Democrats And Liberals Dishonor And Disrespect Everything We Have Built

On this continent, two traditional parties that have governed along with Republicans and Conservatives have have been driftingly shifting left.

I know on progressive sites the thinking and belief is that the Republican and Conservative parties have gone 'far right' but this is simply not backed up by the facts. And the best way to measure this is through policy and rhetoric.

Through policy examination, it's been discovered by studies from The Economist, Pew and NYT that indeed the DNC has been going left while the Republican party has stayed pretty much in the centre.

On rhetoric, it is abundantly clear the two North American parties have been sounding much more ideological (easily tracing back their ideas to Marxist and socialist tenets - Warren, Sanders, AOC, Trudeau for example hold progressive socialist ideals; not liberal. Still more troubling, when you trace back the roots of these people, they've been basted in a steady diet of far left ideology.

The rhetoric of the Republican and Conservatives is nothing extraordinary. It only became so when the left started to shift the way they loosely define terms like 'racism' and 'misogyny' to the point we pretty much all qualify. Add toxic and divisive class warfare lingo like 'fair share' and 'cultural appropriation' and 'white privilege' it's not very hard to see who are the ones acting like ideologues.

We also see it in the way they treat our collective heritage and history.

They want to rewrite, rework and revise it in their own image. They want to deceive by reinventing the past so they can control the narrative.

This is what 'old dead white men' is all about. It's designed to make us feel guilty and atone for our sins.

This is why, moreover, they protest to remove statues and paintings of historical figures.

They want it all gone.

Except the parts they like. You know, the great minds who invented various medicines or technology they enjoy. Alessandro Volta  must be a hero to them but he's a old, dead, white Italian guy. After all, he's the inventor of the battery. And the battery is used to push the electric car. An idea the environmental left, I presume, embrace. Does he get a Hall Pass? Are we going to pick and choose who doesn't get the proverbial reactionary left-wing guillotine?

Their positions is literally an endless pit of contradictions, hysterics, and beliefs system rooted in illiberal ignorance.

They rail and rant against the who we are, where we came from and where we can go.

The left's legacy is one of blood and destruction. From the Jacobins to Bolsheviks and Lenin to Stalin and the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany to Mussolini's Italy to China's Mao and the Great Leap Forward (into death), to the Khmer Rouge to Castro's Cuba to various dysfunctional left-wing guerrilla groups across Asia and South America right up to Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela.

This is their legacy.

Theirs to own and choke on their own misery on.

How many examples do we need?

Oh. Scandinavia you say? Yeh well, those countries aren't anywhere near as socialists as the North American left want to believe. The problem is, the Nordic model is extremely pragmatic and open to free enterprise.

The academic left here are hostile to it.

In their minds, businesses exploit and therefore the government must plunder and exploit it in return is basically their philosophy.

For the people.

Like Chavez did.

From 'soak the rich' to the term '1%' to the idea billionaires 'don't make money, they take it' these are all vapid left wing terms designed to foster class warfare.

Some are foolish enough to believe it while I fear too many do it on purpose.

Since 2015 (the election of Trudeau) and 2016 (election of Trump), the left have gone absolutely bat shit bonkers.

They've completely lost their rational bearings and have been pulling the parties they support down with them.

Everything they touch turns to soot.

And the absolute worst kind of socialist is the Caviar socialist; the limousine liberal.

You Mike Bloombergs, Al Gores, Barack Obamas, Justin Trdueaus and Elizabeth Warrens of this world.

If you think they're gonna stop eating angus beef for the environment you're slow at the switch.

They want you to save the environment.

That means you will have to do it with more taxes and less prosperity.

But don't mind them as they hop on their private jets to Tahiti to meet up with other fake socialists from around the world to come up with more plans to fuck you over.

There have been so many examples on display in the past few years pointing to their hypocrisy and lies.

They do an awful lot of yapping about decorum but act like boorish buffoons any chance they get. They claims when they 'go low we go high!' but in realty they go lower. It's Hilary's specialty.

They want civil discourse but when you watch MSNBC or CNN you see a naked hate for others that is so palpable it's thoroughly downright creepy.

What about Fox? I don't see Fox stopping to the levels of Don Lemon and Rick Wilson just did.

But when I saw Nancy Pelosi rip up the SOTU speech, it was the final cherry on the cake.

A more shocking display of disrespect for a nation and people than that you can't get.

No one is saying you have to agree with what was presented by Trump. SOTU addresses have become noting more than a chance for Presidents to embellish accomplishments used as a way to campaign. Everyone knows that so you take it for what it is.

But the human interest stories are always interesting and always a reminder that the people are the nation. Not the politicians in Congress - or Parliament.

These politicians think themselves as damn masters and I hope we continue this progress towards reversing this trend to remind them they serve the people.'

When Pelosi tore it up I saw an 80 year-old acting like a child.

She and her miserable faux-righteous cohorts in the DNC are so filled with irrational hate of one man she didn't realize she was tearing up just a Trump speech. She was tearing up all the men, women and children of all backgrounds and races to their faces. From the military veteran to the Border Patrol agent to the Mueller family. Did anyone notice how the women in white and good chunk of Democrats rarely applauded or stood for good news and stories all decent humans capable of setting differences aside can applaud? They looked like a bunch of sour dopes.

When the President says he wants to protect the Second Amendment theres' nothing radical in that. It's upholding the Constitution. But yet, they sat on their hands. What are people to conclude from that?

Another example is when Trump accurately recounted how unemployment for all Americans - including blacks and Hispanics - are historic lows. They didn't not applaud. If it's true, shouldn't they be happy? Trump wants to give school choice to families. They didn't applaud. Mostly because stye care more about the unions than families. When he mentioned the killing of two monstrous terrorists again they did not applaud.

These are issues everyone should get behind. What's their problem exactly?

This is what I mean by dishonourable and disrespectful.

Pelosi acted like a toddler who didn't like what she heard and decided she was going to have a tantrum. Like a child who refuses to leave daycare and attempts to bully their parents.

There were several tender moments throughout that SOTU including when the soldier surprised his family at the end. Everyone stood and applauded. Pelosi stood and clapped too but she kept looking down on at her damn notes as she did throughout the speech. She wasn't in the moment. She was looking at how to stick it to the President. A clearer example of her lack of class and dignity I can't think of. It was a completely inappropriate and nauseating performance on her part.

It's worth mentioning she ruled over San Francisco. A place that has gone to hell from people shitting on the streets, to unaffordable housing (thanks to excessive government intervention), and homeless people accosting business owners. It's currently run by a DA with obvious Marxist upbringing and beliefs who has ordered police to not prosecute crimes.

What do you think will eventually happen when the people feel sufficiently threatened and thoroughly disgusted? They're going to turn to vigilantism. They're going to go back to the good old days when the mob offered protection. You can't turn a lawful society into a lawless one and expect to advance a civilization. You will destroy it.

Pelosi and her ilk are why San Francisco falters.

When I see a Canadian Minister like Guilbeault go on TV and essentially call for the throttling of free speech without wearing a tie, I see dishonour and disrespect. When Trudeau and the Liberals refuse to answer questions, I see dishonor and disrespect.

Stand up and be men and women. Not arrogant cowards.

These are the faces of the Liberal and Democrat parties.

This is what they think of you.

Not much is it?

*****

Organizations Worth Supporting

I give to the following organizations:

Shriners
War Amps
Salvation Army
Montreal Children's
National Firearms Association
Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Canadian Federation of Independent Business

I've also given in the past to:

Reason Magazine
Le Quebecois Libre

I'm considering adding to the list:

Canadian Civil Liberties Union
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The last two because I've grown extremely concerned with what's going on in Canada under this government of ideological louts.

If you are too this is one way to get involved. Support the people who fight the good fight.

Something Has Gone Off The Rails Under Justin Trudeau's Reign Of Anti-Freedom Terror

Roman historian Tacitus said: "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". 

Cicero added: More laws, less justice.

For years all I heard was how Harper was 'destroying Canada'. But that was all hyperbole. He never remotely came close to doing what Justin Trudeau and his band of sowers of discord have been up to.

Particularly where matters of free speech and expression are concerned.

What's that saying? If it quacks like a duck, squeals like a pig....time to play the banjo. Something like that.

He's up to no good.

'What's The Big Deal?' Says Heritage Minister Guilbeault About Government's Plan To Force Licensing On International Media Companies

Just in case you weren't convinced where this government's head is, here's another example of its troubling fetish for curbing and censoring speech.

Already the media was given an absurd taxpayer funded bail out - remember they believe we're all too stupid to not be able to 'weed out fake news'. Apparently, the only good news is CBC government Pravda news - from Justin now they're exploring an even dumber if not more troubling option.

One where the government would demand media sites get a license to operate here.

Basically, this will end up in one place: With Canadians not having access to international (ie American) opinions, journalism and other media because America media outlets won't play this racket.

People who voted for this buffoon are going to have played their part in his latest obscenity.

Before I go on. The Heritage Minister is Steve Guilbeault. He comes with all the usual decorations and awards bestowed upon activists but for me he's the the eco-militant who scaled the CN Tower in 2001 unveiling a banner that read 'Canada and Bush Climate Killers'.

It's not surprising our commie clown PM appointed another commie clown as a Minister.

His body language reveals a sense of oppositional defiance and strange (blinking) ticks while sporting unprofessional attire. His explanations were poorly articulated and only magnified the preposterous censorious proposal.

Would it have killed him to wear a tie? What's happening in Canada?

What I got from this:

1) The Liberals wants to dictate to streamline companies where the put their revenues. In this case, they want to bully them into paying for 'Canadian Content'. Apparently, international companies are supposed to pay their 'fair share' into our cultural heritage. The delicious irony is we're asking the Americans to help subsidize our content - a nation shallow Canadian nationalists and even misguided Canadians love to bash and engage in anti-American rhetoric.

Then they wonder why I don't take my country seriously.

I ask more directly: How is it their responsibility to do their 'fair share' on maintaining Canadian content?

2) The Minister, taking a cue from his boss, is not telling the truth. A company like Netflix won't pay for squat. They're going to pass that on to the consumer - you and me. It will be a tax by other means.

But don't expect a left-winger to be honest about that because leftists like this guy don't believe your money belongs to you. It belongs to to him to fund his pet projects under the guise of 'Canadian heritage'.

3) Guilbeault's explanation was unconvincing and sophomoric. I know shocking.

His 'we're asking' and it's 'fair share' translates into 'do as we say or else'. Of course creators and CanCon are going to like this. It's free money for them as opposed to going out and putting out content we actually like or want. They're basically saying we can't compete with the United States.

This could lead to the government, to the extent they'd be committed to it. blocking sites who don't play along or sign up for a license. That means, as mentioned, a giant chunk of the media and entertainment we consume from the United States.

4) Can you guess who does this? The EU is a good example but if you guessed China give yourself a pat on the back.

The difference is the Chinese authoritarian government built their infrastructure and so have the means to throttle and censor (control) the flow of information and opinions. In the West, the free market and entrepreneurship set it up so controlling it is a lot harder unless the government flat out takes it over. The resources needed for this would be enormous. There are all sorts of 'backdoor' ways to circumnavigate whatever it is these buffoons are up to. If this government thinks I'd stand idly by watching my civil liberties being eroded, they truly are totalitarian in their stupidity.

You have to be one gigantic useful idiot to actually believe there's any good that can come of this.

That I'm even typing and discussing this in Canada is outrageous onto itself!

Every single day I look in disbelief at what's governing this country.





Updated: He came to his senses and made an about face. But I still don't trust this guy.

Now fuck off Steve and go buy a tie and present yourself to the Canadian public like a man and not an activist.

Site Traffic Reveals Interesting Stuff

I rarely check my blog stats so I figured let me take a peek and see what's going on.

Here's what I found. My biggest audience - as usual is based in the United States. The following countries round out the top 10:

Russia

Netherlands

Germany

Unknown Region

Pakistan

United Kingdom

Indonesia

Ireland

Bulgaria

A couple of off hand remarks.

I have no idea what 'Unknown region' is. Maybe aliens? I'm gonna hope for aliens.

Also. Despite being based in Canada with decent enough Canadian content, Canada doesn't crack the top 10.

Figures. Canadians rarely support their own stuff. It comes of very little surprise to me that Americans see more value in it. 

I mean for the love of God, 'unknown region' out do Canadians visitors! 

The cynic in me tells me Justin figured out a way to get the tech companies to stop Canadians from accessing sites that criticize or make fun of him.

Not that I should matter but who knows?

It's not above him as feeble minds tend to not accept criticism very well.

A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing: Be Careful With Bloomberg

The Democrat field is so wonky and whacky a candidate like Mike Bloomberg starts to look pretty good.

I'd be careful with that.

A politician with a God complex is a toxic brew.

'Little Mike' is a walking Napoleonic Complex onto himself. Like Trump he doesn't have to answer to  anyone but himself. He doesn't have to be a good soldier to strengthen the power of the party. Who knows what a lot of these positions really think but with Bloomberg we don't have to guess.

He's in it to funnel power into his own image. He doesn't need to help the Democrat party. He can use (and hopefully waste) his own money.

He's a no-shit wannabe tyrant.

He exudes it.

They say Trump is the same but he hasn't govern in a manner that curbs a person's free will or choice. In fact, he sides with policies that tend to give power back to the people be it through school choice or prison reform.

Bloomberg is into social engineering as his arrogant soda bans showed. He doesn't give a lick of shit about the poor - and by poor anyone below billionaire status.

His whole 'compassionate' shtick is utter horse shit as his dumbass ads show. He's even going to flat out lie if need be.

Hey Mike. You want gun control? Start by disarming your private security detail.

Ah but his laws aren't meant for him. They're meant for them.

Oh. I'd also be careful with the potential for conflicts of interests between Bloomberg News covering politics and their boss. If this was Trump, something tells me the demand would be for him to divest of such a connection.

But Mike bats for team blue. So it's all good.

Nanny Bloomberg knows what's good for you and god dammit he's going to force you peasants to eat your broccoli if he has to come there and force feed it himself.

 In short, Bloomberg loathes individual freedom.

About That Civility And Tolerance

We all know how the virtuous progressive left and politicians in the Democrat and Liberal parties just love to talk about civil discourse, right?

Rush Limbaugh (definitely one of the most misquoted person in modern political radio) announced he had advanced lung cancer.

Now go read the comments from people who disagreed with him and believed him to be the devil.

Go.

Then come back here and tell me these people should ever mention a damn single word about civil discourse, class, tolerance and decorum.

They possess none.

Sanders, Stalin, Socialism: An Alliterative Cautionary Tale

While the above is quite funny, there's still the need to keep perspective and understand what people like Grandpa Gulag believe and espouse is really not that funny.

It's astonishing to me how illiberal ideas and economic illiteracy has so much support in America and by extension North America and still further out in Europe.

And the ignorance.

It's unacceptable considering the literature that's out there.

Take their stance on Scandinavia. They claim that Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark (Finland is not Scandinavian but it is part of the Nordic region) are examples of 'common sense' democratic socialism at play but they be half right - or half wrong.

It's true those countries offer a generous and luxurious welfare and social safety net to their citizens. They pay for it, in part (but mostly), through high taxes. In the case of Norway, oil money kicks in a nice chunk. Ironic, no?

But here's the part the left either don't know or won't say (I'm betting it's both), those places aren't hostile to free market principles and capitalism as a whole like Sanders and intellectually remedial lunkheads like AOC are.

The truth is, Scandinavia is far less regulated than the USA (and Canada) is.

Here, Scandinavians understand and accept the reality of things and life. Don't disrupt an economic eco-system that helps to provide and pay for all the welfare bestowed upon people.

Business and entrepreneurship create wealth and prosperity on many levels it's mind-boggling this has to not only be reminded and reiterated but strenuously argued about given the vociferous and spectacular stupidity of the modern North American left where matters of finance, business and economics are concerned.

No AOC you moron, we don't need a 'conversation' on the Modern Money Theory because that has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed by just about any economist or public intellectual worth their salt for well over a century.

You can't just print money to pay for 'free shit'. That's how you end up with, well, South America and Venezuela in particular. That continent hasn't quite figured it out as the romanticism of the scourge that is socialism continues to grip their psyche.

AOC and Sanders add up to misery and death.

They're a dime a dozen where the dust bin of history is concerned. Noting they say is unique or remotely practical. It's been tried and done and done and tried.

Pick your spot.

The difference between North American leftists and Scandinavians is the former foolishly believes in wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the welfare infrastructure and they want to hamper business and control capitalism. They want medicare for all, free tuition and a GND but at the same time want a heavily regulated business structure that serves the state. What of other nations in the EU and Canada who do provide for it?

Have you seen Canada's demographics, high public debt and somewhat lethargic growth rates? While Canada isn't quite as bad as the USA and Europe on costly and inefficient bureaucratic red tape, it's still not very good. The unfunded liabilities for our health care system is the elephant in the room no one wishes to speak about.

It won't and can't work.

That's socialism/communism by other means and is condemned to fail.

If they want it, they can go live in places that accept such dark and envious fallacies.

Don't let them crash our prosperity like suicidal kamikazes. We can face our problems and imperfections within our liberal framework and traditions.

But first, rejecting socialism and communism is a requirement as it impedes progress; it does not advance a civilization.

I think the average person understands this.

Now we just need to make sure the generation we've failed with false historical narratives get the message.

Canada's Communication Future May Include Censorship If We're Not Vigilant

I read this report titled,  "Canada's Communications Future: Time to Act."

We always have to act....Now. Save the children. Save the planet. Save it all!

Time to act!

I digress.

It's a paper explaining what Canada has to do in the Internet Age where communications is concerned.

Of course, there are organizations who just love the judgement of panels of experts.

“SOCAN has long advocated that the government introduce legislation that will ensure all content providers, including internet giants, offer significant levels of Canadian content in their catalogue, contribute to the creation of Canadian content, promote this content and make is easily accessible on their respective platforms,” said Eric Baptiste, CEO of SOCAN. “We sincerely hope all parties will work together to support new legislation designed to strengthen copyright and cultural industry protection in Canada and increase and promote Canadian content. Streaming services have been great additions to the Canadian landscape, but they could contribute even more to building more Canadian choices and international audiences.”

Know what I think? I want the best. I don't want a whiff of 'Yeh this Canadian is praised and given awards by the Canadian arts establishment but how much is it really deserved? How would they stack up on a world stage?'

Did famous Canadians who made it in the USA and internationally need SOCAN?

Or were they so talented so as to transcend schemes and had something people really wanted and they delivered?

And this is what it is. A nationalist scheme. It's basically saying to a Canadian, 'you're not good enough but we'll force people to consume your work.'

It's a quota system and a type of affirmative action.

Affirmative action says to a minority, 'you're too dumb that's why we need to give you a break and to assuage us of our white liberal guilt.'

Another variation of this is the CFL's U.S. import rule. The thinking is to leave roster spots for Canadians because.....Canadian. Quality ain't got nothing to do with it.

And guess what? The product suffers. If it's in place, that means U.S. born players are better. The answer is to, you know, do better. But instead, we dilute the product for empty nationalist reasons.

This is why, in part, the CFL is not a league the hard core football fan supports. I say in part because there's also the fact Canadians aren't the most dedicated of sports fans outside hockey.

In addition, there's the usual thinly-veiled inferiority complex to America in all this. On the surface, it sounds great but when you ponder it you're accepting that a) Canadians don't succeed because of Americans and b) Canadians can only succeed through superficial means.

That being all said, none of this is rooted in a value ALL humans cherish deep down: MERIT.

A true sense of personal achievement does wonders for the soul.

Getting awards you don't deserve? Say like a Nobel Peace prize despite being a war-mongering hack with a dysfunctional and violent foreign policy?

I can't imagine Barry looks at the Token prize and says to himself, 'I did good. I merited that.'

If he does, he's a delusional narcissist who accepts deception as a form of truth.

****

But the contents of the position taken leaves me concerned. I see what the EU has done (and is doing) to content and matters of free speech. Notably, they're increasingly crushing it and I can see Canada following less the lead of the United States (the correct stance) and more the European model - the incorrect one.

How are we assured this won't lead to censorship or the 'shutting down' of media outlets the government deems 'wrong think'?

For example, if my position is I think the CBC should be privatized and I blog or go on Youtube to express this opinion, will this be considered 'fake' or 'harmful'? I don't read the CBC because it doesn't conform to my political and philosophical outlook and will express my opinion freely. So why is it 'fair' to tax me? What's to say a government or 'panel of experts' won't deem this to be 'harmful?" 

This reminds me of the specious logic whereby one asserts, 'freedom of speech ends at one's offence'. A terrible trend in the notion of what is freedom of expression and opinion these days I say. 

Moreover, given the natural disposition of the current government to lean against individual  liberty, this causes me as a private citizen some to be skeptical. 

I don't generally always agree with Rebel Media but I see what's going on there with how the government is using its agencies in an attempt to bully them - with tax dollars. 

This is inappropriate and if true, completely unacceptable wholly incompatible to Canada's ostensible commitment to democracy and freedom. 

I feel compelled to actually become engaged because I am troubled by recent developments in this country since 2015. 

Canadians can be pretty apathetic but I would hope in matters of free thought we'd be a tad more vigilant.

A man can dream, no?

Ok Progressives. You Want A Conversation? Let's Have One....About Roe v. Wade.

The left loves to have conversations.

On their terms on on the subjects they choose of course.

So let's have a conversation.

Time to revisit and rethink the indecent and foul manner in which Roe v. Wade triumphed.

The lying and deceit used by those women lawyers (who thought little of exploiting poor and vulnerable women to push a dark agenda) are tactics we see used agains the Second Amendment. Think 'well-regulated militia' as disingenuously used as a claim the Founders didn't intend for individuals to use guns. Which of course is a complete and utter lie. They absolutely intended for citizens to have the right to bear arms.

I notice that SCOTUS was made up of men in that 7-2 verdict. I wonder if feminists who fight the patriarchy noticed.

In addition, 60 million abortions? How is this not a form of genocide? I reckon there's some serious strong entrenched interests in wanting to keep the murdering going. Planned Parenthood and population control eco-activists for starters.

None of this is new to me. I came across this article by Savage in the LA Times in 2005 (and have linked to it over the years) that opened my eyes as well as the simple wiki entry which makes clear to anyone paying close attention how they used 'Roe' showing the whole thing was rooted in lies.

Saturday Night Music

Why aren't these guys at the Super Bowl half time show?

"Um, Ms. Shakira and Lopez?"

"Yes?"

"We need you to step aside."

"Why?"

"Wolf Totem."

"But we have all these shaking butts and flashy lights!"

"Yeh. Thanks but....Wolf Totem....."

Quote Of The Day: Muh Crusades

"Recalling a scene from the famous 11th-century poem "The Song of Roland", in which Christians in Spain threatened Muslims "to choose between baptism or death", Pope Francis recently said, "We must beware of fundamentalist groups; each (religion) has their own. Fundamentalism is a plague and all religions have some fundamentalist first cousin".  

Except.

Um.

I musta missed the part where Christians in North and South America and Europe and in places like the Philippines and other Asian nations with large Christian populations are, you know, murdering Muslims, blowing up buildings and engaging in terrorist activity that is almost exclusively a Muslim issue. 

Not only is Islam at war with itself (Sunni v. Shia), it also is at war with Judaism and Christianity. 

True, there were bloody sectarian fights between Catholics and Protestants in places like Ireland and Scotland but that was more an exception than anything. 

The Commie Pope's use of The Song of Rolland is bizarre because the song was used to depict - inaccurately - events at the Battle of Ronceveaux Pass (Roncesvalles) in Carolingian France in the 8th century during the reign of Charlemagne. A battle where the Franks, the poem's plot claims, are battling the Muslims in Spain who are invaders s on their lands.

'Baptism or death' in this context doesn't seem so bad now, right?

The song was also used during the First Crusade and it's here he attempts to draw a parallel - along with the Spanish rightfully expelling the Moors from their land - with modern Christian fundamentalism.

Except modern Christian fundamentalism doesn't quite have the same vicious violence of modern Islam.

His comments brings back memories of Obama also inserting a facile and superficial 'yeh but the Crusades' part of history.

Nice little deceit employed by the Pope. Which may as well since the Song of Roland was mostly myth because it was actually the Basques Charlemagne was fighting in order to prevent their entry in France from the Pyrenees. So he wasn't even fighting Muslims.

It just goes to show how much Christianity has evolved if people have to go this far back into history.  And when they settled on a story, the choose one rooted in mythology.

We're talking the Middle-Ages here. A dizzying period where romanticism and myth collided with a civilization in its infant stages of entering the modern era. It's, well, complicated. Which is why it's nauseating to listen to leftists speak of this period to score their cheap political points.

And even then, the Crusades were defensive in nature given that from the 9th century on Islam was on the march and seeking conquest in Europe.

Does the Pope actually believe Christians had no right to defend themselves and go out and recapture the Holy Land of Jerusalem? Does he expect us to accept Spain had no right to La Reconquista?

Has the Pope spoken out at the persecution and murders of Christians in Africa and Asia?

Truth is, the values - and liberal doctrines that grew from - of the Judeo-Christian religions and traditions are far more progressive and enlightened to Islam.

From the treatment of women and gays, to the concepts of rule of law, private property and liberty to liberal free thought and expression, is there no doubt Christianity has evolved and aged much better?

I'm Catholic and I don't accept this Pope's penchant for apologies and tiresome specious analogies to history.

Sign The Petition Against The Kilometre Tax!

This may be of interest depending how you value your privacy and right to liberty.

The Quebec government wants to monitor our movements either through putting a GPS chip in our cars or (as if that isn't outrageously creepy enough) put cameras across the province and country. 

At the end of the year, they will present us with a bill for 'over usage'.  You may think you're ok with that but your movements will be logged. The CTF (of which I'm a member) sufficiently thinks this idea needs to be dealt wit and is soliciting support from the public. It has determined they will petition the government and I agree with their position. 

Read up on it and if you're concerned you can sign the petition over at the Canadian Taxpayer Federation.

And consider becoming a member! 

*****

This is a good example of why the climate change system change movement is really used by government to justify eroding our civil liberties. 

If they succeed with this outrageous and preposterous measure the flood gates will be open. They can demand to monitor our lives full stop.

I can't believe this is even being considered.

I'm extremely puzzled and troubles that there are citizens who proposed this.

Don't be indifferent. Take a stand any way you can.

Something Stinks In Justin's Canada: Elections Commissioner And Investigators Enabling Troubling Trend Of Censorship

Do these guys Tim Mackin and Paul Couture know how ridiculous they look?

I especially didn't care for Mr. Couture's body language at all.

Couture also asks Levant 'what kind of person was he looking for as volunteers.' I watched in utter disbelief at this asshole having the temerity to ask such a question. Apparently, we can't be critical of idiots like Justin and Gerald Butts? Who are they to command such protection?

What am I watching? 

And just what the heck is Louise Panneton up to exactly with this scam?

How are this trio remotely serving the interests of Canadians?

This video really angered me. I'm not a fan of Rebel Media but I do accept their right to practice journalism and don't appreciate tax dollars being used in this manner. Isn't this what a damn free society progressive liberals always talk about is supposed to be?

The RCMP, as an aside, refuses to investigate Trudeau and engages in police state bull shit bullying against journalists.

And where exactly is the media in all this? Where are Ivison and Wherry and others? They published their books without being called in for questioning. Do they not think this is outrageous behaviour by the government?

Or are they okay with it?








Oh. Tim and Paul? Go fuck yourselves. 

Is Youtube's Demoniitzation Scheme Illegal?

I'm not expert but this is just an observation.

As an employer, it would be illegal for me to with hold someone's pay that was rightfully earned. I certainly can't do so on the basis or premise along religious or political lines as this would be inappropriate if not unjust.

Furthermore, I must comply with all sorts of wage laws or else face penalties and/or fines.

Youtube benefits from the content created from others. And it is true content creators and providers aren't employees of youtube but youtube is financially profiting immensely from the fruits of their labour.

Yet, they often demonetize channels who run afoul of their notorious algorithms. This is akin to with holding someone's pay in my view. Especially if it was to ever be proven its politically motivated or there's another agenda at play.

Youtube shouldn't be allowed to do this anymore a small business or corporation can't. There's all sorts of rules and laws in place where you can't say 'we're a private business ergo we set the policies'. Those policies must conform to set laws.

In my view, Youtube's behaviour is unprofessional if not immoral. It should be illegal.

They stand in the way of someone's right to the 'pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.'

Time for them to account for their actions like a mature company.

Illiberal Voices: Bernie And AOC

Two things caught my eye this week. The first one is Project Veritas releasing footage of Bernie supporters advocating for re-education against conservatives (in the context of the left this is usually done through coercion and even violence) and speaking, shall we say, fondly of gulags. The second is Alexandra Ocasio Cortez's claim that the DNC is a centrist/conservative party.

I'll try my best to dissect each.

I'm not surprised people in the Sanders rank and file believes or thinks this. He is, after all, a socialist. We know that he was part of communist organizations and at one point praised Hugo Chavez.

In many ways, Sanders is unfit to govern or lead a nation of men. He's actually weak. The fact he hasn't condemned and fired these sorry buffoons is telling. Moreover, it's worth recalling he endorsed Hillary in 2016 despite the rigging of the primaries and doesn't think, despite the mounting information pointing to it, Biden is corrupt.

Not fit.

Ocasio-Cortez's preposterous claim is equally as troubling because it's an attempt to redefine terms and definitions.

Characterize and redefine your enemies as 'extreme'. Next, position yourself as 'centrist'. Suddenly, ideas like the GND (it's for the environment!) and other far left ideas can be sold as 'centre'. That's her ploy.

I suppose to a leftist completely ignorant of history, conservatives have 'pulled right' without giving thought to the perhaps this perception is a result of how progressives have done nothing but characterize people as racist and misogynist? They've completely debased the the meanings of each so much so many of us qualify.

The Democrat party is NOT centrist. It is ideological. How one can watch the debates and conclude their platforms are centre-right is beyond comprehension. Like the Liberals up here, this is a progressive party and all she's doing is moving goal posts around.

Both AOC and Bernie admit to being socialists. So why would anyone accept her assertion?

This is standard MO in the left-wing playbook. Go back and read Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin carefully.

It's not the GOP (and conservatives) who have moved right.

It's the DNC (and Liberals) who have been pulling centre.

AOC is trying to pull a fast one on people. It has been objectively demonstrated by Pew and The Economist (and the NYT of all places) that the DNC is the party of extremism.

What part of her platform can be construed as centrist or conservative? I know words have no meanings anymore (and heaven knows people just pull out political philosophical definitions seemingly out of thin air without thought to history or context) but her clam is unacceptable and inaccurate.

Don't believe her.

Tread carefully.

There are illiberal forces in our midst.

And this is troubling. 

The U.S. and Iran: Some Context

"And I ran, I ran so far away. I couldn't get away.' A Flock of Seagulls.

"Everyone is full of shit". T.C.

Didn't your hear? America is going to war with I-ran. You can't get away from it.

Oh my.

I can't keep up with the spinning of the spinned news by spinsters anymore. They just rewrite history as they go along.

It certainly helps to revise history by acting as if the world started on November 2016.

That way you can pretend anything Trump does as literally the first thing to ever happen.

What's especially astonishing to me is how easily smart people are converted into NPCs swallowing whole the idiotic narratives pimped out.

I believed we all operated from a common baseline of what is truth and what is not. For example, even if one held ruthless criticism of American foreign policy they still understood the difference between objecting to how foreign policy is conducted and playing useful idiot outright enemies.

There seems to have been a relativist malaise that set in where people can no longer distinguish between fact from fiction.

Iran presented itself as a perfect example.

No sooner had the news come out the United States killed Soleimani, people over-reacted to the news convinced WWIII was commencing and with it the reigniting of the draft.

The emotional just took over the rational. All knowledge of what we know about Iran-American relations and the history of the region in proper context was incinerated in an instant.

All of a sudden out came from their basement the anti-war protestors shouting, 'No war with Iran!' t

The killing of a terrorist or military general like Soleimani aren't declarations of war. They can be perceived, as the media has been hammering at, provocations leading to an escalation of war but the act in of itself is not a declaration of one. Hence, the argument the President need not go through Congress thanks to the expansion of power of the executive granted by the AUMF as part of the ongoing war on terror.

Know what is? Constant provocations (including the killing of private contractors and military personnel  and attacking a foreign embassy are. 

Iran has been running amok in the region facing little consequences for their violent acts and a message was sent to the theocracy.

The press led by the usual suspects - New York Times et al -  spewed their typical anti-American posture by running interference for an enemy.

In one instance, a writer at The New Yorker romanticized the beastly Solemaini. Major publication have a fetish for despicable humans. Recall Rolling Stone magazine putting on its cover a murderer in Tsarnaev - the Boston Marathon bomber. And in the after math of the incident, we had the added tragic shooting down of a passenger plan filled with innocents (and mostly Canadians - of whom almost half held Iranian passports) by the cynical and beastly hands of Iran resulting in blowback from its own citizens the regime didn't see coming.

I will attempt to demonstrate here none of this has anything to do with being anti-war and that in fact is everything about anti-Trump hysterics. 

****

An essay on this incident here.

****

It's hard to unpack all that has been said since the assassination but, a couple of assertions caught my attention. One is the claim 'America went rogue' (as MacLean's here in Canada and other publications did)  and to those who pretended to be more measured conceded the hit was fair game but asked if it was a 'wise' move claiming it would 'embolden Iran'.

Many actions (conducted through the ghoulishly comical CIA) by the U.S. since the coup they helped orchestrate in 1953 resulting in the installing of The Shah, were seldom 'wise' and fair territory for criticism. It remains to be seen exactly how his death impacted the region - if at all.

Fast forward to the Iran deal under Obama where the 'unwise' move was thought to threaten the deal. But were the Iranians adhering to it as alleged?

Key buzz phrases used to help build the narrative such as 'escalation of war' and Soleimani being an 'imminent threat', were designed to give the appearance of Trump 'going rogue.'

Here's an excellent in-depth timeline of Iran's proliferation issues. In it, you'll see just how intricate. 

****

It's important to pay close attention to the arc of this story that stretches back decades; if not centuries in the context of the Sunni-Shia war for the Caliphate. That way, it helps inoculate from potentially falling prey how the issue is being portrayed.

Let's tackle the the 'rogue' part, in our effort to bring context, because it's simple and straightforward.

While going through Congress (note, Bush got authorization from Congress to invade Iraq which is why the media couldn't use the 'rogue' angle but instead claimed it was 'unilateral' which was another way of saying 'rogue') to consent on a proposed military measure. There's a lot of leeway and nuance and interpretations to how the Commander in Chief can lead the nation into war. But one little tidbit the people saying 'gone rogue' aren't mentioning is the Use of Authorized Military Force introduced under the Patriot Act in 2001 which gives expanded powers to the Executive to prosecute the war on terror. 

"...The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups."

And expand they did. Which brings me to Obama. Obama utilized the UAMF to raw point of being the only President in U.S. history to be at war every single say of his Presidency. The irony, of course, is for someone who lamented having 'inherited a mess' from Bush, he handed messy conflicts of his doing to Trump. That's how the ball rolls.

I won't go further into this because it would end up being a book but I'll close with one simple fact that should dispel once and for all Trump's decision was a 'provocation of war 'and was proof of his 'mental illness'. The Obama administration, of which Hilary was instrumental, killed Muammar Ghaddafi. An actual leader of a sovereign country. That action has had serious ramifications for Europe to this day and the migrant crisis it helped foster.

Also killed by the previous administration were Bin laden. Al Bagdadhi and al-Awlaki. 

How convenient to over look this. Another inconvenient reality is Iran's constant aggression and penchant for mayhem in the region. Arabs fear Iran, Israel is annoyed and on guard against them, while in Turkey around 60% of the population views Iran favourably despite relative peace between the two counties.

******

From handle 'Razor' on Twitter:

"Folks clutching their pearls that Trump might be leading us to war were awfully quiet when Droney McPeaceprize dropped 26,000 bombs in 2016, and had military actions in 7 nations."

And Kolken:

"Obama conducted more strikes in his first year than Bush carried out during his entire presidency. A total of 563 strikes, largely by drones, targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen during Obama’s 2 terms.... Between 384 and 807 civilians were killed."

Yet, where was all this hysteria then? Does Trump remotely match this record?

Thus proving we have shallow grasps of foreign affairs and that this is more anti-Trump sentiment than anything rooted in principles.

Trump killing a popular general is proof of his incompetence for bring the nation closer to war. Yet, when he correctly assessed it was better for the U.S. to pull out of Syria (along the way we were once again treated to disingenuous cries of having abandoned the Kurds not realizing the nation was divided into five factions and the one they were supporting were the communist PKK. But they're Kurds, right? As long as we use them to bash Trump!) , the very same 'anti-war' people chastised him for 'doing it the wrong way'. Which is it?

Of course, it's better for the United States to just pull out of the region but as we saw with Syria, the intoxication of war is well entrenched among the establishment.


*****

As noted, the media was turning Soleimani into a victim who was popular and good looking. The press loves to romanticize monsters. They portrayed him as merely a defender of his country. But he was much worse than that as reports have clearly indicated.

Nor was the hit a 'Black Swan'.

Israel and the United States had been considering killing him for about 15 years but both Bush and Obama declined to do so. Trump, for his part, took his shot.

So began the histrionics that war was coming.

Except behind the noise, the chances of war was slim all along. Notice how the media has suddenly gone silent as they pivot back to the theatrics of impeachment.

For a couple of reasons. 

1) Trump isn't irrational. And Iran may be a brutal and loathsome theocracy (who murder protestors (incidentally in which Soleinmani orchestrated) and kill gays) aren't either.

2) Iran doesn't have the financial recourses to fight a war. Moreover, the regime is constantly under threat from within from its own population. 

3) Even if it did decide to declare war, they would not mount much of a resistance to the United States. The U.S. can easily disrupt and destroy all major facilities within a week without committing a single solider on the ground. Recall, this is a country who fought Iraq to a stalemate in the 80s. Who could forget the cartoonish lobbing of grenades between the two? That country is going to fight America in a war? This country? Really?

Iran wasn't emboldened by the move. But know what may in fact keep them at least confident? The media (and the Democrats) constantly siding with them.

The first three points move to debunk the idea of 'escalation of war'.

4) As to Soleimnai as an imminent threat. How can someone who has been the chief architect of terrorist activities for almost decades and was targeted by the U.S. and Isreal, be an imminent threat? He was a constant threat. He was at the heart of Iran's plans to dominate Iraq and with it the wider Middle-East posing a huge problem for Arab neighbours as well as Turkey and Israel.

There was, also, a cult of the personality growing around Soleimani. He was increasingly challenging the Ayatollah's power even engaging in unauthorized activities without regard to the Mullahs wishes. So confident he had become, he felt safe meeting with Lebanese Hizbollah (I believe) leaders in open space in an airport field in Tehran at the time the U.S. slew him.

In some way, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranian felt a favour was done for them as he was probably growing into a problem but they couldn't risk killing him given his popularity.

It's not like this hasn't happened before.

Consider the Soviet General Georgy Zhukov. Serving under Stalin, he had grown too popular and powerful controlling large portions of the Red Army. As a result, Stalin could only change his positions.

In the end, the Iranians 'saved face' and attacked a base half-assedly and everything just kinda diffused itself.

 *****

At the end of the day, the Americans took out a bad dude as they've been doing since the War on Terror began. The antics of the Democrats demanding the be notified is just political posturing. Why? As mentioned, because the AUMF dictates the CinC need not do so.

However, let's say Trump decided to inform them. Given the way they've treated him, it's not out of the realm of possibility they would use this as a weaponized political tool and refuse to authorize action merely to humiliate him.

For three years all they've done, in trying to orchestrate a soft coup (notice how Hilary and Obama keep in the news while John Kerry jet-sets around the world conducting a shadow foreign policy. Since when do former administrations behave this way? How is this not treasonous behaviour?) is hold the country hostage. The fact they expected Trump come to them in good faith while they've been impeaching him goes to show how feckless and partisan they've become. They'd side with Iran just to 'stick it' to Trump.

Don't listen to me. Does Pelosi's threat sound like a party who wouldn't make a scene?

Acting as if somehow Trump is lawless, mentally ill and acting on impetus impulses that operate outside the realm of this reality takes one helluva a leap of logic.

*****

Word to the Iranian protestors. You guys have balls. Good luck. You can't count on the anti-American left and media supporting you but you have the silent majority quietly praying and hoping for your safety and success.

****

That is not to say, there aren't legitimate counter points against having assassinated Solemaini. There are. One can even go a step further and argue whether or not the United States should be present in the Middle-East in the fist place.

They can dispute and criticize actions under taken over the years. They can debate the merits - or not - of American foreign policy in the entire region.

But what they're not entitled to is to pretend Trump is 'bumbling into war' based on breathlessly obvious flimsy facts and hyper-partisanship as if everything began in 2016.

My goal was to shed some light into the entire incident and perhaps help contextualize (infused with personal opinion of course) the unfolding events.

*****

Last, I completely reject yet another dubious assertion claiming Trump's actions led to the shooting down of a Ukrainian passenger airline killing everyone on board including 62 Canadians.

It's tragic but Canadians are best to keep their anger directly where it belongs: With Iran.

By all accounts, this plane was 'marked for death' by Iran. There was no soldier scared of America attacking Iran since the plane was taking off from Tehran. The closest American bases are in Iraq.

There's been reports the Iranian grounded all planes except that one which obviously is suspicious and have held on to the blackbox. Worse, they have since bull dozed the crash site (which is appalling and points to their depravity) before Ukrainian and Canadian officials could ever go and investigate. Clearly, they have something to hide.

And we all know what it is. They purposely and fiendishly shot down the plane in an effort to have the media turn on Trump. And people are buying it like fools. Imagine hating Trump so much so as to believe the very worse to the point of believing Iran. 

By contrast, the Iranian people aren't fools like we are in the West. They're keeping their ire and anger squarely where it belongs: With the Mullahs.

So bizarre is the situation you have some twit CEO of Maple Leaf Foods unleashing blaming Trump for the actions of Iran.

Derp: Hit And Derp

Once again, the media hyped up a story in hopes or riling up the public when there was never a need to.

Governor Northam (yes, blackface and the guy who I believe supports infanticide) declared a national emergency assuming the people protesting were violent.

And notice how peaceful it was. Why? Well, Antifa (those loose collection of violent, thugs, commies and losers) weren't there to spark mayhem like they did in Charlottesville. It's pretty amazing how that lie continues to persist. You would think people would have investigated it by now and see that the story wasn't as depicted by the media. From Trump's speech to the turn of events.

And what does Northam do? Applaud the protestors for their civility? Nope. Doubles downs and claims he de-esculated what could have been a 'volatile' situation. Christ, what an asshole.

I'm glad people recognized he was the threat by panicking and presiding people to be criminals for a lawful protest.

In any event, the protest in defence of the Second Amendment (God bless America) protest in Virginia (where a whopping 85 counties of 95 voted to be 2A Sanctuaries. See? It works two-ways. Where leftist cities became refugee sanctuaries, people mobilized and declared sanctuaries for something they believe in too) went off without an incident. It was peaceful and the protestors (which included immigrants, blacks and members of the LBGTQ community) cleaned up after themselves (just like Tea Party supporters back in the day. Remember how they were treated in the media?).

Now go look up Antifa protests and see all the old people they beat up, pregnant women they terrorize, traffic they hold up, private property they destroy and so on.

Yet, on social media the left made their weak attempts to spark a riot and in one tweet, someone asked how 'these cowards' (can I get a narrows gaze over here for lack of self-awareness?!) were allowed to wear masks! It turns out, it was very cold outside and the police made an exemption to the mask law.

What's bizarre about how Virginia (it's worth noting Virginia is a state with many bureaucrat workers)   officials reacted to the protest assuming the worst 'because gun owners' never show a modicum of concern when they know Antifa is coming to town and they have a demonstrated track record of destruction and violence.

The deep state really hates what it hates.

*****

I've observed during the free trade spat with China that a) people sided unwittingly with China - like they did with Iran (post coming on that) and b) conflated the administration's contention of being 'anti -bad deals' with being 'anti-free trade'. The Trump administration, never explicitly said it was against free trade. It was against 'bad deals' they wanted to re-negotiate.

It's the same thing with immigration. It was purposefully, to me anyway, presented that being against illegal immigration as being the same as being anti--immigrant.

Which is a false dichotomy. You can be for strict immigration laws and for immigration.

Just like you can question climate alarmists and still be concerned and cared for the environment. Incidentally, watch Trump address the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland:



Quite refreshing no?

Anyway.

Note: A polite society is an armed one.

Antifa stayed clear and the cops behaved. If the protestors were so violent why then did it end up anti-climatic?

Think about this and the narratives they weave.

Ask yourself just who are the disingenuous ones exactly?

*****

Let's keep with the narratives.

On a recent episode of Judge Judy, I heard her say (to a defendant), '....the greatest boom market that we've had in decades...'

/Looks up on wikipedia who the current President is.

Yet, the media and Democrats are trying to convince people the economy stinks despite the fact it's clearly doing well. Both objectively and statistically.

So disingenuous is the message, it's hard to believe the average American buys it.

*****

Remember the media narrative after the Puerto Rico disaster was how evil and inhumane Trump was for refusing to send aid? To drive the point home, they plastered on social media hm throwing toilet paper around as if he was spitting on them (sorta like that Time cover with him looking down with contempt on an immigrant child) and other outright lies.

Now we find PR officials were the culprits keeping aid from getting to their own people 'because Trump.' Aaaaand yet another example of projection is revealed.

Bad week fo Alex Cora, eh?

People. Don't be played.

It's all I ask.

****

Mini-Mike Bloomberg made a strange comment recently..

But first, like it matters, here's my perception based on some of his actions when he was Mayor of NYC. He may have been good for business, but at a social level he was a tyrannical nanny. He let himself believe he knew what was best for people (as we saw with his infamous and idiotic salt bans) and created an image of himself as King Nanny.

And if you think that guy gives two-shits about the poor or regular folk, think again.  He's the sort of guy who hanging out with millionaires is beneath him. So tread carefully before thinking he's the humanist he paints himself to be.

Then there's the whole creepy arrogant thing about him:

'I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in'

I wouldn't be so sure Mike. You can't virtue signal and buy your way into Heaven pal.

Wanna impress me? Go full St. Francis of Assisi and then maybe I'll take your quip seriously. And neither will St. Peter.

Jesus, recall, wasn't a fan of coercion. You love that stuff to force people into habits you deem they must adopt. That's social engineering and Jesus wasn't about that. So sharpen up your plea at the Gates of Heaven because Peter has some questions.

Only a progressive would think so arrogantly to presume because of 'good intentions' they're 'getting into heaven.' The thought never occurs to them what if their good intentions actually harmed people?

Faux-righteousness is deception and Mike better lay off the bull shit.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, that no one should boast.¿ Ephesians 2:8-9"

And then came this to drive the point that Mike puts ideology and policy above good acts by fellow humans. He was incapable of just having the grace to shut the fuck up or at least just saying, 'Hey man, God bless this man. We'll talk about gun control another time'.

Nope. He had to go straight for the talking point.

And this be the man who is going straight into hell? He doesn't think that Peter - before passing off the file to God - will see right through him?

Behold Mike's take on Jack Wilson saving countless lives:

It may be true that someone in the congregation had his own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people, but it’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.

Right. Does Mike care when ATF and DEA bust down doors with flimsy warrants signed off by sloppy judges go around busting doors and killing innocent people based on the utterly immoral war on drugs?

Mike. You need to go to Church more and calibrate your conscience and bring it in line with your soul.

Assuming you have one.

As for Wilson, President Trump should decorate him with a medal. Wilson is probably ahead of Mike  in the line into Heaven.

*****

Did anyone notice a Bernie staffer calling for violence and talking positively of gulags?

And don't give me none of that 'it was one guy' shit. These people are socialists. This is what socialism and communism (essentially the same crap) think and believe. If they can't convince people, they will violently compel them to do so. It's in the DNA of a leftist. Always was, and always will be.

It's worth noting, Bernie is a pure communist having been part of their world for decades.

They don't believe in liberty and you're a fool and useful idiot if you delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Take a lefty at face value. If they say they like gulags, it means they do.




*****

And speaking of left-wing, the impeachment of Donald Trump begins today and I fully expect the clowns in the Democrat party pushing this unnecessary charade upon the nation to make a mockery of the entire political process.

There is no legit justification for taking the county down this path and I hope the Democrats will rue the day. All they'll accomplish is deepening the divide.

Meanwhile, where the number of people under Obama exploded, Trump is reducing it.

Never mind the economy is humming along nicely for all Americans.

Meanwhile, the Bidens....

*****

Know what? I'm gonna say it first. California is a danger to North America.

They've lost their fucken minds. They're acting worse than creationists in their anti-science behaviour.

Add that in San Francisco its DA is a cold-hard commie (look up Chesa Boudin's background) purposefully setting up class warfare, you have a toxic mix brewing in that state.

I get it Californians. You live in paradise and are too cool to care but you'd better care. And for those states taking in fleeing Californians, keep them and their bad progressive ideas in check because they'll ruin whatever good thing you have going.

*****



*****

And now an antidote to the derp. I appreciate Prager U putting out material like this:

Tribute To Neil Peart - And Rush

The news of Neil Peart's passing wasn't the first post to open 2020 but sometimes life throws a nasty curve ball. I will discuss Iran in a next post.

The Peart was a great  percussionist and drummer with an immeasurable impact and influence on music fans is an under statement. A professional musician who relentlessly practiced to master his craft and instrument. Rush as a band were tireless in their work ethic.

Worth ethic. That's all it is kids. No one is to blame if you don't get the lot you feel you deserve which is all the rage these days. I'm not digging the zeitgeist.

He was also a well-read, thoughtful pontificator of life, history, and philosophy which took an even more esoteric turn after the death of his daughter killed in a car crash aged 19 and soon after his wife to cancer.

Peart was part of the Triumvirate along with Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson that formed the iconic Canadian progressive metal band Rush.

Basically, Peart and Rush were the sort of guys that left you with a distinct 'wtf? did I just hear?' feeling. I'm happy I got to see them live once and witnessed first hand Peart's legendary drum solos. My buddies are 'Rushheads' (and therefore much more invested in the band than I was) and a few of them saw them five or six times in concert.

And what a concert they gave! What struck me was the sheer power and proficient command of their instruments three guys could produce. It was impressive.

As if his drumming wasn't freakishly stunning on its own, he was also the lyricist (accompanied with strong libertarian/Objectivist overtones. He was apparently a reader of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, he wavered from this point and took a more left-wing view while in California) to Rush's music and compositions. They also sent a cease and desist letter to Rand Paul for using their music. Their lawyer has said this was for copyright issues. So it's safe to say he swayed a little. No one is perfect.

Peart without a doubt leaves a gigantic gaping hole in the music world with his passing. Many artists have offered their condolences. When Brian Wilson takes the time time to do so you know you were respected.  Peart considered, like many music aficionados, Pet Sounds one of the great rock albums in history.

Not too long ago, Bowie and Petty - among a few others - left at fairly young ages. Peart too left at the age of 67 thanks to brain cancer. For Canadian rock fans, this is a second icon to pass since Gordie Downie of The Tragically Hip.

But....he will live forever like all great artists in the past, through his work and art.

Thanks Rush. You made a lot of people happy and the fact you're revered and often mention in pop culture from South Park to Trailer Park Boys only solidifies this fact.

And now let's take a look at some memorable moments. For more, just go to YouTube (there's footage of him performing a solo live on Letterman) and see the outpouring of emotion for Peart. Name the genre or band and their fans all salute and respect this obscure phenomena we call Rush.

My favourite Rush song:




To get a sense of his talent:



Another. In addition to Ginger Baker, John Bonham and Keith Moon, Gene Krupa and Buddy Rich in jazz were great influencers:



One of the all-time great intros to a timeless rock anthem. Always remember kids, 'his mind was not for rent for god of government'. Think that up the asses of statists.



Humor:



Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters inducts Rush into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame. A joke of a place for waiting so long to induct them if you ask me. But not as big of a joke as Rolling Stone and their bull shit left-wing narratives and cocksucking for Democrat politicians. See Tom Sawyer lyrics.




Even in conservative circles his passing was not missed. Including this article from The American Conservative.