Venus Rising: the Morning Star

The seasons are changing. I can no longer see the sunrise on my way to work in the morning but I can see Venus. It was very bright above an orange sky over a foggy horizon. Venus is called the morning star because it's the lastt star we see on the horizon before sunrise. It's also the first star we see on the horizon after sunset. Mercury is pretty hard to spot but you can see it this month in the northern hemisphere. The next small planetary alignment takes place on January 27, 2024.

Update: The next day the same thing. this morning your could see Venus rising above an orange horizon. It was high and bright. Normally it's a bit lower on the horizon. It was all alone. Yesterday was the new moon. When the planets do align you can see them line up with Venus and the moon along an axis. So right now we can see Venus rising in the morning sky all on it's own.

I'm sure there's an astrological significance to that but it looks cool. This morning the fog was pushed down below the horizon so you could see the landscape of mountains from the freeway. When I got to work the fog was blocking the view of the mountains on the horizon but you could see them from a distance. I'm sure there's another allegory in there.



There was a bright orange horizon at sunset tonight with a red setting sun providing a backdrop to the city towers in Surrey. I'm still trying to find a nice place in Surrey to watch the sunset. It's hard to get above the trees without leaving the city. Sunrise, sunset. The morning breaks...

NDP Diverting water away from farmers in BC

Anita Krishna is reporting that "There is an eye opening documentary circulating called Stolen Water. It's about government imposed watering restrictions on BC farmers. The Natural Resource Officers and Government representatives aren’t providing answers or showing up to meetings, only making illogical demands. These restrictions ruin crops, raise grocery prices and destroy farmers. The filmmaker is Simon Hergott. Here's part 1 of my interview with Simon."

This is very timely. In my interviews on Sunday at the Khalistan referendum in Surrey we learned that India is diverting water away from farmers in the Punjab. This is the next stage after fertilizer bans in the New World Order's attack on farming on their quest to create mass starvation and mass inflation. The BC NDP is part of that insane Agenda.

The Government Wants to Control Our Food - The Coming Eco-Totalitarianism

This is the actual documentary:

Stolen Water Part 1 - Waging War On Water Rights and BC Food Security

Stolen Water Part 2 - The Battle For Water Rights Is Escalating

Stolen Water Part 3 - The Slow And Systematic Ruination Of Farmers

Means and Motive Part Two: Mass Shootings

OK so we've talked about Air India and 9/11. Then we did a deeper dive into the logistics of means and motive. Now I want to take it one step further. We've seen how means and motive can help decipher false flags. Now let's take a look at how they apply to orchestrated events such as plandemics, arson or even mass shootings. Every crime has a means and motive.

Steven Seagal thinks a lot of mass shootings are engineered and so do I. I don't think they all are but I do think some are. How many? What percentage? I have no idea but if any are that is something we need to talk about because it opens up Pandora's box. If they were willing to do that then, what else are they willing to do and why? What is their motive?

OK let's look at one. The biggest one in US history. It serves as their rationale for banning ARs. The Orlando shooting doesn't make sense. A Gay Muslim walks into a Gay bar he frequented and goes on a shooting frenzy. The biggest inconsistency in that case is the number of people shot and the number of rounds fired. 49 people dead, 53 people injured and a firefight with police. That's a lot of reloading for one AR and one handgun.

Immediately we have a problem with means and motive. It's not physically possible for one person to fire that many rounds with one AR and one hand gun. There had to have been more than one shooter. Yet the narrative claims there was no other shooter. That means there is a problem with the narrative. Again we are forced to ask, if they lied about that, what else did they lie about? Why would a Gay guy shoot up a bar full of Gay people? It doesn't make sense. He didn't go there once and get snubbed. He frequented that bar. He was a regular. There's no motive for this mass shooting and that becomes a problem because every crime has a motive.

I will admit that there is a grey area around motive when it comes to mass shooting. To execute a mass shooting you have to be crazy so the motive won't necessarily be logical. "My ex left me so I'm going to shoot her dead as well as myself." WTF? Why would you do that? It makes no sense. Yet some people do. I'm not going to Dr Phil the motive. I'm just going to say that is bat sh*t crazy.

Likewise many years ago the US Post Office used to be a pretty toxic workplace full of harassment and abuse. As a result sometimes people would snap. They'd bring a gun to work, shoot their boss and a bunch of coworkers. Hence the term going postal. I'd be like, OK you lost your job and you're angry I get it but why on earth would you bring a gun to work and shoot your coworkers? That doesn't make sense. It's not going to get your job back and it's not going to make you feel any better. It's just plain crazy.

I don't want to be creepy but I can understand if his boss was an a*shole and was harassing him, he might snap and shoot him. I'm not saying that is acceptable because it is absolutely not. I'm just saying I can see a motive. It's like the kid who gets bullied in school then snaps and comes back with a gun to shoot the bully and the other kids who stood by and watched it happen. That is not acceptable and is not an appropriate expression of anger but again I can see a motive. It's a twisted Dr Phil motive but I can see a motive. It's some of the other ones like the Orlando shooting that concern me because I can't see any motive. Other than gun control. That brings us to the biggest mass shooting in Canada.

Before we dive into that I do want to concede that not all mass shootings are orchestrated. Which brings us to the right to bear arms. There are a lot of crazy people out there. Someone said one in four have some kind of mental health issue. I don't know if that's true or not but I will admit that there are a lot of people out there with mental health issues. Consequently I'm not sure everyone should have the right to own a gun. Now I realize a lot of gun advocates are going to have an aneurysm when they hear that. Especially the Americans. Point of Order, I'm not an American. I don't have the right to bear arms entrenched in my Constituion.

Yet even in the United States, if your are a felon, you don't have the right to bear arms. I'm kinda thinking if you're mentally ill you shouldn't own a gun either. How do you define mentally ill? I don't know. Granted it's a slippery slope because where do you draw the line? I don't know. All I'm saying is that some people out there are whack jobs and should not own a gun. Personally I think owning a gun is a privileged not a right. It's a sacred privileged. Hunting should be a right. As the Assembly of First Nation Chiefs said, hunting is a treaty right.

OK so back to Canada's largest mass shooting in Nova Scotia. There are a lot of strange things in that case. Motive is the first obvious one. In that shooting gun control is the only motive. The fact that it was timed to coincide with Justin Trudeau's over reaching gun control bill and was misused to rationalize it solidifies that fact. Yet there is a ship load of anomalies in that case.

The suspect was driving around in a police car wearing a police uniform. So witnesses didn't necessarily see the suspect shoot anyone they saw someone wearing a police uniform shoot people. Which brings us back to the fire hall. After the suspect(s) embarked on a shooting rampage, civilians were gathered in a fire hall where the police protected them.

Knowing that fire hall was a safe house for civilians with a uniformed officer out front, two under cover officers went on a shooting rampage targeting the vulnerable spots of the fire hall. In the fake inquiry they claimed they thought they were shooting at the suspect who was allegedly wearing a police uniform. That is a lie. They weren't shooting at the uniformed officer out front, they were shooting at the vulnerable spots of the fire hall - the roll up doors.

That's pretty shady. On top of that the RCMP were trying to defame the dead suspect by claiming he had a large sum of money deposited into his bank account right before the mass shooting. They were trying to claim he had ties to organized crime. Then we find out it was the RCMP that deposited that money into his bank account. That's shady. That's an anomaly. The fake inquiry did not explain why the RCMP deposited that money into his account before the shooting.

None of the suspect's guns were legally obtained. Using that horrific event to rationalize gun control was a dirty deed and a political trick. The other Canadian shooting I want to discuss is the Saanich fake bank robbery. The suspects were Mathew and Isaac Auchterlonie who are sons of Bob Auchterlonie. Although they are from the exact same area they aren't the sons of Admiral Bob Auchterlonie. Yet I find it hard to believe they are not related given the unique surname and the small town they were all from. Bob's your Uncle so to speak.

The suspects robbed a bank and after they secured the money they didn't leave. They stayed and waited for the police. One witness claimed one of the suspects was eerily calm. The narrative claims they didn't want to rob the bank they wanted to have a shootout with the police yet that doesn't make sense. If they didn't want to rob the bank, why did they insist the employee get them the money? Why didn't they leave when they had the money?

The narrative claims they wanted to kill cops. That doesn't make sense. Aside from the fact, why would they want to kill cops? Why would they rob a bank and put themselves at a strategic disadvantage to let them be surrounded by SWAT? If they wanted to kill cops, why didn't they walk into a police station? Again, other than gun control, there is no motive for that shooting.

Then there's the twist. The fake news ran a picture of fake blood and a forensic mannequin at the crime scene claiming it was a picture of a dead suspect. Yet it was not. It was a forensic mannequin. However, the fake news didn't say this is a forensic mannequin, they said it was a dead suspect. Was it a mistake or another lie? We'll probably never know.

Just like when the fake news ran that video of a full hospital in Italy during Covid and claimed it was a hospital in New York, specifically in Donald Trump's home town. When they were caught they simply admitted they made a mistake.

Yet they did the same thing in Australia after that. They used the same video of a hospital in Italy and claimed it was in Australia when we all knew it was not. Lies or mistake? You tell me. They frequently said empty hospitals were overflowing with Covid patients when they were not.

BC Liberal MLA crosses floor to join the Conservatives

True North is reporting that "BC United MLA Bruce Banman is crossing the floor to join the BC Conservatives, True North has learned. The Abbotsford South MLA will announce the move Wednesday morning. This marks the second sitting MLA to leave the BC United caucus, formerly called the BC Liberals. With two sitting MLAs, the BC Conservatives will now have official party status in the legislature." Now that's what I'm talking about. That's better than the PPC.

The Logistics of Means and Motive

Update: Means and Motive Part Two: Mass Shootings

We've talked a bit about 9/11 and Air India. Now I want to dive a little deeper into the logistics of means and motive. Every crime has a means and motive. This is what we need to examine if we are going to try and solve a crime. In the Surrey Pressure Cooker Entrapment case, without the RCMP the targets had no means or motive to commit the crime. That is why it was deemed entrapment by the court. Likewise with Air India. CSIS provided the explosives.

If they had not done so the horrific tragedy never would have happened. CSIS' targets had no means of committing the crime. We'll talk about motive later. The point is Surjan Singh Gill worked for CSIS. Interesting to note that the sworn testimony of Dave Hayer's father Tara Singh Hayer conformed that the CSIS agent, Surjan Singh Gill was the one that provided the bomb. Ripudaman Singh Malik did not make it. CSIS did.

On the matter of motive, let's take a look at the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 outside Lockerbie, Scotland. The primary event that occurred during that bombing was the murder of Major Charles McKee and his team who were on their way home with evidence of the CIAs drug trafficking in Lebanon. Moammar Gadhafi had no motive to kill him and prevent him from testifying against the CIA. The only ones that had a motive to kill him was the CIA.

Now let's talk about the assassinated Indira Gandhi. Before we examine the list of suspects, let's set the stage. The CIA and the State run media assures us that two of her Sikh bodyguards murdered her. OK let's dial it back a bit. Don't you think it's a bit strange she had Sikh bodyguards? I mean if she was the one that approved Operation Blue Star wouldn't she replace her Sikh bodyguards first?

She's surrounded by Sikhs with guns and she authorizes a military attack on the Sikh leaders in the Punjab and an invasion of their most sacred holy site the Golden Temple. Something doesn't quite add up here. If she authorized that operation, she would have known that would have created a whole lot of tension with her bodyguards. I don't think she did and I'll tell you why.

Why would she hire Sikh bodyguards in the first place? That tells me two things. That tells me she didn't trust some of her own people and it shows she was definitely trying to include the Sikh community in her democracy. Do you think that might have pissed off some of the extremists in her own community? The original Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist because he felt Gandhi was being too conciliatory towards the Muslims in India.

Do you not think the Hindu extremists who murdered the original Ghandi were also upset she had Sikh bodyguards? I don't think she approved Operation Blue star. I think that was an intelligence operation and when she objected to it they killed her just like they kill Kennedy when he vetoed Operation Northwoods. Her son Rajiv was assassinated 7 years after she was.

Last Sunday when I was interviewing Sikhs outside the Khalistan referendum I heard testimony that not only was the current government of India persecuting Sikhs in the Punjab, they were also persecuting Muslims in India as well. The current government and the extremists that support it, want to purge India of other religions and languages. The intelligence community is supporting that because it is a step towards the WEF agenda. First you eliminate all religions but one then you eliminate that one final religion and Mission Accomplished.

Interesting to note, at the time the Soviet press hinted broadly at CIA involvement in the assassination of India's prime minister Indira Gandhi. The Economic Times quoted the CIA and said "USSR lost closest ally with Indira Gandhi's assassination, but would maintain ties with son."

So if Indira Gandhi and her son were both close allies with Russia then the CIA are definitely suspects in their murder. Outlook India reported that "The Jain Commission's final report focuses on a larger international conspiracy, and the CIA-Mossad-LTTE link, in the Rajiv killing."

Beyond Headlines confirms that "The final report mentions Amos Radia and Giorce Betchar as agents operating for the Israelis in India." Mossad and the CIA are joined at the hip.

Now just because Russia claims the CIA assassinated Indira Gandhi, doesn't mean they did but the fact that she was a ally with Russia means the CIA are clearly a suspect. Big Brother is not always right but Big Brother is not always wrong either. If it wasn't for the Russian spy sub that stumbled across the attack on the USS Liberty we would never have known the truth as that vessel would have been sunk according to President Johnston's orders.

What are the fact we can prove? We can prove the USS liberty was attacked. That fact is not disputed. It was attacked by an ally. Israel claimed they didn't know it was an American naval ship. That was a lie. One of the Israeli pilots that was ordered to fire on the vessel later stated he saw the American flag and refused to fire at it. He said that is an ally. He was threatened with court martial if he didn't fire on the vessel. A US Aircraft carrier heard the distress calls of the USS Liberty and dispatched air support. President Johnston recalled that air support. Those are facts.

Rebel News made MSN

MSN is quoting a National Post article that states "Canada’s environment minister has earned a rebuke in court for blocking a contentious commentator on X, formerly known as Twitter. On Monday, Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn ruled in favour of a suit filed two years ago by Rebel News founder Ezra Levant, who took Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault to court after he blocked Levant’s account on X."

“'The Honourable Minister Steven Guilbeault shall immediately cause the account @s_guilbeault to unblock the following account on ‘X,’ the platform formerly known as Twitter,' Justice Zinn wrote in his brief two-page judgement , referring to Levant’s X account @ezralevant."

"The judgement also ordered Guilbeault and his staff to not block Levant on X during the balance of his time as a member of parliament. Guilbeault was also ordered to pay Levant $20,000 within 90 days of the judgment. According to the judgment, the decision came as a result of a resolution between both parties." Sounds like it was a consent order. Been there, done that.

It's somewhat amusing that the National Post referred to Ezra Levant as a contentious commentator. Ezra Levant and Rebel News has a lot more credibility than the National Post and the other fake news outlets. If someone is honest the fake news calls them contentious. At least they didn't call him far right again. Rebel News is awesome.

"When the Rebel Yells he cries No More."

Calgary Muslims Unite over Classroom Indoctrination

9/11 and the Air India bombing

There was a disturbing documentary about 9/11 that came on in the lunchroom today at work. It was on the History Channel. I say it was disturbing because what happened that day was horrific. The documentary went over the lives of some of the victims of 9/11 which was of course heartbreaking. Yet they kept pushing that insane narrative about planes being hijacked with box cutters. That never made sense from day one. It's somewhat shocking that the fake news is still trying to use that horrific event to rationalize giving up freedom.

Now it's a new narrative. They've thought up new excuses to take away our freedom but they all have a common thread - motive. When I was interviewing a Director from Sikhs for Justice yesterday the subject of Air India came up. He mentioned motive and intent and I mentioned means and motive. I said CSIS provided the explosives for the Air India bombing. If they hadn't provided the explosives it would not have happened. The suspects had no means to commit that crime. To my astonishment, he was not aware of that fact.

This shows you how the fake news buries true reports that are damning to the narrative. A shocking atrocity is revealed and everyone forgets about it because the fake news buries it. 10 years ago I made a blog post about it. The CBC did a documentary about the trial. This was before the fall of the CBC back when they were passionate about investigative journalism. Times have certainly changed but there was a time when they weren't fake news.

In the documentary they showed interviews and court transcripts. In the trial the RCMP stated that CSIS had a handler that not only helped plan the attack, he actually provided the explosives. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a historical fact. It was something I was shocked to discover. It's not something I made up. My blog post linked to the documentary.

After I linked to it, it was taken off YouTube so I found another copy and linked to that. After I linked to it, the second copy was also taken off YouTube. Or at least set to private so no one can see it. Perhaps they got it taken down by citing the Air India Inquiry mandate.

The Director I interviewed yesterday was familiar with the Air India inquiry. I think he's actually a lawyer. He said that the Inquiry was given a strict mandate. First, they were not allowed to find responsibility. Like WTF? One would assume that would be an important part of the inquiry. The other directive was if they did find evidence of any foreign interference that would damage Canada's relationship with other countries, they were not allowed to publish it. That was insane. Those two directives clearly shows you something fishy is going on.

Kind of like the instructions the judge gave to the jury in the Robert Pickton trial. After Janice Edwards testimony, the judge told the jury that they could convict Willie if he wasn't the only suspect. The judge even went so far as to say the jury could convict him even if he wasn't the main suspect, just an active participant. Those instructions came after the court heard that Dianne Rock was gang raped on the Pickton farm before she was murdered. Obviously, a gang rape would implicate more than one suspect.

Likewise with the Mission Women inquiry. As soon as the Hells Angels were mentioned, Wally Opal shut down the inquiry and turned it into a "less adversarial" panel discussion so he could more easily censor evidence. His rationale was the inquiry's purpose was not to find other suspects. Just like the Air India fake inquiry.

The Corbett Report still has the truth posted about CSIS's involvement with the Air India Bombing. The report states "the fact remains that a mole of the Canadian intelligence service founded the group that ran the bombing, helped organize and pull off the bombing, and escaped without charge." Surjan Singh Gill, the person who planned the attack and provided the explosives worked for CSIS. An old CBC article they haven't taken down yet confirms he worked for CSIS. The Air India Inquiry wasn't allowed to report that but everyone else is.

"The documents are transcripts of an interview conducted by the RCMP with Ajaib Singh Bagri after his arrest in October 2000. Officers laid out the case against him and then said one of the members of the alleged conspiracy was an agent for Canada's spy agency. That person's name was Surjan Singh Gill, who at the time described himself as the consul-general of Khalistan."

The fake news said Ripudaman Singh Malik was the bomb maker. That is not true. He didn't make the bomb. CSIS provided it. Malik was shot dead in Surrey last summer. A year later the Temple president was executed. There are a lot of shady things going on here.

We cannot talk about the Air India bombing without talking about CSIS's involvement. Likewise, we can't talk about 9/11 without talking about the CIA's involvement. 15 9/11 hijackers came in from Saudi Arabia. Their visas were denied but the CIA overruled the passport office and made sure the hijackers visas were approved. That is not a conspiracy theory, that is a historical fact.

There are two excellent 9/11 documentaries we should all watch on this anniversary of that horrific event. One is Loose Change 9/11. The other is 9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out. Loose change talks about Operation Northwards and Explosive Evidence talks about thermite. As for Air India, there were Sikhs on the plane. Sikhs wouldn't kill Sikhs. Not only is the narrative false, it doesn't even make sense.

MP admits CSIS knew about the bomb on Air India

Article on 9/11 published in the Vancouver Province

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice

9/11 flyer: In Defense of Liberty

Live Interviews from the Khalistan Referendum in Surrey

Today I went on the scene for the Kalistan Referendum in Surrey and conducted a few interviews on site. It was very well attended and has been completely misrepresented. Global mentioned it but Google is burying any positive coverage. This is a link to the full video interview and report.

I met one of the Sikhs who paid Pat King's bail and is fundraising for his legal defense. We talked about how the media misrepresented the Convoy as well as the Khalistan Referendum. We also talked about some of the persecutions the Sikhs are facing in the State of Punjab from the government of India as well as the farmers struggles that affect all of us. They're not just banning fertilizer, they're also diverting water to prevent farming and create starvation.

WHF Entertainment Cuts Loose