armed forces
10 ways Justin Trudeau made Canada even worse in 2023
From LifeSiteNews
Many Canadians have woken up this year to find themselves living in the dystopian nation that is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canada.
According to polling, Canadians ranked Trudeau as the most disliked prime minister in 55 years. Countless other polls reveal Trudeau’s decline in popularity, with 371,169 Canadians calling for him to step down before the next election.
How did Trudeau finally lose popularity with Canadians after serving as prime minister for 8 years? Perhaps the destructive nature of his policies have finally been realized by Canadians. Or maybe the rising cost of living has caused Canadians to wake up to the reality of Trudeau’s Canada.
In any case, here are ten ways Trudeau and his government have destroyed Canada this year.
10. Destroying the integrity and morality of the Canadian military
In June, the Canadian military was roundly condemned for “raising the pride flag” in honor of the “2SLGBTQI+ communities.”
The same month, Canadian troops in Latvia were forced to purchase their own helmets and food when the Trudeau government failed to provide proper supplies, instead spending their resources on Danish soldiers. Weeks later, Trudeau lectured the same troops on “climate change” and disinformation.
In November, officials admitted that the nation’s military is shrinking to dangerously low numbers as Trudeau continues to push the LGBT agenda on Canadian soldiers. In addition to low recruitment, the military is struggling to retain soldiers.
A Canadian Armed Force member previously told LifeSiteNews that between the COVID vaccine mandates and pushing the LGBT agenda, Canadians soldiers have lost confidence in the military.
9. The seemingly never-ending Trudeau Foundation scandal
The Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, named after Justin’s father, has undergone increased scrutiny regarding its connection to China this year.
In late September, MPs from the House of Commons unanimously voted to have the country’s Auditor General investigate the $125 million taxpayer endowment given to help found the Trudeau Foundation in 2001.
This investigation came just months after Canadian MPs from the House of Commons Public Accounts voted to begin an examination after a report surfaced detailing how the non-profit group received a $200,000 donation alleged to be connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Following the release of this report, the entire board of directors, including the president and CEO, resigned.
Since then, Conservatives have accused Trudeau’s Liberal government of having ignored foreign interference because it was to their political benefit, an accusation that was only made more poignant when Trudeau appointed a “family friend” to be the “independent” investigator into alleged Chinese election meddling
8. Giving a carbon tax exemption, but only for Liberal-voting Canadians
In October, Trudeau announced he was pausing the collection of the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years, a provision that primarily benefits the Liberal-held Atlantic provinces. Most Canadians heat their homes with clean-burning natural gas, a fuel that will not be exempted from the carbon tax.
The biased exemption was roundly condemned by Canadians as well as many politicians, including Premiers Tim Houston of Nova Scotia, Blaine Higgs of New Brunswick, Doug Ford of Ontario, Danielle Smith of Alberta, and Scott Moe of Saskatchewan, who called for a carbon tax relief for all Canadians.
The carbon tax, framed as a way to reduce carbon emissions, has cost individual Canadians hundreds of extra dollars annually despite government rebates.
The increased costs are again expected to rise, as a recent report revealed that a carbon tax of more than $350 per tonne is needed to reach Trudeau’s net-zero goals by 2050.
Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $65 per tonne, but the Trudeau government has a goal of Canadians paying $170 per tonne by 2030.
Despite both Canadians and politicians supporting carbon tax exemptions for all, Trudeau and his government refuse to provide relief to Canadians.
7. Stripping Canada of her Christian heritage
In May, following the Coronation of King Charles III, the Trudeau government redesigned the Canadian crown that sits on the Royal Coat of Arms by removing all religious symbols.
The new design removed all religious symbols, replacing crosses and fleur-de-lis with maple leaves, snowflakes, and stars. The move caused some to accuse the Liberal Party of politicizing the symbol of the Crown and the Royal Coat of Arms.
This change is not Trudeau’s first attempt at removing religious symbols from Canada, despite the fact he is a baptized Catholic. In 2019, the government of Quebec passed a bill forbidding civil servants to display religious symbols on their persons while at work.
Additionally, Trudeau was forced to admit that “Christmas is not racist” following a Canadian Human Rights Commission report claiming that holidays such as Christmas and Easter are forms of discrimination and religious intolerance, and that observing the birth of Jesus Christ is “an obvious example” of a type of religious bias that is rooted in colonialism.
6. Restricting Canadians right to bear arms
This month, the Canadian federal government’s controversial gun grab bill, C-21, which bans many types of guns including all handguns while mandating a buyback program for certain rifles and shotguns, became law after Senators voted 60- 24 in favor of the bill.
In May, it passed in the House of Commons. After initially denying the bill would impact hunters, Trudeau eventually admitted that C-21 would indeed ban certain types of hunting rifles.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, along with premiers from no less than four additional provinces, opposed C-21. But, as with the carbon tax, the concerns of Canadians seemed to be of no concern to Trudeau.
5. Driving up food prices for Canadians through climate regulations
According to a November report, food costs for a family of four in Canada will increase by $700 in 2024 along with increases in household expenses like rent and utilities.
At the time, Canadian Taxpayer Federation Director Franco Terrazzano told LifeSiteNews, “The carbon tax makes grocery prices more expensive.”
“When Trudeau’s carbon tax makes it more expensive for farmers to grow food and truckers to deliver food, his carbon tax makes it more expensive for families to buy food,” he explained.
The report should not come as a surprise to Canadians considering a September report by Statistics Canada revealing that food prices are rising faster than the headline inflation rate – the overall inflation rate in the country – as staple food items are increasing at a rate of 10 to 18 percent year-over-year.
4. Wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on promoting the LGBT agenda
In June, the designated month of gay “pride,” the Trudeau government pledged $1.5 million in what it claims is “emergency funding” for “pride” month to fund increased security to organizations running parades.
Later in June, records revealed that the Liberal government gave $12 million for “pride” events during COVID lockdown years.
3. Blocking Canadians from viewing and sharing news on Facebook and Instagram
In June, Trudeau’s internet censorship law, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, was passed by the Senate. This law mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms.
As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada, while Google has agreed to pay Canadian legacy media $100 million under the new legislation.
Critics of Trudeau’s recent laws, such as tech mogul Elon Musk, have commented that the legislation shows that “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”
Musk made the comments after the nation’s telecommunications regulator announced that due to new powers granted to it via the Online Streaming Act, certain podcasters will now have to “register” with the government.
2. Promoting increased access to abortion and spending taxpayer dollars to kill unborn Canadians
Like his father, Trudeau is a staunch supporter of killing unborn babies, and 2023 was not an exception. In January, Trudeau affirmed a woman’s “right to choose” when he was confronted with abortion victim photography on the streets of Hamilton, Ontario.
Additionally, Trudeau’s 2023 budget included a $36 million fund for abortion while at the same time including text which blasted America’s 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The Liberal government also promised it would supply American women with abortion pills if the pills were banned due to the country’s new pro-life laws.
1. Making Canada a leading provider of euthanasia worldwide
According to Health Canada, in 2022, 13,241 Canadians died by MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying) lethal injections, which accounts for 4.1 percent of all deaths in the country for that year, and a 31.2 percent increase from 2021.
While the numbers for 2023 have yet to be released, all indications point to a situation even more grim than 2022.
The most recent reports show that MAiD is the sixth highest cause of death. But, in typical Trudeau fashion, it was not listed as such in Statistics Canada’s top 10 leading causes of death from 2019 to 2022. When asked why MAiD was suspiciously left off the list, the agency explained that it records the illnesses that led Canadians to choose to end their lives via euthanasia as the primary cause of death, not the actual cause of death.
Sickeningly, on March 9, 2024, MAiD is set to expand to include those suffering solely from mental illness. This is a result of the 2021 passage of Bill C-7, which first allowed the chronically ill – not just the terminally ill – to qualify for so-called doctor-assisted death.
The expansion of euthanasia to those with mental illness even has the far-left New Democratic Party (NDP) concerned. Dismissing these concerns, a Trudeau Foundation fellow actually called Trudeau’s euthanasia regime one of “privilege,” assuring the Canadian people that most of those being put to death are “white,” “well off,” and “highly educated.”
armed forces
Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Morgan Murphy
With less than a month to go before President-elect Donald Trump takes office, the top brass are already running for cover. This week the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, pledged to cut approximately a dozen general officers from the U.S. Army.
It is a start.
But given the Army is authorized 219 general officers, cutting just 12 is using a scalpel when a machete is in order. At present, the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel stands at an all-time high. During World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Today, we have one for every 1,600.
Right now, the United States has 1.3 million active-duty service members according to the Defense Manpower Data Center. Of those, 885 are flag officers (fun fact: you get your own flag when you make general or admiral, hence the term “flag officer” and “flagship”). In the reserve world, the ratio is even worse. There are 925 general and flag officers and a total reserve force of just 760,499 personnel. That is a flag for every 674 enlisted troops.
The hallways at the Pentagon are filled with a constellation of stars and the legions of staffers who support them. I’ve worked in both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Starting around 2011, the Joint Staff began to surge in scope and power. Though the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not in the chain of command and simply serves as an advisor to the president, there are a staggering 4,409 people working for the Joint Staff, including 1,400 civilians with an average salary of $196,800 (yes, you read that correctly). The Joint Staff budget for 2025 is estimated by the Department of Defense’s comptroller to be $1.3 billion.
In contrast, the Secretary of Defense — the civilian in charge of running our nation’s military — has a staff of 2,646 civilians and uniformed personnel. The disparity between the two staffs threatens the longstanding American principle of civilian control of the military.
Just look at what happens when civilians in the White House or the Senate dare question the ranks of America’s general class. “Politicizing the military!” critics cry, as if the Commander-in-Chief has no right to question the judgement of generals who botched the withdrawal from Afghanistan, bought into the woke ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) or oversaw over-budget and behind-schedule weapons systems. Introducing accountability to the general class is not politicizing our nation’s military — it is called leadership.
What most Americans don’t understand is that our top brass is already very political. On any given day in our nation’s Capitol, a casual visitor is likely to run into multiple generals and admirals visiting our elected representatives and their staff. Ostensibly, these “briefs” are about various strategic threats and weapons systems — but everyone on the Hill knows our military leaders are also jockeying for their next assignment or promotion. It’s classic politics
The country witnessed this firsthand with now-retired Gen. Mark Milley. Most Americans were put off by what they saw. Milley brazenly played the Washington spin game, bragging in a Senate Armed Services hearing that he had interviewed with Bob Woodward and a host of other Washington, D.C. reporters.
Woodward later admitted in an interview with CNN that he was flabbergasted by Milley, recalling the chairman hadn’t just said “[Trump] is a problem or we can’t trust him,” but took it to the point of saying, “he is a danger to the country. He is the most dangerous person I know.” Woodward said that Milley’s attitude felt like an assignment editor ordering him, “Do something about this.”
Think on that a moment — an active-duty four star general spoke on the record, disparaging the Commander-in-Chief. Not only did it show rank insubordination and a breach of Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 88, but Milley’s actions represented a grave threat against the Constitution and civilian oversight of the military.
How will it play out now that Trump has returned? Old political hands know that what goes around comes around. Milley’s ham-handed political meddling may very well pave the way for a massive reorganization of flag officers similar to Gen. George C. Marshall’s “plucking board” of 1940. Marshall forced 500 colonels into retirement saying, “You give a good leader very little and he will succeed; you give mediocrity a great deal and they will fail.”
Marshall’s efforts to reorient the War Department to a meritocracy proved prescient when the United States entered World War II less than two years later.
Perhaps it’s time for another plucking board to remind the military brass that it is their civilian bosses who sit at the top of the U.S. chain of command.
Morgan Murphy is military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
armed forces
Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By J.D. Foster
Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back
In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”
The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”
Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.
A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.
The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.
Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.
In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.
NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.
What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.
Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.
The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.
Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.
This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.
This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.
The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.
J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy1 day ago
Christmas: As Canadian as Hockey and Maple Syrup
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending
-
National2 days ago
Canadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Business1 day ago
Comparing four federal finance ministers in moments of crisis
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
National2 days ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Shoot Down The Drones!
-
National1 day ago
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches