Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

Posted on by

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Sensible and Sane, Albeit a Century Old, Words from the Left on Immigration

I am, as you may be aware, neither a fan nor a friend of either liberalism or the left. If forced to choose between the two, I would pick the classical, nineteenth century, form of liberalism – individual rights, economic freedom, limits on government – over the left any day, but my instincts have always been conservative, that is to say, inclined towards order, tradition, and institutions that have been tested, proven, and honoured by time. A Tory is a specific kind of conservative, for whom the most cherished of time-honoured institutions are royal monarchy in the political sphere and the Apostolic Church in the religious sphere. Politically, I have been a Tory all my life, and as my theology has developed in a high church direction over the years, I have become so religiously as well. Unlike liberalism and leftism, neither conservatism nor Toryism, properly understood, is an ideology – a formula that purports to provide the political solution to all our problems. Indeed, the conservative and Tory are fundamentally anti-ideological, respecting the lesson of the past, that institutions, tested and proved by time, are to be trusted, over the formulations of intellectuals, however well-intentioned, for these never deliver the Paradise on earth they promise and more often than not do a great deal of harm in the name of doing good.

The non-ideological bent of the conservative and Tory allows him both to reject the foolishness and nonsense of liberalism and the left and to acknowledge the rare occasion when an idea coming from those quarters has merit. While, as indicated above, in my eyes nineteenth century liberalism produced more such ideas than any form of leftism then or since, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. While I disagreed with the late editor of Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn on the vast majority of matters, I thought he was dead on right when it came to his opposition to American military interventionism in the Balkans and the Middle East. The late Gore Vidal had a lot of sensible things to say on such matters as well. Although I don’t agree with much that Noam Chomsky has to say when it comes to politics, his analysis of how the mass media shapes and limits thought in democratic societies is essential reading and I have always respected the consistency of his stand for free speech. Whereas most liberals and leftists switch from free speech mode, when they are defending subversives and terrorists, to become censorious witch hunters when anyone touches their sacred cow, the Holocaust, Chomsky, a consistent advocate of free speech, defended French professor Robert Faurisson, braving the wrath of loud mouthed fools on both the left and right to do so.

Admittedly, I find it easier to give credit to leftists for good ideas when those ideas are left over from a Tory upbringing. The Honourable Eugene A. Forsey, although raised a MacDonald-Meighan Conservative, was for the most part of his life a man of the left, a social democrat who, before accepting a seat in the Senate as a Liberal, had worked for both the labour movement and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Despite this, and through all of this, he remained a man of deep Christian principles, and a patriotic defender of our country’s constitution, parliamentary monarchy, Common Law legal system, and traditional heritage and symbols, for which I admire and respect him. Other prominent Canadian social democrats who to one degree or another shared Forsey’s residual conservatism included Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, and even, at least on the point of the monarchy, the late Jack Layton.

I say all of this by way of introduction to the following essay, which looks at an early twentieth-century leader of the Canadian left, who expressed sensible views that are completely verboten among the left of the present day, on the subject of immigration. Consider this quotation:

When it has become necessary in the United States to form an Immigration Restriction League, it is surely high time that we examined closely the character of our immigration, and shut out those whose presence will not make for the welfare of our national life.

These words are the opening paragraph to chapter twenty-one, entitled “Restriction of Immigration”, in Strangers Within Our Gates: Or Coming Canadians, originally published in 1909, the author of which was the Rev. James Shaver Woodsworth, a Methodist minister who at the time was superintendent of All People’s Mission in Winnipeg, an outreach ministry that worked with the poor and especially new immigrants. Woodsworth would later be elected to Parliament as the representative of Winnipeg North. He ran as a socialist, initially for the Independent Labour Party, later for the CCF of which he was the first leader. The CCF was a party that combined prairie populism with social democracy, and which was undergirded by the theology of the Social Gospel. While that theology is not sound from the perspective of historical, traditional, and Scriptural orthodoxy, the CCF outlook was much to be preferred over the hard-left, secular Marxist, ultra-politically correct perspective of its successor, today’s NDP.

Woodsworth went on in the next paragraph to quote approvingly two American Presidents, including Roosevelt (Theodore) who said “We cannot have too much immigration of the right kind, and we should have none at all of the wrong kind. The need is to devise some system by which undesirable immigrants shall be kept out entirely while desirable immigrants are properly distributed throughout the country.”

Can you imagine Jagmeet Singh or anyone in the party he leads quoting anything that sensible approvingly today?

Woodsworth contrasted the way Canada “eager to secure immigrants, has adopted the system of giving bonuses” with the way the United States “levies a head tax that more than defrays the cost of inspection.” In other words, we were paying for our immigration, the United States was making it pay for itself. He then quoted extensively from the Immigration Act of 1906, specifically clauses 26 through 33. Clauses 26 through 29 prohibited the immigration of anyone who “is feeble-minded, an idiot, or an epileptic, or who is insane, or who has had an attack of insanity within five years…is deaf and dumb, blind or infirm, unless he belongs to a family accompanying him or already in Canada”, “who is afflicted with a loathsome disease, or with a disease which is contagious or infectious, and which may become dangerous to the public health or widely disseminated”, “who is a pauper, or destitute, a professional beggar, or vagrant, or who is likely to become a public charge”, “ who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or who is a prostitute, or who procures, or brings or attempts to bring into Canada prostitutes or women for purposes of prostitution.” Clause 30 authorized the Governor-in-Council to further prohibit “any special class of immigrants” when deemed necessary, and clauses 31 to 33 specify the procedures whereby all of this is to be enforced. After quoting all of this material Woodsworth commented:

No one will quarrel with the provisions of this Act, but it should go further, and provision should be made for more strict enforcement.

Among his suggestions for improving the Act, are the prohibition of other classes that were then barred from immigrating to the United States – “polygamists; anarchists, or persons who believe in, or advocate, the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States, or of all forms of law, or the assassination of public officials” etc., – and “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants.” Take note of the latter, which he says “is of the greatest importance.” Rather than prohibit or carefully select assisted immigrants, the new immigration regulations of 1967 do the exact opposite of this and make the sponsorship of immigrants into a backdoor by which the requirements of the points system that these regulations introduced can be bypassed altogether.

As far as provision “for more strict enforcement” goes, Woodsworth says the following:

The trouble is that we are working at the wrong end. The examination in every case should be not at the ports of entry, but at the ports from which the immigrants sail – or better still at the homes from which they come. Such a course would be at once kinder to the immigrants and much safer for our country…Again, the examination where the people are known is the only effective method. Diseased, paupers, criminals, prostitutes and undesirables generally are known in their home neighborhood…The Canadian Government should insist on the immigrant presenting a satisfactory certificate from the Government officials of his own country. If the foreign governments would not co-operate, if they are too despotic or corrupt to make such an arrangement practicable, then we should appoint our own agents in Europe who would make most thorough investigation.

As with the careful selection of assisted immigrants, a major problem with the post-1967 immigration system is that we have gone in the exact opposite direction of what Woodworth proposed. Until then, a prospective immigrant had to go to a Canadian visa officer in one of our embassies, consulates, or High commissions abroad, and apply from outside of Canada. In October of 1967, a regulation was passed waiving this requirement and allowing legal visitors to Canada to apply from within the country. Charles M. Campbell, who served on the Immigration Appeal Board for ten years, eight as vice-chairman, explained that this, together with the establishment of the Immigration Appeal Board and the right to appeal a negative decision, led to the situation in the early 1970s where the system was completely swamped. Since this change had been made by regulation and was not part of an actual Immigration Act it was easily repealed in 1973, about the time that the Liberal government passed a general amnesty to deal with the backlog. It was only on paper, however, that we went back to the old rules. Today, the right to apply from within Canada is supposedly limited to select groups, like spouses of Canadians, but in reality, this is nullified both by the absurdity that “outland applications” can be made from within Canada and by the policy of making broad exceptions for “humanitarian and compassionate” reasons.

Woodsworth’s ideas would make him persona non grata today in the successor to the party he once led, as well as in the Green, Liberal, and, sadly, Conservative Parties. They are, however, basic plain sense. Governments are established for the common good of the countries they govern, not for the common good of all people, everywhere. Until quite recently, only American liberals with their naïve notion of their republic as the “first universal nation” were foolish enough to think otherwise. Governments, therefore, owe it to the countries they govern, and the people who already live in those countries, to be selective as to who they let in. It is their duty, not just their right, to allow desirable immigrants in and keep undesirables out. Those who disagree with this will try to argue that “desirable” and “undesirable” are entirely subjective and based upon irrational prejudice, but it is pretty obvious that the classes Woodsworth speaks of as undesirable – those who are subversive of government, law and order, criminals, or who because of poverty or mental or physical conditions are more likely to be public expenses than contributors – are objectively undesirable from the standpoint of a government looking out for its nation’s interests.

Today, the first, and usually only, response of the liberal-left to those who call for selective, restrictive, immigration that lets the desirables in but keeps the undesirables out is “racist.” This is their response even if the immigration restrictionist has gone out of his way to avoid bringing race, ethnicity, and culture into his arguments. Rev. Woodsworth had the following to say about this aspect of the immigration question, speaking specifically to immigration from Asia:

The advocates for admission argue that we ought not to legislate against a particular class or nation, and that the Orientals are needed to develop the resources of the country. Their opponents believe that white laborers cannot compete with Orientals, that the standard of living will be lowered, and white men driven out, and they claim that a nation has the right to protect itself… Perhaps, for some time, the presence of a limited number of Orientals may be advantageous. But it does seem that the exclusionists are right in their contention that laborers working and living as the Orientals do, will displace European laborers. It is generally agreed that the two races are not likely to ‘mix.’ Ultimately, then, the question resolves itself into the desirability of a white caste and a yellow, or black caste, existing side by side, or above and below, in the same country. We confess that the idea of a homogenous people seems in accord with our democratic institutions and conducive to the general welfare. This need not exclude small communities of black or red or yellow peoples. It is well to remember that we are not the only people on earth. The idealist may still dream of a final state of development, when white and black and red and yellow shall have ceased to exist, or have become merged into some neutral gray. We may love all men, and yet prefer to maintain our family life.

These words, written a hundred and ten years ago by the man who went on to lead the Canadian left for the first half of the twentieth century, would immediately bring down the charge of racism upon their author’s head today. Thirty years ago, the ideas contained in those words were enough to get people kicked out of the Reform Party of Canada, and indeed, as far back as 1972, when the University of Toronto Press put out the reprint edition that I have been quoting, they saw a need to stick an introduction by Marilyn Barber, explaining away Woodsworth as a product of his times.

While there are those who would say that this is a positive development, showing that we have come a long way as a society, and are so much more enlightened now than we were a century ago, the reality is that accusations of racism have, since the late 1960s, been primarily a means for stifling discussion, discouraging rational thought, and silencing dissent to ideas that could not bear up under scrutiny for a second.

Is it racist to take questions of race, culture, nationality, religion, and ethnicity into consideration in selecting immigrants?

Before giving the knee-jerk answer of “yes”, note that there is more than one way in which these questions can be taken into consideration. A government could make it its policy to preserve its country’s ethnic status quo and so refuse to admit immigrants that would alter that status quo. A government could make it its policy to ignore these matters altogether in selecting immigrants. A third possibility is that a government could make it its policy to deliberately and radically alter its country’s ethnic status quo by discriminating in favour of immigrants who differ from the majority of its population and bringing as many of them in as fast as it possibly can. Let us call these Options 1, 2, and 3.

Option 2 is the only policy that is racially and ethnically neutral. It is, therefore, the least susceptible to the charge of being racist. Option 1 is the policy that is most frequently condemned as racist. Of the two non-racially neutral policies, however, it is the only one that can be defended morally. The known negative effects of altering a country’s ethnic status quo include a weakening of social cohesion and communal feeling, a decrease in confidence in one’s neighbours, fellow citizens, government, and society, and, perhaps ironically, an increase in racial and ethnic negative feeling, hostility and strife. When, just over ten years ago, Harvard political scientist, Robert D. Putnam, published a paper, originally a lecture, that interpreted data that he had gathered in a study on the relationship between diversity and social capital as saying that “In the short run…immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital” and that in diverse neighbourhoods “residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’” and that “Trust, (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer,” he was not telling us anything that had not already been known and recognized from time immemorial. If you introduce one or two newcomers into a homogenous community who differ from the majority ethnically, they may indeed have the much lauded effect of improving the community in the way that is often expressed in the cooking metaphor of adding flavor or spice. This effect decreases, however, in inverse proportion, as the diversity increases. There is a relatively low saturation point – decades ago, Daniel Cappon of York University’s Department of Environmental Studies told the Globe and Mail that the “critical mass” was ten percent – beyond which, the negative effects of ethnic diversification take over. The larger the change and the faster it is accomplished the greater will be these negative effects. The wish to avoid these negative effects is sufficient reason and justification for Option 1, the policy of preserving the status quo. It requires neither irrational racial prejudice nor some ideological notion of racial purity – just plain, old-fashioned, sense.

Over the course of her history, the government of the Dominion of Canada has gone through three basic phases with regards to these policy options. From 1867 to 1962, Option 1 was reflected in federal immigration policy. This was true regardless of which party was in power, Conservative or Liberals, and, as we have seen, it had a supporter in the first leader of the CCF as well. In 1962, Ellen Fairclough the Minister of Immigration in the Cabinet of the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker, introduced what was basically a combination of Options 1 and 2. Racial, cultural, and ethnic preferences were eliminated for individuals applying to immigrate to Canada, but the rules which prohibited people from countries other than traditional source countries from sponsoring their extended families were retained. This reflected the thinking of the Prime Minister at the time, who wanted to be fair and non-discriminatory to individuals, Option 2, without radically changing the country’s demographics, Option 1. This, arguably the best of the phases, was also the most short-lived. It lasted until 1966-1967. In 1966 the Liberal government put out a White Paper recommending a new Immigration Act that would radically overhaul the immigration system. In October of the following year that overhaul took place, albeit through a change of regulations by Order-in-Council, as Diefenbaker’s changes had been, rather than through the new Immigration Act, which came nine years later. Thus began the phase of practicing Option 3 while pretending that it is Option 2 that has continued to this day. If Diefenbaker’s policy combined the first two options in the best possible way, this was and is the worst possible combination.

Here is how this was accomplished. The new regulations in October 1967, first, established the points system by which individuals now apply to immigrate to Canada, and second, eliminated the remaining racial and cultural restrictions so that everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture could sponsor the same number and range of relatives. On paper, this looks like pure Option 2. The points-system, on its own merits, is quite fair. The prospective immigrant is awarded points towards entry for his ability to speak English and/or French, his level of education, his skilled experience in a trade for which there is a need of labourers, his age (maximum points for 21-49), his having an offer of employment in Canada, and miscellaneous similar factors. The problem is that two large back doors were put in place by which the points system can be bypassed. This is how Option 3 was snuck in and disguised as Option 2.

One of those backdoors is the sponsorship of relatives. Assisted or sponsored relatives, do not have to meet the strict requirements of the points system like individuals who apply on their own merits. In traditional source countries, the trend for the last couple of centuries has been towards the small, nuclear, model of the family. Couples have fewer children than before, and their ties to extended family – relatives beyond the nuclear model – are much weaker than they were before the Second World War, let alone prior to the Industrial Revolution. By contrast, in non-traditional source countries, the tendency is still towards large families, with many children, and strong, binding, ties to the extended family. This is not said by way of criticism of those cultures. Indeed, as I have argued in the past, in the modern transition to the nuclear model we can see the early stages of the social unravelling of the West and the “war on the family.” The point is that people from non-traditional source countries will be far more likely to want to bring a huge number of relatives over with them than people from traditional source countries, and both the Diefenbaker Conservatives and the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals, knew this. This is why the former, not wanting the country to be radically and rapidly transformed, retained racial and cultural restrictions on sponsoring relatives when they removed the other racial and cultural preferences. This is why the later, removed those restrictions. It is not that they wanted to be fully racially and ethnically neutral in their policy. They wanted to make Canada as diverse as they could, as fast as they could – Option 3 – while pretending to be neutral – Option 2. When they passed their new Immigration Act in 1976, the emphasis was on “family reunification”, by which wording Canadians were sold a bill of goods. A streamlined immigration application process for the purpose of family reunification makes sense when we are talking about bringing in the spouses and children of Canadians who have married abroad. What the Trudeau Liberals meant by it was making it easier and quicker for people from the Third World to bring their entire extended families into the country so as to change the country’s demographics – or, as the Liberals themselves put it, “change the face of Canada” – as fast as possible. This is not a racially neutral policy, nor is it a policy that has Canada’s interests at heart.

Remember that Rev. Woodworth said that “the prohibition or careful selection of assisted immigrants is of the greatest importance.”

The other backdoor is the refugee system. We had foolishly signed the United Nations’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, giving that body, established by an evil and insane American President as a monument to his own ego, the General Assembly of which exists only to provide a soapbox for the voices of every tin-pot dictatorship, military junta, kleptocracy, and failed state on the planet, the Security Council of which exists merely to rubber stamp the decisions of the American government, the right to dictate our refugee policy. Unlike the other signers, however, we have used the Convention as an excuse to make ourselves the laughing stock of the world, by pretending that illegal aliens are asylum seekers who have a “right” to cross our borders without going through the proper channels, and accepting a high percentage of “self-selected” refugees, of whom only a very small percentage are actually fleeing for their lives. Chapter seven, “How Canada Fails Refugees”, of Toronto writer, Daniel Stoffman’s, Who Gets In, is a must read on this matter. Stoffman shows how our corrupt refugee system, which primarily serves to line the pockets of immigration and refugee lawyers, actually makes it harder for real refugees to get in, by showing preference for the fakes and frauds. Reforms were made after this book was published but these all went out the window when Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister in 2015 and the system is now worse than it ever was before. Trudeau, a supporter of the previous American administration’s policy of intervention in Syria that produced a Civil War that has killed half a million people and displaced millions of others, insists that we have a responsibility to bring those who have been displaced over here. Sensible people would question the sanity of bringing thousands of people, whom you have helped murder and displace with your irresponsible interventionism, and who would have cause to hold a grudge against you even if they were not predominantly of a religion in which holy war is one of the core tenets, over to live in your own country. Especially, when you promise to bring them over in such large numbers and such a short period of time that you cannot possibly vet them properly. The folly of all of this has been matched only by its corruption – the Trudeau government did not go to actual refugee camps to find the “asylum seekers” it brought over, but rather found the majority of them in apartment buildings in cities in Turkey, Jordan, Oman, and Lebanon where they had been living for years and bribed them to come over and get their picture taken with Trudeau before being put into refugee camps here!

Through these two large back doors, Option 3 became Canada’s official immigration policy, under the guise of practicing Option 2. While it was the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals who started this, it has remained the policy of our government ever since, even in the periods in which the Mulroney and Harper Conservatives were in power. That Option 3 was intentional on the part of the Grits is evident from the results. At the start of Pierre Trudeau’s premiership, English Canadians, French Canadians, and white ethnics, taken together, compromised over 95% of Canada’s population. If trends continue, they will be a minority in Canada in 2050. A change that large does not happen that fast unintentionally. Perhaps those who introduced this phase of Canadian immigration policy did not foresee the scale of the change but demographic transformation was their intention.

This policy has never been popular. Polls conducted, from the beginning of this phase until the present day, have shown that the majority of Canadians do not and have never wanted immigration that radically changes the ethnic makeup of the country. Now, let me be clear, the modern democratic dogma that “the majority is always right” is false – it would be more accurate to say the majority is usually wrong – and government has a duty to do what is right, even when this is not what the majority wants. In this case, however, majority opinion corresponds with what we know to be true about large scale, rapid, demographic transformation being bad for established communities and countries, and the reason for this correspondence is clear – the majority are those who have to live, every day, with the results of immigration policy, whereas the politicians who make that policy, and their academic and media supporters, have largely isolated themselves from the consequences of their ideas, living in controlled, largely homogenous, communities, just as they have isolated themselves from all criticism of their ideas, by shrieking “racist” whenever anyone questions – or even dares to take notice of – the transformation that is quickly taking place before their very eyes.

Today, the Canadian left is all on board the “let’s make Canada as diverse as we can, as fast as we can” train, even though the brunt of the negative consequences must be borne by working class Canadians, the poor, and basically all those for whom the left until fairly recently professed to speak. The Canadian left of the twenty-first century would have no room for the likes of the Reverend J. S. Woodsworth. Indeed, if he were still ministering in the Winnipeg of the current year, expressing the same views as he did in 1909, in all likelihood Mayor Duckie would wring his hands in despair and order a police investigation, Helmut-Harry Loewen would seize the opportunity to get his name in the newspapers on a regular basis by warning of the imminent threat he posed, David Matas would consider initiating legal proceedings against the “Hitler of the North End” on behalf of Binai B’rith, and the ironically-if-unawarely-named Fascist Free Treaty One would seek to prevent his views from being heard through crude intimidation tactics, whereas I, on the other hand, would find myself in the odd and unusual position, of having to cheer the old socialist on.

Works Referenced

Charles M. Campbell, Betrayal & Deceit: The Politics of Canadian Immigration, West Vancouver, Jasmine Books, 2000.

Daniel Stoffman, Who Gets In: What’s Wrong with Canada’s Immigration Program – and how to fix it, Toronto, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 2002.

J. S. Woodsworth, Strangers Within Our Gate: Or Coming Canadians, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1972 (original edition 1909)

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?

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.

Would You Invite a Rattlesnake Into Your Home? Canada Did!

Posted on by
Would You Invite a Rattlesnake Into Your Home? Canada Did!
May 29, 2018
PART 1

If Trudeau and his government need more evidence of China’s sinister intentions in Canada, here is a summary of the evidence that a joint RCMP-CSIS report gave Ottawa about 20 years ago. This report is even more relevant today.

(1) The report was sub-titled “SIDEWINDER”. That is a comparison of Mainland China to a rattlesnake. It is another way of saying that it was foolish to have allowed a rattlesnake into Canada. The purpose of the joint RCMP-CSIS project was “to assess the extent of the threat posed by the acquisition and control of Canadian companies by members or associates of Chinese triads (organized crime) and those with affiliations to Chinese Intelligence (Spy) Services”. (P.3)

(2) When Deng Xiaoping took over China in the late 1970’s, he introduced his economic reforms with the slogan “To get rich is glorious”. However, he and his regime knew nothing about how the West and capitalism operated, so they went to the richest Chinese in Hong Kong and to Chinese organized crime (triads) for advice. In return, Deng gave these groups privileged access to China’s economy. Triads were involved in illegality: gambling, extortion, prostitution, human trafficking and even political assassinations. Deng referred to the triads as “patriotic groups”.

(3) A significant presence of organized crime was detected in “investor” immigrants from Hong Kong to Canada from the mid-1980’s on. This presence consisted of two groups (A) Very rich Chinese business people who had been known to be co-operating with the Mainland Chinese government for years and (B) Associates and relatives of China’s leadership and the Chinese Intelligence (Spy) Service (ChIS). Co-operation between Hong Kong tycoons, triads and the Beijing leadership raised the level of the threat. Mainland China was looking for Canadian technology and for ways to interfere in Canada. In order to understand what Mainland China intended, Canadians had to be made aware of unique Chinese concepts such as “debt of honour”, “duties” “Hou Tai or backers, and “Guanxi or connections”. These concepts placed cultural obligations on Chinese to one another vs to Canada.

(4) As of 1997, over 200 Canadian companies were under the direct or indirect control of China. Many Canadians will be shocked to learn that one of those 200 companies is the CIBC, one of Canada’s five largest banks. Another major bank in Canada under Mainland China’s control is the Hong Kong Bank of Canada



(5) Also as of 1907, examples of other Chinese-controlled “Canadian” companies were CITIC, Norinco, Husky Oil, Grand Adex Properties Inc., Merril Lynch, Gordon Capital Inc., Tai Foong International, Ramada Hotels, China Vision, and Semi-Tech Corporation). (Editor’s Note: Because Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s government ignored the recommendations of Sidewinder and even ordered it to be destroyed, the number of companies now controlled by Mainland China is almost certainly exponentially higher.)

(6) The Chinese government has gained influence in Canadian politics by maximizing their presence over some of this country’s economic levers. The steps in Chinese strategy were as follows : (a) Buy a “Canadian” company so as to obtain a “local identity”, legally concealing their foreign identity. (b) Under the “Canadian” banner, the Chinese-Canadian company then invests or buys other companies in various Canadian economic sectors. Control lies in Hong Kong or Beijing. The financial benefits of research, often paid for by Ottawa or the provinces are likely to go to Asia. The financial network of Chinese entrepreneurs (connected with triads or Beijing) has grown exponentially and very rapidly in Canada. Their influence over local, provincial and national political leaders has also increased. Chinese entrepreneurs have offered company board positions to Canadian politicians. Many of these company boards are China-owned.

(7) These companies are eligible to receive Canadian government subsidies for research or to bid on classified contracts from Federal Departments. The risks to Canada were that : (A) After the research is done, it can be transferred to China. and (B) Access gained to classified contracts is gained for China. Two examples of noticeable risk: (a) A Canadian company under Mainland Chinese influence competed for a contract to set up and run a classified communications system that linked the main agencies of the Canadian Intelligence community!!! This would enable the Chinese to obtain access to sensitive information. (b) A Chinese multinational bought a Canadian company that specialized in video surveillance. Both of these companies may have installed security systems for various Canadian government institutions or Canadian research industries. China thus had access to information it would never have obtained directly.

 

Canada: Trudeau’s “dishonest” speech to NYU blasts nationalism, draws ridicule

Posted on by

Canada: Trudeau’s “dishonest” speech to NYU blasts nationalism, draws ridicule

In an article from Maclean’s Magazine: “Trudeau and his team have worked hard at sucking up to Trump,” yet Trudeau delivered “a borderline rebuke” of Trump. While doing it, he clumsily tried to extricate himself from being the divisive, Islamic-supremacist pushing, morally defunct leader that he is. Trudeau told New York University students to “embrace diversity” and “reject nationalism.” Those were his code words for “support open borders and the Islamization of the West.” He went on:

Let me be very clear: this is not an endorsement of moral relativism, or a declaration that all points of view are valid. Female genital mutilation is wrong, no matter how many generations have practiced it.

Indeed, FGM is wrong. So are honor killings, wife-beating, stonings, murdering gays, rape of infidels, beheadings, killing infidels, persecuting Christians, restricting the freedom of speech, etc. This is why the former Conservative government of Canada introduced the Zero Tolerance on Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, an Act that was rejected by the Trudeau Liberals.

Trudeau also stated:

“Let yourself be vulnerable to another point of view” accompanied by rote denunciations of accompanying sins. One must not “cocoon ourselves in an ideological, social or intellectual bubble,” he implored, or “engage only with people with whom we already agree,” but instead “fight our tribal mind-set” and the dreaded “identity politics.”

Had Trudeau been advising Islamic supremacists, his words would be sensible, but he is referring to conservatives who pride themselves on the standing for principles including free speech,  diversity of thought, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. How can anyone trust Trudeau on tough issues such as the global jihad when he’s busy on tours humiliating himself and his nation? Canada’s Prime Minister was even the subject of a hit piece in, of all places, the Washington Post, entitled “Justin Trudeau’s appallingly dishonest speech to NYU.”

The two articles below — from Maclean’s and the WaPo — expose a man who is unfit to be a leader. While they expose his silliness, the larger issue is his promotion of Islamic supremacists. In the words of Alberta United Conservative leader Jason Kenney (former Citizenship and Immigration leader under Stephen Harper): “Trudeau is an empty trust-fund millionaire who has the political depth of a finger bowl.”

“Justin Trudeau delivers a borderline rebuke of Donald Trump”, by Stephen Maher, Maclean’s Magazine, May 16, 2018:

Justin Trudeau came as close as he should ever come on Wednesday to denouncing Donald Trump.

Standing at second base of Yankee Stadium—where the U.S. president has box seats—Trudeau spent 20 minutes telling the 2018 graduating class of New York University to embrace diversity, to reject nationalism.

Young New Yorkers like Trudeau, seeing him as the anti-Trump—the handsome young feminist from Canada—and the students cheered whenever his smiling face appeared on the jumbotron during the commencement address.

If they have heard about his misadventures in India, they showed no sign of it.

Trudeau didn’t mention Trump, but none of the thousands of students and parents sitting in the drizzle listening to Trudeau could have missed the point.

He didn’t just mention in passing, as he does in every Canadian speech, that diversity is strength. It seemed to be the whole point of coming to Trump’s home ballpark to address the students of one of the most Liberal colleges in the United States.

He is walking a fine line with this kind of thing. No political issue is more important to the government of Canada than managing the trade relationship with the United States.

Trudeau and his team have worked hard at sucking up to Trump and his team in the hopes of stopping him from destroying NAFTA. You can tell that the Trudeau team has done a good job at it—involving business people, diplomats and former prime minister Brian Mulroney—because the Conservatives don’t accuse them of flubbing it. It’s the one issue that is so important to Canadians that it’s beyond partisan politics……

“Let me be very clear: this is not an endorsement of moral relativism, or a declaration that all points of view are valid. Female genital mutilation is wrong, no matter how many generations have practiced it. Anthropogenic climate change is real, no matter how much some folks want to deny it.”

Here in the Bronx, where Trump won just nine per cent of the vote in the 2016 presidential election, the students gave their loudest cheers of the day for that line.

Trudeau told the students that appealing to tribalism is the easiest way for leaders to rally support, but building common ground between tribes is a higher calling……

“Justin Trudeau’s appallingly dishonest speech to NYU”, by J.J. McCullough, Washington Post, May 17, 2018:

As is common among sheltered men of extreme privilege, when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempts to share relatable thoughts on modern life, his words tend to expose a speaker who has no actual familiarity with social trends but has clearly been briefed to their existence. The commencement speech he delivered Wednesday at New York University is a classic study of an obliviously cloistered poseur trying desperately to feign compliance with current fashions. A belabored reference to Pokémon Go was the least of it.

Trudeau — or whatever team of speechwriters and handlers who do the heavy thinking on his behalf — seems broadly aware that North America is mired in a state of intense sociopolitical polarization, and that amid all this shouting and anger, it is the role of great minds to reassert the case for virtues of free speech and intellectual diversity.

Such was the tone Trudeau’s NYU speech correspondingly struck, with tender protestations to

“let yourself be vulnerable to another point of view” accompanied by rote denunciations of accompanying sins. One must not “cocoon ourselves in an ideological, social or intellectual bubble,” he implored, or “engage only with people with whom we already agree,” but instead “fight our tribal mind-set” and the dreaded “identity politics.”

To be sure, these are good sentiments. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that Trudeau takes them seriously in the context where his opinions most matter: his performance as Canada’s ruler……

 

We’re Being Colonized—With Ottawa’s Help—Part 3

Posted on by

We’re Being Colonized—With Ottawa’s Help—Part 3

Tue, May 01, 2018   |   Author: Ron Gray   |   Volume 25    Issue 18

We’ve looked at what has made the current colonization of Canada possible and how the Trudeau Liberals have abandoned their responsibility to protect us. Now the question must be asked, “Does Islam need protection from us or do we need protection from Islam?”

Do you really think the money pouring into the coffers of our universities is intended to improve higher education in Canada? Why would Saudi Arabia, with about 60 percent illiteracy, want to improve education in Canada and the USA?

(Oh, I know the official statistics say that 96 percent of Saudis are literate; but you have to understand that Saudi citizenship, officially, is mostly limited to the lineal descendants of Aziz ibn Saud and his 13 wives; about ⅔ of today’s residents of Arabia are not Saudis, but immigrant workers—slaves, in fact—from Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa. So the real literacy statistics are very, very different from the official ones.)

No, that money pouring in to our universities is intended to lay the groundwork for the on-going colonization of Canada, in preparation for adding us to the emerging global caliphate.

In the Islamic world view, according to all four strains of Islamic jurisprudence, the entire globe is divided into two houses: Dar al-Islam, which means “The House of Submission”—that is, submission to the ideology of Islam; and Dar al-Harb, which means “The House of War.”

Folks, they already declared war on us a long, long time ago! Now they’re infiltrating a fifth column—with Justin Trudeau’s eager help: he’s not really importing “refugees”—because they’re not real refugees at all; almost all of them had already been resettled in Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey—what he’s importing are Liberal-voters-in-training, to ensure his continuing majority in Parliament.

Did you think his concern was humanitarian? Think again! When a reporter asked him, as he began to fulfill his campaign promise to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada, whether he would give preference to the most-endangered victims of the Syrian civil war—the Christians and Yazidis—his answer was revealing: “Absolutely NOT!”

What Mr. Trudeau doesn’t realize is that pro-Islamic politicians, like Omar Alghabra and Iqra Khalid will only support democracy until the colonization of Canada is sufficient to crush our pandering politicians clinging to their naive mindset that all world views are equal; after that, democracy is just a dead camel, to be dragged back out of the tent. So is nationalism, because the Islamic world view visualizes a global ummah, ruled by a central caliphate, with no borders… just like the Ottoman Empire that ruled most of the Middle East for 500 years, until it was dismantled at the end of the First World War.

Let me repeat: we’re being colonized—with our own money, and with the eager help of Justin Trudeau’s dumber-than-dirt Liberal government. They’ve sold our freedom for their political gain. Our children, rather than learning to think logically, are being spoon fed political tripe imported, ostensibly for our good, by dictators. On the chopping block are our freedom and equality

Wait a minute: am I being Islamophobic?

No! To quote Justin Trudeau: “Absolutely not!”

A phobia is an irrational fear. But when more than a billion and a half people are being led by imams inspired by a book that many of them have never read, a book that commands them, more than 100 times, to kill all non-Muslims, or to reduce to slavery the few they might allow to live, it’s not irrational to take them at their word. It’s prudent. Scripture says a wise man sees danger coming, and takes steps to protect himself and his family.

Political Islam is deadly, and it’s dangerous; so is Justin Trudeau’s appeasement of militant Muslims like Omar Alghabra, Iqra Khalid and Omar Khadr and the next three jihadis waiting in line for their ten million dollar payouts; and so is our importation of tens of thousands of un-vetted queue-jumpers and border-hoppers, and our Parliament’s gullible, ignorant contemplation of M-103.

Three Islamic nations are competing right now to become the hegemon of a revived Ottoman Empire: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey. Whichever one wins that struggle plans eventually to take over the whole world, because that’s exactly what the Koran commands.

So—do we really stand on guard for Canada, glorious and free? Or will we allow ourselves to become a colony in submission to the Caliphate?

It’s time to stand up with the CHP and all freedom-loving Canadians and oppose creeping Sharia.

Otherwise, hold out your wrists, and accept your shackles.

Moslem Girl Falsely Alleges Attack, Trudeau Responds Within Hours. Catholic Churches Vandalized: 4 Days.

Posted on by

Moslem Girl Falsely Alleges Attack, Trudeau Responds Within Hours.

Catholic Churches Vandalized: 4 Days.

https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2018/04/gettyimages-929085798.jpg?itok=-1tTVD7gPhoto by Arindam Shivaani/Nur ByHANK BERRIEN

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29122/muslim-girl-falsely-alleges-attack-trudeau-hank-berrien?utm_medium=email&utm_content=040618-news&utm_campaign=position3

Last Sunday on Easter morning between midnight and 7 a.m., two Catholic churches in Halifax were vandalized with spray-painted obscenities.

It took Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau four full days before he responded to the attacks on Saint Benedict Parish and St. Agnes Parish, in which “F*** Jesus” and a raised middle finger were spray-painted. He tweeted this on Thursday morning:

 

Justin Trudeau

On Easter Sunday, a day of celebration for Christians, two churches in Halifax were vandalised. This type of hateful behaviour has no place in our country and it will not be tolerated. Sending my full support to the community. https://twitter.com/andyfillmorehfx/status/981589386507714561 …

Yet when a young Muslim girl falsely alleged that she had been attacked by a man attempting to cut her hijab with scissors, which turned out to be a hoax, Trudeau responded almost immediately:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/950393608221454336/NbB_X0TG_normal.jpg

Justin Trudeau

My heart goes out to Khawlah Noman following this morning’s cowardly attack on her in Toronto. Canada is an open and welcoming country, and incidents like this cannot be tolerated.

4:57 PM – Jan 12, 2018

Trudeau’s apparent indifference to an attack on Catholic churches while he leaped to involve himself in the faux attack on a Muslim girl triggered anger among more than one Canadian:

Mr. Chris

You are like 3 days late. When the hijab hoax happened you were all over it within hours. Thanks for trying to make us look bad. Have a wonderful evening

9:45 PM – Apr 4, 2018

Barbie Bee 63

It was more like minutes

Sir Lawrence of Leisure

The sock puppet finally bows to public pressure and the endless tweets by Canadians calling him out and makes a statement 4 days late! #HijabHoax took minutes and contained press conferences
Another #JihadiJustin #fail

 

READ MORE: CANADA CATHOLIC CHURCH JUSTIN TRUDEAU MUSLIMS

 

Trudeau on the Skids but The Beast Grows More Dangerous

Posted on by
Trudeau on the Skids but The Beast Grows More Dangerous 
Paul Fromm’s talk in Vancouver, March 23, 2018
 

* That voyage to India

* radical Sikhs infiltrate the government

* plans to bring back Sec. 13 (Internet censorship)

* Canadian video journalist, Lauren Southern,  banned from Britain

If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please…

 

Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC

Posted on by
Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism and Terrorism — You Won’t See This on the CBC
 
 · 

BREAKING WOW! India Report On Justin Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism In Canada Feb 20, 2018 You will NEVER see this on the CBC!!!
Sikh Radicalism in Canada is a clear and present danger! Trudeau has more Sikhs in his Cabinet than India President Modi! Cabinet Minister MP Sohi was Jailed in India under anti terrorism laws! And it gets worse….

He just closed a deal that will give India 500,000,000 Canadian Dollars! But no money for vets!

https://www.facebook.com/StandupforCanada/videos/571422059879265/?t=0

Trudeau in India, Playing to Dressup

Posted on by

Trudeau in India, Playing to Dressup

TRUDEAU IN INDIA

Category: Uncategorized | Tags: