The Charter Is Inferior To The Constitution

Canadians "think" the Charter - that useless piece of wasted, uninspiring rubbish - protects their freedoms.

It doesn't.

If Canadians truly value their liberties - and to be honest, I'm not sure they do - they'd request a rewrite; one in which is plain and explicit (as well as eloquent) in ensuring freedoms flow from the individual and not from the government.

In other words, we need our version of the First Amendment.

Like usual, the Americans one up us on such matters.

And it's the SECOND AMENDMENT not the Fifth Amendment you ignoramus.

Troubling video on so many levels.

Exactly. If America falls. Game over.


Disturbing Revelations On Khalid And Motion 103

I'm not liking any of this.

And if the Liberals have any sense (I'm not holding my breath) they'd kill Motion 103.


Do not allow ourselves to be on the path to loss of liberty like we see in Europe.

Let me put it to you this way my fellow Canadians.

After reading the link, do you want to give up your right to free speech and opinions for her and the organizations she was tied to?

I know where I stand.

Do you?

Obama Alinsky On The Prowl

About Obama's alleged "class'.

Best way to show it is this way.

George W. Bush on Obama:

"I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena," Bush said. "He deserves my silence."

Obama appears to be behind the anti-Trump protests. He praised recent demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And last year, after Trump’s upset victory, he personally rallied OFA troops to “protect” his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.
He promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the fray.
“Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”
Added the ex-president: “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them."
“Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go, and I hope that all of you are, as well.”
Quite the cocky, arrogant, commie dickhead, eh?
In other words, he lacks the grace and class of his predecessor.

Worse than that, he's agitating for civil unrest. Looks like Americans are going to rue the day they elected this person twice. He should have been given one mandate and relegated to the dustbin of history. Instead, two terms has inflated his ego and bolstered his sense of self-importance.

There indeed should be a revolution. 



Over-Whelmed By Reactionaries

While I'm not posting frequently, I am collecting stories. It's just that they come in fast and furiously and can't keep up. I like to at least research and ponder before I post my comments but I have to say, it's more than disturbing what I'm seeing and reading.

This thing of the intelligence community leaking actual classified information in what seems be nothing more than to hurt Trump is nuts. This is not a game anymore. They're actually taken to putting partisan politics above the security of the nation.

Never mind all the other crap. Worst among them being the left erecting excuses justifying punching people. Tell you what, they may just get what they wish for. Except, it won't end well for them.

Also. I was very disappointed to hear founder of Under Armour Kevin Plank take a full page ad apologizing for recent comments he made.

His 'mistake'?

For saying it's good to have a pro-business leader as President.

But sounds as if celebrities he sponsors rebelled and he had to retract rather than stick to his principles.

This is the zeitgeist.

And it's not good.

Not good at all.

Now I'm starting to get the gist of what Edmund Burke was saying the French Revolution was an abhorrent event. He probably saw right through the bull shit.

He wasn't entirely wrong. Soon after the Jacobins and reactionary forces took over.

I see a similar scenario unfolding as reactionaries are driving a narrative for its own sake free of any intellectual or moral principles.

The best we can do is just hold the line and hope the casualties are limited.


On The Patriots And The White House

It's worth noting...that when Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas chose to not visit The White House after the Bruins won The Stanley Cup citing he disagree with Obama's policies, he was ripped to shreds in the media. We were told it wasn't about the President but respecting the Office.

Now, six New England Patriots have decided they won't go because of Trump's policies. Suddenly, the narrative switches to 'freedom of choice' and 'questioning authority' and all that.

Sorta like how the anti-war left have arisen once more! Even though Trump has not specifically made any proclamation of war; unlike his predecessor who was at war every single day of his Presidency.

Principals over principles.

Therein lies what grates me most. Once you remove partisanship from the equation, how is what these players are doing any different from what Thomas did? Are we to believe somehow one was disrespectful or borne out of ignorance (I seem to recall Thomas's statement as being rather eloquent) and the other rooted in principles and knowledge?

For it be, I call bull shit and further call out the hypocrisy of people.

Principles my ass.

In any event, plenty of athletes skip The White House visits for a myriad of reasons. Tom Brady didn't go the last time the Patriots won a couple of years back.

But the difference here is these athletes politicized it and now they're fair game for criticism. For example, one of the players asserted Trump is a racist. Aside from the possibility of this being libel, I fail to see how this is a legitimate reason given race relations eroded under Obama who didn't exactly make great efforts to quell the rising divisiveness. On the contrary, his rhetoric often incited it. Here are 14 ways he did so.

Sure. Don't go. It's your right. It shouldn't be an issue. But imagine the uproar if six athletes did so under Obama.

Now you get my point.


Kill Motion 103 - NOW

I was wondering how long before the clowns in the Liberal party would come up with a law designed to curb free speech on the backs of the Quebec City massacre of six Muslims.

Simple question: Are YOU prepared to give up on freedom for ONE incident?

Does this strike you as 'balanced' or measured?

Not to me it does and the CBC used the appropriate word: Chilling.

This is how you end up on the slippery slope to thought control.

American leftists are already on that track as they've taken to positions that basically stipulate: You're racist even if you don't know it.

We need to put an end to this shit.

And fast.

No to Motion 103.

Here's how Trudeau put it:

"In a seven-minute response, Trudeau said fundamental rights and freedoms are enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that individual rights must be balanced with others in our society. Determining the parameters is an ongoing discussion in a dynamic, successful society like ours, he said.
Trudeau said the motion aims to address the fact there is a community that is "particularly vulnerable these days to intolerance and discrimination."
"You're not allowed to call 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theatre and call that free speech," Trudeau said.
"That endangers our community. And as we saw 10 days ago in Quebec City, there are other things that can endanger our communities. And we need to stand strongly and firmly against that."
Not a day goes by where he greatly disappoints. 
This is nonsense.
First, you got that? YOUR FREEDOM hinges on how someone may perceive your speech. Think about how profoundly problematic this position is.
The argument Muslims are 'vulnerable' is tenuous at best. Their experience is nothing compared to black Americans, the Irish, Jews (especially Jews) and Italians faced. I reject outright that my right to criticize Islam or Muslims be subjected to such grotesque laws and logical fallacies.

Notice how they're deliberately conflating legitimate criticism of political Islam and terrorism with Muslim people in general. It's an outright lie Miss. Khalid is cynically preying on. It's akin to American progressives purposefully not distinguishing in the immigration debate the key part about being worried about illegal aliens does not mean being anti-immigrant.

But this is what progressives do. Conflate and run amok with faulty premises. 

Does Trudeau want the same kind of authoritarian abomination we see in Europe where, for example, comedians are taken to court for making fun of Muslims? Is this his 'vision' or definition of Canadian 'values'? Is this 'justice' in his mind? It sure isn't mine. 

Worse than that, with this terrible proposal comes the reality of dragging people through the system potentially ruining their lives in a classic 'the process is the punishment' debacle.

For having an opinion.     
Last, I'm not surprised a shallow mind like Trudeau wasn't aware that the 'fire in a crowded movie' line - for some reason the go to default position for leftists looking to curb speech - isn't even illegal. 
It never was binding and it was overturned 40 years ago because it was so onerous.
You can shout it and you ain't going to jail for it. 
Except from The Atlantic:
"Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
So this is the phrase liberals use to push their anti-free speech agenda. Why am I not surprised?
Kill Motion 103.

Phrases And Terms I hate: Not Qualified

Progressives love their empty jargons. It's all they've got.

They've over used words like Hitler, Fascist, Nazi, misogynist and racist so often and without much thought it has rendered those terms toothless. Gee, I wonder why. Why debate when you can just shout down the person you hate with any of those *scary* terms.

Now they've added 'fake news' to the roster. Funny how that one suddenly became a *thing* as soon as their side lost the election. I mean, come on! It has to be because of *FAKE NEWS!* No one could be so stupid to vote for Trump!

So it makes perfect sense - in their little minds - 'the deplorables' were mislead. Again, this is just projection on their part. See,  progressives love to be led by experts so when they see people who don't, it has to be because they're 'anti-rational' or whatever else nonsense they've convinced themselves of.

The thing is, it's so obvious to pick out the cynicism in their game it's comical as it is troubling because they've now taken to violence and destruction of property. Once the big scary words lose their panache, what else do you have left but to lash out in such a manner, right?

Now they're on this 'not qualified' crusade.

Anyone and everyone is not 'qualified' to run this or that department.

As if this is something new in world politics.

'Most unqualified government in history!" just means you don't have careerists or cronies running your show. It could actually be a good thing to have outsiders running the government.

In any event, as if there has been enough hypocrisy on display, they don't seem to mind the biggest names pushing something like climate  system change - Al Gore, Bill Nye, David Suzuki, Naomi Klein and others - aren't technically qualified to talk about climate change.

Never mind the same can be said of Paul Krugman and his political musings.

Yes, they're not in government - except for Gore and the fact they can influence policy - so....

Check out Obama's failed nominees.

Disgraceful Socialist Swedish Women

Swedish socialist women spark walk of shame as they don Hijabs in Iran.

So progressive.

I mean nothing scream women's rights by undermining Iranian activist women trying to lift this ban.

This is what happens when you superficially enforce diversity programs everywhere. You end up with idiots and middling minds in positions they have no business being in.

Their Western self-loathing is repugnant.

Be proud Sweden. Be proud.


Black History Month Had Its Time

Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is now 0 for 2 where his musings on history is concerned. This blog took apart his ridiculous 'we are Rome now' comments after Trump's election as part of the neurotic over reaction to Trump's election. The overall gist was to point out a country doesn't just become 'Rome' at the snap of a finger through one election. If anything Rome teaches us, these things evolve; it's a process. 

His assertion displayed a superficial grasp of Roman history. 

Now he weighed in on black history month. 

What do I think as a dedicated observer and reader of history?

I don't like the idea of black history month. It's absurd. If anything, it demeans the black experience and contribution to American culture and history. The same would be said of a Latin or Jewish or Irish or German or Italian American history month. What's the point of ghettoizing history?

Black history month is identity politics by other means.

There's no such thing as 'black' or 'white' history. There's just American history and African-Americans make up a part of that experience.

I think American blacks need to rebuild their families; once a model for Americans to adhere to. Not only that, it's time to lay to rest the slavery position. This long memory is damaging the essence of blacks and is doing more harm than good. It's time to truly rebuild the beauty of black America.

Morgan Freeman nails it:

Notice the reaction by the 60 Minutes interviewer in all its shocked smugness. He couldn't believe what he was hearing because he couldn't conceive of anyone - let alone a black man - saying such a thing.

All he could muster was 'how do you get rid of racism without BLM?' How much more vapid can he be?

Having a month dedicated to history of a group prevents racism?


Ontario, not to be outdone, declared October 'Islamic heritage' month

Absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. Think of how retarded our politicians have become. Nationalities who have contributed far more and have been in Canada far longer like Jews, Irish, Polish, Ukrainian, Chinese and Italians don't have a month in their honor (now you're sort of getting the picture of why it's patently stupid).

Up until the 1980s, there were barely 100 000 Muslims in Canada. They pretty much have nothing connected to the founding and growth of this country on any level. They came to a country that was already established and built by others - Jews being a key player.

Yet, they have their own fricken month? Ontario is run by real morons.

Oh, by the way, just an off-hand observation. Those Muslims senselessly murdered in Quebec City,
it also should be noted, because it's kinda important, the Mosque was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood and was found to be funnelling cash to terrorist organizations.

Don't be emotionally manipulated.

I better be careful. This can get me in serious trouble in Trudeau's Canada.


9th Circuit Decision on Trump's Immigration Ban Is Treasonous

They apparently have an 80% losing rate (that is, overturned) when their decisions go to the SCOTUS.

The law is crystal clear: The President has the power and it's constitutional.

Principles my ass. Obama imposed immigration bans 19 times and no one said boo.

Trump seems to be up against a Leviathan 2.0 corrupted system calcified with too much partisan bull shit to the point America no longer has a sense of its values; its laws. If America sinks folks, so does the West.

Drain the swamp.

Drain it...fast.

America has no self-respect if it won't uphold it's own laws.

No To Bill C-16

Anything that criminalizes speech is censorship and on the road to fascism.

The Great Irony That Escapes Progressives

Progressives love government. They advocate for more of it. It's the line, in their minds, that keeps us from becoming savages. Civilization is the government.

Except the government is force.

All the people or minorities or groups or whatever they claim to want to help are victims of government force.

When socialists were being beaten up in Italy just before and during the war, it wasn't Fascists per se that did it - it was the government. The ideological names change but the violence stays whoever is in power.

Poor people in America languish in prison largely because of the war on drugs and poverty.

Now we send people to prison for selling loonies and potentially - who knows? - for drinking too much sugar.

The aggression of the state on people in the interest of their own good contributes - not enhances - to the decay of communities as it busts up families and businesses.

People now losing their minds over DeVos are not connecting the dots. The largely useless and toothless Department of Education isn't an agency that's protecting the integrity and quality of education; one could indeed claim it's there more to protect the unions. Indeed, one has to wonder about a department barely 40 years old can have such a strange almost messianic hold on the left. The United States - and other countries - managed quite well (it can be argued even better) before its creation.

Another irony? Progressives are threatening to pull their kids out of public schools (always for the right reasons with these folks, eh?) and considering options like homeschooling are proving the very point conservatives and libertarians and true reformers have been asking for: CHOICE.

And DeVos is a proponent of school choice who prefers education be handled at the local level.

It's the exact recipe needed to (hopefully) reform public schools and permit creative minds in the private sector offer new ideas where education is concerned.

THIS is the real issue.

It's not just in education but in every facet of our lives. Government should not have the final say or be the ultimate arbitrator of where we send our kids to school or how we use health care services.

The only legitimate and valid way is through free choice.


Another area where progressives aren't thinking straight is when you compare climate change and unfunded liabilities.

The former is considered to be 'settled' even though it's quite clear A) there's a body of work questioning it and B) the solutions to an issue rooted in faulty premises and manipulated data are likely going to amount to little at an enormous cost to economies and ultimately individuals.

The latter, on the other hand, we know to be fact. However, the left are unwilling to take the necessary steps to begin the process of remedying the real elephant in the room for the eventual collapse of our welfare system. It will have a far more immediate and drastic impact on the lives of millions.

Dealing with this issue is possible and within our grasp and means. It will take some readjusting of how we view the role of government in our lives where finances are concerned as well as real reconfiguring of how pensions are dealt with. But it can be done with true leadership and realistic and honest discourse.

It's a fixable human problem; climate change, on the other hand, is mostly in Mother Nature's control (therein lies the heart of the debate that's brought into question - man's role in climate change) to which in reality we don't have the power to have an meaningful solutions.