G. Ray Gompf: Justin Trudeau’s Great Canadian Ego Trip

*CCS Author’s Note: This article was written by G. Ray Gompf; posted here with permission.


I don’t get Justin Trudeau. He claims to understand the middle class yet needs to embark on a meet and greet to understand the middle class. A meet and greet that will be properly staged for photo ops; well managed so nobody actually gets to express their real feelings.

If he understands the middle class — ordinary Canadians — so well, why is there a need for a scripted meet and greet? If Stephen Harper had even considered such a campaign swing at taxpayers expense the hue and cry would have been heard in China — through the centre of the earth, not around it. With Stephen Harper, it wasn’t necessary because Stephen Harper came from middle class, not from a pampered trust fund situation. Justin Trudeau can’t possibly understand the middle class no matter how many meet and greets he takes. He’s never had to cope with wondering if the mortgage can be paid this month, will there be enough to pay the utility bills next month.

When you have never had to concern yourself with balancing a family budget, how in the name of seven senses can you understand those that do. Hey, Justin, budgets don’t balance themselves.

So now Justin decides, or more correctly, his handlers decide he should get out there and pretend to be accessible, pretend to be “one of us”, and for goodness sake, don’t wear a suit jacket, that would be too pretentious.

Tag a camera man around that’s only going to show the positive things, OK, allow for a couple of minor issues to be negative but basically make the stupid people think all is well with the world while the stupid people already know it’s not.

When manufacturing jobs, those jobs that create the wealth and pay the bills are now outnumbered considerably by those government jobs that do not create wealth. That’s not saying that government jobs aren’t of value, they are, but there should never be more government jobs than in the private sector. If you take a look at a Province such as Ontario, that’s what has happened to wit a $300 Billion deficit. It also doesn’t make sense for those good manufacturing jobs to be replaced with service industry jobs. Eventually, there’s no money to spread around and everyone is broke. Right now, the economy is in the tank simply because the good manufacturing jobs are in the tank. Flipping hamburgers, while necessary, just isn’t producing middle-class wealth like spinning nuts on bolts. Without middle class earning power taxes simply will not come into the treasury.

But you go on a trip across the country at taxpayer’s expense and spread your “Sunni Ways” because that’s what’s necessary to placate a restless electorate.

The problem you see is there is has been a cataclysmic shift to the right in the U.S. electorate and a left-leaning government in Canada is faced with a similar shift in middle-class thinking in Canada so if Justin can take his hair out and selfie his way across the country showing middle-class folk standing beside him then he’ll keep his popularity at 35%.

The cataclysmic shift in the U.S. has turned more protectionist than open trade. Our Justin points the finger south and screams how wrong it is to close borders to trade, especially when Canada has always enjoyed more or less free trade access to the U.S. What he tends to forget is that Canada is not as open and free to trade as we unwashed Canadians would believe.

The old adage that “when you point a finger at another, there are three pointing back at you” very much becomes actual. For every finger Canada can point out to the U.S. in terms of closed door to trade, there ARE three fingers pointing back at Canada but that’s OK because we need to protect our farmers. But then our government energy rates are killing our protected farmers. Our embracing of “carbon tax” which is the dumbest of all taxes because it’s a tax on nothing, but you have to give it to the elites of government because they’ve done a remarkable job of selling the carbon tax based on absolutely nothing. Damn, when a salesman can sell nothing and you’re happy you bought it, now that’s the ultimate in salesmanship. I don’t admire that kind of scam artist salesperson but you have to give them credit for snowing enough people into believing it’s the right thing to do.

Why didn’t Canada, who naturally has the biggest carbon sink in the world, and produces the least amount of any greenhouse gas in the world tax the products of those countries that are large producers of greenhouse gases? Oh, right. They couldn’t sell sanity.

Posted in Federal Politics, G. Ray Gompf, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Let’s not stop Kevin O’Leary

This gallery contains 7 photos.

Food for thought.

More Galleries | 1 Comment

How Did the Water Cycle Become a Mystery?


Every single year, millions of tons of dust blow across the Atlantic Ocean from the Sahara Desert’s huge expanse of hard-baked scrub and sand. The dust is rich in nutrients, including that all-important phosphorus. It is full of other vital fertilizers as well, and deposits those onto the depleted soils of the Amazon’s dense mass of humid jungle. NASA has been good enough to take a little time away from its worship at the alter of climate change, to actually use some of those publicly-funded satellites to track that atmospheric dust transfer of soil across thousands of miles of land and ocean. Thanks for indulging in some real science for a while, NASA. While this intercontinental link has been known for some time, researchers have now been able estimate just how much valuable phosphorous makes that mind-blowing journey. We think that some 22,000 tons of Sahara phosphorous ends up in the Amazon each year. Coincidentally, that’s roughly the same amount the South American jungle soils lose annually to rain and resulting flooding. I read this in the journal, Geophysical Research Letters. Of the 27.7 million tons of desert dust carried across the Atlantic to the Amazon each year, the phosphorous accounts for just 0.08 percent of that mass. How about that for climate change?

quotation-marks-left2   Now … let’s look at water.

In the news lately, much has been made of the Nestle bottling plant near Guelph, Ontario, Canada, and the business arrangements they made with different levels of government. Whether or not you are happy with those agreements on any level, Nestle is not the evil empire stealing our last drops of life-giving H2O. And besides, the previous Aberfoyle Water Company (bought by Nestle) had been operating at the same location for as long as I can remember. Back in the early seventies, we were getting office water cooler bottles from the Aberfoyle bottling company.

O.K., let’s look at water on a bigger scale: Canada gets it’s water from all around the planet. Water covers about three-quarters of Earth’s surface and is, most certainly, a necessary element for life—just as is carbon, and the compound CO2. During their constant cycling between the land, the oceans, and the atmosphere, water molecules pass repeatedly through their different states: Solids (ice), liquids, and gases (water vapour). Regardless, the total supply remains constant. A single water molecule can travel to many parts of the globe as it cycles. Let me repeat that … a water molecule can travel to many parts of the globe as it goes through its cycle.

Let’s look at some details. On land, most evaporation occurs as transpiration through plants. Water is taken up through roots and evaporates through stomata in the leaves, as the plant takes in CO2. There’s that nasty CO2 stuff again. A single large oak tree can transpire up to 40,000 gallons per year. It goes without saying that much of the water moving through the “hydrologic cycle” is involved with plant growth … but that can’t happen without CO2.

The thing about water, is that it really likes being water in some form. Consequently, almost no water is taken out of the water cycle permanently. When we convert energy by burning oil derivatives, coal, and natural gas, we do alter the amounts of compounds. Not so with water. Supplies of freshwater (water without a significant salt content) exist because precipitation is greater than evaporation on land. Most of the precipitation that is not transpired by plants or evaporated, infiltrates through soils and becomes groundwater, which flows through rocks and sediments and discharges into rivers. Rivers are primarily supplied by groundwater, and in turn provide most of the freshwater discharge to the sea. Over the oceans evaporation is greater than precipitation, so the net effect is a transfer of water back into the atmosphere. In this way freshwater resources are continually renewed by counterbalancing differences between evaporation and precipitation on land and at sea, and the transport of water vapour in the atmosphere from the sea to the land. Pretty neat, huh? It’s obvious Mother Nature isn’t a government bureaucrat. If she were, we would all be dead by now.

It’s important to note that nearly 94% of the world’s water supply by volume, is held in the oceans. The other large reserves are groundwater (about 4%), and icecaps & glaciers (about 2%). It may surprise us here in water-rich Ontario, but all other water bodies together account for only a fraction of 1 percent. Residence Times (how long the water hangs around before it travels back through the water cycle) vary from several thousand years in the oceans, to only a few days in the atmosphere.

Yes, we can pollute water, and we can alter the terrain to affect the way water is retained in local areas on the ground. We can also foolishly drain swamps and try to alter watersheds. But, for the most part, the vast volumes of water simply obey the laws of nature which are written by the Sun and the Earth’s orbit around it. We humans have grandiose opinions of ourselves and our ability to control everything … but in reality we are merely slaves to the whims of the stars and the planets. We need to get a grip and seriously trim back our egos before they turn us into slaves of the global, Progressive, socialist insanity that has infected mankind over the last century.

All that water is still here … and it’s going to be here long after we’re gone—D.B. Strutt, 2016


Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

KC Kerrie: My Greatest Wound – YOU MOVE!

I only know this woman as KC Kerrie. But I do find it interesting to note that she just articulated what some of us were too coward to actually say out loud.  The following video was posted with her permission.  Please join the conversation in the comment section of this posting.

*Warning: The following video contains profanity.

I appreciate her flare for the dramatic… but she does have some great points.

Be sure you’re volume is on for this one folks!

If you don’t like it here in our country… then get the hell out.  I’ll help you pack.

If you find this flag or the other offensive… then get the hell out.  I’ll help you pack.


Posted in Archived, Kevin's Corner, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 9 Comments

Entitled to My Entitlements? Hell ya!

ShinyPony copyThe Liberals strike again.

While trying to move away from the perceived notions of “entitled to my entitlements”, the Liberal Party of Canada has demonstrated once again that they are indeed entitled to their entitlements — taxpayers be damned.

As reported by CTV News / 580 CFRA’s Rob Snow on his show, “News and Views”, “Environment Minister Catherine McKenna gave over $20,000 to one of her Liberal staffers for a move — despite no costs associated with the actual move. Moving expenses for a move that didn’t exist? An imaginary move? Come again? Why? Why would the taxpayers be on the hook for $20,000 in moving expenses if those expenses were never incurred?”

Top aids of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Gerald Butts and Katie Telford have now billed the taxpayer for over $200,000 in moving expenses.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, “[…] So, on that note, how in the world did one person spend $126,669.56 to move to Ottawa to work in the Prime Minister’s Office? Where was this person moving from? Mars?
Not quite. The Globe and Mail has learned that this extraordinary expense, along with another submitted expense for $80,382.55, covered the moving costs of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s two most loyal aides, principal secretary Gerald Butts and chief of staff Katie Telford.
Both moved from Toronto to Ottawa this year, selling their homes in the process. Sources now say the figures are so high because the two Trudeau loyalists were reimbursed for the real estate and legal fees related to the sale of their homes.
These are enormous sums. A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office has defended them on the grounds that they are in line with the “current rules.”
But the “current rules” are not the final word. The Prime Minister had the option of not signing off on such large amounts for such an unusual benefit.
And one can hardly argue that Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford, who have worked with Mr. Trudeau for years, had to be induced with economic incentives to take their jobs in the PMO. They weren’t about to say no to the opportunity to work for the man they helped elect, were they?
The decision to allow two personal allies and friends to bill for such huge amounts is a demonstration of poor judgment. This is not a glass of orange juice. This is way more than that.”

As reported in the Ottawa Sun, “The worst of the lot was news that one senior staffer in the prime minister’s office charged $126,699.56 in moving expenses to relocate to Ottawa. Another bigwig at the PMO dinged taxpayers $80,382.55 for a move.
“I don’t even know how that’s possible,” former Conservative MP Jason Kenney told the media.
He said that the biggest moving expense he approved as a cabinet minister was about $5,000, and that was for someone to move up from Washington, DC.
We know how it’s possible, though: Feel entitled to your entitlements, don’t take your role as guardian of the public purse seriously and you can pretty much expense anything.”

$6,600 dollars in self-promoting ‘climate change’ pictures of McKenna? The taxpayers paid for that bill.

The honeymoon period mainstream media have been enjoying with Prime Minister “Shiny Pony” hopefully will end soon.

One of the reasons, if not a paramount reason, for the election of the Trudeau Liberals is that taxpayers became incensed and discouraged with the Conservative Party of Canada.

Do you remember Conservative cabinet minister Bev Oda and her $16.00 glass of orange juice? Remember as she was vilified for that expense? Her career ended because controversy over her spending habits.

Do you remember Conservative Senator Mike Duffy? Do you remember how he was vilified in the court of public opinion for improper expense claims? The inherent left-wing bias of the mainstream media once again shows its true colours.

The top story yesterday (Sept 21/16) was the breaking news of this new Liberal “entitled to my entitlements” surrounding these reimbursements of moving expenses. By noon, the story was item four or five on the newscasts. By nine o’clock that same evening, this newest Liberal spending scandal was all but buried.

This is the very sort of tax-and-spend, entitled to entitlements that have plagued the Liberal Party is once again demonstrating to Canadians that they haven’t changed — this is the Liberal Party’s idea of “Sunny Ways”.

“Relogate” is just another continuance of the same tired Liberal arrogance that saw them blasted to third party status years ago.

Suddenly, a $16 dollar glass of orange juice looks a tad more refreshing.

Posted in Federal Politics, Kevin's Corner, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Let’s Talk About Sex

sexed1Let’s talk about sex.

After all, your children are talking about it. And not just as children do in the school yard; they talk about it in the classroom.

As they have been for decades.

*WARNING: Some topics discussed in this article are of a sexual nature and include concepts such as “vaginal lubrication” and “anal sex”. However, the concepts raised in this article are the very same concepts students are conversing about in public schools across the province.

Biology classes typically held the field of discourse in the various biological components associated with anatomy and species procreation. The education surrounding the “birds and the bees” was based in the scientific concepts essential to Human reproduction. Students would learn in an objective, scientific manner the purpose of the male reproductive organ and female reproductive organs across the mammalian class of vertebrates. The discussions in development of the Human anatomy (i.e. puberty) were kept simple and concise and remained limited to just the physical facts surrounding this natural process — the extent of pre-2010 curriculums surrounding procreation were kept to the basics.

It’s important to note that pre-2010 curriculums surrounding the topic of human reproduction coincided with the beginnings of ages most children first experience puberty (i.e. in Secondary School or “high school”).

So what changed?

In January of 2010, the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training quietly posted an updated “revision” to the existing sexual education curriculum (a component of the broader Health & Physical Fitness curriculum) to their website.

Kathleen Wynne was the Education minister under then Premiere Dalton McGuinty. And this 208-page revision caused extreme controversy for the McGuinty Government. Another key individual involved in the crafting of this curriculum was then Deputy Minister for Education Benjamin Levin.

The government pleaded with the masses, citing such statistics as “The curriculum hasn’t been updated since 1998”, “times have changed, our respective curriculums must also change”.

The source of this controversy was not over the fact that sexual awareness and biological functions of procreation was already discussed in public schools, the controversy existed around the content of the new curriculum and the respective age groups of pupils targeted for this education.

The outrage showcased by parents forced the McGuinty Government to abandon the legislation. Many parents, various family-orientated activist groups and many religious groups vehemently opposed these changes to the curriculum and the plans were subsequently shelved.

Time passed; McGuinty subsequently resigned his post over scandals (such as, but not limited to, what became known as the Gas Plant Fiasco). Kathleen Wynne was subsequently elected to replace McGuinty as the Liberal Party Leader. She would become Ontario’s 25th Premier on February 11, 2013.

“As Premier McGuinty’s Education Minister, Kathleen Wynne introduced a sexual education curriculum in 2010 that had to be withdrawn within days due to popular outcry. Although McGuinty promised more extensive parental consultation to address the concerns, as Premier, Wynne shoved the same graphic curriculum down the throats of Ontarians without meaningful consultation in 2015” notes a popular grassroots movement called PAFE (Parents as First Educators), “The ‘new’ sex-ed curriculum is 96% identical to the one from 2010.”

During the PC leadership race of 2015, both leadership hopefuls Patrick Brown and Monte McNaughton came out strong opposing this “radical” sexual education curriculum. For their honest objections, the Wynne Government attacked these two individuals and labeled them “homophobic bigots”.

Brown went on and won the leadership of the PCs and assumed his office on September 14, 2015; preceded by PC interim leader Jim Wilson. To this current date, however, Brown’s perspective on the sex-ed curriculum is dubious at best — his approach at how best to deal with this new curriculum remains unclear.

Without sufficient public consultation, Wynne enacted this new legislation in 2015.  Ontario’s first openly gay Premier decided to plow ahead with controversial sexual education crafted by a pedophile.

For the first time in history, students would be instructed as early as Grade 3 in such concepts as sexual identity and orientation. Most Grade 3 students are typically 8 years of age. Students in Grade 6 would be expected to learn about concepts such as “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse”. Most Grade 6 students are typically 11 years of age.

Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity writes in an article entitled Education and the Depths of the Sea, “Scandal is certainly an appropriate term, then, for events which in recent weeks have ignited controversy in Ontario regarding the efforts of the Ontario Provincial Government to re-introduce its lurid sex-education curriculum in public schools that includes, among other things, teaching six-year-olds sexual ‘consent’ and by twelve teaches them the intricacies of homosexual relations. The charge to enforce this culturally Marxist propaganda (and post-modern literary theory) on the ordinary lives of unsuspecting children in the province is being led by the openly lesbian premier, Kathleen Wynne, whose moral authority for guiding how children should understand family and human sexuality is non-existent from a Christian and biblical standpoint – her own life example should be clearly understood by Christians especially because human desires and ideas have real consequences for social and political life.”

Some critics of the new curriculum have argued that this isn’t pupil education, it is student indoctrination — especially when one considers the role that convicted pedophile Benjamin Levin had in crafting this new curriculum.

Levin, who is currently serving a three year sentence on charges of “making and distributing child pornography, counselling to commit an indictable offence, arrangement to commit a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16″ has self-admitted that he had a significant hand in creating this new education plan.  A convicted pedophile designed the very curriculum your children are forced to learn!

On July 8/2013 Levin was formally charged and arrested by the Toronto Police Service.  While he had been granted release on a $100,000 bail, he had been a suspect since 2012.  Levin pleaded guilty on March 3/2015 to three of the seven charges, namely one count of possession of child pornography, one count of making written child pornography, and one count of counselling a sexual assault.”  He was sentenced to prison on May 29 of that same year.

Those same critics also argue that by showcasing fore mentioned concepts to an 11-yr old will desensitize the student to sexual concepts.

Enter the age of “Progressivism” or “co-parenting”.  This radical sexual education curriculum is symbolic of a greater problem faced by today’s students in our public education system.

It was, and still remains, the government’s position that parents are not doing enough to educate their children in matters of Human sexuality.  Thus, the government feels a moral imperative to impose a set of doctrines dubbed a curriculum to address this perceived lacking of parental involvement.

In a research paper entitled, The Evolution of Health Education in Ontario, 1960s until Present-day (authored by Alicia Gismondi, Eleni Dimaras, Jocelyn Yu and Matt Hurley), it was noted that, “While the ideas of progressivism, which originated from John Dewey, influenced the incorporation of sexual health instruction, the ways in which sexual health education was discussed illustrated the moral values of the 1950s.”

When times change, education must change. Education and values reflected within a society is a dynamic concept; it forever is changing.

But what fundamentally did change in the education systems was the process of being taught how to think critically to the process of being taught what to think.

Ask most students today and they’ll tell you that “cars are bad”, “we’re mean to Indians” yet they fail to explain why cars are bad, et all.

This marks a shift to change the process of “discussion” to the process of “instructed” — and thus the subsequently implied meaning. One concept implies open thought and discord, the other implies indoctrination — it teaches students WHAT to think and no longer HOW to think critically.

When one considers that students as young as six years of age are learning about abstract concepts such as “consent” or when one considers that students as young as eleven years of age are learning about extreme sexual concepts such as anal penetration, one can begin to truly fathom the perspectives of groups like PAFE.  And perhaps most important, when one considers that the “father” of this curriculum is a convicted pedophile the contrarians to this “agenda” may be onto exposing some very valid concerns!

There is another element to this sexual education program.  This element surrounds the Criminal Code of Canada.

Section 152 of the Criminal Code of Canada reads as follows:
Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days.

Teaching, showcasing or instructing minors in this radical sex-ed curriculum is a violation of that section.

Subsection 153(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.

Explaining the concepts of vaginal lubrication or anal penetration to an eleven-year old pupil would be a violation of the Criminal Code.  The very persons our tax dollars employ to educate our youth could arguably be charged as “counselling” someone under the age of fourteen years — especially since those educators are indeed “a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency”.

There is a protest scheduled on September 21/2016.  Look here for more information.

Share your thoughts.

It’s too much too fast and will only serve to desensitize our youth to the concepts surrounding sex.

Have your say.  What do you think?

Here are some other interesting reads on this subject:
1) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/08/29/my-sex-ed-letter-was-a-mistake-patrick-brown.html
2) http://www.p-first.com/
3) http://www.macleans.ca/education/a-history-of-sex-ed-as-the-debate-over-it-heats-up/
4) http://www.theodorechristou.ca/tmc/Select_Subjects_in_the_History_of_Ontario_Education_files/Evolution%20of%20Sex%20Education_aliciagismondi_elenidimaras_jocelynyu_matthurley.pdf
5) https://www.ontario.ca/page/sex-education-ontario#section-2
6) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-introduce-more-explicit-sex-education-in-schools/article4315814/
7) https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/07/15/wynne_denies_levin_crafted_ontarios_sexeducation_curriculum.html
8) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/02/liberals-cant-deny-levins-role-with-sex-ed-curriculum
9) http://www.theinterim.com/issues/marriage-family/ontario-government-in-court-no-opt-outs-for-lgbt-lessons/
10) http://www.ezrainstitute.ca/resource-library/blog-entries/education-and-the-depths-of-the-sea
You can read the curriculum here:
11) http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health.html
12) http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/health.html

Posted in Journalism, Kevin's Corner, Ontario Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

David B. Strutt: The Great Canadian Vanishing

CCS Note: This article was written by David B. Strutt and posted here with permission.

Canadians stopped reproducing themselves around about the end of the 1960’s. OK, let’s look at that again. Since 1970, the birth rate of old stock Canadians has stalled at about 1.6 children from 2 parents. Replacement rate is about 2.1 children per couple. In other words, in 1970, we sat at 77% of replacement rate. We are still at a 1.6 children/woman birth rate today.

The population of Canada in 1970 was 21 million. That old stock population has been on the DECLINE for 46 years (a little more than two generations). If left unaffected by immigration, that 1970 population would now be—are you ready for it?—12,450,900 people. From the 21 million in 1970, we would have dropped to 16,170,000 in 1993.

For all you demographers out there, yes … the calculation will be skewed by a bunch of other factors. However, for demonstration purposes, try to indulge me for a bit. During the 1970’s, Canada was still largely influenced by old immigration habits. In 1968, Quebec created its own department for immigration. That agency was tasked with bringing in ONLY French speaking immigrants. Sometimes they had to lower their standards and allow in Anglophones as well. That certainly changed the demographics for a chunk of the nation.

Let’s go back a little further. Canada’s population in 1871 was 3.6 million. There were about 136,000 Indians and Inuit. The French were at 1 million and the British population was 2.1 million. Other groups were much smaller: Germans (203,000), Dutch, American blacks, Swiss, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese. Over the ensuing 100 years, only 9.3 million immigrants entered Canada, and yet the population reached 21 million by 1971. Canadians were procreating with vigour.

What happened?

All throughout the 19th century, immigration into Canada was largely unrestricted. There was an exception in 1885. Under pressure from British Columbia, the “head tax” was implemented expressly to limit Chinese immigration. That lasted until 1940. Otherwise, our only concern was keeping out criminals, paupers, the diseased, and the destitute. Regardless, immigration was mostly from the UK and Europe.

After a startling surge in immigration between 1903 and 1913, then WWI, and post war economic problems, a much more restrictive immigration policy was written and adopted. That policy remained pretty much unchanged until 1962. We can nail down that year as a point at which our immigration policies began to become more—how shall we say—”inclusive”.

The Green Paper.

During the 1970’s, an ongoing review of immigration and population policies kept a bunch of bureaucrats fat and happy. In 1975, a report to Parliament (The Green Paper) by a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was prepared. Surprise, surprise, the Liberal government accepted just about everything in the report and passed a new Immigration Act in 1976. Now the fundamental objectives of Canada’s immigration policy was to include the promotion of Canada’s, “… demographic, economic, social and cultural goals; family reunion; non-discrimination; the fulfillment of Canada’s international obligations in relation to refugees; and co-operation among all levels of government, as well as with the voluntary sector, in promoting the adaptation of newcomers to Canadian society.” — (Quote paraphrased from the Government of Canada archives.)

The stench of the UN is all over that Trudeauesque, Liberal disaster. To be an honest broker, I have to lay much of the blame for our current situation at the feet of the short-sighted Progressive Conservatives as well. Nothing of any import was done to fix things under ANY following governments.

As Trudeau’s Marxist experiment began bearing fruit in Canada (and I use the metaphor in the most ironic terms), well established cultural priorities and social mores began to unravel. Without filling up pages talking about the spread of the “ME” generation across the Western World, it’s suffice to say that building a family and maintaining a strong family unit was, suddenly, droll—nay, irresponsible!

“Look at the starving millions around the planet. How selfish we are to be having children. The population bomb is about to explode!”

Who cares anymore whether or not you pass along your family name and leave a proud legacy? Who gives a damn about aborting and entire generation of potential Canadians?

“It’s all too much trouble … and it requires a sacrifice we have no interest in making.” And, “What about a woman’s right to choose?”

Self-indulgence was the byword for the late 1960’s and 1970’s (and, arguably, is the same to this day). The old stock population that had flourished so abundantly for a century, began to crash.

In 2016, Canada has a population of about 36 million. Isn’t it curious to consider that our population has grown by 15 million since 1971 in spite of the dramatic crash of the old stocks from a century before? How did that happen? Where did all those people come from? The government says it only takes in 250,000 immigrants a year. That’s 11.25 million since 1971. If that were the case, Canada’s population would only be around 23,950,900 … would it not?

Epilogue: And now we have reached a point where our governments are looking to turn a proud, 150-year-old nation into something that never would have been dreamed of in the 1950’s. Draw your own conclusions folks, but—in my opinion—favouring immigrants from nations that do not believe in democracy, have no intention to integrate, hope to supplant us and build a world caliphate—want to impose a cruel and Neolithic theology of intolerance—and whose messengers are assisted and emboldened by our government to succeed … is nothing less than the final imposition of the 100-year Progressive plan of lunacy.

CCS Note: This article was written by David B. Strutt and posted here with permission.  Updated at authors’ request.

Posted in Federal Politics, Journalism, Ontario Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Oh Big Brother, Where Art Thou?

No, not really!Facebook likes to ask us, “What’s on Your Mind?”, “Where Are You?”, “How Are You Feeling?”.  Nosy little platform if I do say so myself.  But it isn’t the only one; all social media platforms and even some operating systems such as iOS, Windows & Android frequently ask their respective users rather impertinent questions.

While all of this may seem benign, I cannot see the benevolence of this practice.  There is no logical reason for my ‘Gallery’ app to require authorization to view my SMS.  But…

All of this is done by the respective manufacturers/vendors in the name of “improving the consumer experience, customizing tailored search results and improving the interaction with that of the end-user”.

For the record, “end-user” is defined as (noun) “the person who actually uses a particular product”.  Be it Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, LinkedIn or Snapchat, or the fundamental operating systems employed to access these social media websites, all mainstream folk (i.e. no one involved in the design, creation, development or testing processes of the respective software) are considered by the respective EULA (End User Licence Agreement; you know the one… you never read it, you just press AGREE 😉 ) agreements to be just that, “end-user”.  It’s a lot of legalese and long-winded mumbo-jumbo but well worth a read — you don’t need to be a lawyer to recognize that the end-user signs off on a lot of different elements that give and secure control by these vendors over your activities.

If you can successfully comprehend my choice of words and peregrinate through my shared perspectives, I can all but guarantee that you will have no problems reading the EULA’s or “Community Standards” — Community Standards is nearly synonymous with an EULA.  And I cannot stress enough the importance of reading these, albeit lengthy, legally binding documents.  Read Facebook’s Community Standards here and Microsoft’s EULA for Windows 10 here.

The pinnacle of this example is the very “app permissions” the end-user must sign-off upon to download and install various programs for utilization on their “smartphone” or other device.  Why the Android app “Gallery” needs access to your phone’s contact list is beyond me — granting permission for this app to access my camera is logical as the pictures taken by this phone’s camera are accessible from the “Gallery” app.  Access to my phone’s stored contact list and SMS history is NOT a reasonable request from my simple Gallery App.

quotation-marks-left2*disclaimer: The “Gallery app” by Android is used for example; it is to be taken within the context of this article.  Each app, program or executable may and/or does contain different permissions to function within specified context of their respective original codes, access permissions and EULA’s.  No infringement nor insult was intended against all respective copyright holders.  (*I bit my tongue saying that last part :/ )

So, you still with me over there?  Because this is where the fecal excrement hits the proverbial fan.

If you ever needed a better example that someone is always watching you; let’s start right here and prove a point: Big Brother Is Watching You.  This insidious method of data collection is legal and most of the time, feedback is provided freely by you, the end-user of these software platforms.  You, the end-user, feed the very beast that literally spies on you.

You do it all the time.  Every time you install a new app, upgrade an operating system — you do it every single time you post to Facebook (or any social media) your location, your mood and even your basic status update.  You do it when you access Google Maps; it likewise needs to know your location to function as advertised.

Oh by the way Canada, I meant to ask… how’s that long-form census working out for ya eh?

We the end-users feed this data collection machine all in the name of enhancing our various ‘creature comforts’.  And hey, I too am a mere mortal that uses many aspects of this technology — I’ve hit that “Accept” button for an EULA more times than I’d care to count.

When one is connected to the internet, one has NO reasonable expectation of privacy — the lawyers may argue otherwise, but the fundamental fact of the matter is that once something or someone goes online, everything that is shared can, and often does, become part of the “public domain”.  Regardless of your privacy settings!  Because the internet is largely unregulated and spanning an entire globe, this technological marvel becomes next to impossible to legislate, regulate or control.

But lawmakers, politicians and lobbyists do try…

… and this probably explains why even Mark Zuckerberg himself sports a short band of shiny electrical tape covering his laptop’s integrated camera (webcam).

In many jurisdictions, law enforcement must first seek a search warrant or other noted court orders before lawful seizure of your online activities may proceed.  But if you keep utilizing the “Location Services” in any and all apps, you are already traceable; any kinder-kid can track you on their tablet — ergo, no warrant or court order is necessary.

Some may argue that the Internet is the best friend to those who believe that true freedom of speech trumps all.  This is a half truth.  Every medium has its “Community Standards” which precludes any and all statements or shares over said medium.  Yours truly had to sign off on the WordPress Community Standards to make this Blog possible; while WordPress tends to be more open and supportive of varying perspectives, the concept remains the same.

Interesting thought eh folks?  The infrastructure to spy on all of us already exists.  Time to break out the tin-foil hats.

Technological innovation will undoubtedly be the savoir of our species BUT the problem lies now squarely in HOW best to utilize the marvels of our own creations.

The progressive mantra has always been a new world order; one government to bind us, one government to rule us all; for un-elected ruling elites know better than us mere mortals.  Read this, that & the other thing if you’re new to the blog and don’t know what I mean by that.

The evolution of technology towards the betterment of Humankind can only be best utilized when one truly fathoms that actual growth in technology, spirituality and critically; the evolution of our species is achieved by individuals that participate in the process — the ones that understand the five pillars of individuality or conservatism.

Unelected and by extension, unaccountable groups seek to categorize and catalog all of this raw data in some vain attempt to fashion a path that they perceive to be the best way forward for you and our species — individual rights and freedoms be damned!

The epitome of globalization directly depends on unelected bodies such as the United Nations or the European Union; the infrastructure already exists.  Global elitists and the rest of the progressive crowd hope to capitalize upon this technology before you have a chance to notice the subtle attempt to usurp your rights and freedoms.

Technology is a wonderful thing; don’t leave it in the hands of those who would make George Orwell’s 1984 look tame.

Study this folks.  Big Brother is right there with you.  So, in the meantime, shut your “location services” off.  We really didn’t need to know that you were feeling wonderful at the Beer Store in whatever town; but more importantly, you need to stop surrendering this fact to the very software that records all of this.

In this age of technological marvel, everyone can track anyone, everywhere we go.

Constant vigilance folks!


Posted in Archived, Journalism, Kevin's Corner, Technology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Free Trade Free World

Capture18 copyIt would seem to those applying common sense that if one fully wished to capitalize upon the markets, free trade would be the epitome of an awesome idea.

Isolationist and xenophobic approaches to social policy is contradictory to good business sense and extreme protectionism is detrimental to the progression in evolution of our species and development of all nation states.

Pardon the digression, but on this tangent, this is why I’ve had such a difficult time understanding the choice to embrace Donald Trump for American President.  I’ve never endorsed Trump and I still won’t, but I do hope he wins over that criminal Hillary Clinton. And if becoming President, I hope Trump changes gears from the grandstanding misogynistic narcissistic xenophobic protectionist showboating of the campaign trail to leader of the free world — more importantly, I hope he remembers that isolating the USA from the rest of North America is counter intuitive.  I find Trump’s current statements to be inconsistent with his position as a well-respected business leader.  Sure NAFTA is by no means perfect but on the whole, the net benefit to both the Canadian and American economies has and continues to outweigh any negative impact otherwise observed or noted (the same can be said for NATO).  The ‘Trump Stance’ is remarkably short-sighted — American sovereignty is NOT sacrificed by working within a global economy.

Back to the topic at hand, globalization is the end-game of Agenda 2030; free trade is not an agent of socialization or globalization; it is merely an agreement between two (or more) different countries.

Globalization refers to the ideologue of one world government or a ‘New World Order’. It refers to anointing an unelected, and therefore unaccountable, political body to oversee the affairs of the world (the United Nations currently serves as the best example to illustrate this point, especially through their proposed Agenda and the various spin-offs that have emerged).  To fully understand this concept, it directly depends upon how one defines “globalization”. Nick Vandergragt eloquently clarifies this concept, “if by [globalization] you mean easier access to foreign markets [for free trade], you are right. But if by [globalization] you mean an end to the nation state, and a surrender to some faceless unaccountable body to Lord and rule over us, thanks but I’ll pass. […]”

Globalization through mandated policy by unelected bureaucrats detracts from the rights and individual freedoms of each nation state — whereas free trade is merely a tool utilized by those same nation states as a means to work and grow together; while simultaneously protecting individual countries through negotiated compromise.  Each state/country gets an equal seat at the bargaining table.

The concept of free trade could be (and unfortunately often is) perverted into accusations that free trade is actually an agent or mechanism supporting a globalization agenda; this accusation is not accurate.  Open markets and less government regulation are beneficial to everyone from the massive conglomerates to the small business owner to the average consumer like you and me; this acceptance does not lend credence to allowing a group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to manipulate the social agenda — regardless of how badly the socialist crowd tries to convince you otherwise.

You wanna know why free trade is so great?  Okay, here it is: free trade benefits both corporations and individuals.  Food is cheaper, clothes are cheaper, steel is cheaper, cars are cheaper, phone service is cheaper.  Free trade lowers prices and raises income; free trade stops wars.  We’ll figure out a way to fix the few imperfections that do still exist later.

Let free markets be free.  Stand against unilateral globalization but recognize that free trade agreements have been overall fundamentally a good thing for Canada, the Canadian Economy and for all of our various trading partners.

While each country remains its own, we do have to coexist on this planet.  We do have to still trade — I’d prefer individual nation states calling their own shots over a group of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats any day of the week.

I freely recognize that there are pros and cons to any free trade arrangement, and I do recognize that some elements of a particular population may stand to lose from some aspect of a given trade deal; however, I think the positives of free trade outweigh the negatives.  That being said, I am open minded for a re-negotiation of the NAFTA, TPP, et all agreements, but I still stand by my assertion that free trade is fundamentally critical to the success of our nation and indeed the planet.

What do you think?


Posted in Archived, Conservatism, Federal Politics, Kevin's Corner, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

You Did It Folks!

theRebel.media move over!  Canadian Common Sense can boast about the fact that we are now 100% crowd-funded!

7584087_1449975264.757Through your generous donations, we are able to keep this Blog alive!

It was awesome folks like yourself that allowed us to truly own the phrase, “by Canadians, for Canadians”.

We couldn’t have come this far without your dedication in support.

If ever you needed proof that your actions, your participation matters, then look no further than right here!

We will continue the good fight.  We will continue to stand up for conservative values and common sense in government.  Head on over to our Facebook Page and give us a LIKE!  Be sure to keep up to date by following us on Twitter @KTVHaris!

I truly wish words could be sufficient to convey my sincere appreciation for your tireless efforts.  Thank-you!

Always and Forever on Your Side,

Kevin Harris

P.S.  Do you have a passion for writing?  Would you be interested in joining our small but growing team?  If you’d like to use your voice, I’ve got a forum!  Drop me a line at kevin@ktvharris.com

P.P.S.  Canadian Common Sense relies entirely on donations to operate.  Please consider donating $10 or $20 dollars to aid us in always fighting the good fight.  Remember, we’re always and forever on side with Canadian Common Sense.

Posted in Archived, Conservatism, Federal Politics, Journalism, Kevin's Corner, Ontario Politics, Uncategorized | 1 Comment