AGAR: Trudeau refuses to protect our border from illegal aliens

Arwen~Globalists have utter disdain for borders..and for their own fellow citizens apparently.

Jerry Agar

Published:May 20, 2019

Updated:May 20, 2019 9:56 AM EDT

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a March 7, 2019 file photo. (LARS HAGBERG, AFP/Getty Images)

Try to spot the number of ridiculous items in the following sentence.

The Toronto Star’s Nicholas Keung writes: “The Liberal government has killed a controversial Harper-era initiative that did not afford all refugees the same rights and instead penalized those who came from so-called ‘safe countries’ like the United States.”

Before I count the ways in that sentence, here is the follow-up sentence: “Starting immediately, Canada will remove the tight time-frame for their claims to be heard and let them appeal possible rejections, as well as grant them the right to work immediately and receive health care — benefits previously bestowed only on asylum seekers fleeing from war-torn countries and corrupt regimes.”

Who says it was controversial? Last October, DART polling for Postmedia showed “68% of respondents believe the government is handling the issue of irregular asylum seekers poorly.”

That is really high for a political issue.

Who says that the USA is a “so-called safe country?”

Not Canadians.

There were over 20 million Canadian visits to the USA in 2017, so it is obvious Canadians do not consider the USA unsafe.

International agreements also consider the USA a safe haven for refugees, which is why it is illegitimate for people to come from there to claim refugee status here.

As such, it is not legitimate to claim that persons already in the USA have the right to, “the same rights” as refugees coming directly from war-torn nations.

Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen told the Star in a phone interview: “The system is unfair and treats people differently based on nationality.”

This is an assault on the goodwill and generosity of Canadians who take in large numbers of refugees every year, but in this case, we are not talking about refugees.

The definition of a refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

Someone wanting to improve their economic status or to get free health care courtesy of our taxpayers is not a refugee. They have the right to apply for immigrant status.

The Star article continues: “The original reforms aimed to deter ‘bogus claimants’ whose lives weren’t in danger, but who came to Canada for economic opportunities. However, the changes failed to stem the flow of migrants and the Conservatives did not invest the necessary resources to manage the new system.”


Perhaps it isn’t the policy that has failed but the fact our current prime minister, in an attempt to virtue-signal himself as a better man than Trump, invited any and all while turning border guards into valets, carrying the suitcases of the people crashing the border.

A recent report shows nearly half of the spots taxpayers provide for homeless people in Toronto are taken by refugee and asylum claimants. Many of those are people who shouldn’t be here in the first place.

So, the current prime minister — who will run for re-election, has paid millions to a convicted terrorist, tried to jail a high-ranking military officer for political reasons, and demoted women who dared to disagree with him — now wants you to pay for the flood of illegal aliens he plans to increase.

We should and we do accept refugees.

We should but do not protect our border under Justin Trudeau.

BONOKOSKI: ‘Climate emergency’ be damned, Trudeau loves firing up the jetliners

Mark Bonokoski

Published:May 20, 2019

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waves from the steps of his plane as he departs Ottawa for Davos, Switzerland for the annual World Economic Forum on Monday, January 22, 2018. Paul Chiasson / The Canadian Press

Unless “leading by example” has become just wreckage in a ditch, then the Liberals are in dire need of a prime minister whose example is worthy of both admiration and emulation.

Justin Trudeau, once touted as the champion of “sunny ways” who would quell the bitter rhetoric of modern politics and finally bring transparency to the forefront, has shown in a brief passage in time to be a false god.

As his Environment Minister Catherine McKenna challenges the Opposition to embrace her motion to declare Canada to be in a “climate emergency,” a very foreboding catchphrase for sure, our prime minister cannot do what his government wants average Canadians to do,

He cannot cut back.

And he can’t cut back because he never has, and has never had to.

Everyday Canadians, meanwhile, sense their blood pressures rising every time the Liberals’ carbon tax is reflected in the price of gas at the pumps, in the fuel-oil bills for heating their homes, and in the added trickle-down costs of staple consumer goods.

Trudeau has no such worries, thanks to the millions in his family trust fund.

If Trudeau wants a vacation surfing off the shores of Tofino as our PM, for example, he simply flies off to British Columbia on the taxpayers’ dime and hits the waves off Chesterman Beach.

Ditto if he wants to snowboard in Whistler.

He simply goes, with scant or no regard for his carbon footprint.

During his Florida vacation this winter, which happened during the simmering of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, he flew to and from Fort Myers not once, not twice, but four times, returning to the frigidity of the nation’s capital for private meetings with his inner circle that undoubtedly had a rather heavy focus on the developing Lavalin shitstorm.

A Challenger 604 jet, according to, has an average fuel consumption of 1,324 litres per hour.

The one-way flight time from Ottawa to Fort Myers, as calculated on, is three hours, 11 minutes.

Only hours after rejoining his family in Florida on his final trip back to the sun, Trudeau blithely posted on Twitter that his government would make “big polluters pay.”

Much hilarity surely ensued among those in the know within the PMO, but there is nothing funny about it.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who has promised to lay out his party’s climate plan before Parliament ends in June, summed it up nicely in the wake of McKenna’s demand that her motion to declare a national “climate emergency” be given the Commons’ approval.

“Justin Trudeau is a high-carbon hypocrite,” he said.

“Flying to Tofino for a vacation, flying to and from Florida four times in three days, to come back from his vacation for an Instagram photo-op, are not the actions of someone who thinks that there is a climate change emergency.”

And that’s not counting his Mother’s Day trip to Chicago to see his mom debut in her one-person stage show Certain Woman of an Age, nor the 36 international trips to 28 different countries he’s taken since assuming power, just recently returning from his sixth visit to France.

Catherine McKenna, meanwhile, knows who the immediate enemy is, and it’s not the end of our world.

It’s Andrew Scheer, and an election just five months away.

“He’s meeting with oil lobbyists and he’s committed to making it free to pollute,” McKenna has accused of Scheer.

She has nothing to back this up with, of course.

But it’s the best bogeyman image she could conjure.

The Aussie revolt against ‘social justice’

Voters have turned their backs on the authoritarian politics of so-called progressives.

20th May 2019

The Aussie revolt against ‘social justice’

Australia’s re-elected conservative prime minister Scott Morrison began his victory speech on Saturday night by rubbing salt into wounds. ‘How good is Australia?’, he declared, evoking a deafening cheer from his punch-drunk supporters packed shoulder to shoulder in the ballroom of the Sydney Sofitel. ‘How good are Australians? This is the best country in the world in which to live.’

Pride in one’s country, like faith in God, was once an unremarkable sentiment for a prime minister to express. Yet in this election, to make a patriotic statement was to venture into fiercely contested territory.

For Morrison’s progressive Labor opponent, Bill Shorten, Australia is perhaps a slightly better country than it might have been had it not been for the brave crusades of earlier social-justice campaigners. But Australia’s supposed national indifference to the environment, inequality, discrimination and its lingering colonial stain makes it an embarrassment in the eyes of the world, in Labor’s view.

Labor’s policies, designed to restore Australia’s virtue, are peppered through a policy document that runs to 309 pages. Labor would hold a referendum to become a republic and rid ourselves of the embarrassment of a colonial queen. Centuries of racial exclusion would be ended by guaranteeing one race – indigenous Australians – seats in parliament.

The failings of Australia’s so-called non-discriminatory immigration policy would be fixed by discriminating between LGBTI asylum seekers and the boringly straight. Refugee status would be automatically granted to those whose stated sexual preference was illegal in their home country with or without evidence of actual sexual activity or actual persecution.

Australia’s biggest export, coal, was blackening our reputation and the size of Australia’s carbon footprint was a national disgrace. Labor would set an emissions target three times more onerous than that required by the Paris Agreement, but could not say how much it would cost.

Australia’s highly progressive tax system wasn’t progressive enough. Labor would embark on a massive redistribution programme to address intergenerational equality and other socioeconomic injustices.

At its core, Saturday’s election was a contest between two tribes. One consists of those who identify themselves principally by the place in which they live and shared social values. The other defines itself by its allegiance to international causes and the presumption that the global educated class knows better than the rest.

Morrison represented the Somewheres, as David Goodhart christened them, while Shorten was the Anywhere man, harvesting grievances, no matter how small, and turning them into monumental issues of social injustice that made us an outlier in a progressive-minded world community.

Support for Shorten’s platform bordered on the fanatical among the university-educated professionals whose influence appears to grow deeper at every election. For doctors, teachers, academics and other professionals who rely wholly or in part on government largesse for their income, the new progressive dawn heralded by Shorten couldn’t come soon enough.

The renewable-energy sector feared the return of a conservative government pledged to end the subsidies which made up most, if not all, of its profits. Shorten’s 50 per cent renewable-energy target would provide its meal ticket for a decade at least. Labor’s plan to adopt a Norwegian-style electric-vehicle plan opened up new avenues of rent-seeking, each one lined with charging stations paid for at the taxpayer’s expense.

There was widespread acclaim in the media of course, particularly by the public broadcasters who are ipso-facto members of the rent-seeking class. The ABC’s claims of impartiality were undermined by its supporters, the Friends of the ABC, who manned polling stations with printed instructions to voters to put the conservative barbarians last on their numbered preferential voting paper.

The misty-eyed delusion that Labor would win on Saturday night spared almost no one in polite society. Pollsters came to assume that respondents were telling them the truth and that those who refused their calls were a representative cross-section of the population, rather than world-weary outsiders who had come to assume their views would be ignored and couldn’t be faffed to play the insiders’ game.

Betting companies fell for the delusion, too, assuming that the big money placed on a Labor victory was a guide to a wider sentiment. A week from the election, Morrison was the 7-1 outsider. Two days before the election, SportsBet paid out on a Labor win.

The script for election night would be familiar to those who followed the Brexit referendum count or the US presidential election. It began with confident, smiling faces on ABC TV. Early results from election booths were discounted as outliers. But as the percentage of votes counted rose and the trend continued, their faces began to tighten and the silences grew longer.

The resident psephologist began grumbling about glitches in the Australian Electoral Commission’s computer. The air was visibly sucked out of the wrinkled face of Barrie Cassidy, a senior ABC political presenter and former adviser to Labor prime minister Bob Hawke. By the end of the night, he was as expressionless as a punctured football.

The results unleashed a torrent of self-righteous and self-pitying national self-loathing. ‘It’s not Morrison, it’s not the Liberals, it’s not the policies, it’s not Queensland, it’s not Dutton. It’s the country that’s rotten’, wrote Guardian Australia columnist Brigid Delaney, summarising the feeling of the people in the room at what was supposed to be Labor’s election night party: ‘The fact that their vision for Australia’s future was not affirmed made them feel estranged and alienated from their own country.’

Grief gave way to anger on Twitter. ‘F*** you Australia’, wrote Harry on the Left Side. ‘We had a great opportunity to build a just, fair, progressive, environmentally responsible, clean-energy powerhouse of a nation and once again you squandered it… Don’t complain I no longer care.’ Captain Fluffula added: ‘Jesus f***ing Christ, I am so angry and sad, what a f***ing shitty country we are since Howard.’

Avril, whose handle is decorated with flags from multiple nations, wrote: ‘So, Australia wasn’t immune from the f***witterry that brought the world Trump and Brexit.’ Grug, Karen, Jackson, Bitchy Single Person and countless others were on a unity ticket, each one ashamed, very ashamed or deeply deeply ashamed to be an Australian on Saturday night. Van Badham consoled herself. ‘At least I go to bed knowing that I did everything I could.’

The morning light offered little clarity to those whose entire worldview had been repudiated in the space of a few hours. ‘I held my son this morning and said, “You are the most precious thing in the world to me”’, wrote Clementine Ford. ‘“Bird”, he replied.’

Crushing as the defeat was, the Anywheres will inevitably recover, and return to prosecute the case for progressive change towards an elusive utopia. Once again they will be disappointed by the apparent indifference of the Australian middle class, the largest and wealthiest of any nation in the world, which repeatedly shows a preference for prime ministers who like the place pretty much as it is, flatly egalitarian, in which it is perfectly fine to be better off than your neighbour, but never to assume you are better than them.

It is a place where the economy has ticked over for almost 28 years without a recession, immigrants succeed, the late autumnal sun shines on election day, and everyday Australians get on with the business of nurturing a family and striving to achieve a comfortable, stable and independent life a cut above the average in the best bloody country on Earth.

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre and a columnist for the Australian

Cdl. Burke: It’s ‘responsible’ for Christian nations to resist ‘large-scale Muslim immigration’

Arwen~ Click on link below to see video of Cardinal Raymond Burke’s response.

ROME, May 17, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) ― Resisting “large-scale Muslim immigration” is “a responsible exercise of one’s patriotism,” Cardinal Raymond Burke said today.

The Cardinal made the remark at this afternoon’s Question and Answer session at the Rome Life Forum in Rome. The session immediately followed Burke’s address on filial piety and national patriotism.  

Burke had been asked, presumably apropos of Pope Francis’ refusal to grant an audience to Italy’s deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini, if a politician who resists large-scale Muslim immigration should be refused a papal blessing.

The Cardinal indicated that he wouldn’t comment on papal blessings, but that he thought the “fundamental question” was regarding the morality of resisting Islamic mass migration. 

“I think the fundamental question here is: is someone who resists large-scale Muslim immigration committing an immoral act, and therefore should be, let’s say, denied Holy Communion or in some way recognized as a public sinner,” he said. 

Burke responded by saying that the Church’s teaching on immigration, which he had discussed in his speech, supported individuals who are “not able to find a way of living in their own country.” 

“And this is not true of immigrants who are opportunists, in particular in the case of Islam, which by its definition believes itself to be destined to rule the world, coming in large numbers to countries,” he said. 

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see what’s happened, for instance, in Europe, in countries like France and Germany and also here in Italy. And it’s also happening in the United States.”

Burke cited a book called No Go Zones which, he said,  “records places in the United States where, in fact, Muslim immigrants have set up their own legal order.” 

“In other words, they resist the legitimate authority of the state,” he continued. 

This suggests to the cardinal, then, that resisting mass immigration by Muslims into one’s country is a laudable act of patriotism. 

“So to be opposed to large-scale Muslim immigration is …  a responsible exercise of one’s patriotism,” he said. 

“Yes, [some] people are true refugees. We must receive them and help them in every way, but this is not the case when you have simply a large scale immigration.”

In his talk prior to the Q&A session, the Cardinal had quoted the 1992 Catholic Catechism regarding immigration, citing passages that said countries should prudently discriminate regarding migration and also outlined the duty of immigrants to respect the customs and laws of their host nations: 

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church then takes up the obligations of ‘more prosperous nations … , to the extent that they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin,”’Burke said.  “Such welcome, as is clear from the text, is not indiscriminate, for it depends on the capacity of nations to accept such refugees from their homelands and on the impossibility of the refugees to find the means to live in their homelands.”

Burke noted that the Catechism also says immigrants must  “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”