The Ilhan Omar Fraud Goes Deeper And Deeper

Thursday's post focused on just one of Ilhan Omar's potential problems, that she married her brother. The whole story here goes something like this:

The allegation that’s gotten the most attention is that Ilhan Omar married her brother.

The underlying suggestion is that Ilhan’s family split up in the 1990s as it sought refuge from war-torn Somalia. Allegedly, the future congresswoman, her father and one of her sisters used the false name Omar to come to the United States as part of another Somali family getting asylum, while her siblings -under the family’s original name - got asylum in the U.K.

Then, Omar supposedly got her brother into the States, too, via a sham marriage.

If nothing else, she’s had a very odd marital life; she’s almost the Zsa Zsa Gabor of Somali-Americans. Omar was in an Islamic marriage with one man (named Ahmed Hirsi), then married the man believed to be her brother (Ahmed Said Elmi), then divorced Elmi and officially married Hirsi - before divorcing Hirsi and marrying a political consultant who is now her husband.

In her memoir, she says nothing of substance about Elmi. She doesn’t use his name and claims she spent very little time with him. She also doesn’t name any of her siblings. She gives the impression of wanting to provide as little information about her background as possible, and stick to the more important work of maligning her adopted country.

But then we've got another problem right there, that "her father and one of her sisters used the false name Omar to come to the United States". Via Fox News:

Ilhan Omar is not the "real name" of the Minnesota congresswoman, Fox News Digital has learned.

Her real name is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, according to two people familiar with the ongoing investigation into the Somali-born congresswoman, including a law enforcement source.

And if proven in court that Omar has lived her "entire life under an alias," a former Minnesota federal immigration judge tells Fox News Digital that every single form she ever filled out could be "called into question."

. . . Fox News Digital has now learned from multiple sources familiar with the investigation that Omar is not the congresswoman’s birth name.

Omar has publicly confirmed that she does not have a birth certificate.

In an official U.S. House biography, her birthday is listed as Oct. 14, 1982, and states that she was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She says she came to the U.S. with her family as refugees fleeing war-torn Somalia in 1995, when she was a minor.

But this links to the problem of her age: the assumptioln is that if she was born in 1982, she would have been 17 in 2000, and she woluld have been naturalized via her father, when he naturalized. But if she was actually born a year earlier, she would not have been a minor and naturalized via her father, except that it's also alleged that her father used a false name to come to the US. So even if she was in fact 17 and a minor when her father was naturalized, her father is now alleged to have committed immigration fraud himself:

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s late father, Nur Omar Mohamed, wasn’t who he purported to be, a source told The Post.

The Minnesota congresswoman — whose home was raided by the feds on Monday as part of an ongoing criminal fraud investigation — has long described her father as an “educator” who fled his country’s devastating civil war alongside millions of others and arrived in America with his family as a refugee in 1995.

But, an expert scholar exclusively told The Post that Nur “misrepresented himself as a refugee” to US authorities when he was really a prominent military commander in the Somalia dictatorship that killed as many as 200,000 people.

“He was a full colonel in Siad Barre’s military regime,” historian and Oxford University doctoral researcher Mohamed Haji Ingiriis told The Post. “Ilhan’s father was never an educator.

He added, “Nur Said was a military officer who was loyal to the regime until the end. He was part and parcel of those who caused and created the mayhem they ‘fled’ to live comfortably in the United States.”

. . . US immigration law strictly forbids granting refugee status to “any person who ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

According to the Fox News link above, the federal investigation into Omar's immiogration fraud isn't yet complete:

On Wednesday, U.S. District Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro filed a motion seeking to prevent the federal search warrant for the congresswoman’s home from being unsealed, which was requested by several media outlets. The motion says the federal government is not yet finished executing the search warrant, and that it shouldn’t be unsealed yet.

"Before the Court are three Applications to unseal ex parte materials and proceedings related to a federal search warrant for the personal residence in the District of Columbia of Congresswoman Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar…" the motion begins.

"That's not her real name," one source said when asked why the motion used the "a/k/a Ilhan Adbullahi Omar" language.

So it sounds like we don't know the whole story, but what's beginning to emerge is it doesn't matter if she married her brother, it doesn't matter if she's used an alias, it doesn't matter if she was or wasn't a minor, if her father came to the US via fraud, that still makes her naturalization fraudulent. And that leaves aside her financial statments with her third husband, a con artist.

So far, there's no evidence that she's hired an attorney and no evidence that she's keeping her mouth shut.

Kamala Resurfaces

Kamala Harris just spoke in Las Vegas and it seems she's testing out a new oratory style. It's worse than you can imagine. https://t.co/wzglFWAUBJ

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) October 21, 2026

Almost two years ago, in thr wake of the Trump 47 inauguration, I posted on rumors that Kamala Harris's marriage to Doug Emhoff was on the rocks. For whatever reason, it's held together, even though on one hand, she was reported as blaming her loss on her "dead weight" husband, while Emhoff himself claimed he'd put his legal career on hold to support her campaign and come across as a "wife guy".

Still, right now, as Kamala makes campaign-like noises, it looks like Dougie isn't on board:

While former Vice President Kamala Harris may be laying the groundwork for another presidential campaign, her husband is having private reservations amid warnings from Democratic donors that a 2028 White House bid by Harris would face significant obstacles, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.

Harris' husband, Doug Emhoff, has privately told some associates he would prefer she not seek the presidency again, while several donors have directly cautioned Harris that another campaign would be a long shot, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Despite those concerns, Harris has been meeting with major donors, expanding her political staff, and traveling to battleground states to campaign for Democratic candidates ahead of November's midterm elections.

. . . Meanwhile, Emhoff's reported reluctance underscores the personal toll another national campaign could carry.

In her memoir, "107 Days," Harris described the strain the 2024 election placed on their marriage, recalling Emhoff telling her during a difficult moment, "We can't turn on each other."

People close to Emhoff nevertheless expect him to support Harris should she ultimately decide to run, according to the Journal.

But a little over a week ago, Politico claimed, ‘She totally blew it’: How Kamala Harris wasted a year to make her case:

Kamala Harris has kept the door open to running for president again in 2028. What she failed to do over the past year, even onetime supporters and allies of the former vice president say, is give voters a reason to reconsider her if she does.

For Harris, according to interviews with nearly 20 Democratic Party donors and strategists in California and across the country, it was a missed opportunity to redefine herself — and ultimately a wasted year.

Kamala Harris has kept the door open to running for president again in 2028. What she failed to do over the past year, even onetime supporters and allies of the former vice president say, is give voters a reason to reconsider her if she does.

For Harris, according to interviews with nearly 20 Democratic Party donors and strategists in California and across the country, it was a missed opportunity to redefine herself — and ultimately a wasted year.

“She totally blew it,” said Doug Herman, who was a lead mail strategist for Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. “She hasn’t gotten into the mix.”

Harris has offered voters almost nothing in the way of specifics about how she would remake a Democratic Party hungry for change after another term of Donald Trump. She hasn’t spoken to how she would expand her own appeal to the voters who rejected her, and she remains as reticent of media as ever, continuing to favor appearances before friendly audiences and at times drawing fire for limiting access to news organizations altogether. She has entirely sidestepped the ideological civil war consuming the Democrats and has acted more like a party elder at a time when voters and donors are demanding a break with the past.

Rgegarding her latest appearance, Amy Curtis comments at Townhall:

Kamala had to rebrand herself multiple times in the past, and this is just another reboot for a candidate no one wants. There's a reason she dropped out before Iowa in 2020 and why voters rejected her in 2024.

Emhoff has tied his legal csreer, or at least the second phase of it, to being married to Kamala. Presumably that will still count for something, however heavily discounted, whether or not she runs in 2028. He's got to stay married to her no matter what.

Ilhan Omar Is Apparently In Hot Water

In the YouTube excerpt from a News Nation interview embedded above, Alan Dershowitz advises Ilhan Omar,

I would tell her to call me, or a good lawyer, and be quiet, and allow a lawyer to handle the case. She's in deep trouble. I've had a lot of experience with search warrants done against government officials. And before a judge, particularly a DC judge, signs off on a search warrant in Washington, DC, at the home of a member of congress, there has to be something very, very substantial in the affadavit. This is not the case of a judge just signing. I suspect it's a lot more than we know.

So what did she do? Instead of taking Dershowitz's advice, or the advice of almost any lawyer, she did an interview with MS NOW:

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Wednesday called allegations that she married her brother “insane” – but didn’t entirely close the door to the possibility of being related to her ex-husband.

“Not to my knowledge,” Omar responded, when asked by MS NOW’s Chris Hayes if there was any “weird kernel of truth” to the claim that she wed her brother.

The decade-old allegations that Omar and her ex, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, got hitched in a failed effort to get him a green card originated on a “Somali blog,” and spread when “right-wing conspiracy theorists” latched onto it, Omar explained in her first interview since federal agents raided her Washington, DC, home last week.

Trump was on it right away:

President Trump on Wednesday said Ilhan Omar’s near-admission that she married her brother, suggesting she didn’t have knowledge of any blood relation, was “not a good answer.”

. . . This comes as the criminal fraud investigation is believed to be using Omar’s DNA to prove she married her own brother and committed immigration fraud.

Regular true crime fans know the one thing that keeps perps from staying silent and letting their attorneys handle their case is their vanity -- they somehow believe they can convince intestigators, a jury, or the public at large that they're innocent, when tbey're only digging themselves a deeper hole. Dershowitz echoes another observer who suspects she's actually in very hot water:

Tim Burchett just SHOCKED our audience and thinks the Ilhan Omar investigation is MUCH DARKER than we realize: There’s a reason Obama came in, it's because she’s going to be deported. Burchett suggests there is far more happening behind the scenes than the public knows. Obama is a the Democrats' "first string" player. That's how you know this is serious. It can't just be immigration fraud. Now they're panicking and doing everything they can before she is deported. She needs to go, @timburchett

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 20, 2026

Miranda Devine thinks it's the DNA:

Ahem. Five years ago I wrote a column about DNA test results that showed there was a 99.999998 percent chance that Ilhan Omar and her second husband Ahmed Elmi were siblings. A few hours before we went to press my informant was arrested by Biden's FBI. Funny that. https://t.co/MEBWf5U7pv

— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) October 20, 2026

Although DNA is just one line of inquiry, here's more detail from the New York Post:

Federal prosecutors are planning to use DNA evidence to try to prove Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) committed immigration fraud, as part of the sprawling investigation into the congresswoman, sources told The Post.

People familiar with the years-long criminal probe said the feds have made use of whistleblowers, government records and now obtained DNA in an effort to substantiate decade-old allegations that Omar — and possibly members of her family like her father — defrauded immigration authorities.

One source said the DNA evidence was critical to proving an allegation that Omar married her brother when she wed Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009 because she was trying to help him get a green card — which never came to fruition.

It’s unclear whether the DNA was taken before or after Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) searched the congresswoman’s home in Washington, DC, last Monday, when federal agents were seen exiting the bungalow with boxes marked “Seized Property Evidence.”

Another source pushed back on initial reports that investigators had gone “dumpster diving” in order to get DNA swabs of Omar, Elmi, who is currently residing in the UK, or family members.

Two more indicated that the execution of the search warrant on Oct. 12, coupled with the DNA and additional evidence, has provided a solid basis to bring charges of conspiracy to commit some form of immigration fraud before a grand jury, stemming from the probe initiated by the Minnesota US Attorney’s Office.

Given the case is being pursued as a general conspiracy, the evidence will prove useful even if some of the acts fall outside of the statute of limitations.

“If you argue a conspiracy, you can allege overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that are outside the statute of limitations,” said Neama Rahmini, a former federal prosecutor.

This also omits questions about her financial disclosures and her potential involvement in her current husband's separate investment frauds. But so far, all anyone can reasonably surmise is that she's likely in a great deal of trouble.

US Public Opinion Grows More Unfavorable To Canada

The video embedded above paints a broad-brush picture of growing negstive views about Canada in the US, but this isn't the only case. According to Gallup from last March, before the latest tariff dispute:

Most Americans continue to hold positive opinions of Canada (80%) and Great Britain (76%), but views of both nations have dropped significantly in the past year and now are the lowest Gallup has measured for each. Since last year, positive ratings of Canada have fallen nine percentage points, while there has been an eight-point drop for Great Britain. Before this year, Canada and Great Britain averaged 91% and 88% favorable ratings, respectively.

According to a YouGov poll released on September 1, after the tariff dispute:

In recent years, a growing minority of Americans have come to view Canada as unfriendly to the U.S.: 39% of Americans currently describe Canada as an ally and another 25% as friendly, while 19% now call it unfriendly and 3% an enemy. The 22% of Americans who now view Canada as unfriendly or an enemy marks a new high since 2016.

In spite of this, the YouGov poll claims Americans don't support Trump in the trade war:

President Donald Trump recently imposed a 50% tariff on many Canadian goods, a move most Americans are strongly or somewhat opposed to, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll finds. 58% of Americans are opposed to raising tariffs on goods imported from Canada, while only 26% support doing so.

I think it's more correct to say Americans don't think much about Canada one way or the other, unless developments force them to have an opinion. Another issue is Mark Carney's public persona. At minimum, he's uncharismatic and humorless. It doesn't help that his semi-official height, based on his Harvard hockey team stats, is 5'9", but I have a feeling this is an exaggeration. He's also somewhat baby-faced. In fact, I think Carney is a punk.

Let's go into the connotations of this term. According to Dictionary.com, a punk is in slang:

• something or someone worthless or unimportant.
• a young ruffian; hoodlum.
• an inexperienced youth.
• a young male partner of a gay man.
• an apprentice, especially in the building trades.
• Prison Slang. a passive or submissive male inmate, especially one who is used for sex by another male inmate.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "Is Mark Carney a punk?" It dodged the question:

While Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is not a punk rocker by trade or lifestyle, he is a well-documented fan of punk rock music. His affinity for the genre became a public talking point during an interview with the iconic music journalist Nardwuar the Human Serviette at a Vancouver record shop.

Regarding Nardwuar the Human Serviette, his Wikipedia entry is here. I guess if you like poutine, you might also favor Nardwuar the Human Serviette, but I can also say with some confidence that Nardwuar fits several of the definitions of punk listed above, but like many Canadian things, he simply mimics an American model, Pee Wee Herman. But I also asked Chrome AI mode, "What does someone mean when he taunts, 'You're a punk?'" It replied, "When someone taunts you by calling you a punk, they are using a multi-layered insult designed to diminish your status, courage, or toughness. Depending on the context, the taunt usually carries one of three primary meanings:"

1. You are weak or cowardly: In confrontational settings, calling someone a punk implies they lack courage, won't stand up for themselves, or are easily intimidated. It is an attempt to label you as soft or fearful.
2. You are insignificant or subordinate: Historically and in street slang, the term implies someone of lower status who is forced to submit to others. By calling you a punk, the speaker is trying to assert dominance and position you as beneath them.
3. You are inexperienced or a novice: The term can also mean a young, foolish, or worthless person who hasn't earned respect yet.

It occurs to me that in all but so many words, Trump has been calling Carney a punk. I love it. I have a feeling that Americans who've been paying attention love it, too.

Alberta Votes Not To Proceed With Independence

The headline at Conservative Treehouse is The USA Dodges a Bullet – Alberta Independence Referendum Fails by 3:1 Ratio. I certainly agree that we dodged a bullet, but maybe not for the reasons Sundance thinks. He says,

While we have sincere respect for those who sought to get free of the Canadian madness, it is ultimately a good outcome for the USA. A successful exit would have likely begun a process to merge with the USA as a 51st state. Obviously adding another million+ progressive voices to the USA landscape would have been detrimental.

Actually, a successful vote for secession in the referendum would have been only a vote to put an actual referendum for secession on another ballot. There would have been no direct move toward secession as any outcome of yesterday's election. According to Radio CJME:

EVAN BRAY: If majority vote is to begin the legal process to hold a binding referendum on separation, what needs to happen?

DWIGHT NEWMAN: That would lead towards holding a referendum question on whether to separate. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has spoken of her intent to organize that quickly.

Part of what led to having to have this referendum about a referendum was a court decision from the trial court level saying that there would need to be consultation with Indigenous peoples in Alberta before they held the vote, and that is under appeal.

I don’t know whether Alberta would try to get to an appeal result on that first, or would try to engage in that consultation first. But that would be one element that is part of what they’re calling the legal process.

They’d also be trying to develop questions or a question that fit with the requirements of the federal Clarity Act. If they’re really looking to hold a secession vote, they want to have it recognized by Ottawa.

As I've discussed here, the Clarity Act makes Ottawa the authority on whether any secession referendum is valid and the outcome sufficiently large, so no matter how a province votes, Ottawa can overrule the vote, and even if the vote is ruled valid, that only begins a process of negotiation with the other provinces and the indigenous people. Good luck. This whole thing has been kabuki theatre. If the referendum had passed, it would still be just more kabuki theatre.

But also, although Sundance is concerned at the possibility of a million progressive voters coming into the US, Alberta is actually thought to be the most conservative Canadian province. But I don't think liberal vs conservative maps the same way in Canada vs the US. Recent events have reminded me that in my much younger days, I got to know some Canadians, including a lady friend, her family, and my graduate school dissertation director, very well.

The funny part was that they all lived in the US, clearly enjoyed the higher living standard here, but had no intention of becoming citizens. They were Canadians through and through, utterly convinced of the superiority of Canada. If you ever had the temerity to ask them why they'd been living happy as bugs south of the border lo these many years, you risked a nuclear confrontation. So, even for Albertans, the solution Sundance proposes of simply emigrating is the thing which is not.

Last weekend's explosion, or explosions, or no explosions, and fire (anything could have caused it) at an Alberta military base reminded m again of what I may have forgotten about the Canadians I knew when I was young and foolish: they believe everything the government tells them. Mutatis mutandis, the events at the Alberta base correspond as a national tragedy for Canada to the January 29, 2025 collision of a helicopter with a regional jet at Reagan Airport in Washington for the US.

Let's recall that after the Washington crash, according to Chrome AI mode, "As investigations by the NTSB and the U.S. Army unfolded, public and government outrage shifted from shock to anger over preventable, systemic failures". There was a major, unspoken DEI subtext when it was revealed that the helicopter pilot was a lesbian with connections to the Biden White House who happened to be flying outside the designated route.

In contrast the Canadian reaction to the military base event has quickly settled into the government-approved CBC paradigm:

A dangerous combination of weather conditions was at play Saturday afternoon when a deadly fire engulfed a training exercise at CFB Wainwright in east-central Alberta, killing four soldiers and severely injuring dozens more, weather and wildfire experts say.

. . . "Conditions were extreme," said Mike Flannigan, a professor of wildland fires at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., who runs the Canada fire weather outlook. "Things were dry. Any fires that started would have spread rapidly and would be intense and that's pretty well what happened."

. . . Flannigan said NASA satellite data indicate a fire was burning near the base by around 2 p.m. The Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index shows that fire conditions across the Canadian prairies, including southern and central Alberta, ranged from very high to extreme.

. . . Canadian Armed Forces Maj.-Gen. Wade Rutland, inaugural commander of the revitalized 1st Canadian Division, told reporters Sunday that the fire began as a grassfire and spread rapidly around 4 p.m. as the wind direction changed.

Rutland said range control at the base were aware about a fire for several hours but decided training could carry on "for a certain amount of time."

. . . However, meteorological and wildfire experts say the combination of dry fuels, low humidity and strong winds created conditions favourable to rapid fire spread. Heavy wind gusts of over 80 km/h had also been forecast for the area later that day.

In other words, there's plenty of room for questioning, at minimum, why range control allowed the training to continue in light of the forecast, but this also ignores the problem that nobody knows just what caused the fire. Was it the fires that were already burning and the wind suddenly shifted, or was it something else? What's odd is that there are plenty of conservative Canadian YouTubers, but so far, none of them has seen anything hinky here, when US commentators would be indignant that so many obvious quesions are going unanswered.

The CBC put a couple of retired Canadian generals on as talking heads, and they spoke reassuringly. We don't know what happened, but surely it will be investigated. This will take months. We need to be patient. This is a completely different set of national attitudes, and these people are astonishingly complacent. Do we want, not just a million or so, but all 41 million of them, coming in? We need to think this through.

The problem is that the current trade war is exposing a basic Canadian problem: without the previous favorable tariff treatment Canada had, its economy isn't viable. Justin Trudeau is said to have acknowledged this, and Mark Carney must certainly be aware of it, too -- as, of course, is Trump. Trump has recently reiterated what he's said all along, that Canada basically has no choice but to become the 51st state, although it would likely have to transition as a territory for some period first. But this is not bombast and bravado, it's reality.

That's an economic reality, as well as a geopolitical one. We've got to hope Washingon is seriously gaming this out -- on the other hand, we certainly don't want the 41 million Canadians that are currently there coming in to vote, I guarantee it. Sundance is right, we dodged a bullet with Alberta, but there's a much bigger one still in the works. It's worth remembering that the last two major territorial expansions for the US came from wars, with Mexico and Spain. It might well take a war with Canada to re-form the attitudes north of the border enough to make Canada part of the US, but there would probably be little choice.

Elbows -- Wha?

As long as we've been on Canada, over the weekend there was an event there that seems likely to highlight the unexpectedly major differences between Canada and the US, when Americans had assumed, perhaps ever since there was Canada, that the two countries are basically similar. What we know more or less for sure is that about 4 PM local time, at a Canadian military base in Alberta, there was an explosion followed by a fire that destroyed facilities on the base and caused multiiple fatalities and injuries. A completely unofficial and possibly speculative version of what happened is below:

A catastrophic blast at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, Alberta has reportedly resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries during a live fire military training operation. According to local sources on base, Canadian Forces personnel had been conducting exercises over several days when an artillery projectile reportedly struck an active natural gas well on the bombing range, triggering a massive detonation. The blast is said to have levelled nearby tactical training buildings, with subsequent fires reaching munitions storage and setting off secondary detonations across the range. The geography and infrastructure; ➟ CFB Wainwright has a documented history of natural gas production, with approximately 180 wells reported on the military property in 2014. ➟ Military range maps identify munitions storage, pipelines and designated live fire danger areas near Peterson Pond. ➟ NASA FIRMS satellite imagery recorded multiple thermal hotspots between Peterson Pond and Jamieson Lake on October 17. Local accounts also describe hospitals activating Code Orange protocols, mobilizing stretchers and preparing for a significant influx of casualties. The reported gas well strike, secondary detonations and hospital emergency measures remain unconfirmed as authorities investigate the incident. Should these reports be confirmed, my thoughts and prayers are with everyone involved and affected.

— Morgan (@MorganC000) October 18, 2026

The key paragraphs:

According to local sources on base, Canadian Forces personnel had been conducting exercises over several days when an artillery projectile reportedly struck an active natural gas well on the bombing range, triggering a massive detonation.

The blast is said to have levelled nearby tactical training buildings, with subsequent fires reaching munitions storage and setting off secondary detonations across the range.

But reports from the government CBC have been sketchy indeed:

Maj.-Gen. Wade Rutland, commander of the 1st Canadian Division of the Canadian Armed Forces, said at a Sunday afternoon news conference that a fire broke out during a high-intensity combat training exercise using live munitions.

Soldiers were throwing hand grenades on a grenade range at the time, he said, while others were in the section range doing a "section attack," where 10 soldiers attack a simulated enemy.

Rutland said it's not yet known what exactly caused the fire. "Quite frankly, it could have been any of that or none of it," he said.

Rutland said heavy wind gusts spread the blaze by a kilometre in less than a minute.

"This was uncommon, rapid, and I certainly hadn't seen anything like it," he said, adding that conditions for most of the day were "within standard procedures to conduct training exercises" with wind gusts below 50 km/h.

He told reporters that range control knew about the fire on the base for several hours, but it was decided that training "could carry on for a certain amount of time."

"This was uncommon, rapid, and I certainly hadn't seen anything like it," he said, adding that conditions for most of the day were "within standard procedures to conduct training exercises" with wind gusts below 50 km/h.

He told reporters that range control knew about the fire on the base for several hours, but it was decided that training "could carry on for a certain amount of time."

Nobody expected a fire, but range control knew about it for several hours and thought it was OK, but who knows what caused it? Probably not hand grenades. Elsewhere, he's quoted as saying,

The fire did originate within the training area and did cross established fire guards before being contained in conjunction with municipal authorities. You may have heard reports of explosions. Certainly, we do not believe this to be as a result of any oil and gas infrastructure nor any outside interference.

So the fire originated within the training area, and they knew about it for hours, but it was completely uncommon. Explosions? What's that got to do with it? Anyhow, King Charles is on boo-hoo duty.

The problem I see is that these are the Canadian armed forces Carney had not long ago ordered to plan for a US invasion, but which is now starting to look like its own worst enemy. Canadians, after a few polite queries, have quickly fallen into line and are passively listening to the halting and contradictory explanations the government is giving them without complaint. The Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, who actually represents the district that includes Wainwright and the base, is expressing his support for Carney.

Alberta Premier Smith, Prime Minister Carney, and even King Charles are flooding the zone with weepy condolences while minimizing the questions that emerge over what looks to be at minimum incompetence and dereliction of duty, and Canadians are copacetic. Frankly, they deserve the country they've got.

Canada Stelco Update

When we last checked in on the Stelco drama a week ago, Canada's Industry Minister Mélanie Joly had given Cleveland Cliffs CEO Lourenco Goncalves a deadline to "share" a plan to retain the Stelco workers for whin he'd announced layoffs. As of last Sunday,

Prime Minister Mark Carney also said last week that Ottawa will "use all powers that we have" against Cleveland-Cliffs as it pursues the Ohio-based company to the "fullest extent of the law."

Stelco Inc. said in a letter responding to Joly that the company will proceed with the layoffs and the government's characterization of the move as a breach of undertakings is "false."

So Goncalves said in almost as many words, "Go ahead and sue." Ottawa's response so far has been not to respond, and people are starting to notice, as we see in the YouTube video embedded above. A reportetr asks Jolie,

What is the government's timeline to either resolve this conflict with Stelco or to pursue legal action?

She responds, "It's a question of days," buit days later, there's still no response. The commentator goes on to characterize the situation as kabuki theatre, and I agree: Goncalves has been saying that if Canada resolves its trade dispute with t\he US, the solution to the problem is seen in the disappearance of the problem, but Carney and Joly are trying to create a distraction, putting up a brave stance to defend 500 jobs, while the dipute has already cost Canada 100,000.

Goncalves's legal position is twofold. First,

"There is no provision in the contract that I have to keep employment at a certain level every single day of the five years," Goncalves said on Sunday. "If that was an imposition of the Canadian government, I would not have accepted."

Goncalves reiterated Stelco's position that the layoffs are a temporary measure until Canada and the U.S. reach a trade agreement, and that the jobs will be restored.

Second,

The U.S. owner of Stelco says the Canada–U.S. trade war changed the conditions behind its employment commitments in Hamilton, Ont.

Goncalves said the ability to sell freely to American buyers was an "underlying condition" of the terms Cleveland-Cliffs accepted when it bought Stelco in 2024.

"I would not have acquired the Stelco if I knew that Canada and the United States would become what they became – enemies in trade," he said.

He made a similar case to Global News: "There's no market in Canada for the amount of galvanized steel we produce in Canada. We need to export… to the United States."

What neither Carney nor Joly seems to have gamed through in this dispute is that legal action against Stelco or Cleveland Cliffs will tie the case up in the courts for years -- the full force of the law may prevail, but it will be long after the hoped-for quick victory that Carney and Joly need. The historical outcome of such legal action isn't encouraging:

Here's what we know from the last time the federal government took the U.S. steelmaker to court.

In 2007, Pennsylvania-based U.S. Steel announced a deal to acquire Stelco, then a publicly traded company, for about $1 billion US, and the company was renamed U.S. Steel Canada.

Major foreign investments must benefit the domestic economy, per the Investment Canada Act. So, foreign buyers must give legally binding written commitments — called undertakings — to the federal industry minister to prove the deal provides a "net benefit to Canada."

At the time, U.S. Steel agreed to several such undertakings, including a three-year commitment to maintain Canadian employment levels, and increase steel production in Canada by at least 10 per cent.

However, when the 2008 financial crisis sapped global demand, U.S. Steel closed most of Stelco's Canadian operations and laid off over 1,500 employees.

. . . According to a summary of court filings compiled by a lawyer at Toronto-based Torys LLP, Stelco argued the undertakings only required compliance at the end of their three-year term, not before.

Stelco also said that per Industry Canada guidelines, its investors should not be held accountable for factors beyond their control, like the unfolding financial crisis.

. . . The attorney general of Canada formally withdrew the lawsuit in late 2011, ending in an out-of-court-settlement before the court could make a judgment.

In other words, the case languished in the legal system for three years, when the government withdrew the suit in favor of a settlment that was less than they wanted. But then that incarnation of Stelco went bankrupt anyhow. Carney's problem is that he needs to see quick results from his "elbows out" strategy, but he's put himself in the position with Stelco-Cleveland Cliffs that he starts out a loser with no way to fix the situation. It sounds like even Canadian media is beginning to wake up to this.