SUNDAY
New BLOG – Great ARTICLES
SUNDAY 9 -[13]-26
SPIRITUAL:
Has God chosen CANADA’s next PRIME MINISTER?
We (Christians) who teach, often feel something ?? - that makes us wonder if it is "The Hand of God" that wants us to speak out about the truth as we see it, and often feel compelled to pass it on to others.
This video strikes a chord with me personally, and I hope you decide to put it in your blog.
Reminder - God made a covenant with Abram, and part of it was that our God The Father, would seal this covenant by taking two letters from his name (Yahweh, the a and the h) and add (give) them to Abram, and forever afterwards, even until today, his name was "Abraham."
Is God The Father, remediating our current situation in Canada, by reminding us of that very same namesake? [A-B-R-A-H-A-M]
They tell us that "History" will often repeat itself, and I for one would believe it is so.
Our beloved Bible always gives all us believers a choice.
So, it is now up to all who read and watch this short video to "choose" for themselves.
Always in His service,
Fred
CANADIAN:
Doctors Told Her Get an Abortion, Kids Aren’t in the Cards, She Said No—Then This ‘Miracle’ Happened
Ali Spitsbergen spent her youth seeking spirituality while learning to surf in Australia and joining a mission to Thailand. She ended up meeting her future husband, a Christian worship leader, on the sunny beaches of San Diego.
He literally paddled up to her on his surfboard and said hello.
The twist in Ali’s story is that her doctors vehemently told her she would never bear a living, breathing child. She credits God for making four miracles happen.
Ali grew up Catholic in Chicago, but after college, she “wanted to figure out all the religions in the world,” she told The Epoch Times. She wondered: “Why do they believe what they believe? Why does this religion believe this? Who’s right? Who’s wrong?”
She calls it “crazy” how she traveled the world but finally felt “the power of God through the work I was doing with prostitutes in Thailand,” and that “God really does miracles.”
After returning stateside, she grew tired of the cold, dark skies of Chicago. She relocated to the sun and beaches of San Diego where she worked as a nurse and found a circle of like-minded, nondenominational Christians. She met her now-husband, Joshua, a music teacher from a religious school that their children now attend.
The EPOCH Times - BRIGHT
TRUMP:
Marc Andersen emerges as leading contender for Army secretary amid Pentagon leadership vacuum
Short Analysis
The article portrays Marc Andersen as an increasingly credible “stability candidate” for Army secretary at a time when senior Army leadership is unusually unsettled.
Andersen’s strongest advantage is his financial and management background. After 22 years at EY and his current role as the Army’s comptroller, supporters argue that he already understands the service’s budget, audit problems, modernization efforts, and congressional relationships. His relatively clean political profile could also make Senate confirmation easier than for some competitors.
The most significant obstacle may be Pentagon politics. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly favors Sean Parnell, while several other candidates—including Brian Mast, Derrick Anderson and acting secretary Adam Telle—remain possibilities. Parnell's past controversies could complicate confirmation, potentially strengthening Andersen's position.
Bottom line: This is less a story about Andersen suddenly becoming the obvious choice than about the Army’s leadership vacuum creating demand for someone viewed as competent, confirmable and capable of restoring continuity. The article clearly favors Andersen as that stabilizing option, but the final decision remains with the White House.
Breaking News Alert:
Ilhan Omar Vote Confirmed - I'm Speechless
Summary [ChatGPT]
The article centers on a dispute over Rep. Ilhan Omar’s financial disclosures and whether the House Ethics Committee should investigate further despite an advisory panel recommending that the matter be dropped.
The Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC) voted 5–1 to recommend ending its review, concluding there was not substantial reason to believe Omar filed false or incomplete disclosures. Omar’s office points to that vote as support for its position that the discrepancy resulted from an accounting mistake and that Omar herself is not a millionaire.
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) strongly disagrees. Its main concern is the dramatic difference between Omar’s original 2024 disclosure—which reportedly listed assets connected largely to businesses associated with her husband, Tim Mynett, at values reaching roughly $30 million—and an amended filing about a year later that reportedly placed those assets at less than $100,000.
According to the article, Omar’s office says an accountant incorrectly reported the businesses’ value without properly considering their liabilities. The NLPC argues that explanation is insufficient, particularly because Omar personally signed the original disclosure. It wants investigators to examine underlying financial records rather than rely on explanations from Omar’s office.
Key Points
OCC recommends closing the matter: Its 5–1 vote found insufficient reason to believe Omar submitted false or incomplete disclosures.
Huge discrepancy remains at issue: The article contrasts a filing reporting assets potentially worth up to $30 million with an amended disclosure placing them below $100,000.
Omar's explanation: Her office attributes the discrepancy to an accountant's valuation error and says Omar was not personally involved in her husband's businesses.
Watchdog's demand: NLPC attorney Paul Kamenar wants the House Ethics Committee to obtain supporting financial and business documents to determine what actually caused the discrepancy.
Congressional jurisdiction complicates things: The article says the Ethics Committee oversees Omar but may not have authority over her husband, while the House Oversight Committee considered subpoenaing Mynett before referring the matter to Ethics.
Election timing could matter: The article says the OCC recommendation arrived during a 60-day pre-election blackout period that restricts certain Ethics Committee investigative actions.
Ethics Committee is evenly divided: With three Republicans and three Democrats, a deadlock could prevent further action.
Bottom line
The central unresolved issue presented by the article is not simply whether Omar is worth $30 million. It's whether the enormous difference between two financial disclosures has been adequately documented and explained.
The OCC believes there isn't sufficient evidence to continue its inquiry. The watchdog group argues the opposite: before Congress closes the case, investigators should obtain the underlying records and determine precisely why the reported valuation changed so dramatically.
One distinction worth keeping in mind: the article contains both established procedural facts—such as the OCC vote—and allegations or interpretations from the watchdog and the article's author. The recommendation to dismiss the inquiry does not itself prove the original figures were correct or incorrect; it means the OCC concluded the evidentiary threshold for continuing its review had not been met.
The AMERICAN Almanac
GLOBAL:
Declassified 9/11 Files Just Revealed What Washington Knew
Newly released CIA documents detail warnings about al-Qaeda that reached two administrations before the attacks.
Analysis [ChatGPT]
The passage is built around a real and important historical point, but it mixes documented facts with interpretation, political framing, and some claims that require tighter sourcing.
1. The central thesis is credible
The strongest conclusion is:
U.S. intelligence knew for years that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda wanted to attack the United States, and senior officials repeatedly received warnings.
That is not a new conspiracy theory. It was already a major finding of the 9/11 Commission. The newly released documents matter because they give the public more of the actual contemporaneous language rather than relying primarily on retrospective testimony.
The important distinction is between:
knowing al-Qaeda intended to attack America, andIf the September 10, 1998 PDB says what the passage describes, it is historically significant
knowing exactly how, when and where 9/11 would happen.
The evidence strongly supports the first. It does not establish the second.
2. The 1998 aircraft warning is genuinely remarkable
If the September 10, 1998 PDB says what the passage describes, it is historically significant because it shows that the possibility of using an aircraft in an attack on the United States was being discussed almost three years before 9/11.
But this needs to be interpreted carefully.
A terrorist organization contemplating aircraft hijacking is not necessarily contemplating suicide hijacking of four commercial aircraft as guided missiles.
That distinction is crucial.
Intelligence analysis often contains multiple possible scenarios. A scenario that later happens can look extraordinarily prophetic when read retrospectively even though, at the time, it represented only one possibility among several.
3. The biggest issue is hindsight bias
This passage repeatedly takes information that was ambiguous before 9/11 and presents it as obvious after 9/11.
That's the most important analytical weakness.
For example:
“testing whether they could evade existing security checks”
If intelligence really reported suspicious activity at an airport, there are several possibilities:
genuine reconnaissance;
unrelated suspicious behavior;
intelligence-source error;
an activity that was relevant to terrorism but unrelated to the eventual operation.
After 9/11, possibility #1 becomes enormously tempting.
But intelligence officers in 1998 didn't possess the information we possess today.
That's why historical intelligence analysis must ask:
“What would a reasonable official have inferred at the time?”
rather than:
“What does this information mean now that we know what happened?”
4. There was nevertheless a serious failure
Avoiding hindsight bias does not mean exonerating the government.
The disturbing part is the cumulative pattern.
By 2001, officials weren't dealing with one isolated warning. They had a growing body of information indicating:
Bin Laden wanted to attack the United States.
al-Qaeda had already demonstrated its ability to conduct mass-casualty attacks.
attacks inside the United States were being contemplated.
aircraft hijacking had appeared in intelligence reporting.
al-Qaeda had operatives and contacts in the United States.
multiple agencies were investigating Bin Laden-related activity.
intelligence reporting was increasingly describing an impending threat.
The failure therefore looks less like:
“Nobody saw anything.”
and more like:
“Nobody successfully assembled everything into the correct picture quickly enough.”
That's a much more consequential finding.
5. Clinton vs. Bush is too simplistic
The passage invites the reader toward a partisan conclusion—especially with its references to conservatives.
But the documentary record doesn't fit neatly into a Republican/Democratic explanation.
The problem developed across both administrations.
The Clinton administration:
recognized Bin Laden as a serious threat;
pursued him through intelligence and covert-action mechanisms;
launched strikes after the 1998 embassy bombings;
nevertheless failed to neutralize al-Qaeda.
The incoming Bush administration:
inherited extensive al-Qaeda intelligence;
received warnings from the Clinton-era counterterrorism apparatus;
received increasingly alarming PDB reporting;
discussed a more aggressive strategy;
nevertheless failed to prevent the attack.
So the better interpretation is institutional failure across administrations, rather than “Clinton failed” or “Bush failed.”
6. But Bush's position deserves particularly close scrutiny
There is a legitimate criticism of the Bush administration that is stronger than the article's implied accusation.
The question isn't:
“Did Bush know 9/11 was coming?”
There is no convincing evidence that he did.
The better question is:
Given what the administration knew about al-Qaeda by the summer of 2001, did it respond with sufficient urgency?
That's much harder to dismiss.
The January 2001 warning from Richard Clarke is important in this context. Clarke was essentially telling the incoming administration that al-Qaeda represented an unusually serious problem requiring urgent attention.
Then the August 6 PDB explicitly carried the extraordinary title:
“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.”
Even without knowing the precise plot, that should be viewed as a major warning.
7. The August 6 PDB is both important and frequently exaggerated
This document has become almost mythical.
It did not predict 9/11.
It did, however, establish that the U.S. government had substantial intelligence indicating that Bin Laden wanted to conduct attacks inside the United States.
That's significant enough without exaggerating it.
The distinction is:
What the PDB said:
Bin Laden/al-Qaeda wanted to attack the United States and had discussed possible attacks.
What it didn't say:
Four hijackers will seize four planes on September 11 and crash them into the World Trade Center, Pentagon and another target.
Those are radically different levels of intelligence specificity.
8. The most important question is therefore not “Did they know?”
It's:
Why wasn't the threat converted into effective preventive action?
And there are several possible answers.
Institutional fragmentation: CIA, FBI and other agencies possessed different pieces of information.
Poor information sharing: intelligence wasn't always transferred effectively between agencies.
Competing priorities: terrorism competed with other national-security concerns.
Uncertainty: many warnings lacked dates, targets and operational specifics.
Bureaucratic inertia: recognizing a threat doesn't automatically generate a government-wide emergency response.
Legal/institutional boundaries: intelligence collection and domestic law enforcement operated under different authorities and cultures.
Failure of imagination: officials knew terrorism was dangerous but apparently had difficulty imagining an attack on the scale and form that ultimately occurred.
The last point is particularly important.
People can possess information without understanding its significance.
9. There's a paradox here
The newly released documents may actually make the story more nuanced rather than more conspiratorial.
The more documents we see, the clearer it becomes that:
There really were many warnings.
But simultaneously:
The warnings were fragmented, probabilistic and frequently contradictory.
That's exactly the kind of environment in which intelligence failures happen.
An intelligence service doesn't receive a message saying:
“Here is the attack plan.”
It receives hundreds of fragments.
The challenge is determining which fragments matter.
10. What about deliberate non-action?
This is where the evidence becomes much weaker.
The documents support:
“The government was warned.”
They support:
“The government underestimated and inadequately responded to the threat.”
They support:
“There were serious institutional failures.”
They do not, by themselves, establish:
“The Clinton or Bush administration knowingly permitted 9/11.”
That's an enormous evidentiary leap.
To demonstrate deliberate non-action, you would need evidence of officials possessing sufficiently specific information and then consciously deciding not to intervene.
The PDBs described in the passage don't establish that.
11. One phrase I would challenge strongly
The article says the warnings were “disturbingly specific.”
That's rhetorically Laden is preparing to hij effective but potentially misleading.
They were specific about the threat category, not necessarily specific about the eventual operation.
There's a huge difference between:
“Bin Laden may attack the United States using aircraft”
and
“Bin Laden is preparing to hijack American commercial aircraft and use them as suicide weapons against specific targets.”
The first is a serious warning.
The second would have been extraordinary actionable intelligence.
The historical record indicates the United States had far more of the first than the second.
Bottom line
My assessment would be:
The article's underlying historical argument is strong, but its political framing is stronger than its evidence.
The newly released documents reinforce a conclusion that historians already largely accepted:
9/11 was not unforeseeable in the broad sense. The United States had years of warning that Bin Laden intended a major attack on America.
But that is different from saying:
The U.S. government knew the 9/11 plot and deliberately failed to stop it.
The most defensible conclusion lies between those extremes:
The United States had an extraordinary amount of warning about the danger, but failed to convert fragmented intelligence into an appropriately urgent, integrated preventive response.
And that is arguably the most damning finding of all, because it doesn't require a conspiracy. It requires only a massive institutional failure.
America First News
'Nowhere for him to go,' 'No time to escape': Van survivor sues 21 Air, Amazon
MIAMI — Roosevelt Sebastian Perdomo Torres saw the Amazon Prime Boeing 767-300 barreling toward him last Sunday as it overshot the runway at Miami International Airport.
Perdomo Torres, 27, was one of seven people in a van owned by Professional Ocean Service Corp, a company that cleans planes. The jet, operated by North Carolina-based air-cargo firm 21 Air, smashed into the Ford Econoline van as well as a Toyota Carola SUV after it blew past the runway.
Five of Perdomo Torres’ colleagues were killed. He remains in the intensive-care unit at Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center.
On Friday, attorneys at Podhurst Orseck filed a negligence lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on his behalf against 21 Air, Amazon and the plane’s pilot and co-pilot.
In the complaint, attorneys say Perdomo Torres watched helplessly as the jet rapidly approached the van.
“There was nowhere for him to go and no time to escape,” attorney Pablo Rojas wrote in the complaint.
The plane hit the van, “leaving it an unrecognizable heap of metal,” Rojas wrote.
Perdomo Torres was ejected from the van and thrown to the ground, breaking his leg, ankle and hand, according to the complaint. He was conscious and tried to stand up, but he was unable, his attorneys say.
“Fighting for his life amid the chaos, Mr. Perdomo Torres attempted to stand, but was unable to sustain his own weight. He was forced to remain on the ground, conscious of his severe injuries, fearing for his life, and fearing for the family members he would leave behind if he perished,” Rojas wrote.
This is the second lawsuit filed in connection with the crash. The widow of the driver of the van, 53-year-old Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, filed a complaint this week against the same parties named in Torres Perdomo’s lawsuit. The sons of Julio Pineda, another member of the cleaning crew, and other family members of the other people who were killed have retained legal counsel. Pineda was 75.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash, but has already released information that at least one of the pilots knew the aircraft was coming in too fast before it landed and overran the runway. Flight-recorder data showed the pilots tried in the last seconds to lift off again to attempt to abort the landing and try again, but there was not enough runway left.
The plane approached the runway at nearly 207 mph, and when the more than 200,000-pound aircraft hit the two vehicles, it was traveling at around 75 mph, according to the NTSB.
Along with Pineda, the others who died in the van were Rolando Aleman Leon, 55; Yoel Rodriguez Narajo, 53; Carlos Acosta Fajardo, 53; and Javierk Reyes Quevedo, 47. Torres Perdomo and Ridoel Averhoff Diaz, 32, remain hospitalized.
Eugenio Corredor, 79, who was the Toyota driver and the only person in the vehicle, is in critical condition, according to the Miami-Dade Sheriff’s Office.
Flight-recorder data showed the pilots tried in the last seconds to lift off again to attempt to abort the landing and try again, but there was not enough runway left.
Amazon declined to comment on the lawsuit, instead providing a statement that reads partially:
“The loss of life caused by this week’s tragedy weighs heavily on all of us at Amazon. Our hearts continue to be with the families and loved ones of those who were killed, and with the entire Miami-Dade community enduring an unimaginable time. As the NTSB continues its investigation, we remain fully committed to supporting their work and that of all investigating authorities.”
The Miami Herald was unable to reach the pilots named in the suit, Joseph Carroll and Jaime Filipe Silva Molina.
Contact information for 21 Air was unavailable because the company removed all information on its website and replaced it with a statement about the crash from its chief executive officer, Keith Winters:
“We are devastated by the accident involving one of our aircraft in Miami on September 6. Our deepest condolences are with the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives. Our immediate priorities are supporting those affected, assisting the appropriate authorities, and ensuring that accurate and verified information is communicated as it becomes available.
“We are cooperating fully with the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Aviation Administration, and local authorities as they investigate the circumstances surrounding the accident. Additional verified information will be posted on this page as it becomes available.”
Patrick Bestall’s INPUT:
#1.
Details on Zelensky's cross-Canada visit
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a surprise three-day visit to Canada from September 9 to 11, 2026, marking an important diplomatic push to shore up military, energy, and financial aid. Accompanied by First Lady Olena Zelenska, the visit included stops across Alberta and Ontario to meet with Prime Minister Mark Carney and federal officials. [1, 2, 3]
The itinerary and major outcomes of the historic visit include:
Key Stops and Itinerary
Calgary, Alberta: Zelenskyy landed on Wednesday night, September 9, and held bilateral talks with Prime Minister Carney on Thursday morning.
Banff, Alberta: Following his meeting in Calgary, Zelenskyy travelled to the mountain resort town to address a special federal cabinet planning forum.
Toronto & North Bay, Ontario: The delegation concluded the three-day trip with stops in Toronto and North Bay before departing on Friday, September 11. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Major Agreements & Military Aid
· 100-Year Partnership: Canada and Ukraine signed a 100-year strategic partnership agreement focusing on long-term cooperation across trade, defence, and energy sectors. [3]
· Air Defence Commitments: Facing heavy Russian aerial drone and missile attacks, Zelenskyy secured a critical, newly expanded air-defense agreement with Canada, which he called "a decision for our lives". [6]
· Critical Minerals & Security: The two leaders signed formal declarations at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) to collaborate on critical minerals and security infrastructure.
Energy and Economic Support
· $311 Million Energy Loan: Canada pledged an additional $311 million in loan guarantees to assist Ukraine in securing vital natural gas supplies ahead of the winter season. [7]
· Uranium Supply Partnership: Ukraine’s Energoatom and Canadian mining firm Cameco agreed to expand their strategic partnership to guarantee long-term uranium supplies and conversion services through 2035. [7]
· Infrastructure Funding: Export Development Canada committed $144 million to support key reconstruction projects, including rebuilding Ukraine's hydropower infrastructure. [7]
Pressure on Russia
Prime Minister Carney reaffirmed that Canada is ready to increase pressure on Moscow if peace negotiations are undermined. Ottawa is developing a new round of sanctions aimed at Russia's anti-ballistic missile capabilities, while tightening restrictions on the Russian financial sector and its "shadow fleet" of oil tankers. [3]
.PB
#2.
Mamdani goes to Mass??
I missed this news story. Did you too?
As my Irish grandfather would exclaim, "Faith 'n be-jabbers!"
I guess we should pray for Mamdani and the new bishop.
.PB
#3.
National Post reports
FROM THE NATIONAL POST
"When you create new machinery, you slow things down. The DIA (Defence Investment Agency), the Major Projects Office and Build Canada Homes — they sound like they will speed things up by hacking through the bureaucracy. But the paradox is that they take a lot of bureaucracy to set up." — A senior public servant tells John Ivison why Prime Minister Mark Carney's chosen executives to run new agencies have already run headlong into the same old red tape that slowed down government before.
The Canadian Army has big plans to better prepare for war and domestic emergencies, especially at a time when allies can't be relied on the way they once were. All the soldiers need now, David Pugliese reports, is an influx of high-tech equipment that will cost billions.
Artem Kalinin takes a look at what students are, and aren't, learning about our history, and how it varies across the country.
A new study is adding some important context to the debate around Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies: specifically, the cost of these policies. The National Post's Rob Breakenridge is joined by University of Buckingham professor and Macdonald-Laurier Institute senior fellow Eric Kaufmann to discuss his new study, "The Equity-Excellence Trade-Off: A Study of EDI in the Canada Research Chairs Program." Kaufmann argues that the aggressive push within academia for DEI targets has come with significant and measurable costs to research.
According to the study, groups that benefit from DEI policies tend to have the lowest research impact. Kaufmann says his research also points to a growing emphasis on “scholarly activism,” particularly in the social sciences and humanities. We'll find out more about what the study found, and what sort of reform is necessary to address these problems.
.PB
#4.
Getting away with Murder in Canada
After an altercation with a man outside a Windsor, Ont., daycare in 2022, 30-year-old Malique Calloo pulled an illegal firearm from his waistband and shot his victim 15 times.
In July, a court declared Calloo guilty of manslaughter, meaning that the magazine of bullets he had discharged at his victim at close range had not carried an “intent to kill.”
Given the time he’s already spent in pre-trial sentencing, Calloo is expected to be free no later than 2030.
More recently, Inderdeep Singh Gosal plunged a knife six times into the torso of 37-year-old father Paul Schmidt at a Vancouver Starbucks. Schmidt had confronted Gosal about vaping in front of his daughter, escalating it to a physical fight following an argument.
The case became infamous due to widely circulated cell phone footage of Schmidt stumbling out of the coffee shop and collapsing motionless on the front patio.
Again, just last week, a court accepted the defence’s argument that it was manslaughter, not second-degree murder as originally charged. Gosal had stopped taking his schizophrenia medication and had been drinking, so he couldn’t be expected to appreciate that the stabbings would kill Schmidt. The fatal stabbings were an "overreaction due to mental illness."
Manslaughter exists in Canadian law for crimes in which an offender caused someone’s violent death but didn’t mean to: A fluke punch in a bar fight, a recklessly fired gun, a tainted drug sale.
But in one of the more conspicuous trends ensuring lax sentences for Canadian violent criminals, manslaughter is often being applied to homicides where an offender shot or stabbed their victim.
It was only a few blocks away from the 2023 Paul Schmidt killing that saw a similar case of an offender plunging a knife into the chest of his victim, only for a B.C. court to rule that the action hadn’t been intended to kill.
In a 2020 incident at the biltmore, a Vancouver low-barrier shelter, 31-year-old Anthony Woods fatally stabbed a man in the building’s elevator who had been confronting him about his disruptive behaviour.
Woods had been kicking and pounding on doors, and 72-year-old Alex Gortmaker appears to have raised objection with Woods, “slightly pushing him” in the process.
Woods’ response was to produce a knife, stab Gortmaker in the upper chest, and then shove the man from the elevator where he collapsed and bled to death.
In October 2024, Judge Reginald Harris would not only accept Woods’ plea that he was guilty only of manslaughter, but granted him a suspended sentence that resulted in his immediate release from custody.
Meanwhile, the same week that Gosal received a manslaughter conviction in B.C. for killing Paul Schmidt, an Ontario court ruled that a man who shot his girlfriend in the head had not intended to kill her.
Keith Savile of Stratford, Ont., was already subject to a lifetime firearms ban due to prior criminal convictions. In late 2024 – after a night of repeatedly threatening to shoot his girlfriend with an improvised handgun – he claimed it was an accident when he discharged the gun into her temple around 5 a.m.
On Sept. 2, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice accepted Savile’s guilty plea for manslaughter in lieu of his initial charge of second-degree murder. Given a nine-year sentence, he’s expected to be free by 2032 at the latest.
The sister of victim Kassidy Ballantyne-Holmes told Postmedia in a message that the sentence was a “joke.” Another family member said “he'll be in his 40s when he gets out and can live a full and happy life, and she’s still gone.’”
A throughline with many of these cases is that they’re done in coordination with prosecutors: the Crown accepts a guilty plea of manslaughter rather than proceed to trial on a murder charge.
That’s what happened last year in a high-profile case involving a chronically abused eight-year-old Alberta girl found dead in a hockey bag in the back of a pickup truck.
When the Crown accepted guardian Ashley Rattlesnake’s guilty plea to manslaughter (and an eight-year sentence), it prompted a rare public condemnation from Edmonton police urging the Crown to proceed on a murder charge.
"Our position is that to allow this plea deal to go ahead would be to bring the administration of justice into disrepute and constitute a significant miscarriage of justice," wrote Megan Hankewich, the Edmonton Police Services’ acting executive director of legal and regulatory services.
More recently, it was a factor in the June manslaughter conviction of 31-year-old Ahmed Abdi Hassan of Alberta who fatally shot a man in the back of the head. In March 2024 Hassan shot seven rounds from an illegal handgun at victim Liban Abdirahman, hitting him three times.
Although Hassan was charged with second-degree murder, prosecutors Carla MacPhail and Margot Engley accepted a guilty plea of manslaughter after negotiations with defence lawyers.
Another common throughline is that the offender is Indigenous or falls into any other identity category that – under Canadian law – is entitled to differential sentencing on the grounds that their background gave them reduced “moral culpability.”
This indeed factored into the recent sentencing for Savile in the shooting of his girlfriend, with Justice Jennifer Moser noting that he’d suffered “destruction in his relationship” with his Indigenous mother and “significant instability in childhood.”
It’s a major reason why, statistically, murdering an Indigenous woman is more likely to yield a manslaughter conviction than a tougher sentence of second- or first-degree murder.
In a 2023 analysis of Indigenous homicides, Statistics Canada found that between 2009 and 2021, manslaughter charges “were twice as common when the victims were Indigenous women and girls (41% of homicide charges) than when they were not (20%).”
One reason being that most of these killings were perpetrated by Indigenous men. Said the statistics agency: “manslaughter charges were also more common when the accused person was Indigenous.
.PB
#5.
Forest City Healing Addiction Healing Centre needs help!
Let's help before this innovative private treatment centre folds up. Dave Weir has given his all. Anyone with me? Do you have some spare time or money?
Patrick 519-474-9977
.PB
RUMOUR:
RUMOURS Circulating out there...:
Disclaimer: All articles, videos, and images posted on Operation Disclosure were submitted by readers and/or handpicked by the site itself for informational and/or entertainment purposes. All statements, claims, views, and opinions that appear on this site are always presented as unverified and should be discerned by the reader. We do not endorse any opinions expressed on this website, and we do not support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any content posted on this website.
I may not agree with everything from the content-producers that I share.
Apply critical thinking and use discernment to
Come to your own conclusions regarding the content!
You need to MAKE UP Your own MIND!
What we think that we now know...
REPORT Today
The world keeps spinning, and now you’re caught up.
The Big Five want to be your Designated Leaders
The Big Five Want To Be Your Designated Leaders:The Regulatory Capture Game
OpenAI.
Anthropic.
Google.
xAI.
Meta.
They want to use regulatory bodies to lock out competition. Fearmongering is the fastest way to get there.
The Big Five’s push for regulation (under “safety” framing) entrenches them but also signals weakness. If they needed regulation to win, they’ve admitted the moat isn’t technical. That invites challengers who believe they can out-engineer rather than out-lobby.
Ex: Mistral, DeepSeek, and Chinese labs release competent models that compete on capability, not novelty. Every release shrinks the “frontier gap”. Thus it creates a power vacuum.
The “Big Five” (OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, Meta, xAI) control the frontier through sheer compute monopoly billions in capex, hyperscaler infrastructure, and regulatory capture dressed up as “safety.”
David Shapiro Clocked This Correctly
There is no way China will allow themselves to slow down because they suddenly developed principles & morals. Especially when they have been stealing technology from the West for decades. Especially through Microsoft backdoor that Bill Gates intentionally left open to help weaken America.
Source(s):
Contact Author
If you wish to contact the author of this article. Please email us at [voyagesoflight@gmail.com]. Availability of author’s contact information depends on if said article was user submitted or reposted.
The END
Comments