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.

PS 

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

ONTARIO HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CALLAGHAN J. 16TH OCTOBER 1981

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

Document @ https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1741/1981canlii1741.html

 

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  JON KELLER Titled 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.

Source:

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2024/02/27/harvard-failure-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.

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.

FACTS:

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.

Sources:

https://www.csmonitor.com/1986/0609/estar.html

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/12/20/president-biden-dont-trade-away-missile-defense-with-the-russians/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Strategic-Defense-Initiative

https://www.britannica.com/topic/arms-control

http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal85-1147419

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/30/pentagon-examining-options-for-space-based-missile-interceptors

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile-defense-2020/#:~:text=Pursue%20a%20more%20robust%20and,to%20changing%20and%20emerging%20threats. 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6351380207112

 

 

Stop Taxpayer Funding for Universities and Colleges

Stopping federal and state governments from using taxpayer funding for universities has potential benefits:

 

Redistribution of Resources: Cutting government funding could redistribute resources to other areas of need, infrastructure, debt reduction and most importantly Medicare and Social Security.

 

Fiscal Responsibility: It would promote fiscal responsibility and accountability within universities, encouraging them to use their resources more efficiently and transparently.

 

Reduce Dependence on Public Funds: Encourages universities not to rely less on public funds and use their endowments and become more self-sufficient, fostering innovation and entrepreneurship in revenue generation.

 

Fairness: It addresses concerns about fairness by ensuring that wealthy institutions with substantial endowments contribute more than their fair share to society, especially when they benefit from tax-exempt status.

 

Budgetary Relief: Cutting government funding would provide budgetary relief for governments facing financial constraints, allowing funds to be allocated to other priorities such as Medicare and Social Security.

 

Here is a structured plan to strip elite universities of government funding and federal student loan dollars (taxpayer-funded) with key components ASAP.

 

Assessment of Current Funding Streams: A comprehensive review of the government funding and federal student loan dollars allocated to elite universities. This includes grants, research funding, student aid programs, and other forms of financial assistance is already available to lawmakers.

 

Establish Criteria for Elite Universities: Define criteria that determine which universities qualify as "elite." This must include factors such as endowment size, selectivity in admissions, academic reputation, research output, and financial resources.

 

Gradual Phase-Out Approach: Implement a 3-year phased approach to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate government funding and federal student loan dollars for elite universities over this 3-year predetermined timeframe. This allows universities to adjust their budgets and operations accordingly.

 

Redirect Funding to Priority Areas: Reallocate the government funding and student loan dollars saved from elite universities to prioritize areas such as border protection and reduction of debt.

 

Legislative Action: Draft and propose legislation to amend existing laws and regulations governing government funding and federal student loans to elite universities. This may involve changes to eligibility criteria, funding allocation formulas, or enforcement mechanisms.

 

Public Awareness and Support: Build public awareness and support for the plan by highlighting the rationale behind redirecting funding from elite universities to other priorities.

 

Monitoring and Evaluation: Establish mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the plan and adjust as needed based on feedback and performance metrics.

 

Enforcement and Compliance: Enforce compliance with the new regulations and ensure that elite universities adhere to the revised funding guidelines. Implement penalties for non-compliance, such as fines, and loss of accreditation.

 

Long-Term Sustainability: Develop strategies to ensure the long-term sustainability of the revised funding framework, including periodic reviews, updates to eligibility criteria, and ongoing dialogue with stakeholders.

 

By following this plan, policymakers can effectively strip elite universities of government funding and federal student loan dollars while promoting equal access to education and supporting priority areas for all Americans and not elite universities and colleges.

 

REASONS and FACTS for The PLAN:

The substantial taxpayer-funded financial resources available to Ivy League universities, from federal funding along with their private and corporate donated considerable endowments, raise questions about the allocation of these funds and their impact on affordability and access to higher education.

A newly released report, by Open the Books, an organization that aims to make public spending more transparent, shed light on the enormous sums of money the federal government (taxpayers) provides to Ivy League universities — and how that money is handled.

It concluded that in the six fiscal years between 2010 and 2015, $41.59 billion of the Ivy League’s money could be traced back to taxpayer-funded payments and benefits.

To put that in perspective, the average amount of money that the eight Ivy League schools received annually over that time — $4.31 billion — exceeds the amount of money received by 16 of the 50 states.

The report also examined Ivy League endowments, some of the country's largest. Penn’s endowment for 2015 was the fourth highest, at $10.1 billion. In 2016, it climbed to $10.7 billion.

The Ivy League’s total endowment is around $120 billion, which amounts to about $2 million per undergraduate student. A sum of that size could give every Ivy League student a full ride for the next 51 years.

Between 2010 and 2015, the eight schools received $23.89 billion in federal grants $10.6 billion of which came from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health.

Other sources of grant money were the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy.

Research grants and contracts weren’t the only forms of government support for Ivy League schools. The government also provides various forms of aid grants to colleges — in the six years the report investigated, Penn received $20,362,715 for the federal work-study program and $33,155,056 in Pell Grants.

The report also showed the comparatively low state funding Penn receives. While Cornell received $98.91 million from New York in 2015, Penn received just $19,233.

Financial aid at the Ivy League schools is most often need-based, which is offered based on a student’s financial need, rather than merit. However, the available range is generous, with many schools offering a zero-parent contribution for families of a certain income.

For example, students from families with an income of less than $85,000 can attend Harvard University for free. Additionally, Dartmouth College offers a scholarship covering at least the cost of tuition for families making under $125,000[55].

The number of students offered financial support is also reassuring with 62% of Princeton University undergraduates receiving financial aid for the Class of 2025. Many Ivy League schools also offer financial aid to international students.

Further, these schools also rely on significant federal funding. For example, in 2021 Harvard received $625 million in federal funds, or approximately 67% of the school’s total sponsored revenue that year.

From the government side, student financial aid accounts for the lion’s share of federal dollars that go to colleges and universities. In 2018, 65% of the $149 billion total in federal funds received by institutions of higher education went toward federal student aid. This covers scholarships, work-study and loans given to students for their educational expenses, according to USA Facts, a nonprofit site that collects government data.

In 2018, federal money made up 14% of all college revenue. About 3.6% of total federal spending went toward higher education investments.

Colleges and universities received $1.068 trillion in revenue from federal and non-federal funding sources in 2018.

The federal government directed 65% of its $149 billion investments to federal student aid which covers scholarships, work-study and loans given to students for their educational expenses.

Harvard University received the largest federal grant: $179 million from the National Institute of Health. Columbia University received the second largest grant, $165 million, invested from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont public universities had the largest revenues from federal grant and contract investments per student enrolled in public colleges and universities.

California, Texas, and Michigan public universities were the top recipients of federal grant and contract money in 2018, receiving a quarter of federal grant and contract revenue across all public universities.

States collectively allocated $11.7 billion (or 10.2 percent) more for higher education in the 2024 fiscal year than they did in 2023, significantly outpacing the rate of inflation and more than compensating for the continuing decline in federal recovery funds distributed through state governments.

The states spent a total of $126.452 billion in 2024, up from $114.734 billion in 2023.

Other states with increases of roughly 20 percent included Nevada (19.9 percent), New Mexico (19.2 percent), North Dakota (20.1 percent), South Carolina (24.2 percent) and Utah (21.8 percent).

State support for higher education declined by 12.3 percent in Vermont and by 8.7 percent in the much larger Pennsylvania.

Sources:

https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_IvyLeagueInc_FINAL.pdf

https://shef.sheeo.org/grapevine/#about-grapevine

https://shef.sheeo.org/

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_333.20.asp