Sunday, 1 April 2018

Gun Control: Shooting at the wrong targets


Every death is a tragedy and mass murders are an abomination. The latest student shooting in Florida has triggered a youth movement for gun control. While it is important to have laws, we must also understand the constitution and property rights. Exploitation of a tragedy and using children for political gain is not the right way to make constitutional changes.


There is no doubt that the U.S has the greatest number of reported shootings, but most of it is done either by criminals or police on criminals. Chicago has the largest number of black on black shootings in the country. The racial divided also contributes to much of the shootings. In many cases of police shootings it is quite clear that many victims, who happen to be black, rarely stop when called upon to do so by the police. Gangs who do not use legal firearms shoot each other or innocent by-standers. Terrorists and criminals use guns which they acquire illegally.

In my view, there is no doubt that semi-automatic guns cause a lot of damage, and assault weapons should be regulated in some way. President Trump has put forward a number of suggestions including the prohibition of bump stocks and perhaps a 21 year age limit for owners. I agree with the regulation of assault weapons, but do not agree with the age limit. If a government can place a gun in the hands of an 18 year old to go to war, why should he not be able to own a gun legally? Furthermore, most mass shootings or school attacks are used to attempt a change in the laws, but rarely do all the relevant facts taken into consideration or form part of the debate.

To start with, why is the mental state of a shooter always comes to the fore when there is a terrorist attack, but rarely when there is a school shooting? There is also a common thread in those school shootings, the perpetrator is always a loner, or is from a one parent family. The breakdown of the family and the increase of children without a father figure tend to be on the increase and too often contribute to lawlessness as well as mental issues. Schools and teachers have become the guardian of many children, which leads us to the very disturbing issue of control.

The United States Constitution is quite clear on gun ownership under the Second Amendment which states:     ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The problem is that the law was written hundreds of years ago and firearms have changed from the one bullet black powder gun to automatic and semi-automatic firearms that fires dozens of bullets in seconds. The Left has always been against the ownership of firearms and at every opportunity they have attempted to change the law. This time the youth movement organizers of the ‘March for our lives’ seem to be supported by the Democrats. It is quite apparent that these high school students could not have organized these protest marches without the financial help of some organizations with deep pockets
The second amendment came about because many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. While we may live under different circumstances, one may also believe that the Left would want to control guns for a different purpose than stopping crime. Oppression comes about with the help of the military, indoctrination is done through education. While no democratic government is openly trying to oppress the people by military rule, it is becoming quite apparent that our education system is being used, for the past two decades, to indoctrinate the youth.

General studies used to be a class where students were taught civics and other subjects, Today social studies are all about social justice, gender identity, Islamophobia but not Christianophobia, climate change, open borders and sanctuary cities, the dangers of ‘white privilege’ political correctness and other socialist curriculum. It seems to me that students today are being brainwashed by a cabal of leftist teachers using Soviet style state indoctrination. Universities have taken the steps to punish professors and students who have different views different from their leftist agenda. Freedom of speech in many cases is being stifled in institutions of higher learning. Therefore the system produces teachers who have only one view and thus profess collectivism over individualism.

The left has been working on this plan of indoctrination for decades and they are succeeding. Trudeau’s election in Canada is further proof of this trend. The uprising of students affected by the Florida shootings is a manifestation of this trend. I give credit to any young person who takes a stand, but they must also be aware of being used for a much larger agenda. I am worried when I see four year old kids marching to stop the sale of guns or changing laws that may affect property rights. Canada already has a system to be trained before owning a gun, we already have restrictions on the type of guns that can be owned. The Trudeau government is using the “March for our lives’ to mobilize its supporters to make changes to existing gun ownership laws. Most of the protesters have no idea about the law or the rights of others. The majority of gun owners are hunters, sports enthusiasts, and are law abiding citizens, and they should not be placed in the same category of criminals who in most case possess illegal guns. By the way countries like Switzerland who have many guns have less shootings, contrast this with Honduras which has fewer guns but 20 times the murder rate of the U.S.

Be very careful; students marching in Washington and many other cities around the world, is not about guns. It is about the exploitation of our youths into the furtherance of a socialist agenda. What is the next step: Children reporting their parents? There is a need for a discussion about guns, and shootings, but we must also take a deep breath before we start shooting in the dark and abolishing people’s rights and implementing a socialist agenda through the back door.

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

The Art of Chaotic Diplomacy


The world is still getting used to Donald Trump the President. Seasoned politicians and government officials at home and abroad cannot figure him out. Since his election, Trump has not acted or behaved like any politician before him. His approach to complex issues has been far from being presidential or diplomatic. However, so far, despite criticisms from his detractors and supporters alike chaos seems to be working very well for him. Is this a new era for diplomacy?

It is often said that in negotiations: ‘if you have no options, do nothing’. This is what past administrations has done with regards to North Korea and Trade. They may have negotiated but in the end too many times the U.S, according to Trump, have been on the losing end. Trump, a successful business man, has a different approach to negotiations. As the author of ‘The art of the deal’ he understands that going into a negotiation one must have a ‘best alternative to a negotiated agreement’ (BATNA). To think, that according to his detractors, Trump does not have a plan when he makes statements about North Korea, NAFTA or any policy for that matter, is not only foolish but insulting. He may not be a conventional politician but is far from being stupid, and the world better start understanding his tactics.

Let us take foreign affairs for a start. He does not like globalism, hence he disparaged the Climate Paris Agreement, and he forced NATO allies to pay their fair share, and always threatens to pull out or of existing agreements. He bombed Syria without telling the United Nations, and promises to cut U.N’s funding. Not your usual diplomatic moves, but the results have proved him right. As for North Korea he has called Kim Jong-un ‘little Rocket man’ denigrated him and sent aircraft carriers and military hardware to the region in response to North Korea’s continued missile and nuclear tests. By increasing sanctions he was able to get China on his side and now agree to meet Kim in a summit talk. This latest move has attracted criticisms from many quarters. Mostly from the same people who for decades have not been able to do anything and instead allowed the regime to increase and perfect its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. While I do not believe for one minute that these talks, if they happen, will get the desired results, in my view it will be a start to put the dictator on notice that his country could be attacked and destroyed.

As for trade his refusal to join the TTP and re-negotiate NAFTA, is not surprising since these were campaign promises. From a U.S point view trade agreements as they exists are in many cases unbalanced. Many countries including China have had preferential treatment, and the U.S, Mexico and Canada have progressed under NAFTA which in many instances need a review as a result of new technology. Trump’s imposition of 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum respectively is a tactic that will force countries to renegotiate now long overdue agreements, due to advances in technology, logistics and demographics, and more importantly because of the rise of China and India as growing economies. I suggest Canada and Mexico must come to the table with new ideas that include a removal of barriers on dairy products, and immigration policies at the southern borders of the U.S. Let us be quite clear, as a free trader I do not like tariffs, because they are a tax in another word, but if it used as a strategy to get better fair trade in a free market I am all for it.
What has been called chaos by the left and other perennial politicians is just another way of doing politics by Trump. His negotiation tactics which includes labelling, demeaning his opponents are a way to disarm his opponents. It may not be pretty but it seems that it produces results. Diplomacy as practiced by many of his predecessors has not worked in the case of Iran, North Korea and China. Trump believes that a different approach could be the answer to these thorny and dangerous problems.
 As a businessman he is used to hiring and firing his staff. He seems to be using the same management skills for his cabinet, as the revolving door keeps opening and closing on some of his personnel. The latest being Secretary Rex Tillerson, who has on a few occasions disagreed publicly with the President on foreign affairs. Let us remember that Secretaries and other government personnel serve at the President’s pleasure. He can hire and fire anyone on his staff.
Too often Canadians have followed the Democrat and liberal media rhetoric that Trump does not know what he is doing. Diplomacy is a very important part of governing; however history has shown that not all diplomatic decisions have been good for the world. The ‘Peace in our time’  decision by Chamberlain was not the best one ever. Obama followed in Chamberlain’s footsteps with his failed responses to the invasion of Crimea, East Ukraine, as well as the failure of his ‘Red line’ in Syria. His Iran deal made seems to be creating more problems in the Middle East than resolving dangerous terrorism and sectarianism issues. North Korea has been a thorn in the side of several administrations for over two decades. Now that NK possesses nuclear capabilities the negotiations are going to be more difficult. Empty talks and diplomacy through the U.N has not and will not work.
In Canada as reported by the National Post, we have civil servants like “Canada’s G7 sherpa Peter Boehm saying that the previous Conservative government “suppressed” everything diplomats tried to do during its decade in power. Others have complained that the Conservatives shackled senior public servants and foreign envoys and required them to clear almost all public communications with their political masters in Ottawa.” Canada and the U.S may have different constitutions, but in my view diplomacy should be conducted according to the government’s policies not at the behest of civil servants. If Canada chooses to allow diplomatic civil servants to dictate policies, this is not the case in the U.S. Let this be a warning to Canada’s NAFTA negotiators.
As a businessman Trump is used to hiring and firing his staff. He seems to be using the same management skills for his cabinet, as the revolving door keeps opening and closing on some of his personnel. The latest casualty being Secretary Rex Tillerson, who has on a few occasions disagreed publicly with the President on foreign affairs. Let us remember that Secretaries and other government personnel serve at the President’s pleasure. He can hire and fire anyone on his staff.
Diplomacy that worked, according to Reagan was ‘Peace through strength’, unlike Obama’s ‘outstretch hands’ or ‘smart power’ which never worked. If Trump’s chaotic diplomacy works, the better for the world. We should not criticize Trump because of his blustering style.  Maybe we should wait and see and hope that his approach bears better results.

Saturday, 17 February 2018

The Swamp is about to get more Dangerous



During his presidential Donald Trump repeatedly said that he would `drain the swamp`. He was referring to the establishment running the Congress and Senate of the United States. So far his promise seems to be unfulfilled, and his efforts are about to get worse.

In my book Conservatives: Dead or Alive? I wrote that Mitt Romney blew his chances to become President when he did not rebut Obama in his last debate. Instead of attacking Obama when he was rebuked for saying that ‘Russia was the greatest threat to the U.S’ he remained silent. At this point his election was doomed. However, I also said that he may return in 2016 to challenge Hillary Clinton, but he did not. When Trump threw his hat into the Republican primary, Mitt Romney immediately called him a ‘Fraud’ and became a member of the “No Trump” cabal.

In a twist of fate, when Romney ran for President he called on Trump to support him, but in a change of heart and sheer jealousy he did not reciprocate. Despite their differences, Trump considered Romney for a potential position as Secretary of State, but that is water under the bridge. Since then, President Trump has had quite a few achievements: a growing economy, getting  rid of numerous regulations, the defeat of ISIS, higher employment for everybody including Hispanics and African-Americans,  and lower taxes, to name but a few. Most people would not recognize these achievements since they are not widely reported in the liberal media. Instead the media has focused on collusion with Russia and other administrative snafus.

To achieve these goals Trump has had to deal with many obstacles. The Democrats still reeling after the Clinton defeat have no intention of collaborating, but his worst opponents have  included some members of his own party led by Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. These two stalwarts of the Republican Party have done everything to obstruct many of Trump’s agenda. McCain in a grand standing display on the Senate floor stopped the repeal of Obamacare.  Graham who had been trying to get on the President’s good side, for a while, did not support Trump’s proposal to get rid of DACA and improve the existing United States immigration morass. Remember that these two Senators both tried to become President at one time or another. In a disastrous campaign against Obama, McCain lost in 2008. As for Graham he tried to run in 2016, but received less than 1% in the GOP primary. In other words they are two losers in the eyes of the American electorate.

Re-enter Mitt Romney on February 16, 2018, when he announced his intentions to run in the vacated Senate seat in Utah. It was speculated that when Senator Orrin Hatch retired that Romney would try to replace him. Now it is official, he will do so and more than probably will win the race and enter the Senate. In his announcement to run, while Romney avoided direct onslaughts on Trump he did say:  Utah welcomes legal immigrants from around the world -- Washington sends immigrants a message of exclusion. And on Utah's Capitol Hill, people treat one another with respect." This statement is a direct hit on Trump’s intention to reform the immigration system that has plagued the country and many former presidents who have tried to do so.
 If Washington needs reform, Romney will not be the one to help doing so. In fact, in my opinion, he will join the other two losers, McCain and Graham, and oppose many if not all of Trump’s efforts to ‘drain the swamp’. He has already been endorsed by his former running mate Speaker Ryan, and will no doubt be endorsed by many others in the party who see Trump as a disruptor and enemy of the establishment. So where does all this lead us to?

There is my point of view and opinion: Romney will be elected to the Senate, and in the year’s leading to the 2020 Presidential primary he will play nice but oppose Trump when his vote may not be needed to pass legislation. Then in a move reminiscent of Edward Kennedy’s attempt to become president, Romney will challenge Trump in the primary and if he wins the swamp will survive to the applause of the establishment, the RINOs and the left.

The moral of this piece is that we should beware of larger alligators entering the swamp; they usually eat their young - just like Conservatives

Thursday, 8 February 2018

The Trump Saga: Collusion or Conspiracy?



Ever since Trump was elected President of the United Sates, the delusional left has been trying to get him out of office. It first started with accusations of collusion with Russia, then it became obstruction of justice. Do we have a ‘vast left-wing’ conspiracy in the United Sates?

Collusion is defined as a secret understanding for a fraudulent purpose. The Democrats imply that meetings between the Trump campaign and Russian individuals are acts of collusion to subvert the elections. Notwithstanding that Adam Schiff, the Ranking Democrat  Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has appeared on Kremlin backed RT. However since there are no statutes to criminalize such acts according to Lawyer Alan Dershowitz who states flatly that “even if it were to turn out that the Trump campaign collaborated, colluded or cooperated with Russian agents, that alone would not be a crime, unless the campaign asked them or helped them to commit criminal acts such as hacking.” As a result of the Democrats alleged accusations of collusion, special counsel Robert Mueller, was appointed to investigate the Trump campaign, apparently based on the contents of a so-called ‘Trump Dossier’.  So far there has been no evidence of collusion, and the charge of obstruction of justice has been added to the investigation, because the President fired the FBI Director James Comey. As the investigation progresses we see many twists to the case as former Trump campaign personnel are being charged with money laundering, giving speeches in Russia and other meetings with Russians. Yet there was no alleged collusion when in 2012, President Obama was overheard over a hot microphone telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.

The real question is why was the special counsel appointed and what is the evidence for surveillance of the Trump campaign under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant? It seems that there was a concerted effort by certain members of the FBI and the Department of Justice to either protect Hillary Clinton or to subvert the election of Donald Trump. As more texts and e-mails are being found and declassified we are starting to see a pattern of true collusion to hurt Trump. The real source for a FISA order seems to emanate from the ‘Dossier’ for Fusion GPS authored by Cristopher Steele.
Christopher Steele is a former British spy who had previously worked for the FBI. The Dossier was first funded by Republican no Trumpers, and then was financed by both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. Furthermore it seems that the FISA order was obtained without the judge being informed that the Dossier’s information came from Russian sources.
The FISA snafu may be only the tip of the iceberg. It is now revealed that members of the FBI were talking about a meeting of a ‘secret society’  in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI officials named Peter Strzok and Lisa Page during and after the 2016 election. In addition coming to light is the relationship between Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and Steele who was hired by Fusion GPS where his wife, Nellie Ohr works.
Another interesting connection is the case of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who with James Comey, was responsible for Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails investigation.
McCabe’s wife was given $467,000 by then-Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's a friend of the Clintons’.

There is no doubt that the Trump saga is turning into a political football between the Democrats and the Republicans. Hate or love Trump he was elected President, but the delusional left who cannot believe they lost an election that they should have won will continue to look for collusion or obstruction of justice. By the way the President can fire anybody he wishes, including the Director of Deputy Director of the FBI.

 Memos between different political factions will not solve the problem. If it is decided to investigate Hillary Clinton for the deleted emails and her actions when dealing with the sale of uranium to the Russians, this will further acerbate the political divide. There are still other troubling issues to be examined. What was discussed between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Arizona?  What was the role of the Obama administration and the State Department in the obtaining of the FISA order? How much did Obama know? The problem is that the United Sates maybe going down the path of a constitutional crisis that could be even greater than Watergate.

While all this may be a U.S problem, as a Canadian I am also very worried about the role played by the Canadian media in reporting these events. Every day we are bombarded by  one sided news about collusion with the Russians, and obstruction of justice by Trump. As an example Global’s Dawna Friesen starts every night with a segment about Trump, using sources like ABC, NBC, CBS and of course CNN, all members of the liberal mass media. I opined that since Friesen found out that many Canadians are worried about her reporting of events, she decided to defend herself in a the segment titled  'Reliable sources under the age of misinformation' Friesen interviewed Brian Stelter CNN’s Senior media reporter. The subject discussed is about the attack on the media by Trump and others. Problem is that there is no analysis from the other side of the issue. If Canadian reporters are worried about the truth they should do their own analysis and stop being the sycophants of the Liberal left.
Who do we believe? Who is colluding? Who are the conspirators? Is there a secret society against Trump? Is the ‘deep state’ trying to undermine the Trump Presidency? Remember the 'truth is out there' the media just has to work harder to find it, instead of relying on the same distorted sources. The media used to be the guardian of the truth today it seems that the Liberal media has lost all credibility.

Sunday, 7 January 2018

Trudeau and Islamophobia



As we enter a new year, politicians seem to be ready to ratchet up their control on citizens’ thoughts. Political correctness has taken over in our education system and now governments want to punish us for speaking out. What are the dangers of legislation concerning Islamophobia?

In many industrialized world, there seems to be a reaction to governments’ bad policies regarding the influx of immigrants from Islamic countries as a result of increasing terrorists attacks, citizens are expressing their feelings about Islam. However governments are imposing laws that protects free speech against Islam, but not against any other religion. The meme of “Islamophobia is now used to muzzle citizens’ angst and fears.

The late Christopher Hitchens said that Islamophobia – "A word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons." Well it seems that the Trudeau government has chosen the path of using the word to manipulate public discourse and garner votes by controlling speech. Furthermore his actions since becoming Prime Minister have shown a complete lack of distinction between photo-ops and policy making. It is said that one may be guilty by association. Well Trudeau’s association with certain groups and more importantly his public pronouncements, or lack of it, about terrorism clearly shows a  bias.

From an unbiased point of view, I would agree that singling out Muslims as a violent monolith, would be very wrong, but ignoring that the majority of terrorism acts have been perpetrated by people either of the Islamic faith or affiliated to an Islamic Jihadist group would be very dangerous.

What is truly disturbing is that many governments are now influencing the media in their reporting of terrorism. In Canada as in other countries the media and governments take a long time to declare an incident as an act of terrorism, even when it is clear that it is perpetrated by a Jihadists shouting ‘Allahu Akbar.  Recently in Edmonton a truck was used to plough into a crowd as the driver proclaim his faith, but to date the crime has yet to be labelled an act of terrorism.
Our Prime Minister mistakenly takes every opportunity to show his policy of ‘inclusiveness, and diversity by associating himself with causes and persons of dubious affiliations. To ensure that his message gets across he encourages laws to be passed in Parliament to either control speech or even punish speech against Islamic terrorism.

Trudeau’s silence on the protest in Iran is further proof of his political position. It seems that he is following a script used by Obama during his presidency. Play along to be loved by everybody, and yet ignore the risks posed by Islamic terrorism. What is interesting is that in Canada we are using laws to protect the use of the Niqab, and Burka, while today the women of Iran are removing their Hijab in protest against a regime that oppresses them through laws that imposes what they can wear.
In recent past, Trudeau has met publicly with the returning family of Joshua Boyle, who is now been charged with criminal offences.  Boyle is the man who converted to Islam  married and  then divorced Zaynab Khadr, who once lived in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Afghanistan. Zaynab Khadr is the sister of the convicted terrorist Omar Khadr .What is being ignored is that Boyle decided to take his wife to Afghanistan and was captured by the Haqqani network, who according to his statements had offered him to join them.  His whole story of abduction and torture, is still debatable, or are yet to be confirmed. The question is why Trudeau would decide to make his meeting with the family so public?. Why would his government agree to give $10.5 million to Omar Khadr and considering similar legal cases by former terrorists to get compensations?

Sam Harris said: “There is no such thing as Islamophobia. his is a term of propaganda designed to protect Islam from the forces of secularism by conflating all criticism of it with racism and xenophobia.”  If Harris is correct, should we not be worried that our Canadian free speech rights are being infringed for political reasons?
.
What worries me is that governments may use their powers to muzzle ordinary citizens from expressing their concerns about a religious threat of terrorism. I have many friends of the Islamic faith, I know that they are not terrorists, but I must also acknowledge that given past terrorist acts that there is a certain element emanating from that faith that threatens us. Does that mean that as a writer and member of the public, I will be under the scrutiny of my government and perhaps charged with a hate crime for expressing my opinion? Has Canada under the Trudeau government reached a point where censorship has reached Stalinist proportions? Is it time to question the actions of the Prime Minister or is it too late?