Who is a Canadian?

Citizenship is the status  or position of a person being a legal member of a sovereign state.  You are a citizen either by birth or by application. Each country has different rules, but in the end, in my view, it is not a right, it is a privilege which should be cherished and respected. So why is Canada so enamoured with dual citizenship, and how citizenship laws are applied?

 To be eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship, a person must fulfill a number of requirements. Currently the conditions include the following: Permanent resident status, time you have lived in Canada, tax filing and language abilities. You may not be eligible, for a certain period of time, if you have committed a crime in or outside of Canada

Governments of different ilk have over the years defined and changed the Citizenship Act to suit their political agenda. In 2008, The Conservatives have placed more emphasis on Canada’s diversity values, and past history. In 2017 Liberals are changing the laws but they have yet issued their views of what really defines a Canadian.  As C.P Champion writes in the National Post:  “The citizenship guide must do more than reproduce bon mots. It needs to explain why: Why is Canada a successful society, why do we enjoy “ordered liberty,” and why do we have “unity in diversity”

While we wait to see what the Liberal citizenship test study guide, there are some concerns as to how current laws are being applied in different cases where Canadian citizenship can be revoked.

For example Helmut Oberlander, 93, of Waterloo, Ont., accused of hiding or lying about his past service with a Nazi death squad prior to becoming a Canadian citizen in 1960, has had his Canadian citizenship stripped four times, and yet he is still in the country and challenging the order.

Under Trudeau’s Bill C-6, Canadian judges no longer have the ability to strip citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism. Zakaria Amara the leader of the so-called Toronto 18, who planned al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attacks on The Toronto Stock Exchange, The CBC and a siege on Parliament Hill, is now protected from losing his citizenship.

Trudeau believes that: “revocation of citizenship can and should happen in situations of becoming a Canadian citizen on false pretences. Furthermore he also stated that: “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”—even if that “Canadian” is a foreign-born agent convicted of terrorism—was never clear, and that stripping citizenship from foreign-born terrorists amounted to “two-tiered citizenship,” and yet, somehow revocation for lying or covering up war crimes was justifiable. Under Trudeau’s idiotic logic, because the government would have lost a legal case, we also paid $10.6 million to a convicted terrorist, who happens to be a Canadian citizen.
All these government decisions regarding citizenship brings forth the other argument: Should we allow dual citizenship? If we  are  willing to strip Canadian  citizenship from a former Nazis, what about those people who have dual citizenship and use Canadian passports to protect themselves and then commit acts of terrorism against Canada and its allies. Should they be deprived of their Canadian citizenship and sent back to their other country of citizenship? In the eyes of the current government why is there  a difference made between a former Nazi and a convicted terrorist?
In my opinion, dual citizenship in this era of terrorism is no longer a viable proposal. One should hold a citizenship of choice and swear allegiance to only one state. We can no longer protect people who have allegiances with other states. With, many refugees being accepted and granted citizenship in a very short period, we run the risk of having more dual citizenship Canadians. This does not bode well if many of these refugees decide to go back to their country of origin after being granted Canadian citizenship. Years ago many Lebanese were given Canadian citizenship and after being eligible to collect Canadian benefits they returned to Lebanon, to once again face a war. As a result Canadian taxpayers were forced to spend millions to re-patriate those with a Canadian citizenship. I have no doubt that this situation may once again happen with Syrian refugees.
While citizenship cannot be denied to a Canadian born in this country, it would be wise to start rethinking the policies of granting citizenship to immigrants and refugees who would want to keep their other citizenships By the same token should our elected officials be allowed to have dual citizenship?  Other countries like Australia and now Pakistan do not allow dual citizens to hold government office. In Canada we have Mulcair and Dion as examples of dual citizens holding office.
 As an immigrant I renounced all my citizenship ties with my country of origin. I was given a Canadian citizenship and I am extremely proud of it.  In my view it is a privilege and not a right for an immigrant to become a Canadian, therefore you should become a Canadian and nothing else.  A Canadian is a Canadian but not a half-Canadian. Isn’t it time for our government to demand that if you become a Canadian that you renounce your previous citizenship? The only good thing about dual citizenship is that the government can choose to return the perpetrator of a crime to his country of origin – that is if the government has the resolve to do so.

Beware of Pseudo Conservatives

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to ultimately be established as a socialist health system. The strategy was that it would be so expensive that if Hillary Clinton had won the elections, it would automatically be turned into a single payer system. So why after six months of a Trump presidency, the disastrous system is still in place?

Since the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed by the Democrats without any support from the Republicans, the latter have been promising to repeal and replace it. With a Republican President in the White House and a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, they still fail to keep their promise.

Both the conservatives and the moderates in the Republican Party cannot come to an agreement how to repeal and replace the (ACA). Seemingly, the conservatives want to repeal and make the system less costly to be able to reduce taxes. The moderates would like to keep the government’s funding of Medicaid. With only a majority of two in the Senate, it becomes very difficult to pass a bill if more than two Senators vote against it. With only two defections the Vice-President can cast his deciding vote and thus pass the bill.

After some arduous tries to get something done after the House had already voted and passed their version of an alternative to Obamacare, the Senate ultimately got the courage to take their version of repeal and replace to the floor. The leadership knew full well that Senators: Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were always going to vote ‘NO”. Not expecting any other defections, the Republicans counted on a vote by the Vice-President to break the tie and get the bill passed.

After being diagnosed and operated for brain surgery, and knowing that a crucial vote to repeal and replace Obamacare was going to take place he made what is called a heroic return to the Senate to take part in the vote. He pleaded for bipartisanship in an impassioned speech when  he called for the Senate to make sure that a vote took place. Every Senator and the American public characterised his speech as seminal and his return to the floor as heroic.

In the past he had opposed Obamacare. But on the crucial vote at 1.30 am on Friday 28^th of July 2017, the maverick John McCain could not get away from the drama and self-centred decision, he voted “NO’ and as a result killed the Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare; thus helping the Democrats and self–aggrandizing himself in the history books.

McCain the long-time Senior Senator from Arizona has been a Republican in Name Only (RINO) for years. Revered by many because of his wartime service and capture by the Vietcong, he has, over the years, played a significant role in the Republican Party. He twice sought the Presidency of the United States; he lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 primary, and then lost to Obama in 2008.

In my view Senator McCain is a dejected politician who could not live with the fact that his past political decisions and stance on some issues prevented him from ever being President of the United States. Although well-regarded by many, his failure to be a true conservative had made him a less than powerful force in the party. Furthermore, his relationship with President Trump was never a good one after candidate Trump had refused to call him a hero during the campaign. Trump ignored Newton’s  third law that states:” For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The actions of McCain in my view was a calculated on;

It is reported that when asked how he would vote he replied ‘Wait for the show’. When it was his turn to vote, he looked at the reporters and then the ceiling and shouted ‘NO’.  He came back to a heroic welcome, he voted ‘NO’ in a vindictive manner to send a resounding, and thunderous ‘F*** U’ to Trump.  Once again as a true RINO he placed his personal feelings ahead of the party and the nation, and voted with the Democrats, He then decided to return to Arizona where perhaps he may never return to the Senate again due to his illness. In my opinion, he accomplished what he always wanted to do – be a thorn in the Republican Party that he always wanted to lead and was never capable of doing.

To conservatives, let the McCain actions be a warming to you. Very often the conservative movement has seen rifts among the ranks. Closer to home, in Alberta, watch out for the progressives who have for years been hiding among true conservatives. They have never had the guts to call themselves Liberals but will vote with the left when it will suit their political aspirations.

 It is often said to beware of a woman’s scorn, but in politics be very aware of wounded and dejected politicians. They may not only hurt the party but more treacherously the nation.

To Tweet, or not to Tweet - that is the Question

I may not support all of President Trump’s tweets, but the obsession and behaviour of the media is distorting his many accomplishments. While some of his tweets maybe off base and downright obnoxious, I believe that this new form of communication is neither un-presidential or out of place. Perhaps we should focus more on the policies rather than the tweets.

Since his election President Trump has demonstrated that he is not your run of the mill politician, in fact he has very rarely acted like a politician in the past 6six months. The Democrats have done everything to scuttle his presidency. Helped by an increasingly hostile and biased media, the Liberal left has decided to form a ‘Resistance’ force as their strategy to regain power.

The Democrats in the Senate have obstructed many of his appointments and President Trump still does have a complete cabinet. The failed policies of the Obama years are being reversed and the Democrats are helpless. As a result they have resorted to a barrage of accusations, many unsubstantiated. The Russian ‘collusion’ accusations have now turned into an Independent Council investigation. His firing of the FBI Director has come under scrutiny, despite the fact that he has every right to hire and fire personnel. His travel ban, very similar to the one ordered by Obama, has been stopped by lower courts in a purely political move. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court unanimously suspended lower courts bans, the Democrats are still trying to prevent its implementation.

Failing all their attempts to oppose his policies, the Democrats are trying to use the 25^th Amendment to declare him insane or of unsound mind to govern. I believe they tried this with Reagan and failed. The burden of proof is so high that it is unlikely that it will ever happen. Nevertheless it will be used as another tool and the resist and obstruct strategy to undermine his Presidency.

Comedians and Hollywood types who still cannot believe that he won the lections have resorted to very nasty so-called satire to attack him. Late night shows, programs like the ‘View’, Morning Joe and cable TY including CNN and MSNBC have led the charge in an unprecedented attack on any President before him. The Washington Post and the New York Times have done their utmost to publish stories from undisclosed sources to inform the public and yet they are offended when he calls them Fake News.

Today every time he tweets, there is uproar from the left as well as some on the right. Their comments are always accompanied by the word un-presidential. The content may be obnoxious and sometimes vulgar; however what should be considered un-presidential,in my view are the following:

·         The continued apologist tour by former President Obama who goes around the world undermining Trump’s policies to safeguard his failed legacy.

·         President Johnson sitting on the toilet while the door is open and conducting the affairs of the State.

·         President Clinton’s affair with an intern.

·         President Kennedy’s affair with an actress and the wife of a mobster.

The real issue is that Trump has chosen a different path from any of his predecessors. He has decided that he will fight the media at every corner and opportunity when he feels that he has been wronged or not. This is a trait lagging among conservatives today. He seems to have a vindictive personality that he has honed over the years as a businessman. Too often the problem with his tweets is that he uses language which goes beyond what a normal politician will use, especially when it comes to women. The use of 142 characters tends to limit the ability to fully express his thoughts. On the other hand it seems that this type of communication resonates with his base and the ordinary men and women of America who voted for him. We may quibble with the content of his message but in many cases he is right on context.

I am also a supporter of his foreign affairs strategy; if that is the one he has chosen. He seems to disparage every previous international agreement; for example he berated NATO and then got members to pay their fair share. On trade, in particular NAFTA he wanted out and then got the partners to agree that some changes have to be renegotiated. He refused to participate in the Paris Climate Agreement, and it seems that he may get the rest of the world to make changes to accommodate the U.S position, which I believe he won’t change. Once again his use of Twitter to make theses pronouncements is a tool to change the conversation to what he wants, and not to what the media wants.

In my view just like the first TV debate was the turning point between Kennedy and Nixon, today social media is the new means of communication that Trump uses to disarm his opponents. Should he stop? In my mind, an empathic –No. Should he change the style? A resounding -Yes. I believe that he should counter punch at every opportunity, on policy  but not on purely personal issues. His favorite tool - Twitter gives him the ability to reach millions of people without resorting to the hostile media.

This presidency has brought some of the most hostile and nasty environment to politics. The delusional left must come to the reality that they lost the last elections, not necessarily because of the Russians, or even Trump, but because of their failed candidate and their failed socialist policies. To continue on a path of ‘Resistance’ instead of doing their job to serve the public, will result in nothing less than further defeat for the Democrats at the ballot box.

Trump’s tweets if used properly and with better vocabulary will defeat the politicians, the media and the vacuous delusional Liberal elite of Hollywood every time.

The Case against Trump

At 2.30 am on November 09, 2016, the Democrats realized that their dreams of a continued progressive agenda in the White House had vanished. Ever since then, it has been an all-out war to discredit the democratically elected Donald Trump. It seems that every day a new charge or alleged constitutional breach is brought up. So where is the case to impeach him?

There is this continued assertion that Hillary Clinton lost the election because there was some collusion between the Russians, Trump and his campaign. As a result the Democrats succeeded in getting the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the possible connection with Russia. Failing that there is the assertion that the President’s firing of FBI Director Comey was a result of his interference in the Russia/Flynn investigations.

More recently a leak to the media suggests that the President gave classified information to the Russians during a meeting with the Russian Ambassador and the Russian Foreign Secretary. So far nothing has been proven. The real crime here may be the leaks, not the declassification. It is also alleged that he may have interfered with the Flynn investigation when a Comey memo was published that said: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,”

 So far nothing has been proven, and all the accusations are pure speculation by Democrats, comedians turned political pundits, and the international Liberal media. In fact where is the proof for any of these allegations? Lots of smoke, but no fire yet.

Let us look at each case:

Russia has been interfering in elections around the world for years, as have other powerful nations including the U.S. Therefore there is no doubt that Russia was trying to influence the elections, but so far there is no tie to Trump or his campaign team. Clinton’s loss is not the result of Russia’s interference but rather her terrible campaign.

FBI Director Comey was at the centre of two important decisions which may have affected the elections. First he never did anything about the meeting of the Attorney General and former President Clinton on a tarmac in Arizona. Then he released the fact that Hillary Clinton e-mails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer were of a classified nature. Before the elections Democrats were asking for his head on a platter, yet when he was fired the same people are accusing the President of interference. They also conveniently forget that the position of FBI Director is not a lifetime appointment, and that the incumbent can be fired by the President, and that President Clinton did fire a FBI Director.  If the recently released Comey memo that is being used to prove obstruction of justice is so pivotal why was it not released in February when it was written? Why was the Attorney General’s Office not appraised of the President’s demands? Two things come to mind: One the memo was released after the firing of a disgruntled employee and two there was no demand it was a ‘hope’.

What about the release of classified information? In this case when the President met with the Russian Ambassador and Foreign Secretary he allegedly told them about some classified information provided by the Israelis about ISIS. For the uninitiated, the President can classify and declassify information period. More importantly the information was about defeating a common enemy. While the left is crying foul, even the Israelis were not averse to its release. Remember the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so why not provide information that could help defeat the enemy. By the way Obama offered classified information to the Russians in 2016, why no investigation?

Since everybody is trying to make a case against the President and so far without much success, I will make the case for him.

Most of his difficulties are self-inflicted. Trump is not a politician, but a successful businessman, who managed a huge private empire without much corporate governance interference, because he was the sole decision maker.  When he became President he had to learn a lot about the complexities and intrigues of government. He wants to drain the swamp and it is proving to be difficult because there are so many snakes and alligators. While he has been masterful in the appointment of his cabinet, there are many important positions left unfilled because of the continued obstruction by the Democrats. Furthermore his West Wing is devoid of a Chief of Staff equal to the task. I believe that some changes are necessary and in my opinion a Newt Gingrich should be the new Chief of Staff to help the President navigate the political jungle.

More importantly he should discard his addiction to Twitter. During the campaign he proved to be the best communicator of his policies, but he did it in speeches not 142 characters, which in many cases leaves too many hanging chads and innuendos, that can be misconstrued, thus creating much confusion and chaos.

As for the Democrats, the RINO in Chief John McCain and his Republican No-Trumper cohort they may still rue the day that independent Counsel Robert Mueller, was chosen to do the investigation. The parameters given to him are so broad that Clinton’s shenanigans may still be under investigation.

Trump likes to win. To achieve a victory, he should put his huge ego aside, stop fighting the media, and instead focus on his agenda of economic growth, national security and government reform. For somebody who made a name by saying “You’re fired”, he should start by cleaning house as quickly as he can. There are too many rats from the previous administration left around him. While a special counsel, not a prosecutor, has been appointed to investigate the so-called Russian connection, I believe that if he has done nothing wrong, that the investigation may well be a positive for him. However he should stay clear of making any comments on the issue until all the findings from the different investigating committees have been released 

To make America great again, not only does it require great policies but it demands a disciplined leader to lead the charge. Trump can be this leader, if he discards his Apprentice persona and behaves like the President of the United States.

The cold war and proxy wars

At the end of World War II, the conflict between the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, the Western World and NATO allies became known as the Cold War. A common time frame for this conflict is 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. During that time many proxy wars between the two factions took place. Once the USSR collapsed there was some form of quasi peace as the United States became the only superpower. With the rise of Vladimir Putin as Russian leader, we are now entering a new Cold War era but this one is very different and possibly more dangerous.

During the period of the Cold War there was no direct military conflict between the two Super powers, except in the sixties, when the U.S threatened the Soviets during the Cuban missile crisis. However, each country got involved in their own wars. More importantly, the U.S got directly involved in Vietnam, and the USSR in Afghanistan. Both countries were involved in covert actions such as providing and selling arms to different warring factions around the world. The U.S supporting right leaning governments while the USSR backing up socialist revolutionary regimes. It was a constant war of ideology, capitalism versus socialism. Proxy wars continued for a long time until the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern bloc. During that time there was a constant web of reciprocal spying, including meddling in elections by both sides. The Russians lost much of its influence around the world as they also lost control of Eastern European countries. This downfall was never forgotten by the new Russian President Vladimir Putin, who for a decade has been plotting the resurgence of a Russian super power. 

The rise of China as an economic power and hence a military power we have a new player on the geopolitical scene. In addition the new world threat of radical Islamic terrorism has created a new environment for a new cold war, which is being used to start proxy wars. While the U.S and its allies are mainly preoccupied with Islamic terrorism, Russia and China have been gradually building themselves as the main rivals to the U.S. Helped by a feckless Obama administration and foreign policy, Russia has increased its sphere of influence. Putin took over Crimea and has now been involved in Syria. Russia now has access to naval bases in the Mediterranean and airfields in Iran. Meanwhile China has aggressively flexed its muscle in the South China Sea, building artificial islands with air strips. Gaining more influence in Western Pacific.

The most concerning situation is the military rise of Iran and North Korea, both countries already named by the new Trump administration as significant threats to world stability. These two countries have Russia and China as ‘defacto mentors’. They are used as surrogates by the two U.N Permanent Security Council members, who have veto powers. China very mutely supports North Korea, while Russia is increasingly helping the military buildup of Iran. The new proxy war does not involve direct military offensives, but Iran and North Korea are used as U.S irritants. While they preoccupy the Western world they allow Russia and China to increase their military might and territorial influence. The greatest proxy war threat will come through cyber-attacks on power grids, water supplies, and on banking and economic infrastructures.

I believe that it is this cat and mouse play by Russia and China, indirectly helped by the rise of Islamic terrorism, which gave rise for Trump’s call on NATO countries to increase their contributions. Today it is clear that The U.S bears the brunt of the military costs for being the policeman of the world. Out of the 28 members of NATO only 5 actually fulfill their 2% of GDP contribution commitment. The other 23 countries, including Canada, are mostly ruled by leftist Liberal governments who have curtailed their military budgets, and instead have invested in costly social programs which are difficult to roll back. Autocratic governments like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea on the other hand continue to build their arsenal and sponsor terrorism. Most importantly Iran and North Korea pursue a policy of nuclear buildup and proliferation, which I believe includes collusion and cooperation between the two countries. This covert cooperation can be seen in the nuclear and missile test by North Korea and missile test and terrorism sponsorship by Iran.

Where do we go from here? What can the world do to stem these global and dangerous threats? While very difficult and demanding I believe that there are some strategic alliances that should and can be built to make real strides to prevent another world war.

In my humble opinion, I see a number of possible solutions:

 On defeating Radical Islamic terrorism, there is a possibility of a coalition between Russia, China and the Arab world. There are many common interests in doing a deal. Russia has to worry about Chechnya, China battles Uyghur militants, as for the Arabs, despite the divide between Shia and Sunni factions there still exists the desire among some to defeat the terrorists.

Iran and North Korea are a different proposition. Obama’s deal with Iran has created a major problem for Israel, the Middle East and the world. North Korea is a dictatorship supported by China which is a major destabilizing threat in South East Asia, mainly to its neighbours Japan and South Korea. The actions of these two countries can only be resolved through UN sanctions backed by both Russia and China. Unfortunately the UN has become a dysfunctional organization which no longer has any will, credibility or teeth left.

A Korean solution can only be achieved with the help of China. One way to get this done is through new trade relationships with China. It is possible that the Trump administration could get something done on that front. Otherwise the only alternatives left are either a regime change led by China, or war with North Korea, which is not the preferred solution.

The post-Obama era is worse than the post-Carter years. The world and nations are divided. We have reached a dangerous point in our history and it is not Trump’s fault if the world gets into a real war. It would be the bad deals and agreements made by Obama and previous administrations such as the failure to curtail North Korea before they acquired nuclear weapons, and the return of billions of dollars to Iran who can now sponsor terrorism at will. The Western world should wake up and acknowledge the real dangers that the world faces. We must abandon political correctness and appeasement; resort to strategic alliances to find lasting solutions.

Remember that the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’. The real issue is choosing the right friend.