Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney left the United Nations General Assembly and went directly to the New York Times for a pre-scheduled interview with fellow leftist travelers intent on influencing the U.S midterm election.
Carney having previously appointed Clinton/Obama Democratic operative Maia Johnson as his Chief Operating Officer within his office, obviously had one agenda in mind as he strolled into the Times office for his pre-planned operation.
Within the hour-long conversation, the Canadian Prime Minister had several key points of emphasis in his objective. The top-line hook to draw in the audience was his first statement about having prepared for military combat operations against the United States. [ARTICLE HERE] Key points below:
(1) Carney developed contingency plans to use military combat operations against the United States. Yes, it is transparently obvious this is a political statement. His mentioning of this is meant to create the traditional leftist victimhood position used in all psychological operations. Carney follows this outlandish statement by saying these military plans are no longer needed because he now feels he has “a good relationship” with President Trump.
[…] “Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said that he had prepared over the past year for the “extreme tail risk” that President Trump might order military action against Canada but disclosed that the two men have spoken “frequently,” even since trade talks collapsed last month, describing a tense, evolving relationship.
Mr. Carney suggested that he had carefully examined the possibility of U.S.-led military action, but declined to discuss in detail what that involved. “I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk,” said Mr. Carney, a former central banker for Britain and Canada. … “That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to” prepare.”
(2) Carney outlines how he intends to build a closer economic relationship with China as a hedge against Canadian dependency on the United States. Given the statements made by Carney in Beijing, this does not come as a surprise; however, it is the expressed open intent to further attach Canada to China that should raise eyebrows.




