Negro Out Tuesday

Apparently as part of "solidarity" with a home invading criminal who died of natural causes, negroes are being told to...

...hold on...


...minor giggling fit, give me a minute...



...does anybody have...a...glass...of...water....



...okay I think I'm better now...


...wait...one more moment...

...okay, where were we?

Oh yeah, in solidarity with one dead black guy (and apparently forgetting all the savage beatings of innocent whites which should have by far tipped the cosmic scale back the other way) people (presumably black) are being asked to do the following (emphasis mine):

  • Do not post on social media
  • Only post a blank black image on all social media platforms for solidarity
  • Suspend all music streams and Youtube streams for the day
  • Cancel/close/suspend participation in all dance studios, classes, and meetings
  • Identify ways to help your community
  • Strengthen your knowledge on contemporary race relations and the history of black social, political, and economic plights in the US.
Okay okay, don't post on social media, put a stupid empty picture up on your profile, don't listen to music for a day, fine fine. Wait, what's next?

Sticking it to whitey by cancelling dance studios

Seriously? Cancel dance studios? That's the number one real-world item on their list? Look, I understand blacks are pretty bad at productive business activities. We've known that for ages. Nonwhites only make up 17.5% of all businesses in the USA and a large number of those, and the ones with the most wealth, are owned by asians (try not to act surprised). Even forgetting ownership, apparently as few blacks work in offices or even factories as you might guess based on the fact that "meetings" was thrown in as an afterthought. It's just a giant gaping hole in their cultural awareness.

In fact let's swing back now to the music streams, because I think I have to reevaluate my interpretation: I had assumed that negroes weren't going to listen to music: I think now that they are planning to cutoff livestreams they are in. For example...
Much like the closed dance studios, that must really hurt.

Meanwhile when it comes to "ways to help your community"...well, maybe tell your thug friends to stop rioting and smashing their cities? As for "strengthening your knowledge" one of the problems with #BlackLivesMatter and all these idiotic far-left groups is they don't actually have any knowledge. Again, they love to blame "racism" for everything from why they can't hold a job (even when they're constantly late for work) to the fact that they are dying from a disease that presumably doesn't care what skin colour you are. The reality is that culture matters, individual choices matter, and the cumulative effect of individual choices often influenced by culture can have some crazy macroeconomic indicators that lead to socioeconomic plights that unfortunately spill into political "plights".

By the end of #BlackOutTuesday, U.S. negroes will be worse off than they were on Monday. By Thursday if these movements aren't stopped they will be worse off still. Pretending that it's caused by external factors and not looking within will continue to perpetuate the condition.

Living in a Bub(b)lé

I admit I hadn't hear about the April controversy where Michael Bublé had a "controversial" video.

It's your daily reminder that apparently everything is controversial to the far-left feminazis and that you can't make them happy (even with a dick in the mouth) and therefore you might as well not even bother.

After all, you may read an account of the incident (or the death threats he received over the next month!) and think his actions might be in some way whatsoever inappropriate.

In one of the live sessions, when Luisana spoke over her husband, he got annoyed and elbowed her. He immediately followed it up by pushing her close to him and hugging her, which led to her apologizing to him.

When fans saw the bizarre interaction between the couple, they felt that the singer was being too "harsh" and "aggressive" towards his wife and soon began expressing their concerns for Luisana. Things got worse when in an earlier video, he could be heard declaring to his wife that she is dead to him, after she got a couple of minutes late for their filming. Fans perceived it as a regular pattern of behavior in their household and called out the singer for his remarks.
And then you watch the video:

That was the entirety of the "elbow" and the "pushing her close" incident. A nudge and a slight pull in. That was the incident that was "controversial" and "got fans upset"? If this is "abuse" to these people then you might as well just beat the shit out of her. You'll be hated and accused either way, so at least get your shots in.

More people stealing tax money from hardworking Albertans

Queerbec protesters are objecting to...

...lockdown rules? No, that's silly. They're objecting to the disgusting third world trash who seem to spread this virus like vermin not getting fast-tracked to citizenship.

The health crisis has shone a light on the crucial role asylum seekers and others with precarious status play in the province's economy, with thousands working as patient attendants in long-term care homes and filling other essential jobs.

They work long hours in meat-packing plants and warehouses, or tending to elderly people in long-term care homes — low-paying jobs that are difficult to fill.

But they may not be able to stay in Canada when deportations, which have nearly ground to a halt during the COVID-19 crisis, resume.
Good. As the above passage notes, the exact same sectors that are illegally hiring these illegal fake refugees are also the sectors suffering most from COVID, mostly because as any resident of Brooks can tell you, these third world filth live in squalour and illegally pack themselves into the residences they have been provided.

They brought in this virus. They spread this virus. They have no place in Canada. As soon as we can deport the survivors they need to be on the first leaky boat home.

"And if the world went to hell in a handbasket-as it seemed to be doing-you could say good-bye to everyone and retreat to your land, hunkering down and living off it."

John Notle on the far-left shitting in their own nests:

And of course Antifa and its unholy brethren of anarchist groups are going to target your Democrat-run city for a night of the ol’ ultra-violence…Where else are they going to riot? First off, monsters always seek to kill their creators. But there is also the reality of the logistics of the situation: Antifa knows Democrats are cucks who will allow them to riot. Antifa knows Democrat-run cities have gun control laws that ensure you remain defenseless.

Now seems like a good time to tell you about my weekend…

Out here in the sticks — you know, Rural America, that place you oh-so sophisticated Blue State Dwellers call the hinterlands, it was — no joke — the most beautiful weekend of the year. It was just perfect, and everyone in my neighborhood mowed their lawns and grilled meat while the kids rode bikes… I topped my Saturday night with a good book and a Pabst Blue Ribbon tallboy on the porch followed by a Western on my 60-inch plasma. I then went to bed with the windows open so my wife and I could fall asleep to the sound of crickets and the smell of freshly cut grass. And I did it all again on Sunday (except I watched a war movie instead of a Western)…

Now, I’m no idiot. There are always two loaded firearms within reach of my bed. But that’s about preparation, not fear, and if Antifa (or anyone) is ever stupid enough to move their marauding to my neck of the woods, all they’re going to discover are alert dogs, security lights, and patriots who believe in the Second Amendment.

But Antifa knows that, which is why they don’t come here…

Antifa’s not stupid. You are.
Completely unrelated: violent negro protesters come to Montreal.

Actually not related: Why is the Toronto Star so bad at math? They think the death-by-cop rate for negroes in the U.S. is higher than the COVID death rate for those born after 1965?

And the other 8% had to move out because they were too faggy

A Germany study has found 92% of far-left activists live with their parents.


Minnesota Burning

Who brought all the faggots and niggers into Minneapolis anyways?

In 1980, Minneapolis had 321,507 whites and 28,026 niggers in a city of 370,951 (86.7% and 7.56% respectively).

According to Wikipedia the white population of Minneapolis is now 64.2% white and 18.6% nigger, which explains why there are so many of them committing so many crimes that eventually some bad apple police officers caused the whole tree to be rotted. And then burnt down. And then the forest was burned down too. Tribal gotta tribal.

It actually was lower in 2000 and has rebounded, presumably due to all the fairies who moved in.

So what is it about Minneapolis that causes is to be such a hot new destination for nigger criminals like George Floyd (and yes, yet again it turns out the "innocent victim" was a criminal who was involved in a violent home invasion in 2008)? To borrow the phrase from violent niggers who started ruining Edmonton in 2007, who spoiled what was an idyllic safe haven of a city and now is one of America's most violent.

The answer, ironically, comes as much from Dachau as it does from the violent niggers of the 1960s racial protests. In 1967 three nights of violence rocked North Minneapolis and chased out much of the 'white' population...but even that isn't quite accurate because the ethnic group that fled wasn't white but Jewish. Following WWII anti-Jewish sentiment rapidly declined which left the Jews who had been living in the slum of North Minneapolis start to expand out into the rest of the city. By 1967 the city even had a Jewish mayor. That set the niggers off though: now that Jews were using their economic skills (a small scale version of this old joke of mine from a few years back) to improve their lot in life that caused resentment from the unemployable-since-the-cotton-ginny crowd. Jewish businesses were firebombed, Jewish business owners were beaten, even a Jewish city councilor was Moltov-cocktailed. As with so many U.S. cities in the years after the Long Hot Summer the niggers got what they wished: even more of the city to themselves. Likewise as with so many U.S. cities in the years after the Long Hot Summer it turns out that without the whites and the Jews the economic prospects of the city dry up and the incompetent thugs left in charge can't maintain the lifestyle that they seem to think is inherent in a system and not built on the sweat of the entrepreneurs. So that's the story of how the city overall started its decent. But even that isn't the whole story: after all, 1968 to 1980 apparently was mostly a shifting of neighbourhoods rather than a wholesale abandonment of the city.

Then the scum from Somalia came to town. Again this is not unfamiliar territory: two years after violent Sudanese niggers caused death and destruction in Edmonton, violent Somali niggers caused death and destruction in Edmonton. Like the Vietnamese a generation earlier, refugees fleeing civil strife in their third world country brings their third world pathologies with them, and the humanitarian cry for the first world to "do something" (never a good idea) causes people to forget the quality of folks we're getting are rarely the top notch ones. In 1993 the United States began "assigning" Somali refugees to Minnesota thanks to lobbying by two far-left organizations (Lutheran Social Services and World Relief Minnesota). By 1996 "demographic shifts" caused by this Somali relocation and also in part by the state's excessively generous welfare payments had caused Minneapolis to exceed NYC in its murder rate.

As the U.S. as a whole sees its crime rates falling, Minneapolis has continued to trend in the opposite direction. The crimes in general are a veritable "who's who" of nigger crimes: assault, rape, burglaries have all been consistently double the U.S. average since 2002. Additionally you see some weirdo ones stemming from third world pathologies like arson which spiked in the mid-2000s and has been declining towards (but still double!) the U.S. average ever since.

As Gilbert Cavanaugh notes, despite setting up the statistics to provide little useful information Minneapolis blacks are 16 times more violent than the other races (even Red Indians). That in turn drives out more whites who in turn cause more economic downtown which drives out yet more whites. You can see that the population losses of the white flight era have been replaced mostly with Somali immigrants and their active reproductive systems. There has been a rebirth of whites into the city: much of it is hipster gentrification (ie. uranists) who are discovering that their so-called "allies" will burn their homes to the ground as well.

As one final aside, the Cavanaugh article discusses the aftermath of an incident where a black suspect was shot and killed:
Last year, for example, after a non-white police officer (Jeronimo Yanez) shot and killed a black suspect (Philando Castile), just about every state politician groveled:
  1. Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges: “My heart is heavy at the tragic death of Philando Castile, known to so many as a kind, caring man whom children loved.”
  2. Senator Al Franken: “I am horrified that we are forced to confront yet another death of a young African-American man at the hands of law enforcement.”
  3. Congressman Keith Ellison, whose district includes a big chunk of Minneapolis: ““We live in a world where certain Americans live in fear that their name will become a hashtag. It is not enough to say ‘Black Lives Matter.’ It’s time to make the system mean it.”
  4. Governor Mark Dayton : “Would this have happened if the driver were white, if the passengers were white? I don’t think it would have.” After a jury found Officer Yanez innocent, the governor proposed spending $12 million on “police training” in a program named for Castile.
Two years ago, the same governor said: “Minnesota is not like it was 30, 50 years ago . . . . If you are that intolerant, if you are that much of a racist or a bigot, then find another state . . . . Our economy cannot expand based on white, B+, Minnesota-born citizens.” (He was right about one thing; Minnesota doesn’t look like it used to, as I documented here.) Governor Dayton’s comments were in response to growing tension between Somalis and whites over Somali sympathy and material aid for ISIS, Somali violent crime such as the mass stabbing in a mall last year, and Somali welfare use. Shops now even put up signs saying they accept welfare — not just in Spanish but in Somali, too
You'd think the governor wouldn't want to accelerate white flight out of his rapidly collapsing jurisdiction...but then again, it almost seems to be a requirement to hold the office.

And now that Minnesota is bringing forth dangerous politicians like Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, don't think that things are likely to get any better.

Alberta's "arts community" is doing George Soros lobbying anyways, let him pay them

Artists are outraged. Outraged! Why, you may ask? Oh, nothing, just the Kenney government is (mildly) removing some of their grant funding.

You may be asking why this is such a big deal. I have two former coworkers at different companies in Edmonton and the greater area who are getting Fridays off until further notice. The Shiny Pony is floating a 4-day workweek, these guys are living it (and the 20% pay cut that comes with it)! They are still coming into work and yet their pay is being cut.

Artists, not that their work output was particularly detectable before, have not been working. Art galleries are closed. Playhouses are closed. No new movies or TV shows or Broadway musicals are being produced. Outside of physical artwork such as paintings and sculptures (and remember that the supplies they rely on have been deemed "noncritical" by governments including the Alberta Government, so anybody on their last few canvases in late March was shit outta luck for replacements). So why shouldn't arts funding be cut, particularly when it should never exist in the first place?

You may recall all the way back in 2006 I warned you about conservative governments giving money to the extreme leftists who hate them and refused (and refuse even moreso in the cancel culture age) to depict conservative people and philosophy and arguments fairly.

Canada's arts community has already begun presenting me with its laundry list of pet demands, apparently forgetting their recent history. This is the inbred group of self-important "arts" peddlars who claim to be "speaking for the country" yet not a one of them was speaking for the 5 million Canadians who voted for our era of optimistic change in Canada, our return to the country that is respected and admired in the world for more than just a couple of homosexual weddings and cozying up to the likes of Fidel Castro and Alec Baldwin. If Canada's creative minds are unable to diversify themselves to reflect the full spectrum of beliefs in this country than I do not see any reason that a Conservative government whom these people campaigned so vigorously against should now succumb to their demands just in time for another election where we will be campaigned against. When we start seeing popular musicians in this country supporting a fair flat tax structure or singing about the inherent waste of government in their song, or watch Canadian playwrights bring to the theatre a play who's message is the strength and the beauty present in the traditional family, or take the family to see a Canadian filmmaker's bold portrayal of a world where gun ownership is universal and legal not to the detriment of society but to its peacefulness and flourish, perhaps when we see some of these things our administration can take seriously the increased funding requests by the arts lobbyists. I do not however see today a request by a constituency that wants to fund art, I see a constituency that wants to fund political campaigning both within elections and between them. Our neighbours to the south are in the midst of a great debate about the meaning of "fair and balanced" in both the news and entertainment media, but here in Canada it is not even a question. These calls for funding are simply to increase the clout of the NDP and Liberal parties in popular culture, and unless I see evidence of a change, we will be taking all action we can to insure that only an entertainment industry that reflects the right and the left wings present in our culture shall be deemed deserving of financial support of the right and left wings present in the taxpayer.

The same argument rings true today, the only shame is that the UCP isn't making it, and instead only cutting them off on stark utilitarian grounds. From the Edmonton Journal article:
Alberta artists are lamenting their latest funding hit, and pointing their fingers squarely at the provincial government.

Citing concerns over the safety and feasibility of arts projects in the wake of COVID-19, the Alberta government recently shelved grant applications dating back to the March submission period. Instead, artists are urged to reapply for the next quarterly grant deadline in September.
Seems more than fair. You couldn't even rehearse for most of the past 3 months, so why waste precious taxpayer dollars that could fund those poor poor nurses on the front line who need PPE or they'll die?

Oh, but that's using their argument against them. It's only to be used against you remember.

“They’ve blindsided us,” said Vern Thiessen, award-winning playwright and former director of Workshop West Playwrights’ Theatre. “They’re betraying a long-term vision that the arts are critical not only to the culture of Alberta but the economic bottom line of our province. As an Albertan, that was something I used to hold up high — per capita we used to fund our artists here. It’s really disappointing.
Who is Vern Thiessen? He's the backer of the disgusting E-Day play championing the evil government of Rachel Arab who stole from taxpayers at levels never before seen to funnel money into this sort of lame activism posing as works of great art. And then he has the nerve to say that the province prioritizing real economic losses in the time of a global crisis is what's "disappointing"?
“I think what makes people angry is the way it’s been done, with zero consultation. It tells artists not only do we not care about the arts, we don’t even care enough to tell you that we’ll be making these decisions.”

The move to cancel funding leads to larger questions about the government’s commitment to the arts, and whether artists will maintain residence and continue operating in Alberta, he said.
Piss off, Vern.

Piss off, and take your "artists in residence" and your "continued operating" with you. We don't need you. Your far-left hippie grandstanding has no place in this province on a good day. It certainly isn't appropriate when other far more important calls on the public purse will have to do without.


Sweden's herd immunity failure doesn't mean what they think it means

It's time for your shocking truth of the day.

The Guardian is lying. I know, I know, you're already trying to imagine which article we're talking about. Well, I guess I won't spoil the surprise.

Just 7.3% of Stockholm’s inhabitants had developed Covid-19 antibodies by the end of April, according to a study, raising concerns that the country’s light-touch approach to the coronavirus may not be helping it build up broad immunity.

The research by Sweden’s public health agency comes as Finland warned it would be risky to welcome Swedish tourists after figures suggested the country’s death rate per capita was the highest in Europe over the seven days to 19 May.

Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of the capital’s population had probably contracted the virus

However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising.

“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”

Björn Olsen, a professor of infectious medicine at Uppsala University, said herd immunity was a “dangerous and unrealistic” approach. “I think herd immunity is a long way off, if we ever reach it,” he told Reuters after the release of the antibody findings.

Tegnell has denied herd immunity is a goal in itself, saying Sweden aims instead to slow the spread of the virus enough for health services to cope. But he has also said countries that imposed strict lockdowns could be more vulnerable to a second wave of infections because a smaller percentage of their populations would be immune.
There's quite a bit in here to unpack. The first thing is that the lying leftists at The Guardian are still trying to trick and delude readers into misunderstanding both the British lockdown and the Swedish one. It's true that 7.3% of the population having antibodies is surprisingly low: but Jon Henley either doesn't know (because he's stupid) or is lying about (because he's evil) the fact that every single country is depending on their population developing antibodies. The lockdowns were to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. They were not to keep people at all from getting the virus: short of shutting everything down (including hospitals, grocery stores, and possibly utilities including internet and electricity) for 21 days and letting everybody with the Wuhan Flu either get over it or die lonely in their homes. Meanwhile Sweden locked down old age homes and the virus still ripped through them like Mike Morrison through the anus of the 12 year old boy next door.

Generally there are two possible things to takeaway from the antibody results: either the virus is so difficult for the general population to get that we'd all need to spit in each other's faces all day to spread this sucker, or that many people who get the Wuhan Flu don't develop antibodies for it.

The first option at first seems impossible with the nursing home situation, until you remember that those who are least at risk of getting the Wuhan Flu are also least likely to receive/transmit it. In other words, the current shutdowns are overkill but on the flip side "superspreader events" seem relatively rare and easy to predict. Preventing mass infections is therefore relatively easy: Toronto parks can be as full as people not named John Tory want and the community spread will be shockingly low. Large indoor events will have to be curtailed which is unfortunate, and air travel will be a giant pain in the ass for months or even years, but everything from bars to tattoo parlours can reopen relatively quickly.

The second option is scarier if you are in a high risk group and like to stay alive, but ultimately better for those who are in low risk groups and just want things to get back to normal. Not some mythical "new normal". Normal. Like...normal. If the Swedes really have been spreading the virus to each other en masse, which the death toll and number of symptomatic cases the would seem to indicate, then many of the asymptomatic cases are so asymptomatic that the body doesn't develop antibodies at all. This does not bode well for the "wait for vaccine" crowd: if the actual disease doesn't confer antibodies, then a vaccine will be highly unlikely to as well. At best, accurately testing a vaccine will be a huge challenge. Let's say that the 7.3% antibodies represent the correct share of the 25% that were assumed to have contracted the Wuhan Flu and that a vaccine would be as effective as the live virus at inducing antibody generation: that means that only 29.2% of the total population would develop antibodies when exposed to the virus, which means that 2/3rds of the potential vaccine trial patients would give false results. So much for rapid trials of vaccinations! The only remaining question is, of the 70.8% of the general population who don't develop antibodies, are they still likely to get COVID-19? If their body (apparently) fought it off once without antibodies, can it do it again? Indefinitely? Does it take multiple infections to develop them? Again though, the ultimate result of this is that the "wait for a cure/vaccine" strategy that Björn Olsen proposes is extremely long-term if not impossible.

There's a yuuuuge caveat there by the way, did you catch it? The 7.3% of people with antibodies isn't exactly the "general population": it excludes those who are active cases or deaths

One notes that Olsen, who is the Swedish media to-go critic for the Tegnell "first and second wave together" strategy, is plum out of options to push for in both scenarios. He's hungry for a lockdown, but the antibody study that he latched onto in order to bash Sweden's current strategy isn't exactly doing him any favours. One possibility completely negates the lockdown logic, the other severely batters it. Notice he's not being asked to defend the lockdown in lieu of this new concerning information.

Just another lie in The Guardian.

A fool and his woke tourism lifestyle are soon parted

Try to shed a small-ish tear for Rob Anderson.

He's the uranist proprietor of a restaurant in Provincetown, Massachusetts who has been impacted by the government shutdown. Writing a ridiculous article in The Atlantic he tries to tiptoe around the ludicrous Viro Fascists who cheer on government shutdowns.

My partner, Loic, and I are the owners of the Canteen, a casual sandwich-and-lobster-roll restaurant in Provincetown, Massachusetts, a vacation destination at the very tip of Cape Cod. We are grateful for our customers—flattered, even, that a diner might want our food badly enough to scale furniture for it. But now that our first summer with the coronavirus is at hand, I’m terrified.
Open up with talk about "my partner Loic", that's good...that's some good work there. Put their soothing minds at ease. You don't have to explicitly note that both of you are evil poofters, just let them put two and two together.
Known for its open-hearted embrace of outsiders and outcasts, especially the LGBTQ community, Provincetown isn’t the average beach destination.
And there's the second two for you to put together. See, we're just like you, we support disgusting lifestyle choices more than those other places you might be seeing on the news!
Cooped up in large towns and cities, many people heading into their third month of quarantine have been trying to decide whether they should visit their favorite summer destinations this year. My answer is an unsatisfying maybe. Instinctively, we want them to come; in fact, our livelihoods depend on them coming. Businesses like mine are the backbone of the cities and towns where we operate. As we prepare for the summer rush, we are struggling to find the line between helping and hurting our community, and we wonder how we’ll know if we cross it. And we are basing decisions on our own hunches—with little official guidance from authorities from which we could use a lot more help.
"Oh why oh why isn't the government helping us more by giving us guidelines?" Does this sound like the actions of a person who is at all "with it" mentally?
Three schools of thoughts have emerged. First is the salvage-our-summer crowd, who are worried most about the economic viability of our town. They aren’t a monolithic group, nor are they MAGA-flag-waving protesters insisting that they have a right to a salon dye job or 18 holes of golf.
So people who want to go to a salon or a golf course, by sly extension, aren't worried about the "economic viability of their towns"? This is the sort of irregular verbs The Atlantic is so famous for: when I want the economy reopened I'm talking about the economic viability of our town. When they want the economy reopened they "insist they have a right to a dye job".
Red hats are rare in Provincetown, where Hillary Clinton won 88 percent of the vote in 2016. The people pushing our town to reopen believe in science and know the virus is real.
Forgetting for a moment that it's 1000% true that people do have a right to visit a salon or a golf course, isn't it funny that right after talking about "oh our people aren't monolithic" this ass pirate turns around to imply that "the MAGA-flag-waving" folks he just finished besmirching are a monolithic group (that it's okay for you to sneer at).
The people pushing our town to reopen believe in science and know the virus is real. They include business owners who cannot survive without a year’s income and service workers who, in the best of times, live paycheck to paycheck.
Like, say, a salon owner? Also, as for your regular reminder: all those MAGA hat wearers also believe in science...that's why they support Conversion Therapy to cure your disease.
In summer towns, residents count on the income they make during the summer to pay their rent or mortgage for the entire year. Some of them are undocumented workers who can’t collect unemployment and aren’t receiving health-care benefits at all.
There you go Rob, back on point: bring up those poor undocumented workers. Wait, isn't it illegal to hire undocumented workers? I sure hope that social media is banning your article from the platforms on the basis that advocating for an illegal activity is harmful misinformation?
Second, there’s the shut-it-all-down contingent—those who have been calling for a complete ban on summer visitors this year. Many people in this camp are older or living with illnesses. Literally scared for their lives, they argue that making money this July and August will come at the cost of our community's health. And how many deaths are we willing to inflict to save our economy? Two? Twenty? Two hundred?
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the GDP of Barnstable County (where this seaside town is located) had a GDP in 2018 of $14,344,348,000. That's $14B, and presuming that we stick to the (incorrect) $10M/life figure the EPA uses then you should be willing to inflict 1,434 deaths to save your town economy. I can't help notice that you capped it out at a much lower 200. Or even two. Well if you say two than why not one? I only ask because about a week ago a missing kayaker's dead body was found near your town. In 2017 there were 21 car accident deaths in your county as well: were you willing to inflect those deaths to save your precious little town? You apparently are concerned about 20, why not 21?
A third group—which includes me—hopes that, through the right set of rules and regulations, we can limit the spread of the virus while keeping our economy hobbling along.
Spoiler Alert: you can't.
The next day, Loic and I arose after a sleepless night to plot the future of our restaurant, determined never to repeat what had just happened.
Like the sodomy?
We would remove menu items, such as lobster rolls, geared mostly to the weekend crowds and instead push the grilled-cheese sandwiches and vegan grain bowls more popular with townies.
Nice work again nodding to ridiculous belief system of the typical The Atlantic reader: no more of that boo! wicked! innocent lobsters being murdered for (quelle horrors!) visitors), instead some nice vegan bowls for local food only folks!
Later that week, we set up a grocery store in what used to be our dining room, and allowed people to order those items online for delivery or curbside pickup. And we started offering free fruits and vegetables, cleaning supplies, and pantry staples to members of our community in need.
And yet, surprisingly, you're in financial troubles now.
Still, the limits of our power are all too obvious.
If there's anything a Viro Fascist hates, it's limits to their power.
After ordering food and eating it off premise, people have been leaving used cups, forks, and spoons on our grounds rather than throwing them away at home—forcing us to handle items that have been in people’s mouths.
For somebody who takes another man's cock up his ass, Rob Anderson sure got squeamish on us quickly didn't he? Dude, you're in the food services industry: your entire survival is predicated on the theory that you can wash germs off before touching things that ultimately make it into strangers' mouths. Try to put 19 seconds thought into how to make it work the other way.
Hire a bouncer, someone on Facebook chided me later. But margins in our industry are thin, especially now. And when a casual restaurant can’t sell sandwiches without protection from hired muscle, the real problem lies elsewhere.
Low margins, eh? Like you can't be just giving produce away, eh? I'm not in general sympathetic but despite stronger than average profitability, hair salons don't have great margins either. Golf courses have negative margins, so when this tinkerbell complains about people wanting to exercise their human rights bear in mind he's also calling for businesses on either end of his margins going under. Remember the small-ish tear I advised earlier? That's why. This sperm-bumper is quick to dismiss other people wanting to frequent businesses.
Often, when things have been at their worst here, our town’s police officers have walked by, seen what’s happening, and said and done nothing. On paper, of course, this doesn’t make any sense. How can we expect to run a business while also being the sole enforcers of measures meant to keep society safe?
Oh good, more cries for the state to get involved. Part of you wants to remind this useless piece of trash that nobody asked him to be "enforcers" to "keep society safe" in the first place. Try to make sure your staff doesn't get infected. Try to make sure your staff doesn't infect your customers. Understand that in the long run (ie longer than probably 8-12 months) you and every other person and business will ultimately fail at this. You didn't "fail" in any sort of grand mission to save the galaxy.
I run a restaurant in a seaside town. I’m not an epidemiologist or a fortune-teller. But as I’m forced to make what could be life-and-death decisions—with little official support or guidance—I’m left no choice but to pretend I am.
Almost like you're some sort of independent citizen in a functioning western civilized society who doesn't need to have any of these specialized skills in order to decide for himself (and his fellow ass pirate, I supposes) what to enact in his own personal sphere, and similarly what public policies to advocate for.

That's too much to expect from him though. Just another failed life choice. On second thought, I'll have a lobster roll elsewhere: extra lettuce. Hold the small-ish tear.

This looks familiar...

Rex Murphy: We now have two national crises, and Parliament has abdicated its responsibility.

Bold stuff. Sound familiar? it probably should.


The prime minister is not acting as a prime minister should, or should be allowed to. He has not the right to end the deliberative and accountability functions of Parliament.

Parliament is by far the most important institution in Canada: in this critical time in our history facing the worst economic collapse since the time Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act, we must meet. We must have the opportunity to debate and deliberate the unhitherto expenditures of money from the public purse. We must be able to, in full view of the public we serve, question and challenge the claims made by unelected advisors to the Minority Government.

The question is: Are we a country, or are we not? A country has a Parliament. It has representatives from every district in the country who meet and debate. It sounds national themes. It gives national responses. It cannot shrink to a two-month solo performance in front of a complacent handful of press, and the daily iteration of “we have your back.” That is not a country. It is a sideshow.

Canadians deserve to know that the decisions that are being made, many of which have larger or longer reaching impacts than any ever before made by the Federal Government, are not being made by a tiny cabal answerable only to a small number of the Members of this House who serve extremely narrow regional and ideological masters and instead are being made by a majority of Parliament who represent every person region and belief system within our shores.

Mr. Trudeau has been indoors in a cottage for 50 plus days. His morning standups under the Tent of Commons have passed the tedious stage, passed dreary, passed repetitive, clichéd and annoying. They are as useless as they are arrogant. And that’s a high bar on both. One person, even a PM, is not a government.
Trudeau is either scared of the House of Commons, or he has no regard for it. Perhaps it’s both.

It is wholly wicked and undemocratic to have Canada be led from the front porch of a building the vast majority of Canadians would be arrested for trying to visit, by a man who less than eight months ago failed to obtain the confidence of this House.

The minority in power has opened the sluices on the greatest spending binge in our history, at the precise moment our national economy is, perhaps since the Great Depression itself, at its most feeble, its weakest, its most precarious.

The greatest spending in the weakest economy, millions in emergency relief, businesses by the thousands almost certainly to fail. And somehow this paradox of a closed Commons during a woesome crisis wears on without a bleep.

Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of what the Government of Canada will be doing, what goals we are aiming to accomplish, when and how we will know if we have succeeded or failed at them, and what information we know for certain and which information we are merely guessing or modelling.

Here’s the rule to follow: If you don’t want to be in the House of Commons, then resign from it. Imitate the military. Show some honour. This rule should apply to all 338.

Here’s the shorter version: Get back or get out.

Anyone who has been chosen to pay this bargain of a price and still rejects the bill is free to abandon this duty forever: but they should be forevermore banished from this House and the sacred mission it has to play in the days ahead.

The lockdown conundrum

Over at the National Post these "experts" we're supposed to listen to are asking why we're doing everything wrong (when, you know, we followed the experts).

The topics they discuss should be familiar to you:

Now we face the unintended consequences: delays in medical care for non-COVID-19 patients, educational impacts, the looming pandemic of mental-health issues, and massive economic repercussions. Widespread restrictions certainly cannot be sustained until an effective and safe vaccine is widely available, which may not occur for years, if ever. And the virus is unlikely to disappear from Canada or the world any time soon.
That's what I said

It is important to point out that more than 95 per cent of COVID-19 deaths occurred in those over 60, compared with none under age 20. Protection of the former group deserves the most attention; this will be easier if limited resources are diverted from other, low-risk groups.
Limited resources means you can't save everyone? I said that on March 6th.

In Canada, the individual rate of death from COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age is six per million people, or 0.0006 per cent. This is roughly equivalent to the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident during the same time period. In other countries where data are available, 0.6-2.6 per cent of deaths in people below age 65 have occurred in people without known underlying health conditions. Although the risk of death is small in this group, ongoing research to discover the critical risk factors for death from COVID-19 in younger age groups must remain a top priority. This will permit us to better protect those at risk, while loosening restrictions for the majority.
Almost like we need a Pox Party?

It is unlikely that zero infections can be achieved for COVID-19, which fundamentally spreads like influenza or the common cold, including from those without symptoms. The virus causes disease so mild in many people that it can circulate without detection, until it is introduced into a vulnerable population. While some advocate waiting for a vaccine, that would mean continuation of a lockdown for an unknown period of time. This approach ignores how complicated and difficult vaccine development can be. It is entirely possible that in two years we will still not have a vaccine, and very probable that a vaccine will not eliminate the virus entirely. Hence, we need to come to terms with the fact that we cannot eliminate this virus. At best, we can continue to slow its spread, and protect the frail and elderly.
The age of containment is over. Oh, wait, I said that, not them.

Okay look I could do the memory lane thing all day. When you have a total of four physician/professors who specialize in infectious diseases publishing an article about an infectious disease you would hope at least one paragraph doesn't just look like they read through Third Edge of the Sword for 3 hours and then just paraphrased what they saw. Well, fortunately, they do:
Governments now propose that we test and trace all contacts of identified cases of disease. As we embark on this stage, we will find cases that would previously have gone unnoticed. Ironically, the better our testing capacity and the more we look, the more we will find, making it appear that disease is worsening, when it isn’t. This is particularly problematic as restrictions are being lifted. Should we automatically reinstate restrictions when the number of cases increases? No.
That's actually an incredibly insightful point: as we get to (and well past!) where the lockdowns should have ended, we're getting additional testing capacity (in Alberta at least, other provinces results may vary) which will make it look like the number of cases is increasing, in reality we're just catching the milder cases that were explicitly forbidden from getting the tests a month ago. Unfortunately, squeamish governments have decided to re-instate shutdowns if the number of cases rises: that their own policies are the reason for this either never occurs to them or they are deliberately going to blame the citizenry in order to hold onto their power.
Instead we should use local hospital capacity as the guiding principle, ensuring that all patients who need hospital or ICU care can get it. This is not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution: what happens in an urban centre is different from what happens in smaller cities or rural areas of Canada.
Well okay not the whole paragraph. The problem, as I noted in March, is that governments weren't very interested in providing that information. Reporters have been trying in vain to get numbers out of Ohio and Kentucky. Canadian provinces, already well beyond their capacity despite heavy rationing, have also been refusing to provide data about deaths and hospital capacity.

Also of note:
We need a tailored regional approach if the local hospital system gets strained. Germany, for example, chose a local threshold of 50 new cases per 100,000 population per week for when reinstitution of lockdown measures must be considered based on local capacity. The Ontario equivalent using the same threshold would be 7,300 new cases per week, or 1,043 per day. In contrast, Ontario has recommended a much lower provincewide threshold of 200 new community cases of infections per day as a threshold for action. This is based on an estimate of the ability of the system to accommodate the required contact tracing for every diagnosed case at the provincial level. The number of community cases should not be the metric of choice for relaxing restrictions as it is not a reflection of the more critical measure, hospital capacity. In addition, time spent on contact tracing is neither necessary nor feasible for all community cases, as it misses asymptomatic and covert transmission. Instead, testing and contact tracing should be focused mainly on hospitals and long-term care institutions, where the impacts of disease are the highest.

Okay now they're going back to paraphrasing me:
Accepting ongoing sustainable levels of transmission might be a healthier option in the long term. While the lockdown has decreased transmission of the virus in the short run, it has also prevented the development of population immunity in low-risk people. We should embrace the benefits of the development of immunity in a growing segment of the population. Right now, the only means of achieving this is by natural infection. Recent data suggests that the human body reacts no differently to this virus than to other respiratory viruses: it mounts immunity, and once achieved, the virus gets cleared and there is protection from future infection. Given the novelty of the virus we do not have long-term data, but we know from 2003 SARS that immunity may last up to 13 years. Once a vaccine is available that would be the preferred option. However, there is no guarantee of whether and when a vaccine will be available, or how effective it will be, to say nothing of how broad the uptake of it will be in the population.

Will this approach cost more deaths? Sweden, which allowed for more community transmission, is the measure of this strategy. More deaths per capita did occur than in Canada. On the positive side, Sweden’s number of new cases has peaked and Sweden will be better protected against future waves and the need for future restrictions. In the absence of a vaccine, it is a question of paying now or paying later. While the realistic goal of Canada’s lockdown was to delay deaths, it was never going to avoid them entirely. One year from now, Canada and Sweden may well have the same number of deaths per capita, but Canada may have had significantly more economic and social impacts.
Yep, me again. I'll let them have the last word though:
Canada needs a model that uses a hospital capacity-based approach to guide local lifting and reintroduction of more restrictive measures, as necessary. In the absence of hospital strain, consider continuing with a swift release of lockdown measures, to include opening of elementary schools, playgrounds, workplaces, stores and restaurants, while following basic physical distancing rules and voluntary limitations to social gatherings, while continuing to ban mass gatherings and protecting the elderly and those at highest risk.


Sadly Jeri Ryan isn't kidnapped and kept chained in the basement

Calm down, tranny

Dr. Theresa Tam described Canada as "a series of regional epidemics," with the hardest-hit provinces remaining Ontario and Quebec.

"Even within those jurisdictions, you need to hone in on certain areas," she said as she urged authorities to focus their efforts on hot spots and vulnerable areas such as long-term care homes.

Her assessment proved true on Thursday as various provinces experienced setbacks and successes in the fight against the virus.

New Brunswick's provincial legislature abruptly adjourned, a day after officials confirmed a health-care worker who had travelled outside New Brunswick was at the origin of a cluster that has grown to at least six cases in the Campbellton area.

Premier Blaine Higgs has said the health-care worker was in contact with "multiple patients" over a two-week period after returning to the province without self-isolating. The area, near the border with Quebec, will now have to return to tighter restrictions on physical distancing.
No. They. Don't.

This virus will spread. The question is if your health systems are overwhelmed. Provinces refuse to provide this information which means they aren't. Higgs can leave everything alone and the same number of New Brunswick residents will die.

June 2020, January 2021, what's the difference?

What do they think "stop or I'll shoot" means?

Perhaps you've heard the common libertarian refrain that taxation is theft. It's a pretty popular one, and this rundown at libertarianism.org covers the basis of it pretty effectively. What we're interested in here is:

Imagine that I hold you up at gunpoint and take $20 from you. I also leave one of my books behind in exchange. When you see me later without my gun, you call me a thief and demand your money back. “Oh no,” I say, “I am no thief, for I gave you something valuable in exchange. True, you never asked for the book, but it’s a good book, worth much more than $20.”

This reply on my part would be confused. It doesn’t matter that I gave you a good in exchange, and it doesn’t matter whether the book is really worth more than $20. What matters is that I took your money without your consent.

It also does not matter if you benefit greatly from the book.
Libertarians often bring up the "at gunpoint" angle and with good reason. There's another key principle of libertarianism: that the government uses violence to enforce its laws, including the taxation. Canada doesn't jail people for failure to pay taxes like the U.S. does, but you can see this matters not:
  1. I don't pay my taxes
  2. The government says I have to, and sends me a bill
  3. I ignore the bill, but take all my money out of electronic means and keep it in my house
  4. The government sends a bill collector to my house
  5. I refuse to let the bill collector in
  6. The bill collector comes with police officers with guns
  7. I still refuse to let the bill collector in
  8. The cops break down my door and if I try to stop them, they pull out their guns and shoot me
This is not particularly arguable: those who put more than 5 seconds of thought into this have to either themselves turn libertarian or justify the living hell out of it. So we agree that even on this matter, which is serious enough to cause you to be arrested and jailed in American but isn't even an imprisonable offence, the government decree is tantamount to force. As one Objectivist used to say, if you aren't willing to pistol whip a little old lady and then shoot her in the back of the neck for a government program, you can't justify it. Individual morality within libertarianism basically provides the spectrum where that axiom is believed to hold true. However if you break the law, as both a matter of fact and a matter of law than the government can and will use force up to and including shooting you in the head and killing you if you continue to break it and fail to comply with their actions to rectify the matter. You can make the moral case whether a specific law should or should not exist because of this fact, but suffice it to say if you agree that the law exists than you also agree this is what they get to do. This logic is absolute, unassailable, and completely airtight to any and all rational argument. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has publicly agreed with this sentiment. Therefore, in true Trump Derangement Syndrome fashion, everybody is now outraged that he would ever dare imply that such a concept exists.

Looting is illegal. People who loot are (in theory) confronted by the police who will arrest them. This involves pointing guns at them, and if they fail to comply, shooting them for the crime. So yes, as a factual and legal matter when the looting starts the shooting starts. Why is this news? And, as usual with Big Left Tech social media enforcers block the conservatives' "violent speech" while leaving the leftist speech on the same topic alone. FCC chairman Ajit Pai asked why the Iranian head of state is allowed to advocate for violence. Last year the Washinton Examiner noted that when violent leftists threatened Mitch McConnelll he was (deliberately) censored for posting proof of the threats against him.
As McConnell’s campaign manager later pointed out, Twitter had also just recently allowed the phrase #MassacreMitch to be displayed as “trending” — this phrase’s double-meaning is itself a violent threat — yet somehow it is against the rules to bring transparency to the violent threats that increasingly dangerous leftists bring to the door of an elected lawmaker.
Three years ago TownHall.com found plenty of tweets by leftists calling for the murder of numerous GOP officials. Joss Whedon, David Simon, and Everlast all promoted violence against Republicans without any censure from Big Left Tech. We've already seen that Trump causes leftists to lose what little rational thought they may have had. Just remember, TechDirt's Mike Masnick is still falsely claiming there's no bias on social media sites. I guess we can test it. Get somebody to show up at Masnick's house with a gun, beat the living shit out of him, and then hold him hostage and notify the police. Hold the gun directly in his mouth while the SWAT team shows up with snipers and all the rest. Get a leftist Twitter user to post "if this guy doesn't surrender the SWAT team should use lethal force" and then have somebody flag it for moderation. If the social media post is censured by Twitter, the hostage taker doesn't open fire and Masnick lives. If it isn't, then the SWAT team goes home and Masnick gets what the lying leftist deserves.

Another Toronto rapper shot: blame varmint guns in northern B.C.

Surprise surprise, New Zealand is getting a harsh lesson in what happens when the fundamental human right of the citizenry to own weapons in their own defense is stolen away by the state: the state has deprived you of your life and property and isn't very good at protecting the bit of it they leave you as scraps:

The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act, show the rates of gun crime went up in both 2018 and 2019.

Last year, there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.

And in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009.

The number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.
On this side of the Pacific Rim, another black-on-black shooting in Toronto, this time right in the middle of (presumably dead) downtown.
TORONTO — Canadian rapper Houdini has died aged 21 after being fatally shot in Toronto.

The up-and-coming hip-hop star was gunned down on May 26 outside a hotel in the downtown area of the city, and later died from his injuries.

Houdini was one of Canada’s most streamed independent rappers last year, with 19.2 million plays on Spotify. He is best known for tracks including Late Nights, Myself, and Backseats.

Police say the wounded include a 15-year-old boy and a 27-year-old woman. Both are expected to recover.
Coming on the heels of Trudeau's ridiculous gun grab that takes a lot of hunting rifles from innocent farmers but somehow lets Toronto negroes pack heat in the middle of the city without so much as a hitch, this looks like only the anecdotal beginning of what New Zealand's own disgusting policies have wrought.
Toronto city councillor Joe Cressy, who represents the area where the shooting took place, expressed his disappointment on Twitter.

"Our vibrant downtown community shaken," Cressy wrote. “While Toronto Police Services investigates and our city’s crisis response team mobilizes to support those affected, collectively as a city we must all loudly reject this violence and work to stop it.”
The reason your "downtown community" is shaken is because fag-loving NDP extremists like you have been constantly pushing to make it more "vibrant" by which you mean non-white. Well this is what you get: tribal criminals constantly committing brazen murders in the middle of the city. This is exactly what Cressy wanted in his city. And he got it. Congrats, pal.

Bonus Toronto shooting coverage: You may have heard from CBC (in since-scrubbed-without-notice article) that the 15 year old boy was dead and the two adults were alive. As always, CBC is quick to rip on you for "fake news" without looking at the beam in their own eye.

Flashback: Over a decade ago I highlighted how the Big Smoke got more violent as it got less white


Edmonton City Parks

It's a virus, not a tornado.

Edmonton City Council is exercising their Viro Fascism by closing four locations that allegedly were used in a non-social-distancing manner. Sodomite loving coward Don Iveson could barely keep the glean out of his evil eye as he made the announcement.

This is disgusting government paternalism at its strongest. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because he keeps kicking it inside the house.

Actually, wait, sorry, my apologies. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because they watched a soccer riot in Brazil. It would be bad enough but at least tolerable if Mayor Coward had warned people that bylaw officers would pay special attention to those locations this weekend and fine people for noncompliance. This is insanity overkill on par with the shit we see over in bumfuck Ontario where Ford/Tory scream to the heavens that people are out in public parks.

This is less an issue in Edmonton, but in Toronto what the hell were they thinking? 4M people cooped up in tiny apartments (I'm reminded of my last couple Trawna hotel rooms) for months because the city (unlike many others) closed every park in town, then opened them back up in mid-May during a heat wave, and then complaining that too many people thought "hey I should finally go to the park"? Screw off.

Interim city manager Adam Laughlin said Thursday groups of more than 50 people have regularly been gathering at skateparks and basketball courts, especially at the locations that are being temporarily closed. He said the behaviour has resulted in the need for excessive enforcement after people ignored warnings.

“We permitted opening certain facilities on the basis of good guidelines provided by the province, which we interpret them as our rules,” he said. “The expectation is that individuals follow them and if they do not in this pandemic we will close facilities. It is on Edmontonians to make sure that they’re following these guidelines.”
So which is it? Viro Fascist Adam Laughlin claimed "it's on Edmontonians" but then rather than send enforcers to push the (nonsensical) social distancing rules he's instead closing the entire park.

Well, maybe this saves the Viro Fascist a little manpower to harrass people elsewhere. Nope.
While the closures are in effect, the city will be locking fences and putting up tape at the parks and courts. Laughlin said the city will be closely monitoring the sites for compliance.
Edmonton City Council is out of control. It's time for the non-social distanced mobs to show up at their houses:
Council will revisit the issue at next Thursday’s emergency advisory committee and discuss whether there is a need to close the sites again because of further non-compliance.
Disgusting paternalism at its strongest.

Toronto City Parks



A former RCMP officer weighs in.

True North, the think tank and online media organization I run, looked at the questions being asked of Trudeau and found that the CBC dominated these press conferences, being allowed to ask twice as many questions as any other outlet.

CBC journalists were granted 21% of the questions asked between March 13 and April 30. Meanwhile, independent online outlets like True North, Rebel News and Blacklock’s Reporter were blocked from asking a single question.

In a similar study, Blacklock’s found that of the 708 questions put to the Prime Minister, CBC asked 167 of them. CTV asked 90 questions, Global News asked 75, the Toronto Star asked 29, the National Post had 14 and the Sun papers only got 4 questions.

They were holding out for #ReleaseTheSnyderCut maybe?

Hey remember the Qatar Papers?

Anti-Propaganda News does, and is wondering why it is we haven't heard a peep about them lately.

Originally, we were told that the Qatar Papers would expose all of the poltical parties in Canada, except Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, and that they would be released before the October 2019 election in Canada. It never happened, and Tom Quiggin has left a lot of us wondering if it was just another PsyOp. Now, it’s May, 2020, and Trudeau is destroying Canada. Where are the papers, Tom?

In fairness, Quiggin has been a little busy.

Media buttering Albertans up to demand we reject our most sacred principles

Far-left columnist Lisa Johnson of the Edmonton Journal is asking, almost salivating: COVID-19 has changed everything. Will it change Jason Kenney’s conservative Alberta?

One of the things to note, and Brendan O'Neill noted it about a month ago, is that the polls are probably not accurate reflections of the mood. People locked in under quarantine seem to be insane: how else do you figure that Justin blowing money left right and centre and Legault presiding over a historic Queerbec death roll are both hugely popular?

Kenney’s approval numbers could have been higher but were held back by the government’s handling of the health portfolio, ThinkHQ’s pollsters concluded.
This is exactly why conservative governments need to massively destroy public healthcare. No more government healthcare, no more insisting that government endlessly give it more money to continued lost outcomes.
Cheryl Oates, once press secretary to former premier Notley, said people expect governments to put their agenda aside and put acute needs first.
Oates, of course, isn't telling you that "government funding acute care" is neatly part of her extremist boss's...um, what's the word? Oh, right: agenda.

But this is how leftists like Oates and Rachel Arab work: their desires can never be "agendas". Thanks to pliant media whores like Lisa Johnson, they'll get massive platforms to keep spreading that sick agenda without a hint of opposition.

Fortunately there's a cure. My shadow budget was a start. The next step is deporting losers like Zain Velji to whatever shithole country we decide they are now residents of:
Zain Velji, a political strategist who has worked on left-wing political campaigns including for the provincial NDP, said while Kenney has been in relative lock-step with other provinces on his pandemic response, he has lost some points for leadership.

Sticking to the goals of restraining education and health funding while the public’s attention is on the COVID-19 crisis is one way Kenney’s leveraged this moment for his own political agenda, said Velji.
Meanwhile, count on that worthless bitch Rachel Arab to try to paint Alberta's failures under her destructive administration as a model to uphold:
“The rug was already starting to slip out from under Jason Kenney before the pandemic … The growing job losses, the failure to create jobs, the disinterest in diversification — all those things were already starting to pile up,” said Notley.

Kenney might make some reversals, but he’s still devoted to small-government conservatism, she said.

“Even though it appears as though they are capitulating, it turns out they’re just trying to get money from another pot,” said Notley. “If that means pulling money away from autistic kids in schools — so be it,” the opposition leader said referring to funding cuts for educational assistants. “If it means reducing (health care) services in rural communities — so be it.”
The NDP, remember, know nothing about economics. The money being blown on Wuhan Flu responses has to be saved elsewhere.

Kenney, meanwhile, is at least acknowledging the dangers of his overspending. Real Albertans respect this sort of thing. How the electorate treats him defines how many people we need to remove from Alberta by force.
When asked what exactly that means, Kenney said: “Well, it means we are racking up a whack of debt.” The province needs to get through the crisis, but when that’s over, it’s going to have to have a debate over how to deal with it. “I’m not sugarcoating it, I’m just saying this so Albertans are aware there’s some tough choices ahead.”

As always with the Fake News far-left media, they love that provincial sales tax (that steals money out of every Albertan's wallets):
Kenney was asked directly by Global News in early May if a sales tax was possible, long a taboo subject in Alberta, and he suggested it would be part of the debate to get finances under control. Other options could be deeper cuts or a combination of new taxes and cuts.

Derek, of course, is slyly pushing for #WEXIT. As you might guess, it's the real way that Alberta can pivot from the post-COVID world into a global powerhouse.
Derek Fildebrandt, a former Wildrose MLA, UCP member, Freedom Conservative Party founder and now-publisher of right-leaning online magazine, the Western Standard, said while there is always a threat on the right, “it’s always a manageable threat if the mainstream Tory party of the day is willing to tack in that direction.”

A big part of containing that threat today will depend on what recommendations come out of the Fair Deal Panel. The government’s response will be a big indicator of how far Kenney is willing to go to keep those factions animated by western alienation on his side, said Fildebrandt.



Are politicians essential?

No, I'm not asking that question in order to provoke laughter or things being hurled in anger across the room. It's because the question about maintaining Parliament in the age of the Wuhan Flu seems to be a partisan issue in Canada despite all the people in charge agreeing about that opening question. Indeed, the "essential workers" have just refused to do their jobs for the entire summer. In the middle of a crisis.

Joanna Williams tackles this in the United Kingdom context:

‘It is vital that when we are asking other people to work, and go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that… it is essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible… Parliament must set an example of how we move back gradually to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less… How can we say to our schoolchildren, you’re safe going back, some of them, but we’re not? We’re going to hide away. Is that the right message to give to our constituents?’
Who is this champion of class equality? Is it Jess Phillips the self-styled gobby working-class MP for Birmingham Yardley? Or the more likeable Lisa Nandy, whose pitch for Labour leader focused on reconnecting the Labour Party with its erstwhile working-class voters? Of course not. It was the caricature of posh privilege: Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Rees-Mogg’s words were not well received. His speech was shut down by Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who then threatened to suspend parliament altogether if physical distancing rules were breached in the Commons chamber: ‘My priority, and the priority for all, I am sure, is to make sure that those on the estate are safe while business is facilitated.’
Rees-Mogg is close to the mark, but he unfortunately didn't hit it cleanly.

Neither, for even fewer reasons of politeness, did Andrew Scheer. Scheer also had to endure a poorly received push to re-open the Canadian Parliament.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signaled that the Liberal government would prefer to continue with the emergency proceedings that have been adopted for the past three weeks — two virtual sittings and one in-person sitting each week of a special COVID-19 committee, on which all MPs are members. He left the door open to additional weekly virtual sittings.

But for that to happen, the minority Liberals will need the support of at least one of the main opposition parties.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer reiterated Tuesday his party's position that more in-person sittings are necessary, along with a restoration of some of Parliament's powers.

He said the existing thrice-weekly meetings of the modified Commons and the smattering of other committees meeting virtually aren't enough. Among other things, he said the current setup doesn't allow MPs to compel the government to produce documents or to get witnesses to testify.

"This is not a partisan issue, this is about whether or not a democratic country like Canada should have a functional Parliament," Scheer said.

"If members of the Bloc, or the NDP, or the Liberal backbench don't believe that Parliament is an essential service, they should consider why they ran for office in the first place."
The Bloc has been partially receptive. However just like in jolly ol' England the "supporters of the common worker" don't seem interested in giving those workers some good bang for the buck they spend on their elected representatives.
NDP House leader Peter Julian said a return to normal parliamentary proceedings is not in the cards.

"The reality is, we can't have 338 MPs flying to Ottawa next Monday. That would not make sense," he said in an interview.

"What it does is it increases the chances that we're vectors of the virus and we're a long way from being out of the woods in terms of COVID-19."

The NDP believes it has won some major improvements to emergency aid legislation through the current proceedings and intends to keep pushing to close some of the gaps that have left some Canadians without aid, Julian said.

He wants to see the Commons transition over the next few weeks to becoming fully functional using a hybrid model, in which some MPs are in the chamber and others participate virtually. But that will first require working out how to allow MPs to vote electronically, something Julian suggested could be done by June 21.
The problem is that the Andrew Scheers and the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the world aren't looking at this the right way and aren't addressing this matter in the correct fashion. When morons like Peter Julian start spewing their nonsense you throw it back in their face. If Peter Julian isn't required in the House of Commons than he isn't required period. Fire the son of a bitch. I don't mean he resigns his seat ("considers why he ran for office" in the Scheer formulation) and New Westminster-Burnaby holds a byelection to get a new (NDP) candidate: I mean he's no longer got a seat, and New Westminster-Burnaby never again gets or apparently needs a Member of Parliament. After all, the conceit is that the risk is just too-high to let Parliamentarians go into the building...however at the same time we also entertain the conceit that being an MP is an essential service. Julian seems to think it isn't, and he's wrong.

What we need is a leader like Maxime Bernier on steroids who can turn this around on them and say this:
Parliament must be reopened immediately. All 338 Members of Parliament should be encouraged to attend in the same way that in May of 2019 we also encouraged Members to attend this House. This House of Commons is just that: the free people of Canada electing those to represent them. Parliament started in 1341 and for centuries afterwards Members of the House of Commons fought hard -- at the risk of their own lives -- to ensure that Parliament had more and more power and therefore more and more political power was held by the people themselves. We had a rocky beginning: in 1376 Sir Mare was imprisoned for making what the King thought was "non-essential" pushes for more power and respect for Parliament. Under many sovereigns Parliament was not called upon at all except to rubber stamp spending bills. This however was not sufficient for our Roundhead Parliamentary ancestors who kicked off a decade-long Civil War in 1642 that, combined with the 1688 Glorious Revolution, forever established that Parliament was the basis of our democracy.

I call on all Members to be mindful of that heritage, of the blood spilled by our forebears to preserve Parliament. Today is no different: though we do not fear that the Cavaliers loyal to the House of Trudeau will execute MPs from Corner Brook to Coquitlam, we do have to fear a chance -- minimal, but existent -- of being infected by COVID-19. However much like in 1642, the risk to the country of having nothing more than a rubber stamping Short Parliament is surely worth minimal risk of life to a mere 338 Canadians: our country lost ten times that many people to a single battle in April 1917. That single battle was itself in service of a higher cause ultimately less vital to our Dominion than a strong Parliament is in 2020. Jumping over a trench in the Great War was a lot more risky than sitting in our chamber could ever be! We should never lose sight of the undeniable fact, a fact being denied by several Honourable Ministers and their so-called scientific advisors, that being in the same room as a COVID carrier does not automatically confer infection. Furthermore, infection does not automatically confer symptoms. Symptoms meanwhile do not automatically confer hospitalization, and hospitalization does not mean a death sentence. To claim otherwise is to lie, and deceive Canadians, and that is precisely why Parliament must resume: such deceit withers in the disinfecting ultraviolet light which is the debating of our cherished democratic system.

The other Members of this House have done well personally as a result of their election into this grand chamber: they receive a salary that is the envy of all but a small proportion of Canadians with pensions and benefits to match. They are ferried across the country at the taxpayer expense, are honoured by law societies and media outlets and charitable foundations. Their names are forever blazed in the history books of our great nation, their every utterance is given a weight far greater than any of the citizens they are here to represent. Upon leaving this chamber they can move onto profitable endeavours in industry or media or elsewhere in government. Even in the wake of this global pandemic they have continued to have freedom of movement many other Canadians have had to do without. Unlike so many Canadians impacted by government policies they continue to draw their salary even as their workload diminishes. It is now time to give back to the people of Canada who elected them.

Parliament is more important than mere parliamentarians. If Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister to the newest backbencher to the Speaker are to be considered 'essential' to the operations of Canada in the same manner as nurses or grocery clerks, then we must be willing to perform to the same standard. Every caregiver who walks into a hospital may get infected and die: but we all understand that risk has to be taken because otherwise this essential service so vital to Canadian life will not be performed. Every employee at your local grocery chain or convenience store is at a risk of contracting this illness: we don't make ludicrous claims that the customer coming in to buy the food they need to survive "killed them" and justify shutting everything down. We can take reasonable precautions but at the end of the day my message to every Member of Parliament is that your job is essential. For years we have used vehicles with wheels and wings to travel around understanding that the risk was worth the reward, this is more public a risk and a more possible outcome, but it remains true that the calling of our higher mission supercedes any selfish interest in our own personal safety and comfort.

Parliament is by far the most important institution in Canada: in this critical time in our history facing the worst economic collapse since the time Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act, we must meet. We must have the opportunity to debate and deliberate the unhitherto expenditures of money from the public purse. We must be able to, in full view of the public we serve, question and challenge the claims made by unelected advisors to the Minority Government. Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of what the Government of Canada will be doing, what goals we are aiming to accomplish, when and how we will know if we have succeeded or failed at them, and what information we know for certain and which information we are merely guessing or modelling. Perhaps even more importantly Canadians deserve to know that the decisions that are being made, many of which have larger or longer reaching impacts than any ever before made by the Federal Government, are not being made by a tiny cabal answerable only to a small number of the Members of this House who serve extremely narrow regional and ideological masters and instead are being made by a majority of Parliament who represent every person region and belief system within our shores.

It is wholly wicked and undemocratic to have Canada be led from the front porch of a building the vast majority of Canadians would be arrested for trying to visit, by a man who less than eight months ago failed to obtain the confidence of this House. We are not a technocracy where unelected experts of narrow fringe research are directed to set public policy, nor are we to be governed by snapshot polling without a true public realm free from the manipulations of Big Tech and Big Government in a distorted marketplace of ideas. King Charles' policies were generally popular as well, but that didn't make his eleven years of tyranny any less dangerous, and we have no wish to have to fight the 9 year bloody real world war that resulted. This destructive course of action could easily tear the country apart.

Throughout history Parliament has been a place of meeting: the concept of people forming together is the perfect distillation of our democratic system. If we do not have regular in-person meetings of the Commoners' Representatives than we are no longer a country nor do we deserve to be. The price to save the nation is a statistical blip on the ever-present possibility that any of us at any time for any reason be taken away from this earth. Anyone who has been chosen to pay this bargain of a price and still rejects the bill is free to abandon this duty forever: but they should be forevermore banished from this House and the sacred mission it has to play in the days ahead.