Archive by Author
May 22, 2016

Cassandra Oosterhof Seeks “Extreme Huntress” Title

Alain Poulin liked this post

Cassandra OosterhofCassandra Oosterhof needs your help. Her quest is to win the title of Extreme Huntress 2017 but she cannot fulfill her dream on her own. She needs your help.

What is Extreme Huntress? It’s a competition where women from all over the world are invited to submit a 500 word essay on why they are “the most hardcore Extreme Huntress.”

The essays from every participant is scored and the public is invited to vote for their favourite online, which is the contest’s current stage.

Given only the top 6 finalists move on to the next stage it is critical to get the required votes, which is why Cassandra is asking for your help.

The Extreme Huntress website explains further.

The Extreme Huntress™ Competition is about preserving our outdoor heritage. Our goal is to create positive role models for women who want to participate in hunting.

With a 50% divorce rate among parents and kids becoming invested in other sports at a younger and younger age, kids may not have the role models or opportunity to start hunting when they reach the legal age to hunt (12 or 14 depending on the state). If mom goes hunting, so will her children, thus preserving our outdoor heritage for future generations.

Now in its 8th year, the competition is wildly popular among contestants and fans. The Extreme Huntress Competition continues to set the bar for serious outdoors women, while at the same time providing positive role models for women who are new to hunting, shooting and other traditional outdoor sports. In addition, by preserving our outdoor heritage for future generations, we ultimately create more conservation stewards for wildlife and their habitat.

Cassandra Oosterhof's Ultimate Goal - Extreme HuntressThe primary goal of the Extreme Huntress Contest is to preserve our outdoor heritage. The secondary but no less important goal of the contest is to create positive female role models for women who want to learn how to hunt and enjoy the outdoors.

These are goals we can all get behind.

Cassandra Oosterhof is precisely that kind of role model. She easily embraces the goals of this competition because they are simply her way of life.

Through my experience as a huntress I have I learned that a successful hunt isn’t just about going out and harvesting an animal, although that is the ultimate reward, it is about everything that happens along the way. It is about spending time in the outdoors away from the hustle of everyday life. It is about the time spent with loved ones. It is about the connection to nature. I have learned to respect animals more than I ever thought possible.”

What a great attitude from a young woman who is clearly passionate about hunting and being a role model for other young women. To learn more about Cassandra’s passion for hunting and her dream of being named Extreme Huntress 2017 read her essay at

To me an extreme huntress is a woman who has a passion for the great outdoors and the wildlife that inhabits it. She cares greatly for the conservation of green spaces and animals so that they can remain abundant for generations to come.

An extreme huntress is a woman who stays physically fit and conditioned so she can take on all that the elements and landscapes throw at her. An extreme huntress is a woman who is mentally tough so she can withstand all hunting situations. An extreme huntress hunts so she can eat and provide organic food and have pride it in. She hunts so she can enjoy quality time with family and friends. She hunts because it is instilled in her; it is a part of her human nature.

I hunt for all of these reasons. I hunt not just for something to do, but because it is a part of who I am.

I am an extreme huntress.

Eric Welsh wrote an excellent article on Cassandra’s quest in Friday’s Chilliwack Progress newspaper. I highly recommend you read that article in its entirety.

Cassandra Oosterhof wants to win the Extreme Huntress Competition, and she needs your help. The Chilliwackian is one of 21 semi-finalists in a world-wide challenge, up against outdoors-loving women from Canada, the United States and as far afield as South Africa and Australia.

Oosterhof and the others are gathering online votes between now and June 1, hoping to be near the top when voting closes. The top six will compete in a series of skills challenges at a hunting ranch in Texas, and their exploits will be filmed and aired as a reality show on

Right now Cassandra has only 499 votes. That will NOT get her to the next round of the Extreme Huntress competition. The current leader has 1,070 votes, which means she has a lot of catching up to do. Cassandra is confident the people of Chilliwack can help catapult her into the top 6 though, so she is officially asked for your help!

At the moment she trails 6th place contestant and RCMP Constable Candace Knudsen of 100 Mile House, BC, by 58 votes and those 58 votes prevent Cassandra from moving forward in the competition. Cassandra must overtake at least 6th position or her dream is dead.

Please help Cassandra Oosterhof make it to the next round of the Extreme Huntress competition. Vote for her today at

Cassandra Oosterhof Wants The Extreme Huntress Trophy!When you go to the voting page enter “Cassandra” in the search box, click the box to receive email updates from her, if you like, and then enter your email address and click the green “Vote” button. Click on the link that says ‘send confirmation email’ and then check your email for that confirmation and finally click the link inside that email.

Yes, it’s a few steps that will take a minute or two, but isn’t that time well spent when it’s in the service of a young woman with such an awesome goal?

“You get the adrenaline from the hunt, you work hard to provide organic healthy food, you donate to conservation, you spend quality time with loved ones out in the field and you build a strong connection to nature and the outdoors.”

It’s deeply gratifying to see a young woman “get it” when it comes to hunting and conservation, and that’s really what the Extreme Huntress Competition is all about.

To recap…

Cassandra Oosterhof needs your help. Her quest is to win the title of Extreme Huntress 2017 but she needs your help to fulfill her dream. If she is to make the next round of the Extreme Huntress competition she needs you to vote for her today at

When you go to the voting page enter “Cassandra” in the search box, click the box to receive email updates from her, if you like, and then enter your email address and click the green “Vote” button. Click on the link that says ‘send confirmation email’ and then check your email for that confirmation and click the link inside that email.

Yes, it’s a few steps that will take a minute or two, but isn’t that time well spent when it’s in the service of a young woman with such an awesome goal?

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 15, 2016

Entitlements – A Complete List of What The World Owes You and Why


This commentary was sparked by an image someone sent me on Facebook. It’s perfect and is displayed at the end of this article.

Our world is filled with whining crybabies who believe the world owes them simply because they waste oxygen. It’s a sad reality and the list of what the crybabies of the world believe the world owes them is shockingly comprehensive. Abusive, really, when it is applied to those willing to actually get off their butts and earn their own living.

Job-Is-A-Human-RightA Job is a RIGHT.

No, it’s really not. A job is many things…. good, helpful, sustaining… but it is NOT a right. If you are unwilling to work I have no sympathy for you. If you’re willing but unable to find a job that’s an entirely different animal. I will gladly help you find gainful employment, but that offer of help, like a job, is not a right either. It’s just what decent people do. They help their neighbours in times of need. says this:

You need a job to keep a roof over your head, feed yourself and your family, and pay the bills. Everyone needs a job or other source of income to survive.

Having a job is a basic necessity. It’s a simple human right.

They are completely correct… right up until that last sentence. Yes, a job is necessary to support yourself and your family but that does NOT make it a “right”.

housing-is-a-human-rightHousing is a RIGHT.

Like a job, a place to live is really really good. But if you don’t want to work guess what? You are not entitled to someone else’s property just because you want a roof over your head. You’ve got to pay for that with the fruits of your labour, or what is otherwise known is a “job”.

It is not the responsibility of others to ensure you have a roof over your head.

Education is a RIGHT.

This one is quite silly, you must admit. Education is really nice and can help with that whole “job” thing, but it’s a very long way from a human right.

Welfare is a RIGHT.

Welfare-is-a-RightThis is my favourite. Driving through downtown Vancouver one day I saw this protest where some loser held a sign saying “Welfare is a RIGHT.” I wasn’t sure whether I ought to vomit or laugh.

What on earth makes that pathetic and lazy turd believe he is entitled to the contents of yours and my wallet? Since we are willing to work it’s our duty to pay for him? Not a chance.

Perhaps if the lazy slob put half the effort into finding a job instead of waving that retarded sign in the air he might get somewhere in life.

Right-Not-To-Be-OffendedAnd on it goes… every little thing under the sun is called a human right, including the most ludicrous of all, the “right” not to be offended.

We as a continent have become so thin-skinned that the slightest thing sets us off. But instead of dealing with the person you feel offended you directly we run crying to “daddy” to “save” us.

“Daddy” in this case is, naturally, big government and the bureaucrats who infest it. Our human rights commissions across the land are bombarded with claims that should be laughed out the door yet are taken seriously for reasons I will never fathom.

Take the case of Guy Earle, the Vancouver stand-up comic who offended a couple of lesbians at a comedy club. As I wrote at the time,

The mere fact that you’re pissed off about what the guy on stage says, it’s not a violation of your human rights. Tossing a couple of drinks in his face certainly doesn’t make you the “bigger woman”, either.

What is completely laughable and frankly, insulting to every man and woman who has ever been in a combat zone, is that this ditzy bitch dares claim she has suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of the incident.

Yes, Lorna Pardy actually had the nerve to claim in court that she now suffers from PTSD. I submit she has no clue what the term even means. She surely doesn’t suffer from it, that much is a given.

She is an insult to all the brave men and women who have served their country, past, present and future, and one would hope that she will eventually be ashamed of her disgusting actions.

That’s just one in a long line of stupidity emanating from our human rights commissions.

There is a single truth, however, that these crybabies do not want to hear. In fact they will probably haul you before a grossly misnamed “human rights commission” merely for suggesting it.

“Needs” or “Wants” are not rights.

Just because you need or want something it does NOT mean you can demand someone else give it to you, be it your community, your church, your government or anyone else.

The ongoing fad of punishing the successful for the imagined crime of working hard to earn what they have is pretty darned repulsive.

Cut to its core this fad is the sins of envy, jealousy and sloth combined… folks too lazy to work their butts off to amass wealth while overtaken by envy and jealousy that someone else did.

You have the right to life. What you make of that life is entirely up to you.

Should you choose not to be a productive human being it most certainly is not your right to the contents of anyone else’s wallet. Deal with it.

The Complete List of Entitledments


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 13, 2016

Catholic Pope Francis Declares that I am a Non-Christian!

Catholic Pope Francis - a World-Class Hypocrite on Guns
Alain Poulin liked this post

The great and hypocritical Catholic Pope Francis just declared that me and millions of other gun-owning folks are not Christians.

Wow.  That’s quite a hypocritical declaration for the Pope to make for a couple of reasons.

First, the Catholic Pope travels the world with an armed security escort.  Not armed with bibles, but with guns.  You know… actual manufactured metal objects that shoot pieces of lead out the front really, really fast.

Remember when he visited America last fall?  His security detail for the duration of that visit had what many called “the largest security operation in U.S. history, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues.”  And yes, each and every member of that massive security detail carried, you guessed it, a gun.

Second, according to the bible whether or not I am a Christian has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I own guns.  The Bible, that Holy book that the Pope maybe ought to read a little more closely, makes it quite clear there is one and only one requirement to be a Christian:

Believe that Jesus Christ lived, died and rose again on the Third Day.

Third, Jesus Christ himself made it very clear to Peter that being armed in dangerous times where evildoers would do you harm was important.  So important Jesus made the following statement:

(Luk 22:36)  Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

His disciples were traveling through dangerous lands with people hostile to both them and Christ.  If they were to fulfill their mission they would be required to defend themselves along the way.  As Mason Wheeler says quite eloquently,

Here, he was trying to explain to them that they would need to be prepared to stay mobile (side note: the word fugitive comes from a Latin root meaning “to flee”): they would need to always have a purse (for money) and a bag (to carry basic supplies) ready, and that a sword (for protection against other men) was to be more important to them than a cloak (for protection against the elements) in the days to come.

Susan Shannon explains it even more clearly on her blog Short Little Rebel:

At this time in Jesus’ ministry, Jews held out great hope that Jesus was indeed the Messiah who would literally gather an army and miraculously throw off the Roman rule. Therefore, when Jesus sent them out into the cities, he knew they would be welcomed with open homes, food, drink and would be treated very well by the People. They didn’t need a purse (money) or a sword for protection.

The Jews felt this way up until the Passover time. But Jesus knew what would happen to all their glee when he was arrested and when he would ‘disappoint’ them by not fighting back. Even today, the Jews believe that the Messiah will return but he will be a literal KING with wealth and a powerful army. Jesus’ ‘weakness’ is what makes him false in their eyes. They would suddenly think he was nothing more than a deceiver who had gotten their hopes so high only to realize that he had duped them. They would think, based on their earlier visions of what a Messiah would look like and be like, that he was only a man. And a highly flawed man at that. A false, horribly blasphemous messiah that deserved death.

Therefore, Jesus knew they would no longer be welcomed into anyone’s home or city. No one would offer them a home, food, drink- nor would they be kind. In fact, Jesus knew that they would be violently attacked for continuing to spread his ‘blasphemous’ message. That he was the Son of God. Therefore, they would indeed need money, along with a bag for their blankets & supplies- and a sword for protection.

But since the hypocritical Pope brought up the issue of guns let’s examine that for just a moment, for that’s all it will take to shine the light of hypocrisy on the Holy See.

First, an excerpt of the news report where the Pope condemns everyone who does not agree with him.

People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday. Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin.

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of … people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today … they say one thing and do another.”

Hmm…  so those armed bodyguards you travel the world surrounded by… they’re just for show, right?

Not even close to right.  The Vatican has its very own security service, the Gendarmerie Corps of Vatican City State, whose primary duty is to protect the Pope and the Vatican City State.  The Pontifical Swiss Guard are a military unit which protects the Pope using both unarmed combat techniques and small arms.   They must also be Catholic with Swiss citizenship and an honourable discharge from the Swiss military.

Soldiers, in other words, with guns.  Really good guns. Specifically these guns:

  • Sig P220 pistol
  • Glock 19 pistol
  • Steyr TMP machine pistol
  • Heckler and Koch MP5 machine pistol
  • Heckler and Koch MP7 machine pistol, and
  • the Sig 550 battle rifle

But like all good hypocrites, guns are good only when they are used to protect the “special people” like the Pope or perhaps Hollywood celebrities, right?  Important people.

We mere citizens? We’re not Christians if we dare own a gun! So says the hypocrite with 135 trained and armed soldiers to protect him.

Perhaps the Hypocrite Pope can disband his precious elite soldier unit and melt down all their guns before telling me who is and is not a Christian.

Oh, and read that darned Bible he waves around so much.  There’s some really good stuff in there if you’re just willing to read it, Mr. Pope!

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 15, 2015

North Carolina’s Ethically Challenged Ethics Commission

Theresa Kuhn liked this post

Ethics, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, has the following meaning:

rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad.

Its secondary definition is this:

ethics : an area of study that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior : a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right or wrong.

I include these definitions of ethics because, and I suppose we should not be surprised by this at all, some branches of government have no clue about ethics or “what is morally right or wrong”.

Take the North Carolina Ethics Commission… these buffoons issued an “opinion” that literally turns the definition of ethics upside down.

In response to a request from Joal H. Broun, the Lobbying Compliance Director for the Department of the Secretary of State Lobbying Compliance Division, the North Carolina State Ethics Commission responded with the following:

You have asked whether consensual “sexual favors or sexual acts” between a lobbyist and a designated individual constitute a gift or “thing of value” that would trigger the gift ban and reporting requirements of the Lobbying Law and whether those activities would fall within the definition of “goodwill lobbying” and trigger the Lobbying Law’s registration obligation.

This opinion was adopted by the State Ethics Commission at its February 13, 2015, meeting.

Section 120C-303(a)(1) of the Lobbying Law restricts a registered lobbyist from giving a gift to a designated individual unless a gift ban exception applies. “Gift” is defined as “[a]nything of monetary value given or received without valuable consideration….” G.S. 138A-3(15).

A lobbyist must report certain “reportable expenditures,” defined to include gifts and “things of value” greater than $10 per day given to a designated individual or immediate family member.

Consensual sexual relationships do not have monetary value and therefore are not reportable as gifts or “reportable expenditures made for lobbying” for purposes of the Lobbying Law’s expenditure reporting provisions.

However, a lobbyist or lobbyist principal’s provision of paid prostitution services by a third party to a designated individual could constitute a gift or thing of value, albeit an illegal one, depending on the particular facts.

This would appear to give lobbyists, at least in North Carolina, the go-ahead to offer sex to government officials, as it would not be considered a “gift” and would therefore not be a reportable item.  Even offering a government official a paid prostitute may not be deemed a “gift” in the right circumstances, they say.

Uh huh.

One newspaper, the Beaufort Observer, offered an editorial that made it clear they disagreed with the state’s  ethically-challenged ethics commission.

“You can hire yourself out as a lobbyist and pull down big bucks for the job of getting special favors done for your clients and those clients are more than willing to pay big bucks for your service. And many of those clients don’t really care how you get them those favors from bureaucrats or elected officials as you produce what they want.”

So we can now “legally” ply our elected representatives with sex?

Isn’t that precisely the sort of behaviour a so-called “ethics commission” ought to prevent?

Not in North Carolina.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 11, 2015

BATF Backpedals from M855 .233 Calibre Ammunition Ban

Ryan Steacy, Robert Bailey liked this post

M855-AmmunitionM855 ammunition is .223 calibre “green tip” ammunition most often used with AR-15 rifles. It is also used in some AR-15-style handguns: expensive and large handguns.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a proposal to ban this specific type of ammunition on February 13, 2015, claiming AR-15-type handguns are a “significant threat” to law enforcement officers.

That’s great, except not a single law enforcement officer killed in the last 38 years was shot by a handgun capable of firing the M855 cartridge. So says the FBI, which most would have to agree is a credible source on firearm deaths and what guns were used.

Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said:

“All rifle ammo made with lead ammo is able to penetrate a soft body ‘vest’ because of the high velocity of rifle rounds, so banning M855 does not advance law officer safety. No police officer has ever been shot and killed with a so-called ‘armor piercing’ bullet fired from a handgun that penetrated a vest.”

The White House felt, at least as late as March 2nd, that banning M855 ammunition was a great idea. That’s the day White House press secretary Josh Earnest said,

“We are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement, and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone. This seems to be an area where everyone should agree that if there are armor-piercing bullets available that can fit into easily concealed weapons, that it puts our law enforcement at considerably more risk.”

So while the White House backs the proposed BATF ban on M855 ammunition and the press screeches ever louder along with them, how come the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms suddenly and without warning reversed course?

They are now no longer banning the most popular ammunition for the AR-15 rifle, citing any concerns about such a ban to a “publication error”.

The BATF issued a press release about this “publication error” on their website, saying:


On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework to guide its determination on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes” for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on armor piecing ammunition.

The posted framework is only a proposal, posted for the purpose of receiving public comment, and no final determinations have been made.

Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, and conclude that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded. This is not the case.

Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any armor piercing ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations was an error which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30 – 06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.

The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.

The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of armor piercing ammunition exemptions and posted shortly.

The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future.

ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.

Uh huh.

This looks far more like a trial balloon to see if they could get the ban through quickly and easily than it does a “publishing error”.

Mounting opposition from gun owners and escalating political activism made it clear banning M855 .223 ammunition simply wasn’t going to fly.

Vigilance rewarded, as it should be.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 9, 2015

A Small Measure of Justice for Sarah Jones


sarah-jonesSarah Elizabeth Jones died on the set of “Midnight Rider”, a film directed by Randall Miller, just over a year ago. The director wanted to “steal” a shot on a railway trestle without obtaining any permits or permission from the railway. When a train came through it hit a bed the crew had placed on the tracks for the shot, which in turn hit Sarah Jones and knocked her into the oncoming locomotive.

Sarah Jones died on the spot. Eight other film technicians were injured.

CSX Transportation, the company who owns the railroad where Sarah Jones was killed, denied the production access to the train tracks twice. Filming went ahead regardless.

Instead of facing trial on criminal negligence and manslaughter charges the director of the film, Randall Miller, pled guilty to those same charges. In exchange for his guilty plea the prosecutor agreed to drop charges against Miller’s wife, the producer of the film, as well as charges against his business partner.

Randall Miller was sentenced to 2 years in prison, 8 years of probation when his prison term is complete and a $20,000 fine. He said in court that obtaining permission was “not his job” and therefore not his responsibility.

Jay Sedrish, the executive producer of the film, managed to avoid jail time with his guilty plea and will serve 10 years on probation.

No one won anything today,” Richard Jones, Sarah’s father, said.

It’s just a great deal of loss for everyone involved.”

Asked if he was happy with the result, he said:

“I hesitate to use the word ‘happy.’ We are content with the terms of the agreement.”

He also said that he hopes that Sarah’s death will not be in vain and that “the sacrifice of our daughter will change the industry for the better.”

After the guilty plea by Director Randall Miller, Sarah’s mother, Elizabeth Jones read her victim impact statement for the court. It is reprinted, in part, at the end of this article.

sarah-jones-the-vampire-diaries-and-the-originals-remember-dead-crew-memberBoth of Sarah’s parents have fought for better safety on set since their daughter died, but it is a long, uphill battle. They launched, a website devoted to ensuring safety on all film sets, and is supported by IATSE, the major film union representing film technicians.

This tragedy has brought together the film making community in a way that I have never seen. Much of that is due to the person Sarah was… hard working, fun, and a friend to very many people. What happened on that train trestle in Georgia horrifies us all. It can never happen again.”

–Mike Miller, Vice President, IATSE

Elizabeth and Richard Jones also created a Public Service Announcement advocating for better safety on film sets. That video can be viewed on YouTube:

A second PSA was created with their blessing, and it too can be found on YouTube at:

Thankfully those responsible for safety on set, those who failed their crew so tragically that day, are being held accountable for their actions.

The First Assistant Director, or 1st AD, is the designated safety person on a film set. The 1st AD on this film, Hillary Schwartz, just pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. All that remains to be seen is the sentence she receives for costing Sarah her life. I doubt her sentence will be as harsh as it should be given she agreed to testify against the others facing criminal charges.

In her favour is the fact her agreement to testify is the primary reason director Randall Miller pled guilty in a deal that saw his wife walk free.

It is reprehensible that the executive producer received only probation, but this just shows us that a good lawyer can be very effective at saving your butt when the chips are down, dead crew member be damned.

It is atrocious that costs the life of a vibrant young woman must be lost before anyone will address safety concerns on film sets. Film crew work in dangerous conditions on an almost routine basis and nobody says a word, primarily for fear of losing their jobs because they are not “team players“.

The needless and senseless death of Sarah Jones seems to have changed all that, and that’s a good thing. She may well be remembered as the woman who changed the way safety is handled on film sets forever.

What is certain, however, is the pain and loss suffered by Elizabeth and Richard Jones will never go away. They lost their daughter for the most senseless of reasons: a director wanted his shot and he didn’t care what it cost anyone else.

Hollywood is filled with directors just like Randall Miller. Perhaps now those directors will now value the lives of their crews just a little bit more knowing that if they do not, they too could spend time in a prison cell.



Victim Impact Statement by Elizabeth Jones, Sarah’s mother.

“To tell of the character of Sarah Jones, one must first understand in every sense of the word, Sarah was a character. She was distinctly her own person. To discover what was behind her effervescent smile or her bubbly giddiness was to discover such a positive life force that nothing could or would stand in her way of achievement. She was happy, she was content. For every known word that could characterize Sarah, there is none more distinct or accurate than the word ‘genuine.’ Sarah always gave you her better, her uncontested presence of who she was and you knew where you stood on most any subject. She was genuine. She was down to earth.

“Give Sarah any topic of conversation and one knew where she stood. She invited others into her world. There were no boundaries, no barriers, no circles. She loved people.”

Talking about going through her daughter’s belongings, Elizabeth Jones said that she has a crate of her daughter’s things.

“The crate that sits before me is labeled ‘costumes.’ As I open the lid, I halfway smile. Her tutu outfit, her cowboy outfit, her cowboy hat, killer bunny slippers, and a plastic sword. More outfits, more costumes, as a kid Sarah loved dress-up. Pipi Longstocking, Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz, Minnie Mouse. I discovered that as an adult, Sarah still enjoyed dress-up.”

“Her friends tell me that Sarah was quite adept at taking on a character and how much fun Sarah could make any occasion. I put the lid back on the crate. That box can wait. Even after one year of her being gone, I find I am not ready to deal with this. I go to the next box. ‘Writing, Thoughts, Meditations.’ I open the box and find spiral bound notebooks, tablets, pieces of paper, all with quotes or inspiration or some phrase I remember her once talking about. She would write what inspired her, she would write the things she questioned, and she would write what she had just learned. Sarah was a deep thinker, wise beyond her years. Together now, stored in a box, is a summation of her inner self.

“Sarah was big on communication. ‘If something is on your mind, say it.’ She was all about putting yourself out there. Life is too short to leave things unsaid. Not always fun to face the facts or deal with ‘What is’ but more often than not, she was right. Her life was too short. I decide to wait on this box. It brings on emotions of sadness. Sarah had so much to offer.

“The next box is labeled ‘Books.’ I open the lid and find titles that amaze me. ‘The Once and Future King,’ a book of poetry, Thoreau, Hemingway, ‘The Cinematographer’s Manual.’ She enjoyed reading and usually had a book with her just in case she would find herself with a few spare minutes. It was not uncommon that she sometimes read two, maybe three books at a time. I once asked her how she could read multiple titles at the same time. ‘It depends on how I feel at the moment as to what I want to read,’ she said. The diversity of her interest was in a box. I took her books and made room on our book shelf. One day I may read them myself.

“Next crate … ‘Gear.’ Inside I found her adventures. Scuba gear. She had just acquired her advance PADA certificate while on a trip to Belize. She thought that one day she might enjoy filming underwater. Dirt bike boots and a helmet. A year earlier, Sarah had earned her motorcycle license. She loved adventure and she was fearless. Now her adventures are packed away, in a box, stacked with the rest of her life. Too many boxes for such a short life.

“Boxes of Sarah still sit in my living room. I think about it and smile. This was her favorite room. She would sit on the couch, bundled with a blanket wrapped around her and listen to her father play the piano. She love hearing his music. ‘When I get married,’ she would say, ‘I hope my husband can play the piano.’ We will never know. It seems only right that for now, the content of the boxes of her life remain in the room with her father’s piano. One day we’ll sort through her things. But for now, the boxes remain.”

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 8, 2015

Canada’s Retarded Justice System


One day Ashley Thomas Brinston is too dangerous to release, 30 days later the Crown Prosecutor can’t put him back on the streets fast enough.

What’s going on?

Our justice system is often very good, but there are days where it is a complete farce.

After making death threats to a woman, Ashley Thomas Brinston found himself in jail after police searched his home and found firearms, ammunition, some legal and some not.

At his bail hearing the Crown Prosecutor opposed his release, arguing that Ashley Brinston was far too dangerous to allow out in the community. Seems reasonable on its face, doesn’t it? If the guy is running around threatening people and is in possession of firearms then it’s probably a good idea not to have this guy on the streets.

But what about the plea bargain entered into court this week, a joint submission by both Crown prosecutors and defense counsel?

In that joint submission the Crown agreed that a 120-day conditional sentence and house arrest was sufficient. Judge Harold Porter was, as he should be, disgusted with this notion.

“A month ago the Crown position was that it was far too dangerous to release the accused on judicial interim release. Today, it is the Crown position that it would be appropriate to sentence the accused to serve a sentence of house arrest, as a conditional sentence. Since judicial interim release and conditional sentences both require the accused complying with a court order, it is a challenge to reconcile the two positions taken by the Crown. A month ago, it was unsafe to release him into the community under the supervision of a court order, but today it is safe to release him on a court order.”

Sadly, despite his disgust with the sentence the judge is bound by law to accept it.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 7, 2015

Got a password-protected Smart-Phone? You still kiss your Right to Privacy Away at the Border


We Canadians like to believe we have rights. We like to believe those rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We are fools.

Our government moves to strip us of our rights every day.

The latest abuse of power stripping us of our Right to Privacy comes to us courtesy of the Canadian Border Services Agency, who can now demand the password for our smart phones. Should we mistakenly believe we have a protected Right to Privacy we will find ourselves in the same position as Quebec resident and “mere citizen” Alain Philippon.

Upon landing in Halifax from his holiday in the Dominican Republic Alain Philippon went through customs. Nothing shocking there. What was shocking was what happened when Alain Philippon refused to give up the password for his cell phone.

Canadian Border Services agents arrested him on the spot and charged him under the Customs Act for “hindering or preventing an officer from doing anything that the officer is authorized to do” as defined in that Act.

What a joke.

Here is the entirety of Section 153 of the Customs Act of Canada:

153. No person shall

(a) make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive statements in a statement or answer made orally or in writing pursuant to this Act or the regulations;

(a.1) make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive statements in an application for an advance ruling under section 43.1 or a certificate referred to in section 97.1;

(b) to avoid compliance with this Act or the regulations,

(i) destroy, alter, mutilate, secrete or dispose of records or books of account,

(ii) make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive entries in records or books of account, or

(iii) omit, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the omission of, a material particular from records or books of account; or

(c) wilfully, in any manner, evade or attempt to evade compliance with any provision of this Act or evade or attempt to evade the payment of duties under this Act.

Marginal note: Hindering an officer

153.1 No person shall, physically or otherwise, do or attempt to do any of the following:

(a) interfere with or molest an officer doing anything that the officer is authorized to do under this Act; or

(b) hinder or prevent an officer from doing anything that the officer is authorized to do under this Act.

Naturally, the Canadian Border Services Agency would not go on record to explain why Alain Philippon was “selected” for a smartphone search, nor would they explain why they need to search smartphones at all, or the section of law under which they claim they have the authority to search smartphones.

Rob Currie, director of the Law and Technology Institute at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, said this is a new area of law that has yet to be tested in court.

“This is a question that has not been litigated in Canada, whether they can actually demand you to hand over your password to allow them to unlock the device,” he said. “[It’s] one thing for them to inspect it, another thing for them to compel you to help them.”

There are two resources you ought to read if you plan on leaving the country for a holiday.

First is from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. It is titled “Checking In – Your privacy rights at airports and border crossings” and should be required reading for all Canadian travellors.

The second is the Privacy Handbook published by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

Know your rights.

Stand up for your rights.

Yes, even when it is inconvenient to do so.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 5, 2015

Putting Our Money Where Our Conservative Mouths Are
Attila Vaski liked this post

With the fall of Sun News Network Canadian conservatives lost the one friend they had on television. The only Canadian voice of liberty was lost… silenced because we Canadian conservatives failed when it counted most.

There is nothing we can do about that failure. Nothing we do today will bring back the Sun News Network. It’s done.  It is gone forever.

There is, however, something we can do to support the only known option to build something from the ashes of that failure, TheRebel.Media.

Ezra Levant has teamed up with fellow Sun alumni Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, Marissa Semkiw and John Robson to create TheRebel.Media, a new voice for conservatives.

Ezra and his team have managed, in just a few short weeks, to garner financial support for all the audio, video and computer equipment they need and even for have funding for social media marketing.

But what about the four individuals who do all the heavy lifting behind the scenes?  What about those four brave young people who today, right this very minute, are gambling their future on us, Canadian conservatives?

These four individuals remain almost entirely unfunded.

To me that says a lot, not about Ezra’s fundraising efforts, but about us, his supporters.

We’re willing to give tens of thousands of our hard-earned dollars to buy all the stuff they could possibly want, but we aren’t willing to support the people who actually do the work.

That’s just plain wrong.

If you feel I like I do, that is wrong, please follow the links below to financially support the individuals who support Ezra, Brian, Michael, Marissa and John so they can do what they do best: educate us and our fellow Canadians.

There comes a time when a person must simply do what is right; put our money where our loud mouths are, and be among those precious few who matter.

I believe that time has arrived.

If we want a truly conservative voice in Canadian media then we must each determine what that is worth to us.  We can’t rely on someone else to pay our way like we did with Sun News Network.  This time we must each pay our own way.

Me? I’ve already sent my check for $1,000.  I will be sending more shortly, as well, specifically tagged to support these four individuals.

Ezra and the rest of the on-camera talent already have a lot of options for making money.  These four brave individuals have bet their futures on both Ezra’s team and on us… conservative Canadians.

I think they’ve made a great bet and one that will pay off for them both now and in the future, and I’m willing to back that bet with cold, hard cash.

Will you join me?

Click on each of the four links below and contribute what you can to financially support each of these brave and talented individuals.

Hannah Vanderkooy


Jon Egier


Amanda Achtman


  Martin Gardiner



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

March 2, 2015

TheRebel: Will conservative-minded citizens financially support a true conservative news outlet?

That’s essentially the question I posed in the February 14 issue of The Canadian Rights and Freedoms Bulletin.

Like so many others I was shocked to see nothing but a logo on the Sun News Network website and that all links to content on that site now returned nothing but a “404 not found” error message.

Friday, February 13, was indeed a terrible day for Freedom of the Press in Canada but it can also teach us a valuable lesson if we are willing to learn what the disappearance of Sun News Network actually means for conservative-minded Canadians.

We do not financially support those who support us.

That may be an truth to hear but it is one proven by the fact that Quebecor Media, the company that owns the Sun News Network, lost millions of dollars keeping the Sun News Network going.

Quebecor didn’t fail us… we failed Quebecor.

Sun News Network was the only Canadian voice speaking truth to stupid. Now it is gone. This is to our eternal shame, as now we are left with such bastions of a “free press” like the CBC who report that of which the Left approves and very little else.

That the Sun News Network failed due to massive financial losses means only one thing: we were happy to have SunTV, but only so long as someone else footed the tab. We conservatives did not put our money where our mouths are.

As I wrote two weeks ago:

We conservatives don’t back conservative media with our dollars. This is to our eternal shame, as now we are left with such bastions of a “free press” like the CBC who report that of which the Left approves and very little else.

Should the above efforts (or any others) to create a new conservative voice get off the ground we ought to do what we failed to do with Sun News: Support it financially this time…

At the moment there appears to be a single viable option for a new conservative media: TheRebel.Media. Along with fellow Sun alumni Brian Lilley, Michael Coren, Marissa Semkiw and John Robson, Ezra Levant dares us all to join these 5 proud reporters to create a true conservative media outlet.

TheRebel’s is website is currently financed and operated out of Ezra Levant’s livingroom but it cannot stay that way.

Levant wrote an email to potential supports a few days ago. Here is just part of what he wrote:

Do you think Canada needs an alternative, independent, tell-it-like-it-is news source, especially now that Sun News is gone?

If you do, please help me. I don’t have enough personal savings to buy all the tools we need to execute my business plan. I’ve got the energy; we have an outstanding team that’s growing each week. And I believe our customers are out there — more than 15,000 people have signed up as casual users in just one week.

But I need help to buy the business tools to succeed.

Would you please consider helping me “crowdfund” the execution of my business plan?

We have one professional, high definition camera that I put on my credit card. It cost over $4,000. And we have a couple of laptop computers and some editing software. But we need to buy more cameras, and lights, and to build mini-studios in Toronto and other cities.

We need everything from wireless microphones to tripods. We need to pay a monthly royalty fee to companies like Associated Press, to have access to their TV footage of foreign news. We need to buy insurance. There are literally dozens of tools we need to do our job — tools we have to buy now, so we can create the great TV that will convince people to become members.

Will you help us do that? If you give us the tools, we’ll do the job!

We’ve set up a “crowdfunding” page on our website, HERE. We list many of the tools we need — including a few fun ones. Items range from $2 to $40,000 and everything in between. Would you consider helping us out? It’s like a wedding gift registry, really. But instead of giving a gift to a young couple starting out in life, it’s a gift to a young company starting out in life.

I know it’s unusual asking for help to start a company. But it’s reality. We’re not a massive media company like CTV or Global. We’re as grassroots as it gets.

Visit online. Then send Ezra and the gang a check in support of their efforts or you can donate online.

As you will see when you visit their website, they have good financial support already but they need more, especially for their supporting and technical staff. Those four fundraising items are pathetically funded right now and that needs to change.

Ezra Levant.

Brian Lilley.

Michael Coren.

Marissa Semkiw.

John Robson.

Their past accomplishments prove one thing above all else: They deserve our financial support.

Will you join me in supporting a true conservative media outlet for Canada? Visit and donate to whichever fundraising item strikes your fancy or mail your donation, payable to The Rebel, to

The Rebel
PO Box 1082, 31 Adelaide St E
Toronto, ON M5C 2K4

My check for $1,000 is already in the mail… with more to come.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 15, 2015

Southern Baptists Attack Judge Roy Moore for Upholding Traditional Definition of Marriage



For years I’ve followed the career of Judge Roy Moore. He is the man who, as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, defied the orders of a federal judge and kept the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building. Judge Moore was ultimately removed from his post as Chief Justice as a result of his decision and his refusal to back down from it.

I admire a man with the courage of his convictions, who believes and acts on his beliefs, in this case that America is “one nation, under God”, no matter the cost.

The powers that be were unimpressed with the good judge’s stand on the Ten Commandments, and for obvious reason: they lack any comprehension of what the Constitution says, replacing it instead with their own interpretation of what the Constitution means.

That’s called progressivism.

Not one to take such a setback too seriously, in 2012 Roy Moore put his name in the ring for his former position of Chief Justice, which he won easily over Democratic candidate Bob Vance.

Judge Roy Moore is in hot water again, this time for maintaining his Christian belief in the Biblical and Alabama State definition of marriage, i.e. between one man and one woman. He’s catching flak from the oddest of places for this position, too.

Who knew that supposedly Bible-believing Christians would oppose the Biblical definition of marriage!

Russell Moore (no relation to Judge Roy Moore), the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, “says Alabama judges who in good conscience cannot issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, should resign instead of fighting the law while in office.”


The Southern Baptist Convention’s mission statement says,

As a convention of churches, our missional vision is to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and to make disciples of all the nations.

Russell Moore appears to be clueless about the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Bible, which defines marriage quite clearly in Genesis 2:21-24:

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman, ‘ for she was taken out of man.”

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

That a leader of the Southern Baptist Convention is ignorant of this leaves me profoundly sad over the state of Southern Baptists.

Alabama is a conservative state where over 80%of the population voted for a law denying marriage to same-sex couples. Clearly the majority of people in Alabama feel the same as Judge Roy Moore: marriage is between one man and one woman.

It’s a shame the folks at the Southern Baptist Convention comprehend neither Alabama state law nor the Bible itself.

Attacking Judge Roy Moore for supporting both his own Christian beliefs and the laws of Alabama is bizarre for a supposedly Bible-believing Christian man heading a supposedly Bible-believing Christian organization of churches.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 9, 2015

Babak Andalib-Goortani: Police Sentencing Hypocrisy Continues Unabated


You’d think judges would feel some semblance of shame eventually, but that just isn’t the case. When it comes to sentencing police officers convicted of criminal offences our judges fall all over themselves pandering to a misguided sense of justice.

Why is it wrong to send criminal cops to jail?

When it comes to sentencing a mere citizen convicted of the same criminal offenses as criminal cops our judges don’t hesitate. It’s off to the big house immediately.

Not so for criminal cops.

The latest in a long line of atrocities to justice is the sentencing of Toronto Police Services Constable Babak Andalib-Goortani for his conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

He will not spend a single day in prison. He will not lose his job. He will continue to carry a gun.


How is justice served when the only lesson we send to criminal cops is

“Gee, we’re so sorry you got caught. Please don’t do it again.”

Then we send the convicted cop right back to work as if nothing ever happened.

Babak Andalib-Goortani - Hero or ThugIt’s not that Babak Andalib-Goortani was ALWAYS a thug cop. At one time he actually put his life on the line to save a complete stranger, the kind of behaviour we should expect of our police men and women.

In 2011 I wrote an article titled “What Happened to Constable Babak Andalib-Goortani?” In that article he said, in response to the description of Babak Andalib-Goortani jumping into floodwaters to save a total stranger:

That was Constable Andalib-Goortani in 2008. A hero. A man willing to put his own life on the line to save another human being. Just like any good cop would, and should. That is, after all, the job they signed up for.

Then, just two short years later, that same man is happily beating on innocent civilians whose only “crime” was to attend a protest rally.

What changed?

Clearly something did, and in a very big way because a man doesn’t go from life-saver to brutal thug without something happening to him.

Regardless of what happened to so drastically change an apparently good cop into just another thug, the fact remains that change did happen and he will not be held accountable for his actions.

Cops and judges demand we mere citizens be responsible for our actions, both good and bad, yet mysteriously they refuse to hold police to that same standard.

There is no “life lesson” to pass on to other cops to dissuade them from criminal behaviour. For criminal cops there is no penalty.

Our judges prove time and time again that there is nothing to fear from the “justice” system when cops break the law so guess what?

Cops keep breaking the law.

When we reward criminals, cops or not, with a slap on the wrist for atrocious behaviour is it really any mystery that they offend again?

It shouldn’t be.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

February 7, 2015

Raif Badawi: Our Right to Free Speech must not be taken lightly


Here in North America we take our Right to Freedom of Speech for granted. We criticize our government with abandon and gusto, confident we are safe from retaliation; that there is no price to be paid for speaking our mind. We forget the rest of the world doesn’t take so kindly to criticism.

In Saudi Arabia, for example, criticizing the government comes at a very high cost. In Saudi Arabia it is a crime to speak about things the government disapproves.

Blogger Raif Badawi learned that lesson the hard way. Convicted of crimes against the state, specifically for operating a blog and discussion forum that ridiculed Saudi Arabia’s religious police, Badawi was arrested in 2012 and put on trial.

His conviction was automatic and never in question.

His penalty? One thousand lashes with a bamboo cane and ten years in prison. No, that’s not a misprint. Ten thousand lashes with a bamboo cane, to be delivered 50 per week for 20 consecutive weeks.

I cannot imagine being flogged with a cane 50 times, let alone 50 times a week for the next 20 weeks in a row. Just kill me and get it over with!

Just after Friday prayers on 9 January, Raif Badawi was led by Saudi officials out of a bus and into the middle of the square in front of al-Jafali mosque in Jeddah. A large crowd had gathered to see the flogging.

Raif stood in the middle of the crowd, handcuffed and shackled by his ankles, his face uncovered. A security officer approached Raif and began caning him across the back and legs, until he had been beaten 50 times. A witness told us it took just five minutes to cane Raif 50 times; the lashes were constant and quick.

I can only commend Raif Badawi for his incredible courage. He took his first 50 canings silently, determined not to give his abusers the satisfaction of hearing him cry out in pain.

I can only pray that in similar circumstances I would have that same courage.

‘Raif raised his head towards the sky, closing his eyes and arching his back. He was silent, but you could tell from his face and his body that he was in real pain.’

The public outcry around the world at the brutality of the sentence actually forced the Saudi administration to backpedal, even if only temporarily, from implementing the rest of the sentence.

Doctors examined Badawi after the first flogging of 50 lashes and determined he has not healed enough to take a second 50 lashes even after two weeks of postponed canings; that to flog him again before his would are healed would threaten his life.

While nobody in Canada will be caned repeatedly for speaking their mind that does not mean we are without our faults. The now-repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was used to silence individuals, often with crushing monetary penalties even though the Act was supposedly “remedial” in nature, not punitive.

Marc Lemire’s 10-year fight to preserve his right to freedom of speech, for example, caused Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed. Lemire’s refusal to cave in to censorship eventually forced the government to strike Section 13 from the books. The irony of that decision is that even though Lemire beat the censors at their own game he may still lose his rights under that repealed section of law.

Found guilty for publishing a document he did not write and didn’t even know existed on his website until he faced prosecution, Lemire faces a lifetime ban on his freedom of speech should he lose his last court appeal.

Arthur Topham faces prison time for daring to speak his mind on his own website, as he faces criminal charges under Canada’s hate crimes legislation contained in Section 318 – 320 of the criminal code.

From the November 6, 2012 National Post story on the charges against Arthur Topham:

Mr. Topham is a miner and is listed as secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association. He also publishes Radical Press, a website that posts materials with conspiracy theory themes such as the “Biological Jew” and the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

[Editor’s Note: Both books are widely available on the internet free of charge and at such purveyors of hate as and]

The Biological Jew depicts Jews as parasites that suck the blood from their “host” societies while the Protocols is a fraudulent book that purports to describe a conspiracy for worldwide Jewish domination.

In May, Harry Abrams, a B’nai Brith volunteer in Victoria, B.C., and Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman both complained to police about the website. Mr. Warman’s complaint said both the Biological Jew and the Protocols were banned from import into Canada as hate propaganda.

“When you’ve got that kind of just rabid attack against the Jewish community I think it’s incumbent on people to stand up in society,” said Mr. Warman, who regularly files complaints about racist websites.

While Mr. Topham does face the prospect of jail time for speaking his mind he will not be flogged mercilessly with a cane by agents of the state.

Does that mean Canada has no issues when it comes to Freedom of Speech?


Instead of defending our Right to Free Speech all levels of government seem insistent that dissenting voices must be silenced, and at almost any cost.

We must not offend Muslims, Jews, First Nations or practically anyone except white Christian males. On that particular group of faithful it’s “open season” with no end of that particular hypocrisy in sight.

Yes, we still have a very long way to go if our Right to Freedom of Speech is to actually mean something.

Eventually we will strike down the “hate speech” section of the Criminal Code as well, leaving ideas, both good and bad, to the court of public opinion which is precisely where they belong.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 19, 2015

Racism Encouraged by Canadian Museum for Human Rights

Racism-Encouraged-by-Canadian-Museum-for-Human-Rights PFTR
Pete Snelson liked this post

Racism-Encouraged-by-Canadian-Museum-for-Human-Rights PFTR

Of all the places one would expect all races and creeds to be treated equally it would be a museum dedicated to Human Rights, yet that supposedly august institution is, shockingly, the very place instituting racist admission policies.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, racism is defined as

  1. poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
  2. the belief that some races of people are better than others

The “poor treatment” is applied to anyone who cannot prove First Nations heritage. The “belief that some races are better than others” appears to be that First Nations people are better than the rest of us “mere citizens“, since only First Nations citizens are entitled to free admission.

Everyone else must pay full freight.

Giving preferential treatment to one race and excluding all others is the very definition of racism. Why Canada’s Human Rights Museum would institute racist policies boggles the mind, and it won’t be long before the very institution that is supposed to promote racial and cultural equality for all will find itself the subject of a human rights complaint.

The Winnipeg Sun carried an article by Tom Brodbeck that made an interesting, if disturbing, observation.

They can’t really tell us why they have this policy. When asked why one group of people has free access to the facility based solely on their race and culture and not others, museum officials were unable to provide a coherent answer.

The admissions policy at the CMHR was developed, in advance of our opening, to align with that of other national museums such as the Canadian Museum of History, where Indigenous Peoples are also admitted at no charge,” museum spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry wrote in an email. “It is intended to help ensure Indigenous People have access to expressions of their culture.”

That’s not really an answer.

Brodbeck then pressed Ms. Fitzhenry for a more coherent answer and this was her response.

This policy is one way that we are striving to foster a respectful relationship between the Museum and Indigenous Peoples that acknowledges Indigenous rights relating to cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions.”

Creating a negative stereotype based on race is a horrendous precedent to set for anyone, let alone Canada’s Museum for Human Rights! Saying that Aboriginals have no ability to pay and therefore should be allowed free admission is both hypocritical and condescending, plain and simple.

I can’t see how condescending to Aboriginal Canadians in any way advances Human Rights, nor do I comprehend how advancing racism in the name of equality makes any sense at all.

Neither does Canadian Human Rights Museum spokeswoman Maureen Fitzhenry, which is why her answers are so absurd and disingenuous.

Equality means treating all people equally regardless of race, not treating one race as “more special” than others, be it better or worse.

I expect far better than hypocrisy from our Museum of Human Rights.

For reasons I do not fathom this institution is thoroughly unwilling to correct its racist policy. It cannot even admit its hypocrisy let alone change it.

I refuse to support racism and hypocrisy at Canada’s Museum of Human Rights. I, for one, will vote with my dollars and they will never see a penny from me.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 6, 2014

Gamil Gharbi Day – Because blaming the millions of men who didn’t kill anyone is always in fashion!



Canada’s annual Man-Hating Festival is well underway, instigated and celebrated by such sharp visionaries and illustrious luminaries as Windy Wendy Cukier and Lying Heidi “I Was There” Rathjen. (Gamil Gharbi was never anywhere near her but Heidi Rathjen refuses to let that pesky little truth get in her way!)

The cause of “gun control” will never fade because these allegedly smart women refuse to accept one simple fact: it is human beings who kill each other.

Guns are merely one of many tools used to commit murder.

By refusing to face that fundamental truth “gun control” advocates remove personal responsibility from the equation and effectively reduce our society to one of little children who don’t know right from wrong; children who are transformed into mass murderers simply because a firearm is in the house unless Mommy and the Almighty Nanny State gets rid of the guns.


Absolutely, but that doesn’t stop these people from spinning their yarns to anyone who will listen, usually others with an equal or higher stake in reducing society to irresponsible children who must be “managed“.

Governments love “gun control” for equal and opposite reasons: they hate guns in the hands of “mere citizens” and love control over every aspect of our lives.

Until we teach our children about personal responsibility again and, more importantly, hold murderous criminals accountable for their actions, nothing will change.

Yours in Liberty,


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 30, 2014

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn Speaks Truth To Stupid


There are times when race baiters and reporters are so caught up in their own agenda they can’t see what’s going on around them.

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn recently put these morons in their place after being accused of not caring enough about the subject of the press scrum in front of him.  He was on his cell phone, you see.

Unfortunately for the stupid ones Chief Flynn was on his cell phone receiving updates about a 5-year-old child who was killed in a drive-by shooting.  He was not remotely “politically correct” in dealing with the stupid people asking even stupider questions.

Well done, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn!  We need more chiefs of police speaking Truth to Stupid.  Maybe then things will change.

Watch below.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 29, 2014

NYT “Journalist” Julie Bosman – Hypocrite and “Stupid Little Bitch”



For those who don’t know, Julie Bosman is an [alleged] journalist who works for the New York Times. That’s the title the New York Times gives her, anyway. I call Julie Bosman an irresponsible and hypocritical little bitch who felt it was her absolute right to violate the privacy of Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson.

Officer Darren Wilson hit the national stage when he shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, the event that sparked riots at the time and again this past week when the Grand Jury refused to indict Wilson.

[Alleged] journalist Julie Bosman clearly believes Wilson should be on trial for the shooting death of the young black man, despite not knowing all the facts. Monday morning quarterbacks can argue all day long but they, like alleged journalist Julie Bosman, argue from a position of ignorance.

The Grand Jury did hear all the facts and came to the conclusion Darren Wilson defended himself against criminal aggression.

Julie Bosman, perched high atop her moral tower, found Darren Wilson’s current home address and knew immediately what she would do with the information. She published Wilson’s address and the name of his fiancé in the New York Times newspaper. It has since been removed from the story, of course, thereby revising history in Bosman’s favour, but the comments on the story tell the tale vividly and are not so favourable:

Given the death threats against Darren Wilson, printing the street where he lives (not a long one) and his hometown is irresponsible. It’s also irrelevant to the story of his wedding.

Dangerous and utterly irresponsible to include the street where this couple resides. It is deeply disturbing that the reporter and/or editor at the NY Times did not exercise better judgment and realize that this was a serious problem.

Unbelievable…. That the Times would print the name of Officer Wilson’s bride and then print the name of the street and town they own a house on… totally irresponsible.

Julie Bosman felt she was doing a good and moral thing, while in truth she violated Darren Wilson’s rights by invading his privacy.

Her motive for publishing Wilson’s home address will never be known for certainty, but it is no stretch to believe she did it hoping someone would “get him” for killing Michael Brown, despite the fact that shooting was in self-defense.

In what Mad World News calls “the most reckless and careless move in journalism this year” Julie Bosman published Wilson’s home address and the name of his fiancé (now wife), practically guaranteeing their lives would be in jeopardy.

John Hawkins of Right Wing News issued a challenge to his Twitter followers:

“I will link to anybody who can publish the verified home address of @juliebosman & @campbellnyt”

It wasn’t long before the website GotNews did precisely that.

New York Times reporters Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson published the address of Darren Wilson in the New York Times so here are their addresses. It would be wrong, for example, to publish Bosman’s address at

CHICAGO, IL 60660-4204

It would be similarly wrong to publish the address of Robertson, too.

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119-3203

So why do journalists think they are beyond examination?

This is absolutely a case of “You reap what you sow.”

Julie Bosman reportedly is now calling the Chicago police non-stop because she feels “threatened“.

Huh. You’ll have to excuse me for not feeling sorry for her. And as for her “feeling threatened“… perhaps this stupid bitch ought to have considered how Officer Darren Wilson and his new wife would feel before publishing their home address for the world to see.

Maybe then she wouldn’t be terrified in her own home.

If we expect others to respect our Right to Privacy we must first respect theirs. It’s a shame it took her Right to Privacy being violated before Julie Bosman could comprehend the lesson.

While it is a brutal lesson to learn, I’m sure both Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson learned it well this week, their terror and fear imprinting the lesson indelibly on their souls.

Mad World News said it best when they wrote:

As Hawkins points out, if they’re willing to endanger the lives of Wilson and his recent bride, then why wouldn’t they be okay with their own addresses being posted for the public to see? Nobody is beyond reproach, and these two scumbags just got a little taste of how it feels to have your personal life invaded over something that happened in their professional life.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player