Archive | Big Brother RSS feed for this section
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?

November 27, 2014

Censorship Essential to Combat Terrorism says British Prime Minister David Cameron

Pete Snelson liked this post


Governments of all kinds despise Freedom of Speech. Dictatorships despise it because, if allowed, their detractors relentlessly denigrate them and their lack of integrity. Democracies despise Freedom of Speech for precisely the same reason. Freedom of Speech allows mere citizens to comment upon the actions of their so-called leaders, both good and bad.

The United Nations despises Freedom of Speech because when a free people discusses the worthiness or lack thereof of that wannabe world government it is obvious that organization is found…. wanting.

Governments of all kinds despise the Internet and the Freedom of Speech it affords mere citizens the world over. They despise how easily an individual on one side of the planet can share ideas with another individual on the other about the issues they face.

Governments, both tyrannical dictatorships and alleged democracies alike, desperately need to silence their citizens on the internet. So far, the goal of stripping the citizens of the world of their Right to Freedom of Speech has failed, but never fear: Government will always find a bogeyman to blame for the “need” to strip us of our rights.

A trial balloon went up in Britain this past week as British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the “new and pressing challenge” facing that nation and the world is to strip the Internet of Free Speech.

Of course, David Cameron didn’t use that language. He used language far more likely to garner support from the masses who have lost their ability to think critically about the task at hand.

Prime Minister David Cameron used the newest and brightest bogeyman of them all, terrorism, as his rationale for stripping the world of free speech on the internet.

The “new and pressing challenge is getting extremist material taken down from the internet. We must not allow the internet to be an ungoverned space,” Cameron decried.

Cameron demanded British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) create filters for “harmful material” and the “extremist narrative” he deemed to be the instigator of terrorist activity the world over.

This is the “root cause” of terrorism so far as David Cameron is concerned and, in his view, radical Muslims will no longer chop off people’s heads on the streets of Britain or anywhere else once the Internet is appropriately sanitized.

He’s completely out to lunch, of course, but that did not stop him from ordering Britain’s ISPs to comply with his demands. Unfortunately for British citizens, those companies caved fully, completely and immediately.

The UK’s major Internet service providers – BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk – have this week committed to host a public reporting button for terrorist material online, similar to the reporting button which allows the public to report child sexual exploitation.

They have also agreed to ensure that terrorist and extremist material is captured by their filters to prevent children and young people coming across radicalising material.

David Cameron wholeheartedly supports censorship… so long as he is the one who determines what gets censored, and therein lies the problem with censorship.

“We are making progress but there is further to go. This is their [ISPs] social responsibility. And we expect them to live up to it,” the prime minister added.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, it is said, and so is censorship. “Permitted speech” is in the eye of the censor, and God help anyone who gets on the wrong side of The Censor.

Cameron neatly sidesteps the actual root causes of terrorism, such as poverty and the foreign policy of Britain and other western nations, and places the blame on freedom of speech on the internet instead.

“And let us be frank. It’s not poverty, though of course our nations are united in tackling deprivation wherever it exists. It’s not exclusion from the mainstream. Of course we have more to do but we are both successful multicultural democracies where opportunities abound.

“And it’s not foreign policy. I can show you examples all over the world where British aid and British action have saved millions of Muslim lives, from Kosovo to Syria – but that is not exactly the real point. In our democracies, we must never give in to the idea that disagreeing with a foreign policy in any way justifies terrorist outrages.”

The root cause was in fact the “extremist narrative”, Cameron said.

Freedom of Speech is the cause of all the world’s ills. It’s that darned Free Speech on the internet that’s the culprit, don’t you know.

Well, I didn’t know but I’m so very grateful David Cameron set me straight.

You just can’t let people say anything they want! God knows what crazy things they’ll say!

How long until Australian, American and Canadian governments order their Internet Service Providers to censor internet content to their liking? It is the wet dream of every president and prime minister on the planet; the ability to control what their people say, read and hear, and therefore what they think.

There remains only one question to be asked, really.

How long will it be until my protesting censorship is considered “extremist material” unsuited for the eyes of my fellow mere citizens?

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

July 6, 2014

The Canadian Charter of Approved Beliefs? I thought it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms!

Attila Vaski liked this post


I could have sworn we mere citizens, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enjoyed a quaint little notion called Freedom of Religion and that we could not be discriminated against because of our choice of religion.

It appears I was mistaken. Either that or the moronic bigots at Nanaimo City Hall violated the Charter Rights of Canadians they identified as “Christians.”

Councillor Fred Pattje, the bigot who introduced the motion to ban the Christian leadership event, said in his introduction to his motion,

“The Nanaimo Daily News had sponsored an event, a leadership event, a cast, a podcast, in this facility that among others was sponsored by a company in the United States called Chic Fil-A, the owner of which has a rich history of homophobia and other divisive practices. The gentleman’s name is Mr. Dan Cathy.”

Dan Cathy is a Christian businessman who views marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Mr. Cathy also views homosexuality as a sin, just as stealing, adultery and murder are sins.

Allowing Mr. Cathy’s company to sponsor this event last year offended “members of the LGBT” community, said Mr. Pattje.

Well, we can’t have that, can we?

Councillor Jim Kipp compared Christians to terrorists after expressing his horror that Chic-fil-A funded “a very strong unbelievable Christian belief” opposing same-sex marriage.

“The company is renowned for major funding of what I would call a very strong unbelievable Christian belief, so for me this is really, real simple for us. We’ve said before to it, it’s not just… it’s not just the speakers coming here, it’s who’s funding it, what their messages are outside of this one realm where I… I can’t support it at all, the way they spread the stuff that they do.”

He went on to compare Dan Cathy and his family restaurant to criminals and terrorists.

“We won’t accept if a criminal organization wants to come into our community and, um, set up and have a podcast, so I just say this one…. I find this almost to be a criminal point of view in this day and age with the hatred that we’ve seen this past week in our own community? And the stuff that’s going on around the world… Little girls, 270 girls are missing? This is this is just nuts.”

That a man and his company can be vilified because of his religious beliefs is utterly offensive.

What shocks me is nobody has yet, to the best of my knowledge, filed a Human Rights Complaint against the Nanaimo City Council for both their vitriolic 20-minute anti-Christian tirade they call a City Council Meeting and the motion banning Christians from using the city-owned Convention Center.

Councillor George Anderson had the gall to say this:

“I think that goes to show that this council is showing leadership itself by saying we will not accept acts of hate and its even within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that hate speech is not permitted and so for us to go ahead and say because it is just a leadership event that organizations that promote hate should be able to use our facility sends the wrong message. So I am happy top support the motion because its unfortunate to see this type of organization coming and using a publicly owned publicly funded facility so I’m happy to support the motion.”

Invoking the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify your violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms… Now that’s “progressive” in action.

Well done Councillor George Anderson!

Neither Dan Cathy or his company, Chic-fil-A, “promote hate”. They promote Christian family values. There is a difference, but one that the self-described progressive city council of Nanaimo can’t grasp.

Comparing Mr. Cathy’s Christian beliefs to “hate speech” and “hate crimes” is absurd. Mr. Cathy supports the traditional family. His chain of restaurants cater to families.

Bill Bestwick, proudly donning the hat of Nanaimo’s Chief Censor, declared it would be more effective to black out the event, to simply turn off the equipment in the convention center, than to cancel it entirely.

“I don’t want… Personally I don’t want to hear what this has to say. So, the reason that I might have suggested, that if I knew (ahead of the motion being presented) because staff knew on Friday and I totally respect the motion and I’ll support the motion, but for me I would love to black them, if all of the other speakers, if there’s a dozen or ten and its three hours long or however long it is, then black that out. I think it’s… Personally I think would be, actually more effective… to… to… it’s a blackout. You can’t get this game in BC. You can’t get this person in Nanaimo. Because we don’t support it.”


Yes, that’s the answer.

Censorship is ALWAYS the answer when you can’t handle an opinion that is different than your own.

Censorship is the sign of an incredibly small and closed mind.

When you are so terrified of opinion, as the members of Nanaimo City Council are, that you refuse to let anyone else hear that opinion either you reveal to the world what you truly are: petty, puny and ignorant.

When asked if the sponsor of the LeaderCast event, the Nanaimo Daily News newspaper, was aware a motion to cancel the event was before city council, Fred Pattje responded with,

“They were not. I know that as late as an hour and a half ago city staff have had a conversation with senior staff at the Nanaimo Daily News and I don’t know whether at that point that person was advised or not but it’s kind of beside the point as far as I’m concerned.”

What more would you expect from politicians behaving like cockroaches?

Why hear all sides to a story when you can proclaim from on high all that is Right and Good in the world, then ridicule and defame anyone who disagrees with you.

Like with all cockroaches, however, when you shine the light of truth on them they scurry for cover.

First the city issued a formal statement (PDF) on June 26, 2014. Like councillor George Anderson, they attempted to use the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify their asinine and criminal act of discrimination.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council fully support and are committed to upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council also recognize that the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code apply equally to the protection against discrimination of Canadians of all races, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, mental or physical disability, religions, sex and sexual orientation.

And finally, the City of Nanaimo and its Council recognize that the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code must sometimes be balanced between groups of Canadians having differing views and that the process of creating this balance is both challenging and complex.

Nanaimo’s Council accepts that, in passing the May 5 resolution, some Canadians support its actions while other Canadians do not. However, if presented with comparable circumstances again, Nanaimo’s current Council is confident that actions similar to those taken on May 5 would not be repeated.

The City of Nanaimo and its Council strongly believe that Canadians of all races, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, mental or physical disability, religions, sex and sexual orientation are entitled to use any facility that is either owned by or in the control of the City in the same manner, subject always to the rule of law.

Let me interpret for you.

“We didn’t do anything wrong but if faced with the same decision again we would not do it again.”

If you didn’t do anything wrong then have the courage of your convictions.

Don’t hide from what you did. Own it!

But they did do something wrong and each and every one of Nanaimo’s city council knew it. They could only defend the indefensible so much before they could no longer believe the drivel coming out of their own mouths.

Ezra Levant, after he was notified of the anti-Freedom act of Nanaimo City Council by the citizens of that city, got hold of this issue and went to town on it.

Whatever else you may think of Ezra Levant, the man is fearless when confronting petty thugs and censors like the Nanaimo City Council.

He ran special programs on Nanaimo’s anti-Christian bigotry. He started a legal defense fund to sue Nanaimo City Council. He started a petition that garnered over 5,000 signatures in 24-hours. He forwarded everything to the members of Nanaimo City Council.

Then he flew to Nanaimo to confront them in person.

I must confess I smiled as I watched both Nanaimo mayor John Ruttan and Fred Pattje backpedal as though their lives depended on it. Their political lives may very well depend on their backpedalling ability, given civic elections only a few months away.

Cockroaches hate the light. They despise being seen for what they are. That was evident as both men fell over themselves apologizing for their atrocious actions.

What was most fascinating to watch was Councillor Fred Pattje’s shock and hurt that anyone would disagree with him.

It was a deeply humbled Fred Pattje who Ezra Levant interviewed this week, not the outraged man calling Fred Cathy and Chic-fil-A “awful” for the heinous crime of defending traditional marriage.

“The connection alone between, you can go on the website, and the connection between that and Chi-fil-A and their awful history of dealing with things gay and lesbian should be enough (to cancel the event). This is about an organization that is being sponsored by a man who has done tremendous damage.”

That thousands of mere citizens from across this great land wrote him and expressed their disgust genuinely appeared to hurt him. That anyone would call him a “Nazi”, especially his own nationality, clearly distressed him greatly.

What is appalling is that until that moment, until his own bigotry was tossed in his face, Fred Pattje could not comprehend he did offended and discriminated against Christians without a moment’s hesitation.

As a result of Ezra Levant’s online petition, legal fundraising and relentless national coverage of their flagrant violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Nanaimo City Council is about to repeal the motion banning Christian organizations from using the Nanaimo convention center.

The lesson of Nanaimo’s bigotry and Charter violations is simple.

Petty tyrants and bullies must be fought everywhere we find them.

In this case it was at the municipal level and, in the grand scheme of things, took very little to force them to do the right thing.

But they had to be forced.

They refused to do the right thing on their own, despite being given many opportunities to do so. It took mere citizens standing up for themselves and their precious Rights and Freedoms.

It took the Light of the World being shone upon them before they would step back and obey the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


If you’re interested in seeing the entire fiasco unfold you can view the timeline of events at

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

June 19, 2014

Politically-Correct Madness: Washington Redskins Trademarks Cancelled by US Patent Office

Ryan Steacy liked this post


The Washington Redskins are a football team which has operated under this name since 1932. A bunch of nanny state ninnies decreed the term “Redskins” is derogatory and the team should be stripped of its name.

An article in Politico made a big deal about this, quoting such authorities as Harry Reid as if that lends legitimacy to the stripping of trademarks held by a business.

Reid called the name a “sad reminder” of the bigotry Native Americans have faced and said the issue “is extremely important to Native Americans all across the country.”

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) is quoted saying

This is not the end of this case, but this is a landmark decision by the Patent Office that says that the NFL team here in Washington, D.C., does not have a patentable name, and that this is an offensive term not patentable by the Patent Office.”

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.) hopped onto Twitter with this quip:

This decision is a step forward for Indian Country and for all Americans who champion tolerance.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) whined about team owner Daniel Snider appealing the ruling stripping him of his intellectual property.

I don’t know how many times he needs to be told that the name is disparaging. I understand he says he’s going to appeal. Shame on him,” she said in an interview. “I mean, does he like losing?

What I find fascinating is the people complaining loudest about the name “Washington Redskins” in this entire article are old white folk pandering to their own sense of political correctness. It is not until the very last paragraph of the article’s first page that an actual native is quoted.

“I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed,” said Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse. “The team’s name is racist and derogatory.

I can’t imagine any pro sports team owner would name their team something derogatory. It simply does not make good business sense.

If you despise a segment of the population based on their race, why on earth would you name your team after them?

The answer is simple. You wouldn’t.

I believe former team owner Jack Kent Cooke said it best.

I admire the Redskins name. I think it stands for bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit and I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to use it.”

There are always those who look for ways to be offended.  They will always find them, since that is their focus and intent.  They wish to be labeled “victim” and will go to great lengths to prove their own sense of victimhood.

It matters not that there is no derogatory intent, or that in fact the opposite is the case.  In our age of politically correct nonsense the mere fact that someone is offended means you are wrong and they are right.

The Washington Redskins have operated under that name since 1932.

The team has already won previous petitions to cancel their trademarks, which does make me wonder about the legitimacy of the current proceedings.  Since this very same board dealt with this issue in 1992 and found in favour of the Washington Redskins the question that springs to mind is this:  How many times must a company defend itself against the very same charges?  As many times as it takes for their opponents to find favour?

That certainly appears the case here.

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia was very clear when it overturned the previous ruling against the team.

The TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. The decision should also be reversed because the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case.

Sadly those perennial complainers, professional victims and their advocates like Harry Reid, Maria Cantwell, Jon Tester and Eleanor Holmes Norton will never stop until they get their way.  It matters not that someone’s Rights are trampled underfoot.  These buffoons claim moral superiority and anyone offending their delicate sensibilities must be punished.

I, like team lawyer Bob Raskopf, believe this decision will also be overturned on appeal.

We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo,” he said in a statement, citing rulings in 1999 and 2003. “We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.”

This preoccupation with “hurt feelings” is… well… just that; a bunch politically-correct nonsense perpetuating the myth that every term they don’t like is ipso facto “offensive” and “derogatory”.

The fact a Sports Illustrated 2002 poll of Native Americans found 75% had no issue with the term is irrelevant. A 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found 91% of Native Americans had no issue with the name.

That pretty much leaves a few perennial complainers and some old white folks desperately trying to win political points who dislike the team’s name.

Sadly for both the Washington Redskins and the overwhelming majority of Native Americans, their opinions mean nothing.

This is, after all, the Arena of Political Correctness and that’s no game.

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

June 15, 2014

Take a Wrong Turn – Go Directly to Jail


Right now Mexico is at the center of a huge controversy over their arrest and imprisonment of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi for taking a wrong turn that led him to a border crossing.

The trouble with border crossings is that once you’re on the path you cannot turn around.

The issue at hand is the detention in Mexico of U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, 25, who has been in prison since his arrest April 1 after he took a wrong turn and ended up over the border with his guns, which are legal in the United States but not in Mexico.

In the wake of trading 5 terrorists for 1 Army sergeant-turned-Taliban-supporter while leaving U.S. Marine Tahmooressi to rot in a Mexican prison, Obama’s inaction has many upset, and rightfully so.

“We’re proclaiming that the occupant of the White House … no longer speaks for us. The American people will speak for themselves,” John Harrington, president of gun seller Shield Tactical, told WND Friday.

While Obama plays golf a U.S. Marine is imprisoned in Mexico, abandoned by the nation he faithfully serves. It’s no surprise why John Harrington and others dislike the current President. His disdain for America’s service men and women is… distasteful… to be polite.

This border stupidity is not just a Mexico issue, however. The Canadian border is no friendlier to Americans who make a wrong turn and end up at our gates.

Retired U.S. Army sergeant major Louis DiNatale and his wife learned first-hand just how absurd Canada can be when a wrong turn lands a US citizen at a Canadian border crossing.

GPS units are neat toys but they really don’t comprehend how we travel. Ask for the shortest distance and your GPS will happily take you on a wild goose chase you could complete in half the time if you didn’t follow its directions.

Such is the tragic accident that landed Louis DiNatale on Canada’s doorstep. Their GPS directed the couple through Canada as if that was the best way to get from Kentucky to Vermont. When DiNatale finally realized he was headed for the Canadian border it was too late to turn around. There were no off-ramps.

Instead of simply letting DiNatale and his wife turn around and be on their way as the couple requested our faithful servants at the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) decided a much harsher response was necessary.

DiNatale was, you see, the worst kind of American. He is a gun owner.

CBSA agents arrested Louis DiNatale on charges of gun smuggling because he had forgotten one of his pistols was inside the vehicle.  He explained what happened, showed them his reservations in Vermont and his wife corroborated every word he said.

His word clearly isn’t enough despite, as DiNatale says,

“There’s not even a traffic ticket in my background. Why would I come to Canada to bring a small weapon to smuggle in?”

Common sense has no place at national borders. These invisible are far too sensitive to take a retired Army sergeant major’s word. He is a gun owner, and therefore a liar.

Bruce Engel, DiNatale’s lawyer in this case, made perfect sense when he said

They could have done their homework and looked at his background and seen he’s a professional. They could have accepted the word of his wife and released him on his own recognizance.”

Accepting the word of Louis DiNatale, a career military man, is just not the Canadian way. Making an example out of that military man, disgustingly, is the Canadian way.

While U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexico prison cell awaiting trial DiNatale is slightly better off. He was eventually able to post bail and return home.

He vows to fight the charges and I’m very glad he is a man dedicated to common sense.

Owning firearms is legal in America.

That Canadians’ sense of nationhood insists we must be disarmed ninnies should not land our American cousins in prison simply for taking a wrong turn with a gun in their vehicle.

Like Canada, Mexico ought to do the right thing and release U.S. Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi.

Then both nations ought to drop the criminal charges against the men who simply took a wrong turn. They had no criminal intent. That is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Unfortunately that description doesn’t appear to apply to anyone at the Crown Prosecutor’s office handling Retired U.S. Army sergeant major Louis DiNatale’s case.

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

June 8, 2014

Champlain Bridge: Quebec’s Entitlement Complex Strikes Again



Montreal’s Champlain Bridge in is falling down. With a design described as “flawed from the outset” it’s surprising the bridge stayed functional this long. Nobody argues the fact this bridge must be replaced.

The only issue for Canadians, all Canadians, is who will pay for that new bridge.

I cannot think of a single reason why taxpayers outside of Quebec ought to pay for the new Champlain Bridge. It’s municipal infrastructure, not provincial or federal.

Justin Trudeau can, of course, and his rationale is the same as for every other Quebec project. Canada owes it to Quebec for their decision to grace us with their presence in Confederation.

The spoiled child with no job experience, no leadership experience and no clue about anything except Quebec’s entitlement to the contents of the rest of the nation’s wallets, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau parrots, indeed embodies Quebec’s sense of entitlement.

NDP leader Thomas Muclair suffers that same notion of Quebec’s entitlement.

Anything Quebec desires Ottawa (and by Ottawa I mean the rest of Canada) must pay for. It’s the Quebec way.

The government of Quebec, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair all demand, not that Canada subsidize the costs of a new Champlain Bridge, but that we pay for it outright.

If Quebec gets is way the Government of British Columbia is fully justified in demanding Ottawa pay the entire construction costs of both the Golden Ears Bridge ($1 billion) and the new Port Mann Bridge ($3.5 billion), as both were constructed without a single federal tax dollar.

If it’s good enough for Quebec, clearly it must be good enough for British Columbia and the rest of Canada too, right?

Absolutely not! says Quebec Premier Couillard, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

Both British Columbia bridges were constructed and paid for using tolls.

While I despise the notion of paying a second time for the construction of a bridge my taxes are already supposed to cover, BC didn’t ask anyone else to pay for our bridges. We asked for no handouts from Ottawa. We paid our own way, just as Quebec should with the Champlain Bridge.

I’m surprised Stephen Harper made the offer to build the new $5 billion bridge at all. That he did so is very generous. In asking Quebecers pay back that cost over time through tolls on the new Champlain Bridge Harper is painted by Quebec politicians as harsh and unfair.

So says Quebec Premier Couillard, Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair. They all oppose Quebecers paying for the new Champlain Bridge through tolls.

Every one of them, their sense of entitlement freshly buffed and shined, demands the rest of Canada pay Quebec’s way.

What is bizarre about their combined position against tolls to pay for the construction of the new Champlain Bridge is the Oliver Charbonneau Bridge connecting Laval and Montreal is a currently toll bridge. The existing Champlain Bridge was a toll bridge until the 1970s.

This is NOT a new concept for Montreal despite the hypocrisy of Montreal’s Mayor, Quebec’s Premier and the two opposition windbags, all of whom scream how unfair this is.

If you believe, as I do, that Quebec ought to pay its own way for a change tell Prime Minister Stephen Harper your thoughts. Send him an email at and tell him no Federal tax dollars for the Champlain Bridge project unless those construction costs are repaid, in full, through tolls.

While you’re at it, please copy your message to Prime Minister Harper to both Liberal leader Justin Trudeau ( and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair (

It’s long past time both these men learned the rest of Canada is tired of Quebec’s never-ending sense of entitlement; that the rest of Canada somehow owes Quebec simply because it exists.


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

June 2, 2014

Are You A Terrorist or do you simply Value Your Privacy?

Mike Ackermann liked this post


In digging through some information on another subject I stumbled across a copy of the moronic information pamphlet released by the FBI, titled “Communities Against Terrorism – Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities“, in its efforts to curb terrorism by creating a cadre of informants. I’d forgotten about this pamphlet and I think a short review is in order so we all know how to deal with those silly miscreants (aka mere citizens) who dare believe in their Right to Privacy.

Do you or anyone you know, while visiting an internet cafe or coffee shop…

  • always pay cash?
  • prefer to shield your computer screen from the view of others?
  • log onto AOL, ComCast or other “residential based internet provider”?
  • use an anonymous web web portal to shield your IP address?

Then you are a very suspicious person and the FBI wants someone to report your “very suspicious conduct“.

According to the FBI, anyone watching you and your very suspicious conduct ought to…

  • gather information about you without drawing attention to themselves
  • capture your license plate number and vehicle make and model
  • identify your name, ethnicity and what languages you speak, and
  • notify law enforcement immediately if they are concerned about your very suspicious conduct

The last 2 paragraphs of the pamphlet are brilliant. Utterly brilliant.

Preventing terrorism is a community effort. By learning what to look for, you can make a positive contribution in the fight against terrorism. The partnership between the community and law enforcement is essential to the success of anti-terrorism efforts.

Some of the activities, taken individually, could be innocent and must be examined by law enforcement professionals in a larger context to determine whether there is a basis to investigate. The activities outlined on this handout are by no means all-inclusive but have been compiled from a review of terrorist events over several years.

What is sad is they save their explanation that every single activity they deem suspicious is actually “lawful conduct or behaviour” for the fine print at the bottom of the page so small you need a magnifying glass to read.

While I agree we must all be aware of our surroundings it is treading on very dangerous ground to believe everyone who values their privacy and pays cash is a terrorist.

On that note I think I’ll take my laptop to the nearest internet cafe, grab a coffee, pay for it in cash, find the darkest corner I can to protect my screen from prying eyes and use a web anonymizer service to shield my IP address while I research my next article on, oh, I don’t know, how about the Anarchist Cookbook or the latest full auto firearm manufactured by Sig Sauer.

Oh yeah, and I’d better log onto my home ISP service and check my email while I’m at it.

That ought to be enough very suspicious conduct to qualify me for their snitch program, right?


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

May 28, 2014

So-called Mexican “Vigilantes” secured their towns from drug cartels… only then did government step in to “help them”

Ryan Steacy, Attila Vaski liked this post


The western Mexican state of Michoacan is comprised of decent, hardworking people. Fed up with drug cartel crime and murders as well as police and government inaction dealing with them, these decent, hardworking people did what any self-respecting group of citizens should: They took up arms and rid themselves of the scourge the government was too cowardly to deal with.

Now that residents successfully rid their towns of the drug cartel the Mexican government is sweeping in to “save the day”.

Only governmental saving the day looks the same as it always does.. a lot like the tyranny they just rid themselves of.

In this case residents will be “allowed” too keep their guns… so long as they register their guns, of course.

The ceremony in the town of Tepalcatepec, where the movement began in February 2013, will involve the registration of thousands of guns by the federal government and an agreement that the so-called “self-defense” groups will either join a new official rural police force or return to their normal lives and acts as voluntary reserves when called on. The government will go town by town to organize and recruit the new rural forces.

This is a process of giving legal standing to the self-defense forces,” said vigilante leader Estanislao Beltran.

Not everyone is thrilled with the government stepping in after the fact, demanding all firearms be registered, and those individuals join the new rural police force.

Given the government’s lack of ability to deal with drug cartel violence, many couldn’t care less about the “legal standing” of themselves or their firearms.

We don’t want them to come, we don’t recognize them,” vigilante Melquir Sauceda said of the government and the new rural police forces. “Here we can maintain our own security. We don’t need anyone bringing it from outside.”

There is a lesson here for those willing to see it. A free people does not need permission from government to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their livelihoods. Such a concept is an athema to liberty.

The new rural forces are designed to be a way out of an embarrassing situation, in which elected leaders and law enforcement agencies lost control of the entire state to the pseudo-religious Knights Templar drug cartel. Efforts to retake control with federal police and military failed.

If government is so all-powerful, they wouldn’t need a way out of this “embarrassing situation”, would they?

This (demobilization) agreement is just something to please the government,” said Rene Sanchez, 22, a vigilante from the self-defense stronghold of Buenavista. “With them or without them, we are going to keep at it.

Residents of Canada and the United States ought to listen to the simple wisdom of the so-called vigilantes of the Michoacan state of Mexico. It’s a maxim I’ve stated repeatedly over the years.

The only ones present when criminals strike are we mere citizens… the saviours of government and the police are nowhere to be found until much later, if we are lucky enough to still be alive upon their arrival.

Self-defense is deeply personal, and we must take responsibility for our own safety. Nobody can assume that responsibility for us.

Government cannot provide it for us, no matter how much they try to convince us otherwise.


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

May 26, 2014

EFF Report- Who is Protecting Your Data from Government Requests?



The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) constantly fights for our right to privacy on the Internet. It’s an organization every single person who values privacy ought to support financially, as they are continually beating back Leviathan when it comes to issues of personal privacy online.

In this fourth-annual report, EFF examines the publicly-available policies of major Internet companies—including Internet service providers, email providers, mobile communications tools, telecommunications companies, cloud storage providers, location-based services, blogging platforms, and social networking sites—to assess whether they publicly commit to standing with users when the government seeks access to user data. The purpose of this report is to allow users to make informed decisions about the companies with whom they do business.

Their report titled “Who Has Your Back” (download PDF version) is a detailed investigation of which companies actively fight for your right to privacy and which companies don’t. They evaluated companies based on six criteria:

1. Require a warrant for content of communications.
2. Tell users about government data requests.
3. Publish transparency reports.
4. Publish law enforcement guidelines.
5. Fight for users’ privacy rights in courts.
6. Publicly oppose mass surveillance.

It’s a valuable report for you if you’re looking to vote with your dollars, something I highly recommend you do, and support only those companies who will support you, their customer.

These questions are even more important in the wake of the past year’s revelations about mass surveillance, which showcase how the United States government has been taking advantage of the rich trove of data we entrust to technology companies to engage in surveillance of millions of innocent people in the US and around the world. Internal NSA documents and public statements by government officials confirm that major telecommunications companies are an integral part of these programs. We are also faced with unanswered questions, conflicting statements, and troubling leaked documents which raise real questions about the government’s ability to access to the information we entrust to social networking sites and webmail providers.

There were some surprises on the list for me, as I was not aware of the pro-privacy stance of some of the companies listed. Others, like Twitter, Google and Microsoft, are companies I’ve written about repeatedly when their refusal to give up private information takes them to court at their own expense. That’s the true test of a company’s commitment to privacy really, isn’t it? Do they merely pay lip service to the notion or will they back it up with cold hard cash.

I was appalled but not surprised that both AT&T and ComCast routinely give up personal information without a warrant and pleased to see, Apple and Dropbox (among many others) all required a warrant first. All three of these companies also back up their belief in privacy with their own cash when they fight the government in court.

That’s a good thing.

The next largest single factor in the privacy battle is whether the company you deal with will tell you if the government is after your personal information. A shocking number of companies will not tell you this, including both the aforementioned AT&T and ComCast. For me, the fact ComCast “fights for users’ rights in court” is meaningless since they don’t require a warrant and won’t tell me if some government goon is after my personal information. But that’s just me, and I don’t use ComCast. Or AT&T.

We are pleased to announce that nine companies earned stars in every category: Apple, CREDO Mobile, Dropbox, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Sonic, Twitter, and Yahoo. In addition, six companies earned stars in all categories except a court battle: LinkedIn, Pinterest, SpiderOak, Tumblr, Wickr, and WordPress. We are extremely pleased to recognize the outstanding commitment each of these companies has made to their users.




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

May 24, 2014

You can choose what food you eat… IF the government approves



You are not in control of your own body. In fact you’re too stupid to know what food is right for you. Your so-called “healthy choices” are not government-approved; therefore you cannot eat what you want. So says the Ontario Court of Appeal in it’s decision in R. v. Schmidt.

[45] If there is an infringement of life, liberty and security of the person, the appellant must show that such infringement is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice. The appellant submits that s. 18 of the HPPA and s. 15 of the Milk Act violate the principles of fundamental justice because they are arbitrary and overbroad.

[46] A law is arbitrary where there is “no connection to its objective” (emphasis in original): Bedford v. Canada, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), 2013 SCC 72, at para 111. A law is overbroad “where there is no rational connection between the purposes of the law andsome, but not all, of its impacts” (emphasis in original): Bedford, at para 112. The scientific evidence that I have already mentioned easily reaches the standard of “sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act”:Cochrane v. Ontario (A.G.), 2008 ONCA 718 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 718, at para. 29, leave to appeal refused [2009] SCCA No. 105; R. v. Malmo-Levine at para. 133. The law does not offend the overbreadth principle by targeting all unpasteurized milk.

Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt isn’t a stupid man. In fact he’s quite a smart man. Back in his native Germany he obtained his master’s degree in agriculture.

Upon immigrating to Canada he discovered, to his shock, that as a farmer he could consume all the raw milk he wanted. Should he dare sell that same wholesome nutritious milk to his customers the mighty fist of the Nanny State would descend upon him mercilessly.

Acquitted of all 19 charges at his initial trial, Schmidt found himself at the mercy of Ontario Court of Justice Judge Tetley when the government appealed. Tetley found Michael Schmidt guilty of 13 of the 19 charges he previously was acquitted of and ordered him to pay fines of $9,150.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that decision, deciding unanimously that Canadians have no right to make informed food choices for themselves.

Canadian Constitution Foundation staff lawyer Derek From said,

“The decision is deeply disappointing. The government should not be permitted to prevent individuals from choosing a means of promoting their own health when it causes no one any harm.”

Michael Schmidt added,

“It is indeed a sad reality that the courts do not take the issue of individual liberty serious enough in order to afford informed consumers the freedom to choose.”

Mere citizens are permitted to make crazy and dangerous choices all the time.

One such activity is alpine skiing. You might remember this is how Michel Trudeau, the youngest brother of would-be prime minister Justin Trudeau, died in 1998. He died in an avalanche that swept his body into Kokanee Lake, where it was never recovered.

Did we ban alpine skiing in the wake of Michel Trudeau’s untimely death? Of course not. That would be stupid. Free people make their own choices and pay their own prices. In Michel’s case he paid with his life and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s the cost of being a free person.

Drinking raw milk is a far cry from alpine skiing, yet informed consumers are refused permission to make a healthy choice for themselves and their family.

From the article “The Health Benefits of Raw Milk

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century. That’s right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of “stem cell” of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases. From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this “white blood” nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that. What’s in it that makes it so great? Let’s look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food.


Our bodies use amino acids as building blocks for protein. Depending on who you ask, we need 20-22 of them for this task. Eight of them are considered essential, in that we have to get them from our food. The remaining 12-14 we can make from the first eight via complex metabolic pathways in our cells.

Raw cow’s milk has all 8 essential amino acids in varying amounts, depending on stage of lactation. About 80% of the proteins in milk are caseins- reasonably heat stable and, for most, easy to digest. The remaining 20% or so are classed as whey proteins, many of which have important physiological effects (bioactivity). Also easy to digest, but very heat-sensitive, these include key enzymes (specialized proteins) and enzyme inhibitors, immunoglobulins (antibodies), metal-binding proteins, vitamin binding proteins and several growth factors.

I highly recommend you read the entire article. It’s quite informative and enlightening, and it has detailed citations for all its sources.

Another credible source on raw milk is Chris Kresser. In his article “Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Dangerous” he makes a point both the government and media repeatedly “overlook”:

According to the most recent review of foodborne disease outbreaks in the U.S. in 2008 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), seafood, produce and poultry were associated with the most outbreaks. Produce is responsible for the greatest number of illnesses each year (2,062), with nearly twice as many illnesses as poultry (1,112). Dairy products are at the bottom of the list. They cause the fewest outbreaks and illnesses of all the major food categories – beef, eggs, poultry, produce and seafood.

We live in a world where government demands control over our every move. We can do whatever we want, provided we get permission from the Nanny State.

That permission is not extended to food choices, making me question yet again… How free are we really?


For a full background on this case please visit The Canadian Constitution Foundation, aka Freedom’s Defence Team.


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

May 22, 2014

Facebook Photo Equals Child Abuse? When a Firearm is Visible… Absolutely!

Mike Ackermann, Robert Bailey liked this post


Imagine the scenario.

You post an innocent photo of your son holding a rifle on Facebook. Your son is 11 years old. He is well trained in firearm safety by you. His finger is off the trigger in the photo, just as it should be.

Some pathetic crybaby sees the photo online and calls the New Jersey Department of Children and Families who, in turn, contact the police.

Both agencies raid your home and attempt to search it. They demand to see your gun safe and all your firearms for “inspection”. When you refuse to accede to their ridiculous demands because they don’t have a search warrant these so-called authorities label you “unreasonable” and “uncooperative” and say you act “suspiciously”.

Imagine that.

Stand up for your rights and you are “unreasonable”.

Demand police respect your rights and you are “suspicious” and “uncooperative”.

Rights are inviolate. Police thugs hate that. Good cops don’t, of course, because they respect your rights but those aren’t the type of police at your door late this night.

However, the police finally do leave, but not before threatening to take your children away from you.

This is no fable; no mere story.

This is precisely the violation Shawn Moore, an NRA-certified firearms instructor and range safety officer, faced last year when some whining little ninny saw a photo on Facebook of Shawn’s son holding a rifle.

In their rush to abuse a law-abiding firearm owner these police state thugs failed to obtain a search warrant. Actually, the more likely scenario is no judge with functional brain cells would issue a search warrant based on such flimsy and absurd “evidence.”

Clearly all common sense vacated the puny brains of the minions at the New Jersey Department of Children and Families and their counterparts in the police department.

Nanny State Minion Kristen Brown, aka spokesperson for New Jersey Department of Children and Families, parroted the usual tripe about “duty” while not comprehending the meaning of the word.

“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline. We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry. In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect.”

An anonymous phone call complaining of a Facebook photo of a child holding a rifle is considered an allegation of child abuse?

How absurd.



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

May 16, 2014

Gun Ownership Leads To Gun Violence but only if you add the Medical Lobby and completely twist the facts



To paraphrase Eric Rauch’s eloquent article from 2012, Do More Guns Lead to More Violent Crime?, gun ownership leads to gun violence the same way car ownership leads to drunk driving. It just isn’t so.

Rauch’s article came in response to doctors claims they discovered something new about gun violence, namely that gun ownership leads to gun violence, when in reality they merely twisted the facts to meet their own preconceived notions.

Anti-gun activists are not interested in data that doesn’t support their case, so they twist the information instead, making it appear to say something that it most certainly does not. This is neither scientific nor honest. It is nothing but political propaganda, being delivered by a “trusted authority” in a white lab coat.

While I urge you to read Eric Rauch’s entire article, here is just a little of his response to these so-called experts.

Wow. In a nation of gunowners, where it is estimated that the number of guns is between 260-300 million (it is probably even higher than this), it is somehow statistically relevant that gun ownership precedes gun violence. This fact is about as helpful as the fact that car ownership tends to precede auto fatalities, or that home ownership precedes house fire deaths; one does not predict the other.

The FBI estimates that two-thirds of all homicides are committed with guns, yet only 9% of violent crimes actually involve guns. This is highly significant. A homicide is a violent crime where a death results. This would fall into the 9% category. However, attempted homicide, robberies, carjackings, domestic disputes, gang violence, etc, that involve guns also are a part of that 9%. This means that 89% of violent crime does not involve a gun.

In a nation where guns number almost 1:1 of the population, this lack of correlation is much more important than the miniscule relationship where they do seem to correlate.

It is significant that in a nation of over 300 million people guns are used in violent crimes only 9% of the time. That’s a far cry from the incessant wailing that America is drowning in “gun violence”, isn’t int?

If you dig deeper into those “gun crime” statistics a few other things are quite apparent. I will leave you to discover those facts for yourself, lest you feel a need to label me racist or hateful or some other derogatory name. (While you’re looking into such matters, take a look at “gun crime” in the greater Toronto area… you will discover the very same trend.)

Eric Rauch goes on to mock their “findings” with a few of his own, such as

Without seeing the data, I can confidently predict that 100% of violent crimes involve people. Of those 100%, every one of them had parents. This seems to be a much stronger predictor than gun ownership: having parents always precedes violent crime. In fact, having parents is a precursor to any kind of crime, not only violent ones. This is the real epidemic. Why can’t these doctors see this as the real problem?

A gun is simply a tool. It can be used for good or evil. It has no morality of its own. That morality is reserved for the human being, of which 100% are involved in “gun violence” and in fact in all violence.

Let me give you an example.

I can take a handgun out of my gun safe, load it, chamber a round, cock the trigger and put it down on my kitchen table. If I felt so inclined I could even point it directly at myself.

I am 100% confident my gun will not shoot me. In fact it will sit on that table pointing at me for the rest of my life unless some human being comes along and picks it up.

Whether that loaded gun will be used for good or evil depends 100% on that individual.

It’s so simple.

The gun has no power over that choice, just as the car has no power over whether a person drives drunk or not.

Cars cause drunk driving like spoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat; like gun ownership makes “gun criminals”. One simply does not lead to the other.

People commit crimes, not inanimate objects.

Why is this so hard for so many to comprehend?

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

May 13, 2014

Stupid Toronto Star Reporters and Canadian Firearms Law



You can’t stop people from being stupid. You can, as a reporter writing about stupid people, base your story at least in the same universe as reality, if not on the same planet.

Jacques Gallant, a staff reporter for Toronto’s The Star newspaper, clearly doesn’t have a clue what he’s writing about in his article “Handguns Easily Resold to Potential Criminals” when he states:

There are no safeguards in Canadian firearms legislation to prevent people from purchasing a large number of handguns and then illegally transferring them to potential criminals.

Jacques Gallant isn’t much of a researcher either, as it takes all of 10 seconds and a search engine to come up with Section 23.2 of Canada’s Firearms Act, which reads:

Section 23.2 (1) A person may transfer a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm if, at the time of the transfer,
(a) the transferee holds a licence authorizing the transferee to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(b) the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee is not authorized to acquire and possess that kind of firearm;
(c) the transferor informs the Registrar of the transfer;
(d) if the transferee is an individual, the transferor informs a chief firearms officer of the transfer and obtains the authorization of the chief firearms officer for the transfer;
(e) a new registration certificate for the firearm is issued in accordance with this Act; and
(f) the prescribed conditions are met.

The law is quite clear about who may transfer handguns (classed as restricted firearms in Canada) and to whom.

Mr. Gallant is, at best, disingenuous with his assertion. At worst he is intentionally misleading the public, if not outright lying to them.

Mr. Gallant is not really a reporter of this story though, is he? He’s more the manufacturer of a press release meeting The Star‘s anti-gun bias, one shared by the astoundingly ignorant Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, whom Gallant quotes favourably.

Of course you could have restrictions on how many firearms someone could purchase, of course you could take advantage of the inspection provisions that already exist but what we’ve seen in recent years is an erosion of the legislation and its enforcement” under the current federal government.

Cukier’s drivel is hogwash, of course, but Windy Wendy never met a firearms fact she wasn’t willing to overlook.

The repeal of the long gun registry had absolutely nothing to do with handguns and she knows it. But why get a little thing like the truth get in the way of some easy PR, right Wendy?

The only thing Mr. Gallant actually gets correct in his article’s opening statement is his assertion there are no limits to how many firearms a person may purchase.

There aren’t, and nor should there be, since every single firearm purchase must be approved by police, specifically the Chief Firearms Officer of each province. In Ontario that is Ontario Provincial Police Superintendent Chris Wyatt.

The case Mr. Gallant writes about is the unbelievably stupid Andrew Winchester, who bought 47 handguns and then resold them illegally to his high school friend, Nour Marakah.

Andrew Winchester passed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course for both non-restricted and restricted firearms. He then applied for and received a Canadian firearms license. This license was issued by Superintendent Chris Wyatt’s office. The same man whose office approved each and every one of the 47 handgun purchase Andrew Winchester made over a 5-month period in 2012.

Now I’m not for a second saying Wyatt’s office did anything wrong in this case. They didn’t.

Prior to approving Andrew Winchester’s firearms license Wyatt’s office is required by law to ensure there is no criminal record for the applicant and to check personal references. Since Mr. Winchester was not a criminal (yet) he passed these tests with flying colors.

The same goes for each one of the handgun purchases. Every time Mr. Winchester purchased one or more handguns his name was run through the system. An updated background check is performed each time a person buys a firearm. If there is a red flag the purchase is not approved.

Until guns purchased by Mr. Winchester showed up at crime scenes there was no reason to suspect anything was amiss. Again, just as it should be if we stand on the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Andrew Winchester is now serving an 8-year prison sentence for his gross stupidity.

How he thought he could illegally sell handguns legally registered to himself and get away with it simply boggles the mind.

One would think being paid $900 per purchase over and above the cost of the guns and ammunition might be a clue all is not legal. Not Andrew Winchester.

It’s almost as stupid as an [alleged] reporter writing such uninformed drivel as Jacques Gallant does and being paid good money to do so.

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

May 12, 2014

Literary Hypocrisy Tramples Freedom of Thought and Religion


Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School has what’s called “Read To Myself” time. One might reasonably expect that “Read To Myself” time is when you can, you know, read to yourself from any book you want. It’s your time, right?


While you can read “Hunger Games” at Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School during “Read To Myself” time, don’t you dare try reading The Bible. That simply will not be tolerated.

literary-hypocrisy-tramples-freedom-of-thought-and-religionAn unnamed female student attends Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School. A few weeks ago during “Read To Myself” time this child discovered the error of her ways when her book of choice, The Bible, was removed from her hands by her teacher.

The teacher felt The Bible was inappropriate for this girl to read yet had no issue with other children reading “Hunger Games”.

“They are letting them read the Hunger Games, that’s kids killing kids, why can’t she read the Bible,” said parent Jennifer Muse.

If The Bible is so “inappropriate” for a child to read, why is there a copy of The Bible in the school’s library?

Michael Berry, senior counsel with the Liberty Institute, says the alleged incident happened about two weeks ago.

“So if it’s appropriate for their own library, why on Earth would it not be appropriate for their own students?”

The hypocrisy is almost too much to bear!

The school board is “investigating the incident” and already issued a statement rationalizing the removal of The Bible from a student, saying books read during “Read To Myself” time must fit certain criteria they define as “just right“.

Un huh.

The family wishes to remain anonymous to avoid any retaliation, but contacted The Liberty Institute to pursue their case.

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

May 8, 2014

Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff

Attila Vaski, Mike Ackermann liked this post


Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto by Matt Kibbe is an excellent treatise on the state of liberty in the 21st century and a roadmap back to our precious Rights and Freedoms. 

While written to an American audience, the principles he outlines apply equally to we freedom-loving citizens here in Canada.

In this essential manifesto of the new libertarian movement, New York Times bestselling author and president of FreedomWorks Matt Kibbe makes a stand for individual liberty and shows us what we must do to preserve our freedom.

Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff is a rational yet passionate argument that defends the principles upon which America was founded—principles shared by citizens across the political spectrum. The Constitution grants each American the right to self-determination, to be protected from others whose actions are destructive to their lives and property. Yet as Kibbe persuasively shows, the political and corporate establishment consolidates its power by infringing upon our independence—from taxes to regulations to spying—ultimately eroding the ideals, codified in law, that have made the United States unique in history.

Kibbe offers a surefire plan for reclaiming our inalienable rights and regaining control of our lives, grounded in six simple rules:

  1. Dont-Hurt-People-and-Dont-Take-Their-StuffDon’t hurt people
    Free people just want to be left alone, not hassled or harmed by someone else with an agenda or designs over their life and property.
  2. Don’t take people’s stuff 
    America’s founders fought to ensure property rights and our individual right to the fruits of our labors.
  3. Take responsibility 
    Liberty takes responsibility. Don’t sit around waiting for someone else to solve your problems.
  4. Work for it 
    For every action there is an equal reaction. Work hard and you’ll be rewarded.
  5. Mind your own business
    Free people live and let live.
  6. Fight the power
    Thanks to the Internet and the decentralization of knowledge, there are more opportunities than ever to take a stand against corrupt authority.

These 6 rules are simple, but as with most things “simple”, they are not easy. 

Defending Rights and Freedoms Takes WorkOur own complacency is the first roadblock to kick in.  Someone else will do it.  I don’t have time.  I’m too tired… the excuses we make for our own inaction are endless.  The very first thing we must do is kick ourselves in the behind and do what is put in front of us to do.

That’s all.

Fighting for our Liberty takes effort.  It takes time.  It often takes money, too.

Each and every one of us must prioritize what is most important to us and act accordingly.

If defending Liberty is important to you it, your actions will show it.  If your actions are not showing your commitment, then you and only you can do something about it.

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

May 5, 2014

Ken Thompson Loved His Children by Brian Bedard

Ryan Steacy, Mike Ackermann liked this post


I admit I never gave much thought to Family Law. Like many people looking from the outside in, I figured our court system was designed to serve justice, and I thought that people who complained about it were probably just disgruntled about their own obligations. I was brought up to take responsibility for my actions and to respect authority. Of course, once I myself was thrust into the family courts, I quickly learned that not all authority respects me.

Now that I find myself part of the growing cry for the reform of our Family Court system, people often share emotional stories with me about how this system has treated them. I always try to remind myself that for every story there are two sides. But in fact, there are more than two sides whenever children are involved.

And I am seeing more and more of the impetus for reform coming from the very children who were left to grow up with the decisions of our dysfunctional system. They are realizing what was taken from them, and they are asking questions.

Ken Thompson Loved His Children by Brian BedardTrena Thompson, now a mother herself, is one of those children. She has been speaking out in honour of her late father, Ken Thompson. She is not only talking about systemic abuse, she has the documents to prove it. After his death, Trena discovered that her father had hidden over 500 of his documents amongst her own files. It is a paper trail which tells clearly the story of one of the worst cases of abuse of power orchestrated against a man whose only wish was to be a dad.

Trena wants her father to be honoured and recognized as a hero to all other parents who have endured such oppression.

He saved his files for a reason, stuck them in with mine to help us all. I want to see that it is used as a perfect example as to how flawed the current system is.

The systemic collapse of justice in the town of Sarnia is more than evident in the fact that Trena’s father was given two different identities. Two names were submitted: Kenneth John Thompson and John K. Thompson. And this led to two different case numbers being created by the Family Responsibility Office, which in turn resulted in the demand for two different child support payments from the same man. His attempts to correct this deceitful error went on for years.

The Family Responsibility Office was relentless in its efforts to collect the extra payments, disregarding what should have been a simple clerical error, and sending him back to court where lawyers and judges failed to question or prevent the ongoing disparagement of his character.

Every time Ken Thompson took steps to free himself from the dysfunctional system, he was punished. Lawyers filed documents suggesting that he was mentally ill when he wrote letters asking to visit his own children.

Trena grew up being told

“Your dad is going to steal you… you should run away whenever you see him.”

Furthermore, false allegations of sexual abuse were put forward, effectively discrediting him.

Ken Thompson died of a myocardial infraction, which is a technical term for a heart attack, but I think it really is as simple as calling it a broken heart.

Without a doubt in my mind both heart attacks were induced by the stress, false allegations and fraud the courts were putting him through. The oppression of it all is enough to make the strongest sick. My dad used to always ride a bike, ate healthy, and had his black belt. His first heart attack came a year and a half after the first allegation of him sexually abusing me. Breaks my heart because I know my dad didn’t do that,” says Trena, in a video she made to courageously share his story.

She is determined to continue his struggle for justice, because even after all these years, the system has not changed.

As I consider Trena’s case, I have questions I cannot answer. How does something like this happen? Why are good parents treated like guilty deadbeats?

Ken Thompson loved his children. He worked earnestly to provide for them. Plenty of good people face divorce. And good people want to take care of their children. When they go to Family Court seeking resolution, why are they served with retribution?

When the Family Responsibility Office was mandated to enforce court-ordered family support payments, it was handed exceptional power. As long as their procedural requirements are met, FRO employees are allowed to blindly disregard basic human respect and compassion. And they will be the first to tell you that it is the Family Court that hands them the paperwork needed to wield this power. It is much like a bulldozer set in motion without consideration as to what may be in its path.

But who takes responsibility for the effects of a biased court ruling? Is it up to a cash-strapped parent to siphon more of their funds into the system and away from their children? Where does someone turn when mistakes are made? We have no checks and balances. There is nothing to protect a parent from being villainized by an emotional ex-spouse. There is no way to ensure that the court’s decisions are fair.

Judges and lawyers too often benefit from motivation that has little to do with the well-being of the children. Make no mistake: children are hurt when the very people that should be keeping them safe from harm are allowed to use them as a possession.

Personally, I have asked more than one Family Law lawyer whether they feel our current system is flawed. “Off the record”, they readily agree that it is. But when I’ve asked them why they don’t speak up and become a part of the solution instead of the problem, the conversation always ceases. I guess, after all, lawyers thrive on conflict. It’s a plain fact that the more complicated the case, the more money the lawyers make.

Judges are not motivated to make changes either. A cookie cutter approach facilitated by no-fault divorce seems to have made their job simple.

And this is another question I cannot answer: If the divorce act is a no-fault system, why are allegations even considered in Family Court to begin with?

Indeed, if a serious allegation such as sexual abuse has been put on the table, does this not deserve to be addressed in Criminal Court? And then if a conviction is made, such information can be entered into the Family Court case with true authority to protect the innocent.

On the other hand, where is the protection from a parent who is committing the offence of false allegations? Should mere allegations be all that is required for a child to be taken away from a parent?

Parental alienation creates lifelong scars. From Trena Thompson’s perspective, the Family Court ultimately alienated her from both of her parents. She was deprived of her father because of unsubstantiated allegations and her mother was taken from her by the adversarial approach that our Family Court thrives on.

I hope this whole situation is used as a example as to why they must stop creating and enabling conflict within families,” she comments.

Trena also recalls her dad’s integrity through it all.

“In all the years my mom hurt my dad he never spoke ill of her, just honestly. He would always tell me that she was not always like that.”

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

April 2, 2014

Bill C-13 is Conservative Government’s Attempt to Police Internet (and strip you of your rights)


Bill C-13 – dubbed the “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act” is really an attempt by our so-called Conservative government to re-introduce measures from their failed Bill C-30, “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”.

You remember that one, right?

That’s the bill where then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said you either sided with the government (and abdicated your Right to Privacy) or you sided with child pornographers.

You either embraced warrantless searches or you sided with child pornographers.

You either give up your rights or you are no better than child pornographers.

Refusing to give up my Rights means no such thing.

That stance does not change simply because the Steven Harper shuffled the deck chairs and there are new faces sitting in the seats of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety.

That stance does not change simply because they want to re-introduce atrocious portions of failed legislation under a new name and bill number.

My right to privacy will not be sacrificed under Bill C-13, “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act”, whose much less catchy name is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act”.

The text below is from the introduction to Bill C-13, the “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act”.

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, most notably, for

(a) a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well as complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images and the restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender; (Note: cyber-bullying and privacy violations)

(b) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence; (Note: “compel” means charge you criminally if you refuse their “demand”)

(c) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things; (Note: failure to follow a production order is in itself a criminal offense.)

(d) a warrant that will extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications;

The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouse is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution with respect to the new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

Bill C-13 is about far more than cyber-bullying.

Of the cyber-bullying aspect of Bill C-13 Tim Banks of writes,

Whether the original image results from misplaced trust in a partner, a lack of judgment, deliberate risk taking, or coercion, the act of distributing intimate photos or videos without consent can have serious social and economic consequences for the individual whose image is being circulated.

However, criminal law is a blunt instrument to deal with these problems, and Bill C-13 is no exception. The legislation would criminalize any distribution of intimate material without consent irrespective of the motives of the individual who distributes the material.

Perhaps in an attempt to balance issues of freedom of expression, Bill C-13 requires the victim to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy both at the time that the image was taken and at the time the image is distributed. Even then, the distribution of the image will not be criminal if it is for the “public good”.

As Tim says, this is tough legislation to get right, so why compound this problem by adding the kitchen sink into the bill?

For example:

  • Police could make a “demand” under 487.012 to preserve computer data in their possession or control where “reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed.” No actual crime… just “reasonable” grounds a crime might be committed. No judicial approval required, and refusing this “reasonable” demand is a separate criminal offense.
  • Bill C-13 allows tracking of individuals or items through “tracking devices”, or GPS. It also allows for covert installation and removal of these “tracking devices.”
  • Bill C-13 broadens “protected” group status further under the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.

To quote Terry Wilson of,

This is almost word for word, the same legislation as the former Bill C-30. It is a highly dangerous piece of legislation that in all honestly is not needed for cyberbullying, unlike what the government would have you believe. Laws to arrest the people involved in the cases of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons (who are being held up as the “poster” children for this legislation) where already in place. The police just simply did not act.

Write Justice Minister Peter MacKay and demand this bill be rescinded and replaced with a bill that deals specifically and only with cyber-bullying.

Write Prime Minister Stephen Harper and demand this bill be rescinded and replaced with a bill that deals specifically and only with cyber-bullying.

Write your MP today and demand this bill be rescinded and replaced with a bill that deals specifically and only with cyber-bullying.

Make these people aware your support for this Conservative government depends upon this government’s respect for the rights of all Canadians while dealing with the cyber-bullying issue. is once again leading the charge. From their website:

The government is about to ram through a new law which provides immunity to telecom companies that hand over our sensitive information without our knowledge or consent.

We’re at a crucial stage in this fight; with the government imposing time allocation motions and closure to severly restrict debate, now more than ever we must ensure that pro-privacy voices are heard by decision makers in Parliament. Your support today will enable us to make sure your voices are heard in Ottawa.



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