Monday, April 29, 2024

Echoes of History: Manipulation, Division, and the Fight for Freedom


North America's young people, hailing from Canada and the USA, find themselves unwittingly caught in a complex web of influence. Academia, political operatives, and the strategic use of censorship via social media algorithms are all players in this grand scheme to sway world politics.


This manipulation of the education system and the reminiscent tactics of totalitarian regimes from the past, like the Fascists and Nazis of the 20th century, are sadly nothing new. We mustn't forget the lessons of history, particularly the events leading to the tragic conflicts of the 1930s.


Present-day political parties, especially in the wake of the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, seem more focused on maintaining power than truly serving the people. Fear, coercion, and manipulation tactics dominate, reminiscent of darker times in history.


Today's media landscape often feels like a battleground for competing ideologies, with one side promoting a vision of progressive liberalism while the other advocates for a socialist world order. However, beneath the rhetoric lies a dangerous game of deception.


The rise of cancel culture, championed by various groups like BLM, MeToo, and Antifa, further divides society along ideological lines. These movements, often amplified by sympathetic media outlets, breed animosity and distrust among different segments of the population.


The disturbing scenes of looting and violence witnessed in 2020 and beyond reflect a society on the brink. Ordinary people, driven by a sense of entitlement and fueled by organized pressure groups, wreak havoc on their own communities, all in the name of justice.


It's alarming to witness the silence of elected officials in the face of such turmoil. History has shown us that complacency only emboldens those seeking to sow discord and division.


Calls to defund the police and the proliferation of hate-fueled ideologies only serve to escalate tensions. The right to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution is a cornerstone of democracy, yet it seems increasingly under threat.


Despite the dominance of social media giants, individuals still possess the power to shape the narrative. The rights of users must be upheld, even in the face of corporate interests and political agendas.


Regarding vaccine procurement, it's essential to separate fact from fiction. While criticism may be warranted, it's crucial to acknowledge the efforts made by previous administrations to secure vaccine doses for the population.


In these tumultuous times, we must remain vigilant and vocal in defence of our freedoms and principles. History may be repeating itself, but it's not too late to alter the course of events.

Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

In 1981, I found myself, along with my solicitor the late W. Ross Hitch on my behalf, embroiled in a legal battle that would ultimately reveal a troubling abuse of power by the Ontario Legislature. Through the passage of legislation, the government effectively froze and seized all my assets, an action that was later determined to be illegal. Despite the clear violation of my rights, rectifying this injustice came at an exorbitant cost, nearly reaching one million dollars in legal fees.

Throughout the ordeal, it became evident that the elected representatives, spanning various political parties, had acted unlawfully. Despite their sworn duty to uphold the law and serve the people, they failed to do so, instead choosing to wield their power in a manner that trampled on my rights.

Years have passed since those events unfolded, yet not a single member of the legislature or political party involved has extended an apology for their egregious misconduct. Their refusal to acknowledge their wrongdoing serves as a stark reminder of the impunity with which those in positions of authority can act and the enduring consequences faced by those who dare to challenge their abuses of power.

Here is the summarized detail:

In the case of Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al., the applicants were involved in a legal dispute regarding the sale of properties owned by a cooperative corporation, Co-operative Health Services of Ontario (Co-op). The liquidator of Co-op, Clarkson Company Limited (Clarkson), claimed an interest in the proceeds of the sale. However, an agreement was reached between the liquidator and the applicants for the distribution of the proceeds, subject to certain conditions.

Subsequently, the Legislature of Ontario enacted the Co-operative Health Services of Ontario Assets Protection Act, 1981, which aimed to preserve the funds from sale until all matters related to the distribution of the Co-op's assets were determined. This Act directly interfered with the agreement between the liquidator and the applicants by imposing restrictions on the distribution of the funds.

The applicants challenged the Act, arguing that it was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Ontario Legislature as it intruded into federal jurisdiction over insolvency matters. The Court agreed, stating that the Act infringed on the administration of the insolvent's estate and attempted to supplement federal insolvency legislation, which was beyond the province's authority.

Therefore, the Act was deemed invalid, and the applicants' challenge was successful.


Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Dereliction of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws.

As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be held accountable or liable for such actions!


Hitch et al. v. Clarkson Co. Ltd. et al.;

Attorney-General for Ontario (Intervenant)

(1982), 35 O.R. (2d) 252



Constitutional law -- Validity of legislation -- Provincial legislation on insolvency -- Ultra vires.

Document @


Sunday, April 28, 2024

Harvard Failing Faster Than The Roman Empire

A crushing cancel culture, accusations of plagiarism, protests on campus, lawsuits, Congressional investigations, and big-dollar donors running for the door. Inside the campus turmoil, where the Emperor Charles has no clothes.

Rewrite of an article by  Why Harvard University Is Failing at Everything

 In the early days of Claudine Gay's Harvard presidency, she faced a Congressional inquiry on rising campus antisemitism. 

This came amidst turmoil following an attack on Israel. Gay's responses, including her stance on calls for genocide, sparked controversy and international criticism. 

Despite Harvard's prestigious history, recent events have exposed flaws in its administration and academic standards. Grade inflation, leadership controversies, and declining rankings have tarnished its reputation. Moreover, the campus environment has become tense, alienating students and alumni. 

Harvard's missteps raise questions not just about its own value, but also about the broader purpose of higher education. As Harvard grapples with its identity and legacy, it confronts challenges to its once-unquestioned status.

Harvard, with its vast endowment of $50.7 billion, faces growing scrutiny and challenges. Despite its wealth, Harvard's academic progress and leadership have been questioned. The Allston campus project, initiated 18 years ago, has lagged behind MIT's biotech advancements in Kendall Square. 

This delay has led to a brain drain, with prominent scientists like Stuart Schreiber departing for better opportunities. Similarly, Harvard's Kennedy School, once known for producing public-sector leaders, now sees a significant portion of its graduates entering the private sector. Concerns about government skepticism among students and controversies over faculty dismissals further tarnish Harvard's reputation.

Grade inflation is rampant, with 79% of undergraduates receiving A grades in recent years. The campus environment fosters political intolerance, with conservative voices often marginalized. Harvard's handling of the Israel/Hamas conflict has resulted in legal complaints alleging discrimination and harassment. Additionally, infrastructure issues, such as heating and housing problems, have plagued student life.

These challenges raise questions about Harvard's ability to maintain its academic excellence and reputation in the face of evolving realities and increasing criticism.

Students and parents are increasingly critical of Harvard's campus conditions despite its immense wealth. Maintenance issues persist, with reports of peeling paint and disruptive renovations. Graduate students faced water shortages and damaged property, with Harvard officials offering inadequate compensation.

Harvard Square, an extension of the campus, suffers from neglect, contrasting with Boston University's efforts to revitalize its surroundings. The recent loss of major donors, like Tim Day, reflects dissatisfaction with Harvard's direction, particularly regarding diversity initiatives and responses to campus issues.

The university's endowment team's underperformance compounds financial challenges, prompting calls for reform from CFO Ritu Kalra. Concerns about antisemitism on campus persist, with Rabbi David Wolpe resigning from an advisory committee due to perceived inaction. Interim President Alan Garber's appointment of Professor Derek Penslar to address antisemitism further fuels controversy.

Criticism extends beyond Jewish concerns, with Professor Danielle Allen condemning disruptive protests as violations of university norms. Harvard's failure to address these issues raises doubts about its commitment to campus improvement and academic excellence.

Harvard is facing a multitude of challenges, including declining prestige, financial strain, discontent among students and faculty, and loss of support from alumni and donors. Despite these issues, there appears to be a lack of recognition among Harvard's leadership regarding the severity of the situation and how to address it.

In response to criticism, former Harvard President Claudine Gay attributed her resignation to external "demagogues" undermining the university's core values. However, Harvard's reliance on outside influences is not new, with significant funding from foreign governments contributing to concerns about intolerance and free expression on campus.

Transparency and openness are suggested remedies for Harvard's woes. The university's communication strategy has been criticized for its lack of engagement, hindering efforts to address internal and external challenges effectively.

Calls for change emphasize the need for humility, openness to diverse perspectives, and a proactive approach to addressing criticism. Harvard's failure to uphold its founding principles of excellence and truth raises questions about its future and relevance in academia.

In addition,

Harvard helped Nazi Germany improve its image in the West

The profound impact of Nazi policies on German academia during the 1930s, highlighted the systematic suppression of dissenting voices, particularly targeting Jewish scholars and those with left-leaning ideologies. It elucidated the coercive tactics employed by the Nazis to enforce ideological conformity within universities, such as the expulsion of Jewish faculty and the appointment of Nazi commissars to enforce compliance.

The account of Peter Drucker's experience at Frankfurt University poignantly illustrates the moral dilemmas faced by intellectuals in the face of totalitarianism. Drucker's decision to leave Germany underscores the chilling effect of Nazi control over academic institutions and the erosion of academic freedom.

Furthermore, the contrasting responses of intellectuals like Martin Heidegger demonstrate the complex interplay between ideology, opportunism, and moral compromise. Heidegger's collaboration with the Nazi regime exemplifies the betrayal of intellectual integrity in exchange for personal gain and ideological alignment.

The expulsion of renowned scholars like Albert Einstein symbolizes the devastating brain drain inflicted upon German academia by Nazi persecution, leading to the loss of invaluable intellectual capital and the disruption of scientific progress.

Research into Harvard's collaboration with Nazi Germany gains significance amid current debates on campus antisemitism framed as freedom of speech. Historians note Harvard's historical ties to Nazi Germany, indicating a pattern of reluctance to condemn evil regimes.

Harvard's recent controversies, including the resignation of President Claudine Gay and criticism for her response to calls for genocide against Jewish students, echo past instances of repressed antisemitism. Notably, Harvard's retention of a fellowship named after a top Nazi industrialist raises concerns about the university's response to antisemitism in light of substantial donations from Mideast regimes.

Harvard's history includes welcoming a top Nazi official, Ernst Hanfstaengl, in 1934, highlighting the university's complicity with the Nazi regime. Despite protests from students, Harvard administrators and alumni embraced Hanfstaengl, reflecting a pattern of insensitivity to antisemitic sentiments.

The legacy of Harvard's past leaders, such as A. Lawrence Lowell, who proposed quotas on Jewish student admissions, underscores the university's history of discrimination. Medoff suggests that Harvard's actions, like sending delegates to Nazi-controlled universities, illustrate a troubling pattern of support for oppressive regimes.

Also, Harvard's historical entanglements with Nazi Germany raise serious pertinent questions about its commitment to combating antisemitism and upholding democratic values.

Historian Stephen Norwood's book, "The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower: Complicity and Conflict on American Campuses," reveals Harvard's contribution to Nazi Germany's image rehabilitation efforts in the West. According to Norwood, Harvard's administration and student leaders provided significant support to the Hitler regime during its persecution of Jews and military expansion.

Norwood criticizes Harvard's president at the time, James B. Conant, for not only remaining silent on antisemitism but actively collaborating with it. Conant allowed Nazi symbols on campus, including a wreath bearing the swastika placed in a Harvard chapel by Germany's top diplomat in Boston. Additionally, Harvard's policies during the 1930s restricted Jewish refugees, particularly Jewish professors, from seeking refuge at the university.

Conant's belated condemnation of Nazism after the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938 contrasts with his earlier actions. Despite Harvard's later rebuttal, Norwood provides evidence of Conant's efforts to foster friendly relationships with Nazi university leaders, even as they purged Jewish faculty and promoted antisemitic racial science.

Norwood's research also highlights other Harvard affiliates who sympathized with Hitler's regime, such as Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School, who praised Hitler's leadership during a visit to Germany.

Norwood emphasizes the role of American university presidents during this period, arguing that Harvard's choices were not inevitable, as demonstrated by the actions of other institutions like Williams College and British universities, which took stands against Nazi collaboration.

In conclusion, Norwood's book calls attention to the university's complicity with Nazism, urging a reassessment of Harvard’s historical legacy of “Everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life,” and its original motto “Veritas”, adopted by Harvard's in 1643, which is Latin for “truth,”!


Wednesday, April 24, 2024

Unmasking Civil Disobedience: Why USA and CDN Should Outlaw Masked Protesters


In the battle for social change, transparency and accountability are paramount. Masked protests not only obscure the true intentions of demonstrators but also undermine the foundations of civil society.

By outlawing masked protesters, the USA and Canada can reaffirm their commitment to open dialogue, peaceful dissent, and the rule of law. It is time to unmask civil disobedience and restore integrity to the democratic process.

In recent days, the sight of masked protesters especially on campuses has become increasingly common during demonstrations across North America. While the right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of democracy, the use of masks to conceal one's identity raises significant concerns. It is time for both the USA and Canada to take a stand against this practice and outlaw masked protesters.

The Symbolism of Unmasking: Protesting is a fundamental right in any democracy, a powerful tool for citizens to voice their concerns and advocate for change. However, hiding behind masks undermines the transparency and accountability essential to effective activism. By concealing their identities, masked protesters obscure their motives and evade responsibility for their actions. This anonymity not only shields individuals from consequences but also fosters an environment ripe for violence and lawlessness.

Transparency in Civil Discourse: In a democratic society, open dialogue and transparency are essential for progress. When individuals choose to protest, they should do so with integrity and courage, standing behind their beliefs without fear or shame. Masked protesters send a message of distrust and defiance, detracting from the legitimacy of their cause. Requiring protesters to show their faces is not an infringement on their rights but rather a reaffirmation of the principles of transparency and accountability that underpin civil society.

Challenges of Masked Protesters: The anonymity provided by masks emboldens individuals to engage in acts of violence and vandalism under the guise of protest. This not only endangers public safety but also undermines the credibility of legitimate grievances. Moreover, the presence of masked protesters complicates law enforcement efforts, making it difficult to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. By outlawing masked protests, the USA and Canada can send a clear message that violence and intimidation have no place in civil discourse.

Addressing Student Union Complicity: Student unions, entrusted with representing the interests of their members, must also be held accountable for their actions. Allowing and even encouraging masked protests within their ranks sets a dangerous precedent, legitimizing behaviour that undermines the very foundations of democracy. Student leaders must recognize their responsibility to uphold the values of transparency and peaceful protest, rather than condoning acts of domestic terror.

Ending the Culture of Anonymity: The proliferation of masked protesters, often characterized by anarchist ideologies and criminal behaviour, poses a threat to the fabric of civil society. It is incumbent upon lawmakers and judicial authorities to take decisive action to curb this trend. By outlawing masked protests and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions, the USA and Canada can reaffirm their commitment to the rule of law and the principles of democracy.

Update Info:

Columbia Custodian Trapped by ‘Angry Mob’ Speaks Out

As the mob invaded Hamilton Hall in the early hours of April 30, a facilities worker was photographed pushing a demonstrator against a wall.

Later, it emerged that the protester was a 40-year-old trust fund kid named James Carlson, who owns a townhouse in Brooklyn worth $2.3 million.

The man who tried to hold him back was Mario Torres, 45, who has worked at Columbia—where the average janitor makes less than $19 an hour—for five years.

Torres was trying to “protect the building” when he ended up in an altercation with Carlson: “He had a Columbia hoodie on, and I managed to rip that hoodie off of him and expose his face.” (Carlson was later charged with five felonies, including burglary and reckless endangerment.) “I was freaking out. At that point, I’m thinking about my family. How was I gonna get out? Through the window?”

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Biden's Politics About Power and Appeasement NOT Americans First

Throughout his career, Joe Biden has opposed U.S. missile defence, and now that he is president, he could trade our defences in a deal with the Russians, Iranians or Chinese. 

That would be a dangerous mistake. The critical role of missile defence in national security strategy calls for a commitment to strengthen and expand these capabilities rather than considering them as bargaining chips in diplomatic negotiations at any time.


Even President Barack Obama, who was sympathetic to the idealist view of disarmament, and was caught on a hot mic talking to President Dmitry Medvedev suggesting he would negotiate on missile defence after the U.S. election, ultimately chose to not trade away missile defense with the Russians. And now the U.S. is firmly locked in a rivalry with not just one nuclear superpower, but two, and still contending with a nuclear rogue state.


Senator Joe Biden's and President Biden's historical positions on missile defence align more closely with political considerations than with safeguarding the American public. His political history shows that Biden has opposed missile defence initiatives, including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which most recently has proven to enhance national security and protect American citizens including its allies from missile threats.


Biden's political history of opposition to missile defence, as outlined by his voting records and in numerous articles, has been driven by political motives rather than a genuine concern for national security or the citizens of the United States who elected him over the years.


Biden's opposition to President Reagan's SDI initiative and subsequent resistance to missile defence efforts under subsequent administrations, including President George W. Bush's plans to deploy and improve homeland missile defence, are proof of instances where political considerations influenced his stance.


The most vocal critic of the Reagan Doctrine for an American Strategic Defense Initiative and a strong voice for putting it on the bargaining table was Sen. Joe Biden. who said, “The president’s continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.”


The Biden and Democrats theory that missile defences might prompt an arms race between the United States and nuclear powers by degrading the certainty of “mutual vulnerability” has always been dubious. But after so many years of observing the impact of missile defences, we have mounting evidence that it is compatible with mutual offensive arms reductions. Missile defense is de-escalatory, has a deterrent effect, and most important, saves lives.


The missile defence system that Bush relied on in 2006, and which today provides protection for the American homeland, deployed forces, allies and friends, is based on the technology developed by the SDI program that Biden continually opposed. Had Biden had his way in the 1980s and the early 2000s, the U.S. would be vulnerable and exposed to adversaries’ missiles across the globe.


As far back as 1988 Joe Biden has shown Americans that he truly is unfit for office, in my view. Biden and the Democrats have always put their political standing for keeping power and getting reelected ahead of their position for the American people and its country, as history continues to show.


The Democrat's Opposition to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI):


Opposition to SDI: The opposition to SDI primarily came from Democrats, including scientists and nuclear weapons experts. The opposition is framed as more politically motivated than based on technical or military concerns.


Political Context: The Democrats' opposition to SDI stemmed from broader political considerations. Democrats were already on the wrong side of economic policy, particularly about Reaganomics, and their opposition to SDI further complicated their political position.


Policy Stakes: SDI is portrayed as a radical departure from the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), offering a morally and practically superior alternative. However, the Democrats faced a political dilemma in responding to SDI, as endorsing it would mean ceding political ground to Reagan. as opposed to the safety of Americans.


Political Consequences: The success or failure of SDI would have significant political ramifications for the Democrats. If SDI succeeded, Democrats would face the challenge of admitting their opposition was wrong or persisting in their stance, which would become increasingly untenable.


Impact on Democrats: The political fortunes of the Democrats would be tied to the success or failure of SDI, with its success potentially detrimental to their political standing.


Overall, SDI was a politically charged issue that posed challenges for the Democrats, impacting both their policy positions and electoral prospects.


Technological Feasibility: Experts agree that the concept of basing ballistic missile interceptors in space is feasible. Advances in sensors, computing power, and networking have made the development of such a system more practical and potentially more effective than in previous decades.

Strategic Advantages: Space-based interceptors offer significant strategic advantages, particularly in engaging threats during the boost phase of missile flight. Intercepting missiles at this stage provides opportunities to pre-empt the deployment of countermeasures and ensures a higher likelihood of hitting all warheads, potentially over enemy territory.

Better Coverage and Positioning: Space-based interceptors would provide better coverage compared to ground-based systems, as they could defend against missile launches from virtually any location on Earth. Additionally, their orbital velocity offers positional advantages, reducing the distance to intercept and allowing multiple shots at incoming threats.

Dual Functionality: In addition to missile defence, space-based interceptors could potentially be used to target adversaries' satellites, countering threats to U.S. space systems and providing a defensive capability against anti-satellite weapons.

Deterrence: The development and deployment of space-based interceptors could serve as a deterrent against potential adversaries, signalling U.S. capabilities and resolve to protect against missile threats.