International
Jordan Peterson: ‘I would vote for Trump’ as part of ‘revolutionary’ coalition with Elon Musk, RFK Jr.
From LifeSiteNews
In an interview with Piers Morgan, the Canadian psychologist contrasted the former president’s past performance, achieving a ‘decent’ economy and ‘no war,’ against the Biden-Harris record of a ‘complete, bloody world-ending disaster’ in foreign policy.
If he was an American citizen, Dr. Jordan Peterson said he would vote for President Donald Trump in November due to his past performance in office, the “hyper-powerful people” he has gathered around him, and the “grace under pressure” he has exhibited even within the context of two assassination attempts.
The best-selling Canadian author and clinical psychologist was speaking to British TV host Piers Morgan in a wide-ranging interview last Thursday.
“If I could vote in the American election, I would vote for Trump,” he said. “I don’t trust (VP Kamala) Harris.”
“The best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior,” Peterson explained. “If you’re trying to hire someone and you have documented history of their efforts in precisely the domain that you’re attempting to hire for, and the evidence is clear and valid, you use that in favor of all other predictive markers.”
And with Trump, “we have a documented track record” that includes “decent economic performance” for the nation during his previous term and a “markedly stable international situation” that included “no wars.”
In contrast, the public philosopher observed that under the Biden-Harris administration “we have this terrible, brutal, and I think unnecessary war going on between Russia and Ukraine, which could spiral out of control at any moment, and is highly likely to.”
Since at least May 2023, Trump has promised to end the war in Ukraine within “24 hours” of his potential second inauguration in January. And despite his apparent full embrace of the Zionist agenda, the former president has provided several indications that if elected in November he may bring an end to the genocidal onslaught Israel is currently inflicting upon the Palestinian people.
In late April, the presumed Republican nominee also would not rule out withholding U.S. military aid from Israel in an interview with Time Magazine. After criticizing their “public relations,” particularly the Israeli Army “sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people (inside),” he was asked whether he would rule out withholding aid, to which he said, “No.”
Additionally, in early June, President Trump appeared to inadvertently make a significant campaign commitment in telling former UFC lightweight champion Khabib Nurmagomedov he would end the war in Palestine.
While attending an Ultimate Fighting Championship event in Newark, New Jersey, Nurmagomedov was heard privately saying to Trump, “I know you will stop the war in Palestine,” to which the 45th president responded, “We will stop it. I will stop the war,” with a video clip of the encounter going viral on Twitter/X.
Secondly, Peterson highlighted what he saw as a very positive development with the former president pulling in “a lot of hyper-powerful people” such as business mogul Elon Musk, former Democrat congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., “most of whom would have been Democrats in anything approximating a sane and normal world.”
For the psychologist, this indicates that the otherwise “flamboyant and dominating” Trump does not “tilt too far in the narcissistic direction” otherwise he would not be making these alliances and sharing “the spotlight with the rest of this crew.”
Furthermore, “I would vote for Trump if for no other reason than Musk himself has already agreed to head something like a Department of Governmental Efficiency in the U.S.,” Peterson continued. “Then Kennedy is bringing the public health crisis into the political realm, and both of those two things are revolutionary.”
The former professor also doesn’t believe Trump is pursuing a second term out of ambition since he is “an old man,” has already been president and “he’s as famous as you can get.” His motives are therefore focused on the betterment of the United States, “and that’s part of why he’s building this coalition.”
Morgan went on to comment on Trump’s “genuine personal courage” that he has exhibited within the context of the two recent assassination attempts. Trump’s insistence on getting back up after being injured by the first attempt, “to punch the air defiantly was a remarkable thing to do.” And “more remarkable” was his “being back on stage” just one week later “at another rally with an even bigger crowd, like nothing had happened.”
With regard to the second incident, Morgan marveled that Trump was cracking jokes after this attempt on his life, quipping, “I wish I could have finished my birdie putt.”
“Yes, grace under pressure” is a virtue Trump possesses, agreed Peterson, who went on to assess the quality of the former president’s humor.
“You know, Hitler wasn’t well known for his sense of humor,” he continued. And “you can’t deny this, Trump is a funny bastard. He’s funny.” This includes on social media where he is “impulsive, entertaining, unbelievably cutting and funny.”
“You know, that just doesn’t go well with the tyrannical personality,” the psychologist assessed, “because tyrants aren’t well known for being able to tolerate the court jester.”
“And so, Trump is tough and funny,” he summarized.
Addressing Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, Peterson applied the same principle, “that previous performance is the best indicator of future performance.”
“We’ve already seen what a Biden administration looks like,” and the “foreign policy has been a complete bloody world-ending disaster under the Democrats,” he said in relation to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.
“The easiest thing to predict is another four years of the same thing,” he concluded.
Crime
‘Modern-Day Escobar’: U.S. Says Former Canadian Olympian Ran Cocaine Pipeline with Cartel Protection and a Corrupt Toronto Lawyer
Ryan Wedding, believed to be hiding in Mexico, is on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. The State Department reward is up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest.
The U.S. government has unsealed fresh criminal charges and sweeping financial sanctions against former Canadian Olympic snowboarder Ryan James Wedding, alleging that he orchestrated the importation of up to 60 metric tonnes of cocaine a year into the United States and Canada, relied on a Toronto lawyer who, according to the U.S. Treasury, “has also helped Wedding with bribery and murder,” and, while under the protection of a former Mexican law-enforcement officer with ties to senior Mexican police officials, ordered dozens of sophisticated assassinations across Canada, Latin America and the United States — including the execution of a federal witness in Colombia, according to U.S. government filings.
According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, “Wedding controls one of the most prolific and violent drug trafficking organizations in this world,” working “closely with the Sinaloa Cartel, a foreign terrorist organization, to flood not only American but also Canadian communities with cocaine.” Bondi said Wedding’s organization is responsible for moving multi-ton quantities of cocaine each year through Mexico into Los Angeles, before the drugs are shipped onward to Canadian and U.S. cities in long-haul semi-trucks.
As reported by The Bureau, these trucks and routes are controlled by Indo-Canadian crime networks. The U.S. government says that a Toronto lawyer, Deepak Balwant Paradkar, “introduced Wedding to the drug traffickers that have been moving Wedding’s cocaine and has also helped Wedding with bribery and murder.”

FBI Director Kash Patel likened Wedding to a “modern-day iteration” of Pablo Escobar and Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán and said Wedding is responsible for “engineering a narco-trafficking and narco-terrorism program that we have not seen in a long time.”
The Justice Department and FBI say Wedding, who competed for Canada at the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, now heads a billion-dollar-a-year narcotics enterprise that engages in cocaine trafficking, contract killings and intimidation across the United States, Canada and Latin America. Another target named along with Wedding is a former Italian special-forces soldier who helps the network with training, according to the U.S. government.
Wedding is believed to be hiding in Mexico and remains on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, with the State Department increasing its reward to up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest.
Prosecutors say the new indictment centres on the January 31, 2025, murder of a federal witness in Medellín, Colombia. According to U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California, Wedding “placed a bounty on the victim’s head in the erroneous belief that the victim’s death would result in the dismissal of criminal charges against him and his international drug trafficking ring and would further ensure that he was not extradited to the United States.” The victim was shot five times in the head while dining at a restaurant in Medellín and died instantly, Essayli said.
Justice Department filings and officials at today’s Washington news conference allege that Wedding and his associates used a fake gangland “news” site, The Dirty News, as part of the plot. The indictment states that co-accused Gursewak Singh Bal, a Mississauga man described as co-founder and co-operator of The Dirty News, agreed — “in exchange for payment” — not to post negative material about Wedding and instead published a photograph of the cooperating witness so that he “could be hunted down and killed.” Essayli said the site was seized pursuant to a federal warrant and is no longer online.
Ten defendants were arrested Tuesday in Colombia, Florida, Québec and Ontario. In a parallel move, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced sanctions against Wedding and nine individuals plus nine entities, effectively cutting them off from the American financial system.
Treasury describes Wedding as “an extremely violent criminal believed to be responsible for the murder of numerous people abroad, including U.S. citizens,” who “continues to direct drug trafficking, murder, and other serious criminal activities” from Mexico while on the run. The sanctions designation outlines a trans-Atlantic laundering system that moves proceeds through cryptocurrency, high-end cars and motorcycles, and front companies on three continents.

Among those named by Treasury:
Edgar Aaron Vázquez Alvarado, a former Mexican law-enforcement officer known as “the General,” who allegedly uses sources within Mexican police agencies to locate targets for Wedding and owns fuel-sector companies in Mexico;
Miryam Andrea Castillo Moreno, Wedding’s wife, accused of laundering his drug proceeds and assisting in acts of violence;
Carmen Yelinet Valoyes Florez, a Colombian running a high-end prostitution ring in Mexico who allegedly assisted with the murder of a federal witness;
Daniela Alejandra Acuña Macias, a Colombian national described as Wedding’s girlfriend, accused of collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from him and helping obtain intelligence on rivals;
Deepak Balwant Paradkar, the Canadian attorney who Treasury says provided “illegal services” beyond a normal lawyer-client relationship, including introducing Wedding to key traffickers, helping with bribery and murder, and allowing Wedding to eavesdrop on privileged calls with other clients he allegedly wanted to kill;
Rolan Sokolovski, a Toronto jeweler who Treasury alleges laundered millions through his “Diamond Tsar” business and cryptocurrency transfers; and
Gianluca Tiepolo, an Italian former special-forces member who allegedly helped Wedding park his money in exotic vehicles and ran tactical training camps for hitmen.
According to Treasury, Paradkar “introduced Wedding to the drug traffickers that have been moving Wedding’s cocaine and has also helped Wedding with bribery and murder,” in exchange for luxury watches and additional fees. Vázquez and his Mexico-based fuel firms, Sokolovski’s jewelry company, and a series of Italian and U.K. vehicle and motorcycle dealers tied to Tiepolo have all been designated under Executive Order 14059 as part of Wedding’s laundering apparatus.
At the Washington news conference, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Mike Duheme emphasized the role of cross-border cooperation, saying: “International cooperation, such as our involvement in Operation Giant Slalom, is vital to our ability to stay ahead of organized crime.”
But that message of seamless cooperation contrasts with what senior U.S. law-enforcement officials were saying privately months ago.
As The Bureau previously reported, a senior U.S. source insisted there has been a troubling lack of RCMP collaboration in probing Wedding’s networks. Not only did the RCMP allegedly stonewall Drug Enforcement Administration requests six years ago to crack down on Canadian trucking routes tied to Wedding’s shipments through the United States, the source said, but there was also a lack of cooperation in targeting his violent cells inside Canada — where associates, competitors, and even an innocent Indo-Canadian family in Caledon, Ontario, mistakenly linked to a trucker from Wedding’s network, were brutally executed.
“We tried to work with RCMP on Wedding too, and they said, ‘No,’” a source aware of probes from three separate U.S. agencies said. “And it’s like — he’s killing Canadian citizens. He’s killed God knows how many. And you still don’t want to cooperate because of whatever grievance. But the RCMP threw up roadblocks. You’ve got to get past those things because Canadians are dying.”
More to come on this breaking story.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Daily Caller
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
If I were still teaching a course on constitutional law, I would use President Donald Trump’s decision to send troops into cities as a classic example of an issue whose resolution is unpredictable. There are arguments on both sides, many of which are fact-specific and depend on constantly changing circumstances.
A few conclusions are fairly clear:
First, under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the president clearly has the authority to send federal law enforcement officials to protect federal buildings or federal officials from danger. Moreover, the president gets to decide, subject to limited judicial review, whether such dangers exist. State and city officials cannot interfere with the proper exercise of such federal authority.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
Second, and equally clear, is that if there is no federal interest that requires protection, the president has no authority to intrude on purely local matters, such as street crime. The 10th Amendment and various statutes leave local law enforcement entirely in the hands of the states.
Third, the president has greater authority over Washington, DC, even with the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973, than he does over other cities.
Fourth, there are limited situations in which the president has authority, even if there is no direct federal interest in protecting a federal building or authorities. One such instance is an “insurrection.”
Yet the law is unclear as to a) the definition of an insurrection; b) who gets to decide whether an insurrection, however defined, is ongoing; and c) what is the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing a presidential decision that an insurrection is occurring.
The same is true of an invasion. This is somewhat easier to define, but there will be close cases, such as a dictator sending hordes of illegal immigrants to destabilize a nation.
How Do We Legally Define What’s Happening Now?
In a democracy, especially one with a system of checks and balances and a division of power such as ours, the question almost always comes down to who gets to decide? Our legal system recognizes the possibility ‒ indeed, the likelihood ‒ that whoever gets to make that decision may get it wrong.
So the issue becomes: Who has the right to be wrong? In most democracies, especially those with unitary parliamentary systems, the right to be wrong belongs to the elected branch of government ‒ namely, the legislature. At the federal level, that’s Congress, under Article 1 of the Constitution.
However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, all legislative decisions are subject to constitutional judicial review. Even a majority of the voters or their legislators are not empowered to violate the Constitution.
And if the Constitution is unclear, ambiguous or even inconsistent? I have a cartoon hanging in my office showing one of the framers saying to the others: “Just for fun, let’s make what is or isn’t constitutional kind of wishy-washy.”
Well, on the issue of presidential power to send troops into cities over the objection of local politicians, the Constitution is kind of “wishy-washy.” To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, when he discussed hardcore pornography: “Perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly (defining it), but I know it when I see it.”
The same may be said of an insurrection. It’s hard to define in advance with any degree of precision except at the extremes, but not so difficult to identify if one sees it.
The Legal Endgame Here Isn’t Clear, Either
The Civil War was an insurrection. Anti-Israel protests on campuses were not. But what about the violence in cities like Portland, where left-wing protesters burned cars and buildings and blocked access in 2024?
Some of these groups would love nothing more than to incite an insurrection, but they lack the power, at least at the moment, to garner sufficient support for anything broader than a violent demonstration or riot.
Does the president have to wait until these quixotic “insurrectionists” have garnered such support? Or can he take preventive steps that include sending in federal law enforcement officials? What about federal troops? Is that different?
These questions will eventually make their way to the Supreme Court, which is likely to try to defer broadly based and categorical answer as long as possible. In the meantime, district judges in cities across the country will rule against the president, except in cases involving protection of federal buildings, federal officials and the nation’s capital.
The president will appeal, and the appellate courts will likely split, depending on the particular circumstances of the cases.
“Wishy-washy” and “we’ll know it when we see it” are the best we are going to get in this complex situation.
Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” This piece is republished from the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoCarney fails to undo Trudeau’s devastating energy policies
-
Daily Caller2 days ago‘Holy Sh*t!’: Podcaster Aghast As Charlie Kirk’s Security Leader Reads Texts He Allegedly Sent University Police
-
Alberta1 day agoAlbertans choose new licence plate design with the “Strong and Free” motto
-
Agriculture2 days agoFederal cabinet calls for Canadian bank used primarily by white farmers to be more diverse
-
Business2 days agoThe UN Pushing Carbon Taxes, Punishing Prosperity, And Promoting Poverty
-
Alberta1 day agoEdmonton and Red Deer to Host 2027 IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship
-
Great Reset2 days agoCanadian government forcing doctors to promote euthanasia to patients: report
-
Health1 day agoNEW STUDY: Infant Vaccine “Intensity” Strongly Predicts Autism Rates Worldwide



