Trudeau Liberals & CPC leadership candidates misread Trump win at their peril

trump-wins-the-us-electionI found it interesting that Canada’s current Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, our selfie and sunny ways PM, thinks he will get along with U.S. President Elect Donald Trump, no problem.

Talk about naivety and arrogance!

In fact, just visualizing the two of them together makes me smile — a mature accomplished billionaire versus a trust-fund middle aged man who got to be our PM because of his last name and through the same type of media manipulation that the U.S. media used for Barack Obama — but failed to do for Hillary Clinton.

However, most of the Canadian media doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the Trump vote result. For example, I watched Rosie Barton (who I like) and her Power Panel on CBC’s Power and Politics last night just to see what they took from the Trump election result.

Well, her liberal and progressive partisan guest panelists (Ian Capstick and Amanda Alvaro) seemed to be absolutely gob smacked. Tim Powers, the token conservative on the panel, did well however, explaining what the Trump could mean for Canadians. But Capstick seemed to have an overblown emotional breakdown right there on live TV. In fact, Rosie herself seemed positively stunned and seemed to tear up when she watched a few seconds of Hillary Clinton’s concession speech.

Good grief! The sky in North America is not falling!

Interestingly, I can still remember that some of those same panelists constantly suggested, even after they got a majority in May of 2011, that the Harper Conservatives were illegitimate because they only had 39.6% of the popular vote.

Yet, somehow the Liberals under Justin Trudeau received a “mandate” to do whatever they want — including completely changing the way we vote —  with 39.5% of the popular vote — a point less than the Conservatives got.

It’s called bias and intolerance because liberals and progressives truly believe they are right about everything. So, anyone who holds a different vision to theirs is unjust, racist, misogynist, bigoted, narrow minded and hateful.

Meaning, that when anyone holds a different view, they are supposedly guilty of spewing hate speech. For example, Vox writes that the Globe and Mail actually wrote a “Dear America” piece asking Americans not to vote for Donald Trump. And, I have heard that some university students in California had to skip classes they were so upset.

Good grief! As a former academic all I can do is scratch my head. Do their professors not teach them how to debate any more? Obviously not.

True, Trump has made lewd comments. But all the complaints against him regarding sexual misconduct are allegations and nothing more — complaints alleged to have been instigated by the Democratic National Committee.

Regardless, in spite of those questionable complaints, millions of American women voted for Trump because of his message of hope for jobs, as well as his rejection of elites and insiders. Frankly, I also think the women who voted for Trump looked at his children and figured the way they turned out was more of a true measure of the man than off hand comments he made years ago.

Anyway, the metaphor that comes to mind regarding that kind of liberal peripheral blindness is a group of horses with blinkers on hauling a large group of people in a wagon. Since the horses can only look straight ahead and don’t see what is actually going on around them or what is happening to the people in the wagon, they push ahead regardless.

Which brings me to the current lackadaisical Conservative leadership race. Apart from Kellie Leitch, who is thankfully ignoring a trashing by the Canadian media for her stance on Canadian values, most candidates seem oblivious to the reality that what conservative leaning Canadian voters want —  a leader that is VERY different from Trudeau. Yet, read this Brampton Guardian piece and it seems that what bothers most of the CPC candidates is not what the Liberals are doing but fear of offending anyone.

The crux of the matter is that I am sick and tired of liberals crying shame whenever a woman openly supports Trump. I am also sick and tired of PM Trudeau and his caucus claiming they have a mandate to do whatever they want and the Canadian liberal loving media usually agreeing with them.

Millions of Canadian conservatives are watching and waiting. Whether it be the First Passed the Post voting system (FPTP) or some other Canadian system, 2019 can’t come soon enough! I can only hope that the CPC leader elected in 2017 is ready to do and say what is necessary to win.

Page separator

Endnote: Welcome Jacksnewswatch and NewsWatchCanada readers. Want to read a liberal media hatched job on President Elect Trump? Read Andrew Coyne’s column in today’s National Post.  I used to like Coyne’s columns but unfortunately he has become a liberal shrill.

Current ONPC Leader Patrick Brown should step down

patrick-brown 1030I agree with the Toronto Sun’s Joe Warmington (H/T JNW) that Patrick Brown should resign as the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Why? Because the man has changed to such a degree, those who voted for him feel betrayed.

Why? Apparently because he has evolved from a conservative into a liberal. Yes, there is a “progressive” component to progressive conservative. But, not to the point where you have morphed into a liberal.

I mean, if you listen to him carefully, he sounds just like Liberal Premier Wynne on at least two important topics.

First, Brown promised, when he was in the midst of the PC leadership campaign, that he would scrap the Ontario sex ed curriculum if elected as Premier. Now, however, he has “evolved” to apparently believe that if the sex education curriculum was scrapped, it would bring about intolerance to LGBT people.

What absolute nonsense.

I taught curriculum design and development to prospective teachers for years. A broad provincial curriculum document in health and physical education (which is where the sex ed topics are located) should not be about indoctrination and social engineering. Rather, it should be about the basics of human health and development which of course includes physical, emotional and sexual maturation.

Meaning, what Brown should have said when he was running for leader was that a PC Government would make sure the sex ed curriculum was reviewed and revised to reflect the maturation level of children at each grade level — which it currently does not.

Second, shortly after being elected Leader Brown agreed with Premier Wynne’s Liberals that the science surrounding man-caused (AGW) global warming theory was settled and that some kind of carbon tax would be a good idea.

Look, I understand that conservatives care about the environment just as much as progressives do but we are sceptical of a theory that is all about income redistribution — and that is frankly what a carbon tax is reputed to do. One company has high emissions so another pays a tax to offset those high emissions. Like me going on a diet so a friend of mine can say they are losing weight!

Anyway, conservative leaning Ontarians, apart from Brown it seems, know full well that the Cap and Trade System that the Wynne Liberals want to get into, or are already into, will cost taxpayers billions and do absolutely nothing for the environment.

So, what does Brown say now when confronted with these and other changes in his beliefs since he was elected leader? He says if you want a rigid ideologue, vote for someone else. Nice! The problem is, Ontario conservatives will not vote for someone else. They simply won’t vote. Which means, the Wynne Liberals will win another majority in 2018.

In my opinion then, the crux of the matter is that if Patrick Brown really cares about his political party and Ontarians, he will step down now as PC leader to give the PC Party time to elect another leader — a conservative that is congruent in his or her beliefs both before they are elected leader and after — in time for the 2018 Ontario election.

Trump & Leitch prove progressives are actually regressive

blm-at-london-airport
White Black Lives Matter Protesters in London.

One thing Donald Trump and Kellie Leitch have in common is their ability to shake up liberal progressives and their assumptions about everything.

To the point, for example, that Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters deplorables — because they are supposedly homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, misogynists and bigots. Never mind that they simply might not agree with what the progressive media wants them to believe.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, Conservative Party of Canada Leadership hopeful Kellie Leitch suggested that newcomers to Canada should take a values test before they are admitted. Without a doubt, you would think the sky had fallen. Of course, the epithet we heard the most was that Leitch was a racist. In fact, many in the media were beside themselves attacking her for even wanting a discussion of the topic.

Yet, the reality is, as I wrote in three previous posts (here, here and here), there are millions of Canadians who agree with Leitch — traditional liberals and conservatives both!

Of course, when talking with progressives, they can’t avoid bringing up the famous phrase “white privilege.” What white privilege? Many of us come from backgrounds of poverty. The difference is our families did not whine and snivel and protest about their victimhood. They scrimped, saved and worked and made their ways into society, just as many blacks have done.

A perfect example of the misunderstanding of white privilege happened recently in the U.K. Some whites who were involved in the Black Lives Matter movement held up air traffic at the City of London Airport (per featured image). Later, in court,  they got off with a slap on the wrist and a warning — thus convincing themselves that it was their white privilege that got them off.

Actually, no. What got them off was the fact that it was their first offence. Regardless, judging from the looks on their faces, they could have cared less who they inconvenienced or endangered with their actions.

Now, what would you call racial equity when opportunities for blacks are made even worse?  Take, for example, this story: Valeria Silva, the former “white” Superintendent of St. Paul Minnesota public schools declared teachers to blame for black on black violence — be it in the hallways or classrooms.

As a result, black students with negative behaviour towards others were to be understood and not disciplined. The result of course was absolute bedlam, in addition to lowered reading and math scores and parents pulling their kids out of Silva’s schools. (H/T Halls of Macadamia)

Which brings me to my purpose for this post. How do you cook a lobster? By boiling it ever so slowly it doesn’t notice a thing. And, judging from the high poll numbers Mr. Trudeau is still getting, that is exactly what is happening to our country — a change that will be complete if the federal Liberals unilaterally — without a referendum — change our electoral system.

I used to call myself a progressive conservative. Not any more. The crux of the matter is that progressivism has become socialist neo-Marxism and, as a result, is becoming as regressive in the West as it is in today’s China.

Page separator

Endnote: Given the Trudeau Liberals regressive progressive federal policies related to man-caused climate change and the role of activists, we can now anticipate just how the pipeline approval process is likely going to end. Not well!

Free speech in Canada except when we talk about Muslim values

Kellie Leitch was right to bring up the topic of screening immigrants and refugees for Canadian values — a topic I wrote about last week here and here.   Leitch was right because it has opened up the opportunity for a national debate — finally.

Of course, the progressives and liberal media are all over Leitch for daring to bring up the topic. Their favourite put down, it seems, is to compare her views to those of Donald Trump. This is laughable because Trump has millions of supporters and could very well win the U.S. election in early November 2016.

All the criticism ignores reality. There was a recent Canadian poll,  for example, that showed 67% of us think we should do more to screen immigrants. Then, of course, there is the inconvenient truth that Canadian values include “free speech.”

Strangely, no matter how many Islamic terrorism episodes we see happening throughout the Eastern and Western world, the media doesn’t think we should talk about them in realistic terms so that we don’t offend Muslims. Just imagine this type of politically correct reaction in the 1940’s when, as my mother has told me repeatedly, the media and political establishment talked freely about Nazi terrorism. I mean, terrorism is terrorism.

Anyway, for the latest:

  1. Check out the CBC’s “At Issue Panel” from Thursday, September 8th, 2016. In their second segment (Line 650), they talk about the motivation for Leitch to bring up this topic. All three journalists — Andrew Coyne, Chantel Hebert and Jennifer Ditchburn — couldn’t imagine why she had done so other than for strategic reasons. Huh? I mean, these are usually excellent mainstream journalists, yet they seem so out of touch with reality. Can’t they see why so many Canadians are scared about the society they are going to leave their grandchildren and great-grandchildren? Talk about head-in-the-sand thinking!
  2. Check out the Sunday Night Panel on Wendy Mesley’s National (above). The three panelists were John Kay of the Walrus, Adrienne Batra of the Sun, and Alamin Abdelmahood of Buzzfeed Canada. You can listen to the whole video but the key part is towards the end at line 11:14. Abdelmahood suggests that talking about screening immigrants from the Middle East is racist. Wow! Which motivated me to look up what he has written at Buzzfeed. As expected, he called Donald Trump’s ideas racist. The thing is, Islam is not a race, it is a religion and Muslims coming from the Middle East represent many ethnicities.

The crux of the matter is that screening immigrants is common sense. Talking about such screening is an aspect of “free speech” that we are allowed under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  And, to throw epithets like “racist” in our faces is nothing but political correctness and extreme intolerance of differing views. I mean, imagine how Muslims would react if they were called racists simply for complaining about Christians!

Yes, one of the positives of Canada is that people of all sorts of ethnicities and religions are welcome to come to Canada, but, and this is a big but, they need to be willing to tolerate all Canadian values, not try to change our society to be like the wretched ones they left behind.

 

 

 

Kellie Leitch has forced debate re immigrants & Canadian values

kellie-leitch-2A few days ago, I wrote a post explaining how Kellie Leitch, a CPC leadership candidate, was right to want a national discussion about Canadian values in relation to whether or not immigrants and refugees should be vetted for those values. I was hardly alone. Many others have written the same message, including Candice Malcolm.

While it is true that immigrants coming legally into this country are screened for health and financial considerations, as far as I know, they are not asked whether they accept Canadian values.

For example, are they asked whether they agree with the value of free speech, the equality of men and women, and the rule of law under our Constitution (as opposed to Biblical or Shariah law). Certainly, refugees are not asked those questions. I mean, more often than not, they have no papers at all.

Yet, I watched the Power Panel of four journalists on the CBC’s “Power and Politics” earlier today and it was like there was something very wrong with Leitch asking a question related to immigrants and values. For sure, Host Rosemary Barton seemed nonpartisan and just asked the questions, but the journalists certainly were not. They all seemed to agree that, because a few of Leitch’s  fellow Conservative MPs disagreed with her opening this discussion, that she should just quit.

Talk about progressive bias. That journalist panel was suggesting, in effect, that Canadian politicians shouldn’t even talk about Canadian values — with the hint that anything goes or that to have such a discussion might offend someone.

Which makes me wonder how progressives like the four journalists on P&P view our military who are training foreign troops and/or risking their lives on behalf of Canadians. In fact, David Krayden has an excellent column on that topic today in the Toronto Sun. The military at home and abroad have a Canadian flag on their arm. He legitimately asks: Does that flag mean nothing?

Well, obviously to the military, it does mean something. It means that Canada values:

  • Freedom of speech,
  • Gender equality,
  • The rule of law under our Constitution,
  • Tolerance towards other views,
  • Freedom of religion, and
  • Freedom of political affiliation.

The crux of the matter is that today’s CBC P&P panel was wrong to suggest that Leitch simply quit the Conservative leadership campaign so that everyone will stop talking about Canadian values.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is only common sense that new Canadians, immigrants and refugees, not only know about our values but be willing to integrate into our society with a clear understanding of how those values will affect their lives.

For example, Muslims coming to this country have to understand they can only have one wife. Yet, as Tom Godfrey wrote in Sun Media in 2008 and updated in October 2015, Muslims were claiming social benefits for more than one wife. (H/T NewsWatchCanada).

Page separator

Endnote: While the Canadian media want Canadians to think that we don’t have an immigrant problem in terms of conflicting beliefs, the truth is out there on the Internet thanks to Google. For example, check out Jack’s Newswatch for his main entry on  “Canadian Values” by Candice Malcolm (also linked in my post above). His many sub-links under that main entry are all related to this topic as well. It may be inconvenient to the CBC but there “are” journalists who are asking the same questions as Leitch.

  1. In one recent column, The CBC compares Leitch to Donald Trump in the U.S. I agree with Leitch that such a comparison is unfair in that it has ntthing to do with who Canada accepts as immigrants and refugees.
  2. In another column published in 2010, Gerry Caplan of the Globe and Mail talks about Honour killings being worse than we thought.
  3. In yet another column, published sometime n 2012, Tobi Cohen, an expert on honour killings, says most such killings are done in the Muslim community. Specifically, he states:”The killing of one’s own child — usually a daughter — because her behaviour is believed to have brought shame to the family. It [can also be] the fate of some rape victims, as well as women accused of infidelity or premarital sex in countries such as Pakistan. But in the West, it’s increasingly popping up in courtrooms as first-generation Muslims struggle to balance the strict old-world ways of their parents with a desire to fit into a more liberal society.”

So, while I did not include the Canadian value of treasuring life and not believing in killing our loved ones for any reason, many immigrants still hold to these barbaric beliefs. Surely, they can be screened on this topic.

Kellie Leitch is right about screening immigrants re Canadian values

kellie-leitchKellie Leitch is currently running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, a position she is well qualified to hold.  She not only has political and governing experience but she is a well-respected pediatric orthopedic surgeon.

So, what precisely is so wrong with what she asked in a survey such that the entire political class thinks the sky is falling?

She apparently asked if Immigrants and Refugees coming to Canada should be vetted in terms of whether or not they accept Canadian values.

Well, duh? Is that not simply common sense?

I mean:

  • Do we really want people to come to our country who believe in honour killing simply because their female children want to wear western dress?
  • Do we really want people to come into our country who don’t believe women are equal to men?

Yes, I know, people can lie to be accepted. But, what we have here is a politically correct fear of asking — for one reason alone — of being called Islamophobic.

Why? Because the majority of immigrants from European countries, Australia and/or the East, once here, usually try very hard to fit in to Canadian society. Many Muslims from the Middle East do not.

In fact, oddly, Muslims from the Middle East try to make Canada into the hell hole country they left. Prayer rooms in schools. Acceptance of niqabs. Wanting Shariah law in family courts. I mean, take a look at this Google page and you will see to what extent some Muslims want to change Western society.

Anyway, does my telling it like it actually is make me Islamophobic and a bigot? No, it does not, because everything I say is true. What it does make me feel, however, is fear, fear that certain immigrants and certain refugees not only won’t agree to accept established Canadian values, but openly oppose those values.

So, Ms. Leitch, hang in there. Ignore the naysayers because you have the silent majority behind you.

One more thing, ignore all the politically correct naysayers regarding the so-called snitch line. No one, in all the time in the year since you made that announcement, has said what help is actually out there for any young female who is threatened with genital mutilation. No one. Meaning, instead of dealing with the issue, they sweep what is happening under a politically correct rug.

The crux of the matter is that political correctness is the biggest danger we have in our society today and I am thankful that at least one of the Conservative leadership candidates — Kellie Leitch — has the guts to stand up and say it like it is.

O Canada! Some of us continue to stand on guard for thee!