Doug Ford’s Ontario is TOAST. Steel gone! And Niagara Wine Country now TERMINAL! Please share and Subscribe! tormatime.substack.com/p/win…

The Princess of Wales is wearing a bespoke dress by Polish designer Gosia Baczyńska. The movement of this dress 🤌

TD executive sues after being fired for adding Christian symbol to her email signature. In a statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Sonja Denobrega seeks more than $400,000 in damages nationalpost.com/news/td-exe…

England, fifty years ago. A beautiful film of Saltaire, the Victorian model village in West Yorkshire. Lovely stone buildings by the river, a church, and a peaceful charm that feels like it belongs to another century.

This is not Beijing. This is Toronto. On a public sidewalk outside the Chinese consulate, a man wearing a PRC flag jacket tore down Falun Gong banners, shoved 62-year-old Lina Li until her chin bled, and threatened to have her shot. He called Canadian pavement “Chinese territory.” He invoked Beijing’s Anti-Secession Law as if it applied on St. George Street. Then he fled before police arrived. That is not protest. That is intimidation dressed as sovereignty. A consulate can issue a denial. Video does not. The man’s words do not. Death threats, property destruction, and the claim that Canadian law stops at the consulate gate are a direct challenge to Canada’s authority. Toronto police say they are investigating. A week later, the attacker is still unnamed and uncharged. That vacuum is the point. Transnational repression works when fear travels farther than the arrest warrant. It works when a woman standing on a public sidewalk is told she can be executed under another country’s statute. It works when the enforcer walks away. Rebel News parked a billboard truck at the scene and asked the public to identify him. That should not be necessary. Identifying an assailant who committed the act on camera, in daylight, in the heart of a Canadian city is the minimum duty of a sovereign state. Canada is not extra-territorial Chinese ground. The man who assaulted Lina Li must be found, charged, and tried under Canadian law. Anything less tells every dissident in this country that the sidewalk is no longer theirs.

📺THE TEN WAYS THE MEDIA DISTORTS THE TRUTH (a/k/a “LYING”)📰 1. EDITORIAL CHOICES. The stories the media chooses to cover are often not the issue. What matters more is the stories they deliberately choose NOT to cover, and in fact they conceal. Good economic news during Trump? CONCEAL. Bad economic news during Trump? AMPLIFY. 2. OUTRIGHT LIES. Remember that time Walter Duranty of the New York Times reported on how awesome things were in the Soviet Union during the Holodomor? “Trump/Russia Collusion” anyone? 3. HALF-TRUTHS. This means reporting half of a story that supports the media’s agenda while ignoring the other half that undermines it. Yes, Trump called the people in Charlottesville “very fine people.” THAT gets reported. The rest of the statement where he specifically condemns Nazis and white supremacists? That is deliberately left out. That is how the half-truth lie works. 4. ANONYMOUS SOURCES. Almost always anonymous sources are unelected, frustrated federal or state officials who seek to undermine the electoral choices of The People. Almost always the media never bothers to check the veracity of what the anonymous “source” claims, and the story itself becomes the fact that some anonymous person “close to the matter” alleges what they allege. 5. THE “WRAP-UP SMEAR.” Step #1: A single media source reports a bogus story. Step #2: The rest of the ideologically-aligned media reports on the fact that the first media source reported what it did, thereby amplifying and legitimizing the original, bogus story. 6. INNUENDO + HIDING THE BALL. This is the use of lawyerly “weasel words.” First, create a story intro and headline full of false innuendo so that the casual reader forms a false opinion, and then bury the few actual facts at the bottom of the story behind a paywall. (Then congratulate yourself for being "accurate" via weasel words.) 7. OPINION AS NEWS. In the era of 24/7 news coverage, inflammatory opinion is treated as news. I estimate that 80% of what passes as “news” these days is actually someone’s highly biased opinion. 8. PRETENDING TO HAVE ETHICS. So-called “journalists” tend to cover-up their lies, omissions and half-truths with bold claims of having some code of “ethics” they follow while in reality being some of the least ethical people roaming freely on the planet. 9. MEDIA-WIDE, DELIBERATE SELF-CENSORSHIP. The matter of Hunter’s laptop leaps to mind. This is the practice of the entire media colluding to suppress a story or discredit it until such time as it is OK to tell the truth (for example, after an election when the harm was already done). Another example is the non-reporting of Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline. 10. SELF-CONGRATULATION. Groups of journalists celebrating the lies of other journalists with self-congratulatory awards like the Pulitzer Prize are a cancer on the entire news media. These “awards” serve no purpose other than to legitimize lying. ************************ There is no profession that is more deceitful, evil and reprehensible than the modern incarnation of "journalism."

Is Carney a Nobel Peace Prize contender? Here's what one prediction market says nationalpost.com/news/is-car…

Reports coming from the Saudi opposition indicate that a violent clash is escalating between Mohammed bin Salman and his brother Khalid bin Salman, the Minister of Defense, and that the dispute between the two men has now reached a very advanced stage, with direct exchanges of accusations regarding responsibility for the military situation that Saudi Arabia has arrived at in its confrontation with the Houthis. Mohammed bin Salman recently conveyed to Khalid bin Salman a message stating that he had trusted his brother and placed him in the Ministry of Defense to build a strong army capable of confronting the Houthis, but after years at the head of the ministry and spending hundreds of billions on the military institution, he has failed to do so. Mohammed bin Salman accused his brother Khalid bin Salman of administrative corruption and embezzlement of funds, and accused him of turning the Saudi army, despite all that was spent on it, into a junk army incapable of confronting the Houthis. Khalid bin Salman responded to his brother Mohammed bin Salman that the responsibility does not fall on him, but on MbS himself, and that MbS is the one who plunged Saudi Arabia, due to his misjudgment, into a reckless war with Yemen from the very beginning. And according to what has reached from the Saudi opposition, Khalid bin Salman told his brother that MbS, no matter what reforms he carries out and no matter how much money he spends on the Saudi army, will not be able to make this army capable of confronting the Houthis, because the problem started with the decision itself and the way MbS entered the war, and his refusal to learn from Yemen's history and the nature of wars there. The conflict between the two men has now reached its utmost extreme, and is no longer just a dispute between the Crown Prince and the Minister of Defense over war management, but has begun to transform into a conflict within the royal family itself. There are real factions within the House of Saud, with part of the princes standing behind Khalid bin Salman and supporting him, while the other part stands behind Mohammed bin Salman, meaning that the dispute between the brothers has begun to turn into a broader conflict within the family over responsibility, influence, and the future of power. And the most dangerous aspect is that the conflict may not stop at exchanging accusations. Information coming from Saudi Arabia speaks of the possibility that MbS will attempt to remove KbS from the MoD and hold him responsible for the military failure, and in response, there is talk that KbS may act before being removed, and that the clash between the two men could reach, in its worst phases, an attempt at a military coup against MbS led by KbS, relying on his position at the head of the MoD and the princes who stand behind him. This conflict comes at a time of extreme sensitivity for Mohammed bin Salman. The New York Times confirmed in September 2026 that the Crown Prince personally asked Donald Trump to intervene militarily against the Houthis, and that he contacted him requesting assistance to stop their advance, while Reuters also confirmed that Saudi Arabia requested American military support after the Houthis' significant advance, and that the attack revealed intelligence failures and erroneous Saudi calculations. As for KbS, he entered the heart of the military institution years before taking over the ministry. He was appointed Dy. Minister of Defense in February 2019, and immediately began working in his new position, then was appointed MoD on September 27, 2022, on the same day that MbS became Prime Minister. In other words, MbS himself is the one who gradually placed his brother in the heart of the military institution and then handed him the MoD in full. And since KbS took over the MoD, the funds have by no means been scarce. The Saudi military sector was allocated 259 billion riyals in the 2023 budget, 269 billion riyals in the 2024 budget, then 272 billion riyals in the 2025 budget, and 240 billion riyals in the 2026 budget. That is, the total military allocations during these four years amounted to approximately 1.04 trillion Saudi riyals. And it is precisely here that the importance of the clash between the brothers lies. MbS is effectively saying that he granted his brother the ministry, time, and money to build the military force he wants, then today accuses him of failure, corruption, embezzlement of funds, and turning the army into a junk army. And KbS responds to him that money and weapons cannot fix MbS's original mistake, and that the one who dragged Saudi Arabia into this war and misjudged Yemen and the Houthis from the beginning is MbS himself. And with other princes entering the line of conflict, the dispute is no longer just a question of who failed in managing the MoD, but has become a conflict within the center of rule itself, and its outcomes could be far more dangerous than just a change of minister.