The Benghazi Hearing Begins

Trey Gowdy opened the hearing of his Benghazi show trial by listing a couple dozen questions that he wants answers to, some of which were so broad as to be completely beyond any reasonable scope of his investigation. For example, why were we in Libya?

I hope they figure that out.

Gowdy then went on to justify the existence of his committee by pointing out that it discovered Clinton’s use of a private email for some official business. If the previous investigations of Benghazi were “serious and thorough,” they would have discovered Clinton’s emails. He also claimed that previous investigators failed to interview relevant witnesses in Libya and in the State Department.

After these justifications, he launched a defense against the accusation that his committee is designed to lower Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers.

Immediately after this, however, he blamed Clinton’s emails for delaying her appearance.

Having tried and failed to persuade people that this hearing isn’t intended more to damage Clinton than to get to the truth about what happened in Benghazi, he then killed any sense that the hearing has bipartisan support. He launched into an attack on the Democrats on the committee, predicting that none of them will ask for documents or witnesses during today’s proceedings.

With that, it was the committee’s ranking member Elijah Cummings turn to make an opening statement. Cummings delivered a scalding attack on the committee and its chairman, accusing them of using an “unlimited budget” to “squander” millions of people’s tax dollars on a partisan witch hunt.

Cummings went into considerable detail to explain how the investigation had “abandoned” plans to interview the former director of the CIA and key people in the Pentagon in order to focus nearly exclusively on people like Clinton’s speechwriters, IT folks, and campaign staff.

Cummings then went through an effort to debunk some of the more notorious conspiracy theories and pointed out that these things had been debunked thoroughly in eight previous investigations.

As he wrapped up, Cummings mocked the accusation that Sidney Blumenthal was Clinton’s “primary foreign policy advisor on Libya” and noted that it been awarded four Pinocchios by the Washington Post.

It’s Not Insider/Outsider; It’s a Schism

For Nate Cohn, the outsider candidates aren’t really so outside. Carly Fiorina, for example, is really just Mitt Romney with a uterus, and Ben Carson is the Second Coming of Pat Robertson and Rick Santorum, just with more blah.

You know, could be.

But that little detail about Mitt Romney actually serving in an elected capacity as the governor of a blue state isn’t some minor distinction. The new Romney is actually Jeb Bush, and trying to fit Fiorina into that box isn’t very convincing. The point, I guess, is that she doesn’t get any support from Republicans who earn less than $50,000 a year and her main credential is supposed to be business acumen, however laughable that may be.

Ben Carson can be compared with some of the more successful religious candidates of the past, and Robertson and Santorum (along with Huckabee) were certainly the most successful ones in my lifetime. Frankly, Carson looks a little stronger than them at this point, but it’s still early. I don’t think it will be productive to think of him as this year’s Huckabee, though, because he isn’t a former governor or senator or even a charismatic televangelist. His biggest base of support may come from evangelicals, but his main appeal is that he’s a black man who stood up to the black president. There’s a reason he talks about political correctness at every opportunity. He’s like a magic shield against accusations of racism. He’s also a more personally accomplished person than Gary Bauer or Alan Keyes, which means that non-evangelicals are willing to give him a look.

As for Donald Trump, Mr. Cohn doesn’t know what to make of him. He appears to be a true novelty in Republican politics, although there is at least a little Ross Perot in the man. But Ross Perot never sought the Republican nomination, let alone led the field for months at a time.

The premise of the article is that maybe the thirst for an inexperienced candidate with no ties to Washington DC is overstated. Maybe the voters who are saying they like Fiorina are just waiting from the right moment to get on the Bush Train, and maybe the Carson folks will fall in line in the end, just as they did once Huckabee and Santorum finally flamed out.

I have to do some research, but I think there’s evidence that a lot of Santorum’s voters simply failed to show up on Election Day. And I think if people wanted to support Jeb in the primaries, they’d already be supporting him.

It’s true that if we ever get down to a one-on-one battle between Trump and Bush, a lot of the current non-Trump non-Bush voters will go to Bush, but what makes people think that Bush is going to emerge as the primary alternative to Trump?

In any case, what people are willing to do once a nominee they didn’t support becomes the right’s champion doesn’t tell us how they’re going to vote in the primaries. People tend to fall in line after the convention, but much less so before it.

To me, this is the really important question to ask: Regardless of who wins the nomination, will they ever be able to unite the right?

Would Jeb be able to turn out the base? Would anything like a normal percentage of people fall in line for the nominee if the nominee were Trump?

My answers are ‘no’ and ‘no.’

Do you disagree?

Netanyahu Confirms Holocaust As Political Tool of Zionism

Shameful, shameful! How shameless can one be, declaring Hitler only wanted to evict the Jews and putting blame on Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and today’s Palestinians ar the root cause for the extinction of Jews. How morally corrupt must one be to publicly make these statements in a speech in 2015! Netanyahu is not a leader, he has always been competing with his brother Yonathan. Bibi just destroyed his own legacy as Prime Minister of Israel. This should lead to his political downfall and a pariah statesman in the world … unless that world is just as corrupt and morally void as Israel has become.

The Zionist spirit of socialism and kibbutz movement has turned the corner to settler violence and the ways of Meir Kahane in political discourse in the US, Canada and Europe. The spirit of pioneers and communal service has evaporated into hatred, superiority and criminal occupation of the Palestinian land and oppression of its people for over six decades. The world watches as the United Stated condones and gives necessary military support for the crimes to continue.

Israel does not need Benyamin Netanyahu, he should be voted out of office the sooner rather than later.

Despite global disgust, Netanyahu doubles down on claim that Hitler got idea of Final Solution from a Palestinian | Mondoweiss |

in the face of the criticism Netanyahu is doubling down on his contention that Palestinians incited the holocaust. Here is what he said today before leaving to Berlin:

My intention was not to absolve Hitler of his responsibility, but rather to show that the forefathers of the Palestinian nation, without a country and without the so-called ‘occupation’, without land and without settlements, even then aspired to systematic incitement to exterminate the Jews.

Meanwhile, Germany says it has no idea what Netanyahu is talking about. [Video Chancellor Merkel]

Here is the speech to the World Zionist Organization, in which Netanyahu relates the ten biggest lies told about Israel. One lie is that Israel intends to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. He says this lie has a long pedigree, going back to the mufti. The relevant portion begins at 2:55.

Why Holocaust historians decry analogies by Netanyahu | Christian Science Monitor |

Although al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, was a Nazi sympathizer who supported the Final Solution, and fought unsuccessfully throughout his life to prevent a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, historians strongly rebutted Netanyahu’s claim, saying evidence of the Third Reich’s genocidal intent was in place well before Hitler met with al-Husseini.

Tel Aviv University professor Meir Litvak, for instance, told Israel’s Ynetnews that plans for the Holocaust were put in place by 1939. Al-Husseini “was an abominable person,” Dr. Litvak said, “but this must not minimize the scale of Hitler’s guilt.”

“We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own,” a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Ynet’s Ahiya Raved.

It’s not the first time Netanyahu has come under attack for using questionable Holocaust references. In 2012, he drew controversial parallels between the threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and Nazi Germany’s concentration camps.

When the Israeli Knesset was debating a bill to limit the use of the word “Nazi” in non-historical or educational contexts, hoping to cut down on “trivializing” political and popular usages alike, a column by former CIA analyst Paul Pillar wryly noted that the Prime Minister himself “is one of the worst abusers.”

Outrage on Twitter over Netanyahu’s Holocaust remarks | Deutsche Welle |

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Adolf Hitler had wanted to expel Jews from Europe at first, not kill them, until a conversation with Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin Al-Husseini changed his mind. That speech was met with outrage across Israel and the Jewish world, with many people calling for him to backtrack from these claims.

Opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog posted a message on his facebook page calling the speech a “distortion of history,” and added that it could be used by Holocaust deniers. Meretz party leader Zehava Galon wrote that her own family members had been persecuted and killed in Lithuania and said she was “ashamed” for Netanyahu.

Palestinians in particular were quite angry.

Many Israelis, too, took to social media to mock their prime minister’s remarks, while others expressed their anger, with many criticizing Netanyahu for using the memory of the Holocaust as a political tool. Other users, like the popular parody account God, found more comfort in humor.

Netanyahu under fire after linking Palestinian leader to Holocaust

Biden Out

So, Joe Biden couldn’t pull the trigger. I understand. I have no right to ask more of the man. I wish he’d been able to make a different decision, but I’m sure he made the right one.

So, all the action now is between Sanders and Clinton. I’m reminded of something that I probably should look up but won’t. There was a point in 2008 right after Clinton had finally conceded that Obama gathered together his troops in his Chicago campaign headquarters. He told them that they’d done a fantastic job and thanked them profusely, but then he got real with them.

I’m paraphrasing here from memory, but what he basically said was that now that they won the nomination they had just acquired a massive burden. They absolutely had to win or everything they’d been fighting for would be destroyed.

I hope Clinton’s team is getting much the same message today.

Yeah, I know that Sanders is running pretty strong and is going to give her a run for her money, but it’s still a huge longshot campaign. And, I’d point out, that Sanders’ supporters need to internalize the same message. It isn’t going to do anything positive to win the nomination and lose the election. So, they need to figure out how a Vermont Socialist is going to sell in Middle America. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but unless they come up with a convincing explanation, countless Democrats who are more sympathetic to their candidate than the Clintons are going to stick with the Clintons.

Frankly, they’ll be making the prudent choice.

It’s More Than Contrarianism

When does an “overeager and ill-considered contrariness” crossover from mere assholishness into what we properly consider to be race-hatred or white/cultural supremacy? That’s really not the question, though, because the National Review is the only magazine/webzine of its type that regularly has to fire people for going too far on the race-hatred. And, frankly, they have a pretty low standard for that anyway.

But enough with that political correctness, amirite?

The point is to be provocative.

Oh, the point is also to put some butts in the luxury cabins on the National Review’s latest cruise (the Danube sounds nice), but I digress.

In any case, it’s true that there are countries in the world that really haven’t signed up for our kind of pluralistic mixing of races, religions, languages, and cultures. The Swiss, for example, and the Japanese. And it’s true that these countries can seem pretty racist by our standards when our standards don’t necessarily fit them. Fortunately, however, the Swiss never got much involved in the human flesh trade and when the Japanese attempted it they got microwaved. The question could be better framed by trying to understand what kind of place a country must be rather than what kind of country most of their citizens might want to be.

Here in America, we need immigrants to fill our labor needs, just as Europe discovered they needed Turks and Arabs in their workforces. Our choices really were to not have the kind of economy we needed or to accede to an influx of folks whose first language isn’t English or German or French. It’s pretty much always been this way in America, at least once we’d established an industrial base. And we’ve always welcomed our new immigrant friends with a giant middle finger.

That is, we’ve always had lots of folks who were genuinely incensed if not outright panicked about the influx of Wops and Micks and Pollocks and Wetbacks. You could call these people assholes or “nationalists” or “know-nothings,” but I think it’s okay to call them racists, too.

In America, at least, the constant presence of a new generation of unwelcome immigrants is as much a part of what characterizes our culture as the beret or the baguette are for the French.

Because we’re also incredibly bighearted and generous to these folks. For all the whining about “pressing ‘1’ for English,” the majority of Americans accept that we’re a nation of immigrants and likes it this way.

For us, what makes America distinct and great isn’t anything that exists prior to these immigrants coming in and adding their contributions, but the fact that they’re always coming and always contributing.

The Swiss and the Japanese don’t have the same history with immigration, and they haven’t historically had the same labor needs. But, here’s the key, if they need immigrant labor then they need to adapt their cultural expectations rather than form nationalist parties based on the idea of preserving their cultural identity. It’s okay to be proud of your Japaneseness or Swissness or Frenchness, but once your country has to become diverse for economic reasons, you lose the right to expect that everything will remain as before.

What happens is that some people always figure out that there’s political power to be had in representing and stoking people’s discomfort with change. Racism is how this manifests itself. So, you tell people that you’re going to slow the pace of change (reduce immigration) or you’re going to roll it back (you’ll deport all the undocumented workers). You suggest to people that all their tax money is going to lazy immigrants. You spread the fear that the immigrants carry disease. You feed off the natural annoyance people have of not being able to understand foreign languages that are being spoken in their communities. You play off religious differences and schisms.

Oh, and you also constantly tell people how great they are, how great they were before all this change, and how great they can be again if we can just roll back the clock to some idyllic period that (in this country) never really existed.

Needless to say, this is all bullshit. It always makes people worse people than they were before they were exposed to your exploitative hate-mongering. And it’s always a distraction from the real issue, which is the demand for labor.

When states crack down on undocumented workers, the first thing that happens is that their produce rots on the trees and in the fields.

So, yeah, it’s kind of a natural human response to immigration that some percentage of people will feel very uncomfortable, but the people who live off and heighten that discomfort are worse than mere contrarians. They’re sociopathic manipulators whose net effect is basically evil.

Just like the poor, they are always with us.

“HILLARY WON THE DEBATE!!!” By the Numbers? NOT!!!

Doubt that the corporate-owned PermaGov is pulling the electoral strings as hard as it can do so?

From Counterpunch:

Why Hillary Won the Debate (Even Though She Didn’t)

by GARY LEUPP

CNN and Facebook co-sponsored last week’s Democratic presidential frontrunners’ “debate.” After the event, CNN conducted a poll. “Who won the debate?” it asked. The result: 83% Bernie Sanders; 12% Hillary Clinton.

Facebook also took a poll. “Who do you think won?” Over 79% responded, “Bernie Sanders.”

The CNN editors’ take? “CLINTON’S CONFIDANT SWEEP.”

Slate conducted a poll. “Who won the presidential debate?” asked the magazine. 75% of respondents said Bernie Sanders; 18% gave it to Hillary Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton won,” reported Slate “senior writer” Josh Vorhees exuberantly. “She just needed to be solid in the debate. Instead, she was spectacular.”

Spectacular! with 18% of Slate’s own polling numbers. Go figure.

“Who do you think won?” asked Time Magazine. The response?  Bernie Sanders: 70%, Hillary Clinton 16%.

The Time headline: “CLINTON IN CONTROL.”

Are you disgusted yet? This goes far beyond distortion, and far beyond the tampering with facts that characterized Soviet-style reporting in Izvestia and Pravda in the decade before the USSR collapsed. This is in-your-face rejection of empirical reality, to say nothing of an insult to the viewers polled. The entire mainstream news media is complicit.

Read on.

Imagine if the “free” press–free to publish whatever its corporate editors want, including even the truth, at their discretion–had sought to spin this story differently.

“POLLS SHOW BIG WIN FOR SANDERS,” CNN might have proclaimed, between commercials.
“A great night for Sanders,” Slate might have announced.

“SANDERS TROUNCES CLINTON,” Time might have acknowledged.

But no, and this is par for the course. The TV cable news anchors took ages to concede that, well, yes, maybe Jeb Bush–despite his solid RNC support and Wall Street’s firm endorsement–is not the inevitable GOP candidate. They’ve had to acknowledge that (for whatever reasons) Donald Trump’s actually striking a much deeper chord than warmonger Dubya’s little brother among likely voters.

But they’re stubbornly refusing to recognize some things they don’t want to see–things that don’t follow their script.

They don’t understand that people in their twenties who constitute the 75-year-old Sanders’ support base have no problem with “socialism” but rather have lots of problems with Wall Street. These “millenials” are even–horrors!–increasingly inclined to question the national god of capitalism itself. It has fewer positive connotations to them than it did for their parents who grew up during the Cold War and were subjected its particular brainwashing agenda.

That’s the sort of brainwashing that allows Trump, a demagogue preying on the most abjectly ignorant to tell cheering crowds that he calls Sanders “a `socialist, slash, communist,’ okay? `Cause that’s what he is!”

`Cause that’s what he is! Sanders is a communist. End of story. End of rational thought.

I myself am not a Sanders supporter. He’s nowhere nearly left enough for me. But then I’m not a supporter of the whole bogus, skewed, money-driven two-party electoral system itself, which seems designed to hoodwink people, channel their energies into itself, and then produce disillusionment soon after the election, as the elected official reneges on promises and proves to be something other than a real harbinger of “change.”

The system is wired to then hoodwink people again, re-channel their energies (again back into itself), bouncing people back and forth between two hopelessly corrupt parties that are really two factions of a single corporate party. Lots of energy expended. Lots of convictions about “civic responsibility” exploited. You spin your wheels and nothing changes; that’s the whole point. Wall Street along with the political class in general laughs at you.

The system tells us, “If you don’t vote, you have nothing to say” and reduces political involvement to endorsing one of its (always safe) choices. It excludes from the debate stage the merest discussion of needed radical change. (And if such comes up unexpectedly in a live interview, expect the TV station to cut to a break.)
 
The electoral process is designed to keep you out of the street (where history is really made) and lead you into a box, like a confessional booth (or a porno video cubicle)–a private space in which you’re touched by something greater than yourself and leave with a sense of gratification. You were a good citizen, like you were taught in school to be! You exercised your precious right to VOTE and did your part!

–snip–

This (corporate) system you vote for, every time you vote at all, commands the (corporate) media to such an extent that it can do what we see in the reportage cited above. It can turn reality on its head and get away with it, whether it’s shaping public opinion about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, a Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. successes against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Syrian “moderates” gaining against Assad, or victory in a farcical televised debate.

Whatever you think about Sanders, is it not outrageous that the mass media can obscure his plain victory in that exercise as a triumph for Hillary Clinton? Even a “spectacular” win? Isn’t it clear that she was pronounced the victor not because she actually won out over Sanders but because powerful people steering the “free” press needed her to do so?

As PR/disinformation master Karl Rove once put it (and this should be repeated as often as we repeat that wonderful quote from the imprisoned Goering at Nuremberg about using fear to build mass support for war): “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

–snip–

The mainstream press, by and large, wants Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for president. Wall Street’s leading candidates are Jeb Bush and Clinton; both are beloved of big money and either one will do. Sanders (even though in office he would likely buckle to their will, the same way Greece’s “socialist” Alexis Tsipras buckled to the IMF and European Central Bank) is anathema to Wall Street. And the connections between Wall Street, the Washington power elite, and the press are–to use the Chinese expression–as close as lips and teeth.

Finance capital rules the world and will do so until the “millions and millions” Bernie keeps talking about find some way to effectively challenge it.

Thus Sanders could not win the debate, even though he did. And Hillary was destined to win the debate, even though she didn’t. Get it? And isn’t it great you have the right to vote? To vote for her?

Y’all who continue to equivocate? To say “Oh, that’s just the way things work.” You know who you are.

WTFU.

You been had.

From the rear.

That’s “the way things work,” alright.

Only not for us.

Bet on it.

AG

The Left is Moving Left

David Frum says that Canada has lurched to the left like that is a bad thing. And he sees in yesterday’s strong performance by the Liberals a greater trend. Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of traction here in America and the Labour Party in the U.K. just elected a pretty far-left leader in Jeremy Corbyn. In other words, the Clinton-Blair neoliberalism of the 1990’s seems to have played itself out and left-wing parties are reverting to an earlier model.

Of course, Frum holds up the budget balancing credentials of the neoliberals in the U.S., U.K., and Canada as some kind of unambiguous plus, but if you read between the lines of his own column, you can see that budgetary responsibility wasn’t all it was cut out to be. For example, look at his explanation for why Canada embraced Trudeau.

Even before 2014-15, however, the populist anger expressed by Sanders and Corbyn could be heard in Canada, too. Canada has done a better job than the United States of sharing the proceeds of economic growth. Yet even in comparatively egalitarian Canada, rewards have tended to concentrate at the top of the income distribution. Earlier in the decade, resentment among middle-income Canadians toward the more affluent was offset by relief when Canadians compared themselves to Americans. As time has passed, however, the relief has waned and the resentment has intensified. It was those feelings that Trudeau harnessed, by condemning many small-business owners as tax cheats and telling Canadian business leaders that if they didn’t accept higher taxation now, they’d face even more radical claims in the future.

In other words, even a country that is more “egalitarian” than the United States or Britain eventually saw too much wealth concentration at the top. This isn’t necessarily explained by budget austerity, but that’s only part of the Clinton-Blair model. Tax policies are the primary way that money moves to the top, and it’s not just historically low progressive rates that have had an impact. It’s also how we handle carried interest and capital gains, or even inheritance.

If you take less money from the top, that’s an obvious causal factor in creating wealth disparity, but just as crucial are the incentives that are created for people to use their money in unproductive ways.

Why build a factory when you get rich at the casino table playing with credit default swaps?

So, there’s a deregulatory element to this, too. The left got away from protecting the small depositor at the same time that they decided to pinch the social safety net, and this all happened at a time of accelerating globalization and increased financial competition from abroad.

It’s time now for a correction. And I don’t know if a Clinton is the right person to preside over this correction here at home. I guess the test will be how well Hillary understands and can adjust to the changed circumstances we find ourselves in.

Episcopalian Church Pays for Doing the Right Thing

I was raised in a progressive-minded congregation of the Episcopalian Church. I wasn’t confirmed and I don’t attend services, but I’m not hostile either. And I particularly don’t like how the Church been punished for being progressive-minded.

While the Episcopal Church has established a continued pattern of steady decline since the early 2000s, the unbroken trend is relatively recent: the church lost only 18,000 members in the 1990s, a plateau that dropped off about the time Gene Robinson of New Hampshire was consecrated the church’s first openly partnered gay bishop. Overall, the church has declined from a high of 3.6 million members in the mid-1960s to 1.8 million today, even as the U.S. population has more than doubled. The church has lost more than a quarter of its attendance since 2003.

Of course, a lot of this is South Carolina, again.

The numbers are significantly worse than 2013, when the church reported a 1.4 percent decline in membership and 2.6 percent decline in average Sunday attendance. One contributing factor is figures from the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECSC), the local Episcopal Church jurisdiction formed after the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina departed the denomination in the autumn of 2012. Updated figures from TECSC show that the body has 6,387 active baptized members and an average Sunday attendance of 2,812 persons. This is down 77 percent from the 28,195 members and 12,005 attendance average previously reported. The Diocese of South Carolina is one of five dioceses to depart the denomination since Jefferts Schori’s election, along with hundreds of individual congregations. The Diocese of South Carolina has accepted an offer of oversight from the worldwide Anglican Communion’s Global South and now functions independently from the U.S.-based Episcopal Church.

What’s the problem with Jefferts Schori?

She’s a woman, and she’s progressive-minded:

Jefferts Schori’s tenure has been highly controversial and marked by nearly unprecedented schism, with four dioceses having broken off to become part of the Anglican Church in North America. At her direction the national church has initiated lawsuits against departing dioceses and parishes, with some $22 million spent thus far. She also established a policy that church properties were not to be sold to departing congregations.

Jefferts Schori is a supporter of same-sex relationships and of the blessing of same-sex unions and civil marriages. Like her predecessor, she is a supporter of abortion rights, stating that “We say it is a moral tragedy but that it should not be the government’s role to deny its availability.” She also supported the HHS mandate on birth control.

The result is a massive loss of butts in the seats.

LBJ also knew something about doing the right thing whatever the costs. Sometimes you have to nearly destroy an organization to save it.

Harper’s Gone! Congrats to Canadians!

Wise lesson for Democrats South of the border … old politics are such a drag. NO to Joe Biden, NO to Hillary Clinton … turn to young ideals and a new face outside of the establishment. Exchange fear for hope, interchange complacency for WE CAN DO BETTER!

Canada election: Trudeau hails Liberal win as Harper steps down as leader | Updated |

CTV lists the high-profile politicians who lost their seats in the election. Among the casualties in Stephen Harper’s cabinet were the finance minister Joe Oliver, the citizenship and immigration minister Chris Alexander and Bernard Valcourt, the minister minister of aboriginal affairs and Northern development.

‘Sunny ways’: Justin Trudeau celebrates historic Liberal victory plus video acceptance speech

After a stunning election night victory, Justin Trudeau said his majority Liberal government is proof that “positive, optimistic” politics are not just a “naive dream.”

Trudeau said Canadians chose “real change” when they elected Liberal MPs across the nation, pushing out the Conservative government after nearly 10 years and forcing Stephen Harper to resign as party leader.

“Sunny ways my friends, sunny ways,” Trudeau told a jubilant crowd in his Montreal riding of Papineau, invoking the philosophy of former prime minister Wilfrid Laurier.

First Nations hope for better relationship with feds under Trudeau

 « click for more info
Justin Trudeau elected new Canadian prime minister as Liberals sweep board

Canada election: Trudeau promises change after Liberals rout Conservatives | The Guardian |

Although he decided not to mention it in his speech earlier, outgoing prime minister Stephen Harper is stepping down as leader of the Conservatives.

Speaking to supporters in Calgary after it became apparent that Liberal leader Justin Trudeau had ousted him, Harper conceded: “The people are never wrong.”