Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

Terrorist attack in Edmonton and the truth about the massacre in Las Vegas

Posted on by

Terrorist attack in Edmonton and the truth about the massacre in Las Vegas 

Brian Ruhe talks with Paul Fromm who is the Director of the Canada First Immigration 
Reform Committee, at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/ 

Terrorist With ISIS Flag Kicks Off Islamic Heritage Month By Stabbing Edmonton Cop & Running Down Four People

Posted on by

Terrorist With ISIS Flag Kicks Off Islamic Heritage Month By Stabbing Edmonton Cop & Running Down Four People

According to The North York Mirror (September 26, 2017): “The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) celebrated the inaugural launch of Islamic Heritage Month Monday, Sept. 25 at the Aga Khan Museum, 77 Wynford Dr. TDSB staff, parents, students, and politicians enjoyed an evening of song, art and comedy. The [Ontario] legislature unanimously passed an act last year recognizing October as Islamic Heritage Month in the province. Canadian Islamic History Month has been officially recognized federally in October since 2007. The TDSB will host a number of workshops throughout October, including Stereotypes and Diversity in the Media: How do we fit in?; and How to Talk to Your Children About Online Hate.”

The month got off to a good start. A 30-year old Moslem with an ISIS flag in his vehicle ran down a policeman near an Edmonton Eskimos football game

 then stabbed him. “He rammed, then stabbed the police officer — and that the flag is part of the investigation.

“The attack began on the officer who was manning a routine Eskimos game-day blockade by himself southwest of Commonwealth Stadium at 107A avenue and 92 Street. The officer was outside his vehicle, which had its lights flashing to improve visibility. At around 8:15 p.m., a man driving a white Chevrolet Malibu crashed into the barricades set up to keep pedestrians separated from vehicles.

The vehicle struck the officer “sending him flying through the air 15 feet before colliding with the officer’s cruiser” at high speed.

The suspect, believed to be 30 years old, then got out of his vehicle and attacked the officer with a knife. The officer was stabbed multiple times before the suspect fled on foot northbound on 92 Street.” (Edmonton Journal, October 1, 2017)

Later, the terrorist stole a U-Haul, was stopped at a roadblock and then fled. “Immediately after the incident, Knecht said information about the registered owner of the vehicle was broadcast to patrol officers across the city.

A manhunt was underway when before midnight the suspect was pulled over at a police check stop on Wayne Gretzky Drive and 112 Avenue driving a U-Haul truck. When the officer asked to see a driver’s licence, he recognized the name as being similar to that of the registered owner of the Malibu used in the earlier attack. The suspect fled the scene with at least a dozen police vehicles in pursuit.

Pedestrians targeted in downtown chase

A high speed chase ensued with the suspect racing west down Jasper Avenue into the downtown, where Knecht said the suspect “deliberately tried to hit pedestrians in crosswalks and alleys” at two areas along the route. Four pedestrians were struck and were subsequently transported to hospital. There is no information on their condition.

Shortly after the pedestrians were run down, the suspect’s vehicle overturned on 100 Avenue just south of Jasper “due to police interaction,” said [Police Chief Rod] Knecht.”

Assorted politicians babbled nonsense as their “diversity” begins to implode before their eyes.

Was “Public Safety” Minister Ralph Goodale drunk. It wasn’t a bombing. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had just returned from the New York, where he told the Atlantic Union that we must fight Islamophobia and racism. The Trust Fund Kid said “diversity” is our strength, in response to this attack.. Bollocks! Diversity is a code word for White replacement. It’s Trudeau’s “diversity” that helped bring Islamic terrorism to our shores

. I nearly gagged hearing that idiot socialist Premier Rachel Notley unable to cough out the world Islamic terrorism but  she said “hate and extremism” had no place in Alberta. If you can’t name the problem, you can’t deal with it.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, text

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

Posted on by

Jagmeet Singh And The Rise Of Identity Politics In Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Jagmeet Singh
Slick Suit Singh — Future Prime Minister of Canada?

Every social movement has its heroes. Within the spectrum of Canadian political correctness, this role is currently fulfilled by Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. His incessant promotion of all-things multicultural — in particular a fervent dedication to our Islamic and LGBT communities — has advanced a globalist agenda to the extent that to even question its motives draws the wrath of social justice warriors from coast to coast.

Yet, being a most insatiable collective of hyper-aggressive globalists, this social dynamic is incomplete. What is required, of course, is a leader to emerge from one of Canada’s coveted Third World communities.

This is not Justin Trudeau, but it is NDP leadership candidate Jagmeet Singh. Clad in slick suits and designer turbans, Mr. Singh recently became official poster-boy for Canada’s diversity industry. It is indeed a privileged position, as the standards held for “traditional” Canadian politicians do not apply to “multicultural” politicians such as Mr. Singh.

Recently, a protestor interrupted an NDP event in Brampton, Ontario. A woman got onstage and began to aggressively question Mr. Singh regarding his position on issues relating to Islam, and Sharia law in particular. Granted, the approach was ill-advised, as the spontaneity of her inquiry was not a proper platform in which to address sensitive issues of this nature.

Within a democratic political environment, however, a candidate running for office is required to address the concerns of their constituents. Jagmeet Singh did nothing of the sort. Rather, he waxed philosophical regarding the need for all Canadians to “love each other.” A noble thought, yet one which entirely evades the issues. Recently, Mr. Singh released a public statement that he opposes a motion put forth by the provincial government of Quebec requiring public servants to reveal their face when administering services to clients. After months of inquiry, our protestor wanted answers — yet none ever arrived.

The result of her interruption of the meeting was universal condemnation. Media attacked her. Liberal politicians vilified her. All of a sudden, Singh was catapulted to a position not unlike that of globalist messiah. He had single-handedly defeated the bad, bad racist. Victory was assured, and Mr. Singh was declared a hero.

Canadian “identity” politics have changed the nature of political discourse in Canada, and not for the better. Time was when the main issue within politics were issues — for example addressing public concern, as well as one’s duty to constituents. Times have changed. Today, after a forty year program of diversity indoctrination, the main issue is the identity of a politician.

Within contemporary society, Third World political figures are depicted as vital and brimming with benevolence. Conversely, Anglo-Canadians politicians — save Justin Trudeau — are old and tired. At present they are something of a political dinosaur. On the other hand, Singh and others like him are rendered untouchable. If one dares speak against them, prepare to be branded a racist.

What privilege! Protected by a teflon-coating of political correctness, identity politicians are accountable to no one but their own particular community. As for the Anglophone minority in Mr. Singh’s riding of Brampton, Ontario — a riding where over 90% of constituents are of Third World origin — these people have no choice but to grin and bear it. Any dissent amongst the ranks will bring the inevitable accusations of bigotry, and the rest. Talk about being placed in social straight jacket.

Since gaining office, Justin Trudeau has been a pin-up poster boy of culture-eroding globalism. Naturally, this is not good enough. For Canada’s diversity-bandits, nothing ever is. What is required is the real deal. A non-Anglophone, Third World Canadian leader of the variety we find in Jagmeet Singh — the NDP’s answer to their political failings of the past decade.

Singh is a social justice weapon-in-waiting. It is he the liberal left is placing on a political pedestal as an example to all Anglophone and Francophone Canadians, and the message is: do not mess with us, because we hold the most powerful weapon in modern-day Canadian politics — a “silver bullet” known as the accusation of racism. As for social and political issues, let them go gentle into that good night along with all forms of traditional Canadian identity. Canada now has a globalist messiah in the form of NDP candidate Jagmeet Singh. The post-modern promised land of Justin Trudeau’s “new” Canada await

Justin Trudeau’s Rousing Pro-Refugee Rant

Posted on by

Justin Trudeau’s Rousing Pro-Refugee Rant

by Tim Murray

Justin Trudeau

Ijust saw Trudeau’s press conference in Kelowna. It is obvious that flake-head has, after two years, learned his lines well, as one would expect of a former high school drama teacher. His impassioned rant about Canada’s “values” and tradition of “welcoming” refugees and immigrants pushed all the right emotional buttons and employed all of the standard cliches. When he was done, I was looking for a quick path to the bathroom. Fortunately the lid was up.

This man actually believes that Canada alone has discovered the perfect formula for making hyper third world immigration “work.” We know how to do it right. We know how to “integrate” migrants. How many migrants you ask? As many as want to come.

At that point, reporters jumped in to ask him why, if that is the case, that he has sent out emissaries to tell would-be refugees that “we have rules.” We welcome and will continue to ALL those who are fleeing persecution, war and disaster, BUT they must follow the “rules.” What are these “rules” you ask? Well, it usually goes like this. You put one foot on Canada’s soil and say, “I am applying for refugee status,” and you’re in. Then you get food, lodging and a work permit while you wait.

If your claim is rejected, you apply for an appeal. More time to settle in. If that too is rejected, you receive a deportation order. And then, in half the cases, you don’t show up for your “removal.” Chances are that you go to a big city (eg. Toronto) and melt away into the background. Since the government doesn’t keep track of who leaves the country, they won’t even know if you left or not. Moreover, you can rely upon quisling city councils to declare their cities as “sanctuaries” where local law enforcers are instructed NOT to cooperate with border security agents. In the meantime, if you can put down roots by siring a Canadian’s kid or having his baby, you’ll be harder to eject. Especially if you can find a credulous cleric to champion your cause and an idiot journalist or TV reporter to pull heartstrings. Churches come in handy that way, don’t they? Harbouring liars and law-breakers in the name of Christ.

Theoretically, TV and press reporters have an obligation to hold politicians’ feet to the fire, but in matters of immigration and refugee policy, that is seldom the case. They typically don’t press home the attack. In this case, obvious follow-up questions to Trudeau would have been, so you welcome the world, all the tens of millions of people who are fleeing awful circumstances, but you assure us that they will be processed according to the rules. How many resources would it take to do that in an expeditious way? How much would it cost Canadian taxpayers? If 5 million Haitians, 50 million Central Americans, 1 million Afghans, 5 million Syrians, 20 million Africans and 30 million Asians want in, what will be the price tag? A trillion dollars? 5 trillion? 15 trillion? Enough to double the federal debt?

Other questions would be, what do you mean by “integrate”? Integrate into what? Our mainstream culture? But you said that Canada doesn’t have a culture. And then you spoke of our “core values.” We have core values but no culture? Or is it that we have a culture but no core values? You continually tell us that “Diversity is Our Strength.” But how diverse shall our ‘diversity’ be?

Thanks to the policy of mass immigration we went from 6 to 260 ethnic enclaves since your father left office. Are you aiming to make it 460? Will we be dialling 15 for English? Will we driving on both the left and right sides of the road as we please? Will some be practicing FGM according to their preference? Will MPs be able to give their maiden speech in Tamil or whatever their mother tongue was? Will some be able to practice polygamy and collect federal money for each wife? And — the million dollar question — will there be diversity of thought and speech in your Canadian utopia?

I think we already have the answer to that one.

But alas, no reporter can be found to pose such questions. We don’t make journalists like that anymore. Instead we have virtue-signalling parrots of political correctness sculpted by Institutions of Higher Indoctrination. I don’t know what they teach in journalism school these days but I doubt that independence of mind is a course requirement.

More sickening than Trudeau’s rant is the certainty that the anti-immigration perspective will never be given equal time to make its case. Particularly not on the CBC, which is in large part funded by people whom the Prime Minister calls “angry white bigots.” They want our taxes, but they don’t want our opinions. But who does? I mean, we only reflect between 40-60 percent of public opinion on most points. No wonder polling firms refuse to run our questions.

If you are looking for a political vehicle to give voice to your concerns on this issue, don’t look to Andrew Scheer’s Official Opposition Conservative Party. As reflected in his choices for the Shadow Cabinet, immigration-reformers, aka “the far right,” are not welcome in his “big tent” party. He is determined that his party not be portrayed as ‘anti-immigrant,’ ‘racist’ or heartless. The name of the game is not to salvage what remains of Euro-Canadian heritage, but to defeat Justin Trudeau. To do that, CBC panelists insist, the Conservatives must be Liberals. Wait, do you mean they’re not Liberals already?

Let’s be honest. Is the nauseating cant that issued out of Justin Trudeau’s mouth in Kelowna any different than what came out of the mouth of Conservative Jason Kenny during his tenure as Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism? Is Conservative Chris Alexander’s or Lisa Rait’s or Michael Chong’s world view substantially different than Boy Wonder’s? Is dog excrement so different than cat excrement?

We need a revolution folks.

Who Needs A Functional Refugee Policy In A Borderless World?

Posted on by

Who Needs A Functional Refugee Policy In A Borderless World?

by Tim Murray

No doubt you have seen images of some of the more than 10,000 migrants who have streamed illegally into Canada from the United States at unofficial border crossings — for the most part in Manitoba and Quebec. What began as a trickle eight months ago has become a flood in August. The City of Montreal reported that while there were 50 per day in the first half of July, there are between 250 and 300 crossing illegally now.

The sheer logistics of processing, transporting, sheltering and feeding this latest surge of border-jumpers has overwhelmed the limited resources of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). And the RCMP is pitching in too, smiling at migrants as they help them with their luggage. It seems that this fabled law enforcement agency has become an extension of the hospitality industry, a collection of bell hops and Walmart greeters. Or are they the public relations arm of the globalist government in Ottawa? Perhaps they should be wearing their ceremonial red serge uniforms as they chaperone illegals.

Amidst the chaos, make-shift shelters have been constructed and initial screening and vetting checks postponed. Because of the swell of refugee claims, the basic background check that would normally take 72 hours to complete will now take two months. Will Canada mimic Europe, overwhelmed by mass migration and the problems that ensue from it? The signs are ominous. The ship of state is drifting, and there is a flake at the helm.

This crisis caught authorities by surprise. But it shouldn’t have. When President Trump mused about suspending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 60,000 Haitians, one could have expected that they would make a mad dash to the candy store up north. Especially when they got a personal invitation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, always anxious to play the role of the white knight of generosity and compassion. His twitter message was, “Regardless of who you are or where you came from, there’s always a place for you in Canada.” Come on in!

Trudeau’s hypocrisy was breathtaking. What the media failed to notice that Canada had a temporary program for displaced Haitian “quake-fugees” of its own, but it was wound down in August of 2016— under Justin Trudeau’s watch! So instead of telling Haitian asylum-seekers the truth, that the government was unprepared to receive them, the Prime Minister chose to grandstand, to contrast himself to the evil Trump. He was going to drive the Welcome Wagon and set up impromptu welcome stations along the border. The claimants would be bussed to Montreal, one of Canada’s ten self-styled “sanctuary cities”. Yes, Canada has them too. What columnist Daniel Greenfield called “the coalition of the self-righteous”.

Renegade city councils voted to permit illegal migrants to receive housing, avail themselves of food banks, libraries and other services with no questions asked about their immigration status. In sane times it would be unthinkable for the most junior level of government to refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers. But these are not sane times. Instead, city law enforcement agencies have been ordered not to apprehend “undocumented” immigrants or indeed inquire into their immigration status. One gains the impression that the Trudeau administration is not terribly upset with this arrangement.

Taxpayers, however, have a different view. It should not come as a shock that 41% of Canadians polled by the Angus Reid Institute supported the statement that Canada was taking in too many refugees. And a Reuters poll conducted on March 8-9 found that all but 36% of respondents believed that those illegally crossing the border should not be allowed to remain in the country. They are not in love with the idea that queue jumpers who bypassed official border crossings to do an end run around the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country agreement, can just walk into the country, declare that they are seeking refugee status, and while in limbo apply for work permits and receive social assistance. Simply put, the ongoing invasion is trying their patience.

No wonder. Former Deputy Immigration Minister John Manion once estimated that refugee claimant expenditures alone cost Canadian taxpayers around $2 billion/year. The cumulative cost in the fifteen years following 1985 would put it in the $30 billion range. And it doesn’t help when many deportation cases become mired in extended legal battles in the courts. But as costly as this proves to be, deportation is a bargain compared to the annual $30-35 billion net fiscal burden that largely unskilled migrant citizens impose on other Canadians. The fact is that these migrants do not earn enough income to pay the taxes necessary to defray the costs of the social services provided to them. In the case of Syrian migrants, it was found that after one year of residency, only one in ten (12%) had found employment.

This is not a recipe for smooth integration, and it bodes ill for their Canadian-born children. Already, some 43% of second generation visible minority youth in Canada feel themselves to be alienated victims. The myth of Canadian ‘Exceptionalism’, of our having found the secret formula for ethnic and racial harmony, is wearing thin on the ground. The jury is in. Canada has a limited absorptive capacity. Cities like Vancouver are suffering from ethnic indigestion. Too many too fast and without the necessary resources to help them. Rather than fit into the nation, many newcomers are fitting into ethnic enclaves that have grown exponentially . Liberal commentators call this diversity, but others call it cultural fragmentation and emergent tribalism. The downstream costs are incalculable. Public safety and security may exact the greatest toll.

All of this is the bitter harvest of the infamous “Singh decision” handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1985, when our learned judges determined that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms meant that all “persons,” not just citizens, were entitled to full Charter protection simply by having their feet planted on Canadian soil. Since then illegal migrants are like the guests on Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life”. Say the magic words, “I am a refugee” and you win the prize. All they need to do is get here. That’s it. And the easiest way to do that is to walk through an unguarded border crossing. Presto, you’re in. Getting you out, on the other hand, can take 3-5 years, assuming that you don’t play hide and seek.

The trouble with Canada’s refugee system is that, as Margaret Thatcher would have said, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The Canadian Welfare State, or any welfare state, cannot survive the crushing burden that untold numbers of failed state migrants will place upon it. The late Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Milton Friedman was right. You can have the welfare state or you can have open borders, but you can’t have both. Unlimited generosity is not sustainable.

In order to pre-empt a nativist backlash, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale assured Canadians that crossing the border illegally was not an automatic free ticket to citizenship. But Goodale was disingenuous. He neglected to mention that Canada will not deport people to 12 designated countries and locations, mainly in Africa and the Middle East — unless they stand convicted of a crime or a human rights infraction or are deemed to be a security risk. According to the latest available data supplied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, almost one in four people who were allowed to make a claim in the first nine months of 2016 were from one of these areas.

Many of them are Somali claimants who made up the bulk of illegal border crossers in Emerson, Manitoba. They are the beneficiaries of what is known as an “administrative deferral of removal.” Temporary bans can be removed at any time of course, but if recent history is any guide, these claimants will be allowed time to apply for permanent residency. All of this proves asylum-shopping works. Shop around and you’ll soon find out that Canada is a soft touch.

Now for the dirty little secret of Canada’s refugee system. Roughly half of refugee claimants who are deported are not “removed”. They don’t show up at the appointed place at the appointed time.

To illustrate the point, it might be helpful to consider the testimony of former senior immigration enforcement officer David Richardson. While Richardson was careful to point out that he left the department in 2003, an officer he spoke with at Pearson International airport confirmed that, in his words, “Not much has changed on the refugee front, at least in Toronto.”

Richardson continued:

When I worked in Removals, sending failed claimants back to the U.S. at Buffalo N.Y., less than 50% of failed claimants showed up for removal. At that time the Fort Erie Point of Entry (POE) alone was taking in over 5,000 claims a year. Multiply that by the numbers taken in at the major airports and POEs across the country and it could be conservatively estimated that approximately 65 to 70 thousand claims are received a yea r, easily. Now (since) these other POEs were getting the same removal numbers as Fort Erie as I am sure they were — based on my conversations with fellow officers in my position as Union Rep for Southern Ontario — then you can safely estimate that 20-30 thousand claimants were no-shows for removals. Incredibly, the department’s response to these numbers was that the no-shows left on their own! Yeah, I know, I was dumbfounded too.

Richardson added that since departments only keep stats for the most recent five years, the total number of no-shows is unknown. There is no running total. And to this day no one knows how many deportees or illegals still reside in the country as no solid exit data exists as no exit controls are in place.

One-time Immigration Minister Joe Volpe once estimated that there were 120,000 illegals in Canada. Some are visa overstays — temporary foreigner workers and students — but many are rejected refugee claimants who have disappeared into the warm welcoming bosom of our growing list of sanctuary cities. It is not hard to disappear in Toronto, or any other ‘progressive’ jurisdiction where an illegal migrant on the lam can find a safe harbour and a cheap labour employer that stands ready to hire them.

Meanwhile, in the wake of 9/11 federal governments have sought to assuage public anxiety by promising more resources for border security while they quietly lay off staff. This is what David Richardson calls “The Big Lie”. Veterans of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) would say the same thing. They don’t need changes in the law to do their job. They just need more people. If there was a will, there would be a way. But there isn’t.

In surveying recent decades of immigration and refugee policy and performance, one can conclude two things. The system is broken. And no government has had a sincere wish to fix it. Certainly not the reigning Trudeau Liberals. Instead of developing a plan of action to stem the surge of illegal immigration, the government is responding with reactionary band-aid solutions driven largely by political posturing with little understanding of what constitutes sound asylum policy. Rather than composing a coherent strategy, they are haphazardly importing America’s problems.

So why then did we vote for them? Why do politicians with no interest in controlling migrant flows or maintaining the integrity of the system continue to be elected? The awful truth is that fifty years of social engineering and open borders propaganda have left their mark. Belief in national sovereignty has been going out of fashion, nowhere more so than in Canada. To the point that a Canadian Prime Minister can now proudly boast that ours is the world’s first “post-national” state, a microcosm of the dis-United Nations. When Barack Obama told a Montreal audience last spring that he was a “citizen of the world” , they clapped loudly. They found another brother-in-arms, as if the preening charlatan in the Prime Minister’s Office was not enough. I mean, how many Quislings do Canadians need?

If you want to know how Justin Trudeau views the nation, then read the words spoken by Serge Bouchereau, the organizer of an event outside Montreal’s Olympic Stadium to welcome Haitian asylum-seekers. “This is a vast, rich country that can welcome many, many more people who are in bad situations and can’t stay in their countries.”

How many more you ask? The sky is the limit and the queue is endless.

No problem. After all, who needs a functional refugee and immigration policy in a borderless world?


Posted on by


Helmut Oberlander translated for the Germans & killed nobody when he was 17 in World War 11.. Omar Khadr killed for al Qaeda when he was 15. Oberlander  was just ordered deported again.. Khadr the Killer collects $10.5-million. Trudeau is a German basher and a Moslem coddler.

Our Govt. has once again outdone themselves. Helmut Oberlander has lost his Canadian citizenship for the 4th time. He is now 92 yrs. old and he was a 17 year. old when he acted as interpreter for the German army when they entered the Ukraine during the WW2 . The Government, utterly manipulated by the vengeful Jewish lobby,. lastly tried to say he entered this country illegally by not revealing his Nazi past (this question was never on the application form).

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, closeup

Oberlander became a highly successful businessman and contractor who built many houses. He was a solid contributor to Canada as an employer and taxpayer, Omar Khadr has been a non-stop drain on this country

Guess you have to be an Omar Kadar, kill someone and you will receive 10.5-million reward from our pro-Moslem Prime Minister. Then again, Khadr was Muslim and Helmut Oberlander. an ethnic German.

Encouraging Acts of Resistance in Quebec Against Our Replacement

Posted on by
Encouraging Acts of Resistance in Quebec Against Our Replacement
In just one week, there have been at least four encouraging acts of resistance in Quebvec as people speak up against the populatioon changes being wrought by the elite, without the approval or even discussion by the victims, the European founding/settler people of  this land.
And, of course, there was an immediate and hysterical denunciation of the protests by politicians who should be respectfully listening to voice of their constituents, not wagging scolding fingers of disaaproval at them.
1. A “White City” banner is hung over a sing outside Saguenay, Quebec,. the mayor dutifully denounces it as “unacceptable”
Image may contain: tree, outdoor and nature
2. Some sends a package containing a damaged Koran and a note suggesting that a proposed Moslem cemetary be relocated to a pig farm. Okay, a little belligerent and crude, but Quebeckers were never consulted about the importation of people radically different from themselves into the province, nor were other Canadians, for that matter.
3. Voters in the small community of St. Apollinaire are actually given a referendum as to whether they want a Moslem cemetery in their rural backyard. They say no, of course, to massive abuse from Trudeau and others. Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Trudeau or Quebec’s Moslem cuddling premier allow them to have their cemetery in THEIR backyard?
Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, outdoor
Sunny Letourneau, leader of opposition to Moslem cemetery in Sainte Apollinaire
4. Finally, and most positively a group calling itself Federation des Quebecois de souche(Old Stock Quebeckers) posted stickers in and around Sherbrooke’
CBC News (July 20, 2017) reported: “In Saint-Honoré, Que., a wooden sign bearing the words ‘Saguenay, White City,’ in French appeared overnight at the entrance to a cemetery that could offer burial grounds for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region’s Muslim community. Saint-Honoré Mayor Bruno Tremblay told CBC News the sign near the cemetery was “unacceptable.” … “I found it very xenophobic,” he said. ‘We’re having it taken down later, I’ve sent one of our guys from public works,’ he said. ‘In 2017, we need to be more open-minded than that.'” What does the befuddled mayor mean. The Saguenay is overwhelmingly White. Why should it not remain so? Does the mayor want it to become, say,
overwhelmingly Arab?
“In Sherbrooke, stickers were distributed by the Federation des Quebecois de Souche reading, “They will not silence us” and “Minorities on our land: Never!” The federation was founded in 2007, in the middle of Quebec’s reasonable accommodation crisis. Now the group opposes “mass immigration,” according to Rémi Tremblay, the group’s president.” Hard to disagree withat that. Why would we want to be a minority in our own land?
CTV News (July 19, 2017) made a big drama of a protest package sent to a controversial Quebec City mosque. “- A package containing a defaced Qur’an and a note expressing [criticism] lim cemetery project has stoked renewed fears at a Quebec mosque. …  it contained a Qur’an that had been slashed and a note suggesting the Quebec City mosque should use a pig farm as a cemetery.

“I was shocked,” Djamai said in a phone interview.”

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard condemned the incident, describing it as “unacceptable and repulsive.”

“It’s hard to prevent the darker sides of human nature,” Couillard said in Edmonton as he attended a meeting of the country’s premiers. … 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the incident has nothing to do with Quebec or Canadian values.

‘In any society, there will be people who are intolerant or racist and I think the challenge of a strong society is to spend our time focusing on where we are similar and not where we are different,”‘Trudeau said in Quebec City.

”We  consider it to be an attack that is outside of our values and our way of living.'”

What is really “unacceptable” and “outside our values” is imposing radically different people on Canadians, without discussion or our consent.

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

Posted on by

Omar Khadr and the Liberal War On English Canada

by Brad SalzbergCultural Action Party

Omar Khadr

Arecent payout of $10.5 million dollars to convicted terrorist Omar Khadr represents a watershed moment in the history of political correctness in Canada. As endorsed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mr. Khadr has hit the jackpot and can now settle into a life of luxury upon Canadian soil. Not bad for a terrorist convicted of murder.

While there isn’t a politician past or present who has disgraced our country with the vigour of Justin Trudeau, the road to the loss of our national dignity did not originate with our current prime minister. This we can attribute to the founder of Canada’s collective self- loathing — his father.

Pierre Trudeau is the most misunderstood figure in Canadian history. A maverick political figure from day one, Trudeau Sr. thumbed his nose at western institutions of his day while embracing socialist ideology discovered during his travels as a student in Asia.

Some where between the opium smoking and the communist manifesto, Pierre discovered his true ideological calling — as an irreverent intellectual with a pre-disposition toward his political nemesis — British colonialism, and the institutions created in its image.

From his first term as prime minister in 1968 to his final curtain call in the early 1980’s, Pierre worked to erode Canada’s connection to Britain and the Commonwealth. For the purpose of empowering minority communities — as well as the legal industry who support them — Trudeau introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In an effort to advance the rights of special interest groups, Trudeau created the Court Challenges Program, enabling these entities to take legal action based upon perceived social injustices.

The outcome was a fundamental transformation within society. Power and influence shifted away from the Canadian majority and into the hands of tax-payer funded interest groups, multicultural organizations, human rights tribunals and other leftist institutions. Thus, a new Canada was born —though it would take decades for the general public to understand exactly what had occurred. It is arguable most still do not comprehend the full picture.

To understand the roots of the re-imagining of our nation, we look to the fateful day in 1971 when Pierre Trudeau introduced multiculturalism to Canada. Without any form of mandate or approval from the Canadian people, Pierre Trudeau cancelled our bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity and replaced it with multicultural policy. Few at the time were aware of the pending side effects—namely, that multiculturalism would not be inclusive of Anglophone or Francophone identity. Indeed, it was and remains the exclusive domain of migrants from Asia and the Middle East.

As decades passed and Third World immigration began to alter our demographic make-up, a powerful diversity industry came into existence. This collective of immigration pundits, academics and media — as well as government itself — began to alter our national destiny. By way of an accusation of historical racism toward Third World and First Nations communities, our diversity warriors were able to convince the Canadian majority to question, and ultimately dislike, the heritage of their own nation.

At present, we see this manifested in Prime Minister Trudeau’s litany of apologies to our LGBT, Chinese, Muslim and Sikh communities. Never mind the fact that Italian, German and Ukrainian- Canadians were sent by the thousands to internment camps under the War Measures Act. Racism in Canada is an exclusive of the Third World, and these forces intend to keep it that way. Waving a collective finger at the descendants of the founders of our nation, we are informed by politically-oriented new arrivals that Canada is built on “stolen land,” and if we don’t cooperate — or perhaps even if we do — they will work to steal it back.

Naturally, Justin Trudeau is all-in on this campaign. Raised within an environment of malevolence toward English Canada, as well as within ear shot of father Pierre’s admiration for communism, Justin is the perfect pitch-man for what he refers to as a “post-modern” Canada — which really means a Canada devoid of Anglophone identity.

Canada has seen its share of the Trudeau family’s disdain for both democratic process and the will of the majority. Multiculturalism, which became official policy in 1988, was a unilateral decision on the part of government — if not on the part of Pierre himself. Both father and son share an affinity for believing their personal will equates with public will — a personality trait bordering on the delusional.

Pierre Trudeau began Canada’s long day’s journey into cultural demise, but it is son Justin who will finish off Anglo-Canada for good. By way of mass immigration — another nation-changing policy devoid of public input — Justin is leading us down a path toward a complete societal inversion. By way of measures such as “Islamophobia” motion M103, our so-called minorities are today the preferred communities of choice, while “Old Stock” Canadians are rendered perfunctory at best. “Out with the old, in with the new” appears to be the maxim of PM Trudeau and his sunny gang of cultural eradicators.

Recently, Trudeau Junior informed us Canada belongs more to immigrants than Canadian-born citizens, as the latter “take Canada for granted.” This reveals what general society should have understood decades ago — that the concept of equality for all Canadians by way of multiculturalism is a myth. The true diversity agenda is not unlike what is found in George Orwell’s classic political treatise on communism, Animal Farm — “all are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

If and when Canadian-born citizens wake up to the fact that an injustice of grand design is at the heart of the Trudeau agenda, perhaps the dignity lost in a whirlwind of diversity and political correctness can then be returned to the descendants of those who built our country.

For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”

Posted on by
For Canada’s 150th Anniversary : “The Demolition Of A Nation, One Step At A Time”
By Tim Murray
  A Giant Toy Rubber Duck: Canada’s Symbol for its 150th Anniversary.

The Demolition of a Nation, One Step At A Time (revised)

On July 1, 2017, Canada will observe 150 years of Confederation. But as this bulletin points out, is there a nation still to celebrate?

“…the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King, May 1st, 1947

“It is rare for a nation… to turn in a completely new direction. It is unusual for a democracy take such a turn. People are therefore entitled to inquire whether the distinctive character of their nation—and some of its greatest achievements—will remain if people from very different cultures are encouraged to come and, as far as possible, to maintain their own cultures. “ Geoffrey Blainey (“All for Australia” p. 154)

Demolitions, if viewed in slow motion, are revealed to be a sequential process. They begin with the destruction of the ground floor, and work their way up, until the entire building “suddenly” collapses. Viewed in hindsight, it may appear that the collapse of Canada’s identity was almost instantaneous. But in fact, it did not happen overnight. Our cultural, ethnic and environmental edifice was brought down incrementally, by a series of policies and laws that spanned some forty years. Let’s start at the beginning, in 1962, at the “ground floor” of implosion, and then follow the chain of disintegration up to 2006 and our present predicament, with Canada teetering on the edge of complete colonization and assimilation.

1962 Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government declared that independent immigrants and their immediate families would be admitted to Canada from everywhere in the world. However, while the Tories said that all comers were welcome, it was successive Liberal governments which set up the machinery to get them.

1965 In response to a global mood to support the movement for colonial independence and repudiate the history that made the Holocaust possible, Canada signed the “United Nations International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination”. This post-war shift in attitude served to discredit principles that were used to legitimize exclusions in existing immigration policy. The signing of this UN Convention, a seemingly innocuous action, came to have a profound impact on subsequent immigration policy-making.

1966 The Pearson government’s White Paper on Immigration Policy advocated a universal admissions policy. The country was to be cut from its cultural moorings, as European immigrants would no longer be given preference. This change in immigration selection criteria constituted a crucial change in direction for the country. It was a confluence of two beliefs. One, that Canada should cast its immigration net widely to capture “the best and the brightest”, and two, that Canada was morally obligated to embrace immigrants from across the world without reference to their ethnic, racial, religious or cultural origins. No longer would the nation’s cultural cohesion be a consideration in deciding who gets in and how many.

1967 The “point system” was introduced. As T. Triadafilopolous of the University of Toronto put it, “Through the points system, Canada would select immigrants according to a set of universal criteria, including educational credentials, language competency in English and/or French, and labour market potential. Applicants’ ethnic and racial backgrounds were no longer to be considered in determining their eligibility for admission to Canada. The result of this change …was precisely what (Prime Minister Mackenzie) King tried to avoid: the diversification of immigration and consequent transformation of Canada’s demographic structure. Whereas immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ source regions …comprised only a small fraction of Canada’s total immigration intake from 1946 to 1966, by 1977 they made up over 50% of annual flows. Changes in immigration policy shattered the foundations of ‘white Canada’ and created the conditions for Canada’s development into one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. (from “Dismantling White Canada: Race, Rights and the Origins of the Point System”)

1967 The Immigration Department was ordered to no longer list immigrants by ethnic origin but rather by “country of last residence”. This allowed the government to conceal the fact that many third world immigrants had traveled to Canada via traditional source countries like the UK.

1971 Multiculturalism is declared official state policy. Henceforth, Canada was no longer to be perceived as consisting of our two founding cultures, English and French, but as mosaic of equivalent ethnic fragments. Canada was to become the helpless victim of a social engineering project whose sweeping scope was yet to be comprehended.

1974 Biologist Jack R. Vallentyne of the Fisheries and Marine Service called for a national population policy. His call was ignored. Vallentyne, a former professor at Cornell University, was made leader of the Eutrophication (pollution) Section of the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. It was in that capacity that Vallentyne became alarmed at the extent to which overpopulation and over-development was promoting eutrophication of our water resources.

1976 The Science Council of Canada released its report number 25, “Population, Technology and Resources” which concluded that perpetual population growth would stress Canada’s limited non-renewable resources. It advocated restricting immigration and stabilizing Canada’s population. Another forgotten report.

1976 Voluminous anecdotal evidence had come to challenge the claim that European interest in emigrating to Canada had diminished, as prospective skilled and educated immigrants from Britain and the Continent with immediate family were being turned away in droves. Immigration officials in 1976 conceded that as many as 60% of British applicants were being rejected while unskilled third world immigrants with poor language skills were welcomed with open arms. The vision of the 1966 White Paper was being fulfilled. The number of immigrants with skills steadily declined while the number who were sponsored as relatives increased from 34% in 1966 to 47% by 1973.

1976 Canada’s first separatist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected. By this action, Quebec Francophone voters indicated that they were not prepared, as English Canadians were apparently were, to see their unique culture dismembered by a multicultural globalist agenda. Quebecers were not willing to go down with the English Canadian ship.

1980 English Canada got its second wake-up call when Quebec held its first referendum on separation. After it was defeated, English Canada went back to sleep, and the global “out-reach” to non-traditional sources of immigration continued with Official Multiculturalism still in place.

1980-1983 In response to a recession, the government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau cut immigration levels from 143,000 to 89,000. It was the only time in recent decades that a federal administration reduced immigration quotas in deference to tougher economic times and the need to defend jobless Canadians. Thereafter, immigration policy would be the prisoner of political imperatives, most specifically ethnic vote-seeking.

1982 The “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—forming part of the Constitution Act—was signed into law. It relegated Parliament to a secondary role—and through it diminished the ability of a majority of the population to influence the direction of the country. It allowed the courts to strike down provincial and federal statutes to satisfy individual rights. Consequently, as writer Frank Hilliard observed, it achieved Pierre Trudeau’s goal of altering our British Parliamentary system and replacing it with a model that divided society into ethnic communities, each with its own cultural norms. It is noteworthy that the Charter’s Section 27 requires the Charter to be interpreted in a ‘multicultural context’.

1986 Employment Equity Act—allowed a staggering number of recently-arrived immigrants to leap-frog over resident Canadians to secure jobs in the federal public sector. The Act became a template for similar legislation in other provinces which also affected the private sector.

1986-89 The Health and Welfare department of the federal government completed a report “Charting Canada’s Future” which concluded that Immigration has only a short-term effect on Canada’s age structure. Moreover, increases in immigration to as high as 600,000 per year would have, in the long-term, no impact on the age structure. Even changing the age structure of immigrants from 23% below age 15 in 1988 to 30% below 18 and then 50% below 15 would have little long-term impact on Canada’s overall age structure. That message continues to be ignored to this day.

1988 The Multiculturalism Act—institutionalized the policy of multiculturalism begun by Pierre Trudeau.

1988 Breaking with Trudeau’s belief that Canadians should not apologize to ethnic lobbies for alleged past injustices, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apologized and compensated the Japanese-Canadian community for the federal government’s internment of Japanese-Canadians during the Second World War. The apology began an era of grovelling which can be seen for what it was, not a sincere desire for redress, but a naked grasp for the ethnic vote.

1991 The Intelligence Advisory Committee, with input from Environment Canada, the Defence Department and External Affairs produced a confidential document for the Privy Council entitled “The Environment: Marriage Between Earth and Mankind”. The report stated that “Although Canada’s population is not large in world terms, its concentration in various areas has already put stress upon regional environments in many ways.” It added that “Canada can expect to have increasing numbers of environmental refugees requesting immigration to Canada, while regional movements of the population at home, as from idle fishing areas, will add further to population stresses within the country.” The document was apparently buried.

1991 The Economic Council of Canada, in a research report (“The Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration”), concluded that immigration has been of no significant benefit to the economy. Once again, it was a message that is still forgotten.

1991 Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney launched the policy of mass immigration, which greatly increased immigration levels to 250,000 per year. Like the Liberals’ White Paper policy of 1966, which was engineered by Tom Kent to defeat “Tory Toronto” by recruiting immigrants from ‘non-traditional’ sources, the McDougall policy was designed as a political stratagem to woo ethnic voters away from the Liberals by earning their gratitude. Mass immigration then must be seen as primarily a political weapon to defeat rival political parties rather than a policy that confers a legitimate economic or demographic benefit to Canada.

1994 July 6 Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC/Radio-Canada, with Policy 1.1.4, declares that its mandate requires that its programming should “reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada”. “In fact”, the CBC continued, “by the reasons of the ethnic diversity of the audience, the Corporation has long practiced a policy of cultural pluralism in its programming, and intends to continue to reflect the multicultural richness and multiracial characteristics of Canadian society in keeping with the Corporation’s obligation to ‘contribute to shared national consciousness and identity’. Schedule planners and programs staff are expected to demonstrate continuing awareness of and sensitivity to this aspect of CBC/Radio-Canada role.” In so doing, the CBC in effect became the voice of immigrant ethno-cultural lobbies and power blocs, while the views of the full cross-section of mainstream Canadian society were largely excluded.

1995 A second referendum on separation was held in Quebec. It was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 0.8%. Many would argue that the 1995 referendum was hijacked by the federal government, which poured in a ton of money in publicity largely exceeding the amount authorized by the referendum laws. The Gomery commission subsequently found many key Liberal figures guilty of fraud. In addition, for good measure, the federal government fast-tracked the citizenship process for all new immigrants in Quebec in the months leading up to the referendum . This action was timely, as it allowed these immigrants to vote and tip the scales to victory for the “No” side.

Premier Jacques Parizeau accurately blamed the loss on the ethnic vote, which had grown with mass immigration. Failing to see that their own society was being undermined by the very same forces that were undermining Quebec, English Canadians rejoiced. However, the result clearly illustrated that since 1980, an increasing proportion of the Francophone population were opposed to the multicultural makeover of their society.

1997 The $2.4 million federally commissioned Fraser Basin Ecosystem Study, led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC, was released. It stated that BC’s Fraser Basin was overpopulated by a factor of three. Healey later urged all levels of government to develop a Population Plan for the country. The study was ignored by the government that funded it.

2001 The Population Institute of Canada made a presentation to the House of Commons Committee on Immigration which recommended that the government develop a Population Plan for Canada, as called for by Dr. Michael Healey. The presentation fell on deaf ears.

2005 Ontario’s Environment Commissioner, Gordon Miller, released a report that challenged the provincial government’s plans to accommodate an additional 4.4 to 6 million people for Ontario over the next 25 years. In introducing this annual report, Miller issued strong cautions. “One of the troubling aspects of the improved planning system is that it is still based on the assumption of continuous, rapid population growth. Government forecasts project that over the next 25 years, Ontario’s population will increase from just over 12 million to 16.4 million or perhaps as high as 18 million. Three quarters of these people are expected to settle in the urban area around Toronto and in the Greenbelt lands. Even with higher development densities, this is a vast number of people settling in an already stressed landscape. ” He added that the area did not have the water resources to support the population increase, nor the ability to handle sewage created by the increase. Miller was vilified for his comments.

2006 Following Mulroney’s precedent of apologizing and compensating Japanese-Canadians for the wartime actions of Mackenzie King’s government, Prime Minister Harper compensated Chinese-Canadians for federal laws that were enacted before the First World War to protect Canadian jobs from the importation of cheap Chinese labour. The compensation came with a profuse apology.

2006 The C.D. Howe Institute reported that immigration levels would have to be raised to impossibly stratospheric levels to have any effect in slowing the rate of Canada’s aging population.

2013 Canada’s most famous environmentalist, Dr. David Suzuki, said that Canada was overpopulated and that immigration levels should be reduced. Like Gordon Miller, Suzuki was vilified by everyone except the general public, who evidenced their approval in the comments section of newspapers across the country which carried the story.

2013 Reacting to growing ethnic enclaves and the threat of the emergence of a parallel Islamic society, the Parti Quebecois government introduced a Charter that would re-establish the secular nature of Quebec society, a hard won achievement of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Recognizing that support for the Charter would represent a clear repudiation of the multicultural agenda, the political class and the English media denounced the proposal.

2014 The fact that the Charter enjoyed the support of a majority of Quebecers—and apparently a majority of Canadians in the rest of Canada– the media and the political establishment attempted to discredit the Parti Quebecois government by raising the prospect of another referendum on sovereignty. This was (and is) a ploy to shift the focus away from the Charter.

2015 Two months following his electoral victory, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, essentially confirmed that the mission of cultural and ethnic fragmentation conceived five decades before had been accomplished. In fact, it had gone beyond that. Canada was no longer even a multicultural state—or a nation—but something the world had never seen before. “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”, Trudeau proudly observed, “There are (just) shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” A state, in other words, that has been cast adrift, cut from its cultural, ethnic and moral moorings.

In reviewing these policies , pronouncements and laws, it is apparent that the promotion of official multiculturalism and quota hiring (“employment equity”) were conceived to work in tandem with mass immigration, so that immigrants would be made to feel fully integrated and at home with their new country. This great “multicultural experiment” then, was essentially an immigration project which changed the ethnic profile of the nation and grew the population by 25%. It was an experiment conducted by a political class on ordinary Canadians without the consent of ordinary Canadians. It had no electoral mandate. The result is that most Canadians feel like lab rats living in an environment they no longer recognize. They bear witness to the demolition of a nation.

The Three Stooges Talk Nonsense While Trump Provides Leadership in Fighting Terrorism

Posted on by

The Three Stooges Talk Nonsense While Trump Provides Leadership in Fighting Terrorism

Image may contain: 4 people, people smiling