Major infrastructure projects of national importance needed in Durham Region

Major infrastructure projects of national importance
needed in Durham Region
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
   Durham Region is a fast growing; dynamic region located east of Toronto, and is home to a highly skilled workforce, quality education and health care institutions, a growing technology sector and a unique rural / urban landscape.  Many of the communities appear in the national 'top 10 lists' of best places to live or start a business. They have an exceptional quality of life with communities that maintain the balance between urban amenities and green spaces as they are located in the proximity of the Rouge Urban National Park and the Lake Ontario waterfront.
   Unfortunately Durham Region had some major economic and social problems related to the recent closure of the General Motors facility in Oshawa and more problems are forthcoming with the imminent closing of the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant. That closure will create a drain of skilled workers from the region if no adequate measures are taken soon.
Durham Region does have several strategic priorities for the benefit of the residents and businesses to overcome these issues. It focuses on innovative projects and improvements to support the continued growth and prosperity of the Region.
Durham Region is committed to support some major infrastructure projects identified in the area but needs financial and related political support from both the federal and provincial governments.
This support is needed to continue to build a thriving community and overcome the infrastructure deficit estimated at a ratio of 1 in 10 when compared to the west end of the GTA.
The major infrastructure projects that are envisaged include:
1. The advancement of an airport and related industrial development on the federal lands in Pickering, which have been underutilized for close to a half of century, thus enabling the vision of a Toronto East "Aerotropolis".
The approximately 8,700 acres of land is sufficient to accommodate aerospace-related economic development, including transportation and logistics facilities, and indoor, year-round agriculture. The attraction of aviation and related companies to an airport complex will create thousands of high quality jobs, spark growth in the innovation corridor, strengthen Canada's global competitiveness, reduce traffic jams and strengthen business development in the region.
2. Invest in the implementation of a viable route planned for the Lakeshore GO East extension, which runs north of the 401, to ensure the transit expansion completes the integration of all GTA transit systems and meets the needs of the community and local business.
Metrolinx and the Province of Ontario committed to extend GO train service through Oshawa to Bowmanville along the CP rail line, with stops at Thornton Corners, Downtown Oshawa, Courtice and Bowmanville. The extension is supported by an approved environmental assessment, detailed planning, land acquisition and infrastructure improvements along the planned route.  All that is needed is action to implement the plan.
This project will provide the best opportunity to realize investment from the private sector, aid communities in revitalization of the downtown areas and allow residents to use public transit or active transportation to move between their homes and places of work rapidly and efficiently.
3.Partner with the Province of Ontario to ensure timely intake and approval of projects to build Durham's Integrated Rapid Transit Network.
The Region of Durham is developing infrastructure to continue to attract employment and residential growth. Forming a truly integrated network, the rapid transit lines will enable fast and reliable mobility for residents and visitors as they travel between the east GTA growth centers of Downtown Oshawa, Pickering City Centre and Scarborough Town Centre, connecting transportation, business and education hubs and contributing to the GTA's overall economic prosperity. Durham Region Transit (DRT) priority infrastructure projects will require support from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) funding with additional costs borne by the Region. The federal government has already committed $95 million towards transit in Durham. Receipt of ICIP funding is crucial for Durham to move these important transit infrastructure projects forward to meet the needs of our growing community.
4.The Connect To Innovate program to provide all Durham residents with broadband access.
Broadband (high speed Internet) provides connectivity in a world that is increasingly moving online.  Access to broadband is associated with quality of life and the economic competitiveness of communities. There are service gaps in Durham's rural areas and upgrading or installing broadband infrastructure is cost prohibitive for businesses, preventing them from taking advantage of innovative technology and increasing their economic vitality. In particular, Durham's rural communities need access to broadband due to the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence in farming. Connecting Durham Communities is of the utmost importance.
Presently the political representation for Durham Region at both the provincial and federal levels of government has the potential to give strong support to these initiatives. On the provincial side we have two senior ministers representing the Treasury Board and Finance Ministry, which are pivotal to providing financial support for capital projects. On the federal side there we also have Members of Parliament who are knowledgeable about the needs of the Region and senior enough to have a weight at the national level in promoting projects of national interest in the Region. If they are really interested in developing the Region I hope they will be able to work together for the benefit and advancement of the community.
Don't  you agree?

Solving homelessness without government

Solving homelessness without government
By Bryan Fischer
Homelessness is reaching epidemic proportions in America. On a single night in January 2018, there were 552,830 people experiencing homelessness in the United States. Slightly more than 1/3 of them – 35% – were unsheltered individuals. Government policies clearly have something to do with the problem. According to HUD, California has more than half of all the unsheltered homeless people in the country (108,432), with nine times as many unsheltered homeless as Florida, even though its population is only twice that of Florida. The states and jurisdictions with the highest rates of homelessness have all been governed for decades by Democrats: New York, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, and Washington, D.C., which has a homeless rate of six times the national average. Los Angeles is awash in 50,000 homeless folks. San Francisco is being overrun with people who sleep in doorways and attack strangers with no provocation. The City by the Bay just lost a $64 million high-tech conference because conferees don't want to have to navigate piles of human waste on their way to dinner. Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington are likewise up to their earlobes in the problem. Santa Rosa, California is pursuing the most bone-headed non-solution in recent memory. City fathers there intend to spend $3 million to buy three buildings, buildings which right now are inhabited by renters. The plan is to kick all the renters out and move all the homeless in. Apparently no one is bothering to ask exactly how you solve homelessness by creating more homelessness.
All of these "solutions" are enormously expensive and absolutely not a single one of them will work. New Mexico is looking to taxpayers to cough up another $14 million to build a new government-run shelter, in what will prove to be a vain attempt to slow its 27% increase in its homeless population in 2019. Brain-dead regressives will simply throw more money at the problem, expanding the size of government exponentially and expanding the population of the homeless at the same pace. You always get more of what you subsidize. You want more homeless people, subsidize homelessness.
And homelessness is expensive. Nearly a third of all emergency room visits are made by people struggling with chronic homelessness, 80% of them with illnesses that could have been treated with preventative care. An average of $18,500 per year per person is spent on the homeless who visit emergency rooms. The optimum solution to chronic homelessness is what's called "supportive housing," which provides not just a place to sleep but help with life issues like mental health and character development. A solution must be found that provides supportive housing but does not involve government resources or the problem will never be solved. Government blights everything it touches, because just throwing money at a problem almost never fixes it. What follows is my suggested solution to start the discussion.
The fundamental solution is quite simple: get the government entirely out of the homeless problem. Phase out all taxpayer-funded government programs and transfer the responsibility entirely to privately funded non-profits. This must be accompanied with a resolve never to coerce taxpayers into coughing up dollars again to solve a problem government cannot solve. And it must be accompanied by an unambiguous commitment to religious liberty for these non-profits.
In my hometown of Boise, Idaho, the city tried to run a homeless shelter and miserably failed. So they donated the facility they had built to the local Rescue Mission, which was doing a fabulous job of, well, rescuing homeless men from the streets. Immediately, regressives went to work insisting that the Rescue Mission refuse to require residents to attend a chapel before receiving a free meal. The Rescue Mission had to go to federal court to protect a practice that was central to their ability to help vulnerable men. Doing all this will control public costs and place a cap on the number of homeless people any one city can absorb. Once the cap number is reached, and every privately-funded bed is occupied, vagrancy laws and public camping laws can and should be rigorously enforced. If recipients refuse to cooperate with non-profit homeless shelters, they can be given a bus ticket to the nearest city that still runs taxpayer-funded shelters. If that is the kind of help they insist on, then in Christian compassion let's help them get to places that offer that kind of help. Such government-run shelters are infinitely expandable whether they are helping anybody or not, since bureaucrats can always soak local taxpayers for more money and harangue them as cold-hearted if they balk at the astronomical tab.
Non-profit shelters, 90% of which will be run by people of Christian faith, will not just provide a bed and a meal. They will offer classes in developing responsibility, self-reliance, and a growing faith in God. There is nothing noble or compassionate about fostering a lifestyle of government dependency, which is all any government-funded programs do. The principle at a non-profit shelter will be simple: if a man will not work, he will not eat. Work might mean something as simple as becoming a volunteer member of the grounds crew for the local park system. (Back in the day, as Marvin Olasky writes, some shelters would send a resident across the street to chop firewood for his supper.)
If residents refuse to follow the simple but clear rules, they can be invited into the main office and given a bus ticket to some place where the government will take care of them as only the government can.
The role of elected officials will simply be to serve as cheer-leaders for the non-profits, helping by speaking at fund-raisers and cutting the red tape and regulations that stifle compassionate innovation. They also can use their influence with wealthy businesses and businessmen in their community to engage in genuine philanthropy. Not only is government-run welfare outreach doomed to fail, it is also unconstitutional. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, voted against a congressional appropriation to help victims of a natural disaster. When asked why, he explained. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, the Bad Priest, and the Bad Levite is on point here. The priest and the Levite avoided the beaten traveler like he carried the bubonic plague. But the Good Samaritan showed genuine compassion – not by running off to the nearest city council and demanding a new program or a new building – but by reaching into his own pocket to help the helpless victim. Liberals believe generosity is giving away other people's money, while Christian constitutionalists believe generosity is giving away your own money.
And note that the Samaritan didn't have to take the traveler into his own home to receive the praise of Jesus. He found someone who was better at taking care of travelers than he was, and paid out of his own pocket to free the innkeeper up to do his thing. We've tried it the government's way. Let's give James Madison, Jesus, and their philosophy a shot. It can't be any worse than what we're doing right now.

from Wayne & Tamara The Me-time I'm 20, my ex is 21. We've known each other since the fourth grade. We were always somewhat close, but we grew much closer in high school. Finally, our senior year, we realized we felt something for each other, at least I thought so, and we started going out. We were together about three years and eight months. In fact, today would be three years and eight months. Two days ago, he broke up with me. We had what I thought was a solid relationship. We talked about our future together, and he and I both said we believed we were soulmates. We both came with emotional baggage, but when push came to shove, we always managed to talk about things. He even asked me to move in with him next summer! I love him with all my heart and soul, and he said he did too. The problem is, while he says he still loves me a lot, there's a girl he met online he has feelings for. He wants to explore those feelings. Beyond that, he feels he hasn't been taking enough time for himself. He was so paranoid about how I would react to him wanting to hang out with his friends that he's been sneaking out to see them! He said he doesn't consider us apart, just “rocky.” Yet he took back the sweetheart ring he gave me. I was so certain he was the one, but what is he doing to us now? We're “rocky”? He still loves me? He asked if I'd be there for him if he was making a mistake. I said, if I was, I'd have to look where they stamped “WELCOME” on me because I'm not a doormat. I tried to let him go with grace, but I feel like I'm dying inside. My friends aren't here for me either. They're all wrapped up in themselves even though I've always dropped everything for them. Is that my mistake? Do I give too much? I don't know. But what do I do about him? Do I get over him, or do I hold to the hope he'll realize he's wrong? Cosette Cosette, you can think it’s love until the moment the other person says, it isn’t. Your ex wants to try another woman on for size. Will he tell her he has you waiting in the wings? Of course not. Consent to this and it puts you on his level. He knows you are a giver by the way you treat your friends. That’s what he hoped to take advantage of. He said he felt he could not see his friends because of how you would react. That’s like blaming you for not calling him Pooky, when he never said, “I’d like you to call me Pooky.” He made up something he imagined you would feel, but that has nothing to do with wanting to date another girl. There’s no logic there, just blame. So he drops this nonsense on you, and of course you couldn’t immediately process what drivel it was because it put you in a highly charged state. He should simply have said, “I am attracted to someone else. Can I have my ring back?” Still, we don’t blame either of you because what you two had was like. An internet girl came along and proved it wasn’t love. With the tiny experience of the world you each have, you liked each other more than you liked anyone else. You paired up over commonalities, years together, and what you call “shared baggage.” But commonalities often breed a false sense of closeness. You don’t need friends to lean on. You figured it out. No retry, second chances, or crying to come back to you. It’s over. Now you must get back on your path. You were making we-plans at a time in your life when you make me-plans. At your age, just becoming an adult, your life should be all about you. What are your plans, what are your goals, what does your future look like to you? That’s where to begin. Wayne & Tamara Send letters to: DirectAnswers@WayneAndTamara.com

from Wayne & Tamara

I'm 20, my ex is 21. We've known each other since the fourth grade. We were always somewhat close, but we grew much closer in high school. Finally, our senior year, we realized we felt something for each other, at least I thought so, and we started going out.
We were together about three years and eight months. In fact, today would be three years and eight months. Two days ago, he broke up with me. We had what I thought was a solid relationship. We talked about our future together, and he and I both said we believed we were soulmates. We both came with emotional baggage, but when push came to shove, we always managed to talk about things. He even asked me to move in with him next summer!
I love him with all my heart and soul, and he said he did too. The problem is, while he says he still loves me a lot, there's a girl he met online he has feelings for. He wants to explore those feelings. Beyond that, he feels he hasn't been taking enough time for himself. He was so paranoid about how I would react to him wanting to hang out with his friends that he's been sneaking out to see them! He said he doesn't consider us apart, just “rocky.” Yet he took back the sweetheart ring he gave me.
I was so certain he was the one, but what is he doing to us now? We're “rocky”? He still loves me? He asked if I'd be there for him if he was making a mistake. I said, if I was, I'd have to look where they stamped “WELCOME” on me because I'm not a doormat.
I tried to let him go with grace, but I feel like I'm dying inside. My friends aren't here for me either. They're all wrapped up in themselves even though I've always dropped everything for them. Is that my mistake? Do I give too much? I don't know. But what do I do about him? Do I get over him, or do I hold to the hope he'll realize he's wrong?
Cosette

The Me-time
Cosette, you can think it’s love until the moment the other person says, it isn’t. Your ex wants to try another woman on for size. Will he tell her he has you waiting in the wings? Of course not. Consent to this and it puts you on his level. He knows you are a giver by the way you treat your friends. That’s what he hoped to take advantage of.
He said he felt he could not see his friends because of how you would react. That’s like blaming you for not calling him Pooky, when he never said, “I’d like you to call me Pooky.” He made up something he imagined you would feel, but that has nothing to do with wanting to date another girl. There’s no logic there, just blame. So he drops this nonsense on you, and of course you couldn’t immediately process what drivel it was because it put you in a highly charged state. He should simply have said, “I am attracted to someone else. Can I have my ring back?” Still, we don’t blame either of you because what you two had was like. An internet girl came along and proved it wasn’t love. With the tiny experience of the world you each have, you liked each other more than you liked anyone else.
You paired up over commonalities, years together, and what you call “shared baggage.” But commonalities often breed a false sense of closeness. You don’t need friends to lean on. You figured it out. No retry, second chances, or crying to come back to you. It’s over.
Now you must get back on your path. You were making we-plans at a time in your life when you make me-plans. At your age, just becoming an adult, your life should be all about you. What are your plans, what are your goals, what does your future look like to you? That’s where to begin. Wayne & Tamara
Send letters to: DirectAnswers@WayneAndTamara.com

The Sad State of Democracy in Canada

The Sad State of Democracy in Canada
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
Today I direct your attention to the sad state of affairs in the building of the LNG pipeline in northern British Columbia which crosses the Wet'suwet'en territory.  All the rules were followed and all the legal steps were respected in establishing the route of the proposed pipeline, yet suddenly protests were initiated all over Canada by a small minority in support of some hereditary chiefs opposed to the project.
The protesters have blockaded the rail system all over Canada in blatant disregard of the rule of law in this country. The services are crippled and people are being laid off. The damage to the economy is immense but nobody seems to care.
Protesters of many stripes have the upper hand in pockets of the country, probably not even Canadians.  The national interest has no defender today; not by the governing liberals, nor the week conservative opposition, or the other puppet parties. The preferred solution of the government is not a return to order and apprehension of the offenders but rather, the use of the so called "dialogue" mechanism.
This obsolete and amorphous prescription generated by the politically correct approach as the lowest form of leadership sophistry used by the government of the day, shows a complete isolation from the evident reality. Let's call a spade a spade, and call this vacillation and the evasion of responsibility.
A government that seems incapable of enforcing the rule of law or asserting the national interest has lost the will to govern and is not fit to represent the interest of the nation. It has effectively ceded the right to govern.
Dialogue is no prescription for those who refuse to listen because they believe themselves to be custodians of the only truth as communists usually do. They break the laws of the land with abandon, certain that they will face no consequences. This is anarchy.
Many of their complaints have been addressed extensively by the courts and by the responsible regulatory agencies and have been endorsed by duly elected band councils. Yet nothing but abject capitulation is what is being demanded.
Grievances of many kinds are used to justify what we are witnessing in various parts of the country, vestiges of mob rule, the antithesis of the democratic values we cherish and have been long established in our own Canadian identity.
Opposition to pipelines, the safest and most efficient means for transporting oil and gas, nuclear energy, the cleanest form of electricity generation,  and exploitation of our natural resources, has gone from irrational to hysterical.
Our competitors in the U.S., Australia and the EU, among other nations on the globe, can barely suppress outright laughter as they watch the folly and madness of Canada strangling the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of its citizens who prefer to work rather than protest.
India and China and even Japan mock us openly by going ahead with increased coal generated electricity while espousing empty commitments to the Paris Accord. Not to mention Russia, who thinks maybe the Canadian government will blame them for its current situation, claiming their interference in the internal affairs of Canada.
"Do you know that one of the great problems of our age is that we are governed by people who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas."
Margaret Thatcher
Today we are living in a country where the political establishment lacks vision and leadership.  Instead of a clear sense of direction, they take refuge in politically correct wording and newly created mythologies. Instead of leadership, they subject us to babblings and senseless justifications based on fake feelings.
The rule of law has been parked in the holding cell. Our law enforcement agencies are idled, awaiting the direction no one in government seems willing to give. In the absence of firm political leadership, fingers are pointed everywhere except where they belong.
The priorities for any Canadian government are national unity, prosperity and security. We are now in urgent demand to decide, resolve and act to respect the above. Tensions are increasing in western Canada as efforts to develop their major energy resource are negated or red taped by excessive and useless bureaucratic regulations and malefic neglect. Our economy at this point is suffering, and our security is gravely compromised by the unwillingness of those who purport to govern to uphold the law.
Before we try to save the planet and lecture others about respect for the rule of law, we urgently need to refurbish the national fabric in our own country.
We are slowly sliding towards a national paralysis with the same degree of complacency and indulgence that brought us to these self-inflicted crisis policies that have crippled our competitiveness, set region against region, compromised our global image and left us quarrelling over unimportant and obsolete issues.
Let's be clear: All of these practices amount to sheer neglect of our present and the future of the country, and perversely, the tolerance for inaction in Canada seems to be at an all-time high.
We need a firm combination of leadership and action. What do you think?

THE AMERICANS ARE ON A WAR CALL FOR DEMOCRACY WE IN CANADA STILL PLAYING COWBOYS AND INDIANS

By Joe Ingino
Editor/Publisher

   I was at the U.S. during the latest democratic debate.   No matter the town people  engaged. Everyone attacked another. Meanwhile Republicans enjoying the easy picking of info each candidate attempted to toss towards the other.   From whom ever they pick.  They are done.  To many wholes in the U.S.S.DEMOC
I understood that the Democratic party stood for:
 The modern Democratic party emphasizes egalitarianism and social equality through liberalism. They support voting rights and minority rights, including LGBT rights, multiculturalism, and religious secularism.
  To me it sound like if this stood true.  They in the name of inclusion.  Would no go public and slug it out.
I don’t think it is about winning or loosing... as I said previous.  NO chance to defeat Trump.   The way I see it.  Once Trump has served his terms as required by law.  He would have his wife run and she would win.  No question about it. The desperation by the democrats is so great that they are bringing a billionaire.  Then they slice him and dice him... maybe they are blinded by hate for Trump they heard a successful man...bite,bite,bite...without realizing maybe he would stood a chance.
I can tell you one thing from experience.  Ever since Trump took office and introduced the Oil and fracking to middle America.   America has become oil self serving.  No more arab oil.  I know America is very conservative as when you travel through some of those small towns.  They are friendly and polite but in an eery kind of way.  
The Democrats have run aground.  And now to Canada.   If Justin can’t figure out the magic potion.   Face west and look left comrade.  Learn from a guy that has turned his country around.
That pipeline is the ticket.  That pipeline is your re-election.   The country is on a downward spiral.  No jobs, no real opportunities and sit waiting for something possitive to take place.  Justin need to unite the country.  He needs to give a vision.  He needs to take direction so that future generation can look back and learn from.  NO INSTEAD IN CANADA WE ARE LEFT PLAYING COWBOYS AND INDIANS.  It should be if it is good for the nation it is good for you.

.

SHOULD CNN BE DEEMED AN ENEMY OF THE STATE?

SHOULD CNN BE DEEMED

AN ENEMY OF THE STATE?

By Joe Ingino

Plato's Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "foolish leaders of Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."

I remember during one of my visits to Cuba turning on the television and channel after channel Castro this Castro that. The political message was intertwined in the news items and you knew that freedom of the press was nothing but government propaganda. We snub our noses at socialist regimes not to mention communist countries as oppressive of it’s people. For the longest of time in the United States some people actually believed that Russians were born with tails and grew horns, especially during the height of the cold war. Crazy!!!

Well let’s look at the role of the media and how they can influence popular opinion. Governments throughout history have depended on the ability to oppress through the control of information. Whether it was to announce war or economic stability. The voice of government was deemed a source of acceptance, criticism and opinion.

The right message would control the population at large to do whatever government wanted.

With this said. One has to wonder about modern society as the general population at large are now for the first time in human history have the ability to access infinite sources of information on just about any particular topic. With the introduction of the internet. Myth is debunked. Popular thought challenged.

The governments of the world find the internet a threat to their stability as for the first time in history the masses can unite under popular believes and fueled their position through a variety of uncontrollable sources. Since the Internet hit the masses. Government all over the world have grappled with what to do. How to control it and how to manipulate it. Government pages don’t work. Mass media messages fail to hit their mark over the net. The only option available is to intertwine within the system in a format that people can relate. The open news networks. If a government has influence in one news agency then they can spread their agenda without the people knowing what is happening to them.

This in part explains the many network channels favoring one political party over another.

Take CNN for example. “CNN The most trusted name in news” or so is their slogan. Are they really? Trusted by whom? You can’t watch CNN for more than five minutes without hearing the word Trump in one form or another. Some may say that it is much like in Cuba a government controlled station. The only difference is that the name Trump is used in a negative way. Denouncing every action the President takes. Attacking the Presidents character, family, friends and etiquette. It appears that character bashing is their primary agenda. How can this be the ‘most trusted name in news’? How are the people to trust something that is obviously skewed towards a particular political party?

With all this talk of ‘DEEP STATE’ operating withing the United States. One has to wonder if CNN is not their news outlet. Their voice to the world.

A ‘DEEP STATE’, by definition: is a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies (DEMOCRATIC PARTY) or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.

CNN is clearly spreading propaganda and not news. By definition propaganda is: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. As for CNN, “BREAKING NEWS”. In the ‘Situation Room”, is nothing as giving themselves importance to spread a hidden agenda.

Is this not act of treason against the United States? Is this not anti-American?

Treason by defenition is: trea·son the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. The action of betraying someone or something.

If this stands true to definition. Is not attempting to defame, bash the office of the Commander in Chief and attempt to kill the integrity of his presidency in an attempt to create a social coup?

A coup by definition is: In a coup, it is the military, paramilitary, or opposing political faction that deposes the current government and assumes power.

Is this not what CNN attempts to do by attempting to influence people’s minds? Is CNN not guilty of being part of a DEEP STATE attempt to support a political coup of the United States elected government?

Can this not be deemed an act of treason against the people of the United States and democracy?

CNN by broadcasting bias news are they not controlling peoples opinion through a form of mind control?

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, reeducation, brainsweeping, coercive persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) is a general term for a number of controversial theories proposing that an individual's thinking, behavior, emotions or decisions can, to a greater or lesser extent, be manipulated arbitrarily .... Is this not the purpose of CNN.

CNN under the protection of freedoms and liberties can’t be touched as they run under the umbrella of freedom of the press.

CNN is the new weapon against the people. A form of playing with people’s ignorance. One thing that has to be remembered is that no matter how educated a person may be. The world clock stops for no man and we never know the truth that govern us.

Those that control our political system or as we know it. Our government. Have the ultimate control over our futures.

It is no more about the people. It is not about doing what is right. Democracy has become about money, power and control. It has become an oppressive power at all points of political interests.

Look at the shamble the Democratic party is in. CNN reporting on the democratic cacusses as if they are going to make any difference who they elect. The Democrats have no real contender to go up against Trump. This is why they are betting on bashing and slandering his good name.

The Democratic party is desperate. Unfortunately, the Democratic party has no real strategist to lead them to unity. During the debates more time was spent in fighting then showing unity on key important issues. This is not a time to air difference within the party. Now is the time to unite and all candidates pull for one of the same cause.

It is sad to see the real face of democracy. The candidates making empty promises and versing what could/would benefit the people. In reality it is clear that all the democratic candidates are in it for themselves. It is about a larger pay day and more power. Democracy is being tested as religion has. We live in a life of never ending change. Is CNN the voice of the DEEP STATE? Should CNN be deemed the enemy of the state?

What do you think?

THE TRUE ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY EXPOSED

THE TRUE ESSENCE OF

DEMOCRACY EXPOSED

By Joe Ingino

Editor/Publisher

The old line, ‘BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE’ has been fashionable for the longest time when referencing the essence of democracy.

Unfortunately democracy much like most of the political ideologies out there have been exposed for what they really are.

Tools of controlling the masses through ideology that gives the general population a false sense of ownership and belonging in a society.

In reality they are prisoners of their own circumstances force to comply through law and norms.

We the people are sheep that need to be lead through confusion and false pretenses. We follow he/she whom bellows what we want to hear and devote our lives to causes that by their own riteousness are set forth to oppress us without our acknowledgement and or will. We are mislead to assumptions and presumptions that has us live in shelter of our own ignorance. We surrender our ability to fend for ourselves in the name of national security. We fall victims of a social system that is set forth for us to fail and anyone succeeding is extracted into those of governance.

Our society is made up of three types. The informed, the misinformed and the outright ignorant. Or as we best know them the rich, the middle class and the poor. No matter the political ideology all three exist.

One has to wonder how this phenomena is so true.

Just this past week I think the beginning to the end of American democracy has shown itself to millions of people.

During the state of the Union in the United States.... and event as important and significant to democracy as the Pope Easter message for the Christians. Leader of the opposing government showed what democracy today is all about. Vice President Pence noted it best.

Pence: Pelosi ripping up Trump's State of the Union speech 'was a new low' Administration.

Not only for the administration but for democracy. Her actions were inappropriate to say the least. As one of the top officials of government she should have used better judgement. Unfortunately her feeling and emotions over took her better judgement and she acted out. As some sort of child lashing out against authority. Her actions put under the microscope the American democratic system. A system that is supposed to be by the people for the people. In reality you can’t run for office unless you are a millionaire. You can’t take any office unless you are well connected. What does this tell you about democracy? That is a system based on cronyism wealth and power. It is a system that is as impartial as partisan. There is not real nonpartisan governance. It is hypocritical to think that. Pelosi actions clear showed that. During the speech instead of showing decorum and dignity for the office she hold and just sit there through the speech. No she looked at times as the conductor of a symphony as she set the tone for her cronies. Is that democracy?

I always believed that no matter if you win or loose you stood proudly behind your president. I thought that was the code of conduct and what it meant to be a good citizen.

Pelosi can have her opinion and her dislikes towards the president. She can even go as far as on her time take an active role in denouncing the president. But to do it during a formal gathering where the world is watching. This in my opinion is anti-American. It was a vindictive, self riteous act that served no purpose other than show how putrid democracy has become.

And now to the Democrats attempt to come up with a golden ticket to the presidency. From the Russians to the Hungarian's nothing sticks. Enough is enough. Use that negative energy to serve the people you represent.

It is not about the average person. This election is not about you or me. It is about them attempting to push and agenda to better themselves. To gain power to push their agenda and in the process gain wealth. This is not democracy. We need a new choice. A new system to govern our countries.

In Canada democracy has become a popularity contest. We in Canada don’t vote on merit. We vote on name recognition. I bet if old ‘TIM HORTON’ if he is still alive would run. He win hands down.

For this reason I support the People Party of Canada. A party to hopefully soon be registered. The PPC is about you and me. It is about bringing together the best from the right and the left and melt it down so that you the tax paying people of Canada get one hundred percent benefit.

Under this new party, we will introduce the concept of ‘PEOPLEISM’. A political ideology that incorporates the fundamental democratic principles of election and choice. The difference is that this new party will re-focus our priorities back to the Canadian population. Now don't’ get me wrong. It will have nothing to do with nationalism. This new party is about protecting your rights, it is about expanding your benefits and promoting the Canadian way of life. The new system will be heavily dependent on public opinion and public participation. Our great country was not made of one effort but countless efforts. Our country is great due to the sacrifice and hard work.

We are Canadians and we are tired of being used, manipulated and controlled by a government with a secret agenda. A selfish and preserving agenda. This has to stop. We need to take our Canada back. Want more information. Call 905-441-2657

BLACK HISTORY MONTH HOW CAN WE ALL BE EQUAL WHEN WE KEEP CELEBRATING DIFFERENCES?

BLACK HISTORY MONTH

HOW CAN WE ALL BE EQUAL

WHEN WE KEEP CELEBRATING

DIFFERENCES?

By Joe Ingino

Editor/Publisher

In these modern times one has to wonder why we are so confused.

How can on one hand, society force us to accept concepts/ideologies that go against our common sense and rational thinking and make the claim we are all so equal, yet on the other it celebrates obvious differences?

The news release it read:

Every February we celebrate Black History Month, a time when we honor the significant contributions Black Canadians have made and continue to make in our country. This is another opportunity to appreciate, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau often says, that diversity is Canada's strength.”

One has to question the validity of the claim we are all equal when we have such division within equality. The questions comes down to are we truly all equal? Are we all prejudice and or bias and in part is what makes us so equal?

Is the celebration of one race’s achievement over another in itself wrong prejudice/discriminatory? This brings to question and to the realization that we all are the same under humanity but share different characteristics of equality.

If we entertain the fallacy then we must bring to further question the reasoning/logic of celebrating achievements base on color of skin.

After all the celebration clearly states BLACK. Not browns, yellow, red.

Are we to set a side for the ‘BROWNS’, YELLOWS, REDS in society. If so are we not being prejudice by isolating a people based on race, color of their skin?

Society is a system in place much like the Internet. Set forth for the general public in order to inform each other. But much like the Internet. Society has become tainted by popular thought, science, religion and government. All being piped out at us behind storm after storm of agenda based controversies. In part moulding our thoughts and opinions. Sublimenly, controlling our thoughts, choices and quality of life.

We believe what we hear not what we know based on common sense and experience. We hear what we want to hear in order to validate our confusion. Our intellect is nothing short of a skill that allows us privileges above others. We are confused by choice as have surrendered the ability to rationalize. To use common sense and to appreciate reality for what it is.

Raw and unfiltered. Modern society is so filtered that it has lost it’s essence. Social core values have deteriorated to the point that all it takes is an act against a people to spark violence in our street. Humanity has been filtered to the point that the irrational is rational and what was once deemed rational is now nothing short of insanity.

Personally I believe we are all special with special talents. Our forefathers achievements are exactly that. Our forefathers. Now note that in my quest to understand and in order to validate the fact we are all equal. I did not distinguish between forefathers as they all played their significant role in shaping history. If this is how society should act in the inclusion of equality and diversity. Then I ask again. Why do we celebrate ‘BLACK HISTORY MONTH’?

Canadian politics at the beginning of 2020

Canadian politics at the beginning of 2020
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
   Canadian politics at the beginning of 2020
In preparation for the opening of the House of Commons on the 27th of January, political parties are working hard to get ready for the minority government.

The liberal caucus met for three days in Winnipeg focusing on their objectives in the context of the new reality; as a minority government they will need opposition support to survive and get anything done.

We know for sure that the first, immediate order of business once the House resumes will be the ratification of the new NAFTA deal, CUSMA (Canada, US, Mexico Agreement).

Passing CUSMA is one of the priorities for the liberal government. Whether it will pass or not is another question. It seems that the Bloc Quebecois won't support the new deal without more supports for aluminum workers, and neither the NDP nor the Conservatives are clear on their support, with both parties having said they want to review it closely.

Other items on the liberals' radar, include pharmacare, protecting the environment and stricter gun control measures, but there are no specifics on what may come forward as legislation or when. They are basically focusing on their campaign promises, but how they will be able to deliver is a question mark for the moment.

On national pharmacare for example, the Liberals could face opposition not just from other federal parties, but from provinces and territories as well, since health care is a provincial responsibility.

On gun control, the implementation of different Liberal proposals would happen eventually in a multi-stage process, with a proposed ban on assault rifles coming first, and a buy-back program later, but this will be a complex issue.

Meanwhile, on medically-assisted dying, Quebec's Superior Court has handed the Liberals a due date of March 11, to make changes to federal legislation, after the court found some parts of it too restrictive, and therefore unconstitutional.

So it seems that the Liberal plan for the winter sessions may be clear - CUSMA, pharmacare, gun control, climate action - but how and when they plan to move on most of them still remains a mystery.

While the Liberals are strategizing about how they will do business in the context of a minority government, the official opposition, the Conservative Party is involved in a leadership contest, after the resignation of their leader as a result of last year's disappointing (for them) election.

The Conservatives are trying to figure out how to become the governing party again, but they might make their own situation worse. Personally, I fear they may choose a leader repellent to the West and unattractive to the rest of the country.

However, the core of the Conservative problem appears to be far more complicated. They want to please everybody, but wind up pleasing nobody. They want to appeal to socially liberal young urbanites and their cranky rural base at the same time.

They promise lavish spending and stimulative deficits plus tax cuts and balanced budgets.
They want to appeal to Quebec while not appeasing it.
They want to cut equalization and increase it.
They want to eliminate corporate subsidies and give them to everyone.
They want to have internal free trade and a milk marketing cartel.
They are trying to move left and in the mean time seeking support of their right-wing base
These counter-objectives define the essence of the Conservative split personality that must be resolved if they are to succeed.  To be successful, a political party must have a unique and unified vision for how best to govern the country so it will move ahead both economically and culturally.

I am often bewildered at how they expect the electorate to vote for them as long as they do not have original ideas on governing differently from the Liberals, but only try to imitate them.

In view of this philosophical confusion and with a full leadership contest ahead of them, the Conservative efficiency in the House of Commons in the spring session will be predictably weak.
With regard to the other official parties in the House, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, their role might be more important in the context of a minority government. They have not yet revealed where they stand on some issues, but that will depend on the situation and legislation introduced by the Liberals. However, I do not believe they will be eager to bring down the government. The NDP especially, which lost half of their seats in the last election, reduced to only one seat in Quebec where they had  a stronghold before, will be cautious not to trigger an unexpected election in which they might lose their party status. So they will be trying to save face in the House in order to maintain their base support.

In conclusion, it will be an interesting spring in Parliament, and there will certainly be some surprises. We can be assured however, that this upcoming parliamentary session will be less boring than it would be in a majority government context. 

Don't you think?

Gifford-Jones: “People Are Dying Needlessly of Coronavirus”

Gifford-Jones: “People Are Dying Needlessly of Coronavirus”
By W. Gifford-Jones M.D.

Gifford-Jones: “People Are Dying Needlessly of Coronavirus”
          Why “needless” deaths from this threatening virus? Because doctors, health authorities, hospital administrators and politicians have not read history. Not even the Chinese!  This week several members of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (OMNS) were asked, “How would you treat the coronavirus?” Here are opinions of experts who study the potential of nutrients to fight disease.
Dr. Andrew W. Saul, an international expert on vitamin therapy, says, “The coronavirus can be dramatically slowed or stopped completely with the immediate widespread use of high doses of vitamin C. Bowel tolerance levels of C taken in divided doses throughout the day, is a clinically proven antiviral, without equal.”
Saul adds, “Dr. Robert F. Cathcart, who had extensive experience treating viral diseases remarked, ‘I have not seen any flu yet that was not cured or markedly ameliorated by massive doses of vitamin.”
Professor Victor Marcial-Vega of the Caribe School of Medicine responds, “Given the relatively high rate of success of intravenous vitamin C in viral diseases and my observation of clinical improvement within 2 to 3 hours of treatment, I strongly believe it would be my first recommendation in the management of the coronavirus.”
   He adds, “I have also used intravenous vitamin C to treat patients with influenza, dengue fever, and chikungunya, for 24 years.”
Dr. Jeffery Allyn Ruterbusch, Associate Professor at Central Michigan University says, “I believe all of us agree on the greatly increased benefits of vitamin C when people are placed under any stressful condition.”
Dr. Damien Downing, former editor of the Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, writes “Swine flu, bird flu, and SARS, all developed in selenium-deficient China. When patients were given selenium, viral mutation rates dropped and immunity improved.”
Several other authorities agreed that high doses of vitamin C, along with 3,000 IU of vitamin D, and 20 milligrams of zinc, was a good combination to help fight viral diseases. And Drs. Carolyn Dean, and Thomas Levy, both world authorities on magnesium, stressed that the mineral is involved in 1,000 metabolic reactions and that maintaining adequate levels improves immunity. Another over-riding opinion was that few people know that high doses of C increase immunity and destroy viral diseases.
This information is not new. During the great polio epidemic of 1949-50 Dr. Frederick R. Klenner, a family physician in North Carolina, treated 60 polio patients with high doses of intravenous vitamin C. None developed paralysis. This discovery should have made headlines around the world but Dr. Klenner’s news fell on deaf ears.
Later, Klenner proved that high doses of C could also be effective as treatments for meningitis, pneumonia, measles, hepatitis and other viral and bacterial diseases. Even the bite of a rattlesnake. Again only scorn from the medical profession.
What does this mean to North Americans? Patients with a diagnosis of coronavirus should be given intravenous vitamin C, and it will save lives. The problem is that most doctors still refuse to believe IVC is effective.
          I’m not your doctor. But my family and friends know to visit a health food store and stock up on Medi C Plus, a powdered form of vitamin C that I developed which allows for high doses to be easily consumed and which contains needed lysine and magnesium. Vitamin C pills will do, but you must swallow many of them. Start taking 2000 mg twice a day to build up immunity. If flu symptoms develop, take 2,000 mg every hour up to bowel tolerance, and see a doctor. Large doses of C cause loose stools. But better to sit on a toilet than under a gravestone.
Sign-up at www.docgiff.com to receive my weekly e-newsletter and follow me on Facebook and Twitter @giffordjonesmd.  For comments, info@docgiff.com

Onlinedocgiff.com                                                              Comments info@docgiff.com

Nightmare on Elm Street

Nightmare on Elm Street
from Wayne & Tamara
    I just separated from my husband this weekend, and my heart literally feels torn from my inside. But I asked for it. We've only been married a year. We dated two years prior to that, and I fell for him mostly because he is The Man of all men.
He is so precious, but I took advantage of that. We clicked so well. I started having family problems with my father and brothers who are alcoholics, and I wanted to be there for them, a little too much. I ran up there constantly (they live six hours away), and I made plans to have one of my brothers move in with me to get him out of a bad situation.
My husband disagreed. Ever since, there grew a distance between us. I started seeing someone else, never sexually, but it was still cheating. A few months ago I told my husband, and he begged me to work on our marriage. So we went to counseling.
A few weeks ago I started to feel our marriage was a mistake, so I brought up my feelings. He apparently had enough of hearing it and took all necessary steps to arrange our divorce. I guess that's why I'm writing. Not only do you now know how much of a loser I am, but also that I realize giving him up is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. Let me tell you, I've faced guns put to family members’ heads as a child and that was a piece of cake compared to this experience. I bawled and felt empty all weekend. It's Sunday night and I'm about to lose it, but before I do, I want to ask you one thing. Would it be a mistake to move up north away from it all to be with my family, or would it be wise? Judging from what I've told you about my family I think I know the answer. I just need to hear it from some people who know their stuff. Remi
Remi, your father had a disorder. It might be his fault. It might be someone else’s fault. It might be in his DNA. It might be a disease. It might be the result of converging factors. We don’t care what the explanation is. His disorder was communicable. He infected your brothers with his disorder, and he also infected you. How deep was his infection? This deep.
Human beings have an inborn bias in favor of protecting the young. But your father was so deeply infected he couldn’t or wouldn’t stop drinking, though the disastrous results on his children were right before his eyes. Now you wonder if going back to the cause of your life’s problems is the answer. That idea makes no sense. It shows how deeply you have been infected.
A contemporary metaphor about nourishing contact between parent and child compares it to a friendly game of ping-pong. The parent and child volley back and forth, living life together. The child learns good habits and routines that will embed in their brain for a lifetime, and they learn they are cared for. But if the parent’s response is erratic or volatile, not to mention uncaring or violent, the child’s brain is patterned in a way which is so harmful as to be almost wicked. That’s the problem with alcoholic parents. To state the obvious, they are drunk, and almost all of us know what it’s like to deal with a drunk. Alcoholics live in a fictitious world of imagined hurts, wrongs, and misconceptions. It’s a world of things they will not face. At the same time, they nose-dive in the real world. Either the game of volleying doesn’t occur, or it occurs in a way that is potentially deadly to the children. Our short answer is don’t go back. Our long answer will come next week.
Wayne & Tamara      Send letters to:  DirectAnswers@WayneAndTamara.com

GET READY, GET SET, GO... ONLY IN CANADA

Logic
By Joe Ingino Editor/Publisher
GET READY, GET SET, GO...
ONLY IN CANADA
  The report over the news wire read:  Canadians have no need to worry about the prospect of mass quarantines, even in the likely event the coronavirus is discovered here, public health authorities said on Friday.

They said scary images coming from a now isolated Wuhan, a Chinese city with 11 million people, will not be repeated here.

“Absolutely not,” Dr. Peter Donnelly, with Public Health Ontario, said. “If a case comes here, and it is probably likely that we will have a case here, it will still be business as normal.”

Really Dr. Donnelly!!!  Nothing to worry?   Should we not be taking a proactive approach toward this very serious risk to public health?  Instead we are being told not to worry that if it happens here we should not be alarmed.

How irresponsible is this?  How can Dr. Donnelly be so casual about a real risk.   As the head of Public Health Ontario with a huge Chinese population living in Ontario and traveling back and forth to China.  One would think he be concerned.

Then again.... Justin Trudeau gets a political kick in the groin by the Iranians and turns the other cheek.  When Iran goes public with a pathetic apology that they in fact had murdered 57 Canadians in an act of retaliation for the U.S. killing of one of their top terrorist.   The killing of those innocent Canadians was just another example of how backwards the Iranian regime is.   They did not have the balls to shoot down a plane with Americans as Trump would have turned Iran into a dust bowl.
No instead Iran targets a plane with Canadian patsies.   Knowing that Canada would do nothing... yet sending a clear message to the Americans that this could happen to you.
 The same week Justin was quoted as stating that he was to issue $25,000 to the families of victims of the recent downing of a commercial aircraft by Iran.
So now we know that we as Canadians are only worth $25,000.   That our health officials do not see any urgency in keeping us healthy... as all of a sudden their opinion seems to transcend logic and common sense.
As a tax paying Canadian.  I have a message for the good doctor.   ‘Get your finger out of your ass and take a proactive approach to this very real threat and put in place systems that will assure Canadians that if the virus lands on our shores that it does not become and epidemic and or not one Canadian life is lost as a result.”
Can the good doctor meet those standards that are only common sense and responsible public service.  We can’t afford to wait and see.  We must put the restrictions that need to be put in place before we become infected.   This is why I support the Canada for Canadians party of Canada.   “Peopleism” is our people first and under their leadership.  We would ban all flights from China until this threatening epidemic is contained and adequate vaccines are developed.  Restrict anyone with symptoms of the flu and cold to wear appropriate anti infectious mouth cover.  If we do not take care of our people who will.  Responsibility starts with each one of us
Everyone doing their part will assure that the integrity of this nation is never compromised.

Canadian politics at the beginning of 2020

Canadian politics at the beginning of 2020
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
   In preparation for the opening of the House of Commons on the 27th of January, political parties are working hard to get ready for the minority government.

The liberal caucus met for three days in Winnipeg focusing on their objectives in the context of the new reality; as a minority government they will need opposition support to survive and get anything done.

We know for sure that the first, immediate order of business once the House resumes will be the ratification of the new NAFTA deal, CUSMA (Canada, US, Mexico Agreement).

Passing CUSMA is one of the priorities for the liberal government. Whether it will pass or not is another question. It seems that the Bloc Quebecois won't support the new deal without more supports for aluminum workers, and neither the NDP nor the Conservatives are clear on their support, with both parties having said they want to review it closely.

Other items on the liberals' radar, include pharmacare, protecting the environment and stricter gun control measures, but there are no specifics on what may come forward as legislation or when. They are basically focusing on their campaign promises, but how they will be able to deliver is a question mark for the moment.

On national pharmacare for example, the Liberals could face opposition not just from other federal parties, but from provinces and territories as well, since health care is a provincial responsibility.

On gun control, the implementation of different Liberal proposals would happen eventually in a multi-stage process, with a proposed ban on assault rifles coming first, and a buy-back program later, but this will be a complex issue.

Meanwhile, on medically-assisted dying, Quebec's Superior Court has handed the Liberals a due date of March 11, to make changes to federal legislation, after the court found some parts of it too restrictive, and therefore unconstitutional.

So it seems that the Liberal plan for the winter sessions may be clear - CUSMA, pharmacare, gun control, climate action - but how and when they plan to move on most of them still remains a mystery.

While the Liberals are strategizing about how they will do business in the context of a minority government, the official opposition, the Conservative Party is involved in a leadership contest, after the resignation of their leader as a result of last year's disappointing (for them) election.

The Conservatives are trying to figure out how to become the governing party again, but they might make their own situation worse. Personally, I fear they may choose a leader repellent to the West and unattractive to the rest of the country.

However, the core of the Conservative problem appears to be far more complicated. They want to please everybody, but wind up pleasing nobody. They want to appeal to socially liberal young urbanites and their cranky rural base at the same time.

They promise lavish spending and stimulative deficits plus tax cuts and balanced budgets.
They want to appeal to Quebec while not appeasing it.

They want to cut equalization and increase it.
They want to eliminate corporate subsidies and give them to everyone.
They want to have internal free trade and a milk marketing cartel.

They are trying to move left and in the mean time seeking support of their right-wing base
These counter-objectives define the essence of the Conservative split personality that must be resolved if they are to succeed.  To be successful, a political party must have a unique and unified vision for how best to govern the country so it will move ahead both economically and culturally.
I am often bewildered at how they expect the electorate to vote for them as long as they do not have original ideas on governing differently from the Liberals, but only try to imitate them.
In view of this philosophical confusion and with a full leadership contest ahead of them, the Conservative efficiency in the House of Commons in the spring session will be predictably weak.

With regard to the other official parties in the House, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP, their role might be more important in the context of a minority government. They have not yet revealed where they stand on some issues, but that will depend on the situation and legislation introduced by the Liberals. However, I do not believe they will be eager to bring down the government. The NDP especially, which lost half of their seats in the last election, reduced to only one seat in Quebec where they had  a stronghold before, will be cautious not to trigger an unexpected election in which they might lose their party status. So they will be trying to save face in the House in order to maintain their base support.

In conclusion, it will be an interesting spring in Parliament, and there will certainly be some surprises. We can be assured however, that this upcoming parliamentary session will be less boring than it would be in a majority government context. 

Don't you think?

A reflection on our history and values with potential lessons learned for the future.
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East

  After the excitement of the holiday season, January is generally a slow month in Canadian politics with Parliament to reconvene by the end of it. It is time for reflection, for the political parties to strategize and to get in shape for the political fight of the months coming.
  But this time around, January offered some big surprises on the international scene.
  First, Brexit in the United Kingdom seems to have a lifeline and a final decision will be made by the end of the month.
Another, much more significant event for Canada, was the violent removal from activity by the United States, of the chief architect of Iran's terror minded influence in the Middle East, the Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Soleimani.  This will certainly cause some reactions that might have a direct influence on Canada. We need to remember that Canada has a large Iranian Diaspora.
But leaving these issues to be settled on the world scene, let's take a look at our Canadian affairs from the perspective of our history and culture; those factors that are unique in the world and make us Canadians.
This is the month in which Sir John Alexander Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada (1867-1873, 1878-1891) was born, on 11 January 1815.  He was the dominant figure of Canadian Confederation and he had a political career which spanned almost half a century.
He had a very interesting career, filled with effervescent political activity, a career we can learn much from, even today. He was a colonial leader and was one of the architects of the Confederation of Canada. He believed strongly in Canada as a country and dedicated his life to the advancement of it.
Exercising true political and leadership skills, unmatched even today, he forged unthinkable political alliances such as the alliance between the Conservative and Grits (the Liberals) lead by George Brown.
The two compromised and agreed that the new government would support the "federative principle"-a conveniently elastic phrase. The discussions were not public knowledge and Macdonald stunned the Assembly by announcing that he had reached an agreement with Brown to establish a Great Coalition. By the way, the two men were not only political rivals, but were known to hate each other.
The Great Coalition was a grand coalition of political parties that brought the two Canadas together (Canada East and Canada West) in 1864. The Great Coalition was created to eradicate the political deadlock between Canada West and Canada East.
The government at that time was unable to pass any legislation because of the need for a double majority. In order for a bill to pass in the Legislative Assembly, there had to be a vote in both the Canada East and Canada West sections of the assembly. As the French and the English could never agree on anything, this caused political deadlock. This coalition was intended to create resolution with long-term impacts in solving some of these problems and unify Canada. The coalition persisted by the government of the Province of Canada until the moment of Confederation.
The deadlock led to three conferences that preceded confederation. The first was the Charlottetown Conference, which was convened for the purpose of negotiating a Maritime union.
However, the politicians began to discuss the possibility of a larger union that would include all of British North America. This continued at the Quebec Conference where they further discussed the union of British North America and defined the details of the government's shape. They also settled on the division of provincial and federal responsibilities.
The London Conference revised the Quebec Resolutions and on 8 March, the British North America Act, 1867, which would thereafter serve as the major part of Canada's constitution, passed the British  House of Commons (it had previously passed the House of Lords) and  Queen Victoria gave the bill Royal Assent on 29 March 1867
The British announced on 22 May 1867, that Canada would come into existence on 1 July, 1867 of what came to be known as Canada Day.
Lord Monck the Governor of British North America since 1861 and a true believer in the Confederation and the First Governor General of Canada appointed Sir John A. Macdonald as the new nation's first prime minister. With the birth of the new nation, Canada East and Canada West became separate provinces, known as Quebec and Ontario.
There are people in Canada today; who engage in the dangerous practice of attempting to rewrite history, interpreting it from the perspective of today's left leaning influenced philosophy.  They advocate judging Macdonald's actions by today's standards and emphasizing to desperation, the negatives in his activity. We need to analyze his activity objectively, in the political context of his century, and not deny him the essential role he played in establishing Canada as a country.
As history is said to repeat itself, we are facing strong forces of separation in Canada both in the West and revival of them in the East.
So what can we learn from Sir John A Macdonald?  What about a new great coalition in this country to keep Canada united?

IRAN SHOULD BE RUNNING
By Joe Ingino 1.17.20   Iran on Friday vowed "harsh retaliation" against the U.S. attack on Qasem Soleimani, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, though no one is certain when or how the country will respond. Iran declared a traditional three-day mourning period after his death.  Well on Tuesday Iran carried out their threat by bombing American installations in Iraq.
  What is wrong with the Iraqi elite?   Are they that ignorant of the facts.  Have they not learned anything from Iraq?  Afghanistan, Lybia?   They can talk big but at the end of the day, they are no match.
The only reason the US did not unload on them is not to bring in the Russians and Chinese.
I bet as you read this there are high level negotiations on how to justify the obliteration of Iran so that all the global powers get a piece of the action.   That regime has to go.   This Qasem Soleimani was a known terrorist.  He killed innocent people according to reports.   If true, the Iranian people themselves should have got rid of him.
No instead he dies a national hero to some?  Really.   The U.S. goes in and kills him in a strategic fashion and Iran retaliates by bombing facilities full of innocent people and at large.  No real strategy.
Then Iran dares not call themselves terrorist.  Really!!!  They bomb to send messages.   To instill fear and terror.  To flex limp muscle...
On Wednesday, January 8th.  President Trump made a very out of character appearance on National television.   He did the usual finger pointing at the democrats but instead of taking an aggressive stand.  He made it sound like the death of ISIS was good for the people of Iran.
Almost pleading for the people of Iran to stand behind him the fight against terrorism.
When in reality.  Iran has acted out against the west time and time again.  Still today they are threatening further actions.... 
You got to wonder all that they are not telling us.  Like who took those pictures that CNN kept broadcasting of the out bound missiles?   Who tipped off the  bases in Iraq that there was threat inbound?
  To ad insult to injury on Saturday January 11, 2020  the Iranian government goes public to announce that the recent downing of a commercial aircraft over Iranian territory was a human error.
This is the same Iranian government that wants nuclear weapons...  Come on folks.   Let’s call it for what it is.   The Iranian apology just does not cut it.   As a human being we can respect the apology as a nation we demand action.  We lost 57 fellow Canadians. 
What is our Prime Minister doing....  attempts to blame the Americans.    Really!!!   Trump goes out and kills a killer and Iran has the right to retaliate?   Is that not act of support for terror groups?
Then if so.  Why should we take the apology to be nothing but hypocrisy and insult to the west, Canada and the world.  Who is Iran that can go around threatening and flexing muscle or else.
I think it is time to take action and do more than pretend all is well.   Iranians for the longest time have been rateling the cage of tigers.  I think it is time to turn the tiger loose.
What I don’t understand is the mentality that the Iranian government employs.   Sadam, ran his mouth, Kadaffi the same.  Where are they now?
In my opinion Iran is next.  As for those conspiracy theory thinkers... It does not mean WWIII.  Far from it.  Iran is a thorn in Russia, Chinas back side.  Do you really think they care if the U.S. liberates/invades.  The Iranian are noticing the writing on the walls and this is why they put out the hypocritical apology.  Only to turn around and do it again.   They had no right to retaliate.

THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY IS DEAD IN CANADA
  If we learned anything from our brothers to the south is that politics is about money, greed, power and all that is wrong with society.
  The old role model concept in politics does not exist.  It is not about the good for the people.  It is about the good for your career.
The Democratic party has shown time and time again that it not about the people.
Here in Canada no matter where you look.  The same appears to be the case.  The Liberals are no angels and clearly champion what the democrats in the U.S. dream about.   The conservatives go from one scandal to another.  In reality there is no real leadership in the conservative camp.
Trudeau won the election over the conservatives on name recognition and nostalgia.  The bottom line.  No matter Liberal, NDP or Conservative.  Canada is in bad need for change.  For true leadership.
Democracy in Canada is  hypocrisy.   We are led we have choice but in reality we do not.
Then what is the answer when democracy if failing across the globe?
Now mind you.  Trump in the U.S. in part is bringing back integrity to the Republican party by getting things done with the people of America first mentality.
Something we need in Canada.   I believe that we in Canada have a unique opportunity to bring to the world a new ‘ISM’.  One that incorporates all nations into one.    An ‘ism’ that is Canada’s people first.  One that will have a compassionate heart for the needs of the global community but not at the expense of the quality of life of Canadians.
I became involved with the Canada for Canadians Party of Canada. Soon to be registered to bring to Canada just that new political identity.
“PEOPLEISM” is the new way to govern nations.  
For way to long we have lowered our standards.  We have allowed politician to negotiate in many cases in their personal best interests without considering long term affects on the quality of life for Canadians.  Peopleism will invest in you.  Your family.  Peopleism is about eliminating expenditures that can offset programs to improve the quality of life for Canadians.  No one in Canada should be homeless.  No one in Canada should go hungry. No one in Canada should be denied health care services.  More needs to be done for addiction and mental health.  We must cut as a nation the corporate bleeding of jobs to foreign nations.  We must take Canada back.  We must restructure what we pay our elected officials as it is not about representation but reenumeration.  This is wrong.  Won’t you join me in the new ‘ism’?