It’s new been a little over a week that a number of bullets hit the US embassy here in Toronto. Although the exact number of reported shots fired ranges anywhere from two to “multiple”, it’s reported that “roughly 10 shell casings” were found outside the building (so probably closer to “multiple”). Apparently the weapon used was a handgun.

According to a Toronto Police Service news release, two people drove up to the front doors of the embassy on University Avenue at 4:29 in the morning of the 10th in a white Honda CR-V, one or both of them got out, blasted the building (cops state that both individuals were involved in the “discharge of the gun”), jumped back in, and drove off toward Queen West.

A couple of days later, @TPSOperations posted that the vehicle used had been stolen but recovered somewhere in Toronto “within hours” of the shooting.

This isn’t exactly the norm for Toronto but within this odd event are nestled some even odder details.

First, it’s reported that embassy staff didn’t contact the police until an hour after the shooting. Although there’s no explanation of why they waited so long, the media consensus (as primed by the cops), seems to be that because the embassy is heavily fortified, the people working in the building probably didn’t even notice anything amiss.

What’s odd about this claim is that the building is indeed heavily fortified and surveilled (the image near the top is from one of numerous embassy cameras). Based on the embassy’s amount of obvious and public-facing surveillance equipment, not to mention being chock-full of spies, I find it difficult to believe that not a single person, security or otherwise, noticed anything amiss for an hour.

Second, according to a CTV report the incident was reported to an officer that “was flagged down in the area”. Yeah, someone (presumably) from the embassy literally went outside to look for a cop on the street to report the shooting instead of picking up a phone or walking to the nearest police station (52 Division), which would’ve taken about 5 minutes.

Third, in the same report it was stated that, “witness evidence shows that a white Honda CRV was spotted heading west on Dundas Street before turning onto University Avenue and stopping in front of the U.S. Consulate”. That’s a distance of about 190 meters (623 feet). You can see how far this is by taking a trip down University from Dundas in Google Street View:

With good eyesight it wouldn’t be impossible to spot the vehicle from Dundas but it would require standing in the middle of the southbound lanes, perhaps in the crosswalk, as the lines of sight on both sides of University are obstructed. The other possibility is that the SUV was followed by the “witness” in a vehicle but this begs the question of why anyone would’ve remembered a car pulling over for a few minutes — and nothing else.

For context, the shooting happened at around 4:30 a.m. and it was reported on by the media at around 6:30 a.m. at the earliest. Global News had already included this “witness” information in an article just before 8 a.m. yet a press conference held by the police, in which they asked for witnesses to come forward, didn’t happen until 10:30 a.m.

Going by this timeline, the “witness” saw the white SUV drive west on Dundas, turn south on University, then stop in front of the embassy. For some reason the “witness” remembered this commonplace detail but ostensibly didn’t see or hear any shots fired since the cops didn’t receive any report until an hour after it happened, and then only because embassy staffed ventured out into the street to flag down a passing cop.

Standing in front of the embassy, it would’ve been equally difficult to spot the vehicle turning south from Dundas. And was this “witness” just hanging out for the hour before police showed up? The whole thing strains credulity.

Unfortunately, this event has been designated a “national security” issue which means that we may never know the full story. Still, with all of these intriguing little details I’m eager for a follow-up. Rest assured that if/when there are any updates they’ll be promptly posted here.

terrorism (noun):

• The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
• Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods
• The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.

Wait…terrorism? Is that accurate?

Yes and Yes!

See previous posts for past examples of media terrorism. Here’s a more current example of how they continue to push their agenda:

People who are unvaccinated against COVID-19 not only place themselves at greater risk of getting infected by the virus, but also increase the infection risk of those around them who have rolled up their sleeves for a jab, according to new Canadian modelling research.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/04/25/remaining-unvaccinated-increases-risk-to-the-vaccinated-says-u-of-t-covid-study.html

This is, of course, based on the same type of modelling that has guided government’s decisions to “protect” the population from the ravages of Covid-19. Note that with the exception of starting values, not a single real-world statistic appears in these models.

It’s not that modelling is necessarily a bad thing. After all, how do you predict something except to build models? If these models are pretty accurate we can call them approximations. If they’re not that accurate then we can call them guesses. And if they contradict actual real-world data? We could call them mistakes (if there’s a later retraction), mental illness (it’s possible!), or if they’re being constantly pushed to advance a very public and blatant political agenda using fear and intimidation despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary, terroristic lies.

Once again, we need only look at the actual numbers to expose the fear-and-lie-based agenda being pushed forward by the Trudeau government and its woke allies like the Toronto Star.

Note that these are rates, not raw numbers (which must undoubtedly be much higher). Also note that these statistic continue to co-mingle people without any Covid vaccination and those who are partially vaccinated up to and including two shots (a goal post that’s been moved at least once since the beginning of this year alone).

At this point the medical community should be researching why a full Covid vaccine regimen seems to make you about twice as likely to be infected than other groups. Maybe they are doing this research, and maybe this is just some strange phenomenon happening in Ontario, but good luck finding any such doubts in any mainstream publication. Instead, birdcage liners like the Toronto Star continue to push the “get vaccinated to protect yourself and others” lie while pushing “models” and other ridiculous fictions in the face of a completely contradictory reality.

How likely are you to die from Covid? How about when compared to the seasonal flu?

While on the topic of reality, and since no one seems to be talking about it except to compare how much more likely one vaccine group might get sick over another, I thought I’d do a little number crunching to see what your chances are of landing in the hospital, the ICU, or even dying from Covid-19 if you’re unvaccinated.

First let’s look at deaths.

Most of the work has been done here already, we just have to divide by 1000 to get a rate per 100 (a.k.a. per cent).

Not fully vaccinated: 0.07 / 1000 = 0.00007%

Fully vaccinated: 0.02 / 1000 = 0.00002%

Vaccinated with booster: 0.06 / 1000 = 0.00006%

For comparison, your estimated chances of dying from the seasonal flu are:

100,000 global deaths / 7,800,000,000 global population = 0.000012821 x 100 = 0.0012%

In other words, if you’re unvaccinated (which doesn’t necessarily mean you haven’t received any shots), you’re about 17 times more likely to die from the common flu than you are with Covid-19.

Note the use of the word “with” as opposed to the directly causative “from”, which further helps to erode the lies we’re being fed on a daily basis.

Moreover, these values are based on the most conservative estimates with results floored (rounded down), but you can plug higher estimates in there to see that it doesn’t make a huge different.

Now let’s look at serious hospitalizations.

In this case I’m only using one data point so this value will almost certainly vary but, again, not a whole lot. We also need to extrapolate a little here since the Ontario website no longer tracks the number of unvaccinated individuals (a metric which appears inexplicably to differ from other metrics on the same page).

28 cases / (14,700,000 Ontario population – 12,000,000 fully vaccinated) = 28 / 2,700,000 = 0.00001037 x 100 = 0.001%

In other words, your chances of landing in the ICU with (not necessarily due to) Covid-19 are one-one-thousandth of a percent. You’re still slightly more likely to die directly from the seasonal flu (0.0012%) than ending up in the ICU with Covid (0.001%).

Finally, let’s have a look at how likely you are to end up in the hospital with Covid-19.

Using a slight variation of the previous calculation:

232 cases / (14,700,000 Ontario population – 12,000,000 fully vaccinated) = 232 / 2,700,000 = 0.000085926 x 100 = 0.0085%

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find Ontario-specific data but recent influenza hospitalizations reported by the United States’ CDC show a rate of 0.0098%, suggesting quite strongly that the seasonal flu is at this point more likely to land you in a hospital than Covid.

Between the brazen hypocrisy of defaming truckers while gushing support for Ukrainian Nazis, between Trudeau’s blathering about freedom while fawning over Chinese totalitarianism, between all of the bluster about transparency while simultaneously refusing to answer even the most basic questions about why Canadians’ Charter rights were dismissed with the mere wave of a hand, not to mention the overt and ongoing lawlessness, the rotten criminality and tyranny of a federal government that refuses to even think about lifting its Covid mandates is on full display.

If ever there was a real threat to democracy and to Canadians’ freedoms, the most glaring example by far is the reprehensible terrorist Justin Trudeau and his complicit federal government.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/21/more-money-from-stephen-harper-for-rcmp-and-border-services-to-fight-terrorism.html

So is he dangerous or what?

Twenty-year-old Seyed Amir Hossein Raisolsadat of Stratford has not been charged with any offences.

Police allege Raisolsadat had beans needed to produce the deadly toxin, ricin.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/terrorism-related-peace-bond-for-seyed-amir-hossein-raisolsadat-extended-1.3083226

If you haven’t broken the law, you have nothing to worry about, right? No one in this “democratic” country would be arrested without charges, correct? You have due process and checks and balances, no?

Not in the fascist tyranny of Canada you don’t…

A summons was issued in February for Merouane Ghalmi to appear before a Quebec Court judge in Montreal to sign a peace bond after the RCMP said it feared he would commit a terrorism offence.

No document was signed in the case on Feb. 26 and the case was postponed to give Ghalmi’s lawyers time to review the evidence.

Ghalmi has not been charged with any offence.

From: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/25/rcmp-terrorism-arrest-amir-raisolsadat/

And C-51 isn’t even law yet.

At one time, my mentions that we are being illegally tracked by our government/corporate owners were derided as conspiracy gibberish, along with the verbatim “tinfoil hat” comments that all such enlightened contrarians regurgitate, despite the reams of independent, corroborative evidence I would trot out.

Then, with the news of NSA spying scandal came confirmation that, yes indeed, this is exactly what’s happening and if anything I didn’t go far enough in my descriptions.

None of it is news to the informed, to be sure, and there is enough independent verification going back many years from the best sources one could find — there’s absolutely no doubt that we are being spied on constantly, and that our government is forcing this on us at the behest of private, for-profit, and for-control interests. Even if you believe the highly incredulous claims that CSEC, Canada’s version of the NSA, is not spying on Canadians, there’s no doubt that our neighbours are only more than willing to do so and to share that information with CSEC:

CSEC relies on its closest foreign intelligence allies, the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand to share the collection burden and the resulting intelligence yield. Canada is a substantial beneficiary of the collaborative effort within the partnership to collect and report on foreign communications.

The issue of why the government is doing this usually pops up at this point. The naive assumption is typically that this is being done for the protection of citizens (terrorism!) and that even if our data is temporarily stored and analyzed, ultimately no one is interested in harvesting all of your innermost secrets.

Of course, I’ve already mentioned that the government is imposing these measures on behalf of power-hungry organizations seeking global domination (is that sufficient motive?), which also sounds like a conspiratorial rambling — if only it weren’t for the fact that CSEC directly states this on their website:

The IT Security Program has earned highly valued global respect and a reputation of technical excellence. It now extends its expertise past its traditional technical clients to those within the Government of Canada who are responsible for the formulation and implementation of policy and program managers. This approach encourages harmonization between Government of Canada’s operational IT security requirements with its business needs and processes.

The IT Security Program will aid the Government of Canada’s effort to make cyber security a business enabler.

It’s fair to say that protecting profits, whether government or corporate, isn’t CSEC’s only job:

During the Cold War, the Establishment’s primary client for signals intelligence was National Defence, and its focus was the military operations of the then Soviet Union. Since the end of the Cold War, Government of Canada requirements have evolved to include a wide variety of political, defence, and security issues of interest to a much broader range of client departments.

While these continue to be key intelligence priorities for Government of Canada decision-makers, increasing focus on protecting the safety of Canadians is prompting greater interest in intelligence on transnational issues, including terrorism.

Here CSEC, under the reliable guise of “terrorism”, is openly promoting surveillance and spying. Note how there’s no mention of protecting citizens from predatory governments or other large organizations with the means and proven willingness to do real harm.

The agency, unsurprisingly, works hard at convincing everyone that with every new power they’re granted they’re being extra cautious and rigorous, but such words are hollow and meaningless when cut short by insistence that actual details are top secret and therefore you can’t know about them.

I’m not the only person to point this out, but what is clearly apparent is that the government and all of its shadowy organizations are focused on protecting corporate and government interests while either ignoring are actively eroding individual rights and freedoms. Their words are loud enough by themselves, but their actions practically scream their intent.

This is not only enshrined in both the despicable mandates and lack of any accountability underlying CSEC, CSIS, and other such groups, but we see real-world examples of what is truly important to their operations. Between destroying potentially incriminating evidence, allowing international spying to happen under their noses, being watched over by fraudsters, and championing horrific laws, it’s really hard to see any of them as the cheerful, helpful, protective entities they claim they are.

You can go even further to prove this for yourself by calling any government agency, whether it’s the Canada Revenue Agency or the Public Safety Ministry, and ask the person on the other end the simple and blunt question: does the government work for the people or do the people work for the government? The answer should only be, “but of course the government works for its people!”, and part of that work should include being able to answer this question; however, it’s highly unlikely that this is the response you’ll receive. In fact, you should take a moment to relish the derision and/or idiocy you’ll receive as a response from the people who you’re paying to force you to jump through hoops for — then you’ll be clear about who is expected to bow to who.

This seems so juvenile and simple that few people would bother actually picking up the phone and learning the disturbing truth for themselves. Instead, they will wrap themselves up in yet another layer of delusion and will, by corollary, have answered their own subsequent questions about how governments and corporations are able to get away with this, how people could be so blind and blasé as to allow it to happen, etc.

The question, for those of us who can add two and two, is not whether we’re being tracked and surveilled, it’s what we can do about it. The idiotic claim that, because we’ve done nothing wrong we have nothing to hide can be re-stated equally as simply as because we’ve done nothing wrong you have no right to watch us. In fact, if these agencies are so squeaky clean, why do they obstinately refuse any oversight or inspection? If they didn’t do anything wrong, why do they refuse to answer any questions?

Because it’s one standard for us, the reprehensible child-molesting rabble who should count themselves lucky to be protected from all those nefarious terrorist plots, and another standard for our historically benign and loving government/corporate owners. And when we complain about this inconsistency, we’re reminded in less-than-gentle ways that their 24% support represents a “majority” and if we don’t like it we need to shut the hell up and wait until the next “fair” election.

When we see corporate-backed governments collaboratively going after those standing up for truth, honesty, openness, and justice, even when those people have not broken any laws, while the governments themselves, at the highest levels, are openly breaking law after law and engaging in open fraud and deception, it’s obvious what side of the moral/ethical/legal debate the “authorities” stand on, and moreover, who their number one enemy are.

The sad thing is that the willfully ignorant still expect tanks to roll through the streets in order to recognize the action as a coup, never once thinking that guns and bombs don’t need to be used when gullible fools like them unwittingly and gladly hand over everything to their criminal overlords.

I think if you’re going to watch the Hindenburg that is our country go up in a blazing ball of glory, it should at least be against a backdrop.

Maybe on a base of that special ruddy blush of our country’s French province, Quebec. Oh, they’re probably not implicated, but whoever it is thought it was clever to use the name Pierre Poutine. And Quebec doesn’t much care for Conservatives.

Nevertheless, it’s a pretty massive breach of electoral rules, and it basically makes the Harper government illegitimate. Little wonder they’re in no hurry to get to the bottom of things.

Oh, they’ll go after Joe Everydude before you can bat an eyelash, but then they turn around and “misplace” $3 billion dollars, and it’s basically just “oops!”

Harper had this to say:

The auditor general himself said today this has nothing to do with improper use of government money . . . There is some lack of clarity. The auditor general has made some suggestions on how we can be more clear in our tracking in the future.

So, basically, nothing’s wrong here, we just need to tweak a few (billion) things.

The audit people were in lock-step with the Prime Minister:

… audit officials chalk up the discrepancy to lax bookkeeping. The audit suggests several scenarios for what may have happened: the funding may have lapsed and never been spent; or it may have been spent on anti-terror efforts but reported as other program spending; or it may have been spent on program unrelated to security.

Basically, the money could have gone anywhere and been spent on literally anything.

The (Harper-appointed) auditor concluded:

We didn’t find anything that gave us cause for concern that the money was used in any way that it should not have been,

Nothing to see here!

That massive pile of cash that could’ve helped to pay for things like Toronto transit … better that that money just disappear and no, you aren’t allowed to ask any questions. Heil Harper!

Just so I’m clear, I support neither the Tamil Tigers nor the Sri Lankan government in their ongoing struggle. Yes, I do know a bit of the history of the island, the forced displacement of the indigenous Tamil people, etc., but not enough to take a firm stand either way.

But that’s not my point in writing this anyway.

I want to expose the hypocrisy, arbitrariness, and two-facedness of our government in designating enemies and terrorists, especially now that they’ve pushed the “anti-terrorist” Bill S-7 down the throats of Canadians (the latest in a long line of tyrannical, totalitarian, deadly measures that have only one, logical conclusion).

The Tamil Tigers consider themselves freedom fighters, fighting an evil and corrupt strong-man government (openly and proudly installed and maintaned by the Harper government). Sure, many people wouldn’t agree with that definition of the Tigers, but that’s beside the point — Harper loves him his Sri Lankan “authorities” and has made sure Canada’s been helping out since 2006 while simultaneously ensuring dissent is fully destroyed:

Canadian interest in Sri Lanka is also driven by a foreign policy commitment to the principles of freedom of expression, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In April 2006, Canada listed the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as a terrorist organization under the Canadian Criminal Code, and in June 2008, the World Tamil Movement was also added to the list.

Now, John Baird, the guy currently running this part of Harper’s shit show, has this to say about the same government that they’ve been brown-nosing and loving up over the past 7 years:

“We’re appalled that Sri Lanka seems poised to host CHOGM and to be chair-in-residence of the Commonwealth for two years,” he told the Guardian.

“Canada didn’t get involved in the Commonwealth to accommodate evil; we came to combat it. We are deeply disappointed that Sri Lanka appears poised to take on this leadership role.”

This in-your-face hypocrisy is troubling on many levels, but there are two that stand out above others.

1. It’s excruciatingly obvious that this has nothing to do with “terrorism”, supporting human rights, ensuring equality, etc.; it’s all about arbitrarily (at least, on the surface), vilifying one group or another for reasons of conquest, division, strife, and control.  And while simultaneously decrying our new enemies abroad (but not actually doing anything to back up the vociferous fist-pounding), the government is passing measures designed to go after its own people in the most draconian manner and with complete impunity at home (again, see S-7 for just a smattering).
2. This “these are friends, no, they’re hated enemies” narrative, state of constant and unending war, fear, and domestic subjugation have been spelled out almost exactly in works that were once considered mere horrific works of fiction:
   

This dark and unsettling road that we’re on is nonetheless clearly marked, and has an even more clear destination. It’s not as if history hasn’t shown us example after example of where all of this leads (if we let it), and those who choose to remain ignorant, or worse, supportive of it, also have plenty of first-hand experience to draw on:

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If…if…

We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

The mainstream media are barely naming Bill S-7 (to be debated by MPPs today), and good luck finding anyone in the industry who will provide an accurate list of all the draconian, tyrannical measures that Harper is trying to institute in his “but it’s for terrorism!” bill.

Apparently, the fact that Canadians are to be subjected to the following measures doesn’t warrant so much as a passing comment from most in the news industry (though you can find an occasional aside):

• People may be put under “preventive arrest” for up to three days.
• The “preventive arrest” may be due to an alleged association with a “terrorist” (which may include everything from environmentalists to anyone critical of the government), alleged knowledge of a “terrorist” or their dealings, or — my favourite — being suspected of future involvement with terrorists.
• As with all good Kafkaesque schemes, those arrested are not allowed to know the details of their arrest or know any of the evidence against them.
• Those arrested must stand before an “investigative hearing”.
• A judge can jail those arrested for up to year if they don’t enter into recognizance, which is a fancy term for a conditional release — you have to appear regularly before a court, may have to wear a tracking device, etc.
• Such arrests can occur without any charges being laid. In other words, they don’t really even need a good reason, just that something didn’t seem right about the person.
• Any evidence that is used against the arrested person (which, of course, they are not allowed to know anything about), can be obtained from foreign sources or through torture.
• These changes would become part of the Criminal Code of Canada — everyone would be subject to them.

Instead of fully laying out all of these incredibly corrupting and corruptible powers for all Canadians to judge, we have moist bags of flesh like CP24’s former cop-turned-TV-schill Cam Wooley and other “specialists” (most of whom were weather or traffic “specialists” this time last year), leaving out crucial information and instead saying simply that S-7 provides needed new police powers and creates …

“… new offenses for Canadians who become radicalized … with the permission of the Attorney General, [police] can bring a person before a judge and have hearings. They’ll be able to have a lawyer, that sort of thing, but a judge can compel someone to give information on terrorism. Police can, apparently through a well safeguarded process book recognizance and conditions through the courts on someone to prevent terrorism.”

And in 30 seconds, the piddling report is over, followed shortly afterwards by an in-depth, five-minute-long interview with “cultural icon” Kat Con D about her new book. The same reporter who found S-7 “fascinating” now gushingly describes the book as a veritable “work of art”; clearly, this is what really matters!

If only this were some sort of April fools joke. No doubt Harper et al consider this yet another reason to keep pushing unbridled dictatorship on us (did you know Lawful Access was back on the agenda again?) Now that I think of it, why isn’t the federal government designated a terrorist organization under these terms?

Along with terrorism and organized crime, “embarrassment to the Canadian government” was considered one of the threats facing security forces at the G8 and G20 summit meetings in Ontario 2010, according to newly released military records.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/10/embarrassment-to-the-canadian-government-considered-security-threat-at-toronto-g20-summit-documents