Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 7, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 423)

Donald-Trump-Rick-Scott

Gov. Rick Scott at Bright Future Electric in Ocoee on June 11, 2015. PHOTO RIGHT: Trump greets supporters during a campaign rally at the American Airlines Center on September 14, 2015 in Dallas, Texas. (Photos: Carolyn Allen/Tom Pennington/Getty)

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has been mulling a run for U.S. Senate in 2018 and, now, President Donald J. Trump is reportedly pushing him to do so. Gov. Scott, the two-term governor of the nation’s largest battleground state, would challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson.

Politico, the leftwing D.C. insider online magazine, reported “the loyal Trump ally looks increasingly likely to take the leap.”

Sen. Nelson, who first ran for and was elected to the U.S. Senate when he pursued the seat vacated by retiring Republican Senator Connie Mack III, has previously enjoyed popularity and bills himself as a moderate Democrat. He was re-elected in 2006 with 60% of the vote and in 2012 with 55% of the vote. However, Gov. Scott knows how to win, is largely responsible for a state economy that is “firing on all four cylinders” and built a substantial ground game.

That ground game, which beat Barack Obama’s on-loan to Charlie Crist in 2014, was key to President Trump’s significant victory over Hillary Clinton in November.

“We need you in the Senate. We need business guys like you,” President Trump allegedly told Gov. Scott in a phone call. The one source who’d been briefed on it was paraphrasing the conversation, but added that the president said he would help the Republican governor raise money. But it would be campaigning, holding rallies and drawing massive crowds that could be the biggest boon to Gov. Scott.

Mr. Trump’s rallies weren’t just about energy, they were voter data mining operations. A large vote in the Panhandle would be needed to overcome Sen. Nelson’s advantage in the Southeastern part of the state, a Democratic stronghold both Mr. Trump and Gov. Scott performed exceedingly well in as Republicans.

[social-media-buttons]

The Republicans have control of the U.S. Senate with 52 seats and 10 Democrats are up for re-election in states President carried, many by substantial margins.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has been mulling

[brid video=”109937″ player=”2077″ title=”Sebastian Gorka ‘Facts are Optional to the Liberal Media'”]

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to President Donald J. Trump, said “facts are optional to the liberal media” discussing what is incorrectly being called a Muslim ban.

Liberal constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley on Monday defended President Donald J. Trump’s executive order placing a temporary hold on refugees from 7 Muslim-majority nations. Turley, a scholar at George Washington University, said the media and opposition are falsely making the order into something it is not.

“That would be a great thing to challenge, but it is not this thing. It is not a Muslim ban,” he rightly said. “A court is not going to read into it that this is a religious test, because it excludes most of these other countries.”

Dr. Gorka noted that the list of countries was put together by the Obama administration and it excludes nearly 90% of the world’s Muslim population. It also excludes the world’s largest Muslim nation–Indonesia.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the deputy assistant to

[brid video=”109926″ player=”2077″ title=”Jonathan Turley to &#39Morning Joe&#39 “The (Supreme) court will not view this as a Muslim Ban””]

Liberal constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley defended President Donald J. Trump’s executive order placing a hold on refugees from 7 nations. Turley, a scholar at George Washington University, said the media and opposition are falsely making the order into something it is not.

“That would be a great thing to challenge, but it is not this thing. It is not a Muslim ban,” he rightly said. “A court is not going to read into it that this is a religious test, because it excludes most of these other countries.”

Under the President Trump’s executive order, which is supported by a large majority of the American people, excludes nearly 90% of the world’s Muslim population. It also excludes the world’s largest Muslim nation–Indonesia–and was based off of a list the Obama administration compiled. While he objects to the order, he said it is lawful.

“There are plenty of reasons to object to this order, but not by making it into something it is not.”

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, a constitutional

Then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ''Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy'' in Washington July 8, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Then-U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on ”Going Dark: Encryption, Technology, and the Balance Between Public Safety and Privacy” in Washington July 8, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump has fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she sent a memo instructing Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys not to defend President Trump’s order placing a temporary moratorium on refugees from terror haven nations.

Yates, who was confirmed in 2015, was an Obama holdover. As People’s Pundit Daily recently reported, a PPD Poll (among others) found the president’s executive order is supported by the vast majority of Americans.

“She was refusing to enforce the president’s executive order, which was refusing to defend the Constitution,” top Trump advisor Stephen Miller said. “It was a betrayal of her office and she will be replaced with someone who will enforce the laws of the United States.”

The president has appointed Mr. Dana Boente as the new Acting Attorney General.

[social-media-buttons]

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

President Donald J. Trump has fired acting

US President Donald Trump hosts a meeting with business leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington on Monday January 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

US President Donald Trump hosts a meeting with business leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington on Monday January 23, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump has signed an executive order aimed at drastically reducing federal regulations, fulfilling a promise he made to both voters and business leaders. The order titled, “Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” represents the implementation of his “one in-two out” proposal that was part of his campaign vow to “Drain the Swamp.”

Read How Reducing Regulations Can Really Help to Drain the Swamp

With the order, the president made it required “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination.” Further, the order requires “that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

Put simply, it aims to rescind two regulations for every one that is put in place in the future. Prior to the order and among his first, President Trump also signed a regulatory freeze. The latest round puts the number of orders at more than a dozen in his first 11 days in office. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have described the president’s pace as “dizzying.”

“We have to knock out a regulation for every two, but it goes far beyond that,” President Trump said in signing the order, after meeting at the White House with a group of small business owners. “We will begin efforts to reduce federal regulations. We’ll be reducing them big time.”

Moving forward, the president’s executive order creates a regulatory budget of $0 for fiscal 2017.

“This is what it will take to finally tackle the federal regulatory beast,” said Club for Growth president David McIntosh. “The regulatory state has run amuck for decades. Now, the agencies and Congress have to get to work and take the lead on repealing costly Obama regulations, and stopping bad regulations in the future.”

[social-media-buttons]

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. It is the policy of the executive branch to be prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public and private sources. In addition to the management of the direct expenditure of taxpayer dollars through the budgeting process, it is essential to manage the costs associated with the governmental imposition of private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. Toward that end, it is important that for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.

Sec. 2. Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.

(b) For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).

(c) In furtherance of the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations. Any agency eliminating existing costs associated with prior regulations under this subsection shall do so in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable law.

(d) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of this section. Such guidance shall address, among other things, processes for standardizing the measurement and estimation of regulatory costs; standards for determining what qualifies as new and offsetting regulations; standards for determining the costs of existing regulations that are considered for elimination; processes for accounting for costs in different fiscal years; methods to oversee the issuance of rules with costs offset by savings at different times or different agencies; and emergencies and other circumstances that might justify individual waivers of the requirements of this section. The Director shall consider phasing in and updating these requirements.

Sec. 3. Annual Regulatory Cost Submissions to the Office of Management and Budget. (a) Beginning with the Regulatory Plans (required under Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended, or any successor order) for fiscal year 2018, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each agency shall identify, for each regulation that increases incremental cost, the offsetting regulations described in section 2(c) of this order, and provide the agency’s best approximation of the total costs or savings associated with each new regulation or repealed regulation.

(b) Each regulation approved by the Director during the Presidential budget process shall be included in the Unified Regulatory Agenda required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order.

(c) Unless otherwise required by law, no regulation shall be issued by an agency if it was not included on the most recent version or update of the published Unified Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866, as amended, or any successor order, unless the issuance of such regulation was approved in advance in writing by the Director.

(d) During the Presidential budget process, the Director shall identify to agencies a total amount of incremental costs that will be allowed for each agency in issuing new regulations and repealing regulations for the next fiscal year. No regulations exceeding the agency’s total incremental cost allowance will be permitted in that fiscal year, unless required by law or approved in writing by the Director. The total incremental cost allowance may allow an increase or require a reduction in total regulatory cost.

(e) The Director shall provide the heads of agencies with guidance on the implementation of the requirements in this section.

Sec. 4. Definition. For purposes of this order the term “regulation” or “rule” means an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, but does not include:

(a) regulations issued with respect to a military, national security, or foreign affairs function of the United States;

(b) regulations related to agency organization, management, or personnel; or

(c) any other category of regulations exempted by the Director.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump signed an executive

carbon-tax

In one of my periodic attempts to create themes for these columns, I developed a “fiscal fights with friends” category.

  • Part I was a response to Riehan Salam’s well-meaning critique of the flat tax.
  • Part II was a response to a good-but-timid fiscal plan from folks at AEI.
  • Part III was a response to Jerry Taylor’s principled case for an energy tax.
  • And I’m going to retroactively categorize my friendly attacks on the destination-based cash-flow tax as Part IVa, Party IVb, and Part IVc.

Today’s column could be considered Part IIIb since I’m going to revisit the case against energy taxes. Except it’s not going to be a friendly assessment. That’s because there’s a legitimate case (made by Jerry) for a carbon tax, based on the notion that it could address an externality, obviate the need for command-and-control regulation, and provide revenue to finance pro-growth tax cuts.

But there’s also a distasteful argument for carbon taxes and it revolves around crony capitalists seeking to obtain unearned wealth by imposing costs on their competitors.

Elon Musk already is infamous for trying to put taxpayers on the hook for some of his grandiose schemes. Now, as reported by Bloomberg, he wants an energy tax on American consumers.

Tesla Motors Inc. founder Elon Musk is pressing the Trump administration to adopt a tax on carbon emissions, raising the issue directly with President Donald Trump and U.S. business leaders at a White House meeting Monday regarding manufacturing.

But what the article doesn’t mention is that such a tax would make his electric cars more financially attractive. It’s rather unseemly (and I’m bending over backwards for a charitable characterization) that a rich guy is pushing a tax on the rest of us as a way of lining his pockets.

What’s ironic, though, is that he’s probably being short-sighted because a carbon tax presumably would hit coal, and that’s a common source of energy for electrical generation. So while regular drivers would pay a lot more for gas, Tesla drivers would pay more at charging stations.

Some big oil companies also are flirting with an energy tax for cronyist reasons. An article in the Federalist notes that some of those firms support carbon taxes because they want to create hardships for their competitors.

…carbon taxes do not affect all fossil fuels equally. So just as some fossil fuels are much more carbon-intensive than others, here we can begin to understand how, beyond the benefits of predictability, a carbon tax might actually help some fossil-fuel providers… As a recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper illustrates, for example, in the United States a tax on carbon would disproportionately impact the use of coal relative to natural gas for energy production. …Don’t be surprised, then, if some domestic producers of natural gas end up promoting a carbon tax, not only out of concern for regime stability but also out of a concern to make their product more competitive in the energy marketplace.

To be fair, I suppose that Musk and the energy companies might actually think energy taxes are a good idea, so their support may have nothing to do with self interest.

But it’s always a good idea to “follow the money” when looking at how policy really gets made in Washington.

Even more depressing, the adoption of one bad policy may lead to the expansion of another bad policy. More specifically, some proponents of energy taxes admit that ordinary taxpayers and consumers will be hurt. But rather than realize that a new tax is a bad idea, they decide to match a tax increase with more spending. Here is a blurb from a report by the American Enterprise Institute.

Using emissions and other data from 2013 and 2014, we also find that the revenue from the carbon tax could be enough to expand the EITC to childless workers and hold other low income households harmless, combining a regressive tax with progressive benefits.

This is not good. The EITC already is the fastest-growing redistribution program in Washington. Making it even bigger would exacerbate the fiscal burden of the welfare state.

[social-media-buttons]

P.S. Now that I think about it, because much of my work on spending caps is designed to educate policymakers that a focus on balanced budget rules is well-meaning but misguided, I’m going to classify my columns on spending caps as Part Va, Part Vb, Part Vc, Part Vd, Part Ve, Part Vf, Part Vg, Part Vh, Part Vi, and Part Vj of my fiscal-fights-with-friends collection.

There's distasteful argument for carbon taxes and

Iran-Foreign-Minister-Mohammad-Javad-Zarif-AP

FILE – A Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2015 photo from files showing Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, during a press conference at the Lebanese foreign ministry in Beirut, Lebanon. An unusual secret agreement with a U.N. agency will allow Iran to use its own experts to inspect a site allegedly used to develop nuclear arms, according to a document seen by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein, File)

DEVELOPING: The Islamic Republican of Iran conducted a ballistic missile launch Sunday in what is clearly a violation of a U.N. resolution barring the such tests. The launch, which was first reported by Fox News and later confirmed, occurred at a well-known test site outside Semnan, located roughly 140 miles east of Tehran.

U.N. resolution 2231–adopted just one day after the Iran nuclear deal was signed–states Iran is “called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

However, this is not the first time Iran has conducted such a test in violation of the resolution, which bars them from conducting ballistic missile tests for eight years and went into effect July 20, 2015. In fact, it’s the second such test since July.

The test was technically a failure, as the Khorramshahr medium-range ballistic missile flew 600 miles before exploding. Iran defense minister Brigadier Gen. Hossein Dehqan said in September that Iran would start production of the missile and the regime claims the tests are legitimate because they are not designed to carry a nuclear warhead.

Those are the same excuses and tactics used by the regime in North Korea, another nation-state actor Iran has long shared technology with.

[social-media-buttons]

The Islamic Republican of Iran conducted a

President Donald J. Trump, left, shakes hands with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., during Inauguration Day on January 20, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump, left, shakes hands with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., during Inauguration Day on January 20, 2017.

I was recently interviewed on Fox Business Network about Trump’s policies and the economy, and the discussion jumped around from issues such as border-adjustable taxation to energy regulation.

Though the central theme of the discussion was whether Trump had good ideas for American jobs and business competitiveness.

Given my schizophrenic views on Trump, this meant I was both supportive and critical, and I hope certain people in the White House paid attention to my comment about there being no need for the “stick” of protectionism if Trump delivers on the “carrot” of tax cuts and deregulation.

For today, though, I want to elaborate on why protectionism is the wrong approach. I mentioned in the interview that the long-run outlook for manufacturing employment wasn’t very good, but that we shouldn’t blame trade. So I decided to find a chart that illustrated this point, which then gave me the idea of using a Q&A format to share several charts and tables that make very strong points about trade and protectionism.

Did you know…that manufacturing employment is falling because of productivity growth rather than trade?

The bad news (at least for certain workers) is that manufacturing employment has fallen. And it will continue to fall. But as illustrated by this chart from Professor Don Boudreaux, manufacturing output is at record highs. What’s really happening is that productivity improvements enable more to be produced while using fewer workers. And this is happening all over the world.

Did you know…that there’s a strong relationship between trade openness and national prosperity?

One of Professor Boudreaux’s students augmented one of his charts to show the link between pro-trade policies and per-capita economic output.

Did you know…that you can’t hurt importers without also hurting exporters?

Many of the major multinational firms engage in considerable cross-border trade, meaning that they are both major importers and major exporters. Here’s a very illuminating chart from the Peterson Institute of International Economics.

Did you know…that protectionism imposes enormous losses on consumers and therefore is a net job destroyer?

There has been considerable research on the results of various protectionist policies and the results shared by Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Instituteinevitably show substantial economic costs, which means that the jobs that are saved (the “seen“) are more than offset by the jobs that are lost or never created (the “unseen“).

Last but not least, did you know….that economists are nearly unanimous in their recognition that trade barriers undermine prosperity?

There are plenty of jokes (many well deserved!) about economists, including the stereotype that economists can’t agree on anything. But there’s near-unanimity in the profession that protectionism is misguided.

By the way, if you have protectionist friends, ask them if they have good answer for these eight questions. And also direct them to the wise words of Walter Williams.

P.S. I wrote a few weeks ago about former President Obama’s dismal legacy. I then augmented that analysis with a more recent postscript citing Ramesh Ponnuru’s observation that Obama failed in his effort to be the left’s Reagan. Now it’s time for another worthy postscript. The Wall Street Journal reviewed the new numbers for growth in 2016 and opined on what this means for Obama’s overall record.

…growth for all of 2016 clocked in at 1.6%, the slowest since 2011 and down from 2.6% in 2015. That marks the 11th consecutive year that GDP growth failed to reach 3%, the longest period since the Bureau of Economic Analysis began reporting the figure. The fourth quarter also rings out the Obama era with an average annual growth rate of 1.8%, which is right down there with George W. Bush for the lowest among modern Presidents. Mr. Obama inherited a deep recession, but that makes the 2.1% growth average since the recession ended all the more dismaying. You have to work hard to suppress growth after a deep downturn, and Mr. Obama did that by putting income redistribution ahead of growth as a policy priority.

Amen. When you fixate on how the pie is sliced, you wind up with policies that cause the pie to be smaller.

[social-media-buttons]

There's no need for the “stick” of

President Donald J. Trump speaks on the phone with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 27, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump speaks on the phone with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 27, 2017.

In a telephone call Sunday with President Donald J. Trump, Saudi King Salman agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, the White House said. President Trump proposed during the 2016 election to back safe zones to protect refugees resulting from the Syrian civil war sparked by the West attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

A statement after the phone call said the two leaders agreed on the importance of strengthening joint efforts to fight the spread of Islamic State militants.

“The president requested, and the King agreed, to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts,” the statement said.

The Saudi Press Agency said the two leaders had affirmed the “depth and durability of the strategic relationship” between the two countries, though in an initial readout of the call made no specific mention of safe zones. However, the agency later said “the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques had confirmed his support and backing for setting up safe zones in Syria.”

The omission of Yemen is understandable, as the Saudis are leading a coalition is fighting against the Iran-aligned Houthi group. Further, Reuters reported a source said Saudi Arabia would increase its role in the U.S.-led coalition fighting against the Islamic State (ISIS). Under the Obama administration, the effort aimed to “degrade.” Now, President Trump signed an executive order giving the Department Department 30 days to come up with a new plan to destroy the group.

In the Trump Administration, the Saudi kinds sees a friend and ally against Iran and it’s other Gulf enemies after a strained relationship with former President Obama, who was much more friendly with Tehran.

The two sides also confirmed the allied leaders agreed to confront “Iran’s destabilizing regional activities.” The White House characterized the call from the king for Trump “to lead a Middle East effort to defeat terrorism and to help build a new future, economically and socially,” for Saudi Arabia and the region.

According to Reuters, Mr. Trump and King Salman also spoke about the Muslim Brotherhood and “it was mentioned that Osama bin Laden was recruited at an early stage” by the Islamist supremacist organization. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have designated the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, though it has ties to organizations that operate in the U.S., including the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Riyadh understands the Brotherhood has tried to undermine the kingdom since the so-called Arab Spring. President Trump also spoke with Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan about the Brotherhood. The Crown Prince was cited by UAE state news agency WAM as saying “groups that raise fake slogans and ideologies aim to hide their criminal truth by spreading chaos and destruction.”

[social-media-buttons]

Officials in the Trump transition team had said a debate is under way in the Trump administration over whether to declare the Brotherhood a terrorist organization and subject it to U.S. sanctions.

In a telephone call Sunday with President

Police at the scene after shots were fired inside the mosque (Photo: REUTERS)

Police at the scene after shots were fired inside the mosque (Photo: REUTERS)

Two gunmen stormed a mosque in Quebec City and opened fire killing at least six people and wounding eight others Sunday, police said. Quebec City police spokesman Constable Pierre Poirier said two suspects in the shooting, which took place at Centre Culturel Islamique de Quebec (Quebec City Islamic Cultural Center) on Sainte-Foy Street, were arrested.

The terror suspects were identified as Mohamed el Khadir and Alexandre Bissonnette, the former being of Moroccan descent. The two men were arrested soon after the shooting and were expected to appear in court later Monday, police told reporters.

A witness told Radio Canada the gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar” and sprayed bullets as people prayed inside, which has reportedly been subjected to a number of Islamophobic attacks in recent years. Someone reportedly left a pig’s head on the mosque’s doorstep this past June, during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

One started shooting. As soon as he opened fire he shouted, ‘Allahu akbar!’ (God is great!) The bullets reached people who were praying. People who prayed lost their lives. As for myself, the bullet passed over my head,” the witness said, adding the attackers “seemed to have a very good Québec accent.”

Quebec Provincial Police spokeswoman Christine Coulombe said some of the victims’ injuries were severe, adding that those killed in the attack were around 35 to 70 years old.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condemned the shooting, perhaps jumping the gun and calling it a “terrorist attack on Muslims.” He and others insinuated it was the result of Islamophobia.

[social-media-buttons]

“It was with tremendous shock, sadness and anger that I heard of this evening’s tragic and fatal shooting at the Centre culturel islamique de Quebec located in the Ste-Foy neighborhood of the city of Quebec,” he said in a statement. “Muslim-Canadians are an important part of our national fabric, and these senseless acts have no place in our communities, cities and country.”

Two gunmen shouting Allahu Akbar stormed an

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial