Your middle-of-the-week call to sanity ...
Remember that some people will never let this go because of rea$on$:
Dr. Michael Yeadon, who formerly served as Pfizer’s vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory, explained how he knew the COVID virus, with its subsequent “vaccine” campaign, was a “supranational operation” designed “to injure people, to maim and kill deliberately.”
Yeadon, who spent 32 years working mostly for large pharmaceutical companies, spoke to a reporter from Children’s Health Defense in March while attending a Truth be Told Rally in London.
Reviewing how he came to understand the COVID “pandemic” was something other than what it appeared to be, the pharmacology expert recalled that “when I started noticing former colleagues of mine, including Patrick Vallance, saying things on the television I knew weren’t true — and I knew he knew weren’t true — that’s when the penny dropped for me, probably [in] February 2020.Patrick Vallance was the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser to the government from 2018 to 2023.
“I remember saying to my wife, ‘this is not what they’re saying it is. Something’s going on,’” Yeadon explained.
“And when I saw not only my country locking down, but dozens of countries locking down at the same time … that was proof, and is still proof, of a supranational operation,” he said.
“There’s no way that could have happened at the local level, at the country level. Therefore, it must have occurred at a level above. Whether it was the WHO or the World Economic Forum, or other, I don’t know,” but the orchestrated response demonstrates a planned event as opposed to one determined by the chance of the virus developing, Yeadon said.
These governments “all did the same stupid, ineffective, known-not-to-work things at the same time, none of which were in their countries’ pandemic preparedness plans, because I’ve read them all,” the toxicology expert assured.
Further, he said that he is perfectly confident he will not be sued by Vallance or others for publicly accusing them of lying, because they know they would lose in a court of law. “And so, they won’t sue me. What they do is smear me and censor me.”
Now, “the injuries to people from these so-called vaccines” is “something much worse than an alleged virus,” Yeadon affirmed. Furthermore, “I wish I could say that it was accidental, but it wasn’t accidental.”
Whatever did you think the cheque was for?:
The chair of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation’s board says the organization has been subjected to “unwarranted and unfair attacks” over allegations it received a donation that was part of a China-led foreign influence campaign.
Edward Johnson was before a parliamentary committee investigating the circumstances around a pair of 2016 and 2017 donations from Chinese billionaire Zhang Bin and another Chinese businessman, Niu Gensheng, that totalled $140,000.
The donations had been made in tandem with a $750,000 contribution to the Universite de Montreal.
The Globe and Mail reported in February, citing an unnamed source, that the donors were toldby Beijing to offer the money in the hopes of influencing the new Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau.
But Johnson told the members of Parliament there was never an opportunity for the foundation to be part of any foreign interference attempts by China, and he cast doubt on accusations the money was paid to gain political influence.
No wonder no one trusts Justin.
Also - I never asked for ANY money to be taken from me, nor did I consent to giving it to China:
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board rates China a good investment despite human rights atrocities. “We are exceedingly, exceedingly cautious,” said Michel Leduc, senior managing director with the Board: “We recognize any investment in China needs to be handled with care.”
Never send a "journalist" to do an economist's job:
A filibuster of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s budget yesterday entered its second week as Conservative MPs talked out the clock at the Commons finance committee. The opposition demanded Freeland appear for a minimum two hours’ questioning if she wants the budget passed: “I feel sad about that.”
Cry some more.
That would be helpful.
Read - communist:
Censor the media and political speech (but not necessarily in that order)
There are two resolutions that advocate rather unprecedented curbs on Canadian free speech. A resolution on “combatting misinformation” says that the federal government should “limit publication” of the online news media to those whose “sources can be traced.”
So, if you’re a news outlet employing anonymous sources – say, like the anonymous sources that first broke the SNC-Lavalin scandal – this resolution suggests that the federal government should ban you from the internet.
And then there’s the “truth in politics” resolution, which proposes the establishment of an “independent body” that would impose “sanctions” on political parties that it deems are not telling the truth. ...
Never, ever meet the NATO spending targets
The resolution is cited as “investing in Canadian defence and security” and it opens with a bit of bombast about how the “expertise and knowledge” of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped maintain a rules-based global order.
But the measure ultimately recommends that Canada should “increase its defence budget to 32 billion dollars.” This is actually much lower than the $40 billion in military spending that the most recent Trudeau government budget had pegged for 2026. It’s also far below any kind of spending threshold suggested by Canada’s allies; NATO has repeatedly pressured Canada to boost its military spending to a minimum of $50 to $70 billion.
To wit:
Not even two weeks have passed since the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) was given expanded powers over the internet, and it’s already labelling valid points of criticism as “myths.”
It’s a bad sign. If the organization tasked with regulating online content is playing rhetorical games in response to critics in the early days, we can hardly trust it to be honest when it builds its regulatory framework.
The CRTC’s list of myths and facts about Bill C-11 (the Online Streaming Act) were published Monday, along with the commission’s plan for setting up a new regulatory scheme for the Canadian internet. The CRTC is planning all sorts of consultations in the next year or so, which will culminate in the launch of a new regulatory scheme for online streamers in 2024.
Many of the CRTC’s supposed “myths” amount to a distinction without a difference. The CRTC says it’s a “myth” that it will regulate YouTubers, social media influencers, podcasters and other online content creators. The CRTC also claims it’s a myth that it will regulate social media users and the content they post. Instead, it says it’ll regulate platforms, not users. ...
Additionally, the Trudeau government’s Online Streaming Act allows the CRTC to regulate user-generated content that generates income — a point that has been made extensively by digital law professor Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa. Anyone who gets advertising revenue from content they upload could fall into scope of regulation if the CRTC so wishes; this covers most, if not all, digital creators.
The CRTC also says that it’s a “myth” that it will regulate video games. Video games were never exempt from Bill C-11, but the commission is proposing to expressly exclude games from regulation — hence the “myth.” No matter what policy the CRTC gives itself, games are still within its scope of regulation. Effectively, the only thing stopping video games from being regulated is the CRTC’s lack of desire.
Given that some online game platforms work like social media — with forums, content creation, and so on — it’s not hard to imagine a day where the CRTC would change its mind.
The CRTC also says it’s a myth that it’ll censor the internet. It’s true that the CRTC won’t be able to remove content online, it can require certain content to be promoted. With the new law, the CRTC can force platforms to promote certain genres of content, which would disadvantage content creators who don’t fall into the special categories. Failing to fall into a promoted genre would amount to a penalty.
Similarly, Bill C-11 revised Canadian broadcasting policy to include the promotion of various ethnicities, in both content production and broadcasting. It’s not outright censorship, but it is picking favourites when it comes to who gets extra support and airtime. It should be noted that the CRTC has already made the CBC allocate parts of its spending according to diversity, so that could very well be applied to others online.
Finally, the CRTC also says it’s a myth that they’ll tamper with online content algorithms. It’s true that Bill C-11 bars the CRTC from ordering specific changes to algorithms, but confusingly, the CRTC can make all sorts of other orders to online streaming services that would impact what you see.
“There are many other ways to make Canadian and Indigenous content easier to find, which could include promotional campaigns or featuring content on the service’s home page,” writes the CRTC. “We will explore these options as part of our consultations and look forward to hearing everyone’s views.”
This isn’t the first time a government entity has been playing cutesy “myth” versus “fact” games to gaslight the public about controversial rules. In February, the Department of National Defence launched an anti-racism toolkit which claimed to bust “myths” about the Employment Equity Act, Canada’s affirmative action law.
I find myself indifferent, too:
English speaking Canadians remain indifferent to French despite 54 years of official bilingualism, says in-house federal research. A majority of residents in two provinces, British Columbia and Alberta, said they did not know a single French person: “Positive statements about bilingualism are higher among those living in the eastern part of the country than in the West.”
If it makes everyone feel better, Justin doesn't like black people, either:
The chief of the Canadian Human Rights Commission yesterday said she was sorry for mistreatment of Black employees. Members of the Senate human rights committee said the lack of Black executives at the agency diminished the apology: “This is an issue for Blacks, so why isn’t there a Black person on the executive sitting here?”
Then I might say that these cultists (because that is what they are, so slavish to this ideology) can own all the woman abuse that goes on in this country.
Femicide is the hill they are willing to die on.
And let us dispense with the notion of personal liberty. This country is banning kitten videos for God's sake:
Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall’s bill would encourage judges to consider physical or emotional harm to a pregnant victim as an aggravating factor during sentencing.“It is focused on pregnant women being attacked by a third party who wants to cause injury or death to that individual,” said Wagantall, a Saskatchewan MP.Wagantall opposes abortion but she said the legislation, known as Bill C-311, has nothing to do with that and is entirely focused on violence against women.But the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is urging MPs to vote against the bill on the grounds that it promotes fetal rights, even though there is no mention of fetal rights in the text of the bill itself.Executive director Joyce Arthur said some groups who oppose abortion view the bill as a positive step because they feel it would legally recognize “pre-born children” in the case of violent crimes, which is not the case now.
Also - Canada is a country that kills the poor:
But a new paper by two University of Toronto bioethicists argues that, while the decisions may be “deeply tragic,” it would be wrong to deny medical assistance in dying (MAID) to people whose request is being driven most of all by poverty or other unjust conditions — “people who not only might, but have explicitly said” they would prefer not to die.
Not allowing MAID when circumstances show no short-term chance of improving would only cause further harm, Kayla Wiebe, a PhD candidate in philosophy, and bioethicist Amy Mullin, a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, write in the Journal of Medical Ethics.“To force people who are already in unjust social circumstances to have to wait until those social circumstances improve, or for the possibility of public charity that sometimes but unreliably occurs when particularly distressing cases become public, is unacceptable,” they wrote. ...
Months later, another controversy arose: a 37-year-old Vancouver woman appeared in a viral, pro-euthanasia film posted to YouTube in October by the Canadian clothing retailer, Simons. It was later revealed that Jennyfer Hatch had opted for a doctor-assisted death after struggling for years to receive proper medical care for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a rare and painful condition caused by excessively fragile connective tissue throughout the body.
A chronically-ill woman who featured in a controversial commercial about euthanasia in Canada had complained months earlier that she wanted to live but couldn't access healthcare.
Jennyfer Hatch, 37, was the subject of a campaign by Canadian fashion giant La Maison Simons which documented her experience with end-of-life care before her death in October.
The jarring 'All is Beauty' commercial - which included audio of Jennyfer talking about her 'sacred' last breaths - was fiercely criticized over claims it glorified suicide.
It has now emerged that Jennyfer gave an interview in June in which she complained about 'falling through the cracks' in attempts to get treatment for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS).
She gives the harrowing conclusion that it was 'far easier to let go than keep fighting'.
And - something uplifting:
Doctors have performed brain surgery on a baby still in the womb in a groundbreaking operation.
The surgery was carried out at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. It was required to fix a blood vessel problem that can be fatal in the brain of a 34-week-old foetus.
The rare brain condition was known as vein of Galen malformation. It occurs when a blood vessel from the brain to the heart does not develop correctly.
In utero surgery — operations performed on babies before they are born — have been used for other conditions. The latest surgery was the first time it had been done for this particular condition.
But in Canada, science, reason and progress are enemies of the state.
Speaking of enemies of the state:
Canada’s intelligence service warned Thursday about the “security implications” posed by captured ISIS members the government is bringing home from detention camps in Syria.
Justin is more than happy to let them back in because they are not these sort of people:
Canada, not unlike much of the United States, was a very different place just a short time ago. Most Canadians used to believe in basic civil liberties. They could watch hockey games without being lectured about radical gender theory by teams donning pride-themed jerseys. Denouncing people for the color of their skin was seen as vicious, not virtuous.
But perhaps the most troubling of all changes to occur in recent years is the country’s open and growing hostility toward Christianity and, in particular, the Catholic faith.
According to new data released by the federal government, police-reported hate crimes targeting Catholics increased by a staggering 260 percent in 2021 compared to the previous year — by far the biggest spike experienced by any group over that time. Hate crimes against Jewish and black Canadians were reportedly up 47 percent and down 5 percent respectively, though both groups reported a higher total number of incidents than Catholics.
Anti-Catholic attacks across Canada rose nearly 10 times faster than all reported hate crimes combined, which were up 27 percent overall. This seems like an important development. So where is the outrage from politicians and the corporate media?
“A new report shows a record jump in hate crimes against the LGBTQ, Muslim and Jewish communities, prompting calls for more support for victims of the abuse,” one article from The Globe and Mail begins. The first of two brief references to the surge in hate crimes against Catholics is buried in the 14th paragraph. Another article by The Canadian Press failed to even mention the word “Catholic” a single time while reporting on the new figures.
Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is busy pandering to more fashionable groups. In March, he lamented the “disturbing rise in anti-transgender hate here in Canada and around the world.” Hate crimes targeting sexual orientation were reportedly up 64 percent.
Back in January, Trudeau announced the appointment of Amira Elghawaby as Canada’s first special representative on combatting Islamophobia. But, per the report, hate crimes in Canada are now more frequently directed at Catholics than Muslims — 155 incidents compared to 144. This inconvenient fact didn’t stop Trudeau from pushing his preferred narrative.
Also:
Scholars expressed amazement at the discovery of three letters written in the hand of Julia Otaa, a Korean woman who rose to high rank in 17th century Japan only to earn the moniker of “tragic Christian” for refusing to renounce her faith.
The Hagi Museum in Hagi, Yamaguchi Prefecture, announced April 19 that letters penned by her were donated by descendants of Otaa’s younger brother.
The trove also included a garment worn by renowned shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu (1543-1616) before it was gifted to Otaa’s younger brother.
Museum officials called the items “extremely valuable historical records.”
Otaa was mentioned in records kept by Jesuit priests in the 17th century.
Details of her early life are sketchy, but it is believed Otaa was 14 years old when she was seized as a hostage in Korea and taken to Japan during the invasion of the peninsula by the warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598).
In Japan, she was raised by Konishi Yukinaga, a Christian feudal lord who took part in the invasion and baptized as a Christian.
Julia was her Christian name, and her Japanese name was “Taa.”
After Yukinaga was defeated in the historic 1600 Battle of Sekigahara and executed, Otaa became a lady-in-waiting to Tokugawa Ieyasu.
But it is believed she was banished to Izu Oshima island south of Edo (modern-day Tokyo) for refusing to abandon her faith after Ieyasu banned Christianity in 1612 and lived the rest of her life in exile.
Her tragic life was made into a musical and a novel.
The three hand-written letters were passed down in the Murata family, a retainer family of the Choshu Domain (modern-day Yamaguchi Prefecture).
One of the letters is dated Aug. 19, 1609.
But ... the environment:
Shortly after President Joe Biden offered tax credits to anyone buying solar panels, a Colorado homeowner named Stacie took out loans to install $30,000 worth of panels on her roof. Nearly six months later, however, those panels sat unused, generating no power.
The problem seemed to have a simple fix: Stacie's energy provider merely needed to hook the panels up to its power grid—but there's no room.
**
True, there’s nothing noxious coming out of your exhaust pipe, because you don’t have one; and the electric motors that power your wheels certainly don’t burn any fossil fuel. But that doesn’t mean that your carbon footprint is zero. First of all, where did the electricity that charged that big battery of yours come from? If it came from renewable sources, then that’s definitely good for the planet. But in most countries, at least some of that electricity came from non-renewable sources, maybe even – shock, horror! – coal-burning generating stations.
Even if all the charging energy came from renewable sources, you’re still not in the clear. Your lovely new vehicle comes with a kind of embedded carbon debt. The factory that made it – the industrial plant that shaped and stamped and assembled all that steel and glass and plastic and rubber into a vehicle – emitted a lot of CO2 in the process. So you will have to drive a long way before the savings of CO2 that you would have emitted in driving the same distance in a fuel-burning car exceed the carbon emitted in its manufacture.
That doesn’t mean that your EV wasn’t a smart purchase, by the way – only that it’s not as good as it looked at first sight. After the Tesla Model 3 hit American roads, Reuters commissioned a study to see how its overall carbon footprint compared with that of an equivalent conventional car – in this case a Toyota Corolla. The researchers were looking for the “break-even point” – where the EV began to be less environmentally damaging than the Toyota.
The results were instructive. The break-even point depended on the source of the electricity used to charge the Tesla. For one charged entirely by renewable energy, it was 8,400 miles; for cars charged using the average US electricity generation mix (23% coal-fired, plus other fossil fuels and renewables), break-even came at 13,500 miles; and for electricity coming entirely from coal-fired stations, it was a whopping 78,700 miles.
Sobering, isn’t it. So the first lesson is that if you really want to minimise your EV’s environmental damage, then charge it using electricity from renewable sources.
But carbon emissions are not the only way these vehicles impose a burden on the planet and its inhabitants. If you look at an EV, what you’re really looking at is a giant skateboard with wheels at the four corners. The “board” is the battery, and it’s huge. The composition of a typical battery (by weight) looks like this: lithium 3.2%, cobalt 4.3%, manganese 5.5%; nickel 15.7%; aluminium 18.9%; other materials 52.5%. Many of these materials have been mined, shipped around the world and put through complex chemical processing before being assembled into a battery. These processes all have carbon footprints, and quantifying them isn’t easy, but they’re certainly substantial.
The environmental costs of the battery supply are only part of the story, though. It also has a human toll. Take Nickel. About two-thirds of the world’s supply comes from Indonesia, which is building nine new smelters to take advantage of the boom in demand. Local communities are understandably fearful of the impact of extraction and processing on their environment.
Then there’s lithium, some of the largest current reserves of which are in the salt flats of Chile, Bolivia and Argentina. The metal is extracted by evaporating the basins’ salt water, which threatens the limited water supplies and displaces local communities. So no free lunch there, either.
But worst of all is cobalt, which mostly comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo. According to the Washington Post 15% of that country’s mining operations are in the “informal” (unregulated) sector, which employs upwards of 200,000 people (including thousands of children, some as young as six) working in unregistered and badly ventilated mines.
Why was the EU instituted again?:
A new plan approved by the European Union will allow the Dutch government to buy-out farms and bar the displaced farmers from ever returning to their way of life.
The buy-out scheme is part of the EU’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by destroying the European farming sector. “A key part of the Dutch strategy involves buying up and halting work at farms responsible for large-scale emissions of nitrogen,” the Associated Press noted Tuesday.
The so-called “voluntary definitive closure” plan, approved by the European Commission (the EU’s executive arm), will ban farmers, who sell their livestock farms to the state, from returning to livestock farming in the Netherlands or anywhere else in the European bloc.
“Under the schemes, the beneficiaries guarantee that the closure of their production capacity is definitive and irreversible, and that they will not start the same breeding activity elsewhere in the Netherlands or within the EU,” the EU declared in a statement issued Tuesday.
The scheme worth over $1.60 billion seeks to close around 3000 farms across the Netherlands. “Nearly €1.5 billion will be used to compensate farmers who voluntarily close farms located near nature reserves. Some 3,000 farms are expected to be eligible,” the Frech TV channel Euronews reported Wednesday. “The Dutch ruling coalition wants to cut emissions, predominantly nitrogen oxide and ammonia, by 50 per cent nationwide by 2030.” the broadcaster added.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit to Seoul — the first such trip in over 12 years — and his cautious personal expression of contrition for Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula are expected to give South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol a boost and add more momentum to improving ties.
But while the two leaders will look to bask in the success of a fruitful summit, the relationship remains fragile — despite the breakneck speed of progress Kishida and Yoon have made, experts say.
Sunday's summit spotlighted the return of “shuttle diplomacy” — where leaders hold regular visits to each others’ countries — but also saw the Japanese leader reiterate his determination to stand by Japan’s past apologies for its 1910-45 colonial rule of the peninsula while delivering a rare articulation of his own feelings on the issue.
“My heart aches, as many people went through very difficult and sad experiences in the harsh environment at that time,” Kishida told a joint news conference after the summit, calling it his “duty as prime minister of Japan” to cooperate with South Korea to revitalize ties.
It was the first time since taking office that Kishida had publicly expressed his own thoughts on the delicate issue, which has been at the center of long-standing historical animosity between the neighbors. His remarks, plastered on the front of Japan’s major newspapers on Monday, offered a glimpse of the prime minister’s strong willingness to repair the relationship.
HA!:
The backlash against Anheuser-Busch is now coming from both sides of the political spectrum since the company teamed up with controversial transgender-identifying activist and social media influencer Dylan Mulvaney to advertise its Bud Light products.
Several gay bars in Chicago are now boycotting all Anheuser-Busch InBev products over the company’s alleged “anti-transgender actions and statements” in reaction to backlash from those unhappy with the Mulvaney partnership.
Why, it's like people don't care for this fetish-du-jour.
A Toronto-area school has decided to take down a sign featuring an appreciative message for moms ahead of Mother’s Day after one parent complained in a Facebook group that it was “exclusionary” and local media picked up the story.
No comments:
Post a Comment