Why the Trudeau Liberals and the O'Toole Tories Are Doomed

 Two weeks ago, news came out that a new covid variant originating in South Africa, Omicron, was spreading around the world.

So far, there is no indication it causes more severe disease, the opposite seems to be the case.

Establishment politicians and the media nonetheless jumped on this story to once again fearmonger and extend authoritarian covid measures.

I’m not worried about this new variant!

I’m a lot more concerned about other diseases like cancer or mental issues.

I’m more concerned about vaccine passport and the loss of our freedoms.

I’m more concerned about censorship and the lack of rational scientific debates in our society.

I’m more concerned that the mainstream media have become the propaganda arm of the government.

I’m more concerned about the acceptance of discrimination and segregation in our society.

I’m more concerned that the government of New Brunswick is allowing grocery stores to ban the unvaccinated.

I’m more concerned that people are losing their jobs because of their personal medical choice.

I’m more concerned about governments deficits and inflation.

The LibConNDP coalition unanimously supports covid tyranny.

Nobody else in Ottawa is raising these concerning issues.

Max Bernier

People's Party of Canada

Related:

Did Britain's 'first Omicron death' die FROM the Covid variant or WITH it? They could have been hit by a bus

28X increase in stillbirths in multiple parts of Canada… The bravest politician in Ontario…

Brilliant response to Ontario MPP's question from the Ontario Minister of Health — Complete bullshit assurance, entirely fact free

Another Study Finds That Natural Immunity Protects Better Against Infection Than the Pfizer Vaccine

Why Canada Needs Less Diversity

Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, revealed the ugly face of racial and cultural diversity in Canada when, during a pre-election leaders' debate, he told Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, that he had no right to a place on the leaders' debate stage:

when you incite hatred,you don’t deserve a platform...your ideas are hurtful to Canada.

And in what way had Bernier supposedly incited hatred?

By opposing official multiculturalism and the Government's intention to raise Canada's immigration rate to the highest per capita rate of any country in the world, a rate considered too high by 49% of Canadians. 

And who is Jagmeet Singh, this national leader who equates opposition to higher immigration and government sponsored multiculturalism as "hatred"?

According to Indian intelligence, he is a vociferous anti-India advocate and supporter of pro-Khalistani sympathisers in Canada, the same group responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 with 329 people, mostly Indian, on board, including 82 children under the age of 13.

More specifically, opindia reports:

According to the latest dossier prepared by the Indian intelligence officials, Jagmeet Singh, the Leader of Canada’s second-largest party, remains a ”pro-Khalistani and a pro-Pakistani” ringleader in the country despite his deep Punjabi roots. On a specific report of India’s external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing, Singh was denied a visa in 2013 for his anti-Indian stance. The RAW has revealed in one its report that Singh had been funding Khalistani outfits, operating from Pakistan. He is also connected with prominent Khalistani and Kashmiri separatist groups based in different countries of Europe. Latest reports also suggest that Jagmeet Singh is also trying to bring Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists under one umbrella in Canada. Recently he held a meeting in this connection at his residence in Ontario.

Bizarrely, Canada's so-called National Observer, in reporting Singh's attack on Bernier's right of free speech, accuses Bernier of anti-Semitism on the ground that he described all of his opponents (correctly, as it happens) as globalists:

He [Bernier] wasted little time ... tossing out an incendiary anti-Semitic slur ... when he declared that “the other leaders on this stage are globalists” and attacked the United Nations as a “dysfunctional organization.”

 So apparently, if you oppose the liberal genocidal plan for the destruction of the sovereign democratic nation state, then you're an anti-Semite. That is quite weird, implying as it does, that globalism is a Jewish imperative. But if globalism is a Jewish imperative, why is it anti-Semitic to say so? Or are we to understand that even truth can be anti-Semitic?

Related: 
Alain Destexhe: France: The Headscarf Debate is Not about Headscarves
VOE: Danish study: “Muslims need to leave Denmark”

A Vote For Anti-Free Speech NDPer, Singh, Is a Vote for Continued Rule By the Ethics Violating Hypocrite and Black-Face Dress-up Guy, Justin Trudeau

During this weeks "Leaders Debate" Jagmeet Singh took advantage of the freedom of speech allowed under the constitution to all Canadians to declare that the civil, intelligent and indeed distinguished Maxime Bernier, former Minister of External Affairs and now leader of the People's Party of Canada, should have been denied the right to participate in the debate.

The same scoundrel has now made it clear that he's angling for a cabinet post in a minority Liberal Government. So be warned, Canadian citizens, a vote for Singh and the NDP is a vote for the continued government of the two-faced corruptionist, Justin, Black-Face Trudeau.

A Tax Reform Plan for the People's Party of Canada

Maxime Bernier has split with the Conservative Party of Canada on the ground that they are morally corrupt, a mundane fact, applicable almost certainly to every political party in contention for power in the Western world. Still, by creating his own party, the People's Party of Canada, Bernier has an opportunity to add some fresh, and indeed important, ideas to the toxic stew of bad or idiotic policies that constitute the bedrock of mainstream politics in Canada. Tax policy is among the many areas of Canadian national policy in need of re-imagining, and the issue of the carbon tax provides an opportunity to undertake major tax reform.

Economists agree that carbon emissions reductions can be achieved most efficiently by means of a carbon tax. The carbon tax is unpopular, however, because it is seen as just one more government impost upon an already overtaxed populace.  Bernier can, therefore, seize the initiative by committing to an overall revenue-neutral carbon tax achieved by raising the basic personal exemption to Federal income tax from $11,365 to $33,300, the latter amount being the median income from employment in Canada. Thus, at a stroke, the PPC would be committed to relieving 50% of the Canadian workforce of all Federal income tax.

In addition, the PPC should commit to paying every low-income worker an amount equal to 15% (the base Federal tax rate) of the difference between their earned annual income and $33,000. As a result of these measures every one of Canada's 18 million workers, whether they are of high or low income, would receive a benefit, either in cash or reduced Federal income tax, amounting to approximately $3,000.

Some will ask why the poor should pay no tax when they are the beneficiaries of many publicly funded services. But the answer to that is obvious: first, the poor do the shitty jobs while the rich reap the benefit of the labor of the poor, so why would one not expect those who are better off to pay most if not all of the taxes; second, even if they pay no Federal income tax, the poor will still pay a large proportion of their income in tax, including gas tax, provincial income and sales taxes, liquor tax, tobacco tax, and all the taxes imposed across the supply chain that must be reflected in the price of everything that a person buys.

As for the cost to the Federal treasury, it would be quite small. The tax reduction on the wages of low income earners would cost the Treasury approximately $27 billion a year, which would be more than covered by the anticipated carbon tax revenue of $35 billion a year. In addition there would be the cost of the tax reduction on the wages of high income earners, another $27 billion a year, leaving a deficit of $19 billion after factoring in the carbon tax revenue. That deficit could be covered, ideally, by cuts in Federal Government expenditure, or alternatively by a 2% increase in the GST, a consumption tax that is already rebated to those of low income.

As for the overall effect of the carbon tax on the Canadian economy, the potential downside is to expose home industry to unfair carbon-tax-free competition from abroad. That however can be avoided by imposing a countervailing duty on all goods from countries without a carbon tax, a trade barrier that would provide Canadian industry significant protection against the intense competition from the sweat-shop economies of the developing world. Also on the plus side, the cut to personal income tax would increase consumer spending and hence stimulate the economy.