Monday, July 18, 2011

Daily Digest July 16-17, 2011



Israeli MK: "anti-Boycott Law Threatens Democracy"
Parliament member Dov Khenin and many on Israeli left warn new anti- Boycott law violates freedom speech

TRNN REPLAY: Omar Barghouti explains the aims of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement

  • 20h27 - Politique canadienne · Les ministres de l'Énergie planifient l'avenir
  • 20h18 - Étude · Drogues au volant: des statistiques inquiétantes
  • 16h58 - Sécheresse · La ministre Oda en visite cette semaine en Afrique de l'Est
  • 16h04 - Série télévisée · Stephen Harper fera une apparition dans «Murdoch Mysteries»
  • 15h27 - Mises à pied chez IQT · «Ce n'est pas conforme aux règles» - Lise Thériault
  • 10h32 - Forces canadiennes · On prépare la fin de la mission
  • 10h27 - Augmentation du prix des maisons · À Vancouver, les riches Chinois font flamber l'immobilier
  • 07h16 - Visite royale · Le prince Charles inquiet de l'image de Kate et William
  • 05h46 - Santé · Finie, la gratuité


    Firstly read this and weigh whether you agree or disagree my view will come later:

    Canadian Troops Achieving Tangible Results in Libya - Cdn Def Minister

    Secondly John has posted opinion from a high level source to-day, read this first::

    Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11


    From: Anthony Silvestro,
    Subject: Letter to the editor - Re - Canada's not a bilingual country

    Letter to the editor – Re – Canada's not a bilingual country
    ·                                 The great phony bilingual scam. Its all about jobs and money…

     The simple facts are as more francophone's get hired for all government positions less and less English speakers are working for their own governments across the country. Don't believe me; Go check the stats for yourself. Francophone's are over-represented in all levels of government including hospitals, law, policing...etc. No fairness, no representation by population. They call it bilingualism, yet the term is never defined on purpose and believe me it doesn't mean fluency in 2 languages in Canada, at least to the French it doesn't. No political party will speak for the English speaking majority in this province and country. Practical bilingualism, where numbers warrant… is never defined on purpose. In Ontario it now means segregation. The French (they are actually metis, a mixed race, not french) are demanding French only facilities all over the province, not bilingual, French only.$ Bilingualism is really nothing more then a hiring quota for francophone's and that is a fact…just ask yourself, why are francophone's over-represented in all government jobs and how come more and more positions are being designated bilingual all the time?

    Go learn our proud, real BNA and UEL history. These were the builders of our country since 1763, not this phony, revisionist lie, spin, nonsense, this bilingual, multicultural,2 founding nations, linguistic duality lie, spin, propaganda that we've been living with since Trudeau and Kebec (original spelling) forced this upon the nation. We've been part of the British Empire since 1763 and officially and English speaking country for over 200 years, again just the facts...We were never a bilingual country. This is one big expensive lie/fraud that's been going on for over 5 decades now.                                

    So while Quebec bans the English language (bill 22, bill 178, bill 101…), wipes out its real BNA, UEL history, while ethnic language cleansing is going on in Quebec, the rest of the country is forced to fund whatever the French (metis) demand. This is going on in every province. Go check. See what's really going on? What are they really up to? "First Quebec, then we take over the rest of the country, one step at a time…through bilingualism…" PT, "How to take over a country through bilingualism…" SD. How? First comes the right to communicate with gov't in a minority language (ie French),then comes bilingualism, then comes the right to work in the language of choice(ie French), then comes a bilingual boss,(ie French) then comes a exclusively French department and on it goes until its all French. Its happening all over the country, Ontario, New Brunswick… Go check the stats for yourself.

     Time to end this phony, expensive hiring scam, this bilingual farce outside Kebec.

    Anthony Silvestro,

    Ottawa, Ont

     From: Rebecca Gingrich
    Subject: A HIT!

    Dear Editor;

    Canada is considering loaning millions to the National Transitional Council in Benghazi Libya. And Gadhafi is considered the 'madman'?

    What if the UN doesn't give the order to unlock the accounts? Oh right–the Canadian taxpayer would pick up the tab?
    I read that the rebels got medical supplies from Canada. What did other innocent civilians get from Canada other than death and destruction from laser guided bombs under the name 'humanitarian' aid?

    I cannot believe that thinking Canadians still believe these lies and high sounding words. The reality is that we are aiding and abetting the rebels in destroying innocent people and we are ourselves killing the civilians of Libya.

    There is so much angst over an injured horse at the Calgary Stampede but no one defends the people of Libya. We have killed more people than Gadhafi ever has been accused of killing and yet we are the good guys?

    Look at how Canada treated the 'rebels' at the G20 and yet they defend 'rebels' in Libya.

    There is no rational spin that can be put on our behaviour in Libya. How many Canadians realize that Libyans got free healthcare and education under the Gadhafi government?

    By free healthcare I mean "All healthcare"–including drugs and treatment in other countries. Free education from kindergarten to the end of University education–something that is unheard of in our 'democracy'.

    The real reason we are there is so that the banks can seize Gadhafi control of banks. If we had a brain in our heads we would realize that Gadhafi's methods of banking were much more in tune with his people than are our methods. But we can't have that occurring because then the rich wouldn't be getting richer?

    Every Canadian should hang their head in shame for what our government is doing in Libya. We and our murderous government are the insane people.

    Rebecca Gingrich
    Princeton, Ontario
    Subject: DD
    A Defining Moment for Africa Gerald A. Perreira. Featured Writer. 7.14.11

    Joe--this was the best news I have read all day.  Finally the truth about our genocidal government and their criminal partners.  It is interesting the number of unemployed in Europe that this author mentions and yet we are talking about signing a free trade  agreement that would allow Canadians to work in Europe???  George Orwell would be proud of these idiots.  He called it exactly right all those years ago.  Reality never entered their mind???


    Subject: vaccines are killing our children
    Right to School For Vaccine Exempt Children

    Subject: Would what is occurring be classified as a sort of "collateral damage"?

    Joe--'what is occurring'???  How do we know what is occurring?  We get a piece of tripe from the NP where the 'journalist' only interviews one side of the issue?  Of course the msm's main aim is to justify the genocidal actions of our government and NATO. 
    The truth is that we are killing innocent people on 'humanitarian grounds' while supporting a criminal element into becoming the 'government' of Libya.  Why do we have the right to decide who will be government anywhere?  That worked out so well in past years hasn't it?  That is not democracy, that is dictatorship from afar.  But then, if our appointed 'leaders' don't toe the line we can always have them killed and install another puppet.

    I doubt if NATO would even call it collateral damage.  They have the right to do whatever they want to so therefore it is just business as usual.  NATO denies the deaths of so many civilians so they are immune to any charges.  They don't even mention that Libya will be contaminated with DU that will kill and maim citizens for years to come.  That is ok--we believe in democracy?


    From: John Duddy
    Subject: Alan Sabrosky, US Marine Corps veteran-Press TV-07-13-2011
    Cc:, Jack - PersonalLayton <>, Joe Hueglin <>,

    Dear Prime Minister, please re-think your policy regarding international terrorism.

    This US Marine veteran has important information for you:

    John Duddy
    Subject: 9/11 and Israel: Alan Sabrosky's Shocking Press TV Interview | Veterans Today

    Dear Prime Minister.
    Please follow up on this link.

    From: John Feldsted
    Subject: Going Green

    Occasionally, I run across an article that gives me a "Hummm . . . . ." moment.

    This one is worth sharing:

    In the line at the store, the cashier told an old woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the "green thing" back in my day."

    The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

    He was wrong.

    Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But they didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator or elevator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks. But she was right, they didn't have the "green thing" back then.

    Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up power – wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady was right, they didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    Back then, they had one TV, or radio in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of a city block . In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for them.

    They cut up their own fruits and vegetables because they didn't have a food processor. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a cut up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

    Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right, they didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But they didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint. But they didn't have the "green thing" back then.
    Isn't it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful older people were just because they didn't have the "green thing" back then?

    From: Mahmood Elahi
    Subject: Re: No Nukes News: Market offers verdict on nuclear option

    The Editor
    The Toronto Star
    Copy to: Prof. Mark Winfield, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, York University.
                    Ms Angela Bischoff, Aawarness Director for Ontario Clean Air Association (OCAA).
    Fukushima shows nuclear disaster as destructive as global warming
    Re "Ontario's power priorities," by Prof. Mark winfiled (July 14).
    Fukushima nuclear disaster again highlighted the danger associated with the nuclear power. With thousands displaced by the meltdown of the reactor and radioactive contamination spreading all across Japan, most Japanese have turned away from once touted "safe" nuclear energy. The catarstophe has also shaken the world's confidence in nuclear power. Even Germany's right-wing government of Chanecllor Angela Mercle, who earlier wanted to build more reactors, has announced that Germany will phase out its nuclear plants. Denmark and Switzerland have also announced that they will abandon their nuclear programs.
    Before Fukushima, nuclear power was aggressively promoted as the silver bullet to fight global warming. Nuclear energy was misleadingly promoted as a "clean" source of power. After Fukushima, their claims sound hollow. Here are five reasons to reject the nuclear propganda:
    1. Nuclear produces greenhouse gases: The nuclear industry is extremely carbon intensive, using fossil fuels from mining, refining, enriching to transportating of uranium -- the nuclear raw material. What do you think thousands of huge excavators and trucks involved in uranium mining and transporting are burning in their engines? The most potent of the greenhouse gases -- the otherwise banned ozone-depleting CFCs -- continued to be released through uranium enrichment.
    2. Nuclear releases cancer-causing radioactive particles: Nuclear power stations regularly release low-level radioactive particles to the biosphere and these particles accumulate in the foodchain long after the nuclear power plants are shut down. Uranium mining also leave behind thousands of tons of radon-generating tailings which are highly carcinogenic. Chernobyl nuclear accident left some areas in Europe unsafe for growing food for 600 years.
    3. Nuclear power can lead to nuclear weapon proliferation: A 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 500 pounds of plutonium. Only 10 pounds of plutonium is required to make an atomic bomb. CANDU reactors played a part in nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan.
    4. Highly toxic nuclear wastes cannot be stored properly : Nuclear reactors produce highly radioactive wastes which have a half-life of thousands of years. Given such a vast period, the idea of storing them deep underground is preposterous as these toxic wastes are likley to contaminate ground water and eventually surface water.
    5. Nuclear energy is extremely capital intensive: Construction of a single nuclear power plant will cost billions of dollars. Without massive government subsidies, no private company will build a nuclear power station. In France, the imposition of nuclear power on a gargantuan scale has brought massive economic problems. Forced to raise cash for the expensivve nuclear porgram, its state-owned power company Electricite de France (RDF) has been driven into enormous debt. Today, it owes $200 billion and is among the biggest debtors in the world.
    Considering all these negatives of nuclear power, Ontario should stop its futile attempt to build nuclear reactors. Renewable sources like wind, solar, hydro, biomass and tidal are among environmentally-friendly sources of power. Even natural gas and clean coal technology are preferable to destructive nuclear energy. As Globe and Mail columnist Eric Regulay quoted John Hess, CEO of gas refining company Hess Corp saying : "Nuclear plants simply cannot compete economically against natural gas."