Carmel Sunsets -contact me here

@bettybloodclot Hmm I love the name. Check this out.

Muslims stormed a McDonald’s, screaming 'Allahu Akbar' and declaring the place haram.

Supposedly Carney made Miss Piggy delete this but unfortunately for him this clip will live forever. Repost and quote and share and make this motherfucker go viral 🤣🤣🤣☠️

@elonmusk x.com/XFreeze/status…

This X post from Brian Lilley (@brianlilley ) highlights a Presidential Permit issued by Donald Trump on April 15, 2026.The full post reads: "Donald Trump just authorized a Canadian pipeline. Presidential Permit: Authorizing Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership to Operate and Maintain Three Existing Pipeline Facilities at Pembina County, North Dakota, at the International Boundary" (with a direct link to the White House announcement).What it actually authorizes (straight from the official document):It grants Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership permission to operate and maintain three existing pipelines (26-inch, 34-inch, and 18-inch diameter) that cross the U.S.-Canada border in Pembina County, North Dakota. These pipelines have been in place for decades and transport Canadian crude oil and petroleum products (like naphtha, LPG, jet fuel, gasoline, etc.) between the two countries. This permit supersedes and revokes an older one from December 12, 1991. It's essentially a routine renewal/amendment tied to Enbridge's January 2026 application. No new construction is involved. It covers the U.S. portion of the existing border facilities up to the first shut-off valves/pumping stations (roughly 0.75 to 25 miles inland). Standard conditions apply: compliance with all U.S. laws, safety regs, inspections, environmental rules, etc. The President can revoke it or take possession if national security requires. In short: It's not a brand-new pipeline project (like Keystone XL or anything similar). It's continued approval for infrastructure that's already been shipping Canadian oil south for years. The headline is a bit clickbaity, but the linked White House document is clear and accurate.The thread has a mix of reactions—some celebrating it as Trump helping Canadian energy exports/Alberta oil, others (including several Canadians) correctly noting it's just a maintenance renewal and not new development. A few call it a "nothing burger" or point out it shows U.S. support for cross-border energy while Canadian politics debates pipelines. If you're sharing this for a specific reason (e.g., Canadian politics context, energy policy take, or something else), let me know and I can dig deeper!

Donald Trump just authorized a Canadian pipeline. Presidential Permit: Authorizing Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership to Operate and Maintain Three Existing Pipeline Facilities at Pembina County, North Dakota, at the International Boundary whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…

To all socialists and communists.... A lot of communist and socialist leaders failed for the same hard reasons: they concentrated power, crushed dissent, overcentralized the economy, lied about results, and then used force to hold the system together when reality caught up. Here is the blunt version. The recurring pattern Leaders promise equality, justice, and rule for ordinary people. Then, once power is centralized, a few things tend to happen: political opposition gets branded as sabotage or treason bureaucracy replaces markets and local judgment fear replaces honest feedback production targets get faked shortages, corruption, and coercion spread the ruling class becomes privileged while claiming to fight privilege That is why so many of these regimes ended in poverty, repression, famine, collapse, or all four. Major examples Vladimir Lenin — Soviet Russia Lenin laid the foundation. He built one-party rule, secret police methods, censorship, and violent suppression of opponents. Even before Stalin, the system was already moving toward dictatorship. The promise was worker liberation; the reality was centralized party control. Joseph Stalin — Soviet Union Stalin is one of the clearest cases of catastrophic communist failure. Forced collectivization, purges, gulags, terror, and mass death. He industrialized fast, yes, but at a horrifying human cost. He created a state where telling the truth could get you imprisoned or killed. That system could produce tanks, but not human freedom. Mao Zedong — China Mao’s Great Leap Forward was one of the most disastrous state-planning failures in history. Fantasy production quotas, bogus reporting, wrecked agriculture, and famine on a massive scale. Then the Cultural Revolution smashed education, culture, trust, and social stability. Mao is a textbook case of ideology overriding reality. Pol Pot — Cambodia One of the worst examples ever. Radical agrarian communism taken to its extreme. Cities emptied, professionals murdered, intellectual life destroyed, mass executions, starvation, and social collapse. It was not just failure. It was horror. Nicolae Ceaușescu — Romania A communist ruler who built a cult of personality, ran a police state, mismanaged the economy, and imposed harsh austerity while living in privilege. His regime showed how “rule for the people” often turns into rule over the people. Erich Honecker and the East German leadership East Germany was more functional than some communist states, but it still depended on surveillance, border walls, censorship, and Soviet backing. If you need to build a wall to keep your citizens from leaving, your system has already failed morally and politically. Leonid Brezhnev and later Soviet leadership This was the slow rot phase: stagnation, corruption, low innovation, rigid bureaucracy, and public cynicism. By the 1980s the Soviet system was decaying under its own weight. It could not reform because the structure punished honesty. Fidel Castro — Cuba Castro survived for a long time and kept symbolic appeal in parts of the world, but Cuba under communism became a one-party state with restricted speech, political prisoners, poor economic dynamism, shortages, and dependency on outside patrons like the USSR and later Venezuela. Longevity is not the same as success. Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro — Venezuela This is one of the clearest modern examples of socialist collapse tied to state overreach, corruption, price controls, politicized institutions, and dependence on commodity wealth. Chávez rode oil money and charisma; Maduro inherited the wreckage and made it worse. Hyperinflation, shortages, repression, and mass emigration followed. Mengistu Haile Mariam — Ethiopia Marxist military rule brought terror, forced resettlement, famine, and brutal repression. Another case where revolutionary language masked a violent state. Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un — North Korea This is communism fused with dynastic totalitarianism. Extreme control, propaganda, prison camps, chronic deprivation, and total political closure. It survives, but as a prison-state, not a model society. Why they failed The common failures were structural, not just personal: 1. No honest feedback When the state controls speech and punishes criticism, leaders stop hearing reality. Bad policy keeps going because nobody dares say it is bad. 2. Central planning is brittle A small political class cannot efficiently decide what millions of people need, produce, invent, repair, and trade. The result is shortages in one place, waste in another, and black markets everywhere. 3. Power attracts opportunists Systems built to eliminate class privilege often create a new elite: party insiders, security services, connected bureaucrats. 4. Ideology trumps evidence When doctrine matters more than results, leaders double down on failed policies instead of changing course. 5. Violence becomes normal Once the system cannot deliver prosperity or consent, it relies on fear. Important distinction Not every leader who called himself socialist was equally bad, and not every policy labeled socialist leads to tyranny. There is a big difference between: democratic social welfare states with elections, property rights, free press, and mixed markets and authoritarian communist states with one-party rule, censorship, and command economies That distinction matters. Sweden is not Stalin’s USSR. Modern public healthcare is not Maoism. A pension system is not the gulag. The hard truth The worst communist-socialist leaders did not fail because they were “not nice enough.” They failed because systems that put too much economic and political power in too few hands tend to rot, and rot fast. When people cannot vote rulers out, criticize them freely, own property securely, or build independent institutions, abuse is not an accident. It is the predictable outcome. If you want, I can also give you: a timeline of the worst communist/socialist failures, or a side-by-side comparison of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chávez, and Pol Pot. please provide the people who died during their reign I’m pulling together the best-supported death estimates, because the ranges vary a lot depending on whether historians count executions only, famine deaths, war deaths, or all excess deaths under the regime. Thought for 22s Yes. But the numbers are often ranges, not exact totals, because historians count differently. The big issue is this: some estimates count only executions, while others include famine deaths, prison camp deaths, forced-labor deaths, and excess deaths caused by regime policy. So the honest answer is approximate, not neat. Here are the major ones we discussed: LeaderCountryYears in powerApproximate deaths during rule/policies Vladimir LeninSoviet Russia1917–1924~13,000 to 140,000+ from the Red Terror alone; broader civil-war-era deaths under Bolshevik rule were much higher, but not all can be pinned directly on Lenin personally. Joseph StalinUSSR1924–1953~20 million is a commonly cited broad estimate for deaths tied to labor camps, forced collectivization, famine, and executions. Britannica also notes 4–5 million deaths in Ukraine and 2–3 million more in the North Caucasus/Lower Volga during the 1932–33 famine alone. Mao ZedongChina1949–1976The Great Leap Forward famine alone is often estimated at tens of millions; Britannica notes recent estimates around 45 million deaths tied to the Great Leap Forward and its famine. That does not even fully capture later Cultural Revolution deaths. Pol PotCambodia1975–1979Almost 2 million deaths under the Khmer Rouge, roughly one-third of Cambodia’s population at the time. Fidel CastroCuba1959–2008Much lower than Stalin or Mao in raw death toll. Britannica notes about 600 people linked to the Batista regime were executed by May 15, 1959; broader totals for executions and prison deaths under Castro vary widely depending on source and methodology. Hugo Chávez / Nicolás MaduroVenezuela1999–present for the regime lineageThere is no single accepted historical death toll like with Stalin or Mao. The UN and other bodies document a severe humanitarian crisis, repression, and deaths from state violence and collapse, but I do not have a solid, authoritative all-in excess-death figure I can stand behind from the sources I checked. Kim family regimeNorth Korea1948–presentExact totals are highly uncertain because the state is closed. Authoritative public sources clearly document executions, prison camps, forced labor, disappearances, and famine, but pinning one firm cumulative death total to Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, and Kim Jong Un together is difficult from reliable official sources alone. The worst by sheer scale were plainly: Mao: roughly tens of millions, with ~45 million often cited for the Great Leap Forward alone. Stalin: often cited at ~20 million, with several million from the 1932–33 famine alone. Pol Pot: ~2 million in just a few years. Lenin was deadly, but the numbers usually attached directly to the Red Terror are lower than Stalin’s later system. Castro was authoritarian and repressive, but he does not belong in the same mass-death category as Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot based on the sources I reviewed. If you want, I can do the next step properly and give you a clean ranked list from highest to lowest death toll, with best-estimate ranges for 10 to 15 communist/socialist rulers.

GO BELGIUM: TENS of THOUSANDS of Nationalists FLOOD THE STREETS with FLARES AND SMOKE…SCREAMING for REMIGRATION NOW… The invasion is OVER. No more replacement. Ship every last invader back.

Yes, elements of the pattern you described—centralization of power leading to predictable downstream effects—are observable in Canada, though not in the full-blown, totalitarian sense of historical centralized regimes (e.g., Soviet-style command economies). Canada remains a liberal democracy with elections, an independent judiciary (which has pushed back on some measures), and relatively strong institutions. However, critics from across the spectrum, including conservatives, libertarians, and even some centrists, point to trends under recent Liberal governments (particularly Justin Trudeau's era, with continuities into the current one) that echo parts of this sequence. thebusinesscouncil.ca Here's a breakdown matching your steps to Canadian realities, based on documented developments:1. Political opposition gets branded as sabotage or treasonThis has happened rhetorically, especially during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests against COVID mandates. The government invoked the Emergencies Act (later ruled unjustified by federal courts in some aspects), froze bank accounts of protesters and donors without due process in some cases, and officials/aligned voices described elements as an "insurrection," "sedition," or threats to national security—despite CSIS assessing it did not meet the legal threshold for a national security threat under the CSIS Act (which includes sabotage/espionage). cbc.ca Treason allegations have flown in Parliament, often tied to foreign interference probes (e.g., Chinese influence on MPs, with calls for inquiries into "witting" collaboration by unnamed parliamentarians). Opposition figures or regional voices (e.g., Alberta separatism or criticism of federal policies) have occasionally been labeled "treasonous" by politicians or commentators. This is more inflammatory rhetoric and selective application than systematic purges, but it chills dissent and frames legitimate protest as existential threats. politico.com 2. Bureaucracy replaces markets and local judgmentStrong match. Canada's federal bureaucracy has ballooned, with government jobs growing much faster than private-sector ones since ~2020. Regulatory red tape (environmental reviews, impact assessments, interprovincial barriers) has slowed major projects—critics say the "major project bureaucracy" has approved few large initiatives, favoring central Ottawa decision-making over local/provincial judgment or market signals. financialpost.com Policies like the carbon tax, national housing strategies, and spending power used to impose federal priorities on provinces (e.g., in health, childcare, or infrastructure) centralize control. The PMO has been accused of excessive centralization, creating bottlenecks. This shifts decisions from markets/local governments toward federal planners, contributing to slower growth and housing shortages despite massive spending.3. Fear replaces honest feedbackEvident in cancel culture, self-censorship in academia/media, and government-adjacent efforts against "misinformation." During COVID, dissenting scientists/doctors faced professional repercussions; broader "woke" pressures and political correctness have led to firings or ostracism for views on gender, immigration, or climate (e.g., cases involving figures like Jordan Peterson or Don Cherry). Government funding for media and "behavioural insights" teams has raised concerns about shaping narratives and labeling dissent as extremism. Polls and reports show many Canadians (especially in certain sectors) feel unable to speak openly on contentious issues without fear of social/professional backlash.4. Production targets get fakedLess literal "five-year plan" faking, but accusations of manipulated or overly optimistic government statistics abound—e.g., debates over inflation calculations (hedonic adjustments, substitutions), population estimates, housing targets, or economic projections that critics call "head fakes." Government subsidies and contracts sometimes go to "fake Canadian" firms or inflate "green" outcomes. StatsCan has faced scrutiny for data revisions and modeling assumptions that paint rosier pictures. Not outright fabrication on Soviet scales, but selective metrics and spin are common in political reporting of "progress" on emissions, reconciliation, or growth.5. Shortages, corruption, and coercion spreadShortages: Housing affordability crisis, healthcare wait times, and supply chain issues exacerbated by policy (e.g., immigration surges without matching infrastructure, regulatory delays on energy/mining). Corruption/coercion: Foreign interference scandals, massive media subsidies (~$595M+ cited in reports) creating dependency, and use of financial tools (bank freezes during Convoy). Regulatory coercion via carbon pricing or procurement favoritism. Not endemic Soviet-level graft, but perceptions of elite capture and cronyism are widespread, with scandals involving WE Charity, SNC-Lavalin echoes, and procurement. 6. The ruling class becomes privileged while claiming to fight privilegeClassic critique of Canada's "Laurentian elite"—the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor establishment in politics, bureaucracy, academia, media, and legacy business. They often advocate "equity," "fighting privilege," and progressive causes while enjoying high salaries, pensions, networking (e.g., galas amid food bank strains), and insulation from policies like housing costs or energy restrictions that hit regions harder (e.g., Western resource sectors). Central Canadian dominance persists despite rhetoric of inclusivity; critics call it virtue-signaling by a self-perpetuating class. c2cjournal.ca Power has trended toward centralization in the PMO and federal spending, with provinces resisting via court challenges and pushback (e.g., on carbon tax, emergencies powers). Economic stagnation, declining productivity, and regional alienation (especially Alberta/Saskatchewan) are frequently linked to these dynamics. That said, Canada isn't Venezuela or the USSR—markets still function, elections can (and do) shift power, and pushback from courts, provinces, and voters exists.This pattern reflects general incentives of concentrated power anywhere: information problems, principal-agent issues, and elite self-interest. Canada's version is softer and democratic, but the symptoms are recognizable to critics of big-government trends. If you're seeing parallels to historical central planning failures, the concerns aren't baseless, though outcomes depend on whether decentralization and accountability mechanisms reassert themselves. 91 web pages

Are these steps happening in Canda. Once power is centralized, a few things tend to happen: political opposition gets branded as sabotage or treason bureaucracy replaces markets and local judgment fear replaces honest feedback production targets get faked shortages, corruption, and coercion spread the ruling class becomes privileged while claiming to fight privilege

@liberal_party x.com/MileiSays/stat…

🚨BOMBSHELL🚨 Tax avoidance expert says CARNEY'S Brookfield is Canada's LARGEST TAX DODGER. He confirmed Brookfield EVADED over $6.5 BILLION in Canadian taxes in just 5 years. Carney's company POCKETED BILLIONS at Canadians' expense.

BREAKING 🚨 Elon Musk just reposted this to 238 MILLION followers saying South Africa is calling for the gen*cide of White People “K*ll the Boer, K*ll the Farmer” PUT MASSIVE SANCTIONS ON SOUTH AFRICA

If it were proven that the recent floor crossings by Canadian MPs (such as the four Conservatives — Chris d'Entremont, Michael Ma, Matt Jeneroux, and Marilyn Gladu — plus the NDP MP who joined Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals since late 2025) involved actual bribery, it would be a serious criminal matter under Canadian law.The Specific OffenceThe key provision is Section 119 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Bribery of judicial officers, etc.):It is an indictable offence (serious criminal charge) for:An MP to corruptly accept, obtain, agree to accept, or attempt to obtain any money, valuable consideration, office, place, or employment (for themselves or someone else) in respect of anything done or omitted in their official capacity (e.g., switching parties to help the government reach or maintain power). Anyone (including government officials, party operatives, or intermediaries) to corruptly give or offer such a benefit for that purpose. The required element is corrupt intent — a clear quid pro quo tied to the MP's official actions, not just ordinary political persuasion, shared policy views, ambition, or non-corrupt perks like committee roles.Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for up to 14 years. No mandatory minimum. Fines can also apply in the court's discretion. Both the giver and the receiver can be charged.What Would Happen If ProvenCriminal Investigation and Charges:The RCMP (Federal Policing, particularly Sensitive and International Investigations or anti-corruption units) would lead the probe. If evidence supports it, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada could lay charges. Proceedings could target the involved MPs and any Liberal figures alleged to have offered the bribes. Consequences for the MPs:Conviction would almost certainly lead to resignation or expulsion from the House of Commons (via parliamentary processes or voter backlash). The seat would likely trigger a byelection in the riding. Additional ethics investigations by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner could run in parallel, potentially resulting in findings of breach of the Conflict of Interest Code or Act. Impact on the Government:The crossings helped the Liberals move closer to (or reach) a slim majority without a general election. Proven bribery could trigger major political scandal, calls for the government to fall, or no-confidence motions. It would fuel demands for reforms, such as mandatory byelections on floor crossings (proposals that have surfaced before but not passed federally). Public trust in Parliament would take a significant hit, amplifying existing criticisms of the process as undermining democracy. Other Potential Overlaps:Related charges could include fraud on the government (s. 121) or influence peddling if broader corruption patterns emerge. No automatic link to higher offences like treason — this stays in the realm of corruption and bribery law. Floor crossing by itself remains legal in federal Canada (MPs own their seats; no anti-defection law requires immediate byelections). The illegality only arises with proven corrupt bribes. In your book (as venting or fiction), you could dramatize a "what if proven" scenario around these specific crossings, highlighting the democratic frustration many feel. Just frame it clearly as hypothetical, satirical, or alternate-reality to minimize any real-world legal exposure around naming individuals.If you're outlining a chapter on the legal fallout, the core is straightforward: proven bribery = up to 14 years in prison per the Criminal Code, plus massive political repercussions. Let me know if you want a sample paragraph, timeline of the actual crossings, or ideas for how to weave this into your narrative without overstepping into unproven claims.

@AdamBolt13 why all you liberals refuse to pay for a certified account

@AlainPatenaude7 I am sick to my stomach every morning by this charlatan that has stolen our country and is auctioning it off to EVIL. His day will come.

Canada once buried roughly 45,000 dead from a world war. Now we are estimated to have lost more than 100,000 people on medical wait-lists since 2018. A country that cannot get its citizens treated before they die is not a serious country.”