A Horde of Sycophants

Despite the recent cowardly terrorists’ attacks on civilians, we have not seen an objective media reporting of Islamic terrorism. Furthermore we are bombarded by political correctness statements by politicians and other organizations where refugees are concerned. Ever since the appearance of Obama on the international stage and now joined by Justin Trudeau we have been subjected to the irresponsible support for these two vacuous politicians by both politicians and media sycophants.

Despite increasing terrorists attacks President Obama and Justin Trudeau have refused to name the attackers as Islamist Terrorists. Over the years Obama has gone out of his way to use terms which never identifies the true source of terrorism. The term ‘so-called’ is increasingly used by so-called news anchors to describe any terrorist acts; there is so-called global war on terror, so-called ISIS or even so-called work-place violence when a terrorist shot soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas. They have added ‘Daesh’ to their lexicon to identify ISIS.

Sun Tzu said: “Know thy enemy, know thyself”. As I wrote in my book Conservatives: Dead or Alive? “Today’s terrorist may well be a civilian without a uniform. In effect we are dealing with a totally new type of enemy. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, ISIL, Khorasan, etc., are just different names, but all have the same intentions – They are hell bent on the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate sworn to destroy Israel and the West.”

Recent attacks in Paris, Egypt, Mali, and threats to other cities, clearly shows that this is a global war, even the Pope has said that it is WWIII. Leftists’ politicians, Liberals and Democrats, refuse to acknowledge the threat posed by jihadists. Instead they want to expedite the acceptance of refugees by the West, ignoring the dangers of accepting people who could harm us later. There is no doubt that the Syrian war has created many refugees, but to use political correctness to the detriment of security will be an abject failure if attacks take place on home soil. Sycophants are reluctant to acknowledge that the Syrian problem stems from Obama’s setting a red line, that turned pink and ultimately disappeared when Syria used chemical weapons.

Hypothetical: Now that there exists a threat that terrorists may use chemical weapons, has any thought be given to the possibility that Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction that were never found, could have made their way to Syria?

Now, the sycophantic media and politicians continue to attack any opposition to the fast tracking of refugees into Europe, Canada and in the United States. Ignoring that we are now in a severe Canadian economic downturn due to the collapse of oil prices, the newly elected Liberal government is pushing forward to accept 25,000 refugees by the end of the year. The logistics and costs of $1.2 billion seem to be no barrier to their ideology. It seems that the plight of unemployed, homeless, and First Nation Canadians have taken second place to political correctness.

Security does not seem to be important anymore. The use of the United Nations as a vetting agency may well prove to be inadequate due to the large numbers of refugees from the Middle East. Europe is being invaded by hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees who at first were welcomed until their sheer number caused problems never thought of when Germany step forward to accept them.

While Canada has been welcoming refugees and immigrants for years, the increasing opposition to the government’s plans is rising. As an immigrant myself I have compassion for the persecuted, but why the haste?

The West faces a new enemy who operates in the shadows. Increasingly it is becoming more difficult to monitor potential terrorists as they are home grown. Our laws are inadequate to protect us. Political correctness prevents surveillance and places citizens in danger. One of the problems which are often ignored is the assimilation of the refugees within our society. Too often multiculturalism prevents assimilation and in many countries we now have ‘no go’ enclaves which are used to harbor terrorism.

 There have been no discussions yet on where these refugees will find jobs in this economy. Many refugees are qualified professionals, but will Canada recognize their qualifications? The result of these refugees not able to find jobs may alienate them and their children, who may then be easily radicalized.

More importantly, too often those who oppose their governments’ political correctness agenda are being labelled as xenophobes, racists and bigots. The real problem is that we are increasingly being informed and then dictated by a horde of sycophants.

Sycophants of the left support these policies because they want to feel virtuous, they want to change the ethnic demographics and most of all garner more votes.

Compassion is a noble character; political ideology to the detriment of security is not.

The erroneous conservative war on women

The left has always used women’s issues as a wedge against conservatives. Aided and abetted by the media this long standing propaganda has served them very well. However, history does not support the left’s assertion on this issue. Once again this preposterous and inaccurate assessment of conservative values has been proven wrong with the election of the Hon. Rona Ambrose as interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).

Already lauded by the media the Trudeau cabinet which is composed of equal number of men and women, this notion should be put in a more informed perspective. While the number of women in cabinet is significant, it would be wrong to assume that conservatives have done less. The last Harper Conservative government had 13 women in the cabinet out of 166; the new Trudeau government has 15 women ( 5 junior ministers) out of 184 members. The disparity that the media would have you believe is far from being huge. In fact it is that the Liberals have 3 more women in cabinet; a difference of only 1% based on the size of the government.

Comparing the left and conservatives throughout history is even more revealing. There have been more conservative than leftist women leaders. One of the greatest leaders of recent times has been U.K. Conservative Margaret Thatcher. In Canada there has been only one woman Prime Minister, albeit for a short time; it was The Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, a conservative. Flora MacDonald was Canada's first female foreign minister; she was also one of the first women to vie for leadership of a major Canadian political party, the Progressive Conservatives. 

In the United States Republicans have more female staff in higher staff positions. There are four Republican Governors: Jan Brewer, Susana Martinez, Mary Fallin, and Nikki Haley compared to one Democrat – Maggie Hassan.

Republican Condoleezza Rice was the first female African-American secretary of state

 On the other hand, arguably we have very few national leftist/Liberal leaders of note, who have made their mark, The Hon, Sheila Copps never made it as leader of the Canadian Liberal Party. Shirley Williams was never elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, let alone leader of the Labour Party. Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democrat Presidential nomination for 2016, can only be remembered for her loss to Barack Obama in 2008.

While the departure of Stephen Harper, a great leader, has left a gap in the party, I believe that the elected CPC members have made a very good choice in The Hon. Rona Ambrose. This selection may be for a short time until the CPC has a leadership race. But that does not exclude other female candidates to throw their hats into the race. There are many qualified women in the CPC who could challenge and lead the party. For the time being Ms. Ambrose will not only provide a fresh face, but will most certainly bring another tone to the Party’s conservative principles.

There is no danger of conservatives disappearing in the shadows. Women in the party are not only strong but have more experience than their newly elected opposite counter parts. In fact Rona Ambrose has more parliamentary experience than both Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair.

So let us not discard the appeal of a woman leader for the party, but in fact revel in the notion that conservatives have been more favourable to women leaders than the left. The war on women by conservatives is a myth perpetuated to create a wedge among women voters and a growing, less informed younger electorate.

 Hang on to your hats, if the CPC elects a woman as their next leader. The vitriol used against Harper will be nothing compared to what will be coming, because if there is a politician that the media hates the most, it is a conservative woman. Then it will be the true war on women.

Canada from C to C to C.

The longest Canadian election campaign is over. The Canadian electorate chose to elect a Liberal government after ten years of Harper’s Conservative rule. There is no doubt that Trudeau played a masterful hand and won. While many will analyze the results and arrive at different conclusions, in my view there are three particulars that can explain the result and give us a look into the future. They are change, chaos, and possible catastrophe.

Change

So Canada voted for change; but from what?  Lower taxes, less government spending and the preservation of Canadian values? For many younger Canadians it was the environment. But the facts have been ignored in every case. Lower taxes gave Canadians the choice of spending their money as they saw fit. Government programs are not the answer to many of our problems we need different ways of providing services. As for the environment, many ignore that the Oil Sands account for 8.5% of Canada’s GHG and 0.12% of annual global emissions. Signing a treaty does not automatically mean that implementing it is easy. Promising change is easy; implementing it is not and more notably based on many promises made by the Liberals. It will costs a lot and creates deficits – the only promise that will be kept. Canadians will see the disappearance of income splitting and the reduction of the TFSA annual contribution limit among many other policies. In fact the middle class will see very few real gains.

So now that we have change was the election really about policies or was it about Harper? His policies were sound but his character had been damaged by the media for so long that many Canadians viewed the election as a change in leadership style rather than the direction of the country. In the campaign he rarely connected with the people, and he never showed passion in support of his record...

Chaos

As from October 20^th 2015, Canada will have to live with a new government for at least another four years. The biggest problem will be to fulfill all the promises. Can Canada afford the costs of the promises? Or shall we be witnessing a slew of government programs that pick winners and losers. The biggest promise will be to The First Nations. Any additional spending without clear transparency and accountability will bear no fruit.

With a global economy in stagnation and the world’s security under attack virtually every day, it is not too far fetch to see chaos on the horizon. The first international foray for the new government will be the Climate Conference in Paris. How will any agreement affect Canadians now that we do not have a PM who would defend Canada’s oil industry? If we accept the proposed agenda without conditions, Canadians will see a gradual increase in the costs of goods and taxes and further restrictions on Alberta’s economy.

Catastrophe

The Middle East is on fire. How will this government react to threats from terrorism? Aligning Canada with Obama’s foreign policies will create more problems than solutions. Remember that Obama will be gone in just over a year. Furthermore going back to collaborating with a dysfunctional United Nations, especially on the refugee problem, without a clear strategy may result in an open door policy that may bring sleeper cells to our shores? These are not just issues based on paranoia; they are real considerations that this government will have to consider. For those who accuse many conservatives of intolerance, they confuse compassion with a lack of assimilation in our immigration policies. As an immigrant I appreciate the values of a Canadian society but I am not blind to the threat coming from terrorism based in a sick ideology that demands vigilance. Lest we forget what has already happened in the past.

While I am disappointed in the final results of the elections, I accept the will of the people. Conservatives must look at the future with optimism. Harper created the foundation for conservative policies. We have just lost the battle but the final days are a long way off.

The party must choose a new leader; one who is more approachable, one that can match the so-called charismatic personality of Justin Trudeau. A younger leader, possibly a woman, would be a great choice to bring the Conservative party of Canada in the 21^st century. The new leadership must attract ‘millennials’ by making sure that the message is not lost on the internet garble but through direct communication of conservative principles.Most importantly the Conservative party must compromise on process and procedures, but never compromise on principles. 

During the next four years elected Conservative members should embrace this quote by Napoleon Bonaparte: “You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war.”

The lesser of three evils.

The differences between the three parties are clear, but too often ignored by the media. How we vote is going to affect us for a long time. No matter how one views the Harper government, there is a very easy decision to make on October 19^th.

On the economy, Harper has been able to keep Canada in good shape, despite the small hiccup caused by the fall in oil prices. The short-lived recession is already in recovery; Canada has a surplus. The Liberals want to create budget deficits and tax small businesses under the guise of investments thus increasing spending by $15B and taxes by $5B. The NDP plans to increase spending by $10B and taxes by$10 annually. Both parties will also revise the tax credits implemented by the Conservatives, including reduction of the TFSA annual contribution by the NDP and revision of all Child Care benefits by the Liberals. Not much difference, but same agenda – tax and spend.

While the refugee crisis is impacting Europe, the NDP and Liberals are planning to increase the number of refugees that Canada may accept in the future. They ignore the fact that we are in a state of war with terrorists. Trudeau believes that terrorists should be treated the same way as ordinary criminals and that they should keep their Canadian citizenship: so does Mulcair. Both of them do not understand the problems that Obama has created and would rather pass the responsibility of foreign policy to the United Nations rather than the duly elected government of Canada. The former ‘honest broker’ Canadian position is no longer viable since there is nobody to broker with in a war conducted by terrorists rather than an identifiable nation.

While these two issues are at the top of the electorate’s mind, in a strategy to divert the attention from their failed proposed policies the Liberals and NDP have tried to make wedge issues as part of the debates. The debate about the Niqab is a red-herring; I would listen to Malala, the Nobel Prize winner who rejects its use, rather than listen to Trudeau.

As for the climate change debate, The Government of Canada has proposed a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The NDP’s  proposal to impose a cap-and-trade policy will do nothing to cut emissions; China will continue to spew CO2 in the atmosphere, and it will only be a tax by another name, as all related costs will go up.

Whether you like or dislike Harper because he seems to be too ‘wooden’ in appearance or as the media would have you believe too controlling; the alternative is less appealing. Do you want a leader with ‘nice hair’ and a vacuous approach to foreign policy? Or a closet communist who wants to take us back to the days of Bob Rea’s economic management?

A minority government is not the answer either. Our economy, security and values are at stake. Forget strategic voting, just look at Alberta.

 Take a deep breath, pinch your nose and vote for the status quo. The alternative is too scary.

The New Crisis: Refugees, Migrants or Invasion?

Similar to the picture of the Vietnamese girl burned by napalm, the picture of the drowned three year old Syrian has brought to light the plight of thousands of refugees. However there stops the similarity. Compassion is a great human trait, but before we jump to conclusions many future consequences should not be ignored.

Amidst the call for accepting refugees from all quarters, there seems to be a complete ignorance or refusal to look at the root of the current problem. The United Nations and other organizations usually sit in their ivory towers and proclaim new solutions to problems very often created by their philosophies and policies. In the current situation they ignore the difference between refugees and migrants.

Where are the refugees from? Mainly from war torn Syria and other Middle East countries ravaged by internal conflict and terrorists run amok. Syrians have been displaced by their own leader and now are also under attack from ISIL. Afghans pushed from their country join Syrian refugees in Turkey and then move to Greece and other European countries in search of refuge.

Further west we have two waves of migrants. The first are from Africa, displaced by famine and continuous economic and war torn strife they make their way to Spain via Morocco. The second wave is from war torn Libya who battle dangerous waters to go to Italy. Most of these migrants pay enormous sums to callous operatives who on many occasions dump them in the Mediterranean without any water or food to be rescued by European authorities, who take responsibility for their rescue.

While much of this crisis is due to economic strife, the major problem rest with Western countries that have been unable to stop the rise of despots and terrorism. In my view the greatest culprit is Obama who in Syria set a ‘red line’ which turned pink and subsequently disappeared. His foreign policies around the world have been an abject failure His latest deal with Iran is going to make Iran a nuclear power that supports the dictator Assad in Syria. His refusal to recognize the true ideology of terrorists is putting many non-Muslims in danger all over the world.

European countries have fared no better. In their search for economic growth they have refused to face the terrorism threat both internally and externally. Their continued policies based on political correctness are causing many problems that will haunt them in the near future.

Germany, Austria and Italy bound by a guilt complex stemming from their behaviour in the Second World War are accepting this crisis without long term thinking. It is very noble and compassionate to accept and help refugees. However in a weak economy when there are very few jobs created, the citizens of these countries cannot find jobs and yet these countries will accept hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees, not over a number of years but immediately.

The European Union’s migration policies which allows for freedom of movement will further acerbate the crisis. Smaller nations and economically stable England will be put under pressure to accept refugees who have been allowed on European soil. I hope I am wrong, because I can foresee a backlash of enormous proportion fuelled by nationalism and perhaps the rise of another form of Nazism.

As for Canada, polls show that a majority want the Harper government to take more refugees. Those who support the policy cite the compassionate response of the European countries. Too often in a political charged environment, the media ignores to explain the facts. Canada has already promised to take refugees, but the government wants to ensure that they are legitimate. While the Western countries are doing their utmost to help, rich Middle East countries have done very little to help their own.

As for trying to compare this crisis with the migration of Vietnamese to Canada we should recognize the different circumstances. The South Vietnamese were our allies and fought on our side. Agree or disagree with the purposes of the war, those who fought on our side could not be left behind. In the long run many of these refugees have made enormous contributions to the country.

 On the other hand many of the current refugees and migrants in the current crisis come from countries that culturally have supported the extinction of Israel and the collapse of Western culture. Caution is warranted as we may be accepting potential terrorists in our midst. If they are not, they may well become home grown terrorists when the economy cannot support them and they cannot find the riches that they thought would be available to them in the West.

Compassion is great and noble. We should help those in need. However we need others to help and cannot take the burden upon ourselves for political reasons and ignore the consequences that may arise in the future. This new crisis demands well thought out solutions because migrants are not the same as refugees. Or could we be flirting with an invasion?