The Dystopian Future of Canada Part I

Tim Lasiuta

Published

5 years ago

8 minute read

According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the “Great Reset,” is underway, and that should scare you.

In a video interview released November 16, 2020, of his speech in front of the United Nations delivered in late September, Trudeau has now emerged as North Americas poster child for the United Nation Agenda 21 and 2030.

While Canadians were spending our summer at our homes with limited travel and our economy sputtered along, the Liberals and their global partners were rolling out their plan to reimagine the worlds economic systems with a focus on Net-Zero Emissions and social equity.

“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” Trudeau said in the following video. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”

The video can be viewed at:

He and his fellow Liberals also absconded the phrase, “Building Back Better,” a slogan that Presidential hopeful Joe Biden used during his campaign. “Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” said Trudeau.

What will the life of an ordinary Canadian look like under 2030?

According to the original 1992 version of this non-binding legislation it included 95% depopulation of the world with all property rights being stripped from citizens with all workers living in zones close to employment.

(https://csglobe.com/agenda-21-depopulation-95-world-2030/)

Our modern version may be slightly different with no private property ownership, guaranteed incomes, forced vaccinations, the death of the family unit (perhaps our lockdowns and cohort associations are the beginning), and the death of churches and athletics (again, look at the last 6 months).

A particularly telling video explains 8 concepts the Global Rest will make commonplace, remember “I don’t own anything and I am happy.”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/WEF-Future.mp4?_=1

According to one website, (https://prepareforchange.net/2019/04/08/agenda-21-reinvented-as-agenda-2030-and-agenda-2050-is-a-plan-to-depopulate-95-of-the-world-population-by-2030/)

“It will remove and destroy all constitutions, restrict free speech and disarm the people. When Agenda 21 is fully realized, the United Nations will be in possession of all guns and subsequently, there will be no opposition to their control.”

Paul McGuire, an internationally recognized futurist, speaker, minister, and author writes in his book The Babylon Code that:

“The true agenda of Agenda 21[/2030] is to establish a global government, global economic system, and global religion. When U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke of ‘a dream of a world of peace and dignity for all’ this is no different than when the Communists promised the people a ‘worker’s paradise.’”

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is not new, it is a program that has been part of the UN for several years and includes climate change as a tool to reinvent world economies and societies. In fact, the Davos meetings have focused on the ‘Reset’ as well over the last couple of years as well and this stage has been where United States President Trump has pushed his America First policy, an act which earned him international scorn.

According to the UN 2030 website, the rationale behind the movement also known as Agenda 21 is:

When you see a chance, take it

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set things straight. To write a new social contract, together, that is fair and just for everybody. A bold, ambitious plan to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

From the website, there are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which were adopted in 2015 and designed for a 15-year implementation time frame.

These can be found here: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

They are: No poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water, affordable clean energy, decent work, industry and innovation, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, responsible consumption, climate action, life below water and on land, human rights and partnerships.

How far along the murky waters of Agenda 21 are we exactly in Canada?

UN troops in Canada? You bet, that will be another discussion.

Guaranteed incomes? Does CERB fit the bill?

A brief description of the tenets of the Global Reset can be found at the website below:

New World Order: UN Agenda 21/2030 Mission Goals

In fact, a recent Canadian Government grant (https://www.startupcan.ca/social-impact/sdg-pitch-competition/) for SDG Pitch Competitions has been announced for the month of November focusing on:

 SDG 1: Poverty Reduction

 SDG 5: Gender Equality

 SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth

 SDG 13: Climate Action

The prize of $500 plus a gift in kind rewards pitches that embrace sustainability and fulfills one of the 4 SDG’s including: Poverty Reduction, Gender Equality, Decent Work & Economic Growth, and Climate Action.

Again, quoted from the UN website:

We believe fossil fuel subsidies can be removed without causing social harm. In five countries we are analyzing the best way to reform energy prices and we will offer a guide for policymakers on carbon pricing and subsidy reform.

As a matter of fact, one of the elements of 2030 is the decarbonization of countries while encouraging renewable resources. To see evidence of this policy in Canada all citizens have to do is to look at federal support for oil and gas resource development in western Canada and Carbon tax levels coupled with the proposed Clean Fuel Initiative from the last ‘budget.’

The simple fact remains. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned for a seat in the UN, Canada was rejected however, since then it has become apparent that the ‘consolation’ prize of just being a member country has morphed into an outright granting of Canada’s sovereignty to the highest bidder, in this case the UN in exchange for a seemingly spokesperson role for the organization. Instead of being OUR Prime Minister, he has become the liaison and has sold his country out for a paper crown.

This short discussion merely scratches the surface, and further links between Trudeau and his UN cohorts come to the surface daily.

NEXT INSTALLMENT: Trudeau and the Chinese Connection: Or Wu (han) is your Daddy!

Tim Lasiuta

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Penhold Flight Instructor Releases Updated Instruction Manual For the 21st Century

#RedDeerStrong / 5 years ago

Hope, Faith and Love: the Music Ministry of Gerard Renaud

COVID-19 / 5 years ago

Part IV: Clerical Errors Affect Real People!

Daily Caller

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Can Trump Legally Send Troops Into Our Cities? The Answer Is ‘Wishy-Washy’

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Alan M. Dershowitz

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.

Daily Caller

Democrats Explicitly Tell Spy Agencies, Military To Disobey Trump

Published on November 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Anthony Iafrate

Democratic Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin posted a video to social media Tuesday morning in which she and five of her congressional colleagues called for the military and the intelligence community to “stand up” to President Donald Trump’s administration.

The half-dozen Democratic lawmakers who took part in the video titled, “Don’t give up the ship,” had all served as military or intelligence officers. In her X post of the video, Slotkin stated the lawmakers seek to “directly” tell service members and intelligence personnel that the “American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution.”

“We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now,” Slotkin, a former CIA officer, said in the video she appeared in alongside Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, Democratic Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander and Democratic Colorado Rep. Jason Crow.

“Americans trust their military,” said Houlahan, a former Air Force officer.

“But that trust is at risk,” added Deluzio, a former officer in the Navy.

“This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” Kelly, a former Navy officer, said in tandem with Crow, a former Army officer, and Slotkin.

WATCH:

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders,” Kelly, Slotkin and Deluzio said later in the video.

“Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution,” Kelly and Goodlander, a former naval intelligence officer who is married to Biden-era former national security adviser Jake Sullivan, charged military and intelligence personnel.

Deluzio and Crow claimed that “threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.”

The lawmakers added that they know that what they are urging is “hard” and that “it is a difficult time to be a public servant.”

“But whether you are serving in the CIA, the Army, our Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back,” they continued, alternating lines. “Because now more than ever, the American people need you. We need you to stand up for our laws, our Constitution, and who we are as Americans.”

“Don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up, don’t give up the ship,” the Democrats concluded.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The president is also in charge of intelligence agencies such as the FBI and CIA, by virtue of being head of the Executive Branch of the federal government — a responsibility laid out in Article II, Section 1.

“Don’t give up the ship” is a common phrase that dates back to the War of 1812 and were the last words uttered by Navy Captain James Lawrence before he succumbed to his gunshot wound on the USS Chesapeake.