Mediaboss Marketing

Fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyesThere is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia

While monitoring the behaviour of our Liberal government thus far in its tenure, a common theme unifies the assessment: democracy sure isnt what it used to be.

Indeed, the concept of a government for the people, by the people has long since vanished from our political environment. Incrementally, in a most discreet manner, our nation has become an entity whereby the only remaining vestige of true democratic process is to be found in electoral democracy the method by which our politicians are voted into office.

Beyond this, the desires of the general public are very much on the back-burner. That is, unless you happen to be a new arrival to our country by way of Canadas immigration and refugee policies.

How exactly did this inversion of government priorities come about? Why would government provide special, elevated status to new arrivals rather than long term, tax-paying Canadian-born citizens?

One point we can state with confidence is that the general population of Canada did not ask for such a thing. Why would they, when the phenomenon is counter-productive to the well being of generational Canadians and their families? The answer, therefore, lies elsewhere.

A good place to begin would be with what can today be referred to as the Trudeau Dynasty. It was Pierre Trudeau, three term Liberal prime minister, who ushered in this social inversion with his single- handed proclamation that bi-cultural English and French Canadian identity was finished. In its stead came multiculturalism a legislated policy intent upon elevating the status of our minority communities. The piece Trudeau Sr. failed to consider was what would occur once these minorities were no longer minor. Today, under the auspices of son Justin Trudeau, Canadians are witnessing the impact of Trudeaus lack of foresight, as Statistics Canada informs us our Anglo-Canadian communities are headed for minority status within our major urban centres.

Diversity is king. Multiculturalism is sacrosanct, and to question itor heaven forbid oppose it is blaspheme. A similar dynamic applies to immigration policy. No one understands why, as politically correct forces have deemed themselves above offering any logical explanation.

In our day and age, it is amazing to witness the power of social media. One tweet from Prime Minister Trudeau stating all refugees impacted by Donald Trumps ban on immigration from seven Middle Eastern countries are welcome in Canada, and all pandemonium breaks loose. Our border security is in jeopardy now that hundreds of border-jumpers and more than likely thousands once spring arrives are headed to the Great White North to find a permanent home. Did the Canadian public as in those who will foot the bill through their tax dollars have a say in the matter? Was any form of public consent provided, or solicitation to see if Canadians are in favour of such generous hospitality?

We all know the answer to this one. There was nothingjust as there was no approval or public consent for the cancellation of our national identity, or the advent of mass third world immigration.

To quote from a political treatise entitled The Laws Of Government: Legal Foundations Of Canadian Democracy, we find this profound statement:

In a democracy, a government of the people, for the people should govern for the greatest good of the greatest number. Public officials should resist creating policy to suit narrow special interests seeking a disproportionate benefit from government not in the interests of the broader public.

Cue Justin Trudeau. Obviously, he was out-of-town or more likely not even born when this little tidbit was interjected into public consciousness. Basically, PM Trudeau does not adhere to this philosophy. Better yet, it is reasonable to state that both Justin, like his father before him, advances a political agenda antithetical to this fundamental of democracy.

Should Canadians be surprised? Of course not, as the Trudeau Dynasty has cared little about democracy since Pierre took office in the 1960s. Rather, it was good friend Fidel Castros socialist brand of leadership Trudeau Sr. most admired with Chairman Maos communist ideology running a close second.

Recently, our Liberal government put forth a motion to condemn Islamophobia and other forms of racism. One problem among several is that the motion is devoid of an actual definition of Islamophobia. When one was requested, nothing was offered up. Such is the degree of privilege the Liberals and their minions have bestowed upon themselves.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental of Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, within Justin Trudeaus Canada, the concept is on the wane every bit as much as democracy itself is infringed upon. The irony of the situation is inescapable. Inexplicably, M103 contains not a word regarding Sharia Law, an Islamic doctrine which outlines all aspects of social behaviour for devout Muslims. Contained within are modes of behaviour which explicitly violate the Charter yet not a single reference to this fact has been included in government or media narrative regarding M103.

It is abundantly clear the fundamentals of democratic process are being eroded before our very eyes yet no one lifts a finger to stop it. Why? There is one simple answer, and that is the fear of an accusation of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Indeed, these are the properties now controlling the destiny of our nation. In a most subtle fashion in order that the general public do not catch wind of it our government has brought into being a form of pseudo- socialist governance unprecedented in the history of our nation. In the meantime. Canadians watch Hockey Night in Canada.

See the original post:
Feigning Democracy: Liberalism In Justin Trudeau's Canada - Canada Free Press

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

GLENDALE-- Every seat was filled during a town hall with U.S. Representative Gwen Moore, she fielded questions at the North Shore Library Saturday afternoon, March 4th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Topics ran the gamut from immigration to education, Planned Parenthood, Russia, concealed carry -- but U.S. Representative Gwen Moore says the number one issue for her right now is retaining affordable health care.

One attendee, hoping to keep her doctor and medicare benefits -- another saying don't replace the ACA unless the next plan up covers more people.

Representative Moore hopes to keep the coverage components of the Affordable Care Act. She attended a "Congressional Cafe" discussion on Saturday.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

"Those components of the Affordable Care Act have meant so much. Not just to the 20 million people who had no health care coverage at all, but those folks with preexisting conditions," said Moore.

The standing room crowd was friendly, but weary at the same time on how the current administration is navigating topics like immigration.

"We've got to get this right. I want you guys to knowthat there is a clear distinction between having safe borders and being inhumane," Moore said.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

The topic of Russia came up as well.

Gwen Moore

"Right now, I'm goingto tell you this as a Democrat, I am really relying on people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham in the Senate. Our democracy is really being tested," said Moore.

Representative Moore is planning two more Congressional Cafe's on March 18th.

Congressional Cafe in Glendale

Read the original here:
Our democracy is really being tested: US Representative Gwen Moore attends 'Congressional Cafe' - fox6now.com

Ottawa Sun

Victims of Communism memorial can help unite Canadians, rather ... Ottawa Sun This week, the minister of heritage announced the five finalists for the Canadian Memorial to the Victims of Communism. Canada's Victims of Communism memorial moves aheadHungarian Free Press all 2 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Victims of Communism memorial can help unite Canadians, rather ... - Ottawa Sun

In the 1980s conservatives had their champion. The man that would lead them to glory, after years of feeling ignored. After the perceived weakness of President Carter over the previous four years, a new man was in charge. The United States wouldnt be pushed around anymore.

His name was Ronald Reagan, his mission; destroy communism.

With the Soviet Union already in a state of decline economically and militarily, their influence was dwindling but still in place. Upon the death of Leonid Brezhnev in 1982, and two forgettable leaders who died quickly after taking office in between, Mikhail Gorbachev became the new General Secretary in March of 1985.

Gorbachev and Reagan had a relationship that developed into a vision of change..

Whether it was because the Soviet Unions decline was unstoppable or the way Reagan outshined and embarrassed the General Secretary at the Reykjavik summit, many of Gorbachevs citizens considered him weak. This perceived weakness was a driving force to the August 1991 coup dtat by Soviet military hardliners. Even though the coup was put down in a matter of days and Gorbachev returned to power, the event marked the final piece of destabilization and the end of the USSR.

Gorbachev and Reagan had a relationship that developed into a vision of change. Reagan saw the dangers in communism and the need to wipe it from the face of the earth. However, he knew to do it militarily was a no win situation for the two nations and the world as a whole. Gorbachev to his credit became the reformer that the Soviet people needed, whether they were all aware of it or not.

Growing up in the 80s I remember the change in atmosphere. From the belief that the Soviets were our mortal enemies and ready to nuke us at any moment, to eventually Americans developing admiration for the Soviet leader and having a desire to see him succeed in bringing Russia to the new century. From enemies to virtual allies in a little over a decade. The relationship was still fragile but at least it was becoming friendlier.

Over the next two decades, both nations stayed in a constant state of change and to an extent, unrest. In the early 2000s Vladimir Putin began to cement himself as the sole ruler of the Russian government. His tactics, policies, beliefs, and words all reminded the world of an old-school Soviet militant. At home, we faced unending foreign war, near economic collapse, and a nation divided both politically and socially.

The election of President Obama in 2008 was a moment that marked a change in America. How we dealt with other countries, allies and adversaries alike. His foreign policy was measured and constrained, to a fault in the eyes of many. His cautiousness was often mistaken for weakness. His understanding that US policy often had serious adverse effects on other nations made many call him anti-American. Coupled with the fact the wars he had been handed werent traditional military actions and an economy in an uncontrollable nose dive, gave many the excuse to blame all the ills they faced on him.

Many who in the past had been solid communist haters, were now saying positive things about Putin. He was a better leader; he knows more; he doesnt mess around, were all part of the new narrative. Mostly these comments were derived from their hatred for Obama, but over time they began to believe them. What they were really saying is that they wanted a hardline authoritarian to lead the US. They wanted someone who would use the military as his foreign policy arm. They liked the idea of someone who crushed his opposition at home so easily and viciously.

They were craving a ruler, someone that would single-handedly make all their problems disappear. Someone who would tell them that the problems they faced were not of their own accord but because of outside influence. Desperately needing validation for their beliefs and biases. Wanting to be able to shed responsibility for their failures, while at the same time denyingany hatred in their hearts.

Enter 2016.

In many ways, history has repeated itself with the election of President Trump. While Reagan denied a second Carter term; Trump, in the eyes of many, halted a potential Obama third term. The policies and approach of Hillary Clinton were expected to be similar to that of Obamas. Reagan came in on a wave of revived patriotism and an America first message. While focusing on the threats to our way of life from outside forces and the lack of intestinal fortitude of the current administration, real or imagined, to do anything to halt it. For Reagan, it was Iran and the Soviets, for Trump its Muslims and the Mexico.

From building a border wall to destroying ISIS in 30 days, Donald Trump was saying exactly what many needed so desperately to hear.

From building a border wall to destroying ISIS in 30 days, Donald Trump was saying exactly what many needed so desperately to hear. It didnt matter if any of the things he said or promised were feasible, it was about his willingness to say them. Even if he didnt accomplish any of them, they believed he was going to try to do all of them. Their champion had arrived.

This champion was different than Reagan though. Where Reagan despised the philosophy of the Soviet, Trump seemed to understand it differently, going as far as to say that Putin was a far better leader than Obama. Now VP Mike Pence said at the time in defense of Trumps remarks that I think its inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.

With Trumps continuous war with the media and the seemingly unending parade of questionable Russian ties to administration officials, you would think that conservatives would begin to question their champion. That isnt whats happening at all if anything they are becoming more solidified in their support.

As I look at this country I grew up in; I must begin to question what the heck is going on. Why are we suddenly ok with someone, whom conservative pundit Bill OReilly calls a killer, and Senate Majority Leader McConnell calls a thug, being intimately involved with the process and function of our government? How did we go from a nation that elects a man like Reagan who hated every tenet of communism to electing someone from the same party who admires a leader like Putin? The same Putin that holds dear so many cold war values.

This nations acceptance to be ruled is shocking.

This nations acceptance to be ruled is shocking. The desire to have personal responsibility replaced with government control is sickening. I am immediately reminded of a quote from Reagan himself that I think addresses what we are going through, Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didnt pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. In the almost 30 years since he left office, America has indeed changed.

My hope is that my more conservative friends will come to their senses and understand the actual threat we face. That they will demand accountability from our elected leaders, no matter who they are. I want my liberal friends to do the same. We have to stop looking at the person and the party and focus on the policy. Quit just trying to win and start trying to understand the other side.

If not the next overlord we choose will simply bring more destruction to the American experiment. Remember the words of Ben Franklin we will only have this republic if you can keep it.

Photo:Getty Images

I am the Politics Editor for The Good Men Project. I am a married father of three boys that keep me on my toes. We are transplants to Surprise Arizona, originally from the deep south. I was raised in the Birmingham Alabama area and have a love for all things southern, especially if they are fried! When I'm not writing or chasing kids, I am an avid sports nut, with an unhealthy love for the Alabama Crimson Tide and the Green Bay Packers. I put off writing for entirely too long, so I finally decided to put my words out in public with the hope that somewhere, someone may be encouraged or comforted by them. You can find me on Twitter or on Facebook

The rest is here:
From Defeating Communism to Embracing Totalitarianism - The Good Men Project (blog)

BombThrowers: Over the years we have been overwhelmed with extraordinary movies and documentaries about the Holocaust and the various atrocities of Nazi Germany. These horrific crimes against humanity deserve to be examined over and over again so they are never repeated.

But we see so little about the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which killed more people than Hitler did, rivaled the repressive state apparatus of Nazi Germany, and easily outlasted the so-called Thousand-Year Reich. There have been plenty of movies about what Communism did to human beings but there has never been a Schindlers List (1993) at least not in English for the victims of Communism. Schindlers List, for anyone who has never seen it, is a masterpiece. It is a powerful, deeply moving, widely embraced account of the suffering of Jews in the Krakow Ghetto and then in the death camps.

The many victims of Nazism have been depicted and honored as they should be over and over again.

But the tens of millions of people murdered by Communism have not. It is long past time for a true cinematic masterpiece to show the brutal ravages of Communism.

Perhaps the fact it hasnt been done has something to do with the fact that during World War II the USSR was our ally so it was treated with kid gloves by American cinema. The Hollywood Left was not keen on portraying Communism honestly during the Cold War. If anything, movies like Reds (1981) romanticized Communism to an extent.

There have been movies that offer, to varying degrees, honest appraisals of life under Communism.

There was Child 44 (2015), a police procedural about a serial killer set in the Stalin-era Soviet Union. There was The Way Back in 2010 which showed the horrors of Communist repression from the point of view of gulag prisoners in Siberia who escape and walk thousands of miles to freedom.

There was The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1998) which shows what happened to Czechoslovakia when it was invaded in 1968 by the Soviet Union and three of its allies. There was The Inner Circle in 1991 which tells [t]he true story of Ivan Sanchin, the KGB officer who was Stalins private film projectionist from 1939 until the dictators death. There was The Killing Fields (1984), about a journalist trapped in Cambodia during tyrant Pol Pots bloody Year Zero cleansing campaign, which claimed the lives of two million undesirable civilians.

There was Doctor Zhivago (1965) which was set during the Bolshevik Revolution and shows some Communist repression. There was The Manchurian Candidate (1962) which tells the story of a former prisoner of war who is brainwashed as an unwitting assassin for an international Communist conspiracy.

But again, no true masterpieces dealing with Communism.

There is a new film called Bitter Harvest that looks like it might do some justice to the story of Communist persecution and the deliberate famine Stalin engineered in Ukraine, which was viewed as a hotbed of counter-revolutionary opposition by Stalin.

Here is a trailer for it:

According to the films page at IMDb, Bitter Harvest, is set in 1930s Ukraine, as Stalin advances the ambitions of communists in the Kremlin. A young artist named Yuri battles to save his lover Natalka from the Holodomor, the death-by-starvation program that ultimately killed millions of Ukrainians.

The blurb for the movie on YouTube is more expansive.

Based on one of the most overlooked tragedies of the 20th Century, BITTER HARVEST is a powerful story of love, honor, rebellion and survival as seen through the eyes of two young lovers caught in the ravages of Joseph Stalins genocidal policies against Ukraine in the 1930s. As Stalin advances the ambitions of the burgeoning Soviet Union, a young artist named Yuri (Max Irons) battles to survive famine, imprisonment and torture to save his childhood sweetheart Natalka (Samantha Barks) from the Holodomor, the death-by-starvation program which ultimately killed millions of Ukrainians. Against this tragic backdrop, Yuri escapes from a Soviet prison and joins the anti-Bolshevik resistance movement as he battles to reunite with Natalka and continue the fight for a free Ukraine.

Nobody knows much, if anything, about the Holodomor.

As journalist Eric Margolis wrote last year, Stalin was the biggest murderer of modern history and maybe in of all mankinds past. His number of victims was only rivaled by Genghis Khan and, in our era, Mao Zedong.

He continued:

From 1918 to the late 1950s (Stalin died in 1953), an estimated 20 million or more Soviet citizens were worked to death, shot or starved in the 500 camps that made up the Gulag. The most infamous and lethal were in the Arctic Circle and eastern Siberia.

The greatest number of deaths occurred in the 1930s when Stalins reign of terror was at its apogee. By the end of the 1930s, the Gulag held close to 2 million inmates, about half political prisoners convicted on false charges. Millions of other Soviet citizens were starved in local prisons, shot in execution grounds or forests, and worked to death building canals and rail lines or forced to mine with their bare hands.

During 1932-33, Stalin sent chief henchman Lazar Kaganovitch to break resistance by Ukrainian independent small farmers to collectivization by starving them to death. In only a few years, some 6-7 million Ukrainians perished in what they call the Holodomor. No one was ever punished for this historic crime. Stalin told Churchill, Kaganovitch is my Himmler.

Will Bitter Harvest, which is now in the theaters (I havent seen any ads on television about it) help to open the floodgates to a great, long overdue truth-telling about Communism? Its hard to say. It looks promising but I havent seen it yet.

Read more from the original source:
Will the movie Bitter Harvest do justice to the evils of Communism? - Canada Free Press