Archive | Politically Correct Madness 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?

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?

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?

March 29, 2014

Lighting a Candle Defeats the Purpose. Earth Hour is Stupid


Earth Hour is Stupid.  That’s obvious if you have any critical thinking ability.  If you don’t, no amount of proof will change your mind.

For those people whose critical thinking skills are intact, you will understand the graphic below.  If your critical thinking skills are lacking perhaps the facts below will open your eyes to the truth about Earth Hour and the mindlessness it promotes.

Why Earth Hour Doesn't Work

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

March 29, 2014

Earth Hour is Stupid: Pandering to North American Guilt and Shame


Earth Hour is one of those feel-good but utterly useless exercises North Americans use to lessen their bizarre guilt for being prosperous.

The whole “Earth Hour” notion is stupid, if you take a moment and actually think about it.

The concept that turning off your lights for an hour will magically stop anything, let alone pollution, is ludicrous.

It’s like some weird IQ-destroying virus that destroys a person’s ability to think critically. We desperately need more critical thinkers, not less!

Think about it for a moment. What do these charlatans ask you to do on “Earth Hour” so you aren’t sitting in the dark?

They tell you to light a candle.

Do you realize what a candle is made from? Do you?


What is paraffin? A petroleum product. Do you have any grasp of how much electricity is required to create paraffin wax?

Here’s a description of the process:

The feedstock for paraffin is slack wax, which is a mixture of oil and wax, a byproduct from the refining of lubricating oil.

The first step in making paraffin wax is to remove the oil (de-oiling or de-waxing) from the slack wax. The oil is separated through crystallization. Most commonly, the slack wax is heated, mixed with one or more solvents such as a ketone and then cooled. As it is cooled, wax crystallizes out leaving oil in solution. This mixture is filtered into two streams: solid (wax plus some solvent) and liquid (oil and solvent). After the solvent is recovered by distillation, the resulting products are called “product wax” (or “press wax”) and “foots oil”. The lower the percentage of oil in the wax the more refined it is considered (semi-refined versus fully refined). The product wax may be further processed to remove colors and odors. The wax may finally be blended together to give certain desired properties such as melt point and penetration.

Why-Earth-Hour-Doesn't-Work-PFTRIf the goal is to reduce so-called “greenhouse gasses” then why in the world would you want to turn OFF your electrical lights and light dozens of candles?

If you are willing to think about this rationally and turn off your emotional misguidedness for just a few moments, you might realize something.

Not a single electrical generation station in North America will shut down during Earth Hour. Every single one of those electrical generation stations will run at exactly the same capacity it did both before and after some mindless feel-gooders turned out their lights for an hour.

Not a single kilowatt hour of power will be “saved“.

Not a single African child will be saved by this useless exercise either, although the fear-mongers pandering to North American guilt and shame will no doubt say otherwise.

Earth Hour is Big Business for eco-groups.

It is in their own self-interest to sell this snake oil. It generates millions of dollars in revenue for them.

If you want to save a child in Africa (or anywhere else in the world) then do something practical and useful. Research non-profit organizations who work in these places and donate your hard-earned cash to them. Better yet, join one of these organizations’ overseas mission trips and do the work yourself.

You can then wear your emotions with pride, for you will actually have done something useful; not turning out your lights and pretending for an hour that you’ve actually accomplishing something.

You’re not.

Electricity is nothing to be ashamed of. Electricity is perhaps the most amazing technological breakthrough in recent human history. Electricity transformed our world from darkness into light. Electricity makes the impossible possible.

Do you really not comprehend your precious Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest could not exist without the technology electricity makes possible?


Being technologically advanced is nothing to be ashamed of either, although the “save the earth” weenies will certainly send me buckets of hate mail for daring to call them names.

I might actually cause some mere citizen to think critically about the whole stupid “Earth Hour” scam and the organizations who promote it. I might cost them some previously self-deluded donors.

Oh, the horror!

Hey, if I can stop even a single person from sending money to these charlatans then my job here is well done.

Now, a reminder to all those who love Earth Hour. If you’re going to write me hate mail, remember to do it before you turn off your computer and lights at 8:30! You wouldn’t want to be a hypocritical hater, after all, would you?

This Earth Hour I will do as I do every year on this appointed day and appointed hour: I will turn on every light in the house, blast some great music on the stereo and read all the hate mail the drones too scared, too wracked with North American Guilt and Shame to think for themselves, send me.

After all, someone ought to use all that power. It’s already generated… waiting for an eager individual like me to crank on some more appliances and stopping it from going to waste.

Should be a fun evening!


PS. If you need a little more enlightenment I would highly recommend Ross McKitrick’s essay “Earth Hour: A Dissent“. Here’s a taste for those brave enough to think for themselves:

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.

Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

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

January 14, 2013

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee – How did this America-hating, anti-gun zealot get elected in Texas?


Texas, at least in my mind, is the one place where the Liberty mindset still resides in America.

The famous phrase “Don’t Mess With Texas!” is one I’ve heard more times than I can even remember and it instills in me a sense of pride, knowing there is a place on the planet where stupidity can’t take root.

My own memories of Texas back in the late ‘80s are some of the fondest I have, and the people I met there were proud, Liberty-minded folks who would give you the shirt off their backs if that’s what you needed. Those Texans were some of the finest human beings you could ever hope to meet.

Given that experience, when I see a chucklehead spouting off on the evening news that Americans should “just turn in your guns”… the very last place I would think this chucklehead calls home is Texas!

Yet, sadly, that’s precisely the case.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee wants you to turn in your guns

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
wants you to turn in your guns

The chucklehead I’m referring to is Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat (I’m shocked!) who somehow managed to get herself elected in the Lone Star State despite her misguided notions of what Texas and Liberty stand for.

I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” she said.

Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America,” she added.

Ah yes, the beauty of “the politics of inclusion” where you’re only included if you agree with Liberal stupidity.

The implication this woman is making is quite clear. If you own guns, you’re no longer “part of America“.

If you’re not offended by that, please check your pulse.

Sheila Jackson Lee clearly has never read the United States Constitution, nor did she comprehend a single word of the Oath of Office she swore… you know… that pesky little statement where she swears to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is offensive to everything America stands for. That she calls Texas home only heightens that offensiveness.

As for Dick’s Sporting Goods, they are not “being part of the solution”, they’re pandering to political correctness.

Out of respect for the victims and their families, during this time of national mourning we have removed all guns from sale and from display in our store nearest to Newtown and suspended the sale of modern sporting rifles in all of our stores chainwide.”

What Dick’s Sporting Goods is saying by “boldly” stating they will no longer sell “modern sporting rifles” to law-abiding Americans is an insult to any rational human being.

A mentally-ill criminal went on a murderous rampage in Newtown, Connecticut, and Dick’s Sporting Goods solution is to hold every single law-abiding person in America responsible for that crime.

That is insulting. That is offensive.

I will never spend a single penny atDick's Sporting Goods.

I will never spend a single penny at
Dick’s Sporting Goods.

I just added Dick’s Sporting Goods to my list of businesses I will never patronize.

Any company that willingly vilifies hundreds of millions of innocent people for the heinous crimes of one mentally-ill criminal is not a company I want anything to do with.

They will never see a single penny of my hard-earned cash, and I would suggest they never see a penny of yours either.

By straddling both sides of the fence they show themselves for what they are: cowards terrified of their own shadows willing to pander to the very forces that would put them out of business.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Millions of law-abiding Americans didn’t shoot anyone yesterday.

We didn’t shoot anyone today.

We’re not going to shoot anyone tomorrow, either.

And we’re NOT going to stand idly by while Constitution-haters like Congress-Critter Sheila Jackson Lee and the cowards at Dick’s Sporting Goods try and hold us responsible for the crimes of others.

Deal with it.

Now you can have my handgun

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

November 14, 2012

Libby Davies and the Nanny State Sodium Squad



The Great Nanny State will take care of you. At least that’s the plan if NDP health critic (and Nanny State Nutbar) Libby Davies gets her way.

Like all good socialists, Libby Davies believes the answer to every problem is the expansion of the Nanny State. In her eyes there is no such thing as a problem that another government bureaucracy can’t solve.

Her latest Nanny State notion is the creation of a bureaucracy to, get this, manage the eating habits of Canadians so they don’t eat too much salt. Libby’s Lunatic Fringe wants this bureaucracy to force all food manufacturers to register their food products with them, along with the amount of sodium they contain.

Davies tabled Private Members Bill 460 to implement what she calls a “national sodium strategy” to combat high-salt diets. The bill’s full name is “An Act Respecting the Implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada”, but it really ought to be called “An Act to Implement Nanny State Oversight of Your Kitchen.”

Her plan would force food producers to add warning labels to food packaging, just like cigarette manufacturers must place on cigarette packages today.

“I mean my bill says that basically the labeling, making it clear that they’re not meeting the guidelines and that they’re contributing to cardiovascular diseases and so on, would have to be 50% the size of the lettering of the product,” Davies told reporters this week.

It would also create a “Sodium Reduction Advisory Committee” that would report to Canada’s Minister of Health.

Sodium is the new Satan in Libby Davies’ mind, and she won’t stop until she’s prevented every single Canadian from reaching for the salt shaker.

If it sounds like I have nothing but utter contempt for Libby Davies, the Nanny State and this ridiculous bill, it’s only because I do.

We’re not a nation of 4-year-olds, and it is high time idiots like Libby Davies figured this out.

Any person with an ounce of common sense (which clearly excludes Libby Davies) would look to education to teach people about making healthy food choices. Education actually makes sense, so that’s why Davies does not want it. Why educate people when you can create a new government bureaucracy to control them instead?

Brian Lilley made a great comment on his blog, Lilley’s

“Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but today Canada’s progressive left thinks they should be running every other part of our lives.”

Sadly, the majority of Canadians love Nanny State bureaucracies like Libby Davies’ proposed Salt Police. Canadians, by and large, are happy to abdicate their personal responsibility in favour of being told what to do by some faceless government bureaucrat.

Brian Lilley went on to say exactly what was on my mind when I heard of Libby Davies’ Nanny State Nonsense:

“Quite frankly, I’m tired of other people telling me what to do and how to live and to be honest, these people aren’t smart enough to run my life.”

Will this sort of stupidity ever end?

Yes, it will. It will end when we employ our Canadian Common Sense and tell government to stay out of our kitchens, as well as the rest of our lives.

Just Say NO to the Nanny State.


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

October 27, 2012

Road Procing – A new tax to pay what our gasoline taxes supposedly pay for, with added bonus of spying on us 24×7



Government is innately wasteful. It’s a simple enough concept to understand really.

When a group of people are not accountable for the money they spend there is no incentive to spend that money wisely.

While a simple concept, bureaucrats and politicians routinely show they cannot comprehend it.

Take the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and TransLink. These two thoroughly unaccountable groups continually waste millions and millions of dollars doing God knows what and for what reason. What is unassailable is that they waste money like there’s no tomorrow. TransLink, for example, continually runs deficits despite never actually paying attention to what commuters in the Greater Vancouver area want.

That would be roads that make commuting faster and more sensible, just in case anyone cares, not bicycle lanes on the Burrard Street Bridge.

No, bicycle lanes are mandatory not so much because cyclists demand them, but because TransLink signed on to the Seville Charter, an agreement that requires cities to make “transportation networks more conducive to cycling.”

The document aimed at the national and transnational level underlining the benefits of cycling as a daily mode of transport, citing improved health, reduced traffic congestion, significantly cheaper infrastructure, and lowered transport emissions among many other advantages.

Stripped of its politically-correct double-speak, what that means is simply social re-engineering, or making we mere citizens do what “our betters” want us to do.

Forget the notion that cars make up the overwhelming majority of transportation on our roads and bridges. That’s irrelevant, since the overriding thought of these unelected bureaucrats is that people shouldn’t be driving cars in the first place. It’s unhealthy according to them so we must be moved out of our cars, no matter what.

The latest strategy by these social engineering buffoons is to add ANOTHER tax onto those evil people who still dare drive a vehicle on public roads called “Road Pricing”.

Essentially this plan is being proposed for two reasons. First, as I have already mentioned, is the social engineering they deem necessary, and second, as a way of generating more revenue to do what they’ve already taxed us to death on: mass transit.

The GVRD already taxes vehicle drivers 15 cents per liter of gasoline to pay for these programs, whether we use them or not. They already have in place additional taxes on property and land grants that allow them to charge a premium for parking when using the transit system, yet the still do not have enough money for their grand schemes.

Shocking, isn’t it? Okay, no it’s not even remotely shocking. It’s typical of the bureaucratic mindset.

“We’ll just raise taxes to cover the shortfall.”

Since the GVRD and TransLink are unaccountable to anyone and spend money like it’s rain falling from the sky, they naturally need more money since the millions they already steal from British Columbians is not enough to cover their wasteful spending.

“Road Pricing” is their latest scheme that would require every single vehicle to be equipped with a GPS transponder so government would know where your vehicle is at all times. Whenever your vehicle crosses an arbitrary border or travels on a road they deem “taxable”, you would be sent a bill.

They conveniently forget that the gasoline tax and the special addition to our property tax is already in place and was supposed to pay for these agencies.

Let me say that again. These agencies have already added taxes on gas and property to cover their expenses.

They are so inept at managing their resources, however, that they must now pass an additional tax scheme that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, not to mention create another layer of bureaucracy to track every vehicle, and therefor every person, in the Lower Mainland.

Setting aside the obvious privacy considerations that should mean an automatic “NO!” be screamed by every single British Columbian, these bureaucrats want to be paid twice for the work they didn’t do the first time.

How typical. How predictable.

How despicable.

Frank Hilliard made some interesting points recently in his article “Road Pricing Needs to be Strangled at Birth“.

OK, now why is all this extremely dangerous, anti-democratic and anti-libertarian? It’s dangerous because this system will allow the government to monitor the movement of everyone in the area. No matter where you go, what you do, who you see; everything will go into a giant database. All the personal freedoms we now enjoy will go out the window.

Secondly, every road regulation you break will be automatically recorded. If you’ve ever checked your speed against a GPS (and who hasn’t) you know it’s almost impossible to not break the speed limit even if you’re trying hard to comply (and who is). This means that instead of just taxing you for the kilometers you’re traveling, they’ll be able to fine you for EVERY little infraction you made along the way.

And thirdly, the basic idea is anti democratic. Why should car drivers be asked to pay for bus riders anyway? If car drivers wanted to ride the bus, they would! If they wanted to pay for a Translink pass, they would. The fact is car owners want to use their cars, not the local bus system.

This is what so infuriates urban planners, politicians and cultural Marxists. The private automobile gives people a freedom they NEVER had before it arrived. They want to shut that down and go back to the 1890’s when you had to take mass transportation if you wanted to travel.

They want control. Road pricing is all about control.

We need to kill this monster in its crib before it gets out, grows up and ends Canadian liberties.


Amen, Frank.

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

October 18, 2012

“Obama Death Threats Completely IGNORED by Mainstream Media!”




“Obama Death Threats Completely IGNORED by Mainstream Media!”

Can you imagine seeing that headline if it were actually true?

Never in a million years.

No, if anyone were publicly threatening the life of the Pretender-In-Chief, their “Anointed One“, they’d be screaming about it from the rooftops. It would make front page headlines in every major newspaper in the nation instantly.

But since it was just Governor Romney who was threatened hundreds of times, both during and after the Presidential Debate, well…

Who Cares?

Can you imagine if Twitter lit up with death threats against The Anointed One like it did against Governor Romney?  The Lamestream Media would search to the ends of the earth to find the culprits.  However when it’s Governor Romney being threatened it’s just…

[Yawn] “Move along now… Nothing to see here folks.”

That’s the overwhelming sentiment of the Lamestream Media.

Who Cares?

Threats against Governor Romney is no story at all since they would rather see him dead than win the election.

That ridiculous sentiment is all that’s left of the carcass of Journalistic Integrity in America today, as evidenced by the antics of the [alleged] debate moderator Candy Crowley.

The blatant hypocrisy makes me cringe.

It is important to stress that these Twitter accounts are genuine, they are not fakes. Many of them have thousands of previous tweets.  The following Tweets are just some of the ones compiled by both during and after the debate;

“If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

“Yall ready to assassinate romney?”

“Somebody needs to assassinate This mofo Romney.”

“Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assassinate his ass.”

“I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assassinate romney my damn self if he get elected!”

“If romney get elected i hope a nigga assassinate his bitchass.

“No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll be #1.”

“At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!”

“If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP.”

“If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”


It is important to emphasize that these are just a selection of scores and scores of threats to assassinate Romney that have exploded on Twitter over the last 12 hours. We didn’t even have time to check Facebook or any other social networks.

Here’s a short sampling of the remarks on Twitter.  You can find lots more on, who compiled a bunch of them.




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

October 15, 2012

Mass Hysteria: Government’s Age-Old Boogeyman


Has the world suddenly gone bonkers?

Well, no.

The world seemingly has been afflicted with mass insanity since time immemorial.

Hi-tech toys merely allow the madness to be refined.

Eavesdropping on every telephone conversation, snooping into every e-mail message, cameras and recorders spying on and listening to citizens on every street corner, super-snoop data-mining centers sucking up and storing our every word, thought, move, including bank statements, till receipts and credit and debit card transactions.

All are methods for identifying and disappearing “terrorists”.

But, of course, you aren’t a terrorist…as long as you can “prove it”, which you can’t.

This is called “reverse onus”.

“Presumed innocence until proven guilty” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is passé. Whereas the upside down “reverse onus” supposedly means “guilty until proven innocent” in governmentese, it actually means “GUILTY until proven GUILTY” because gun owners and terrorists, of which you are tagged one or the other, are not going to be found “innocent”.

The lunacy knows no boundaries.

Toll-free hot lines promote anonymous tips for every real or imagined slight.

Unidentified squealers are protected while the unknowing victim of the allegation is subjected to search, seizure and deprivation of liberty, all the while never able to know the identity of his accuser, let alone confront them in a court of law.

This civil-persecution system that views the accuser as always truthful and the accused as always guilty harkens back to “witch-hunting”.

The first mass witchcraft trials reached fever pitch sometime in the 15th century and crescendoed to mass hysteria between 1550-1650.

Nobody should be horrified that the “witch-hunters” have everybody under suspicion and surveillance in Canada today. The United States created mass hysteria searching for A Red Under Every Bed in the 1940-50s. These tactics also were used during the Nazi Germany and Stalinist eras of the 1930-40s.

Witchcraft trials were an on-again, off-again fad for nearly three centuries before witch burnings finally faded out of favour.

Then, just as today, public health and public safety issues played an integral role in the witch-hunts.

In the wake of the bubonic plague of 1347-49, which medieval Italian writer Giovanni Boccaccio described as so rapid and devastating that the victims often “ate lunch with their friends and dinner with their ancestors in paradise”, rumours were rampant and fingers pointed accusingly at plague-spreading witches.

Forget about the disease-spreading rats and fleas. That would be too logical.

In Nazi Germany, Fuehrer Adolf Hitler convinced his stable of legalized murderers that vermin-carrying Jews were a threat to public health and had to be exterminated.

Today, terrorism is the latest fad setting off mass hysteria, and is used once again as an excuse for government to erode citizens’ rights. They do so under the same shop-worn mantra of “public safety” and “national security”.

Unfortunately, common sense can’t be legislated.

And for some strange reason, the public accepts the “safe” and “secure” premise wholesale, although government’s job is not to keep people safe; it can’t. The government’s job is to uphold the constitution and keep people free.

Sadly, people must be individually scorched by these Draconian laws before they will open their eyes and minds and stand against them.

The very notion of “justice” has been turned on its head. Only a government that fears its people would stoop to implementing programs that protect the identity of the accuser and leave the accused defenseless.

Nobody outside the firearms community paid heed to the gun owners rattling their sabers over a criminal law that blatantly violates Constitutional rights and freedoms no less than 28 times.

And, now, the unlawful provisions prescribed in that trailblazing piece of Liberal Party trash called the Canadian Firearms Act have finally caught up with the rabid non-gun owners alike. Hope you like all the strip searches on the lawns in broad daylight and surprise police raids into your homes without a search warrant while they “come in to look around and take what they want”.

Under a law only a dictator could love, firearms owners can be sent to a federal penitentiary for merely failing to report their address change. Yet countless violent offenders, child molesters and rapists roam the country, free from such “violations” of their civil liberties and whose names never get into the data banks.

They are called “informers” who are motivated by payoffs and perks to give information; it doesn’t matter if the information is correct before the police leap.

Hundreds of firearms owners have had their homes and businesses ransacked without due cause since the Liberals’ Bill C-68 came into effect in 1995. Many others have been thrown into jail cells without provocation. The police use their powers to force the prisoners to give up their guns without having to go to the trouble to apply for a search warrant.

Drivers don’t go to jail when caught operating a vehicle with licenses, registration or insurance cards that are expired or suspended, although there are fines, points and community services imposed. Why were gun owners demonized so harshly as second-class resident paper criminals (they don’t even rank as citizens)?

It wasn’t until the anti-terrorism legislation (Bill C-36) was rushed into law in late December, 2001–less than four months after the 9/11 attack on America which indicates it was waiting in the wings–that well-known Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby felt the pinch over the exact things that firearms owners had decried for years and he rebuffed.

Thinking along Liberal lines, his theory was that only police and the military needed guns.

Yet in a by-lined Globe and Mail article of December 11, 2001, Ruby expressed fears that the threat of terrorism was impelling Canadians to give up or distort their fundamental rights and democratic freedoms.

“It is the role of lawyers in a free society to defend the rights of the oppressed, and not to be conscripted by government to secretly inform on their clients,” he contended. “The chilling effect of these provisions may make it impossible for individuals or organizations targeted by the government to obtain any access to justice at all.”

It was on January 21, 2004 that Ottawa Citizen journalist Julie O’Neill personally felt the electric jolt from the same long arm of the law. She came to the stark realization that the future of her profession–and freedom of the press–was under attack.

On March 20, she told the University of King’s College School of Journalism in Halifax, Nova Scotia, she no longer took her freedoms for granted.

She, of all people, never should have taken her freedoms for granted in the first place. One must always be vigilant for lurking dangers.

On that fateful January day, O’Neill could have commiserated with gun owners’ plight. Her private life was shattered. Her sense of her home as a private sanctuary evaporated. She no longer assumes–and never should have assumed–that her telephone conversations and e-mail correspondence were private nor that her computer files belonged to her.

Every nook and cranny of her “castle” was searched. She was now living in a glass house. Not even her lingerie drawer escaped the indignities. Her garbage was whisked away by one of the 20 armed RCMP officers from the Orwellian 1984 Truth Verification squad who flooded her house, guarded her premises and simultaneously raided her newspaper office. (Suggested reading of this spooky matter is the detailed article The Wrong Arm of the Law, Ryerson Review of Journalism, summer 2005,

What had O’Neill done to invite and deserve such oppressive state-perpetrated tactics? After all, this is supposed to be Canada.

She had written a newspaper article.

O’Neill was incredulous when she discovered writing for a public journal can be hazardous to your health; it is punishable for up to 14 years in prison.

The police raided her home and office in search of her source of information and a document cited by her in an Ottawa Citizen article of November 8, 2003.

Her story focused on Maher Arar, the Syrian-born Canadian computing engineer. She related he was deemed an al-Qaeda terrorist by U.S. authorities. Arar was detained in New York and taken to Syria. When returned to Canada in October, 2003, a year later, he told tales of imprisonment and torture.

O’Neill’s story told how he came to the attention of anti-terrorist investigators in Canada and of a series of security leaks that linked him to terrorism.

I don’t know where this woman of the mass media press had been. But when she returned to the real world, hopefully she was less naive. This is Kanuckistan after all, the True North Proud and Gagged by such freedom-sucking legislation as C-68 (the Firearms Act), C-36 (Anti-Terrorism), and, at the relevant time, the new Elections Act.

I had long begged people of O’Neill’s ilk and prestige to keep vigilance on Yukonslavia as the Petri-dish of what was happening to Canada, but they obviously can’t be bothered with such trivial matters…not until their ox is gored.

Now my invitation doesn’t matter because these atrocities have gone on a global scale, thanks to the New York City-based United Nations that is leading the charge to a One-World Order totalitarian society in which individualism is taboo; the masses will dress, eat and think alike, live in identical stack’em-pack’em units and be allowed to own only bare, government-issued necessities to exist.

Interestingly, O’Neill was caught under the Security of Information Act portion of the anti-terrorism legislation which seemed redundant, anyway. O’Neill noted that s. 4 reads exactly the same as the dusty old Official Secrets Act of 1939, which she didn’t believe was intended to prevent journalists from doing their job.

I wouldn’t bet on that, although the accepted purpose was for Canadians to catch German spies and Communist infiltrators like their American counterparts were doing at the relevant time.

In 1949-50, the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers spy case was underway before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Hiss, a Harvard-trained lawyer, was a high-ranking employee in the State Department who denied any espionage involvement with Communists. Chambers, a self-confessed Communist, accused Hiss of espionage.

Believe it or not, a five-year statue of limitations existed on espionage, but no statute of limitations existed on perjury, for which Hiss was tried and sentenced to five years in a federal penitentiary.

The state is always able to find SOMETHING the sinner can be convicted of, no matter how self-serving.

The conviction offered little-known Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin a golden opportunity to make political hay. He railed that the State Department was infested with Communists.

Then came the mass hysteria.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been stalking those considered disloyal since 1947. The agency conducted a check of two million names on the federal payrolls and the 500,000 who annually applied for U.S. government jobs.

Any dirt–regardless how minor–would bring on a full investigation into a person’s past. No proof of subversive activities was necessary for dismissal.

Often, civil servants were fired without knowing why and not knowing who had accused them of having ties with the Communist Party. Since the accused didn’t know who they were fighting, they were defenseless.

Once the wrongdoer was pinpointed and neighbours interrogated, the victim and his family were automatically and immediately ostracized from society. So-called friends and neighbours were afraid to associate with someone accused of Communist activities.

Movie extras, film stars, entertainers–even kindergarten teachers–were blacklisted from working in their respective occupations. Successful one minute, they were out in the streets penniless the next.

Justice under the vigilantes was kangaroo-court style. The deck was forever stacked against the accused, despite investigators lacking any knowledge at all about the informer’s background or motives. And they didn’t care.

It was akin to the Puritans’ Salem witch trials of 1692, and just as bad, if not worse, then what has happening in Soviet Russia under Communism, and what Canada has adopted today.

Sometime back in the late 15th century Europe, Christian church clergymen had been directed that when sorcery with the Devil was charged by someone, but went unproven, the consequences would be suffered by the accuser–NOT the accused.

It did wonders for minimizing false accusations against the innocents and certainly cut down considerably on expensive public-funded trials.

I advocate returning to this policy posthaste.

October 14, 2012

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

October 9, 2012

Freedom of Speech: The 27th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Awards


Imagine you are the parents of three young children.

Imagine one of those children runs and falls into your precious little girl, landing harshly on her head.

Discovering your child’s injury, you rush your child to the hospital where you expect your child will immediately receive the medical attention she requires.

Never in your wildest nightmares would you believe that this act, caring for the well-being of your child, would be the beginning of a 4-year nightmare at the hands of medical professionals, Child and Family Community Services, the RCMP and the criminal justice system.

It is utterly inconceivable that you would be arrested, interrogated for hours while police ignore your pleas to find out how your injured child is; you are charged with criminal charges and have your children taken from you and placed in foster care… all based on the word of a social worker and a doctor.

Both you and your wife cry your innocence to anyone who will listen.  Nobody does.

Presumption of innocence?  Not a chance.  This is Canada, where presumption of innocence died long ago.

Police tell you that you will never see your children again unless and until you tell them “the truth” about what you did to your child.   The problem is that nobody wants to hear the truth as it doesn’t fit with their pre-determined conclusion of your guilt.

A fourth child is born during this horrific tribulation and to your horror that child too is stolen from you by government workers drunk with the power of the state.

Paul and Zabeth Bayne

That is the barest outline of the nightmare BC’s Paul and Zabeth Bayne lived through at the hands of a system that refused to accept the truth: they never harmed their child.

For a full description from Zabeth Bayne herself, watch the video below as Zabeth and Paul Bayne are awarded the George Orwell Free Speech Award for 2012 by Victoria lawyer and Free Speech advocate Douglas Christie.

Now, why is a couple who were put through hell by a government agency deserving an award for Freedom of Speech?  It’s not for the ordeal they went through, although that was truly horrific; it’s for how this brave couple responded to their persecution.

They fought back.

They patently refused, at every turn, to accept the presumption of guilt heaped upon them by every level of government and our justice system.

They won.

After their family was finally reunited after 4 long years apart, the Baynes decided they were not willing to allow their ordeal to happen to another mother and father.

They founded an organization, Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation, to educate parents, health care workers, police and government bureaucrats in the realities of childhood traumatic injury and to the simple fact that there are many, many more explanations for childhood injuries other than what some doctors, bureaucrats and legislators would like to believe.

Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation was founded in the wake of their victory against a system that presumed them guilty.

They now host an annual conference bringing together parents, doctors, police and legislators in an effort to educate them all, so that the nightmare the Bayne family lived through won’t happen again.  (Visit their Facebook page)

Here is the Canadian Free Speech League’s Douglas Christie presenting the 2012 George Orwell Free Speech Award to the Bayne family and Zabeth Bayne’s own recounting of their horrific story.

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

September 25, 2012

Junking English for the Sake of IngSoc


The great failed experiment called the United Nations has come up with another bizarre notion.

This time it’s the outlawing of speech.

I don’t know if the Marxist deadheads hanging out in the tombstone-shaped, 37-floor UN building in Manhattan intend to prohibit all speech to bring complete silence to the land or just continue their rout of demonizing and redefining select, politically-incorrect English words like the Durham District School Board in Ontario did, as was recently brought to our attention by Christopher di Armani.

Or perhaps these self-avowed UN brain boxes overshot their intellectual capacities in an attempt to continue the development of Dr. Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof’s fabricated, international language known as Esperanto.

The Polish oculist and linguist’s noble idea was that a bland, uninteresting, artificial form of Newspeak would be an easy-to-learn, politically-neutral communication method capable of transcending nationalities while fostering international peace among races speaking a multitude of languages.

Personally, I don’t care what these bonehead, skin-discoloured alien illiterates do who speak the politically-incorrect English as a Second Language (ESL).

I grew up in a household where the motto was:

“Say what you mean and mean what you say.”

That truism still stands.

In other words, be truthful. Don’t be skirting the obvious by trying to wallpaper over negatives with positives.

I remember neighbour ladies avoiding uncomfortable words, whispering euphemisms like “the poor old dear has expired.” Having “expired” sounded deliciously naughty and unfit for children’s ears, so I naturally wanted to hear more.

When my mother cut through the fog that had obscured my comprehension, I protested.

“If the lady died, why in thunder didn’t somebody simply say so?”

It’s an age-old problem. Preference leans toward lying to cover up ugly truths with snaky words or otherwise using vocabulary as a powerful people-control tool.

Meanwhile, numbskull Marxist apparatchiks are trying to trash the English language. Again. Still.


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

September 17, 2012

Ah, the brave new world of political correctness…where even saying “husband and wife” is verboten


It’s no wonder our society is in such a mess… we’ve got so-called educators (I call them morons) who believe that simply saying “husband and wife” is a phrase that must be avoided at all costs or the sky will fall.

These particular morons hide under rocks at the Durham District School Board and spend their time, paid for by the rest of us of course, churning out 20-page pieces of garbage such as the “Guidelines for Inclusive Language.”

Somehow they manage to put all of the following phrases on the title page of their [alleged] masterpiece…

  • Ensure Openness, Accountability and Safety
  • Implement Equitable Principles and Practices
  • Promote Student Achievement and Discovery
  • Success in learning to meet the challenges of the future

Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it?

I am, however, a little confused how you can “promote student achievement and discovery” when you’re busy rewriting every textbook known to man to meet your asinine guidelines, but I’m sure since the Durham District School Board is not paying for it with their own money it won’t be a problem.  Just increase school taxes some more.  Nobody will mind.

As for the poor students, I’m not sure how they will have time to learn how to meet any “challenges of the future” when they’ve got the latest manual for “politicallycorrect language” to memorize so as not to offend any “persons from Korea” or the like.

See if you can make it through this opening statement without gagging:

Guiding Principles of This Document

The Principle of Inclusion acknowledges the concept that society is not homogeneous and reinforces the perception of diversity as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. It requires the recognition that ideas and practices based on the norms of the dominant culture or society can result in experiences of exclusion and discrimination for people of diverse backgrounds. An inclusive organization not only recognizes the difference, but embraces diversity. Inclusive Language acknowledges the value of an individual and their worth in society as a whole.

Seriously, you’ve got to read this piece of trash for yourself.

It’s high time we fired all the education system bureaucrats and used their wages to hire teachers instead.  You know… the people who actually teach kids something useful?

Don’t get me wrong.  I have no issue with diversity.

Canada and America alike are the nations they are because we welcomed people from around the world with open arms.  But back when we were doing that while using some common sense, it was recognized by both immigrant (Crap! Now I’m in trouble!  I was supposed to say “Newcomer” instead) and Canadian understood the responsibility that came along with life in their new home.

Don’t even get me started on the phrase “foreign language”, which for some unstated reason is now uncouth.  Maybe I’m supposed to say “Newcomer language”?  It’s hard to know… the guide is less than sensible on these things.

As usual, it’s okay to insult Christianity along the way, but don’t you dare call someone “Indian” or Eskimo”.  That’s hurtful and demeaning, but forcing everyone to believe that “The earth” is the source of life and not God… well, let’s not go there or we’ll be off to the Human Rights Tribunal for another re-education session at the hands of the Politically Correct Thought Police.


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

August 9, 2012

Olympic Gold Medal Gymnast Aly Raisman has more class than Jacques Rogge and the entire International Olympic Committee


On August 8th I wrote about my disgust with Jacques Rogge, president of the IOC  and the entire International Olympic Committee for steadfastly refusing to honour the 40th anniversary of the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Games in 1972.

That column, titled “And the Gold Medal for Cowardice goes to…. Jacques Rogge and the International Olympic Committee” made it clear I couldn’t comprehend why these gutless cowards can’t find it in themselves to honour athletes who were murdered on Olympic soil.  It’s a position that is truly beyond my ability to comprehend, and I’m not alone.

Turns out I’ve got some pretty good company, including the incredibly talented Aly Raisman, who dazzled audience and fans alike in her gold medal performance in the Floor Exercise.

While her athletic performance was truly breathtaking and I was among the millions dazzled by it, I quickly discovered this 18-year-old had more class than the entire International Olympic Committee combined.

In the aftermath of her victory, Aly Raisman said this to reporters:

“Having that floor music wasn’t intentional. But the fact it was on the 40th anniversary is special, and winning the gold today means a lot to me. If there had been a moment’s silence,” the 18-year-old woman told the world, “I would have supported it and respected it.”

Why is it, that in a world run by cowards willing to wet themselves at the slightest hint of anti-Islamic sentiment, it takes an 18-year-old girl to say what needs to be said to these pathetic excuses for grownups?


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