Sunday, 14 February 2016

Liberals' Cynical Use of Immigrants Continues

Last week, I read that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government plans to get rid of the language requirements for new immigrants to Canada.  Whereas his father sought to create a country where everyone spoke both English and French, his son seems to be intent on creating a country where people speak neither English nor French.  I wasn't surprised to hear about this latest move by our new Liberal taskmasters.  It just confirmed my worst fear that the government of Trudeau the younger would take multiculturalism where it has never gone before.  Furthermore, the Liberals have become emboldened by the popularity of their actions on the Syrian refugee crisis.  Indeed, it seems that as soon as the Grits swept to power, almost everyone in Canada started hopping on the refugee bandwagon.  By now, maybe you're asking me if I oppose taking in Syrian refugees.  Certainly not! In fact, I'm very happy that the new government of Canada has undertaken a massive effort to bring refugees from Syria into this country.  What I question is the motivation behind this effort. Trudeau's Liberals would have you believe that they're helping these people out of compassion.  Yeah, right. There is only one reason that the Liberals are taking in thousands of Syrian refugees and it can all be summed up in one word: votes.

Now just to be fair, all parties in Canada try to use the so-called immigrant or ethnic vote to their advantage.  But no one does this better and more successfully than the Liberal Party, going back to the days of the first Prime Minister Trudeau.  In fact, Pierre Trudeau didn't just use immigration to get votes.  He used to it re-make Canada in his image.  For instance, Trudeau flooded his home province of Quebec with immigrants whom he believed would become loyal federalists and Liberal voters.  Does anyone remember the 1995 Quebec referendum when then provincial premier, Jacques Parizeau blamed the defeat of the independence campaign on money and the "ethnic vote"?  A lot of people, including myself at the time, believed that his remarks constituted outright racism.  But the truth isn't so simple.  He made these remarks because he knew his history.  He knew that just a couple of decades earlier, Trudeau sought to flood Quebec with new immigrants who he believed would be loyal to his vision of a united, multicultural Canada.  Had he not done this, Quebec may very well have been celebrating its 20th year of independence last year.  But of course, Trudeau wasn't just thinking about Quebec when he liberalized Canada's immigration policies.  He wanted to flood all of Canada with new immigrants whom he believed would become loyal Liberal voters.  I would contend that this is one of the biggest reasons why the Liberal Party is sometimes called Canada's natural governing party, for they have been using immigration as a tool of social engineering to ensure that this country's future generations will be generations of Liberal voters.

The Grits' latest plan to do away with language requirements for newcomers to Canada is just a continuation of their ongoing, cynical use of immigrants as pawns to solidify their power over this country.  Why should they care if new immigrants to this country can't speak English or French well enough to fit in to Canadian society, even after they've become citizens?  After all, one doesn't have to understand too much of either official language to be able vote Liberal come election time.

Saturday, 13 February 2016

What If Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders Becomes the Next U.S. President? A Grim Future Awaits the World Either Way

Up until about a year ago, few would have thought that either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have a chance in hell of winning their respective party's presidential nomination.  But now as the primaries have recently begun, the prospect of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders vying for the U.S. presidency in this year's upcoming election has become much more likely.  So I'm now asking myself, what if one of these two men became the President of the United States?

Bernie Sanders: A More Just, But Much Weaker America

Right now, more and more Americans want to "feel the Bern," as the slogan goes.  But why? Probably because he's doing exactly what current U.S. President Barack Obama did when he first ran for president in 2008.  He's giving people hope - hope for a more just America.  There is, however, one significant difference.  Sanders openly describes himself as a "democratic socialist" and promotes policies like universal health care and free post-secondary education.  Who would have ever thought that a person preaching socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, would be a viable candidate for the U.S. presidency?  If Sanders were to be elected president, it would be as significant as when Barack Obama became the first non-white person to ascend to America's highest office.  Whereas Obama broke through the country's still formidable racial barriers, Sanders has the chance to break through America's ideological barriers and become the country's first president elected on a socialist platform.

I don't know if Sanders would be able to push through his entire agenda.  It will inevitably depend on what kind of Congress he has to convince.  Chances are, however, that he will be able to make some significant changes.  But those changes will come with a price tag - a big price tag, which may include the U.S. having to give up its status as the world's sole superpower, thereby leaving itself and its allies extremely vulnerable.  The reason is that policies like universal health care and free college education cost a lot of money.  That money will have to come from somewhere, and I'm betting that much if not most of it will come from what the U.S. now spends on defense.  I predict that should Bernie Sanders win the U.S. Presidency, the American military machine will be massively scaled down.  Bases will be closed, troop numbers will be reduced, funding for new technology and equipment will not materialize and the number of American ships, submarines and planes with significantly decrease.  At the same time, America's rivals, countries like Russia, China and Iran, all ruled by brutal, power-hungry dictators, will increase their military spending and expand their armies, navies and air forces.  Should a major global conflict ensue, such as the Third World War that I have talked about in some of my previous posts, the U.S. will find itself outnumbered and outgunned.  So as a citizen of both Canada and Israel, two countries that would undoubtedly call on the U.S. in a time of global war, you won't blame me if I see the prospect of a Bernie Sanders presidency as extremely unnerving.

Donald Trump: A Fast-Track to World War III

I see World War III as being inevitable, but not for the next decade or two.  Should Donald Trump win the U.S. Presidency, however, it may come a lot sooner.  Call him what you want, a bigot, arrogant, whatever, but the fact of the matter is that he's deadly serious. And his rise to Commander-in-Chief of the biggest military machine in human history may have deadly consequences.  Donald Trump has proven to be a firebrand loose cannon on the campaign trail and I doubt that he would be any different as President of the United States.  I would also describe him as a megalomaniac, very similar to Russia's Vladimir Putin.  It's no wonder then that Trump has said a positive thing or two about the Russian dictator.  But make no mistake, should Trump become president, any semblance of friendship between him and Putin will quickly disappear, for once American and Russian interests conflict with each other, which has been happening a lot lately, the egos of the two power-hungry men will inevitably collide, leading to the outbreak of the Third World War much sooner than I have anticipated.

Alternatives?

As I've already said, I don't think that there's any stopping World War III from happening, but I think the American people will be making a big mistake if they elect either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump as their next president.  The former will make America much weaker than Obama has already made it, while the latter will push the U.S. into a global conflict before his first term even ends.  The only advice I can give to Americans is to elect someone that won't lead the country on such a radical path that will endanger its security and that of its allies.