Trump and Kim Jun Un to meet, or will they

North Korea, it seems, is looking to do some negotiations for possible peace talks. When Donald Trump was asked who should take credit for the change of heart by North Korea, Trump said “Me”. Wow. No American president has ever met with a North Korea leader.

Trump immediately approved of a meeting by May with Kim Jun Un even before most of his cabinet knew. For example, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson didn’t know. He also agreed even before there were any plans for the meeting. All we know is that there will be no missile testing [but nothing about research] at least until the meeting and the North Koreans aren’t expecting any sanctions to be lifted.

No matter what is the outcome of this expected meeting [after all, you got two men with huge egos and histories of scrapping plans], Kim Jun Un will be the real winner as it will put him on the world stage diplomatically. Unlikely but if the meeting is held on US or North Korean soil, it will be a bigger win for Kim Jun Un.

Trump accused the Obama administration of using the investigation into potential ties between his campaign and Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election. He tweeted “Why did the Obama Administration start an investigation into the Trump Campaign (with zero proof of wrongdoing) long before the Election in November?” It’s unclear exactly what pre-election investigation Trump was referring to.

The surveillance of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and campaign associate Carter Page was approved by the secret court that oversees domestic surveillance of American citizens under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Page’s case, the FBI and Justice Department presented enough evidence to the court to convince Republican-appointed judges to continue the surveillance into mid-2017.

Trump also tweeted “Obama did NOTHING about Russian meddling”. Except Obama applied new economic sanctions on the Russian government, ordered the State Department to shut down Russian compounds in Maryland and New York, and expelled 35 Russian diplomats that he described as “intelligence operatives.”

Former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg said he refuses to comply with a grand jury subpoena in the Russia investigation. “Screw that. Why do I have to go? Why? For what?” He blamed the investigation’s existence on Trump’s firing of James Comey as FBI director including an interview where Trump said he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Comey and the fact that he held a meeting with top Russian officials in the Oval Office. “Donald Trump caused this because he’s an idiot.”

Nunberg said that he would not appear before a grand jury or spend time reviewing his communications in order to comply with the subpoena. “No I’m not protecting him, but he didn’t do anything,” Nunberg said. “You know what he did? He won the election.” The Trump campaign fired Nunberg in August 2015 after a series of racist Facebook posts came to light.

A Middle East specialist named George Nader with ties to Donald Trump’s team attended secret meetings during the presidential transition between the United Arab Emirates and Trump associates, and is now cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller. Nader is a low-profile diplomatic go-between who has forged close ties to the Emirates, was stopped and questioned by the FBI at Dulles International Airport in January.

The Trump team says it views jobs in the steel industry as an economic-security issue, and therefore a national-security issue. Trump has excluded Canada and Mexico for steel and aluminum tariffs for now while the NAFTA talks continue. Previously he said that if Trump didn’t get his say during those talks, he would impose tariffs on them. But NAFTA is unrelated to national security, and excluding Canada and Mexico for that reason could prompt legal challenges at the World Trade Organization.

Trump has lobbed a grenade of uncertainty onto the NAFTA negotiating table, suggesting that tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel are now dependent on whether the countries agree to a new trade pact. He will implement the tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a little-known trade law from 1962. To do that, Trump must claim that steel and aluminum imports hurt the country’s national security.

Trump escalated threats of a trade war, saying he would slap a new tax on European cars if the EU retaliated against his proposed steel and aluminum tariffs. “We will simply apply a Tax on their Cars which freely pour into the U.S.,” he tweeted. I’m sure they don’t come into the US without any type of tax. If imposed, they would target, as retaliation, tariffs on the main industries for key [mostly] Republican Congressmen and Senators. Trump has declared that trade wars are “easy to win”.

A February 22 SEC filing shows Carl Icahn sold off his $31.3 million stake in the Manitowoc Company a week before Trump’s announcement, which is a leading global manufacturer of cranes for heavy construction based in Manitowoc, Wis., according to the company’s website. Since Trump’s announcement, Manitowoc’s stock has plummeted to about $26. Icahn had sold his shares for about $32 to $34 each, according to the SEC disclosure. Icahn is a major Trump supporter. Coincidence?

Trump actually claimed [as a great economist] that trade wars are actually a good thing. In a news conference, Trump promised his proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum will be applied in a “very loving way.” Whatever that “loving” means. Maybe he said he may exempt some other countries while some may see increases or decreases in percentages.

General Motors and Ford could each take a US$1 billion profit hit if the tariffs are put in place, according to analysts at Goldman Sachs and layoffs could be in cards as companies adjust to changing prices as much as 45,000 jobs.

Trump’s top economic adviser Gary Cohn is resigning. Cohn, who had been rumored just weeks ago as a potential next chief of staff, will leave the White House in the wake of his fierce disagreement with Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.

A new lawsuit filed by the porn star known as Stormy Daniels claims Trump never signed a hush agreement regarding an alleged sexual encounter between the two and therefore the agreement is void. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, signed the document on behalf of the President instead. She claims in the lawsuit to have had an affair with Trump several years prior to his presidency. The lawsuit says Cohen has continued his attempts at silencing Clifford — including as recently as February 27, 2018. Cohen also used a Trump Organization Email account when negotiating the payoff.

Trump is upset with White House press secretary Sarah “Simpleton” Sanders over her responses regarding his alleged affair with porn star Daniels. Sanders told reporters that the arbitration was won “in the President’s favor.” In fact it is a temporary restraining order last week to prevent a pornographic film star from speaking out about her alleged affair with Trump. The statement is an admission that the nondisclosure agreement exists and that it directly involves the President. It is the first time the White House has admitted Trump was involved in any way with Daniels.

Lawrence S. Rosen, a lawyer representing Trump’s legal counsel Michael Cohen, said in a statement that an arbitrator, who “found that Ms. Clifford had violated the agreement,” barred her from filing her lawsuit and making other disclosures of confidential information. Daniel’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that he did not consider the restraining order, dated Feb. 27, valid because it was brought on behalf of Cohen not Trump.

Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 of his own money using his home equity line, which he admitted to in February. Cohen and Sanders has said Trump “vehemently denies” any sexual encounter between the two. Then why pay her that amount?

When adult film star Jessica Drake accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct a month before the presidential election, Trump said through a spokesperson that he didn’t know the woman and had “no interest in ever knowing her.” Less than a week later, a woman named Angel Ryan was listed in a secret settlement agreement negotiated by Cohen. They are the same person – confirmed by Ryan’s lawyer.

The US Office of Special Counsel announced that White House aide Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act on two occasions by “advocating for and against candidates” in last year’s Alabama Senate special election. The agency said Conway “impermissibly mixed official government business with political views about candidates in the Alabama special election.” The agency sends its results to Trump for “punishment”. Good luck there!

Plans by the Trump administration to rescind an Obama-era rule that allows spouses of thousands of H-1B visa holders to work in the United States has been delayed until June, according to a court filing from the Department of Homeland Security.

Several tech companies – including Etsy, Kickstarter, Foursquare and Shutterstock – filed a petition challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s rollback of net neutrality protections. Many states are also taking the FCC to court over the issue.

A ProPublica report claims that the Trump Organization placed an order for golf tee markers displaying the presidential seal, which may be a violation of federal law.

Trump tweeted: “Lowest rated Oscars in HISTORY. Problem is, we don’t have Stars anymore – except your President (just kidding, of course)!” He was actually right regarding the ratings. I won’t comment on his other comment. Oscar host Jimmy Kimmel responded with his own tweet “Thanks, lowest rated President in HISTORY.”

A day before the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at the White House, Jared Kushner, who was the lead negotiator for the US paid him a visit. Remember that Kushner has lost some of his security clearance access.

he administration has hinted they are close to revealing a plan. Problem is that the Palestinian negotiators have refused to meet with the US following Trump’s announcement that the US embassy will move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem but that hasn’t stopped the US from moving forward with the plan.

Diamonds from first daughter Ivanka Trump’s now-defunct fine jewelry line were allegedly used in a massive money-laundering and fraud scheme. The Commercial Bank of Dubai in late June sought and later got permission to subpoena Ivanka Trump Fine Jewelry, claiming its diamonds were vehicles in a scheme to hide about $100 million owed to the financial institution. This was based on filings at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York made over the summer.

Chinese President Xi Jinping recently consolidated power. Trump told a luncheon for Republican donors: “He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great.” Trump added, “I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

Trump had a meeting with the top executive is the video game industry in the unproven thought that violent video game users could be a contributing factor for mass shootings in the US. Of course, Trump has suggested rating both games and movies for violence. Such ratings already exist.

The Trump administration has quietly decided once again to allow Americans to import the body parts of African elephants shot for sport, despite presidential tweets decrying the practice as a “horror show.” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued a letter dated March 1 announcing that the importation of elephant trophies will now be approved on a “case-by-case basis.” Trump’s two adult sons are trophy hunters.

After nearly a year of threats, the Trump administration made its most aggressive move to date against a familiar target of its ire: California and its immigration policies. The Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit against the state and its top officials to stop a cluster of so-called “sanctuary state” bills — a move that puts the administration on offense but is nonetheless likely to generate heated litigation over the boundaries of immigration authority.

It wasn’t a good week or so for the Trump administration last week:

  • Joseph Yun, a top U.S. diplomat overseeing North Korea policy, announced his retirement.
  • Elaine Duke, the deputy secretary of Homeland Security, announced her retirement.
    Sally Donnelly, a prominent adviser to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, is resigning.
  • Reed Cordish, a senior aide to Jared Kushner, announced his departure from the White House.
  • George David Banks, a special assistant to Trump for international energy and environmental policy on the National Economic Council, resigned because of reported difficulties with his security clearance.

The National Rifle Association is suing the state of Florida after Gov. Rick Scott signed Senate Bill 7026 into law, the first gun control legislation enacted in the state after the Parkland school massacre on February 14. The NRA says it goes against the Second Amendment.

The new Florida law raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21 from 18, bans the sale or possession of bump fire stocks, gives law enforcement greater power to seize weapons and ammunition from those deemed mentally unfit, and provides additional funding for armed school resource officers.

Trump reached a presidential milestone at his Palm Beach County, Florida, golf club recently with one hundred days in office at a golf club that bears his name. So roughly a quarter of his term has been spent at that specific golf course [true, he probably did SOME work that he was voted in to do on most of those days]. The same man who said in 2014 “Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf” and during the 2016 campaign he said “I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf.”

Since Trump entered office the number of GOP leaning independent voters have dropped at least 6% but those went to the “undecided” as the Democrats barely picked up anything.

People easily disgusted by body odors seem to prefer authoritarian leaders and were likelier to support Donald Trump, an unusual study into the origins of ideology. The seemingly obscure link, it said, may be rooted in a deep-seated instinct to avoid disease — whether in individuals whose smell suggests they are germ-carriers, or “unfamiliar” people such as immigrants or minorities.

A 2015 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pegged the total at 2,885,570 people for confidential and secret clearances and 1,363,483 for top secret clearances.

The 2018 Presidents and Executive Politics Presidential Greatness Survey and found Abe Lincoln the best president ever and Trump dead last. In fact, the first 7 presidents in the survey didn’t change from the same order when the survey was done 4 years ago. In order, the best 7 were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman and Dwight Eisenhower.

Trump even ranked 40 out of 44 presidents when looking at Republicans and conservatives voters. Bill Clinton, who fell to 13th best after being ranked eighth in 2014. Obama came in eighth, up 10 spots from 18th in 2014. George W. Bush moved up five spots, from 35th to 30th. Reagan also moved into the top 10, ranking ninth. In 2014, he was at 11.

In a new Washington Post/ABC News poll, sixty-two percent of respondents said Trump is not doing enough to prevent mass shootings and 77% say Congress is doing an inadequate job on the issue. 57% said mass shootings in the United States were more of a reflection of problems identifying and treating people with mental health problems, while 28% blamed “inadequate gun laws.” Nine percent blamed both equally. Some 58% of those polled said stricter gun control laws would have prevented the Florida shooting.

Time for electoral reform in the US?

Maybe it is time for some electoral reform in the United States. Only 2 states [Maine and Nebraska] do not follow the winner-takes-all rule like the other states. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. So those two states have a slightly better representation of the vote.

In the case of this past US election, Hillary Clinton had 2 million more votes than president-elect Donald Trump and yet lost the election because Trump won more of the tighter races like Michigan and Pennsylvania while Clinton blew away Trump in California and the District of Columbia. [Note: Some information is still not final.] An estimated 136 million out of 232 million people voted in the US. So take the 232 million and divide into 538 seats and you have roughly 431,000 votes per seat. There was about 9 states [plus DC] that didn’t even get that many votes in this past election. California [the biggest prize] got a bit under 14 million who voted out of about 25 million.

While the constitution guarantees every state a minimum of 2 seats other states are given quite a bit more. Nebraska had just 835,000 votes but still had 3 seats [at a total of 1.3 million voters, they are about on par with the number of seats allocated].

But here comes the question: A state such as California is a winner takes all state. So whomever gets the most votes wins all the seats no matter how close. So [even after a recount] the winner could have taken all 55 seats with just a [say] 100 vote majority. What does that say to the people who voted for the wrong candidate. Instead of a 28 seats to 27 seats, those who were not on the winning side technically are not represented.

Maybe it is time to adjust the electoral college and maybe incorporate what is done in some countries in Canada and elsewhere.

In Canada [as of 2015] there are 338 seats [or ridings] in Parliament. With some minor exceptions, every riding in Canada is at the averages about 75,000 people and within the largest provinces there is a difference of about 15,000 [plus or minus]. Each riding is counted on election day. The winner of the riding means one seat for the party and its leader. So in British Columbia [with 42 ridings], it is not who wins the most votes in BC but who won the most ridings.

Like in the US elections, there will be some ridings were there will be a landslide win for one candidate or another but overall they were even out.

The largest province, Ontario has almost a third of the ridings. Can you imagine how easy it could be if it was a winner take all? Another 49 ridings and they won easily. [Quebec generally votes the same way as Ontario, so the election would be over before the western provinces are counted.] In the last federal election in Canada in 2015, the percentages of seats won were very close to that of the popular vote.

Going back to the US election, theoretically Clinton could of picked up about 272 of 538 seats.

[PS – There is talk of modifying the electoral process in Canada, switching to proportional representation. But that should never happen. With 2 large parties and a third almost as large, Canadian governments would end with constant coalitions like in Italy, Israel, etc. as there hasn’t been a party that has had more than 50% of the vote in years.]

 

When rumours start, people believe anything

It still amazes me of some of the false information that floats around.  Here is an example.

Canada is trying to bring in 25,000 of the refugees fleeing ISIS. The new Canadian government under Justin Trudeau had a hard time getting the 10,000 they wanted to be in Canadian soil by the end of 2015.

They ended up missing the 10,000 by a thousand or so. This was primarily because of logistics in sending security teams over, setting things up, etc.

But right away the Conservative party opposition [stinged at the stunning loss a couple of months prior] started to hammer away at various aspects.

Then the rumors and innuendo started. Rumors had it that refugees will be accepted with little to no security checking. This was false since the UN will be doing one phase and a team from the Canadian government would handle another phase. Even after on Canadian soil, they still would be investigated.

The Canadian government was also accepting primarily families – since a parent would be less likely to be part of terrorist activities. Rumors said they would take anyone.

Even as the refugees are coming into Canada, the 25,000 promised by the end of February will be more likely to be accomplished.

But more complaining by the Conservative party [trickling down to other right wing followers] saying that there are problems once the refugees are in Canada. Issues such as cramped quarters [not quite true] in hotel rooms, no movement in trying to get them out of hotels and into homes, etc.

This is really not surprising when you have that many refugees coming into Canada – a population of roughly 36 million.

If you aren’t scratching your head, maybe you should.

I can’t see too many refugees complaining about possible cramped conditions or staying at a hotel when they came from a land where they lived in damaged homes, often gun shots or bombs falling nearby, lack of food, lack of sanitation, lost family members, lack of clean running water, etc.

A brief synopsis of Canada’s 42nd election

So on Monday, Canada went and voted in a general election, the 42nd one in the history of the country.

This was the longest campaign in over 100 years lasting 78 days. The then governing Conservative Party took a [slight] gamble because they had way more money in their coffers than the two other major parties, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party [NDP].

It backfired.

Since the beginning, the Conservative Party was aiming their attack ads at the Liberal Party’s inexperienced party leader Justin Trudeau [son of the late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau].  Trudeau is in his early 40s and had little political or business professional experience prior to going into politics 7 years ago.

Meanwhile, they weren’t attacking the New Democrats who during the first half of the campaign was gaining steam. For a huge part of the campaign there was just a few percentage points difference between them. Everything was pointing towards a minority government.

Then the debates started. The conservatives forced the other parties not to use Canada wide media for the debates but media that wasn’t available in many areas.

While doing this didn’t backfire, Trudeau showed he can play with the “bigger [older?] boys” and he did very well in each debate while the others didn’t shine.

Trudeau’s election policies were honest. He did not use attack ads but if he did attack, they were sparingly. He announced a deficit will be expected in the first 3 years while the other two claimed a balanced budget would be obtainable. For the NDP, it would probably be impossible with the spending announcements they would do while running the government.

The Conservatives kept on going after Trudeau for a deficit, which economists determined to be laughable because it was so small compared to the actual budget. They also claimed to roll back or remove various benefits such as income splitting [again economists claimed under 17% of the population would use it].

Various other issues cropped up during the campaign such as using the Niqab for official issues [such as voting or citizen swearing in ceremonies], ISIs and Syria, the economy, and the various political scandals.

As the election went into the final week, the Liberals began to go ahead of the pack, just short of the majority number of seats needed with the NDP dropping into third.

Came Election Day, it didn’t look good for the governing Conservatives. As the polls slowly came in from the Atlantic Provinces, it started to look grim for the Conservatives. A clean sweep of all 32 seats [where the Conservatives had 12 seats in 2011].

Then came Quebec. In 2011, the NDP came out of nowhere to take 59 seats out of 75. It wasn’t going to be the same as the Conservatives picked up a few seats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois got 10 and the Liberals took a huge chunk of seats.

In “Battleground Ontario” it was the same with the Liberals taking a big chunk with smaller chunks for the other two. Already, they probably had enough for a majority.

Next came the Prairie Provinces which the Liberals never did well. But they picked up a bunch of seats there including their first in Alberta in 50 years. The Conservatives dominated the Prairie Provinces but it wouldn’t be enough.

By the time voting was counted in British Columbia, it was all over.

In the end, with 338 seats [up from 308 in 2011], the Liberals grabbed 184 of them, the Conservatives dropped from a majority to 99 seats. The NDP went from official opposition to third place with 44 seats.

Very few expected a majority government but winning seats in specific riding helped even with about 38% of the popular vote. The voting turnout was about 68% – the most since 1993.

US politics Canadianized

I’m wondering if Canadian politics is taking a page from US politics.

The governing Conservative Party in Canada has been recycling various ads in different forma on TV for over a year now. They are aiming the ads at Justin Trudeau, Liberal party leader and son of the late Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

The Conservatives have been going after him as soon as Trudeau became leader. It started off with an excerpt of Trudeau dancing around bit like a fool and showed him in the ad the he was immature to be a PM. In fact, the footage came from a charity event a few years before.

Recently they have a [scripted] round table between 4 people, one a senior citizen. They all give negative opinions of Trudeau with one woman actually saying he’s just not ready now [but maybe in the future] – a bit of a surprise there.

One part in particularly said that Trudeau was shown to have said “the balance would budget itself” which sounds a bit odd but was put out of context as the Conservatives failed to include the part of the interview prior to this sentence.

The Conservatives then focused a recent ad on the senior who stated [among other things] that the Liberals would kill the income splitting program [which they said they would because only few Canadians would take advantage of this] and then assumed a similar program for seniors would be killed [that was never announced].

As well in the ad the senior said that the tax free account would be killed, when in fact the Liberals would keep the status quo as it is is right now and not the proposed increase by the Conservatives which would favor only the well to do.

Trudeau is in favor of legalizing marijuana and the Conservatives pounced on it claiming – somehow that it would be sold to children. Meanwhile the government is thinking of loosening some restrictions by issuing fines instead of jail time for processing marijuana.

Of note, recent polls have the rival New Democratic Party in a virtual three-way tie with the Conservative and liberal parties and yet, the Conservatives haven’t attacked [as yet] the NDP or their party leader Thomas Mulcair.

You can find further information, video and source information at http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/14/trudeau-attack-ads-2014-online_n_4965474.html and other sites.

Is it really a balanced budget or just a form of cheating?

Here’s some Canadian politics for you.

Way back in 2009, various government bailed out the North American automakers because of the declining sales and the recession that was brought on during the US government of George W. Bush. Instead of the standard Here is some cash to help you out even though we may not see it again, the government took shares in the automakers.

Fast forward to this past week. The Canada government was the last government to still have shares – in this case General Motors – and decided to cash in their shares.

It was a nice chunk of shares because it netted the government somewhere around $3.3 billion. Problem is that they spent $4 billion in 2009 for the shares. So the government actually lost around $700 million.

So you may be asking why the Canadian government cashed in those shares now.

Well, they needed the cash to have a balanced budget.

Sounds a bit odd but with the barrel of gas cut in half since this time last year, the government is losing money because it receives revenue from the sale of gas as well as the job losses that are happening in the gas industry in Canada. Since that revenue isn’t coming in, they can’t balance the budget [expected within two weeks] without selling their shares in GM.

To add to this, the government has announced that no future government can have a deficit in their budget.

Sounds a bit odd and will be hard to keep a promise considering the government was tens of billions in deficit in 2009 for trying to prop up the economy. [But I think there will be an exception for cases such as that.]

Even still, to sell off shares at a major loss to claim to have a balanced budget. All this coming just months before an election in mid-October.

Once the budget is read in a couple of weeks, the Harper government can proclaim though out the election campaign and the months prior during the “fake” election campaign that they had a balanced budget.

I think anyone who follows politics well will know that they only had their precious balanced budget because they sold off shares for a loss.

[And unlike a taxpayer, you can’t report it on your tax form as a capital loss if you are the government.]

Right to bear arms in Canada not like the US

You know when an election isn’t too far away in Canada when the Prime Minister [Stephen Harper] is already announcing what the opposition would do to something that his Conservatives party followers cherish.

For example, recently while visiting a rural area in western Canada he came out and said that those in rural Canada need firearms to protect themselves – since they are in areas where it may take time for the RCMP [since most rural areas use the RCMP instead of local police] to come to their rescue.

Problem is that, unlike in the United States where an amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, there is no such thing in Canada. In Canada, having a gun is not guaranteed.

The National Firearm Association [NFA] has said that it would push to make sure those in rural areas – and even urban areas – to have a gun to protect them.

The opposition parties will obviously push against any legislation that loosens laws regarding gun access and probably change the legislation once an elected government.

Legal experts have already stated that unless your life is in danger, you could be charged with murder [or similar charges] if you kill an intruder who isn’t armed. The NFA brushed this off as if it will never happen. They claim your house is your castle and you can do whatever you want on it.

The NFA is also pushing amendments to two bills [42 and 51] which would adjust gun legislation and anti-terrorism legislation. The NFA has stated that if changes aren’t made, they will sink the Conservative government so they won’t win the next election. They claim they did it in 1993 after then Prime Minister Kim Campbell came out with legislation they didn’t like.

Going back to the election rhetoric, Harper has already said that by not voting for his party, they would bring back the long gun registry [which was demolished a few years back after costing a reported billion dollars] as well as stiffer gun legislation.

You need to wonder that if Harper is already making these comments, maybe he thinks he may not win the next election. If you are ahead in an election you say what your party will do, if you are behind you say what the opposition will do [that’s bad].

It is not the first time Harper has made end of the world [or Canada] type comments if the opposition is elected. Won’t be the last.