Category World Economic Form

Aug 21 2017

Erdogan Tells Turks in Germany to Vote Against Merkel


Armstrong Economics Blog/Germany

Re-Posted Aug 21, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

While the Democrats want to make a huge issue out of Russia hacking their files and releasing evidence that they were truly corrupt and how Clinton was just a liar blaming Russia rather than themselves, interference in the elections of other countries is par for the course. I have reported how Obama has interfered in Canada, Britain, and France. This is standard operational procedure. Now Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan publicly told all Turks living in Germany to vote against Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats on September 24th.

For Erdogan to publicly try to influence the German elections as Obama did in Britain tell them to get to the  ‘back of queue‘ if they voted for BREXIT, demonstrates the lack of unity between the NATO allies and major trade partners.

Ties between Ankara and Berlin have been strained in the aftermath of last year’s failed coup as Turkish authorities have sacked or suspended 150,000 people and detained more than 50,000 people, including German nationals. Erdogan’s response has been to Merkel’s voiced concern that he has used the coup as a pretext to quash dissent in Turkey. Erdogan has adopted a clear authoritarian role for himself trying to tie it to the roots in political Islam. Erdogan has accused Merkel of being anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim. He pronounced:

“I am calling on all my countrymen in Germany: the Christian Democrats, SDP, the Green Party are all enemies of Turkey. Support those political parties who are not enemies of Turkey,” 

“I call on them not to vote for those parties who have been engaged in such aggressive, disrespectful attitudes against Turkey, and I invite them to teach a lesson to those political parties at the ballot box.” 

The tensions between Germany and Turkey are on a crash course between 2018 and 2020.

Aug 20 2017

Steven Bannon Fired


Armstrong Economics Blog/2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Re-Posted Aug 20, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Comment added by Centinel2012: There are two sides to the Bannon story I agree with Martin on the economic side but I do not agree on the political side. However, both sides need to be be shown so this is the economics side.

Steve Bannon has been fired  from the Trump team, and many are saying good reddens. It was Bannon who has been the one with the most confrontational approach and has really been clashing behind the curtail. Bannon said in the interview that the main front was China: “We are in a trade war with China” and if the US were not to win this war, they would fall back as a world power permanently into insignificance. Bannon’s statement is really absurd for he has clearly no real understanding of the world economy. His focus of China and trade is the same stupid reason James Baker created the G5 back in 1985. We are plagued by people who pontificate on the world economy with zero experience.

Bannon is an American media executive, formerly a film producer, who served in the Navy for 7 years and then worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker mergers and acquisition but never rose very high. In the 1990s, he became an executive producer in the Hollywood film and media industry; he produced 18 films between 1991 and 2016. He may understand media, but I believe he is clueless with regard to how the world economy functions.

Bannon is being very vindictive. He has come out and said: “The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over.” He added: “We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”

When we look at trade as a percent of net investment outflows from the United States as it has invested around the world (excluding FX trading and derivatives), we can see that going into 2007, trade fell to just 31% of net investment capital outflows. Post-2007, net investment flows out of the United States have been greatly diminished as capital contracted and began to hoard and thus trade has risen sharply as American have invested less overseas. If we really look at trade as a percentage of total capital flows globally, we are looking at less than 15%.
CAPITAL flows to developing countries between 1990 and 1997 was hailed as the way to bring them into the global markets. However, after a series of international financial crises that culminated in the 1997 Asian Currency Crisis, what emerged was an increase in the doubts about the benefits of such flows. They did not distinguish between n”hot” money trading currencies rather than direct investment. This shallow analysis has led to great misunderstandings of international capital flows.
Underlining this new skepticism emerged from academic studies that implied only a weak relationship between capital flow liberalization and long-run economic growth. They did not understand the true distinction between “hot” money and actual investment in the private sector which is distinct from trading currency and government bonds.
Those concerns tempered the enthusiasm for capital inflows and have led to a reassessment of the policy approaches to attracting and managing them. Recently, this has manifested in laws that have attacked foreign investment in real estate, which is not the “hot” money that blew up the world in 1997. Nevertheless, this prejudice against capital inflows is systemic without comprehending what is really at stake.
Bannon is part of the problem for he focuses only upon trade and assumes, as did James Baker, that lowering the dollar will somehow create jobs by increasing exports. This is just a very narrow view of the world economy and is part of the crisis we face because those in power are clueless.
Aug 20 2017

Barcelona Terrorist Attack – Is Europe Lost?


Armstrong Economics Blog/SPAIN

Re-Posted Aug 20, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Barcelona, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, was the target of the Islamic State in their latest terrorist attack to kill people on a wholesale basis. Spain has now mounted an all out sweeping anti-terror operation after an Islamist militant drove a van into crowds in Barcelona, killing 13 people and possibly injuring 100 before fleeing, in what police suspect was one of multiple planned attacks.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the deadly attack along the city’s most famous avenue on Thursday, which was packed with tourists taking an afternoon stroll. Police said they had arrested two men, a Moroccan and a man from Spain’s north African enclave of Melilla.

Meir Bar-Hen, the Jewish Barcelona Barrister, said the Jews in Spain should not repeat the mistake of the Jews in Algeria or Venezuela: “Go ahead rather than too late.” Bar-Hen urged the Jews Spain to buy and emigrate land in Israel: “I tell my church: We are destined to perish. Europe is lost. “

This refugee crisis in Europe has been the greatest mistake perhaps in modern history. It is one things to set up camps and help people displaced by war. It is totally different to open your doors and let single men in hiding among women and children.

Aug 18 2017

European Refugee Crisis will Engulf Europe by 2032


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted Aug 18, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Migrants sit in a boat during a rescue operation by the Italian navy off the coast of Sicily on Nov. 28. Italy is looking to revamp the way it handles the hundreds of thousands of migrants who arrive annually.

 

The European Refugee Crisis is really completely out of control. The bulk of these people are by no means refugees. You see no women and children here in the boat – only young men. Now Spain is the new target and will overtake Greece as the second-biggest gateway for economic invader entering Europe by sea. The sudden surge in migration to Spain comes following a crackdown on human smuggling along the Libya-Italy sea route, which has been the main entry route to Europe. Africans are migrating to Europe because there is little to do at home.  Egypt will grow to 100 million people while Nigeria to soon reach 400 million. Europe will be swallowed up whole as it was when the Roman Empire was subjugated by the Barbarians who crossed the Rhine River.

When the Barbarians took over Europe, they at first issued coinage in the Roman tradition. But this began to rapidly diminish. Nevertheless, history is repeating. Europe is being swallowed up once again. By the time we see the other side of 2032, Europe will be a shadow of its former glory just as the main language of California will be Spanish not English. Things are definitely changing

Aug 17 2017

Can the Sanction Work on North Korea


Armstrong Economics Blog/North Korea

Re-Posted Aug 17, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, can the sanctions against North Korea succeed now that China is implementing them as well?

ANSWER:  The UN sanctions are curbs on everything from lead and fish exports to questionable North Korean companies. North Korea is in the middle of a serious drought that’s ruining crops. Food is an issue there so this intensifies an already dark humanitarian picture where estimates are that 40% of the population is already malnourished. Only the people can create regime change.

North Korea is in a very severe recession particularly since 2015. The sanctions directly impact the mining and manufacturing industries, which account for just over 30% of GDP. The increase in food shortages will not deter Kim Jong Un from his ambition of developing an arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles. Only the people can overthrow him for he could care less about the people.

North Korea’s dependency on Chinese fuel is China’s main ace-in-the-hole. If the fuel is cut off, then we are looking at curtaining his air force and their electricity production will decline significantly.

To the extent that the sanction force the people to rise up, then they can work. Otherwise, Kim will not yield as long as he retains power.

Aug 16 2017

The Legal Challenge to Quantitative Easing


Armstrong Economics Blog/Central Banks

Re-Posted Aug 16, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

General view of the buildings of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

It has taken almost 10 years for the ECB’s controversial government bond purchases to finally reach the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to be reviewed as to their constitutionality. There have always been serious questions whether the PSPP (Public Sector Purchase Program) was compatible with the ban on monetary budgetary funding that has been imposed upon member states. Italy, for example, asked for an exemption from the budgetary constraints to take care of the refugees, The EU Commission said absolutely no!

The German high court has been hearing a case that proposes it rule that financing government budgets would not be covered by the mandate of the European Central Bank (ECB). That has long been a thorn in the side of Draghi that he was acting unconstitutional at the end of the day. The ECJ has been requested to expedite the procedure, because “the case requires a quick settlement” after almost 10 years?

The background of the case is three constitutional arguments are fairly straight forward against the PSPP. The ECJ has not answered these issues which has been preventing the German court from finally decide the constitutional complaints.

The argument claims that the European System of Central Banks, with the program for the purchase of securities of the public sector which it has set up, is contrary to the prohibition of monetary government financing (Article 123 TFEU) and the principle of limited individual authorization (Article 5 1 TEU in conjunction with Art. 119, 127 et seq. TFEU).Therefore, the Deutsche Bundesbank should not participate in this program and the German Bundestag and the Federal Government are obliged to take appropriate measures against the program.

The plaintiffs in Germany wanted the Bundesverfassungsgericht to stop the Bundesbank’s participation in the ECB program. Germany, they argued, would suffer a complete loss if the bonds failed. The risk to the German national budget is disproportionate was their main point.

The ECJ has a political mandate which is strangely different from the Supreme Court of Germany or the United States for that matter.The ECJ has a mandate to promote integration within the EU, which is clearly a political element. If we add this political element, that one can see that the ECJ can view the purchase of government bonds as a permissible means of integration.

The ECB has clearly altered the bond market destroying liquidity. Banks are rushing to sell their bonds to the ECB in anticipation of rising rates which will cause their bond holdings to decline. Hence, the ECB has actually functioned as a place to dump financial toxic-waste.

The Germany Federal Constitutional Court has thus suspended further litigation pending the ECJ ruling.

The Federal Constitutional Court announced in a Press Release No. 70/2017 of 15 August 2017

Decision of 18 July 2017
2 BvR 859/15, 2 BvR 980/16, 2 BvR 2006/15, 2 BvR 1651/15
With the decision published today, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has suspended the procedure concerning the question whether the Public Sector Purchase Program (PSPP) of the European Central Bank is compatible with the Basic Law for the purchase of public sector securities and asks the Court of Justice of the European Union several questions For a preliminary ruling. According to the Senate, there are important reasons for the fact that the decisions underlying the bond purchase program are in breach of the ban on monetary budgetary financing and go beyond the mandate of the European Central Bank for monetary policy and thus fall within the competence of the Member States. The Senate seeks the implementation of the accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Union, since the nature of the case requires its speedy completion.

Facts:

The PSPP is part of the Expanded Asset Purchase Program (EAPP), a framework program of the European Central Bank (ECB) for the purchase of assets. The PSPP accounts for the largest share of the total volume of the EAPP. On 12 May 2017, the EAPP achieved a total volume of EUR 1 862.1 billion; Of this total, EUR 1,534.8 billion accounted for the PSPP.

The complainants, by their constitutional complaints, claim that the European System of Central Banks, with the program for the purchase of securities of the public sector which it has set up, is contrary to the prohibition of monetary government financing (Article 123 TFEU) and the principle of limited individual authorization (Article 5 1 TEU in conjunction with Art. 119, 127 et seq. TFEU). Therefore, the Deutsche Bundesbank should not participate in this program and the German Bundestag and the Federal Government are obliged to take appropriate measures against the program.

Important considerations of the Senate:

1. Article 38 (1), first sentence, of the Basic Law guarantees to German nationals the right to democratic self-determination, which is enforceable with the constitutional complaint, in the scope protected by Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law. On the basis of the responsibility of integration, the German constitutional authorities have the duty, within the limits of their competences, to work towards compliance with the integration program. It is the task of the Federal Constitutional Court to examine whether measures taken by bodies, bodies and other bodies of the European Union are based on apparent excesses of competence or affect the non-transferable area of ​​the constitutional identity, with the result that German state institutions are not allowed to participate in their condition or implementation ,

2. There are doubts as to whether the PSPP decision is compatible with the ban on monetary budgetary financing.

(A) Article 123 (1) TFEU prohibits the ECB and the central banks of the Member States from purchasing debt securities directly from the institutions of the European Union and the Member States. Purchases on the secondary market may not be used to circumvent the objective pursued by Article 123 TFEU. A program dealing with the purchase of government bonds on the secondary market must therefore be provided with sufficient guarantees to ensure effective compliance with the prohibition of monetary government financing. The Senate is of the opinion that the Court of Justice of the European Union considers the terms which it sets out to limit the scope of the OMT program of 6 September 2012 within its scope as a legally binding criterion The purchase of government bonds.

(B) The PSPP covers bonds issued by States, state enterprises and other government bodies, as well as by European institutions. These bonds are purchased exclusively on the secondary market. However, for an infringement of the PSPP decision against Article 123 TFEU, it is argued that details of purchases are announced in a manner which could give rise to factual certainty on the markets that the Eurosystem will also purchase issued government bonds, The time limits between issuance of a debt instrument on the primary market and its acquisition on the secondary market is not verifiable, that acquired bonds are held to maturity until now, and that bonds with a negative return are obtained from the outset.

3. The PSPP decision could not be covered by the mandate of the ECB.

(A) monetary policy should be distinguished, in particular, from the economic policy which is primarily the responsibility of the Member States, in accordance with the wording, system and objective of the Treaties; The objective of a measure to be determined objectively, the means chosen to achieve this objective, and its link with other arrangements.

(B) From the Senate’s point of view, the PSPP decision could not be seen as a monetary policy measure, but rather as a predominantly economic policy measure, on the basis of an overall view of the relevant delineation criteria. While the PSPP has a stated monetary policy objective and is committed to the pursuit of this objective of monetary policy, But the economic policy implications arising from the volume of the PSPP and the associated predictability of the purchase of government bonds are already directly reflected in the program itself. This would render the PSPP disproportionate in relation to the underlying monetary policy objective. Moreover, the decisions constituting the basis of the program do not provide a comprehensible explanation which would allow the continuous continuity of the program to be reviewed on an ongoing basis during the several years of implementation of the decisions.

4. On the basis of the risk allocation between the ECB and the Bundesbank, the budgetary right of the German Bundestag, protected by Article 20 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law, and its overall budgetary responsibility by the PSPP decision Or its implementation in view of possible losses of the Bundesbank, can not be foreseen at present.

(A) An unlimited risk allocation within the Eurosystem and the resulting risks to the national central banks’ profit and loss account would constitute a violation of constitutional identity within the meaning of Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law if it were to recapitalize the national central banks with budgetary resources Which the Senate has committed to the approval of the German Bundestag in its jurisprudence to the EFSF and the ESM. For the success of the constitutional complaints, it is therefore important whether such a risk allocation can be excluded under the primary law.

(B) the decision-making by the Governing Council on the nature and extent of the risk-sharing between members of the European System of Central Banks is hardly determined by primary law. This could allow the ECB Council to amend the rules on risk-sharing within the Eurosystem, which could lead to risks to the national central banks’ profit and loss account and, moreover, to the overall budgetary responsibility of the national parliaments. Against this background, the question arises whether an unlimited risk allocation in the event of default of bonds of central governments and equivalent issuers between the national central banks of the Eurosystem against Article 123 and Article 125 TFEU and Article 4 (2) TEU With Article 79 (3) of the Basic Law).

Aug 15 2017

Government & Revolution – Is it Inevitable?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Police

Re-Posted Aug 15, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

I have been warning that as governments move closer to this major event of a Sovereign Debt Crisis which begins next year with the start of the Monetary Crisis Cycle, they historically will ALWAYS, and without exception, bite the hand that has fed them. The object for government is survival of the fittest and that is them. This is never really about helping people as they raise retirement ages, punish the youth with school loans they cannot discharge, and exempt themselves from most laws that apply to us. This is also never about how to properly run the economy for the benefit of all. It always boils down to it being them against us. Throughout history, there has never been even one benevolent government that has ever surrendered power willingly for the good of the country or the people. That has NEVER happened even once. Power has always had to be ripped from their grasp either by the people, an internal coup, or some foreign invader.

Yes, not every revolution has to be blood flowing down the streets. It will depend upon the military. In the case of Russia, the military did the honorable thing and stood-down. That is indeed an extremely rare event. From Byzantium and the NIKA Revolt to Tiananmen Square Massacre, the military has often first just slaughtered the people following orders. The German soldiers killing the Jews said the same exact thing – they were just following orders. That has certainly not been the case even recently as in Venezuela where this soldier is killing his own people while standing behind a barricade that reads: “If the order is against the people your honour is to disobey.”

More-often-Than-Not, the revolutions throughout history come about when the taxes of government simply break the back of the economy. We are reaching one of those moments as we cross the threshold into 2018.

Aug 13 2017

Understanding Kim Jung-Un


Armstrong Economics Blog/War

Re-Posted Aug 13, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty; Your model picked this weekend and then then September 11/12th. Are these two targets a window so this is when it starts and the second is where it ends?

Your computer blows everything out of the water. It is becoming very obvious why they wanted the code. I watched the Forecaster. Marcus Vetter had the courage to make this film and it is clear as day why it has been blocked in the USA.

Thank you for what you do for humanity.

LD

ANSWER: Yes this is a window. What we must understand is while Kim Jung-un has everything to lose, he does not see it that way. What CNN and the Democrats fail to tell everyone is that Trump had offered to even meet and talk to Kim Jung-un and he was criticized for that position. Back in May 2017, Trump told Bloomberg News: “If it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely, I would be honored to do it.” Ellison criticized Trump, as does CNN, for not engaging in diplomacy. So let’s make this very clear – DIPLOMACY is dead in the water on this one. Kim cannot be seen as weak. He will never accept that image.

There is nothing the US could give North Korea that would make it end its nuclear and missile program. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and other senior Trump administration officials have stressed the importance of diplomacy, but diplomacy works only if someone is willing to talk. There are no signs that the North Koreans are open to any dialogue. Dealing with North Korea may necessitate they overthrow this one-minded dictator to whom nobody ever said no when he was growing up.

What the Democrats and CNN will not tell the people is that even reliable sources in Europe are convinced that North Korea is single-mindedly focused on continuing with its missile and nuclear-weapons testing program – PERIOD! Even at the Asean Regional Forum meeting in Manila, North Korea refused to meet with Tillerson and a proposal offered by Soth Korea to begin talks between Seoul and Pyongyang offered by Kang Kyung-wha, the South Korean foreign minister, was summarily rejected.

Meanwhile, the North has historically NEVER honored any agreement with the USA. Sources in Washington are adamant that the distrust in Congress of  dealing with the North Korea exists on both sides of the aisle. The distrust of North Korea is very deep-seated on Capitol Hill. The basic assumption is that only economic sanctions can pressure Kin Jung-un to change course. The latest round of tougher UN sanctions target North Korea’s mineral and food exports, and restrictions on North Korean overseas labor.

The Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota is just a total fool or a devious man distorting the issue for personal political gain knowing that diplomacy is dead in the water. Kim has to play chicken because his power depends upon it. Trump has stepped up the threat assuming he is dealing with a rational person who cares about his country. Kim is not motivated in that way. If Kim blinks, he will be seen as weak and that is a personal danger to him. Sifting the focus to suddenly double his military and then nothing happens he can claim as a victory. The Democrats and CNN would have Trump get down on his knees and kiss the ring of Kim. This guy has pursued nuclear weapons and once he has achieved that, then what’s next? Trump has met him in rhetoric, but that seems to be making him blink and shifting he focus to boots on the ground.

Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), is the man who influenced the Founding Fathers in creating the Constitution and designing the separation of powers, met the political leader and soldier known as the Prince Eugene of Savoy (1663-1736). The political discussions between these two men helped Montesquieu understand the evils of government and forged the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and the right to bear arms. The Prince of Savoy was considered, even by Napoleon, as one of the seven greatest strategists in military history. He fought against the Turks (1683-1688, 1697, 1715-1718) and he fought against the French in the War of the Grand Alliance (1689-1691). He was also the teacher of Frederick the Great of Prussia (b 1712; 1740–1786) who he shaped into a brilliant military strategist.

savoy-prince

The Prince of Savoy also fought in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). Nonetheless, jealousy attached to his accomplishments and he was plagued by a rumor that he was really the illegitimate son of King Louis XIV of France, which he perpetually denied. Yet, Louis XIV was always ashamed of such offspring and he restrained the prince’s ambitions as if he was perhaps his son. So after 20 years of living in Paris and Versailles, he left France and offered his talent to Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (1640-1705) who was fighting the Turks. He distinguished himself in the siege of Vienna in 1683 and his military career was born.

The Prince of Savoy acquired brilliant skill and wisdom that allowed him to see that military victory was merely an instrument for achieving political ends. He was Europe’s most formidable general who was wounded 13 times, yet always faced a world of cunning foes with conspirators at his back, which he regarded as the “hereditary curse” of Austria. He served three emperors: Leopold I, Joseph I, and Charles VI. Of these three men, Prince of Savoy considered that the first had been a father, the second a brother, but with the third, he was just the hired help.

The core observation of the Prince of Savoy is that standing armies led kings to war. They pay for great armies but it is a zero-sum game. The cost is tremendous and for what if they are not used. Reasonable men today realize that the possession of nukes is a standoff. Kim does not understand that. He is a lunatic dictator trying desperately to retain power. He has achieved his nukes. Does he use them since he cares not about his country?

That is the real question. Savory was against standing armies for the mere possession led to their use. This becomes the real concern of Kim long-term. To retain power, a dictator needs to invoke fear in his people. If for any reason that diminishes, then he will need a war to retain that power. This is what history teaches us.

Aug 12 2017

Refugee Boats for Sale only $800 to Reach the Land of Plenty


Armstrong Economics Blog/Refugees

Re-Posted Aug 12, 2017 by Martin Armstrong

Alibaba is showing how entrepreneur the Chinese have become responding to a crisis in demand. You can now buy specially made refugee boat if you want to make it to tax-free living in Europe. Better hurry up while supplies last. No passport needed. Just say you are Muslim and from Syria but because of the war you have no papers. For just $800, you, your family or home-boys, can reach the land of handouts and you better hurry up before they go broke and run out of money.

Aug 10 2017

O Canada, Paved


By Tabitha Korol

The cover of the August 2017 issue of Rolling Stone magazine displays the image of Justin Trudeau, and the first headline, “Justin Trudeau, Why Can’t He Be Our President?”  Aside from his not being an American, the American people have finally elected to withdraw from their detrimental socialism and return to our Constitutional Republic.  Unfortunately, Canadians have reversed their course toward a more intense socialism.

Trudeau promised real change, the same vague promise made by then-candidate President Obama in 2008.  To reflect his multiculturalism, Trudeau chose a cabinet of thirty, based not on competence, but on gender, ethnicity, and disabilities, yet there appears to be not one observant Jew among them to handle the antisemitism in schools and media and to represent the one percent Jewish population most victimized by hate crimes in an increasingly dangerous Canada. He pledged to legalize recreational marijuana, and to change the electoral system, except that he finds this to be unnecessary now that the very process got him elected.

A globalist, Trudeau promised to welcome 25,000 more Syrian refugees in 2016, without vetting facilities, compared to the 10,000 accepted by the Conservatives. Interestingly, immediately following the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris, he accepted 33,200 refugees, a number that soon became 46,700, representing the same belief system and increasing violence to that one percent and more. I am reminded of the song, “They paved Paradise and put up a parking lot.”

Canadian-born, then-15-year-old Omar Khadr, had been taken by his father to join Al Qaeda.  Captured at 16, he pled guilty to planting ten landmines and murdering an American soldier by throwing a grenade at Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, in a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan. US Sgt. Layne Morris was also severely wounded by the explosion and blinded in one eye. Convicted, and after serving eight of his 40-year-sentence in Guantanamo, the 24-year-old Khadr was released to Canada where he would spend the remainder of his sentence.

Despite his being dropped into a war zone by his own father, however, he sued the Canadian government for breaching his rights (as a minor) under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and received $10.5 million and an apology from the Canadian government. Years before, Omar’s father had been arrested and imprisoned for being an Al Qaeda financier in the jihad bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, and his mother wanted to raise her six children outside of Canada, away from Western social influences. This is just one of many unvetted families who have emigrated to the west. Trudeau has indeed brought change. Instead of this family’s paying for their crimes, they are receiving payment for their crimes. Inviting and rewarding terrorism has resulted in increased crime against Canada’s Jewish citizens and will ultimately affect all infidels.

Honor killings are on the rise in Canada, sanctioned by sharia, blamed on the challenging process of integration but never experienced with previous immigrants.  They include a 16-year-old daughter of Pakistanis who was killed for wanting to wear western clothes and get a part-time job, like her peers; a 19-year-old daughter whose crime was to stay out all night; a first-wife and three daughters found drowned in their vehicle in a canal, and 13 other such cases under investigation.

The results of Trudeau’s tenure in office thus far range from disappointing to disconcerting. Unable to cap Canada’s budget deficit at $30 billion over three years as expected, after a year in office, Trudeau blames the previous administration for weak economic growth. Considering Trump’s roaring economic growth within his first six months, Trudeau’s excuse is feeble. And, rather than keep his promise to help to defeat ISIS, he has promised humanitarian support for Iraqis and Syrians.

Rolling Stone magazine also bore the headline, “How the Trump administration is destroying the EPA.”  The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an agency of the U.S. federal government, which was created to protect human health and the environment by enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress. Created in 1970, this bureaucracy had burgeoned, by 2016, to 15,376 full-time employees, with a budget of $8.1 billion. The Trump administration proposed a 31% budget cut to $5.7 billion and to eliminate a fourth of the agency jobs. This is improvement, not destruction.

The EPA’s increased jurisdiction has encroached on private property, making it more difficult for farmers, ranchers, those in agriculture and homebuilding to meet stringent water supply regulations. The US Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, The American Farm Bureau Federation and others filed a lawsuit to stop the EPA, which uses the pressure of social media for covert propaganda for their own purposes, violating laws and increasing prices of produce. Farmers depend on a fair regulatory system that protects the environment and does not force them to raise strangling prices on consumers.

As Mark Levin explained, “The EPA is destroying the middle class; it’s destroying working people in this country; it’s destroying coal miners; it’s destroying oil jobs; it’s destroying trucking jobs. The EPA is destroying our smokestack industries. The EPA is doing more damage to our economy and hardworking men and women in this country than any country in the world. The environmental movement is a communist movement.”

Complying with EPA regulations costs the U.S. economy $353 billion per year — more than 30 times its budget, more than Denmark’s entire national GDP in 2011. The annual cost of the global warming industry is, conservatively, $1.5 trillion, enough to reduce our taxes and national debt – for the “possibility” of reducing our temperature by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by the end of the century, the same temperature reduction one experiences traveling down an elevator.

By shrinking its budget to two-thirds, its workforce to one-fifth, and limiting its regulatory powers, Trump is redefining and narrowing the EPA’s focus to its original purpose of 1970, to improve our water and air while also cultivating job growth.  Superfund sites (land previously used for chemical dumps) will fall under the purview of the states, rather than further drain the federal budget.

Canada’s healthcare, to paraphrase Hillary, “leaves no citizen behind,” but this most expensive system in the world cannot meet the public’s needs. Although Canada’s Universal healthcare is excellent once the person is in the system, the key words are “in the system,” and it’s not always “universal,” with wealthier provinces better funded than others. It is true that their efficiency channels the funds more to care than to administration, but patients are assessed in terms of “outcome” and what is acceptable to the voters. This is reminiscent of Sarah Palin’s warning of death panels, where the medical boards evaluate the person’s age and quality of life before deigning to provide costly medication and therapy.

Because of the many limitations, professionals cannot focus on prevention, not always seeing the patients until they reach the acute and chronic-care stages. The restrictions on government funding also result in long waiting lists (sometimes many months) to access services, so that those who can, go to the United States for their care and treatments. Mental illness and drug therapies for injury and disease fall largely outside the public system. This is the “single payer system” where Obamacare was heading, and which President Trump hopes to replace.

Humor is our way of dealing with the incongruous: “Americans can’t enact Canadian-style healthcare or where would the Canadians go when they need a doctor?” and “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.”

So, M. Trudeau, we don’t want your socialism here and, in sincere affection and friendship, we wish the Canadians another Stephen Harper before the song “They Paved Paradise” becomes Canada’s experience, “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”