The Canadian government does not want people sharing news stories online. The government should be the sole source of information. The Online News Act (Bill C-18) would require social media platforms and online sources to compensate Canadian news agencies for sharing news online. A report by Angus Reid found that 85% of Canadians do not subscribe to news outlets and primarily rely on the internet for information. The government cannot control what is published online (yet) but they can easily control official news agencies.
Google said the bill “breaks the way the web and search engines have worked for more than 30 years.” It prevents Canadians from freely accessing information, as those costs need to be reacquired somewhere. Any time someone interacts with a news article, the Canadian government wants a cut. In turn, major platforms such as Meta and Google have announced that they will no longer publish news articles by Canadian outlets.
“In order to provide clarity to the millions of Canadians and businesses who use our platforms, we are announcing today that we have begun the process of ending news availability permanently in Canada,” Meta said in a statement. Dictator Trudeau has made a big push toward full media censorship.
“It’s like 1984,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre stated. “You have a prime minister passing a law to make news articles disappear from the internet. Who would’ve ever imagined that in Canada, the federal government would pass laws banning people from effectively seeing the news? Who would’ve thought that we’d have a government that would pass a law to manipulate the algorithms of the internet?” Trudeau will continue to usurp as much power as possible at the expense of the Canadian people.
Gee, who woulda thunk? A couple of data points to highlight the construct of something we have predicted for a year. Those who control the illusion of choice within each club, RNC and DNC, have always looked to be constructing a 2024 outcome where Gavin Newsom competes against Ron DeSantis.
First, California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom has recently set up a Political Action Committee (PAC) and a Super PAC that would seemingly support the perspective of his presidential ambitions.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom is taking fundraising steps often used by potential presidential candidates, setting up multiple committees that in their first three months have raised and spent millions of dollars.
The three Newsom-affiliated committees are a political action committee, which limits contributions to $5,000 a year and can donate to individual candidates; a SuperPAC, which can raise unlimited amounts of cash but is restricted from promoting a specific candidate, and a joint fundraising committee, which functions like a bank, mostly collecting and distributing funds to the other groups. (more)
One day later, Ron DeSantis announces on the Moudoch news channel, using the mockingbird broadcaster, that he is willing to debate Gavin Newsom this November. Notice the states, and you will easily be able to guess which one will be selected for the venue.
(Via Politico) – Govs. Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom have tentatively agreed to debate — one hosted by Fox News.
The Florida Republican and California Democrat have repeatedly sparred over policies in their respective states, each representing one side of the ideological spectrum though occupying different political perches. DeSantis, a Republican, is trailing former President Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination while Newsom, a Democrat, has brushed aside questions about his own presidential ambitions to become a super surrogate of sorts for President Joe Biden.
A showdown between the two seemed unlikely as DeSantis ramped up his presidential campaign. But Newsom still has spent months trying to entice his counterpart into joining him on a stage.
On Wednesday, DeSantis agreed, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity: “Absolutely I’m game. Just tell me when and where.”
An aide to Newsom told POLITICO that the governor was also in. Newsom’s office had sent a formal request offer to Fox News last week with proposed debate dates of Nov. 8 or Nov. 10. That request called for Hannity to serve as the sole moderator for a 90-minute forum on Fox News that would not include an in-studio audience and would air live.
[…] In his letter, Newsom’s office proposed three separate debate sights: Nevada, Georgia or North Carolina. (more)
Those who control the illusion of choice have to proceed with the planning as if the objective to remove candidate Donald Trump will succeed.
That sets up Joe Biden to announce withdrawal due to medical issues.
The state they will choose for this GN -v- RD debate venue is easy, Georgia.
Nothing is a coincidence.
Throughout our analysis of the preferred ’24 outcome by those in the background who ultimately seek to control elections through the activity of front men, those artfully skilled at presenting the illusion of choice, it has always looked like the RNC/DNC preferred presentation was a Ron DeSantis -v- Gavin Newsom (win/win) contest.
The landscape of the ’24 election would then be reduced to “social issues” as distinctions between the two faces of the contest, while the economics of things – the substantive part – carries a far lesser contrast. An almost identical replay to the attempted 2016 construct of Hillary -v- Jeb.
In 2016, the RNC/DNC corporations wanted a Hillary v Jeb matchup. That was the outcome of both corporate intents, and all processes were deployed to create that outcome. For 2024, it became obvious last year the corporations wanted a Newsom v DeSantis contest. In that matchup the people who control the financial mechanisms can maintain their status quo. The billionaire funders for DeSantis, RGA/RNC would be quite okay with a Newsom outcome.
A man attempted to purchase strawberries with cash at an Aldi grocery store in the UK, possibly leading to his arrest. They want us to adjust to the cashless society that will implement globally by the World Economic Forum under its Digital Currency Governance Consortium. Some call cash “hard currency” to further differentiate it from the coming digital world of finance. Piers Corbyn, who happens to be the brother of British Labour Party leader Piers Corbyn, has gone viral for what many are calling an act of rebellion against the globalists.
The Aldi in Greenwich only accepts payments through the Aldi App. Aldi implemented this measure during COVID and never repealed it. Stores are commonly banning all cash transactions, and it is legal for them to deny cash. These stores may not realize that the WEF will soon implement one “globally coordinated approach to [digital currency] regulation” and their individual apps will be obsolete.
As for Corbyn, he placed his cash on the counter and left the store with his strawberries. People cheered as he left the store. Aldi employees called the authorities. “I’m offering exactly the right amount of money here,” he announced, “I’ve paid my legal tender.”
“Legal tender” is merely any form of payment accepted by law. So while the “hard currency” produced by the Royal Mint may be considered legal tender to some, the grey area here is that sellers do not need to accept it as a form of payment. So what was once a commonly accepted legal tender is now fiat, containing no intrinsic value without the backing of CONFIDENCE.
When the gold coin was money during the 19th century, it rose and fell in purchasing power no different than any paper currency. You cannot walk into a grocery today and pay in gold. People only accepted paper money because they knew others would accept it as a form of payment. Fiat is simply an arbitrary decree.
Governments are telling the people loud and clear that cash will be phased out. They are making us accustomed to the idea, gaslighting us into thinking digital is more convenient. The truth of the matter is that the day will come when they ask us all to turn in our “hard currencies” in exchange for CBDC. I applaud this man for his act of bravery and hope he was not arrested over a pint of strawberries.
The victor gets to write history, and that is precisely what the LEFT did with FDR and the New Deal. You will never be an accurate analyst unless you accept that you are duty-bound to investigate the truth no matter where it may lead. The myth of the New Deal and its success in dragging the United States out of the Great Depression still prevails. This myth was the LEFT rewriting history, which truly became the propaganda that the Democrats had clung to right up to now, the Green New Deal.
This country had a massive Red Scare following World War I from 1918 to 1923. They were targeting Russians and assuming they were all just Communists when many fled here from Communism. The Department of Justice (DOJ) exploited it just as they did terrorists. When we were going to hold a conference at the Convention Center in Philadelphia owned by the government, they demanded that we purchase Terrorist Insurance covering the entire city and the state. They did not disclose that in advance and stole our deposit when I refused to comply – typical government. The DOJ gained more power, and we suddenly had to take off our shoes to board a plane – the only country to do such a thing.
The paranoia created was used to launch Congressional hearings, censorship, and new sedition legislation used today by the Biden administration against Trump and his supporters, all because of this manufactured Red Scare. They ignored the fact that the vast majority of people who were Russians had fled Communism. Even the story of Saint Petersburg, Florida, got its name on a coin toss, as legend would have it. In 1875 John Constantine Williams of Detroit, Michigan, moved to Tampa and bought 2,500 acres of warm waterfront land that would eventually become St. Petersburg. Many years later, Peter Demens, who was an exiled Russian aristocrat fleeing Communism, financed the Orange Belt Railroad to Williams’s settlement. Williams and Demens flipped a coin to see who would name the city. Demens won the coin toss and named it after Saint Petersburg, Russia. Williams named the city’s first hotel after his birthplace, Detroit.
Then as now, they turned against anyone who was Russian. This was whipped up by the press and the Department of Justice as they did to the Japanese during World War II. It just seemed that they had to target someone, and this time it appeared to be Trump supporters. The interesting fact is that the Red Scare was exposed as FAKE. By 1923, the Red Scare was exposed as being manufactured to generate business. They were also targeting unions. The first victim of the Red Scare was the union of mine workers.
Nevertheless, it was during the New Deal that the real communists infiltrated Roosevelt’s Administration. The New York Times celebrated Joesph Stalin and communism as the future and cure for the Great Depression. Their top journalist Walter Duranty (1884-1957) even convinced Roosevelt to recognize Russia. Duranty met with Roosevelt to convince him that Communism was working and to encourage his New Deal. The mainstream press in the 1930s was very much touting the Communists. They wanted to hear of Utopia and so reported only what they wanted to believe, as they are doing once again.
The New York Times (NYT) journalist Walter Duranty on March 31, 1933, denounced reports of famine to cover up the fact that Stalin stole all the food from Ukraine. The NYT was so pro-Communism that this was the natural infiltration of Reds, but nobody did anything about that. They wanted to hear of Utopia and so reported only what they wanted to believe, as they are doing once again. The New York Times even promoted Duranty to be awarded the Pulitzer Prize for that reporting fake news. When Gareth Jones (1905-1935) in March of 1933 said this was all a lie, the truth finally began to appear. It took the New York Times until 1990 to admit they engaged in fake news pushing communism, covering up the famine in Ukraine to suggest that Stalinism was the Utopia they wanted to impose in the United States. The NYT wrote that their reporting on the Russian Revolution constituted “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.” Duranty was doing this also to support Roosevelt’s New Deal. He helped install drastic progressiveness in taxation.
Roosevelt’s New Deal was based on Marxism. His first Brain Trust consisted of a group of Columbia Law School professor Adolf Berle, Jr. (1895-1971) and an economist Raymond Moley (1886-1975). In mid-1933, Moley began his break with Roosevelt when he saw that he was becoming increasingly Marxist. He abandoned Roosevelt entirely by 1936 when it became clear that the New Deal had failed. Roosevelt replaced Moley with a decisively leftist economist named Rexford Tugwell (12891-1979). Moley became highly critical of Roosevelt and Tugwell’s policies to such an extent he switched parties and became a Republican.
Tugwell, an academic economist, embraced the Utopian ideas of Stalinism. It was Stalin who Lenin warned should not follow him. Lenin wanted Communism, but each state retained its sovereignty, whereas Stalin was authoritarian and imposed central planning and carried out his Great Purge of 1937-1938, killing between 700,000 and 1.2 million, involving anyone he thought would oppose his central planning. Tugwell sought to impose Stalin’s central panning and crafted much of the legislation in those years that cartelized industry, controlled prices, and embarked on Soviet-style projects. Tugwell was a great admirer of Soviet “achievements” in agriculture and housing, believing the fake news published by the New York Times. Roosevelt even sought to stack the Supreme Court with Soviet admirers to overrule the U.S. Constitution to create this tremendous new Soviet Utopia in America.
All of these regulations did not save the United States – they actually made it far worse. LEFTIST historians have reached a consensus that regards the accomplishments of the New Deal as the major watershed event constituting a definitive dividing line in American social-economic history. These historians present the Roosevelt administration as marking the end of the passive state dominated by big business interests and the beginning of the interventionist state. This new interventionist state was designed to curb the concentrations of business power, claiming to be the protector of the rights and interests of the powerless and underprivileged. They have projected that they alone will secure the general welfare against the capitalists and their profit-seeking agenda. Against this revision of history, the opponents saw this New Deal as a conspiracy of leftist intellectuals with the help of labor union factions. Career politicians have always maintained the public image of Marxist Socialism while selling favors for money to lobbyists.
“Mrs. Clinton said she dreamed of “open trade and open borders” throughout the Western Hemisphere. Citing the back-room deal-making and arm-twisting used by Abraham Lincoln, she mused on the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on politically contentious issues. Reflecting in 2014 on the rage against political and economic elites that swept the country after the 2008 financial crash, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that her family’s rising wealth had made her “kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class.”
Consequently, the New Deal was the 20th-century evolution of the Marxist Interventionist State. Ironically, they would cut special favors for big business that allowed the Leftist Agenda to take hold. By introducing regulations to intervene in the economy, they corrupted the government by endorsing the rise of lobbyists. What actually took place was that where big businessmen had failed to achieve monopolies during the 19th century, they turned to the Federal Government for protections of various sorts. This even allowed companies by Pfizer to be protected from lawsuits for their failure to provide safe drugs.
The great achievement reached a climax with the passage of the NationiaI Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of June 1933. This was one of the measures by which Roosevelt sought to assist the nation’s economic recovery during the Great Depression. This was a unique experiment in economic history that sanctioned, supported, and also enforced an alliance of industries. The Sherman Antitrust laws were actually suspended. Roosevelt insisted that companies were required to write industry-wide “codes of fair competition” that effectively fixed prices and wages, created production quotas, and imposed restrictions on the entry of other companies into the alliances. This was seeking Soviet-style control over industry without seizing private ownership. Promises of self-regulation enticed companies and declared codes of fair competition. While it was marketed as protecting consumers, competitors, and employers, the country’s various industries were to write their own regulations. Employees were given the right to organize and bargain collectively in unions. They were not to be required to join or refrain from joining a labor organization as a condition of employment.
The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was created by the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) and was engaged chiefly in drawing up these industrial codes for all industries to adopt until March 1934. More than 500 codes of fair practice were adopted for various industries. Patriotic appeals were made to the public, and firms were asked to display the Blue Eagle, an emblem signifying NRA participation. However, in 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared the NRA unconstitutional. They held that it infringed the separation of powers under the United States Constitution. The NRA stopped operations. However, Roosevelt was not deterred, and much of the labor provisions reappeared in the National Labor Relations Act, passed later the same year – 1935. This resulted in the one-sided LEFTIST power of unions, which were the core of the New Deal but led to serious corruption over the course of the next three decades.
Yes, I know, we’ll never get rid of the Myth that the New Deal saved us, but the reality is that the Great Depression lasted longer than it would have otherwise taken due to the FDR intervention. We can see that unemployment was still greater than 10% even in 1937 despite the rally in the stock market between 1932 into 1937. It was 1938 when Roosevelt passed the Fair Labor Standards Act establishing a minimum wage. It was also when Hitler marched into Austria, establishing a geographical union of Germany and Austria. Then there was the Munich Pact, where Britain, France, and Italy agreed to let Germany partition Czechoslovakia.
As we can see, the worst unemployment actually took place in 1936, some four years after FDR was elected. So much for his policies reversing the Great Depression. The real event was war, which is why FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to occur. The scandal was that we had broken the Japanese CODE, so the question was, why did we allow Pearl Harbor to take place? They concluded that there was no direct evidence that FDR knew.
Posted originally on the CTH on August 1, 2023 | Sundance
Until the era of Barack Obama and Eric Holder, the efforts of the community activists were to excuse and absolve the transparently guilty. It was only when Barack Obama and Eric Holder moved into office that things changed; the inflection point was achieved.
What we now consider the weaponization of the DOJ is actually the outcome of Main Justice merging with community activism. Instead of the long-standing method of absolving the transparently guilty, the justice system was repurposed to accuse the transparently innocent.
Only one voice noticed the changed activity as it was taking place and called my attention to it, that voice was author Jack Cashill.
From the Henry Louis Gates (beer summit) in the White House, which targeted Sgt James Crowley, to the accusations against George Zimmerman (Orlando), Darren Wilson (Ferguson), the Baltimore Six accusations, and all the way through to Donald Trump, Michael Flynn et al, there is one continuum of the same justice system ideological effort – to accuse the transparently innocent. To weaponize the systems of power toward a unified objective.
In the early stages of 2009 to 2012, the media were probed and prodded, tested to identify their willful alignment and train them to assist. In essence, the goal was to bring the corporate media into the new shifted dynamic of targeting. The media no longer needed to justify the actions of the transparently guilty offenders. The new goal was to frame the transparently innocent with accusations that advanced the interests of the regime.
People have noted the shift and realignment in Democrats. This is all connected to this same shifted dynamic. The activists gained control of the levers of power. The force of government now shifted the media narrative from bad behavior (targeting the guilty the activist supported) to good behavior (targeting the behavior of innocents the activists do not support).
While this media effort was taking place, Attorney General Eric Holder was transforming the DOJ into an ideological targeting enterprise. Eventually, leading to what is visible now with a fully weaponized Main Justice and FBI system. The FBI now protecting the interests of those who weaponize – those who are corrupt.
The 2011/2012 Tea Party targeting did not originate in the IRS; it began with Eric Holder triggering a “special research project” requesting CD ROM’s containing the names, organizations and entities listed on the Schedule-B’s of the various Tea Party group tax filings. The IRS, via Lois Lerner, was eventually identified in this project by a whistleblower from the Cincinatti office, but it was Attorney General Eric Holder at the DOJ who initiated the entire operation.
The NSA database then became a tool with similar “special research” intent, and that process followed through the 2016 GOP presidential primary to the position it is today. The infiltration of Social Media platforms for this same type of targeting operation is another step in the continuum to notice.
If you step back from the granular details and look at the entire landscape, you can trace this origin to the inflection point where community activism merged with government. That merge to generate a weaponized DOJ is entirely the result of President Obama’s 2008 election.
There are current voices who notice the Obama operative fingerprints still controlling the mechanisms today; examples like Lisa Monaco as Deputy AG at the Dept of Justice, as well as many more Obama administration officials still in positions of power and direct influence. Special Counsel Jack Smith and his targeting operation against Donald Trump is simply another example of this extended operation.
All of these participants have some level of stakeholder investment in retaining this weaponized system. Every tool at their disposal will be used in the retention.
Moving forward to destroy the corruption means we must first accept the origin.
Understanding the toxic outcome of the Obama origin, a fully weaponized American government, is akin to having a discussion about vaccine danger with those who already took the vaccine. Few will want to accept the conversation!
…After all, it is easier to accept the results of a fraudulent election, than for them to admit their complicity in the demise of our nation.
Posted originally on the CTH on July 31, 2023 | Sundance
It may be entirely possible in Illinois now for a police officer to demand to see your papers for identity compliance even though that police officer may be an illegal alien who broke U.S. law to enter the United States.
Under a bill recently signed by Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker, illegal aliens can now become police officers. The downstream ramifications of this effort are not difficult to imagine.
As if the crisis of confidence in the U.S. legal and law enforcement system was not under enough pressure, the reality of lawbreaking foreign nationals and border crossers now controlling law enforcement is a rather remarkable escalation in social fracture.
NewsWeek – […] The measure—House Bill 3751—successfully passed the Democratic-controlled state House and the state Senate before being signed into law by the Democratic governor last week. The bill, which will come into force on January 1, 2024, allows eligible immigrants who are not in possession of U.S. citizenship to join law enforcement in Illinois—something that federal laws currently forbid.
[…] Eligible non-U.S. citizens are subject “to all requirements and limitations, other than citizenship, to which other applicants are subject,” and must be able to obtain, carry, purchase, or otherwise possess a firearm under federal law.
Foreign nationals “against whom the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have deferred immigration action under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process” will also be eligible, according to the bill’s text.
That means that individuals who came to the country illegally as children and received a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation—known as the DACA process—will be able to apply to become police officers in Illinois. DACA recipients are protected from deportation and have a work permit, though the program does not grant them official legal status. (read more)
The 2024 Democrat National Convention will take place in Chicago.
QUESTION: Thanks for all the great information you share. I have a question regarding cryptocurrencies. Do you think all countries will try to abolish crypto or only certain countries (such as the US) in favor of a central bank digital currency? As of now, many countries appear much more accepting of crypto than the US. Thanks again.
JWM
ANSWER: This is a good question. Before the stupid sanctions imposed on Russia removed them from SWIFT, the IMF would threaten tax havens that if they did not turn over the people with accounts in their country, they would be removed from SWIFT. The sanction against Russia have backfired, so now we have China and Iran setting up their alternatives to SWIFT. I would have assumed that they would have threatened countries against the removal from SWIFT if they did not shut down cryptocurrencies, for they would provide an alternative to CBDC and thereby skirt their end goal of 100% control and taxation. In trying to sanction Russia, they have lost their absolute power to abuse SWIFT to threaten countries. Theoretically, the tax havens could switch to China’s CIPS and say screw you to the US and EU.
As I have said, an EMP could wipe out the entire financial system and neutralize even nuclear weapons capability. I do not see how these people will succeed in dominating the world. Their abuse of SWIFT to punish Russia has undermined their power and the entire world economy. This is most likely part of the 2032 collapse.
I would be concerned about cryptocurrencies making the transition to what lies beyond 2032. That is highly speculative. I would tend to rely on the tangle assets to make the transition to whatever the new monetary system will emerge post-2032.
Posted originally on the CTH on July 31, 2023 | Sundance
Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni sounds slightly less nationalist and slightly more globalist in this interview as she discusses the current challenges for Italy within the European Union. With a large focus on the African continent, mostly driven by root cause illegal immigration, Prime Minister Meloni outlines how supporting the African economic needs are a pragmatic solution to the outflow of migrants. {Direct Rumble Link} – WATCH:
First, it was toilet paper, then baby formula, and now it’s non-basmati rice that people are running to the stores and buying in bulk. India has put into effect on July 20th the ban on non-basmati rice in order to calm domestic prices. According to the International Food Policy Research Institute, the global rice market prices have already risen 15%-20% since September of 2022. People have already started panic buying in Texas, Washington, Michigan, and other states. It has not hit every state yet; the impact of this ban has been more so in the regions of larger Indian-origin populations. Most grocery stores have already allegedly limited one bag of rice per customer. Wholesalers and other companies have been adjusting prices which leads to price gouging, so rice is selling for double than usual.
Rice was already at a high point price-wise during Covid-19 and with the war in Ukraine, it gouged the cost of wheat, causing rice production to increase. Allegedly, according to a store owner, there has not been a date specified that this ban in India exports will lift. He is suggesting that this ban will be anywhere from 6-8 months.
Socrates has projected that volatility would rise starting here in 20203, and prices should rise further into 2024. Thereafter, geopolitical instability may further impact supply.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 