Fact Check: Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States.

Fact Check: Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States.

June 16, 2025by TruthOrFake AI
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: "Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the...

Fact Check: "Polls indicate that the majority of Greenland's 57,000 residents desire independence from Denmark but do not wish to become part of the United States."

What We Know

Recent polling data reveals significant sentiments among Greenland's population regarding independence and potential ties with the United States. A poll conducted in January 2025 indicated that approximately 84% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark, although this figure is nuanced by the fact that 45% of respondents expressed concerns about independence if it meant a decrease in their quality of life or benefits (source-3). Furthermore, another poll found that 85% of Greenlanders oppose the idea of joining the United States, with only 6% in favor of such a move, and 9% undecided (source-1, source-2).

Analysis

The claim that a majority of Greenland's residents desire independence from Denmark is supported by multiple polls indicating a strong preference for self-determination. However, the nuance lies in the significant percentage of residents who are hesitant about independence due to potential economic repercussions. The 45% of Greenlanders who would oppose independence if it led to a decline in living standards suggests that while there is a desire for autonomy, it is tempered by practical concerns about the implications of such a change (source-3).

On the other hand, the overwhelming opposition to joining the United States is clear, with 85% of respondents rejecting the idea (source-1, source-4). This sentiment reflects a broader historical context of colonialism and a desire for self-governance among the Greenlandic people, as articulated by various commentators and political leaders (source-2).

The sources used in this analysis are credible, coming from established news organizations and academic references, which lend weight to the findings. However, it is essential to note that public opinion can be fluid and influenced by current events, particularly in the context of international relations and domestic governance.

Conclusion

The claim is Partially True. While it accurately reflects the strong desire for independence among Greenland's residents, it overlooks the complexity of their feelings regarding the implications of such a move. The majority do not wish to join the United States, but a significant portion of the population is cautious about independence due to concerns over economic stability and quality of life. Therefore, while the desire for independence is evident, it is not without reservations.

Sources

  1. Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States ... Reuters
  2. Denmark vs the US: What Greenland really wants BBC
  3. Greenlandic independence Wikipedia
  4. 85% of Greenlanders don't want their island to become part ... - CBS News CBS News
  5. Opinion poll in Greenland, January 2025 - Verian Group Verian Group
  6. Virtually no Greenlanders want to join the US, new poll finds Euractiv

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ A member of Pierre Poilievre’s extended family has crossed through Roxham Road illegally to seek asylum in Canada from Venezuela.  Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, José Gerardo Galindo Prato, is the third from the right in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City, September 9, 2023. The hypocrisy is overwhelming when you consider Poilievre’s stance on illegal border crossers and his blame of the liberal government. I am glad that he is here safe and sound. But what makes him special is that he’s able to live here in Canada undocumented with a deportation order and his name until Anaida Poilievre and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 and his efforts to get permanent residency. Article by The Breach In late July 2018, Pierre Poilievre took aim at “illegal border crossers.” “How much will it cost to house the illegal border crossers in hotels in the coming year?” he repeatedly asked during a parliamentary committee hearing, criticizing the Liberal government for helping shelter thousands of asylum seekers who had entered the country through Roxham Road in Quebec. “Who will pay for it?” Two months later, the Conservative leader’s own uncle-in-law crossed Roxham Road on foot. After failing to get his refugee claim approved, he appears to have lived undocumented in Canada with a deportation order in his name. According to documents obtained by The Breach, Poilievre’s relative—the uncle of his wife, Anaida Poilievre—received help from her and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 in his efforts to get permanent residency. He has since been seen attending Conservative events, as recently as 2023, according to photos examined by The Breach. Poilievre has said a Conservative government would “have the resources” to “track down” such individuals and deport them. “These are people who are not eligible to be here and we will find them and we will deport them,” Poilievre told a Montreal radio station in December. The Conservative leader has taken an increasingly hard line on asylum seekers entering Canada, calling to shut down Roxham Road, where tens of thousands crossed in recent years fleeing hardship or persecution. At his election campaign launch on Sunday, Poilievre said he would put a hard cap on immigration and take other measures. “We will keep out and deport criminals, stop fraud and crack down on bogus refugee claims,” he said. “On immigration, like everything else, we will put Canada First.” Refugee advocacy organizations say his position appears to be “his family first.” “It is deeply hypocritical that Poilievre has vilified migrants, blamed them for the housing and affordability crisis, and said he wants to deport undocumented people who are in the same situation his own family seemed to be in,” said Syed Hussan, the executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. “If Poilievre’s family deserves to make a life here, so does everybody else’s.”‘Shut off the flow of false refugee claims’: Poilievre Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, Venezuelan lawyer José Gerardo Galindo Prato, had previously entered Canada in 2004 and lived without documentation until 2007, when he was deported by Canadian border agents. Back in Venezuela, Galindo Prato was convicted in 2017 of helping a drug trafficker escape from prison and served six months in prison, which he says was a trumped-up, false charge. In the fall of 2018, he flew to Miami, then to Pittsburgh, and later crossed at Roxham Road. The Breach obtained a draft copy of Galindo Prato’s written submission to Immigration Canada from early 2021, applying to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which Anaida Poilievre helped him prepare. At this stage of the asylum process, he would have already failed his refugee application and been served with a deportation order, according to an immigration lawyer The Breach consulted. According to email and Facebook correspondence seen by The Breach, Anaida Poilievre organized the drafting and mailing of the submission with assistance from a parliamentarian. In one message she wrote that she had a “person helping in a MP’s office.” In another, she was even more direct. “I’m trying to help my uncle,” she wrote, and “the MP can help us.” At the time, she worked as an executive assistant in the office of Conservative MP Michael Cooper, a close ally of Pierre Poilievre. Since Poilievre became leader, she has taken an active leadership role herself, narrating ads, introducing her husband at major events, and playing a key role in fundraising for the party. The revelations about an undocumented family member raise questions about whether Pierre Poilievre was in any way involved in advocating for his uncle-in-law to stay in the country, despite his outspoken rhetoric against “illegal border crossers.” In December 2024, Poilievre called for Canada to bulk up the security at the border, including by deputizing provincial police and cracking down on “false refugee claims.” “We need to shut off the flow of false refugee claims who are in no danger in their country of origin but who are sneaking in either through our porous border, through our weak visa system, and then when they’re here, making a false claim,” he said. Galindo Prato’s written submission, which the immigration lawyer verified looks like a typical example, says he was persecuted and jailed without trial in Venezuela. But online court documents from the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice indicate he was charged with helping a drug trafficker escape from prison while he served as a legal consultant in a psychiatric clinic. Because refugee and immigration proceedings are highly confidential, The Breach could not confirm whether Galindo Prato has received his permanent residency. But The Breach was able to identify Galindo Prato sitting with the rest of Anaida Poilievre’s family in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City in August 2023. “I love real refugees,” Poilievre said in December. “Our country was built in large part by real refugees who were genuinely fleeing danger, like my wife. But I have no time for people who lie to come into our country, and that is the problem we have to cut off.”‘Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ Refugees who try to enter Canada at official border crossings are turned back, because of an agreement with the United States that suggests they are safe in Canada’s southern neighbour. So thousands of people like Galindo Prato have crossed into the country at unofficial entry points like Roxham Road, after which they are able to make a claim for asylum. There is no guarantee that they will be able to stay—tens of thousands of refugees have been deported by the Liberal government in recent years. Migrant Workers Alliance for Change executive director Hussan said that humanitarian and compassionate grounds are the last resort for denied refugee claimants like Galindo Prato and are granted on the basis of strong community ties. “But not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner,” he said. “We think every asylum seeker, refugee, migrant, and undocumented person should have permanent resident status in order to ensure equal rights. What Poilievre is proposing is instead to deport and destroy the lives of vast numbers of people—except those he knows.” Hussan’s organization is part of a coalition of groups in the Migrant Rights Network that have spent years advocating for the government to grant status to undocumented people in Canada, who number anywhere between 300,000 and 600,000. The Liberals had pledged in late 2021 to “explore ways of regularizing status for undocumented workers who are contributing to Canadian communities.” But in the wake of increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric and the Conservative Party’s surge in the polls, the government backtracked on their promise for a “broad and comprehensive program.” By contrast, Poilievre has promised to more vigorously pursue deportations, especially of people—just like his uncle-in-law—who have had their initial refugee claims rejected. “We know that there are 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported that have not left,” Poilievre said in December. “Trudeau has lost control of immigration. I will take back control. First of all, we will track down the 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported, and I will have them deported from this country.” Two years ago, Poilievre described the Roxham Road crossing as one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s great failures. “Nowhere is that chaos more evident then at Roxham road where Trudeau encouraged people to cross illegally into Canada,” Poilievere said. “We need more immigrants but we need to have it done in an orderly and lawful fashion.” In 2023, the Liberal government closed Roxham Road permanently. Poilievre has increasingly blamed Canada’s crises on immigrants and migrants, saying last fall that “radical, uncontrolled immigration and policies related to it are partly to blame for joblessness, housing and healthcare crisis.” In his submission to Immigration Canada, Galindo Prato writes that he was detained without trial after making allegations about corruption within the Venezuelan government. He said he was held for almost five months in a three-by-four-meter cell, where he was beaten and deprived of clean water, medical care, and adequate nutrition. But according to the court documents filed in the Supreme Court of Venezuela by the public prosecutors office and in Venezuelan media coverage, Galindo Prato was charged with the crime of helping the escape of a convicted drug trafficker, while he was serving as the legal consultant for a psychiatric clinic. Galindo Prato did not reply to multiple attempts to reach him through direct messages to his social media accounts. Anaida Poilievre did not reply to a request for comment by time of publication. A Conservative campaign spokesperson provided a written statement to The Breach that “Mr. Galindo Prato has pursued his case through established channels, including with the use of an immigration lawyer.” “While MPs may make requests for information to [Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada], MPs do not have the ability to influence immigration cases,” the spokesperson wrote. “It is certainly ridiculous to suggest that opposition Conservative MPs would be able to influence cases under a Liberal Government.” In fact, parliamentarians frequently advocate for the Immigration Minister to expedite immigration applications, including for undocumented people. “This is a disgusting smear of Ms. Poilievre’s extended family who have been subjected to persecution and political repression in Venezuela, and we will not be commenting further,” the spokesperson added.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ A member of Pierre Poilievre’s extended family has crossed through Roxham Road illegally to seek asylum in Canada from Venezuela.  Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, José Gerardo Galindo Prato, is the third from the right in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City, September 9, 2023. The hypocrisy is overwhelming when you consider Poilievre’s stance on illegal border crossers and his blame of the liberal government. I am glad that he is here safe and sound. But what makes him special is that he’s able to live here in Canada undocumented with a deportation order and his name until Anaida Poilievre and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 and his efforts to get permanent residency. Article by The Breach In late July 2018, Pierre Poilievre took aim at “illegal border crossers.” “How much will it cost to house the illegal border crossers in hotels in the coming year?” he repeatedly asked during a parliamentary committee hearing, criticizing the Liberal government for helping shelter thousands of asylum seekers who had entered the country through Roxham Road in Quebec. “Who will pay for it?” Two months later, the Conservative leader’s own uncle-in-law crossed Roxham Road on foot. After failing to get his refugee claim approved, he appears to have lived undocumented in Canada with a deportation order in his name. According to documents obtained by The Breach, Poilievre’s relative—the uncle of his wife, Anaida Poilievre—received help from her and an undisclosed MP’s office in 2021 in his efforts to get permanent residency. He has since been seen attending Conservative events, as recently as 2023, according to photos examined by The Breach. Poilievre has said a Conservative government would “have the resources” to “track down” such individuals and deport them. “These are people who are not eligible to be here and we will find them and we will deport them,” Poilievre told a Montreal radio station in December. The Conservative leader has taken an increasingly hard line on asylum seekers entering Canada, calling to shut down Roxham Road, where tens of thousands crossed in recent years fleeing hardship or persecution. At his election campaign launch on Sunday, Poilievre said he would put a hard cap on immigration and take other measures. “We will keep out and deport criminals, stop fraud and crack down on bogus refugee claims,” he said. “On immigration, like everything else, we will put Canada First.” Refugee advocacy organizations say his position appears to be “his family first.” “It is deeply hypocritical that Poilievre has vilified migrants, blamed them for the housing and affordability crisis, and said he wants to deport undocumented people who are in the same situation his own family seemed to be in,” said Syed Hussan, the executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change. “If Poilievre’s family deserves to make a life here, so does everybody else’s.”‘Shut off the flow of false refugee claims’: Poilievre Anaida Poilievre’s uncle, Venezuelan lawyer José Gerardo Galindo Prato, had previously entered Canada in 2004 and lived without documentation until 2007, when he was deported by Canadian border agents. Back in Venezuela, Galindo Prato was convicted in 2017 of helping a drug trafficker escape from prison and served six months in prison, which he says was a trumped-up, false charge. In the fall of 2018, he flew to Miami, then to Pittsburgh, and later crossed at Roxham Road. The Breach obtained a draft copy of Galindo Prato’s written submission to Immigration Canada from early 2021, applying to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which Anaida Poilievre helped him prepare. At this stage of the asylum process, he would have already failed his refugee application and been served with a deportation order, according to an immigration lawyer The Breach consulted. According to email and Facebook correspondence seen by The Breach, Anaida Poilievre organized the drafting and mailing of the submission with assistance from a parliamentarian. In one message she wrote that she had a “person helping in a MP’s office.” In another, she was even more direct. “I’m trying to help my uncle,” she wrote, and “the MP can help us.” At the time, she worked as an executive assistant in the office of Conservative MP Michael Cooper, a close ally of Pierre Poilievre. Since Poilievre became leader, she has taken an active leadership role herself, narrating ads, introducing her husband at major events, and playing a key role in fundraising for the party. The revelations about an undocumented family member raise questions about whether Pierre Poilievre was in any way involved in advocating for his uncle-in-law to stay in the country, despite his outspoken rhetoric against “illegal border crossers.” In December 2024, Poilievre called for Canada to bulk up the security at the border, including by deputizing provincial police and cracking down on “false refugee claims.” “We need to shut off the flow of false refugee claims who are in no danger in their country of origin but who are sneaking in either through our porous border, through our weak visa system, and then when they’re here, making a false claim,” he said. Galindo Prato’s written submission, which the immigration lawyer verified looks like a typical example, says he was persecuted and jailed without trial in Venezuela. But online court documents from the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice indicate he was charged with helping a drug trafficker escape from prison while he served as a legal consultant in a psychiatric clinic. Because refugee and immigration proceedings are highly confidential, The Breach could not confirm whether Galindo Prato has received his permanent residency. But The Breach was able to identify Galindo Prato sitting with the rest of Anaida Poilievre’s family in the front row at the Conservative Party convention in Quebec City in August 2023. “I love real refugees,” Poilievre said in December. “Our country was built in large part by real refugees who were genuinely fleeing danger, like my wife. But I have no time for people who lie to come into our country, and that is the problem we have to cut off.”‘Not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner’ Refugees who try to enter Canada at official border crossings are turned back, because of an agreement with the United States that suggests they are safe in Canada’s southern neighbour. So thousands of people like Galindo Prato have crossed into the country at unofficial entry points like Roxham Road, after which they are able to make a claim for asylum. There is no guarantee that they will be able to stay—tens of thousands of refugees have been deported by the Liberal government in recent years. Migrant Workers Alliance for Change executive director Hussan said that humanitarian and compassionate grounds are the last resort for denied refugee claimants like Galindo Prato and are granted on the basis of strong community ties. “But not every migrant has a politician like Poilievre in their corner,” he said. “We think every asylum seeker, refugee, migrant, and undocumented person should have permanent resident status in order to ensure equal rights. What Poilievre is proposing is instead to deport and destroy the lives of vast numbers of people—except those he knows.” Hussan’s organization is part of a coalition of groups in the Migrant Rights Network that have spent years advocating for the government to grant status to undocumented people in Canada, who number anywhere between 300,000 and 600,000. The Liberals had pledged in late 2021 to “explore ways of regularizing status for undocumented workers who are contributing to Canadian communities.” But in the wake of increasing anti-immigrant rhetoric and the Conservative Party’s surge in the polls, the government backtracked on their promise for a “broad and comprehensive program.” By contrast, Poilievre has promised to more vigorously pursue deportations, especially of people—just like his uncle-in-law—who have had their initial refugee claims rejected. “We know that there are 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported that have not left,” Poilievre said in December. “Trudeau has lost control of immigration. I will take back control. First of all, we will track down the 30,000 people who’ve been ordered deported, and I will have them deported from this country.” Two years ago, Poilievre described the Roxham Road crossing as one of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s great failures. “Nowhere is that chaos more evident then at Roxham road where Trudeau encouraged people to cross illegally into Canada,” Poilievere said. “We need more immigrants but we need to have it done in an orderly and lawful fashion.” In 2023, the Liberal government closed Roxham Road permanently. Poilievre has increasingly blamed Canada’s crises on immigrants and migrants, saying last fall that “radical, uncontrolled immigration and policies related to it are partly to blame for joblessness, housing and healthcare crisis.” In his submission to Immigration Canada, Galindo Prato writes that he was detained without trial after making allegations about corruption within the Venezuelan government. He said he was held for almost five months in a three-by-four-meter cell, where he was beaten and deprived of clean water, medical care, and adequate nutrition. But according to the court documents filed in the Supreme Court of Venezuela by the public prosecutors office and in Venezuelan media coverage, Galindo Prato was charged with the crime of helping the escape of a convicted drug trafficker, while he was serving as the legal consultant for a psychiatric clinic. Galindo Prato did not reply to multiple attempts to reach him through direct messages to his social media accounts. Anaida Poilievre did not reply to a request for comment by time of publication. A Conservative campaign spokesperson provided a written statement to The Breach that “Mr. Galindo Prato has pursued his case through established channels, including with the use of an immigration lawyer.” “While MPs may make requests for information to [Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada], MPs do not have the ability to influence immigration cases,” the spokesperson wrote. “It is certainly ridiculous to suggest that opposition Conservative MPs would be able to influence cases under a Liberal Government.” In fact, parliamentarians frequently advocate for the Immigration Minister to expedite immigration applications, including for undocumented people. “This is a disgusting smear of Ms. Poilievre’s extended family who have been subjected to persecution and political repression in Venezuela, and we will not be commenting further,” the spokesperson added.

Mar 28, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Unverified
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: THIS IS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE MAGA PROJECT 2025 : PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND SHARE FAR AND WIDE ❤ THANK YOU FOLKS ❤ LIKE THE MAGA, THE PP HAS A 100 DAY AGENDA : The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about Fight Club. Over the past year, if you asked around Ottawa about the transition team that was planning Pierre Poilievre’s first days in government, you were likely to be met with shrugs. The members of the team were not named, and those in the know were not talking. Even The Hill Times, the Ottawa parliamentary affairs outlet that excels at digging up gossipy news, had come up empty-handed. At the outset of 2025, they approached a dozen Conservatives close to Poilievre, all of whom stayed tight-lipped. His campaign manager Jenni Byrne ran a very tight organization, and slip-ups might incur her wrath. Besides, any operative whose party is on the verge of power knows it’s best to maintain utmost organizational secrecy. Such discipline, however, sometimes falters under the influence of a few drinks. That’s what Bryan Evans, a political science professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, found out in late 2024. Around the winter holidays, he ducked into his neighbourhood bar and ran into an old acquaintance. The man wasn’t himself on the transition team, but it turned out he was deeply informed. They slid onto stools for a conversation. While they didn’t run in the same circles, and certainly didn’t share political opinions, his acquaintance knew that Evans had an understanding and appreciation for the machinery of government. For ten years he was employed by the Ontario government, including a stint in the Ministry of Labour after Progressive Conservative Mike Harris had come to power in the mid 1990s. Relying on insights from that experience, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on that government and its radical agenda. In December 2024, Poilievre was riding high in the polls, as he had been for nearly two years. So maybe it was the overconfidence talking. Over beers, Evans’s drinking companion laid out more about the transition planning than anything yet discovered by well-connected reporters in the establishment media. The group was preparing for a Poilievre government to hit the ground running. It was going to be a blitzkrieg. “You were there at the start of the Mike Harris government.” “Yeah,” Evans said. “That’s going to be the playbook.” It was an ominous sign. Mike Harris’s government had moved quickly to make dramatic reforms. They had a hundred-day agenda, and they got a lot done: laying off public sector employees, cutting funding to education, slashing social assistance rates, deregulating industries, repealing equity laws, selling off Crown corporations, and empowering the government to impose user fees on public services. “It’s going to come hard and fast from every direction again,” Evan’s acquaintance said. The groups and communities impacted, as well as the political opposition, both inside Parliament and outside, would have to fight on dozens of fronts at once. One of Harris’s key first steps was to balance the budget as a way of supercharging their plans, according to Guy Giorno, the premier’s top strategist. He described this as their “agenda within the agenda,” the “factor which meant that absolutely everybody rolled in the same direction.” It began the process of shrinking public spending, and was followed up by deregulation, rolling back labour protections, freezing the minimum wage, and encouraging the subcontracting of public services. Back in the 1990s, Harris had been convinced by Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s advisors that he would have to move speedily to implement his agenda, lest he get tripped up by protests or a stubborn public service. Those advisors had once encouraged Klein to read the work of economist Milton Friedman (Pierre Poilievre’s own ideological guru). In the 1980’s, Friedman had written that “a new administration has some six to nine months in which to achieve major changes; if it does not seize the opportunity to act decisively during that period, it will not have another such opportunity.” It’s the lesson Friedman had drawn from his first laboratory, Chile. After the U.S. backed overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende, the military dictator Augusto Pinochet had instituted a violent, rapid-fire makeover of the economy, following Friedman’s radical free market rulebook: privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to the public sector, and attacks on labour unions. Purging the public service As for the composition of Poilievre’s transition group, Bryan Evans’ acquaintance belatedly recalled his Fight Club rules. He wouldn’t divulge names, but offered some ideas. There were Poilievre’s policy advisors, as well as some former senior public servants, lawyers, and an ex-Cabinet minister. He admitted that some people who had been around for the Mike Harris days were in there too. Even before they were sworn in as the government in 1995, Harris’s team had laid groundwork within the public service to ensure they could take swift control of the levers of power. Members of his transition team had shown up to their first meeting with outgoing NDP government officials with a list of six high-ranking deputy ministers they wanted to meet quickly. Those civil servants were the A-list, empowered to advise and serve Harris’s agenda; several others, considered unfriendly, received their pink slips as part of a careful purge. As one NDP official remarked, his own party had “assumed office, but never took power. These guys are taking power even before they have assumed office.” Poilievre’s transition team also was thinking very strategically about how they would wield the machinery of the state. Who did they want to bring into the higher ranks of public service to help advance their plans? Who should be removed? And who might they want for the most important position of all, the top ranking civil servant, the Clerk of the Privy Council? These were some of the questions they were asking while plotting their first moves. When it came to policy plans, one crucial difference between the two eras was that Mike Harris’ Conservatives publicly had rolled out their agenda years in advance. Harris’s young ideologues put out detailed papers, organized policy conferences, eventually published a manifesto, the Common Sense Revolution, of which they printed 2.5 million copies. Everyone knew what was coming, even if it would still shock people when it arrived and extend far beyond what Harris had promised. Would Poilievre’s team, for instance, follow Mike Harris’s “playbook” on healthcare? Harris had lulled Ontario into complacency by assuaging voters’ fears about protecting health services. Their manifesto was crystal clear: “We will not cut healthcare spending.” But the result turned out to look very different: forty hospital closures, 25,000 staff laid off, and declining per capita real funding at a time of growing need. Poilievre’s team, by contrast, hadn’t laid out many policy details. And yet, over the years and in the run-up to the spring of 2025, Poilievre had telegraphed a lot in past election platforms, online videos, and podcast interviews with Jordan Peterson. It hinted at what his sweeping agenda would entail if he was able to secure a majority government—an assault on the country’s collective assets and already tattered social programs, a renewed attack on unions, activist and Indigenous defenders, and a bonanza of deregulation and privatization that would make his billionaire backers cheer. This is an excerpt from Martin Lukacs’s THE POILIEVRE PROJECT : A RADICAL BLUEPRINT FOR CORPORATE RULE published by Breach Books and available for order.

Apr 6, 2025
Read more →
🔍
Partially True

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
True

Fact Check: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business leaders formally threw their support behind Pierre Poilievre in the upcoming federal election on Saturday, arguing his Conservative Party will best handle Canada’s slowing economic growth. The group of more than 30 current and past executives includes Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau, former RBC Capital Markets CEO Anthony Fell and former Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter. They published an open letter in several Canadian newspapers on Saturday saying Poilievre's plans are best to get the country's economy "back on track." "Productivity has stalled. Economic growth has slowed. Our GDP per capita is shrinking," the letter reads. "Nevertheless, this decline is not inevitable -- and it's not the Canada we know and love." To turn things around, the letter said Canada needs to eliminate barriers to productivity by streamlining permit processes and cutting outdated regulations that prevent investment and job creation. It also said the government needs to be more disciplined with its spending, impose lower taxes to make Canada more competitive and develop the country's natural resources by building pipelines, expanding mining and investing in energy. The letter, which was also signed by former RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust founder Edward Sonshine, Mattamy Homes CEO Peter Gilgan and past Toronto Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey, is one of the strongest shows of support Poilievre has seen from the business community yet. His competitor, Liberal Mark Carney, has spent much of the election campaign, which concludes on April 28 when Canadians go to the polls, touting his experience as leader of the central banks in both Canada and England. He argues that experience leaves him best equipped to address the country's economic woes and tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. The Liberals did not immediately respond to request for comment on the letter. The Conservatives, however, took the missive as a sign that their platform is resonating with the business community. “Pierre Poilievre’s Canada First Economic Action Plan is being recognized as a strong plan to lower taxes and eliminate red tape to unleash our industries and bring home powerful paycheques for our people and a thriving economy," Conservative spokesman Sam Lilly said in a statement. Poilievre revealed earlier this week that his plan is designed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 25 per cent in two years through a "two-for-one" law. The law would see two regulations be repealed for every new one that's enacted and require that every dollar spent on new administrative costs trigger the cutting of two dollars in other areas. Meanwhile, Carney has said he will boost interprovincial trade by removing all exemptions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, develop a new fund to help link natural resource extraction sites with rail lines and roads and create new programs geared toward training workers. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said it was "no surprise" some business leaders are backing Poilievre and Carney because they're giving a tax break to the ultra-wealthy," rather than focusing on "what people actually need—health care, housing, and support when they lose a job." "Canadians are working hard but falling behind," Singh said in a statement. "Wages aren’t keeping up, housing is out of reach, and public services are stretched. The economy isn’t working for most people." This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 12, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Business leaders and ex bank heads throw support behind Poilievre A number of prominent business leaders formally threw their support behind Pierre Poilievre in the upcoming federal election on Saturday, arguing his Conservative Party will best handle Canada’s slowing economic growth. The group of more than 30 current and past executives includes Fairfax Financial CEO Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity CEO Dan Daviau, former RBC Capital Markets CEO Anthony Fell and former Scotiabank CEO Brian Porter. They published an open letter in several Canadian newspapers on Saturday saying Poilievre's plans are best to get the country's economy "back on track." "Productivity has stalled. Economic growth has slowed. Our GDP per capita is shrinking," the letter reads. "Nevertheless, this decline is not inevitable -- and it's not the Canada we know and love." To turn things around, the letter said Canada needs to eliminate barriers to productivity by streamlining permit processes and cutting outdated regulations that prevent investment and job creation. It also said the government needs to be more disciplined with its spending, impose lower taxes to make Canada more competitive and develop the country's natural resources by building pipelines, expanding mining and investing in energy. The letter, which was also signed by former RioCan Real Estate Investment Trust founder Edward Sonshine, Mattamy Homes CEO Peter Gilgan and past Toronto Blue Jays president Paul Godfrey, is one of the strongest shows of support Poilievre has seen from the business community yet. His competitor, Liberal Mark Carney, has spent much of the election campaign, which concludes on April 28 when Canadians go to the polls, touting his experience as leader of the central banks in both Canada and England. He argues that experience leaves him best equipped to address the country's economic woes and tariff threats from U.S. President Donald Trump. The Liberals did not immediately respond to request for comment on the letter. The Conservatives, however, took the missive as a sign that their platform is resonating with the business community. “Pierre Poilievre’s Canada First Economic Action Plan is being recognized as a strong plan to lower taxes and eliminate red tape to unleash our industries and bring home powerful paycheques for our people and a thriving economy," Conservative spokesman Sam Lilly said in a statement. Poilievre revealed earlier this week that his plan is designed to cut bureaucratic red tape by 25 per cent in two years through a "two-for-one" law. The law would see two regulations be repealed for every new one that's enacted and require that every dollar spent on new administrative costs trigger the cutting of two dollars in other areas. Meanwhile, Carney has said he will boost interprovincial trade by removing all exemptions under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, develop a new fund to help link natural resource extraction sites with rail lines and roads and create new programs geared toward training workers. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said it was "no surprise" some business leaders are backing Poilievre and Carney because they're giving a tax break to the ultra-wealthy," rather than focusing on "what people actually need—health care, housing, and support when they lose a job." "Canadians are working hard but falling behind," Singh said in a statement. "Wages aren’t keeping up, housing is out of reach, and public services are stretched. The economy isn’t working for most people." This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 12, 2025. Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

Apr 13, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Polls show that majorities oppose removing undocumented longtime residents, people with jobs, and those who don’t have a criminal record.
Partially True

Fact Check: Polls show that majorities oppose removing undocumented longtime residents, people with jobs, and those who don’t have a criminal record.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Polls show that majorities oppose removing undocumented longtime residents, people with jobs, and those who don’t have a criminal record.

Jun 13, 2025
Read more →