Wednesday, October 21, 2026

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.

Tuesday, October 20, 2026

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.

Monday, October 19, 2026

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: 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.

Sunday, October 18, 2026

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.

Saturday, October 17, 2026

FlyDubai FZ1073 Hijack Updates

The popular YouTuber Captain Steeeve, a retired American Airlines pilot, has a detailed update that's embedded above on the various participant accounts and official investigations into the attempted hijacking of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 last September 30. One of the big stories he mentions, the arrest of two additional Flydubai pilots, is covered here:

The families of two Maldivian pilots have been notified of their arrest in connection with an alleged plot to down a flight traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv, Israel.

The two male pilots, who are employees of Flydubai, were taken into police custody last Saturday. Adhadhu understands that their families received no information regarding their whereabouts until Tuesday.

However, sources have confirmed that the Maldivian Embassy in the UAE has now officially informed the families that the two pilots are being detained by UAE police.

According to Captain Steeeve, the hijacker himself, Hamam al-Hammami, is an Omanian who shared a residence with the two Maldivian FlyDubai pilots. He also says that the UAE is continuing an investigation, while India is conducting a separate investigation, as the FZ1073 captain, Smit Machchhar, who was badly injured in the hijacking, is from India. The hijacker, al-Hamami, was transferred from Saudi Arabia to the UAE on October 1:

Although no passengers were injured, the incident shines a harsh spotlight on how a co-pilot previously linked to extremist ideology was able to sit in the cockpit of a flight to Tel Aviv, carrying mostly Israeli passengers.

The UAE has described the incident as a "terrorist attack," but has not publicly commented on whether the alleged attacker was connected to any organizations or groups.

A separate report outlines the Flight 93-style atmosphere inside the passenger cabin after al-Hammami was placed in restraints by the passengers:

Eleven days after helping to overpower the co-pilot accused of trying to crash a flydubai flight bound for Israel, passenger Asaf Rajuan wants two flight attendants who were on board to be investigated. He has also called for the two additional pilots who were traveling and who landed the aircraft in Saudi Arabia to be questioned.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on Sunday, Rajuan said he suspected the attendants had assisted the attacker. He described confrontations with passengers, objections to filming and exchanges between the two men that left him afraid the danger had continued after the co-pilot was restrained.

The September 30 flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, after the co-pilot attacked the captain with an aircraft emergency axe.

. . . Rajuan wants Israel involved in establishing what happened. In our conversation, he kept returning to the crew’s behavior and the difficulty of knowing whom to trust while the aircraft was still airborne.

An earlier report gives more detail on the crew:

The crew of the hijacked flydubai plane shockingly clashed with heroic Israeli passengers who subdued the ax-wielding co-pilot after he attacked the pilot — demanding he be freed, two men who helped secure the terror suspect told The Post in exclusive interviews.

“They were asking us to untie the terrorist — we had no idea why,” said banking executive Tzvika Manes, one of the three civilians who took down the would-be hijacker.

“They were saying to free the terrorist — we got instantly suspicious of them,” said real estate professional Daniel Schlichter, who was sitting in the second row, close to the cockpit.

. . . But after the three Israelis subdued the pilot and restrained him face-down with his hands tied behind his back — first with zip ties, then using headphone wires that Schlicter gathered from passengers.

As he was subdued, Hayoun heard the terrorist cry, “Kill me, kill me” — apparently because he failed in his Jihadist mission, Manes said.

Yet some crew members began demanding that he be freed.

An argument ensued and the Israeli trio shot back that under no circumstances would the suspected terrorist be released.

“They said, ‘You are not God, you are not going to kill him,'” Manes recalled. “We didn’t want to kill him, we just wanted him not to kill us.”

Schlichter, 59, who was also returning from a vacation in Japan with his wife, and Manes both said that the Israelis even gave the wounded terrorist an oxygen mask.

“We wanted him to live so he could be investigated,” Schlichter said.

A power play ensued with the crewmembers insisting that they were in charge of the plane and needed to remain alone in the area directly in front of the cockpit.

The Israelis, fearing the crew could be involved in the pilot’s plot, ordered the stewards to leave the cockpit area and to take seats in the middle of the plane.

“We told them, “Now the policy is we’re in charge and you do what we say,’ ” Manes said.

“We didn’t know what to think, we were in a suspicious mode for every steward.”

A group of passengers, Schlichter among them, escorted the crew members to seats in the fifth or sixth row, away from the cockpit.

“We shouted at them and told them to sit down,” said Schlichter, who has two children and two granddaughters.

The trio then enlisted a “big guy” to guard the cockpit and prevent anyone from entering, Manes said.

Although earlier reports were that the hijacker acted alone, the more recent interrogation of the two Maldivian pilots suggests the investigators aren't taking this for granted.

Friday, October 16, 2026

What's Up With Ilhan Omar?

There was quite a flurry of activity involving searches and subpoenas surrounding Ilhan Omar over the past week:

Federal agents searched Rep. Ilhan Omar’s home in Washington, D.C., on Monday morning, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

The search is part of a yearslong criminal investigation by Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. attorney in Minneapolis and the Justice Department, and deals partly with immigration fraud, one of the people familiar with the probe said. The investigation involves whistleblowers, documents and witness testimony, the source added.

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement that Homeland Security Investigations “executed a judicially authorized search warrant” as “part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.”

The statement did not specify that the warrant was related to Omar, D-Minn., or provide further information about the nature of the investigation.

In addition,

On Friday [Oct 9], roughly a dozen subpoenas were sent out in the case, including to her family members, the second person familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

The congresswoman herself was not subpoenaed, the person said, adding that the orders seeking information are tied to a federal grand jury in Minnesota, Omar’s home state. Federal agents also want to talk to Omar’s sister but haven’t reached her yet, the person said.

. . . The investigation is being conducted by Homeland Security Investigations, the U.S. attorney in Minneapolis and the Justice Department.

. . . One of the people familiar with the investigation said it involved whistleblowers, documents and witness testimony. The probe is examining matters surrounding Omar’s immigration status, including — but not limited to — her birthdate. Omar, who was born in Somalia and moved to the United States with her family in the 1990s, was naturalized when she was 17 years old, meaning she was a juvenile and could be conferred citizenship through a parent.

Beyond the barebones facts of searches and subpoenas, the actual goal of the investigations remains fuzzy. Just the News focuses on her naturalization:

The progressive lawmaker’s birthdate has become a focus of federal investigators, who are examining Omar’s naturalization as a United States citizen.

Allegations that Omar misrepresented her birthdate in order to secure U.S. citizenship were first raised by one of the lawmaker’s political opponents in 2019.

Omar said in 2018 that she received citizenship through her father’s naturalization process, through what is known as derivative citizenship. “I became a citizen actually before I turned 18. My father became a citizen, and so I got my citizenship through that process,” Omar told The Intercept during that year’s election.

Central to the question of legitimate citizenship, the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library had at one point listed Omar’s birthdate as Oct. 4, 1981, which would have made Omar 18 or 19 when she claimed that she received U.S. citizenship from her father in 2000. Only minors can claim citizenship from naturalized parents, yet Omar has long claimed that she was 17 years old when she became a citizen.

After the discrepancy between the dates first surfaced, Omar’s staff requested that her birthdate be changed in the public records shortly after she first entered Congress. “On May 17, 2019, Library staff were informed by Rep. Omar’s congressional staff that her birth year was incorrect and requested that we change it to 1982,” wrote the director of the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library in a 2019 email obtained by The New York Post.

The records have since been changed to say the congresswoman was born in 1982, despite it saying 1981 for the entire time she served in the state legislature, and for months into her first Congressional term.

The Minnesota Legislative Reference Library's entry now includes a caveat saying: "Her birth year [1982] is correct. It is incorrectly reported as 1981 in other sources. As of May 24, 2019, Rep. Omar's congressional staff are working with Wikipedia and the U.S. House to correct her birth year in those sources."

But there may be other issues aa well:

On Tuesday, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro announced that her office opened an investigation into Omar’s financial disclosures.

Previously, Omar faced allegations about the ballooning worth of her husband’s businesses, which increased from $51,000 in 2023 to between $6 and $30 million the following year. These disclosures were later amended, greatly reducing the valuation, and Omar would at the time blame "an accounting error." The amended congressional financial disclosure, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, now values the Minnesota Democrat's household assets at between $18,004 and $95,000 — a dramatic drop from an earlier filing that listed assets of up to $30 million.

The lawmaker’s 2024 financial disclosure reflected this change, marking Omar’s net worth as high as $30 million, Just the News reported last year. The vast majority of the new net worth valuation came from her spouse’s company, Rose Lake Capital LLC, a venture capital management firm whose value swelled by millions of dollars.

Omar married political operative and venture capitalist Tim Mynett in 2020, following a complicated series of Muslim marriages and divorces. Mynett's dealings have drawn repeated allegations of fraud. For instance,

In fall 2021, D.C.-area restaurant owner Naeem Mohd was presented with an unbelievable investment opportunity.

Two political operatives turned venture capitalists would triple Mohd’s money in just 18 months if he invested $300,000 in their new California winery.

The pair had been paid in grapes by a former client and had hired a well-respected Sonoma winemaker to turn those grapes into profit. They promised if they didn’t pay Mohd the full $900,000 on time, they would tack on 10% monthly interest on any outstanding balance, according to the contract shared with the Minnesota Reformer.

The offer might have seemed suspicious if not for the person making it: Tim Mynett, a well-connected political consultant and husband to U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, whom he married in 2020.

. . . Mohd wired the $300,000 to Mynett and his long-time business partner Will Hailer, with whom he founded a political consultancy called E Street Group in 2018.

But 18 months came and went without Mohd receiving the 200% return he was promised from the winery, eStCru.

Mynett and Hailer only returned Mohd’s $300,000 — about a month late — according to a lawsuit Gill filed on behalf of Mohd in California last fall seeking at least $780,000.

The complaint, which has not been previously reported, claims the pair “fraudulently misrepresented … that estCru, LLC was a legitimate company.”

Other allegations involve South Dakota marijuana entrepreneurs who have also sued to recover investment funds. Omar, soon after her marriage to Mynett, profited hugely by paying his firm for political consulting:

Omar reported spousal income from E Street Group ranging from $100,001 to $1 million in both 2020 and 2021.

In an email to the Reformer, Mynett said he and Will began to pivot from politics to business in order to test advertising strategies that could then inform political strategies. He said they were “incredibly successful” at digital advertising and targeting — skills that could be transferred to business success.

Mynett said he was also confronted with a barrage of harassment and intimidation by “MAGA extremists” since marrying Omar and felt it was in his best interest to get out of politics.

Jonathan Turley suggests in the X post embedded above that Omar's problems cover a range across immigration fraud, false financial statements, and conspiracy, but beyond that, for the time being, we have few other details, except that her current husband, Tim Mynett, strikes me as a very sketchy guy.

Thursday, October 15, 2026

What's Going On In Canada Lately?

I'ved been following news in Canada more closely since the trade war started, and a side story has popped up that seems to question the larger Mark Carney blame-Trump paradigm. British Columbia Premier David Eby (pronounced E-B) called an early provincial "snap" election on Septemer 22, scheduled for October 24:

Premier David Eby is making U.S. President Donald Trump and the threat posed by his trade policies a central argument for why British Columbia needs an early election, but experts argue that may be a tough sell to voters.

Eby launched the provincial campaign Tuesday, with an appeal for a fresh mandate to protect B.C. from the economic fallout of Trump’s latest tariffs. Speaking in front of the Peace Arch border crossing, Eby portrayed the coming election as a pivotal moment.

“Families feel these tariffs reaching into their grocery bill. They see it at the pump,” Eby said.

But the NDP already holds a majority in the legislature and Eby called the election with two years remaining in his government’s mandate.

That is creating an awkward political question for the premier at the outset of the campaign, said University of British Columbia political scientist Kathryn Harrison.

“The central issue in this campaign is shaping to be whether we should be having an election at all,” Harrison said.

Under the Canadian parliamentary system,

the federal government and most provinces and territories have enacted legislation setting election dates, usually every four years, one year sooner than the constitutionally set five year maximum life of a parliament. However, the governor general, lieutenant governors, and commissioners still have the legal power to call a general election on the advice of the relevant first minister at any point before the fixed date.

Elections held sooner than the four-year interval are called "snap" elections and are typically called if the party in power thinks it's so popular at that point in time that it can extend its mandate by another four years.

It's hard not to surmise that Eby thought Carney's "elbows out" strategy would be a winner, and he proceeded to make Donald Trump the issue in the provincial election as Carney had successfully done nationally. But it wasn't going to be that easy:

Recent American trade measures have increased economic uncertainty, particularly for industries such as forestry, aluminum and manufacturing, and a government confronting potentially painful decisions can reasonably argue that a renewed mandate would strengthen its hand.

But that still leaves one question unanswered:

Why now?

Trump did not suddenly appear on Sept. 22. The ­Canada-U.S. ­confrontation did not begin this week. Eby’s ­government had not lost a ­confidence vote. It still ­possessed a legislative ­majority and a mandate obtained in ­October 2024.

An Angus Reid Institute survey released in early May found the still-leaderless B.C. Conservatives leading the NDP by 10 percentage points. Eby’s approval stood at 33 per cent.

By September, the picture had changed markedly.

Eby’s approval had recovered to 41 per cent, a ­10-percentage-point increase from its low of 31 per cent in June. The NDP’s 41 per cent was now four percentage points ahead of the Conservatives’ 37 per cent in voting intention.

. . . The Conservatives had spent months fractured by departures and internal conflict. Then, on Sept. 20, Kerry-Lynne Findlay resigned as leader after only a few months in the position. Lorne Doerkson became interim leader.

Two days later, Eby called an election.

. . . Why Oct. 24? Why must an election occur only seven days after municipal voting, rather than later — or not early at all?

The timing imposes a democratic cost of its own.

Local candidates must compete with a provincial campaign for public attention, volunteers, political donations and media coverage. Municipal leaders had urged the province not to overlap the two campaigns.

If an immediate provincial election were unavoidable, that disruption might be justified.

Eby has not yet demonstrated why it was unavoidable.

That is also why Trump should not become an all-purpose answer.

An international crisis does not suspend a provincial government’s obligation to account for its own decisions. British Columbians can oppose American economic pressure while simultaneously scrutinizing their government in Victoria.

Conservative columnist Brian Lilley sums things up:

It’s been well established that Eby didn’t need to call the election when he did. The man still had two years left on his mandate, three if he wanted to ignore the fixed election date and just go by the Constitution, which requires an election within five years of the last one.

Instead, Eby called an early vote.

He was the one in charge. He was the only one who knew for sure that this was coming, and still he had no plan.

When the campaign started, he tried claiming he needed to call the vote to protect British Columbians from Donald Trump. Voters saw past that and realized it was all about him taking advantage of his opposition being in disarray.

But since Monday, he's had a more specific problem:

B.C. NDP Leader David Eby admits his family uses $10-a-day daycare despite not needing the subsidy, while most B.C. families lack access and his government freezes new providers for three years.

Eby made the admission when questioned by a Global News reporter during an election campaign event in Delta on Thanksgiving Monday, October 12.

The YouTube video embedded at the top of this post shows the awkward news conference where Eby says "you don't have to shout at me" to reporters but goes around in circles when they ask him the precise amount of the donation his family made to the day care center beyond the $10 fee.

I think the takeaway is that Canadians are skeptical when their leaders think holding Trump up as bogeyman can serve as a distraction from issues closer to home. Blaming Trump in Canada, after all, is neither here nor there; Trump will never be on a Canadian ballot, but leaders like Eby and Carney definitely are.