Justin Trudeau’s Islamic Agenda paid for by Aga Khan and George Soros

Justin Trudeau’s Islamic Agenda paid for by Aga Khan and George Soros 

Justin Trudeau took a winter vacation on a private island owned by one of the world’s richest men: the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the world’s 25 million or so Ismaili Muslims.

The Aga Khan is a good man, a humanitarian. But he’s also a billionaire. And his foundations also receive tens of millions of dollars a year from the Canadian government.

I don’t object — Stephen Harper worked with the Aga Khan to try to strengthen liberal Islam, in Canada and around the world. If every Muslim were like Ismaili Muslims, there would be no terrorism or religious extremism in Islam.

But the point is:

Why is Justin Trudeau staying, for free, at the private island of a billionaire? And why did Trudeau try hard to keep it a secret?

Image result for Justin Trudeau's Islamic Agenda paid for by Aga Khan Foundation and George Soros Evil Leading EVIL

Justin Trudeau modelled his campaign after Hillary Clinton’s — they even shared campaign staff. The Trudeau Foundation looks like a mini version of the Clinton Foundation. We know that Hillary took cheques from foreign dictatorships. Have they or anyone else being sending gifts to Trudeau too?

And if they were, what are the chances we’d even hear about it?

Justin Trudeau took a winter vacation on a private island owned by one of the world’s richest men: the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the world’s 25 million or so Ismaili Muslims.

The Aga Khan is a good man, a humanitarian. But he’s also a billionaire. And his foundations also receive tens of millions of dollars a year from the Canadian government.

I don’t object — Stephen Harper worked with the Aga Khan to try to strengthen liberal Islam, in Canada and around the world. If every Muslim were like Ismaili Muslims, there would be no terrorism or religious extremism in Islam.

But the point is:

Why is Justin Trudeau staying, for free, at the private island of a billionaire? And why did Trudeau try hard to keep it a secret?

Justin Trudeau modelled his campaign after Hillary Clinton’s — they even shared campaign staff. The Trudeau Foundation looks like a mini version of the Clinton Foundation. We know that Hillary took cheques from foreign dictatorships. Have they or anyone else being sending gifts to Trudeau too?

And if they were, what are the chances we’d even hear about it?

Why Justin Trudeau may be more dangerous than Harper

He of the throngs of adoring supporters, the pretty new face that promises to resurrect “Canada’s party”.

The key positions he’s taken thus far – supporting the sellout of our strategic energy resources to the Chinese Government, giving away our sovereignty through the Canada-China Trade deal, new pipelines to expand the Tar Sands – hardly vary from those of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. They just look and sound far more attractive coming from Canada’s prodigal son.

And that’s what scares me.

Trudeau’s latest decision to out-Harper Mr. Harper on boosting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Texas gives us a sobering sense of where the young Liberal leader is headed. Perhaps more troubling is the question of what he actually believes – or whether these positions derive from polling data, focus groups, and a cynical drive to get elected at all costs (more on that in a moment).

In his first swing out west following a successful leadership bid, Trudeau took the time to praise Alberta Premier Alison Redford’s efforts to secure access for Keystone by talking up improved “environmental sustainability” in the Tar Sands (exactly how, we’re left to wonder, beyond a carbon tax proposed by Redford).

“I’m very hopeful despite the political games being played by the NDP…that we will see the Keystone pipeline approved soon,” Trudeau proclaimed.

If Bay Street and the energy sector see that Trudeau is prepared to fulfill the same key objectives as Harper, they will not think twice about swinging their support back to the Liberals. This latest statement on Keystone signals that Mr. Trudeau is truly open for business. For this reason, while backing Keystone may be unpopular with certain segments of the Canadian public, it could prove a shrewd political move in the long-run.

Harper is uncharacteristically weak at the moment. There is the infighting within his usually locked-down caucus, the cratering polling figures (a recent Nanos poll has the Liberals leading the Conservatives for the first time in years, at 34 to 31% support), and an authoritarian image that is becoming increasingly problematic. He and his embattled foot soldiers, the likes of Joe Oliver and Jason Kenney, have had a very bad month.

Oliver overplayed his hand a couple of weeks ago when he attacked the world’s most respected climate scientist, the recently retired James Hansen of NASA, while on a “diplomatic” mission to Washington to build support for Keystone.

The tone-deaf Oliver ranted that Hansen should be “ashamed” of “exaggerating” the effects of climate change and impacts of the Tar Sands, apparently missing the irony of attacking his hosts while trying win them over. The comments, which backfired severely, were picked up by everyone from the New York Times to the UK’s Guardian. Hansen shot back, aptly branding Oliver a “Neanderthal”.

On this score, Trudeau seems to understand something his Conservative opponents don’t – i.e. cultivating buy-in for Keystone requires more sophisticated framing and at least a modicum of tact with our southern neighbours.

Meanwhile, the most likeable and politically adept figure in the Harper Government, Immigration Minister Kenney, finds himself embroiled in the growing scandal over his government’s foreign temporary worker program. The seriousness of this political pitfall is evident in the unusual backtracking Harper is doing on the program.

He’s right to do so. The problem for Harper with issues like this one, the buyout of Canadian energy company Nexen by Chinese state-owned CNOOC, and the botched fighter jet program, is the way they rile his base. Unpopular with small “c” conservatives, they drive division within Harper’s tenuous right-wing alliance.

With these troubles brewing on the home front and attack ads aimed at Trudeau falling short of the effect they had on his predecessors – Michael Ignatieff and Stéphane Dion – things are shaping up nicely for Harper’s young challenger.

The question is, what does this mean for Canada?

If all Mr. Trudeau represents is a better-packaged version of Harper’s economic vision, then how will the Canadian public and environment – not to mention the planet – be any better off?

The thing that has always bothered me about Justin – ever since his entry onto the public scene at his famous father’s funeral – is that he’s never appeared to stand for anything real. Years later, even following a lengthy leadership race and literally thousands of media clips and public appearances, I still don’t know what core principles motivate his drive to lead the country. He speaks in platitudes, clever but meaningless tweets – which is partly what makes him so effective with social media and our soundbite-obsessed mainstream press.

He is our version of Robert Redford’s character in The Candidate.

Evidently, if Justin stands for anything, it’s selling out Canada’s strategic resources and exploiting the climate-destroying Tar Sands. Where his father tried and failed to build a made-in-Canada energy policy, the younger Trudeau is going in the opposite direction.

Even that, though, I suspect, is more a reflection of his willingness to shape-shift his policies into whatever form advisers tell him will track best politically.

With Harper, by contrast, we have a sense that his zeal for expanding Canada’s fossil fuel industries through foreign ownership is something in which he believes on a deep, ideological level. I’m not sure which is better – the guy who believes in something I and many other Canadians patently don’t, or the guy who probably doesn’t but is willing to say he does, just to get elected. If these are our two choices, then I’m ready for a third.

Real leadership means fighting for real principles, even when they’re unpopular. Great politicians find a way to sell good ideas to the public and media.

Justin Trudeau does none of these things. But, boy, does he look good not doing them.

Canada to partner with George Soros, UN on welcoming far more refugees

We are also offering assistance on our privately sponsored refugees… Well, let me first talk about privately sponsored in the international context.

We are having a joint initiative and tomorrow [September 20, 2016] we will announce it between Canada, George Soros and the UNHCR, which is an initiative to sell our privately sponsored refugee program to other countries. I know of at least thirteen countries who have a potential interest.

So I think this would do a service to the world, because I think it is far superior if you can bring in refugees sponsored by your own citizens than if those same refugees arrive irregularly or illegally.

I know a number of countries have expressed an interest, and so I am pleased about this announcement with those two partners to bring, to do more good in the world.

In terms of our own local situation, we’ve brought in three or four times more resettled refugees in 2016 and in 2015. Why could we not bring in more? Because we’re at capacity.

So if you bring in 10,000 more Syrian refugees you have to bring in 10,000 less of what? African refugees? Spouses? We are at our limit. We couldn’t do more. I regret that but that’s the facts.

There is one country that I’ve had discussions with, and is in the process of implementing or has a model similar to our privately sponsored refugee, and that is England, the United Kingdom.

There are other countries which I’ve spoken to, I know they are interested, and there is still another group of countries I haven’t spoken to, but I’m told they’re interested.

So this initiative involving George Soros, the UNCHR, Canada. We’ll reach out to those with a potential interest. We’ll teach them how we do this. We’ll help them to implement such programs if they’re interested, and I think it has the potential to do a lot of good, because as I said, it’s far far better if you can bring in refugees sponsored by individual group of Canadians than if they just arrive at the borders all along illegally.

So the more countries can adopt a system like ours, I think it will be way better for those countries and more importantly way better for the refugees…

We have the experience [dealing with massive migration of refugees]. We know how it’s done. We know the pitfalls. We know what to do we know what not to do, and so I think we can offer practical advice to those countries who are interested in going in this route, and I do believe, based on our own experience, that it will be a successful thing to do, and I’m grateful to the UN and to George Soros for co-sponsoring this initiative with us

The fact that he is a billionaire gives you a clue as to what he might do which is to contribute funding, and I know that George Soros has really interested in the whole refugee crisis, and so it is normal for him to partner with us on this initiative and since, as you just said, he’s a billionaire, I think the he will also provide some of the money.”

George Soros, the chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC and the Open Society Foundations, who espouses a radical leftist ideology, recently praised Canada’s immigration policy. In an article on Foriegn Policy (July 19, 2016) Soros wrote the following:

Canada provides a good role model (although its geographic context differs from Europe’s). In just four months, it admitted 25,000 Syrian refugees and is integrating them through public-private partnerships and local nonprofits. The government has promised to accept another 10,000 Syrians by year’s end and 44,000 refugees in total in 2016. (At the same time, it is admitting 300,000 migrants in total every year; this would be the equivalent of the EU accepting 4.5 million migrants annually.)”

He also laid out his plan for opening the borders of Europe for massive immigration from the Middle East. Here are excerpts from Soros’ plan:

What would a comprehensive approach look like? It would establish a guaranteed target of at least 300,000 refugees each year who would be securely resettled directly to Europe from the Middle East — a total that hopefully would be matched by countries elsewhere in the world.

That target should be large enough to persuade genuine asylum-seekers not to risk their lives by crossing the Mediterranean Sea, especially if reaching Europe by irregular means would disqualify them from being considered genuine asylum-seekers…

First, the EU and the rest of the world must take in a substantial number of refugees directly from front-line countries in a secure and orderly manner, which would be far more acceptable to the public than the current disorder.

If the EU made a commitment to admit even just 300,000 refugees each year, and if that commitment were matched by countries elsewhere in the world, most genuine asylum-seekers would calculate that their odds of reaching their destination are good enough for them not to seek to reach Europe illegally, since that would disqualify them from being legally admitted. If, on top of this, conditions in front-line countries improved thanks to greater aid, there would be no refugee crisis. But the problem of economic migrants would remain…

Third, the EU needs to develop financial tools that can provide sufficient funds for the long-term challenges it faces and not limp from episode to episode…

At least 30 billion euros a year will be needed for the EU to carry out a comprehensive asylum plan. These funds are needed both inside the union — to build effective border and asylum agencies and ensure dignified reception conditions, fair asylum procedures, and opportunities for integration — as well as outside its borders — to support refugee-hosting countries and spur job creation throughout Africa and the Middle East. Robust border and asylum agencies alone could cost on the order of 15 billion euros…

To finance it, new European taxes will have to be levied sooner or later. In the meantime, needs can be partially met by mobilizing the unused credit of already existing EU financial instruments: balance-of-payments assistance, Macro-Financial Assistance, and the European Financial Stabilization Mechanism (EFSM). These instruments together have more than 50 billion euros of unused credit available…

Leave a Reply