Ontario Man Lands In Prison For Opinion; Ethics Commission Properly Hammers Trudeau

Like I said. Canada has no commitment to liberty.

Canadians need to come to terms with this reality if we want to fix it. You can't talk out of your ass claiming to be free when in practice you're not.

When writing 'no more Muslims' on a park bench lands you in jail for five months, you know we're inferior to the United States on matters of free speech and expression.

Face the fact Canada. We Canadians have it backwards. We talk about how education and health care are fundamental rights (which they're not) and how they must be provided by the state (thus making them positive rights that which the government can give and take away on its whims), yet true fundamental human rights that are inalienable (negative rights) like free speech and opinion we accept the government can jail us for? That we feel it's appropriate the bureaucracy can determine what is 'hate' speech should sends a shiver down spines across this country.

Are you free by the grace of God or not? 

Worse, you (we didn't vote for him in this house) let a man and his party with so many ethical breaches so far and who clearly holds us in such low regard pass such a law.

What kind of values are these? This is not something to be proud of nor should we condone it.

Porco of Oshawa should have received a fine or perhaps a couple of days for graffiti but five months? He'll miss Christmas with the family over this crap? I understand there was a criminal background in the case but the Judge seems to have had an unnecessary axe to grin in my view:

"....Joseph Porco shows little insight into the harmful nature of his conduct, Ontario Court Justice Ferhan Javed said in handing down the sentence Thursday, Sept. 21.

“Mr. Porco’s message left black marks on a public bench but even after the words are scrubbed away with a guilty plea, it leaves stains that may be more permanent,” the judge said. “Mr. Porco’s message was both hateful and hurtful to the community and needs to be deterred."

I have a huge problem with this statement by Javed. Oh, is it 'hateful and hurtful' I refuse to call him Judge and address him by his family name? I wonder if this judge would render the same verdict had a Muslim wrote 'no more Jews' on a park bench or said something equally as harmless about Christians.

This is preposterous and saddens me we're now a country that doesn't support liberty. We've insanely weaponized words and begun to put people in prison for them. I'm not comfortable with the path we're on.

If you're gonna put someone in jail based on their opinions I now consider this an attack on liberty because ALL OF US ARE TARGETS NOW.

And this is thanks to the lousy bums who run the Liberal party of Canada.

Trudeau can brag all he wants about creating jobs. Governments do that all the time.

His lasting (negative) impact on Canada I argue will be his unnecessary attacks on our freedom. Between Motion 103 and C-16 (as well as his increasing of the debt) Trudeau will leave a stain just like the NEP  schemed by his father - not to mention create a divide along the lines of liberty versus tyranny. People should not be siding on any grounds the arrest of our fellow citizens for their opinions however much we disagree. 

Taking away people's rights will be his legacy.


Oh. What about Justin Trudeau? The ethics commission found him guilty on three of the four trips he took.

"I'm sorry I didn't, and in the future I will be clearing all my family vacations with the commissioner's office. I've always considered the Aga Khan a close family friend, which is why I didn't clear this family trip in the first place. But given the commissioner's report, I will be taking all precautions in the future."

He didn't know. Poor guy.

Is it a crime if blogs report on how full of shit the PM is? Asking for a friend.

Anyway. The article goes on:

"...And the "friend" is Prince Shah Karim Al Husseini, leader of the world's Ismaili Muslims, owner of a private island in the Bahamas and chairman of the board for the Global Centre for Pluralism, an institution in Ottawa to which the federal government pledged a $15-million grant in July 2015.
It is a combination of that grant, that island and the Trudeau family's use of a private helicopter to access the island that has resulted in the prime minister being found to have violated sections 5, 11, 12 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act.
It is also a rarefied sort of scandal of the sort that few, if any, other prime ministers could have walked into.

The prime minister has not been found guilty of corruption — the commissioner found no evidence Trudeau acted to advance any of the Aga Khan's projects or interests.

But he accepted a gift that might reasonably be seen to influence him, and he failed to arrange his affairs in a manner that would have prevented a conflict of interest. What had merely been an opposition allegation of something untoward now lands with the thud of an official finding of wrongdoing.
A portion of that finding actually rests on the commissioner's ruling that Trudeau and the Aga Khan did not constitute "friends" in a way that might have exempted their interactions from one section of the Conflict of Interest Act...."
"...As a political leader, he has defined himself by his efforts to address questions of privilege: seeking to grow and expand the middle class, taxing the rich, reducing economic inequality and so on. And he recently announced another round of town-hall meetings — the previous roundlaunched after the vacation first came to light — by declaring his desire to escape the insular nature of power.
But the trip to the Aga Khan's island is a reminder of Trudeau's rarefied life. Maybe the Aga Khan invited him because he was important, but Trudeau knew the Aga Khan in the first place because he is the son of a prime minister.
And that the trip happened — in ignorance or defiance of the potential for official or political problems — suggests a dangerous insularity.
The prime minister is due to spend this year's Christmas vacation in Canada. But even if he never again goes somewhere tropical to unwind, this should be a lesson in the politics of privilege.
My impression? Trudeau knows what he did. It's just that he doesn't care.
And this makes him doubly dangerous regarding his arrogance and insularity. 


Are We Dead Yet?

Humans are a resolute bunch.

So far the world has survived the Americans leaving the Paris Accords (which was all smoke, mirrors and more smoke anyway), Trump's travel bans (which have support from his constituents  and well within his authority), the killing of Net Neutrality, and the passing of a pretty tame tax bill aaaaand, Trump's tweets!

I really don't want to know how Democrats and the left figure to outdo their hyperbole and wasted political currency and energy on Russia. They already sound completely unhinged. Where to go form here?


Canada Is Not A Defender Of Free Speech

I want (need) Canadians to understand something.

I often hear people say 'we have freedom of speech and thought' in Canada.

Yes we do.

Up to a point.

And therein lies the problem.

We have just enough of it to the point it doesn't run afoul with the government and speech laws.

The fact we have speech laws at all is of major grave concern. The idea we're 'responsible' enough to 'balance' speech so as to not infringe on rights is wrongheaded as it is preposterous. Where there is power, there is risk it will be abused against fundamental rights. 

The Canadian Charter, often cited, is nothing compared to the U.S. Constitution where the rights of sovereign people full stop is enshrine through the First and Second Amendments. No government, persons or entities can infringe or take away these sacred rights. It is inferior to its American counterpart and should be a source of embarrassment given our misplaced arrogance regarding such issues.

America stands uniquely alone for its defense of the 1A, 2A and other amendments (often under attack from the left) in the world today. For it, it's often mocked and chastised but they're in the intellectual and moral right. It's the world that's wrong.

I wish Canada would stand shoulder to shoulder on matters of liberty. But we don't. We inexplicably chose a European model. I don't consider the EU remotely enlightened where free speech and thought is concerned. The UK in particular should be ridiculed mercilessly for their backward thinking. Germany we expect because it's a society that doesn't think in terms of individual liberty. But the UK did once upon a time accept this concept. France and Italy. Holland and Sweden. Spain and Belgium.

All are failures.

In Canada, you can (and will) be prosecuted if you say something that the government deems "wrong".

We don't have free speech.

We have what the government allows.

This is something that should not exist.


Environmental Doomsdayers Are Often Wrong In Their Predictions

Here's an excellent article in The Economist from 1997 titled Plenty of Gloom.

It's an article that discusses how spectacularly wrong environmentalists have been. Yet, they continue to wield an unhealthy influence on public policy across the globe while maintaining an alarmist posture.


"IN 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus inaugurated a grand tradition of environmentalism with his best-selling pamphlet on population. Malthus argued with impeccable logic but distinctly peccable premises that since population tended to increase geometrically (1,2,4,8 ) and food supply to increase arithmetically (1,2,3,4 ), the starvation of Great Britain was inevitable and imminent. Almost everybody thought he was right. He was wrong.

In 1865 an influential book by Stanley Jevons argued with equally good logic and equally flawed premises that Britain would run out of coal in a few short years' time. In 1914, the United States Bureau of Mines predicted that American oil reserves would last ten years. In 1939 and again in 1951, the Department of the Interior said American oil would last 13 years. Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

This article argues that predictions of ecological doom, including recent ones, have such a terrible track record that people should take them with pinches of salt instead of lapping them up with relish. For reasons of their own, pressure groups, journalists and fame-seekers will no doubt continue to peddle ecological catastrophes at an undiminishing speed. These people, oddly, appear to think that having been invariably wrong in the past makes them more likely to be right in the future. The rest of us might do better to recall, when warned of the next doomsday, what ever became of the last one...."

“...Limits to Growth” said total global oil reserves amounted to 550 billion barrels. “We could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade,” said President Jimmy Carter shortly afterwards. Sure enough, between 1970 and 1990 the world used 600 billion barrels of oil. So, according to the Club of Rome, reserves should have been overdrawn by 50 billion barrels by 1990. In fact, by 1990 unexploited reserves amounted to 900 billion barrels—not counting the tar shales, of which a single deposit in Alberta contains more than 550 billion barrels.

The Club of Rome made similarly wrong predictions about natural gas, silver, tin, uranium, aluminium, copper, lead and zinc. In every case, it said finite reserves of these minerals were approaching exhaustion and prices would rise steeply. In every case except tin, known reserves have actually grown since the Club's report; in some cases they have quadrupled. “Limits to Growth” simply misunderstood the meaning of the word “reserves”.
"...Meanwhile, environmental attention switched from resources to pollution. Cancer-causing chemicals were suddenly said to be everywhere: in water, in food, in packaging. Last summer Edward Goldsmith blamed the death of his brother, Sir James, on chemicals: all cancer is caused by chemicals, he claimed, and cancer rates are rising. Not so. The rate of mortality from cancers not related to smoking for those between 35 and 69 is actually falling steadily—by 15% since 1950. Organically grown broccoli and coffee are full of natural substances that are just as carcinogenic as man-made chemicals at high doses and just as safe at low doses.

In the early 1980s acid rain became the favourite cause of doom. Lurid reports appeared of widespread forest decline in Germany, where half the trees were said to be in trouble. By 1986, the United Nations reported that 23% of all trees in Europe were moderately or severely damaged by acid rain. What happened? They recovered. The biomass stock of European forests actually increased during the 1980s. The damage all but disappeared. Forests did not decline: they thrived.
A similar gap between perception and reality occurred in the United States. Greens fell over each other to declare the forests of North America acidified and dying. “There is no evidence of a general or unusual decline of forests in the United States or Canada due to acid rain,” concluded a ten-year, $700m official study. When asked if he had been pressured to be optimistic, one of the authors said the reverse was true. “Yes, there were political pressures Acid rain had to be an environmental catastrophe, no matter what the facts revealed...”

"...Today the mother of all environmental scares is global warming. Here the jury is still out, though not according to President Clinton. But before you rush to join the consensus he has declared, compare two quotations. The first comes from Newsweek in 1975: “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.” The second comes from Vice-President Al Gore in 1992: “Scientists concluded—almost unanimously—that global warming is real and the time to act is now.” (The italics are ours.)

There are ample other causes for alarmism for the dedicated pessimist as the century's end nears. The extinction of elephants, the threat of mad-cow disease, outbreaks of the Ebola virus, and chemicals that mimic sex hormones are all fashionable. These come in a different category from the scares cited above. The trend in each is undoubtedly not benign, but it is exaggerated.
In 1984 the United Nations asserted that the desert was swallowing 21m hectares of land every year. That claim has been comprehensively demolished. There has been and is no net advance of the desert at all. In 1992 Mr Gore asserted that 20% of the Amazon had been deforested and that deforestation continued at the rate of 80m hectares a year. The true figures are now agreed to be 9% and 21m hectares a year gross at its peak in the 1980s, falling to about 10m hectares a year now...."

"...Year 7 is the year of the quiet climbdown. Without fanfare, the official consensus estimate of the size of the problem is shrunk. Thus, when nobody was looking, the population “explosion” became an asymptotic rise to a maximum of just 15 billion; this was then downgraded to 12 billion, then less than 10 billion. That means population will never double again. Greenhouse warming was originally going to be “uncontrolled”. Then it was going to be 2.5-4 degrees in a century. Then it became 1.5-3 degrees (according to the United Nations). In two years, elephants went from imminent danger of extinction to badly in need of contraception (the facts did not change, the reporting did)."

"...A new book edited by Melissa Leach and Robin Mearns at the University of Sussex (“The Lie of the Land”, published by James Currey/Heinemann) documents just how damaging the myth of deforestation and population pressure has been in parts of the Sahel. Westerners have forced inappropriate measures on puzzled local inhabitants in order to meet activists' preconceived notions of environmental change. The myth that oil and gas will imminently run out, together with worries about the greenhouse effect, is responsible for the despoliation of wild landscapes in Wales and Denmark by ugly, subsidised and therefore ultimately job-destroying wind farms. School textbooks are counsels of despair and guilt (see “Environmental Education”, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs), which offer no hope of winning the war against famine, disease and pollution, thereby inducing fatalism rather than determination.
Above all, the exaggeration of the population explosion leads to a form of misanthropy that comes dangerously close to fascism. The aforementioned Dr Ehrlich is an unashamed believer in the need for coerced family planning. His fellow eco-guru, Garrett Hardin, has said that “freedom to breed is intolerable”. If you think population is “out of control” you might be tempted to agree to such drastic curtailments of liberty...."

"...You can be in favour of the environment without being a pessimist. There ought to be room in the environmental movement for those who think that technology and economic freedom will make the world cleaner and will also take the pressure off endangered species. But at the moment such optimists are distinctly unwelcome among environmentalists. Dr Ehrlich likes to call economic growth the creed of the cancer cell. He is not alone. Sir Crispin Tickell calls economics “not so much dismal as half-witted”.
Environmentalists are quick to accuse their opponents in business of having vested interests. But their own incomes, their advancement, their fame and their very existence can depend on supporting the most alarming versions of every environmental scare...."

Dangerous Climate Change With David Dilley: Global Cooling Coming

David Dilley discussing climate change. More on it here.

Haidt: A Great University Schism Is Needed

Professor Jonathan Haidt proposes in this video that because the ratio of professors who vote or lean left is so great compared to those who vote or lean right, the university system is under duress. The reason being each side pursue different ends. The right maintains the original intent of the university which is to pursue truth, whereas the left is going the route of Marxist as taught in Critical Theory.

It's so entrenched now that a split - like the Great (East-West) Schism of 1054 which separated the Orthodox Church from Roman Catholicism - is probably a solution. That is, 'let's just go our separate ways' lest it gets really ugly.

Last month I sat down for dinner with a professor of architecture here in Montreal and that's pretty much what he said could happen.

In any event, until the government gets out of education or stops underwriting the cost of education - which hampers deans and institutions to deal with such issues because they need Federal subsidies - this is going to continue.

Galileo Wasn't Silenced By The Church

As people take to defending, rightfully, free speech they will cite all sorts of examples - contemporary and from the past - to support the argument in favor of free speech.

Aside from the astonishing fact that defending speech is a thing that needs protection, one popular example is Galileo who I'm afraid Professor Hick in his otherwise excellent pamphlet on free speech is guilty of.

The story goes the Catholic Church tried to silence Galileo because he threatened their authority and Church orthodoxy suggesting theology trumped science.

Except this is not accurate.

The Catholic Church from the fall of Rome right to the Italian Renaissance preserved and helped foster Western science. Without its efforts, we would not be where we are in Western science.

And the relationship between scientists and Galileo in particular, was a healthy one as Churchmen often worked verified and accepted his work. Contrary to popular belief, the Church encouraged and welcomed all theories in science provided they could be proven.

The issue was Galileo was a proponent of Copernican theory but the Church demanded proof. Galileo  was not able to provide it and he knew it. Until he could, the Church asked him to stop passing it off as fact. It's worth noting they did not object to him referring to it in theory.

Being a single-minded and strong-willed type, Galileo didn't. That's when they decided to ex-communicate him.

This somehow became (unfairly by Protestants and later on Northern (and French) philosophers who held an irrational grudge against the Church) a story of the Church being hostile to science. Except it was the Church (and his colleagues) who encouraged Copernicus to publish his work.

Yes. Galileo eventually was right (and I suspect the Church knew he was) and history vindicated him but we misappropriate the role of the Church in this episode.

Too bad.

It's unfortunate because since this time we use Galileo as a leitmotif to prove the Church is irrational whenever we want to make an argument against organized religion.

There's something to be said that this has led to all sorts of consequences but this is not the purpose of this post as it would take us beyond the scope of the point: Galileo wasn't excommunicated because of Church theology. He was excommunicated because he had no proof.

Time for the Church to be appreciated for standing up for facts when it was absent.

Something we could learn in today's environment particularly where climate change is concerned. 

Democrats Are Undermining Authority

If you're like me, you're finding it a little too troubling how far the DNC is pushing their anti-Trump crusade. It's to the point of undermining the legitimate will of the people. So much for 'elections having consequences'.

They have not stopped attacking Trump at every turn. A loser candidate continues to speak out publicly, a former President with a slimy under-handed trick uses conferences to challenge a sitting President, and a completely derelict media has been fooled into thinking they're 'defending the democracy' in challenging the authority bestowed upon a President by the people. The 'resistance' or 'Resist Trump' as it were.

The underlying principle behind this 'movement' isn't rooted in principles at all. Rather, it's derived from the fact their own principal wasn't elected.

How's that for invoking Occam's Razor?

It's not Trump the problem.

It's the establishment led by the Democrat party of the United States and its lackeys in the media.

That's my take on things.

Libery Law Site explains it better.


THIS Is What REAL Science Looks Like Ms. McKenna

Catherine McKenna (aka Climate Barbie) is your run of the progressive Environmental Minister (oops, Minister of Environment and Climate Change. No, I did not make that up.) pimping out the usual specious claims about climate change and how we  (the is us)  need to adjust our lives and pay for all their schemes which will mostly likely amount to little or nothing.

The idea that man-made public policy can thwart Mother Nature is beyond arrogance.

Thankfully Canadians are having none of her and her boss's (aka Zoolander) nonsense.

While I think Twitter's management are a bunch of anti-free speech twits, the one thing Twitter does is give a REAL VOICE to people who otherwise would not have a platform to challenge their masters. It permits informed voices to question (and exhibit healthy skepticism) a prevailing government stance running contrary to the people's will and wishes.

It's worth to keep reminding that Canada is a resource based economy for the most part. We derive much of our wealth from it. That we would try and stymy the industry for climate change is not just foolish, it's irresponsible and immoral as it could translate into lower growth and standard of living - and more debt.

McKenna, though, is not one to accept this rational and pragmatic view.


I mean witness her impulsive tweet about that alleged starving polar bear:

THIS is what climate change looks like. Climate change is real. As are its impacts. Time to stand up for our polar bears and our planet.

Those poor polar bears. Do they even know they're being used as pawns in the climate change wars?

Stand up for what? If climate change is real and it's man-made, then yeah, I guess you may feel compelled to jump and stand up and intervene. As one put it:

Do you see any snow on the ground. The climate is changing. This is not the first picture of an emaciated polar bear. "Evolution cannot compete with man accelerated climate change."
Now it's accelerating huh.

But what if climate change (climate is forever changing as any non-dope knows) is not man-made?  Indeed, there's more than enough literature pointing it remains unclear if not flat out inconclusive. If accurate, then we'd be interfering with the natural unfolding of Mother Nature, no?

Alas, in Ms. McKenna's mind, we need to intervene and save the world based on faulty premises and emotional jargon.

You know - or should know- their MO at this point. Take an environmental event and stick a 'see? This is why we need to do something, anything NOW!' tag to it without proper context or facts. It really is the politics of emotion.

Anyway. About that polar bear. Turns out there really is nothing we could do.

Turns out. Well, it was just nature running its course.

We just happened to get a picture of a dying polar bear. Again, we fail to consider the scale of things. How many animals across the globe face death in this manner? Think about it. It's the natural order of things. 

Taking a sad picture of an animal as proof for climate change policy is grotesque and ignorant on so many levels.

Party of science my foot. 


CNN, CBS, MSNBC And Their Lackeys: Spreaders Of False Of Narratives And Cui Bono?

The question now to be asked is, why is the maintstream media ferociously attacking Trump? The more they spread falsehoods the more they put the spotlight onto their motives. Cui bono?

Greenwald, as usual, eviscerates CNN, CBS and MSNBC in his latest article:

"...How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?
The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this — and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate — that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them.
Third, this type of recklessness and falsity is now a clear and highly disturbing trend — one could say a constant — when it comes to reporting on Trump, Russia and WikiLeaks. I have spent a good part of the last year documenting the extraordinarily numerous, consequential and reckless stories that have been published — and then corrected, rescinded and retracted — by major media outlets when it comes to this story...."
"...No matter your views on those political controversies, no matter how much you hate Trump or regard Russia as a grave villain and threat to our cherished democracy and freedoms, it has to be acknowledged that when the U.S. media is spewing constant false news about all of this, that, too, is a grave threat to our democracy and cherished freedom.
So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I literally cannot list them all. Just consider the ones from the last week alone, as enumerated by the New York Times yesterday in its news report on CNN’s embarrassment..."

The media has also pushed an agenda to impeach Trump without a single shred of evidence to do so. Which begs another question people may begin to ask: When does their deliberate spreading of false narratives cross over into sedition?


Quote Of The Day And The Inhumanity Of The Secular State

"Then-New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg famously banned people from donating food to city shelters in 2012 "because the city can't assess their salt, fat and fiber content.""
Former NYC Michael Bloomberg.  Arrogant, self-absorbed, twit.

This is what happens when the secular state ripped the role of the Church out of caring for the sick and poor - which it was vastly superior at. 

Government crack downs, for example, on good samaritans we see more and more of is less designed to proceed anyone and more to remind who is boss and to prevent them from looking bad. Same with 'association groups' like, for example, for the AMA (which supported Obamacare - a form of government sanctioned welfare that removes agency from free peoples). None of them want anyone on their turf.

The latest story comes from Atlanta (is it a surprise it's a Democrat strong hold? I'm connecting the good old fashioned dots of how much the left loathes religion and the Church. Just saying) where police are handing out fines to people for the crime of....feeding the homeless.

Think about this for one second.

We fine people for being kind because they don't have a permit. It's not kindness unless it's been issued by a benevolent bureaucrat.

We're taught all the key words from young about how to be civil and do our parts in a civilized society; to do good by our communities. Cooperation, compassion, to respect and say hello to our neighbours and so on.

Yet, everything the government does runs contrary to this.

It *says* it's for our own good but instead, it rips to shreds the notion of humanism.

It has to. Humanism has nothing to do with it, votes and how it calculates into power do.

This is how cynicism seeps into the mindset of people. 

'Why should I? Let the government deal with them' is a most unfortunate way to think with horrible and horrific implications.

That's why the Catholic Church for hundreds of years were the greatest provider of care. It's no coincidence they invented the concepts of charity and hospitals as we know it. They were compassionate for their fellow humans.

Bloomberg or De Blasio or whoever else ordering these 'fining hits' couldn't care less about you.

Don't believe me?

Such actions are to remind you who you serve. Once upon a time it was God.

Now it's City Hall or any government agency.

Everything is a contradiction with government. They're good to tell you to be 'kind' and are just as quickly likely to fine you if it runs afoul with some absurd law.

Ask yourself this. Despite they billions and billions the progressive state has spent on welfare and various wars on poverty and drugs, are we better off?

I've written in the past we're now a 'hyper secular state'. One in which that has completely lost the original intent of what the Catholic Church taught people about how to treat one another. The howls of 'separation of Church and State' was strictly a political one that extended into how we govern one another on a personal level. Like many things in our past, we also misunderstand the origins of how we arrived at the separation but that's not for this post here to discuss.

And where people fall through the cracks - the truth is believe it or not from what I've learned over the years the homeless do possess dignity and don't necessarily want government welfare or handouts. Some simply prefer to live out on the streets or elsewhere - there is absolutely nothing wrong in their fellow man to hand them some bloody fool.

Cracking down on them is immoral.

Pure and simple.

The Mayor of Atlanta and others like him should think about this the next time they sit in Church.