Radical Palestinian Muslims and a Condoning Media/Academia Support of Terrorism

Gaza has been governed for the past 17 years, by the Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas, which is a terrorist organization funded and directed by Iran, the world’s leading financier and supporter of acts of international terrorism.

Therefore, the fact is that any preserved humanitarian crisis caused in Gaza is and has been because of the elected self-governing body in Gaza namely the Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas. Instead of helping the Palestinian Muslims, these Hamas Palestinian Radical Muslims have for more than 20 years continually sent bombs, rockets, and missiles of mass destruction indiscriminately against Israeli civilians, hospitals, shops, houses, babies and women and children with no regard for the laws of war or the laws of civil societies worldwide.

It is apparent that these Gaza Radical Palestinian Muslims, who call themselves Hamas and have governed Gaza, for the past 20 years have clearly shown that they Do NOT represent any semblance of a healthy just society of Muslim Palestine's respect for the rule of law, with clear and transparent justice which is a fair and independent process with safeguards to ensure that everyone is treated equally before international laws.

They (Hamas) are barbaric terrorists who on October 7, 2023, slaughtered and mutilated babies, women, children, and young adults then kidnapped over 200 innocent babies, women, children, and men and herded them back to Gaza, while the mainstream media to this day remains silent and with no demands for their release. 

These journalists; reporters have in many cases become conspiracy theorists and propaganda artists for Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorist groups who also have remained silent and are as guilty as the barbarian Palestine Muslims called Hamas who killed, raped, and mutilated babies, women, and kids and burned to death in front of others for no other reason than their hatred for all non-Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike.

Further, Academia and these so-called professors have been spewing, to students at universities and colleges for decades, a cultural Marxism with anti-Semitic twists found in Communist Marxist ideologies that want to distort historical facts and destroy Western civilization and the USA as a country from within, in my view. 

Their phrase “political correctness” is a covert assault on Christianity and the American way of life, and they continue with their attempts to jazz up political correctness and repackage it as an anti-Semitic theory that identifies Jews and all non-Muslims as nefarious communist and Marxism destroyers. 

These professors, academia and news media journalists and reporters seem intent on making democracies like the USA and Israel feel guilty and thus they are subverting the values of Christianity and its culture.

For example, in 1962, the American communist C. Wright Mills who openly stated, “I have been studying for several years now, the cultural apparatus (within academia) as a possible, immediate radical agency of change.”

And today we again witness the silence from all media outlets and these so-called free press reporters and journalists who are NOT demanding or calling for the immediate release of all the babies, women, young individuals and seniors brutally kidnapped by these barbaric Muslim Palestine terrorists who call themselves Hamas. These media types and their journalist and reporters are all accomplices to the barbaric atrocities of these Hamas Palestine Muslims, and they too must be held accountable for their support of such terrorist groups, in my view.

The media who have and continue to support the barbaric Muslim Palestine Hamas who kidnapped babies, children, women, and the elderly from Israel must pay the price for such support of terrorists.  

They have shown themselves not to represent a free imperial media and like the barbaric Palestine Muslim Hamas Do Not, as journalists or reporters represent any semblance of a healthy just society that respects the rule of law, with clear and transparent justice which is a fair and independent process with safeguards to ensure that everyone is treated equally before international laws.  

Shame on the Western media and its biased corrupt journalists and reporters, in my view.

Iran is the sponsor and financier of Hamas and Hezbollah

It is time to immediately exclude ALL Iranian banks and businesses from Swift, the international payment system used by thousands of financial institutions.
It comes after the EU and its allies suspended seven institutions from the system in March.
 
This move aims to hit the country's banking network and its access to funds via Swift, which is pivotal for the smooth transaction of money worldwide.

Hamas is a terrorist organization funded by Iran and they attacked, shot and mutilated women, children and families inside their homes today in Israel, so when is the world and the USA going to wake up to the facts?

These barbaric Hamas terrorists and its leaders and financiers all must be tracked down by the eyes in the sky satellites and then missiled to their respective places in the earth of dust to dust and ashes to ashes.

Those who are responsible for the beheading of babies, children and killing of pregnant women and the slaughtering of innocent kids at a music festival are not human and do not belong on this planet, in my view.

Here you all can educate yourselves and read the charter and manifesto of the terrorist group Hamas. Here is a portion of its sick charter:

https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cttPabH1zrc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3H2oIgRgCY

 https://www.firstpost.com/world/watch-dont-send-kids-here-cant-protect-them-from-pro-terror-students-columbia-prof-appeals-to-parents-13276312.html

What is the law for material support of terrorism?

Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Why has the Biden administration FAILED to apply this immediately to the government of IRAN?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 gave the Secretary of State authority to designate foreign terrorist organizations whose terrorist activity threatens the security of United States nationals or the national defence, foreign relations or economic interests of the United States. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248. See also section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §  1189). The Antiterrorism Act also created 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which makes it unlawful, within the United States, or for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States anywhere, to knowingly provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization that has been designated by the Secretary of State. See Pub. L. 104-132, § 303, 110 Stat. 1214, 1250.

 

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1496/252519/20230118160125873_2023%2001%2018%20Taamneh%20Amicus%20Brief%20Natl%20Security%20FINAL.pdf

"The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek

Throughout history, orators and poets have extolled liberty, yet no one has told us why liberty is so important. 

Our attitude to such matters should depend on whether we consider civilization as fixed or as advancing. 

In an advancing society, any restriction on liberty reduces the number of things tried and so reduces the rate of progress. 

In such a society freedom of action is granted to the individual, not because it gives him/her greater satisfaction but because if allowed to go her/his own way he/she will on average serve the rest of us better than under any orders we know how to give 

H.B. PHILLIPS 

"The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek serves as a foundational text for understanding the importance of individual liberty, the rule of law, and the role of government in maintaining a free and prosperous society. 

Whether one fully agrees with his perspectives or not, the book remains a significant contribution to the ongoing debates about the proper balance between individual freedom and the necessary functions of the state. This influential work explores the principles and importance of individual liberty and the rule of law in a free society. Hayek argues that a constitution, as a set of rules and norms, is crucial for protecting individual freedoms and preventing the arbitrary use of power by the government. 

Summary: 

Hayek begins by emphasizing the importance of freedom and individual rights in a prosperous and just society. He argues that the market economy and the decentralization of decision-making are essential for promoting both economic and personal freedom. 

Hayek asserts that a spontaneous order emerges from individual actions in a free market and attempts to centrally plan society are doomed to fail due to the complexity of human interactions. He then delves into the concept of the rule of law, suggesting that laws should be general and predictable, applying equally to all individuals. 

He warns against the dangers of discretion in law enforcement and the potential for abuse of power. Hayek also addresses the idea of social justice, asserting that it is not a matter of redistributing wealth but rather of creating a fair process that allows individuals to pursue their own goals. 

Hayek further discusses the role of government, advocating for limited intervention to maintain a framework that enables individual liberty. He argues that the government should provide a legal framework, enforce property rights, and prevent coercion, but it should avoid trying to control economic outcomes or social values. 

Hayek is critical of collectivist ideologies and central planning, which he believes erodes individual freedom and leads to inefficiency. 

"The Constitution of Liberty" presents a comprehensive defense of principles, which prioritize individual freedom, limited government, and the rule of law. 

Hayek's arguments are grounded in his belief that individuals possess local knowledge and expertise that cannot be fully grasped by central authorities, making decentralized decision-making superior in managing complex systems. 

The book's ideas have had a lasting impact on political and economic discourse. Hayek's defence of spontaneous order and his critiques of central planning contributed to the decline of Keynesianism and the re-emergence of market-oriented policies in the latter half of the 20th century. 

His emphasis on individual rights and the dangers of unchecked government power also resonates with proponents of civil liberties and limited government. Critics of Hayek's work argue that his laissez-faire approach might not adequately address issues of inequality or externalities that can arise in unregulated markets. They also contend that some level of government intervention might be necessary to correct market failures and provide essential public goods. 

Please take the time to read @ https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf

In a Democracy Should Politicians Appoint Judges or We The People Elect them?

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the appointment or election of judges involves balancing the principles of democracy, independence of the judiciary, and the need for qualified and impartial judges. 

Different legal systems and societies may adopt different methods based on their specific values and goals. 

Yet what is the fairest, most honest and for the people in a democracy that constantly sermonizes "A Just Society"?

Keeping in mind that A "Just Society" is a term frequently used by politicians and their respective political party affiliates to describe an ideal state of affairs where fairness, equality, and social justice are prioritized and upheld. 

Thus the specific interpretation of a Just Society may vary depending on the political ideology and the context in which it is discussed.

For example, in Canada’s supreme court judges are appointed by the political party in power at any given time and thus in reality are beholding NOT to the electorate yet rather to the political party that appointed them. 

So, it is conceivable that some become political activist judges on behalf of a political party’s ideology and NOT the law or the constitution.

When laws are changed, many diverse, and sometimes unexpected, interests are affected.

Those who are responsible for the change must be alive to these ramifications. Since the interests in question are best understood and explained by those who are affected or would be affected themselves. 

Thus, in my view, would it not be desirable that courts involved in the reform of the law permit the representatives of affected interests to participate in the litigation.

For example, most Canadian courts, at least those of civil jurisdiction, are empowered to permit such participation, whether as a party, intervenor, or amicus curiae. For the most part, however, the procedural rules that grant this power do so in discretionary terms.

There are many examples, especially in the constitutional context, of the generous exercise of this discretion. There have been, on the other hand, some disturbing recent instances of courts refusing to allow important interests to be represented in cases involving novel matters.

Judges are not, for the most part, the initiators of legal ideas. Unless of course, they espouse the ideologies of the political masters that appointed them as Judges! Most judicial innovations are conceived in barristers' craniums (often after intercourse with academic publications).

Procedural practices which deprive the courts of exposure to the ideas of counsel representing all significant points of view with respect to a proposed legal change create a risk of ill-advised reform.

Would it not then be prudent to minimize this risk, by ensuring that the rules of standing should ALWAYS be generous, both as to their terms and as to their application of the laws, not ideologies or opinions.

Directly electing federal and state judges has both pros and cons. 

Here are some points to consider:

Pros:

Accountability to the public: Elected judges are directly accountable to the voters. This can promote transparency and responsiveness to public interests since judges may be more inclined to rule in accordance with the will of the people to maintain their positions.

Representation and diversity: Direct elections may lead to more diverse benches, as candidates from different backgrounds and perspectives can campaign for judgeships. This could improve the representation of the broader population within the judiciary.

Reduced political bias: Since judges are not appointed by politicians, there may be a lower risk of political bias influencing the selection process. This could potentially lead to fairer decisions and reduced partisanship in the judiciary.

Greater public engagement: Judicial elections can increase public engagement with the legal system, as voters become more invested in understanding the qualifications and positions of the candidates.

Checks on judicial power: Elected judges may be less insulated from public scrutiny, which could serve as a check on the judiciary's power, preventing potential abuses.

Cons:

Competence and qualifications: Judicial elections may prioritize popularity over qualifications, leading to less experienced or unqualified candidates winning elections. This could result in less competent judges on the bench.

Influence of money and special interests: Judicial campaigns can be expensive, and candidates may rely on donations from individuals or groups with vested interests in the legal system. This may raise concerns about undue influence and corruption.

The politicization of the judiciary: Elections can lead to judicial candidates making campaign promises or catering to popular opinions, which could compromise the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Short-term focus: Elected judges may be inclined to make decisions to please their base and secure re-election, potentially sacrificing long-term justice and the protection of minority rights.

Lack of public awareness: Many voters may not be well-informed about judicial candidates and their qualifications, leading to decisions based on name recognition or other superficial factors.

Implications for unpopular decisions: Judges might be reluctant to make unpopular but necessary decisions if they fear losing their position in the next election.

You decide!

 

Individual Freedom and Security

Individual freedom and Security are not so much the objective security of a Country's Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.

While constitutions and justice systems play crucial roles in safeguarding rights and maintaining order, as prescripted by governments and then interpreted by the courts, the true sense of confidence in one's ability to take care of oneself and feel secure often goes beyond legal frameworks alone.

The concept of individual freedom involves the absence of coercion or undue constraints on personal choices and actions. When people feel free to make decisions that align with their values and beliefs without fear of oppression or discrimination, they have and thus experience a greater sense of freedom.

On the other hand, security encompasses protection from harm, both physical and psychological. It is not just limited to protection from external threats, such as crime or invasion, but also extends to economic security, social security, and a sense of overall well-being.

The sense of confidence in taking care of oneself is a crucial aspect of freedom and security. It goes beyond relying solely on the formal institutions and systems established by the constitution or justice system of governments be they a Democracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Totalitarian, Theocracy, Aristocracy or Dictatorship.

All peoples of the world, as individuals, have lives, relationships, families, and the inherent right to reject or accept social trends and have that right and freedom to free speech and make choices without being bullied, coerced, intimidated, or cancelled or censored by either side of an issue?

Nor censored and silenced by social media or mainstream media outlets of any kind.

As a true democracy doesn’t need fact-blockers or politically biased fact-checkers, no matter if they are from the government, agencies of the government or private corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. We need more freedom to speak and discuss opinions on all sides of any issue, not less.

Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, and Yahoo are the next few Teck corporations that require new owners who support open and free dialogue NOT censorship based on a particular political ideology.

Every individual has the right to define oneself and should others agree with your self-definition or not is another matter entirely.

Unfortunately, it seems obvious that the goal of the mainstream gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender community is to force its ideals onto all citizens in their attempt to reduce individual rights by creating a society that must conform to only one viewpoint?

And when one does not conform you are instantly labelled a homophobic or a Trans phobia person!

Also, we have permitted non-elected bureaucrats and technocrats to be appointed into positions of setting policy based on their reasons and speech, without any directly elected accountability or authority from the citizens at large.

Their policies have revolved around deciding for us the cradle-to-grave decisions that once were democratically reserved solely for families and individuals, NOT the ideologies of only one political party.

Throughout the world, we witness progressive liberal socialists deeply involved emotionally in attacks on truth, reality, free speech, banking, and property rights while ignoring the laws of the land, through the weaponization of the legal systems, the courts etc. in my opinion.

“Freedom” means the opportunity to go through life, with real goals not the artificial goals of surrogate activities, like the media, and without interference, manipulation, or supervision from anyone, especially from any large organization or government.

Freedom means being in control (either as an individual or as a member of a SMALL group) of the life-and-death issues of one’s existence; food, clothing, shelter, and defence against whatever threats, real or conceived there may be in one’s environment.

Freedom means having power; not the power to control, or mandate other people but the power to control the circumstances of one’s own life.

One does not have judicial freedom if anyone else (especially the government or a large organization or media) has power over one, no matter how benevolently, tolerantly, and permissively that power may be exercised.

It is important not to confuse freedom or justice with mere permissiveness and inducement by uncontrolled media reporters or journalists. Constitutional rights are useful up to a point, yet they do not serve to guarantee much more than what might be called the bourgeois conception of judicial freedom.

Freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he/she has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media or have it un-ceremonially cancelled by the social media Teck giants, hence it will have no practical effect.

To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups in today's so-called democracies worldwide.

Freedom without the individual being in a legal position to protect oneself, then there is no security for the individual or the security of a family.

Politicians say, "Public safety is our top priority.”

Yet, why is it that they do not enforce all the laws and bylaws currently on the books?

Further, why do they not demand that prosecutors, judges, the laws, and sentencing be used to protect public safety as a top priority and for the victims and innocent citizens who pay the price for crimes committed by criminal elements within society?

To solve the problem of crime the laws must be enforced, prosecutors must demand the maximum sentencing and judges must sentence all criminals, regardless of age, based on the laws for crimes of adults under the criminal code NOT under The Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Further, our laws must be updated relating to sentencing i.e., crimes committee on public transit of any kind must be considered as a domestic terrorist act and upon conviction of the first offence, with or without a weapon, the minimum sentence must be one of 15 years without parole of any kind and the first ten years of the sentence must be served in a jail NOT any other institution like a halfway house etc.

And prosecutors or judges all of whom are not elected officials who do not adhere to these new regulations must be FIRED and prohibited from ever holding or working for any government position or within any government agency for life. Plus receive a fine, a minimum fine of $1 MILLION for not protecting the victims and innocent citizens worldwide.

A great read @ https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf

 https://iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Hayek%27s%20Constitution%20of%20Liberty.pdf

Grassley Obtains & Releases FBI Record Alleging VP Biden Foreign Bribery Scheme

 WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today released an unclassified FBI-generated record describing an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and a Ukrainian business executive. Grassley acquired the record, an FD-1023, via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers.

“For the better part of a year, I’ve been pushing the Justice Department and FBI to provide details on its handling of very significant allegations from a trusted FBI informant implicating then-Vice President Biden in a criminal bribery scheme. While the FBI sought to obfuscate and redact, the American people can now read this document for themselves, without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats, thanks to brave and heroic whistleblowers. What did the Justice Department and FBI do with the detailed information in the document? And why have they tried to conceal it from Congress and the American people for so long? The Justice Department and FBI have failed to come clean, but Chairman Comer and I intend to find out,” Grassley said.

“The FBI’s Biden Bribery Record tracks closely with the evidence uncovered by the Oversight Committee’s Biden family influence-peddling investigation. In the FBI’s record, the Burisma executive claims that he didn’t pay the ‘big guy’ directly but that he used several bank accounts to conceal the money. That sounds an awful lot like how the Bidens conduct business: using multiple bank accounts to hide the source and total amount of the money,” House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer said. “At our hearing with IRS whistleblowers, they testified that they had never seen or heard of this record during the Biden criminal investigation, despite having potentially corroborating evidence. Given the misconduct and politicization at the Department of Justice, the American people must be able to read this record for themselves. I thank Senator Grassley for providing much-needed transparency to the American people. We must hold the Department of Justice accountable for seeking to bury this record to protect the Bidens.”

Grassley first disclosed the FBI’s possession of significant and voluminous evidence of potential criminality involving the Biden family last year. He has since worked to unearth the FBI record, eventually partnering with Comer on a subpoena to compel its public disclosure. After delays, the FBI provided a highly redacted version of the document to select members of the House of Representatives, but it remained shielded from the public and omitted key details, including references to recordings. Following the FBI’s failure to fully comply with the congressional subpoena, Grassley received the legally protected disclosure with limited redactions to protect a trusted FBI source, handling agents, department whistleblowers and identifiers related to other ongoing investigations.

‘Poluchili’

According to the FBI’s confidential human source, executives for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, brought Hunter Biden on the board to “protect us through his dad, from all kinds of problems.” At the time, Burisma was seeking to do business in the United States, but was facing a corruption investigation in Ukraine, led by then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Regarding that investigation’s impact on its ambitions in North America, Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky reportedly said, “Don't worry Hunter will take care of all of those issues through his dad.” Zlochevsky reportedly stated that he had to pay $5 million to Hunter Biden and $5 million to Joe Biden, an arrangement he described as ‘poluchili,’ which is Russian crime slang for being “forced or coerced to pay,” according to the document.

“Back-up”

Zlochevsky claimed to have many text messages and recordings that show that he was coerced into paying the Bidens to ensure Shokin was fired. Specifically, he claimed to have two recordings with Joe Biden and 15 recordings with Hunter Biden. Zlochevsky also retained two documents, presumably financial records, as evidence of the arrangement, but said he didn’t send any funds directly to the “Big Guy,” a term understood to be a reference to Joe Biden. References to the “Big Guy” surfaced in communications involving other Biden family business arrangements independent of the Burisma arrangement. Zlochevsky claimed it would take investigators 10 years to uncover the illicit payments to the Bidens, according to the document.

Authorized for public release by Ranking Member Grassley/Chairman Com

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf

Related:
10.17.2022 | FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful, Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden Family Business Arrangements
05.03.2023 | Grassley, Comer Demand FBI Record Alleging Criminal Scheme Involving Then-VP Biden
05.10.2023 | Comer and Grassley on FBI Failing to Comply with Subpoena Deadline
05.24.2023 | Comer & Grassley Blast FBI for Refusing to Provide Subpoenaed Record Alleging Then-VP Biden Engaged in a Bribery Scheme
05.31.2023 | Grassley & Comer to Wray: Provide the Unclassified Documents or Face Contempt
06.06.2023 | Grassley's Message to the Biden DOJ and FBI: Quit Playing Games with the American People
06.12.2023 | Grassley: FBI Redacted References to Recordings in Biden Allegation Shared with Congress
06.21.2023 | Grassley, Graham Lead Senate Judiciary Committee GOP in Seeking Unredacted FBI Record at Center of Biden Allegations
07.18.2023 | Grassley, Johnson, Senate Republicans Demand DOJ and FBI Protect Whistleblowers Alleging Biden Bribery Scheme

Unified Eastern Ontario Regional Homelessness Authority and Action Plan

 The issue of homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse is a complex and ever-increasing problem affecting various regions of Ontario, including the cities within the Eastern Regions. While individual cities and regions have attempted to address the issue, they have not been successful in finding a long-lasting solution. In this regard, a collective effort under a unified Regional Homelessness Authority (RHA) and Plan is the way forward.

The RHA should be designed to unify and coordinate the existing funding, policies, and programs of the regions and cities within the Eastern Regions. It should combine the goals, funding, and resources of the existing networks for permanent housing, health care, child welfare, mental health, education, and employment through collaboration and sufficient resources from service providers, low-barrier shelters, shelter programs, and temporary housing services. By doing so, the RHA can effectively and economically solve these complex problems.

It is also important for the RHA to engage and collaborate with systems and partners outside of existing homelessness financing, plans, and systems response. This includes regional local industries, developers, and employers to assist in solving these complex problems and to show these communities that homelessness is solvable together as opposed to a fragmentation of the homeless, mental health, and substance abuse systems currently in place.

To accomplish such goals, the RHA must have accurate, reliable accounting data on the number of people experiencing homelessness in the regions and cities within the regions and what services and support might be most helpful for them. The RHA should be aware that statistics worldwide suggest that approximately 26% of homeless individuals have a severe mental illness, 34% have a substance use disorder, leaving perhaps 40% who have simply decided to drop out of society to live off the handouts from others by seeking this itinerant way of life at the direct expense of Cities and Municipal governments and their electorate.

The RHA should also understand the various types and scales of emergency, temporary, shelter/barrier-shelters, and permanent housing solutions necessary to meet the needs of people who are honestly and truly experiencing homelessness. Therefore, the RHA must resource and scale on evidence-based policies, programs, and practices that will increase the permanent capacity and effectiveness of the existing and non-existing overall service systems already in place or contemplated.

Once the RHA has accurate, reliable accounting data on the number of people experiencing homelessness, it should prioritize the individuals' most impactful needs and requirements first. The RHA should then connect these individuals to supportive services to address medical, mental health, substance use, employment, and education needs in an effort toward individualized self-sufficiency and reintegration into the community.

The RHA must be conscious of the fact that continued handouts from well-intended government programs and citizens that endlessly give handouts of tents, food, clothing etc. have proven over the past decade not to be the solution to solving this problem of homelessness for the numerous individuals seeking an itinerant way of life removed from society and its rules, regulations, and laws.

The RHA must be conscious of the fact that continued handouts from well-intended government programs and citizens that endlessly give handouts of tents, food, clothing etc. have proven over the past decade not to be the solution to solving this problem of homelessness for the numerous individuals seeking an itinerant way of life removed from society and its rules, regulations and laws.

Finally, the jurisdiction of the RHA must not be limited to existing low-barrier shelters, shelter programs, temporary/permanent housing, or housing services. To dramatically reduce homelessness combined with drug addiction and mental illness low barrier shelters, shelter programs, and temporary housing services. The new RHA must work with and include a network of builders, developers, local industries, permanent housing, health care, child welfare, mental health, education, and employment through collaboration from and with federal and provincial governments and sufficient resources from, and for all such service providers by improving the behavioural health systems through restructuring the existing service systems to improve capacity, supports, and efficiencies on a factual evidence-based approach.

In conclusion, the formation of a Regional Homelessness Authority and Plan, with a unified regional approach that includes the cities within the Eastern Regions, is the best way to tackle the ever-increasing homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse problems affecting these regions. Through this unified approach, it will be possible to combine the resources and collaborate with the existing networks for permanent housing, health care, child welfare, mental health, education, and employment to solve these complex problems effectively and economically.