must be provided with the financial means of protecting and caring for refugees and humanitarian cases. People arriving by sea should be intercepted and safely escorted back to where they came from. Refugees who are in a safe country should be prevented from attempting to cross borders without proper documentation. These measures have proven successful in the past in dealing with refugee crises and in managing mass migrations of people. However, the first step is to stop the flow – because if you take them they will come and if you keep taking them they will keep coming.

 

New Fears Over Chinese Espionage Grip Washington

Posted on by
New Fears Over Chinese Espionage Grip Washington
by Morgan Chalfant – June 24, 2018

Fresh concerns over Chinese espionage are gripping Washington as lawmakers fear Beijing is gaining sensitive details on U.S. technologies.Lawmakers are scrutinizing the Pentagon over its efforts to keep military secrets safe from hackers, after Chinese actors allegedly breached a Navy contractor’s computer and collected data on submarine technology. U.S. officials stepped up warnings that China regularly steals American intellectual property and technology, through cyberattacks and other means — allegations Beijing denies.

The issue took center stage at a congressional hearing Thursday, as lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee pressed Trump administration officials on their efforts to protect U.S. military assets from Chinese spies. The Washington Post reported earlier this month that hackers linked to the Chinese government had penetrated computers used by a contractor working for the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in January and February. The hackers stole over 600 gigabytes of data, including information on a secret submarine technology project.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, did not explicitly reference the incident, but noted a recent briefing on a cyber breach had left him concerned about the military’s protections against foreign-aligned hackers.

“It was shocking how disorganized, unprepared and quite frankly utterly clueless the branch of the military was that had been breached,” Smith said. “Even in this day and age, we haven’t figured out how to put together a cyber policy to protect our assets, in particular with our defense contractors we work with who store our data but not with adequate protection.”

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), a member of the committee, confirmed to The Hill after the hearing that lawmakers had been briefed on the incident, but declined to offer further details.

“The Armed Services Committee is engaged and we are meeting with [the Defense Department] to understand who was breached and what was taken,” Langevin said. He agreed that the government is not adequately addressing threats to the military supply chain.

“I’m going to be pressing to make sure that we rework and redo our contracting authority to require stronger cybersecurity protections,” he added.

The concerns over Chinese espionage are not limited to military technology.

Last Tuesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) asked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to investigate research partnerships between Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei and U.S.-based universities. They suggested the partnerships could provide Beijing an avenue for stealing technologies being developed in America, posing a threat to national security. Huawei declined to comment on the letter Friday.

Officials and lawmakers are trying to address the scope of the problem. At the hearing Thursday, officials described a multifaceted effort by China to acquire information on U.S. technologies, particularly those developed for the government and military. It includes the pursuit of research partnerships with academic institutions and government laboratories, in addition to cyber espionage campaigns that target defense contractors and IT and communications providers, they said.

Kari Bingen, the principal deputy under secretary of Defense for intelligence, told lawmakers that the Pentagon is implementing a “more comprehensive approach” to protecting sensitive information held by defense contractors, as well as unclassified but still valuable information held by the American defense industrial base. Bingen declined to go into specific details in the public, unclassified hearing. But she did say the federal government needs to take a more aggressive approach to protecting sensitive information and deterring would-be hackers.

“There is a deep concern with [the] cyber data exfiltration issue, and it’s one that the Chinese in particular are targeting,” Bingen said.

“We are playing defense right now, particularly in the cyber domain, and we need to be playing offense.”

Security professionals observed a considerable decline in Chinese cyber espionage targeting U.S. businesses after a 2015 agreement between then-President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to stop supporting cyber-enabled intellectual property theft against the other country’s businesses.However, some cyber experts say that Chinese actors continued to target defense contractors to gain intelligence on military technology.

New research from cybersecurity firm Symantec suggests that Chinese cyber activity against U.S. targets could be picking up overall. The company revealed Tuesday that a previously unidentified Chinese cyber espionage group had breached satellite communications, telecommunications firms and geospatial imaging, as well as a defense contractor in the United States.

The company believes the hacks took place between November 2017 and early May of this year. They represent the first instance of the hacking group targeting U.S. organizations since 2015. Symantec has been tracking the group internally since 2013.

“This was an aggressive campaign,” said Jon DiMaggio, senior threat intelligence analyst at Symantec who led the research.

The hackers focused on the operational systems of the targets, suggesting they were interested in gaining intelligence on how the satellite systems work or monitoring or changing their data flow. DiMaggio also said the hackers could have sought access to the systems to potentially disrupt them if they wanted.

“Whether this is going to signify that there is this increase in those China-U.S. attacks, time will have to tell,” said DiMaggio. “But it was unexpected.”

The Symantec research, however, did not specifically link that activity to the Chinese government.

Asked about the research Thursday by an Armed Services lawmaker, Michael Griffin, undersecretary for research and engineering at the Pentagon, declined to comment but said such activity would concern him.

“That is a topic that I really do not want to discuss in a public setting. Broadly, your comment taken on its face is very concerning. It’s for me very concerning to have read about it in the papers,” Griffin told Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.).

“I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss this stuff in a more closed setting,” he added.

Espionage fears are also at play in the controversy over Chinese telecom firm ZTE, which is pitting the administration against Congress. Many argue that Huawei, ZTE and other Chinese firms could provide a means for Beijing to conduct spying on U.S. targets. The Commerce Department in April banned U.S. companies from doing business with ZTE, citing allegations the company violated Iran sanctions laws this year. The ban almost led to the company closing its doors before President Trump, locked in tense trade negotiations with China, backed a deal to keep ZTE alive. But lawmakers, who see ZTE as a national security threat, are seeking to block the administration from allowing the company to resume business with U.S. firms. On Monday, the Senate passed an annual defense policy bill that includes language keeping the penalties on ZTE in place. The administration, though, has vowed to try and remove that language from the final bill.

Trump and the Invasion of the West

Posted on by

Trump and the Invasion of the West

“It is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart,” says former first lady Laura Bush of the Trump administration policy of “zero tolerance,” under which the children of illegal migrants are being detained apart from their parents.

“Disgraceful,” adds Dr. Franklin Graham.

“We need to be … a country that governs with a heart,” says first lady Melania Trump. “No one likes this policy,” says White House aide Kellyanne Conway, even “the president wants this to end.”

And so it shall — given the universal denunciations and photos of sobbing children being pulled from parents. Yet striking down the policy will leave America’s immigration crisis still unresolved.

Consider. Since 2016, some 110,000 children have entered the U.S. illegally and been released, along with 200,000 Central American families caught sneaking across the border.Nixonu2019s White Hous… Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price:$10.02 Buy New $9.93 (as of 01:35 EDT – Details)

Reflecting its frustration, the White House press office declared:

“We can’t deport them, we can’t separate them, we can’t detain them, we can’t prosecute them. What (the Democrats) want is a radical open-border policy that lets everyone out into the interior of this country with virtually no documentation whatsoever.”

Where many Americans see illegal intruders, Democrats see future voters.

And with 11,000 kids of illegal immigrants in custody and 250 more arriving every day, we could have 30,000 in custody by summer’s end.

The existential question, however, thus remains: How does the West, America included, stop the flood tide of migrants before it alters forever the political and demographic character of our nations and our civilization?

The U.S. Hispanic population, already estimated at nearly 60 million, is predicted to exceed 100 million by 2050, just 32 years away.

And Europe’s southern border is more imperiled than ours.

A week ago, the new populist regime in Rome refused to allow a boat full of migrants from Libya to land in Sicily. Malta also turned them away. After a voyage of almost a week and 1,000 miles, 630 migrants were landed in Valencia, Spain.Suicide of a Superpowe… Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price:$2.79 Buy New $8.13 (as of 03:15 EDT – Details)

Why did Italy reject them? Under EU law, migrants apply for asylum in the country where they first enter Europe. This burdens Italy and Greece where the asylum-seekers have been arriving for years.

Of the landing in Spain, Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini, a leader of the populist League party, chortled:

“I thank the Spanish government. I hope they take in the other 66,629 refugees (inside Italy). We will not be offended if the French follow the Spanish, the Portuguese and Maltese, we will be the happiest people on earth.”

If the migrants boats of the Med are redirected to Spanish ports, one suspects that the Spanish people will soon become as unwelcoming as many other peoples in Europe.

And Trump is not backing down. Monday he tweeted:

“The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Big mistake made all over Europe in allowing millions of people in who have so strongly and violently changed their culture!”

Whatever European leaders may think of him, many Europeans are moving in Trump’s direction, toward more restrictions on immigration.

The Greatest Comeback:… Patrick J. Buchanan Best Price:$5.52 Buy New $9.00 (as of 09:40 EDT – Details)In Germany, a political crisis is percolating. The Bavarian-based CSU, longtime coalition partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, is now talking divorce if Merkel does not toughen German policy.

Merkel has never fully recovered from the nationalist backlash against the million migrants she allowed in from Syria’s civil war. A New Year’s Eve rampage in Cologne, featuring wilding attacks on German girls by Arabs and Muslims, cost her dearly.

Among the reasons Bavarians are pulling away from Berlin is that, being in the south of Germany, Bavaria is a primary point of entry.

Virtually every one of the populist parties of Europe, especially of the right, have arisen to contest or to seize power by riding the issue of mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.

Yet the progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of liberal democracy.

We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

If Europe does not act, its future is predictable.

The population of Africa, right across the Med, is anticipated to climb to 2.5 billion by midcentury. And by 2100, Africa will be home half of all the people of the planet.

If but a tiny fraction of the African and Middle Eastern population decides to cross the Mediterranean to occupy the emptying towns and villages of an aging and dying continent, who and what will stop them?

Trump may be on the wrong side politically and emotionally of this issue of separating migrant kids from their parents.

But on the mega-issue — the Third World invasion of the West — he is riding the great wave of the future, if the West is to have a future.

The Best of Patrick J. Buchanan

Justin Trudeau is no Friend of Canada

Posted on by

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2018

Justin Trudeau is no Friend of Canada

 
I, as long time readers will be well aware, am a Canadian and a patriot of my country. Many Canadians seem to think that being a patriotic Canadian means being anti-American but I like to quote one of my two favourite Prime Ministers, (1) John G. Diefenbaker, who said “I am not anti-American, I am very pro-Canadian.” Of course, for a Tory like myself, being a Canadian patriot does involve a firm belief in my country’s own institutions and traditions rather than those of the United States. I believe in parliamentary government, reigned over by a king or queen, rather than republican government presided over by an elected president, and have argued this point at length. I have a very low view of sedition, rebellion, and revolution, which history demonstrates almost always produce a worse and more oppressive government, and so cannot share the common American belief, born out of their founding mythos, that these are the well-spring of liberty. I say rather, with the long-neglected Canadian conservative John Farthing, that “freedom wears a crown” and believe the tradition of loyalty upon which our country was founded and which led us to stand by Britain from the beginning of the Second World War to be a virtuous tradition worthy of honour. I trust that you can see the difference between this attitude and the juvenile, left-wing, anti-Americanism that the Liberals, NDP and Greens seem to think is part and parcel of Canadian patriotism.

I see, therefore, no patriotic reason to come the the defence of Her Majesty’s First Minister in Ottawa simply because he has been on the receiving end of a barrage of insults from the American President and members of his administration. Frankly, he deserved them. While I have no problem with a Canadian Prime Minister standing up for our country – it is his job, after all – Justin Trudeau, in his choice of time and place to say that Canada “will not be pushed around” displayed a stupidity far in excess of that for which his reputation is already well-established. When the G7 summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, commenced, a trade war was already impending between our two countries. Somehow, the leaders had managed to come to an agreement of sorts and an official communication of this had been sent out before Donald Trump took off to Singapore to negotiate what will hopefully be the end of hostilities on the Korean peninsula with Kim Jong-un. It was then that Trudeau called a press conference and uttered his now infamous words, which, given at that particular moment, could only be understood as gloating at having won one over on Trump. This earned him, as was undoubtedly his intention, the admiration of anti-American leftists around the world, but, as with so much other of his grandstanding, it is ordinary Canadians who will have to pay the price in the upcoming trade war which our country simply cannot win. Trudeau has shown his contempt for the teachings of the Holy Scriptures on many occasions but it would have served him well to have read over Luke 14:28-32 before he shot his mouth off and applied its literal meaning even if he continued to ignore the intended spiritual application.

Not only was it the wrong time and place for Trudeau to boast about standing up for Canadians, he was the wrong person to do so. He might have thought that he was simply imitating Trump’s Mr. Tough Guy nationalist rhetoric but there is a huge difference. Trump, for as long as he has been in politics has taken his stand on a hard core, America First, Buchananite, populist-nationalist platform. Trudeau, on the other hand, has worked hard to establish the reputation of being the same kind of left-liberal, cosmopolitan, globalist citizen-of-the-world that his father was. The idea that he would ever put the interests of Canadians ahead of whatever inane brain rot is the latest fashion among liberal intellectuals (2) is laughable.

Consider his track record. His biggest concern in picking the Ministers to fill his Cabinet was not their competency but that the levels of estrogen and testosterone be equal. Feminist ideology and the adoration of the multitudes of young people who have been brainwashed by universities into swallowing that mindless tripe, took precedence for him over the interest of ordinary Canadians in the Ministries of Her Majesty’s government being competently administered. One of the very first things he did in office was to take Canadian taxpayers’ dollars, use it to bring large numbers of the economic migrants invading Europe under the pretence of being refugees from the Syrian Civil War over here, and then take more of the Canadian taxpayers’ dollars to bribe Canadian employers into giving the “refugees” jobs instead of Canadians. He then bullied anyone who objected to this by accusing them of racism. (3)

Trudeau’s attitude towards the Canadian energy industry can only be described as one of arrogant hostility and while this might earn him brownie points with the green gang it does not benefit the average Canadian and works against the interests of all the Canadians employed by the energy industry directly but also those who depend upon the jobs available in an economy that itself is heavily dependent upon affordable energy to survive. He has shut down most of the pipeline projects that would have benefited Canadians across the Dominion, constantly sided with anti-pipeline agitators that are funded by foreign energy interests, and, rather than use force to protect the rights of the petroleum company that had jumped through all sorts of ridiculous loops to obtain legal permission to expand an existing pipeline, opted to buy out the pipeline at the taxpayers’ expence. He has imposed a carbon tax upon the country, driving the cost of gas through the roof, for absolutely no good reason, (4) hurting the most those who were already just barely getting by on the wages from jobs that require vehicular transportation to get to. He has imposed massive debt on future generations of Canadian taxpayers with his runaway defecits, which include large amounts of spending on global projects that do not benefit Canadians, and has increased the cost of living, while reducing the ability of most Canadians to pay through tax increases.

If Canadians have only recently begun to feel the impact of Trudeau’s green agenda on their pocketbooks, we have so far been shielded from the full impact of his anti-business agenda on Canadian employment by the relatively free trade that has existed between our country and the United States, thus allowing us to benefit from economic boom the United States has seen since the election of Donald Trump. That will no longer be the case if Trudeau has gotten us into an unwinnable trade war. Note that I say this as an economic patriot not as a doctrinaire free trader. The basic idea of economic patriotism is that of doing what is best for the economic interests of your country. (5) It is not in your country’s best interests to piss off your largest trading partner, especially if that partner has much more economic clout than you do. Neither, however, is it in your country’s economic best interests to sign free trade agreements that make your country that vulnerable in the first place. Trudeau’s foolish words today would not have the potential to harm us today if Brian Mulroney had not betrayed his party’s historical platform (6) thirty years ago and signed the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement that later evolved into NAFTA and which plunged us into three decades of addictive dependency on free trade.

What will eventually come out of all of this only time can tell. What we do know is that we have no reason whatsoever to be proud of our lousy Prime Minister who serious needs to learn to keep his hubristic tongue in his mouth.

(1) The other, of course, being Sir John A. MacDonald.

(2) When I use the word “intellectuals” I have in mind the way Paul Johnson uses the word in his book of that title (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1988) and the following quotation from the late, great, Tom Wolfe: “We must be careful to make a distinction between the intellectual and the person of intellectual achievement. The two are very, very different animals. There are people of intellectual achievement who increase the sum of human knowledge, the powers of human insight, and analysis. And then there are the intellectuals. An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out only in others. Starting in the early twentieth century, for the first time an ordinary storyteller, a novelist, a short story writer, a poet, a playwright, in certain cases a composer, an artist, or even an opera singer could achieve a tremendous eminence by becoming morally indignant about some public issue. It required no intellectual effort whatsoever. Suddenly he was elevated to a plane from which he could look down upon ordinary people. Conversely — this fascinates me — conversely, if you are merely a brilliant scholar, merely someone who has added immeasurably to the sum of human knowledge and the powers of human insight, that does not qualify you for the eminence of being an intellectual.”

(3) Berkeley professor and former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich maintains that blaming economic stress on immigrants is the sign of an ascending tyrant. This is nonsense. A much more reliable observer, Aristotle, noted almost two and a half millennia ago that a tyrant, unlike a true king, prefers and trusts foreigners over his own people. Politika, Book V.

(4) A carbon tax is an idiotic notion dreamed up in hell by the devil himself. A) CO2 is not a pollutant – it is naturally exhaled by all human and animal life and the more of it in the atmosphere, the better for plant life. B) Over 90% of the Greenhouse Effect is produced by water vapour and CO2 is only a fraction of the remainder. C) The Greenhouse Effect is a good thing not a bad thing – without it the earth would be a lifeless ball of ice. D) Climate has been constantly changing throughout all of history and until all of the causes of this are understood and taken into account – and climate science is not even remotely close to starting to have done this – there can be no way of telling how much recent climate change has been caused by human factors. E) The modern warming trend that is blamed on the burning of fossil fuels actually began with the end of the Little Ice Age decades before the industrial boom and included a forty-year period of cooling after World War II which coincided in time with a large rise in CO2 emissions due to accelerating industrialism. F) The “proof” for the theories of climate-change alarmists is not evidence from real world observations but the simulations of computer models. G) The global warming/climate change scare has been a deliberate fraud since day one. The day on which it was presented to a US Senate Subcommittee in 1988 was consciously chosen to be the statistically hottest day in summer, the summaries of the UN’s IPCC’s reports on climate change were written by environmental bureaucrats and released prior to the science reports which were then redacted to fit the summaries. H) “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period” – Michael Crichton. I) Scientists funded by governments and international agencies like the UN are just as likely to provide the results they are paid to provide as scientists funded by petroleum companies.

(5) Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s theories of absolute and comparative advantage ought to be considered, when determining what is best for your country, but they ought not to be treated as outweighing all other considerations.

(6) The Conservative government of Canada’s first Prime Minister, Sir John A. MacDonald, introduced its “National Policy” to the public in 1876 (they had been discussing it internally since the 1860s), campaigned on it in 1878, and put it in practice in 1879. The policy was similar to that adopted by the new Republican Party in the United States a decade earlier and that which would be adopted by the government of the newly unified Germany – protecting domestic manufacturers with tariffs and the use of government revenue on internal infrastructure improvements, which in Canada’s case meant the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The policy worked quite well in developing the manufacturing base of all three countries, by contrast with the free trade practice introduced in England, the birthplace of industrialism, at the behest of the Manchester manufacturers. While it was agricultural tariffs (the Corn Laws) the latter sought to repeal, their practice of free trade in this same period that America and Germany were practicing economic nationalism led to their falling behind the USA in industrial development. The Canadian Conservative “National Policy” was something of a last-option-available measure initially, but it worked for Canada for almost a century, and it became a fixed plank in the Conservative platform until Mulroney removed it. The old Conservatives believed it to be necessary, not only for the protection of Canada’s own industries and resources, but for her political and cultural protection as well (at least the cultural protection of English Canada, the Victorian-era British culture of which did not have the built-in protection against Americanization of a language barrier like French Canada). The Liberals were the party that wanted free trade and Americanization. Today’s Grits are not likely to admit to being the party of the latter, although they obviously base their policies on what the craziest trend in Hollywood is at any given moment, spewing left-wing anti-Americanism of the sort that Jean-François Revel so ably exposed as irrational in his 2004 monograph of that title. Nevertheless, it was openly admitted by Liberal thinkers of the past such as Goldwyn Smith and John Wesley Dafoe. Their economic arguments and historical interpretations in favour of the Liberal project of undoing Confederation and moving Canada into the American orbit were fully rebutted by Harold Innis, Donald Creighton, and Eugene Forsey.