Archive | Human Rights RSS feed for this section
May 15, 2016

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

Entitlements-The-Complete-List-of-What-the-World-Owes-You-and-Why-PFTR

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


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

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

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

Workers.org says this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education is a RIGHT.

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

Welfare is a RIGHT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Needs” or “Wants” are not rights.

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

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

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

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

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

The Complete List of Entitledments

 

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

March 7, 2015

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

No-Privacy-From-CBSA-Agents-PFTR

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

We are fools.

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

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

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

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

What a joke.

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

153. No person shall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marginal note: Hindering an officer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Know your rights.

Stand up for your rights.

Yes, even when it is inconvenient to do so.

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

March 5, 2015

Putting Our Money Where Our Conservative Mouths Are

Support-TheRebel.media-440
Attila Vaski liked this post

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

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

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

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

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

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

These four individuals remain almost entirely unfunded.

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

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

That’s just plain wrong.

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

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

I believe that time has arrived.

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

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

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

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

Will you join me?

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

Hannah Vanderkooy

 

Jon Egier

 

Amanda Achtman

 

  Martin Gardiner

 

 

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

March 2, 2015

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

Support-TheRebel.media-440

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

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

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

We do not financially support those who support us.

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

Quebecor didn’t fail us… we failed Quebecor.

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

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

As I wrote two weeks ago:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ezra Levant.

Brian Lilley.

Michael Coren.

Marissa Semkiw.

John Robson.

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

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

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

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

Support-TheRebel.media-440

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

February 15, 2015

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

Alabama-Chief-Justice-Judge-Roy-Moore-PFTR

Alabama-Chief-Justice-Judge-Roy-Moore-PFTR

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

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

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

That’s called progressivism.

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

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

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

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

What?

The Southern Baptist Convention’s mission statement says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

February 7, 2015

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

Saudia-Arabia-Free-Speech-PFTR

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

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

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

His conviction was automatic and never in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardly.

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

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

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

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

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

November 29, 2014

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

Julie-Bosman-Epitome-of-Hypocrite-and-Stupid-Little-Bitch-PFTR

Julie-Bosman-Epitome-of-Hypocrite-and-Stupid-Little-Bitch-PFTR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5620 N WAYNE AVE APT 2
CHICAGO, IL 60660-4204
COOK COUNTY

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

1113 N DUPRE ST
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70119-3203
ORLEANS COUNTY

So why do journalists think they are beyond examination?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mad World News said it best when they wrote:

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

Precisely.

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

November 27, 2014

Censorship Essential to Combat Terrorism says British Prime Minister David Cameron

Censorship-Essential-to-Combat-Terrorism-says-British-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-PFTR
Pete Snelson liked this post

Censorship-Essential-to-Combat-Terrorism-says-British-Prime-Minister-David-Cameron-PFTR

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 PostcardsFromTheRight.com, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 16, 2014

Why does my Doctor want to know if I own Firearms?

Why-does-my-Doctor-want-to-know-if-I-own-guns-TLG
Ryan Steacy liked this post

Why-does-my-Doctor-want-to-know-if-I-own-guns-TLG

Why does my family physician want to know if I own Firearms before treating me for [insert medical issue here]?

The only doctor who will ask you about gun ownership before treating you is a doctor who hates guns. Any doctor who hunts or target shoots or believes in your Right to Self-Defense isn’t going to ask the question. He won’t care. It’s only anti-gun doctors who believe you must abdicate your Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms before he or she will treat you.

There is a single reason for medical practitioners demanding to know if you own firearms before treating you. It’s got nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with politics. Their politics, not yours.

It’s obscene, but that’s the reality. The problem is so bad that two states, Florida and Missouri, have passed a law against the practice, effectively a gag order against doctors prying into that particular area of a patient’s life.

The practice comes out of the Center for Disease Control’s decision that guns are a disease and they must treat ownership of them as a disease.

President Obama, in his gun violence a “public health crisis” rhetoric, announced in 2013 he would fund the Center for Disease Control to “study the issue“, or in layman’s terms, look at ways of stripping people of guns based on a medical model. He also rescinded the 1995 prohibition on using federal tax dollars to advocate and/or promote “gun control”.

“While year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it.”

Daniel Webster, director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research, backed Obama’s anti-gun plans.

“I agree that the CDC should be free to fund high-quality research into the causes and solutions to gun violence, one of the leading causes of premature mortality in the U.S. that affects not only deaths and injuries, but mental health as well.”

The CDC ought to stick to matters of medicine and stay out of social policy. As Emily Miller of the Washington Times noted in her January 2013 column, “Tax Dollars for Gun Control“,

By calling gun violence a “public health crisis” on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton’s model. It’s a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides.

Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

The notion that suicidal people denied access to firearms will not kill themselves, statistics on both sides of the border show that to be false.

Then in 1992, writing in another New England Journal of Medicine piece, Kellermann cited an American Journal of Psychiatry study to back up a claim that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides.” Instead, that study really concluded that suicidal people who don’t have guns find other ways to kill themselves.

In Canada as in the United States, while anti-gun forces triumphantly crowed that suicides by gun were down (correct, they were), those same anti-gun forces refused to acknowledge that suicides by hanging grew exponentially for the same time period, and were now higher than the number of suicides by gun they said were “prevented”.

People didn’t stop killing themselves, they simply chose a different method.

To put an end to the practice of harassing patients about gun ownership, Florida passed the “Florida Firearm Owners Privacy Act (FOPA)” which prohibits doctors from asking their patients if they own or possess firearms.

Anti-gun doctors and their associations, like the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to name but two, were up in arms over the legislation, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights.

Doctors claimed that FOPA “will denigrate the practice of medicine” by preventing physicians from “communicating freely with their patients on issues relating to the ownership and possession of firearms.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), known for the passionate love of firearms (not!), predictably wrote in their brief to the court,

“there is no disagreement within the medical community that providing patients with information about firearm safety is a valid aspect of preventative care and thus beneficial to public health.”

Utter crap, of course, but that is irrelevant. The ACLU, AMA and AAP believe civilians should be disarmed, and will say pretty much anything to make that a reality.

Fortunately the courts disagree with such nonsense and the 11th Circuit Court specifically upheld Florida’s Firearm Owner’s Privacy Act in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida.

The essence of the Act is simple: medical practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’ firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the patient with good medical care. The Act’s harassment and discrimination provisions serve to reinforce these prohibitions.

As suggested by the complaints the Florida legislature received prior to passage of the Act, patients are aware that their answers to physicians’ inquiries will be entered into their medical record, and may fear that their record will be shared with third parties, including, for example, government bureaucrats.

We need not speculate as to the reasons a patient may have for objecting to the sharing of his or her firearm-ownership status, but we note that a patient might be concerned about disclosing to a physician information regarding any number of private topics when such information is not relevant to his or her medical care for similar reasons. For example, a patient may not wish to disclose his or her religious or political affiliations, sexual preferences, or bank account balance to a physician.

The Act merely circumscribes the unnecessary collection of patient information on one of many potential sensitive topics. It does so as a means of protecting a patient’s ability to receive effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.

Nothing in Florida law prevents or prohibits doctors from expressing their views on firearms or firearm ownership. Their First Amendment Rights are not infringed, but their ability to violate the Privacy Rights of their patients most certainly is.

As the National Rifle Association stated in their brief to the court in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida,

“The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act is another reasonable regulation of the medical practice. It exhorts doctors to stick to practicing medicine when examining patients, rather than pushing their own political agendas, and it protects patients from doctors who refuse to do so.”

Precisely.

Firearm ownership is not a disease, contrary to the irrational believes of some in the Center for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

These groups should stick to medicine and stay out of politics.

The American Civil Liberties Union ought to protect our rights, not violate them whenever it suits their political agenda.

 

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

November 13, 2014

R. v. Spencer: Our Right to Privacy vs Police Need to Investigate Crime – Who Wins?

Online-Privacy-PFTR

Online-Privacy-PFTR

Police want easy access to personal information, generally with the assurance that they will not misuse the data they collect. The trouble is they almost always misuse the data, or if that statement seems too unfair, they often use it in ways never intended and they said they would never do.

Take the testimony of Scott Naylor of the Ontario Provincial Police before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs regarding the so-called “lawful access” Bill C-13, also known as the “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act”.

Naylor and the Ontario Provincial Police correctly want to stop child sexual exploitation and cyber-bullying. They get themselves in hot water, however, due to their overreaching desire to strip Canadians of their Right to Privacy in the process.

Here is Naylor’s testimony before the committee, courtesy of privacy expert Michael Geist:

If the bag was open and I could do anything, the biggest problem that I see in the world of child sexual exploitation is anonymity on the Internet. When we get our driver’s licence we’re required to get our picture taken for identification. When you get a mortgage you have to sign and provide identification. When you sign up for the Internet, there is absolutely no requirement for any kind of non-anonymity qualifier. There are a lot of people who are hiding behind the Internet to do all kinds of crime, including cybercrime, fraud, sexual exploitation and things along those lines.

The Internet is moving so quickly that law enforcement cannot keep up. If there were one thing that I would ask for discussion on is that there has to be some mechanism of accountability for you to sign on to an Internet account that makes it like a digital fingerprint that identifies it to you sitting behind the computer or something at that time. There are mechanisms to do it, but the Internet is so big and so vast at this point, and it’s worldwide, I’m not sure how that could happen, but that would certainly assist everybody. In that way I can make a digital qualification that that’s the person that I’m talking to. If I had one choice, that’s what I would ask for.

As Michael Geist points out, Scott Naylor starts his argument with something completely disconnected and irrelevant to the discussion of privacy rights and internet anonymity: driver’s licenses and mortgages.

I am required to prove who I am when I take out a mortgage because the bank needs to know who they have on a string, and where to go to yank on that string when required. A driver’s license is required to drive a motor vehicle on the state’s roadways. These comparisons are ludicrous, yet Naylor delivered these statements with a straight face as though some non-existent causal link between the two and privacy on the internet actually exists.

It doesn’t.

More to the point, and this is something a police officer looking to violate our Charter Right to Privacy ought to be fully aware of, is that Canada’s Supreme Court already ruled this year that our right to privacy is a paramount concern, and should only be violated in the most egregious cases.

The case I’m referring to is R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43, where the Supreme Court made these statements about internet access and anonymity in a child pornography case:

The nature of the privacy interest engaged by the state conduct turns on the privacy of the area or the thing being searched and the impact of the search on its target, not the legal or illegal nature of the items sought. In this case, the primary concern is with informational privacy. Informational privacy is often equated with secrecy or confidentiality, and also includes the related but wider notion of control over, access to and use of information.

However, particularly important in the context of Internet usage is the understanding of privacy as anonymity. The identity of a person linked to their use of the Internet must be recognized as giving rise to a privacy interest beyond that inherent in the person’s name, address and telephone number found in the subscriber information.

Subscriber information, by tending to link particular kinds of information to identifiable individuals may implicate privacy interests relating to an individual’s identity as the source, possessor or user of that information. Some degree of anonymity is a feature of much Internet activity and depending on the totality of the circumstances, anonymity may be the foundation of a privacy interest that engages constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

In this case, the police request to link a given IP address to subscriber information was in effect a request to link a specific person to specific online activities. This sort of request engages the anonymity aspect of the informational privacy interest by attempting to link the suspect with anonymously undertaken online activities, activities which have been recognized in other circumstances as engaging significant privacy interests.

The Court goes on to say:

[66] In my view, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information. The disclosure of this information will often amount to the identification of a user with intimate or sensitive activities being carried out online, usually on the understanding that these activities would be anonymous. A request by a police officer that an ISP voluntarily disclose such information amounts to a search.

[67] The intervener the Attorney General of Alberta raised a concern that if the police were not permitted to request disclosure of subscriber information, then other routine inquiries that might reveal sensitive information about a suspect would also be prohibited, and this would unduly impede the investigation of crimes. For example, when the police interview the victim of a crime, core biographical details of a suspect’s lifestyle might be revealed. I do not agree that this result follows from the principles set out in these reasons. Where a police officer requests disclosure of information relating to a suspect from a third party, whether there is a search depends on whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the suspect has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information: Plant, at p. 293; Gomboc, at paras. 27-30, per Deschamps J. In Duarte, the Court distinguished between a person repeating a conversation with a suspect to the police and the police procuring an audio recording of the same conversation. The Court held that the danger is “not the risk that someone will repeat our words but the much more insidious danger inherent in allowing the state, in its unfettered discretion, to record and transmit our words“: at pp. 43-44.

Similarly in this case, the police request that the ISP disclose the subscriber information was in effect a request to link Mr. Spencer with precise online activity that had been the subject of monitoring by the police and thus engaged a more significant privacy interest than a simple question posed by the police in the course of an investigation.

Police routinely make requests for internet subscriber information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). While there is no legal requirement for ISPs to surrender this data, and in fact a very real legal requirement to protect the personal information of their clients, the act of a police officer asking for someone’s personal information creates the illusion that their request has the authority of law and cannot be denied.

It does not, as the Supreme Court makes clear.

Turning to whether the search of Mr. Spencer’s home and computer was lawful, the Supreme Court makes it crystal clear that it was not.

[73] With respect, I cannot accept that this conclusion applies to s. 7(3) (c.1)(ii) of PIPEDA . Section 487.014(1) is a declaratory provision that confirms the existing common law powers of police officers to make enquiries, as indicated by the fact that the section begins with the phrase “[f]or greater certainty”: see Ward, at para. 49. PIPEDA is a statute whose purpose, as set out in s. 3 , is to increase the protection of personal information. Since in the circumstances of this case the police do not have the power to conduct a search for subscriber information in the absence of exigent circumstances or a reasonable law, I do not see how they could gain a new search power through the combination of a declaratory provision and a provision enacted to promote the protection of personal information.

[74] The subscriber information obtained by police was used in support of the Information to Obtain which led to the issuance of a warrant to search Ms. Spencer’s residence. Without that information, the warrant could not have been obtained. It follows that if that information is excluded from consideration as it must be because it was unconstitutionally obtained, there were not adequate grounds to sustain the issuance of the warrant, and the search of the residence was therefore unlawful. I conclude, therefore, that the conduct of the search of Ms. Spencer’s residence violated the Charter : Plant, at p. 296; Hunter v. Southam, at p. 161. Nothing in these reasons addresses or diminishes any existing powers of the police to obtain subscriber information in exigent circumstances such as, for example, where the information is required to prevent imminent bodily harm. There were no such circumstances here.

Quite clearly the highest court in the land takes our right to personal privacy and anonymity on the internet very seriously. Equally clear is the fact that police forces routinely do NOT take that right seriously at all, and in fact ignore it as often as possible, since ignoring our rights makes their job of investigating crime much easier.

Is it a problem for police that we mere citizens have Rights and Freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Absolutely, and as a result they must find ways of doing their job that does not violate our rights.

Police don’t like that.

I suppose were I in their shoes I wouldn’t like my job being made more difficult either, but as I view this issue from the standpoint of a mere citizen I naturally disagree with police and their quest for the easy way out.

My right to privacy has meaning. I don’t care that they don’t like it, or that it makes their jobs more difficult.

Tough.

Where I find fault with the Supreme Court decision in this case is that even though the police request for information was not “lawful” the court ruled their behaviour was not egregious enough to warrant tossing out the evidence simply because police “reasonably thought” they acted lawfully when they did not.

While I would not want to be understood to be encouraging the police to act without warrants in “gray areas”, in light of the fact that the trial judge and three judges of the Court of Appeal concluded that Det. Sgt. Parisien had acted lawfully, his belief was clearly reasonable. In short, the police were acting by what they reasonably thought were lawful means to pursue an important law enforcement purpose.

They cite the fact that a trial judge and three Court of Appeal judges concluded Det. Sgt. Parisien acted reasonably as proof that he did. That is not the case. They said this, yet in the very next paragraph explain that the Charter violation is extremely serious.

[78] The second Grant factor is the impact of the Charter-infringing conduct on Mr. Spencer’s Charter-protected interests. That impact here was serious. As discussed above, anonymity is an important safeguard for privacy interests online. The violation of that anonymity exposed personal choices made by Mr. Spencer to be his own and subjected them to police scrutiny as such. This weighs in favour of excluding the evidence.

Their decision to allow the evidence to stand ultimately rests on the idea that since they’d caught a man with child pornography, the ends justified the means. I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. Here is their actual written rationale:

[80] The offences here are serious and carry minimum prison sentences. Society has both a strong interest in the adjudication of the case and also in ensuring that the justice system remains above reproach in its treatment of those charged with these serious offences. If the evidence is excluded, the Crown will effectively have no case. The impugned evidence (the electronic files containing child pornography) is reliable and was admitted by the defence at trial to constitute child pornography. Society undoubtedly has an interest in seeing a full and fair trial based on reliable evidence, and all the more so for a crime which implicates the safety of children.

[81] Balancing the three factors, my view is that exclusion of the evidence rather than its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and I would uphold its admission.

Having caught someone who is downloading and distributing child pornography the Supreme Court says it must overlook the “serious” violation of Mr. Spencer’s Charter Rights because not to do so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This ruling essentially tells police they can do as they please so long as they “reasonably believe” they are following the law when they are not.

That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Where do we draw the line between our Right to Privacy and police violations of it under the rationale that to do otherwise would bring the administration of justice into disrepute? It’s a hard question and one our Supreme Court did its best to answer in R. v. Spencer.

Did they get it right?

I would prefer that our Supreme Court hold our police to a higher standard when they violate our right to privacy. Just because the police wrongly believed they were acting in good faith when they clearly are not doesn’t justify their violation of our rights. This leads us down a road none of us want.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that when it the choice is between our Right to Privacy vs the need of police to investigate crime, the police win.

 

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

October 5, 2014

Sarb Gill, an Airdrie liquor store Clerk, turns the tables on would-be armed robber

Stop-the-Culture-of-Victimhood-PFTR

Stop-the-Culture-of-Victimhood-PFTR

An article in the Calgary Sun titled “Airdrie liquor store Clerk fights back during attempted armed robbery” shows there are still MEN in the world willing to stand up for what is right. When a would-be armed robber entered the store where Sarb Gill refused to be a victim.

Instead of handing over the cash like the thief demanded, Gill

unleashed a beating that sent the suspect, later identified as a 22-year-old Airdrie man Matthew Christopher Bleile, fleeing for his life and seeking treatment at a Calgary hospital.”

Excellent.

Two friends got robbed last week, and my friend got robbed in High River on Friday,” Sarb Gill said.

If we give them a lesson, next time someone will think twice before they think robbery is easy money.”

I doubt the freshly-beaten Mr. Bleile will be attempting to rob corner stores any time soon. He most assuredly will “think twice” before attempting to rob a liquor store again.

What is interesting about this case is that Sarb Gill is an immigrant. He didn’t grow up in Canada yet he possesses two attributes I would love to see in all our immigrants, indeed all Canadians everywhere, namely courage and honour.

From the Calgary Sun article:

Wednesday’s incident wasn’t the first time Gill resorted to force to thwart would-be robbers. Shortly after immigrating to Canada from India in 2008, Gill sent two armed robbers running after leaping over the counter and chasing them off with a baseball bat.

Clearly anyone attempting to rob any establishment where Sarb Gill works is both stupid and in for a very rude surprise. This is a man that simply will not give criminals the upper hand and for this I applaud him.

If we had more Canadians like Sarb Gill perhaps our criminals wouldn’t be quite so glib and carefree.

The RCMP, of course, doesn’t like anyone doing their job for them and made it clear they don’t want anyone fighting back against would-be thieves.

Airdrie RCMP said complying with demands and informing the police is the safest way to deal with robberies. Taking the law into your own hands is not a course of action encouraged by police.

“Taking the law into your own hands?”

Dr. Mike Ackermann took exception to that statement, as I would expect. Since his comments published on the Canadian Firearms Digest mirror my own I will let him have the last word.

When the police say they don’t recommend citizens taking the law into our own hands, I must ask:

In exactly whose hands do they think the law resides? It originates with the People, and remains with the People. It is always ours to respect and enforce. We just delegate some of that authority to our elected representatives and their hirelings because most of us are too busy to attend to it ourselves.

Make no mistake, what Mr. Gill did was admirable, his right, and his duty as a citizen.

These police talking heads would prefer him to meekly submit to the demands of his assailant. What then? Once you have submitted your life is in the hands of your assailant who may have bigger plans for you than just taking your money. Even if your money is all they want, it is still part of your life they are stealing, and I say to hell with that and to hell with anyone who demands the lawful should be ruled by the lawless.

We need more men like Mr. Gill. He truly is a man, after all, and we should try to live up to the example he sets, rather than promoting a culture of victimhood.

Well said, Dr. Ackermann.

 

 

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

October 4, 2014

BC Attorney General Suzanne Anton is too Cowardly to Answer for Arthur Topham Prosecution

BC-Attorney-General-Suzanne-Anton-Cowardly-PFTR

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised.

Bureaucrats are, generally speaking, a cowardly bunch, but the response given to Joseph Hickey, Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is truly pathetic even by that low standard.

Joseph Hickey’s letter was written directly to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Attorney General of British Columbia.

While addressed specifically to her, it seems Ms. Anton is a little to busy to respond to a letter of inquiry from the head of a civil liberties group. She ordered some unnamed government minion to respond on her behalf instead.

The cowardly bureaucrat answering Mr. Hickey’s questions, or more accurately evading them, refused to put his or her name on the letter.

I suppose they were terrified someone like me might get a hold of their non-responsive letter and their name and mock them mercilessly for their evasions and non-answers.

They would be correct.

I would do that.

I would take great pleasure in it, to be precise. For the moment I must take what pleasure I can in mocking the nameless bureaucrat…

But I digress…

As I’ve written repeatedly in regards to Arthur Topham’s case, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it very clear that a prosecution under Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws, including Section 319, CANNOT happen unless the Attorney General of the province personally signs off on the case.

It’s written right into the Criminal Code.

Section 318 (3)

No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

The unnamed bureaucratic minion starts the response off by completely ignoring Section 318 (3) of the Criminal Code, which is the primary subject of Joseph Hickley’s letter.

Your letter of September 24, 2014, addressed to the Honourable Suzanne Anton, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, has been forwarded to the Criminal Justice Branch for a response. The Criminal Justice Branch is responsible for the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions in British Columbia.

This is complete and utter hogwash.

While the Criminal Justice Branch may be responsible for “the conduct and supervision of criminal prosecutions” in most cases, that authority resides specifically and ONLY with the BC’s Attorney General in the Arthur Topham criminal prosecution.

Quoting the OCLA’s most recent letter:

Criminal Code (at s. 2) expressly defines “Attorney General” as meaning “the Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those proceedings are taken and includes his or her lawful deputy”.

The proceedings against Mr. Topham (R v Topham) are taken in BC.

Thus, to use the colloquial expression, the buck stops at your office, Madame Attorney General.

After claiming Attorney General Anton is not responsible for Topham’s prosecution the cowardly bureaucrat then drones on about presumption of innocence, something the Crown prosecutor in Arthur Topham’s case has repeatedly tried to quash.

From the day Arthur Topham was arrested until today, the Crown Prosecutor has tried to strip Arthur Topham of his Right to Freedom of Speech.

Arthur Topham cannot even name the two men who initiated the criminal code complaint against him, serial human rights complainant Richard Warman and his buddy Harry Abrams, British Columbia representative of B’nai B’rith Canada.

Should Arthur Topham write those names publicly he is in contempt of court.

How absurd is that?

After further droning about how Attorney General Suzanne Anton isn’t actually responsible for the Topham case the unnamed bureaucrat then attempts to blame Peter MacKay, Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, despite the fact MacKay is not the person who must personally approve a criminal charge under Section 319; Suzanne Anton is.

If you can stomach it the cowardly unsigned response to Hickey’s original letter is available for download here at the link below. This PDF file also includes Joseph Hickey’s second letter clarifying Minister Anton’s responsibilities, including a repeated demand she rescind her approval of the prosecution of Arthur Topham.

http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-02-Letter-OCLA-to-BC-AG.pdf

BC-Attorney-General-Suzanne-Anton-Cowardly-PFTR

If you are a British Columbia resident I urge you to write Minister Anton and personally demand she rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution. As I’ve explained above she must personally approve charges under Section 319 of the Criminal Code before they can be prosecuted.

You can reach Ms. Anton here:

Hon. Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
Room 232, Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4
Email: JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca or suzanne.anton.mla@leg.bc.ca

Also, please sign the OCLA petition demanding BC Attorney General Suzanne Anton rescind her consent for Arthur Topham’s criminal prosecution under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

 

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

June 25, 2014

Father Shoots, Kills Thugs Who Kidnapped his Daughter and used her as a Human Shield During Home Invasion

Home-Invaders-Shot-Dead-PFTR

Home-Invaders-Shot-Dead-PFTR

The story is terrifying.  A man, faced with two large black men invading his home, must choose how to deal with the thugs holding his daughter captive as a human shield.

Dialing 9-1-1?  Clearly not an option.

The setting: St. Louis, Missouri, 11pm.

The 17-year-old daughter is at her car grabbing stuff to bring into the house.  Two masked thugs grab her, put a gun to her head and, using her as a human shield, force their way inside the home.

The girl’s father watches this go down and grabs his own gun.

He fires at the masked home invaders, killing one and seriously wounding the other as they entered the front door.

Terrell Johnson, 31, was killed.

His accomplice, Cortez McClinton, 33, received multiple gunshot wounds to his chest and thighs. He is expected to recover.

Cortez McClinton, charged with second-degree murder, kidnapping, burglary and armed criminal action, was released from jail this past January when prosecutors dropped the murder charge against him when nobody would testify against him.

Clearly a model citizen, I have no doubt Cortez McClinton would not harm a soul inside the home he just invaded using a 17-year-old as a hostage while holding a gun to her head.

It was all for show.

Or so his family and friends will no doubt assert as they whine about his being shot and his accomplice now lies on a slab in the morgue.

On the bright side the 17-year-old daughter was completely unharmed even though her attackers suffered fatal and serious injuries, respectively.

Nobody else in the family was harmed inside the home either.

Only the masked home-invading scumbags were killed or injured, exactly as they ought.

Given the record of Cortez McClinton it seems a shame he will survive his injuries, but given that record it is also highly unlikely he will learn from the error of his ways.

With previous convictions for drugs and vehicle tampering and a dropped murder charge due to lack of witnesses, McClinton (right) does not appear to be a candidate for rehabilitation.

He will also face felony murder charges for the death of his accomplice as his actions led directly to Terrell Johnson’s death.

How appropriate.

Police say there are no charges against anyone inside the home as this is a clear-cut case of self-defense.

Again, how appropriate.

There are times when dialing 9-1-1 simply isn’t an option.  Everyone in that home would be dead long before police could ever arrive.

The only thing that kept them alive was a father who owns guns who possessed the willingness to use deadly force to save the lives of his his daughter and the rest of his family.

NOTE: His wife also shot at the intruders holding her daughter hostage. Now there are two parents I’d be proud to know!

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

June 16, 2014

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis – Just Another Tyrannical Douchebag?

Peoria-Mayor-Jim-Ardis-Douchebag-PFtR

Peoria-Mayor-Jim-Ardis-Douchebag-PFtR

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis: if you can’t handle being mocked stop being a politician. Mocking and ridicule come with the territory so either get a thicker skin or get yourself a new job. Wasting police resources to harass those who oppose you is the act of a tyrant, not a mayor.

Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis was so worried about a parody Twitter account with all of 50 posts and 50 followers he sent the Peoria Police Department on a 3-week chase of the heinous offender who created @peoriamayor (now defunct).

Bizarrely, three separate judges signed off on warrants for this case; one warrant for the Twitter account information, another for the ComCast subscriber information and the third was a search warrant for the home identified by the user’s IP address as identified by ComCast.

Violating the rights of this mere citizen is not only condoned but demanded by Mayor Jim Ardis. Freedom of Speech exists only for Jim Ardis, I suppose, and not for any of the citizens he presides over.

When police finally found the man responsible for mocking their mayor, one Jonathan Daniel, they descended like good little Police State thugs, with all the might they could muster. Since Jonathan Daniel committed no crime they dug through his possessions (illegally) until they found some marijuana.

They arrested Jonathan Daniel’s roommate, charged him with possession and held him on $3,000 bail, after seizing iPhones (2), XBox game controllers (2), private mail, digital memory cards and “drug paraphernalia”, whatever that means.

Presumably one of the cops needed new XBox controllers for his own system? Can’t imagine how else they can rationalize the seizure…

The only reason Daniel faced criminal charges at all is they had to charge him with something… how else do they justify this massive waste of police time and resources?

The crime of mocking one’s mayor is… well… no crime at all. Freedom of expression protects we mere citizens from such attacks by the overzealous minions of the state, or at least they ought to and that’s the point behind the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Daniel.

Jonathan Daniel says police, acting under the specific direction of Mayor Jim Ardis, violated his civil rights.

From March 9 through March 19, 2014, Mr. Daniel tweeted from a Twitter account, @peoriamayor, which used a picture of Jim Ardis (“Ardis”), the mayor of Peoria, as the account’s avatar. Displeased with the content of the tweets, Defendants embarked on a plan to shut down the account and identify and punish its creator in violation of his constitutional rights. As part of Defendants’ plan, Peoria Police Department officers searched Mr. Daniel’s residence, seized his personal property, reviewed personal information on Mr. Daniel’s electronic devices and in his mail, and arrested, detained, and interrogated Mr. Daniel purportedly for the crime of false personation of a public official.

Good for Jonathan Daniel for standing up for himself in the face of such blatant abuse of power.

If there is any sense of actual justice left in Illinois (and I wouldn’t bet on it given 3 separate judges issued search warrants in this case) then Jonathan Daniel’s win will be a slam-dunk.

 

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

June 10, 2014

Degenerate sex offender Charles Mzite finds favour with BC Court of Appeal

Charles-Kokanai-Mzite-Human-Deptravity

Charles Mzite is a convicted sex offender. In 2009 his trial on 4 counts of aggravated sexual assault resulted in a conviction and a 10-year prison sentence.

This depraved HIV-positive immigrant from Zimbabwe came to my attention about a year ago when his human rights complaint was tossed by BC Supreme Court Justice Harry Slade.

Mzite deliberately lied to at least 4 women, assured them repeatedly he did NOT have HIV and had sex with them. He successfully infected one of the women with the disease.

As I wrote in September 2013 in my article about the degenerate Charles Mzite:

He repeatedly violated the rights of four women, placing them all under a potential death sentence, and he did so willingly. He gave no thought to the consequences to those women or the catastrophic effect his selfish acts would have on their lives.

He misled and outright lied to these women to convince them he was not HIV-positive, and kept denying it until he was arrested. At that point he finally admitted he knew he was HIV-positive and had known it as far back as 1995.

What an utterly depraved specimen of humanity and a repulsive example of manhood.

That article also contains the full depth and breadth of the depravity of Charles Mzite, taken directly from court records in case you think I’m overstating his crimes.

While Justice Slade tossed Charles Mzite’s human rights complaint and ordered him deported, the BC Court of Appeal it its infinite stupidity just decided Mzite’s 2-year delay in filing his human rights complaint is no big deal and that the 6-month deadline for filing a complaint should not apply to Mzite.

There was some basis in this case for the decision to accept the complaint after the expiry of the six-month period afforded by the [human rights] code,” wrote Justice Peter Willock in the ruling.

It cannot be said that the decision was patently unreasonable. I would allow the appeal, set aside the order made by the judge and remit the substantive complaint for consideration by the tribunal pursuant to the code.

I can find no confirmation that Charles Mzite was ever deported, so presumably Canadian Taxpayers are still on the financial hook for feeding, housing and clothing the degenerate sex offender.

Now, thanks to the BC Court of Appeal and their lack of common sense, we are on the hook for another expensive human rights complaint where the BC Human Rights Tribunal will do what it does best.

They will undoubtedly for the complainant, hand him a massive cash settlement and leave his 4 sexual assault victims wondering why they even bothered to come forward to prosecute Charles Mzite for his heinous crimes.

 

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

June 5, 2014

Bruce Montague’s Response to Forfeiture Order

Bruce-Montague-Statement-on-Court-of-Appeal-Forfeiture-Order-PFTR
Mike Ackermann liked this post

By now you must all be aware of the ruling we received from the appeal court of Ontario a couple of days ago. I am not really surprised that we lost but I am surprised that they decided to increase my punishment by also stealing my ammunition.

As bad as this ruling is, our lawyers at the CCF (Canadian Constitution Foundation) found some encouraging aspects to it. There are a couple of legal principles we put forward and the court affirmed them. This not only should help if we appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but it will also help others that get caught up in the snare of laws designed to persecute firearms owners. This is the first defeat we’ve taken that has some tangible pluses that will help gun owners in general.

My short explanation of one small legal victory is that the confiscation of my firearms and ammunition was indeed a punishment. Up until now it has never been considered a punishment, although to most people it seems obvious that losing your valuable property is indeed very punishing. This precedent should be helpful for others who are facing sentencing because now the value of the property should now be considered as part of the sentence. This may be a small plus, but you take what you can get.

Also on our side was a very strong bias shown by the court against firearms owners. This has been spotted in past rulings as many of you have commented on. Up until now we didn’t have any idea of how to address this. Things will change in future court hearings as a result. – – “Live and learn.”

I am quite surprised at how much media attention this ruling has gotten. Whatever the reason, I’m glad that this story is getting out. More people need to be aware of how easily the government and court system can take away your rights and your property. I’m hopeful that by the time we are in court fighting for our house, even non-gun owners will wake up to this travesty of justice.

The way in which the law is written in regards to taking our house (civil forfeiture laws), I don’t see any legal argument to stop them from taking it. We will be at the mercy of the courts, and so far I haven’t seen any mercy from them. The only chance I see us having is if the common people of this country speak up and say enough is enough!

I wish I had more promising news than this to report. I am reminded of what our past lawyer Doug Christie told me before he died. He told me that even if we don’t win in the courts we are still doing a positive thing for firearms owners and even the general population by standing up and fighting as long as possible. The people need to see these important issues argued because regardless of the courts ruling, each individual will have his own perception of whether justice was served. Sometimes losing in court will give you the best outcome in the long run. (It’s kind of like the Martyr effect.)

If you think this fight is worth fighting I would encourage you to visit the CCF website (http://www.theccf.ca) and make a donation. Now that the CCF has offered to represent us we now defer all donations to them. They are sincere and dedicated to doing a great job defending all our rights. Please let your non-gun owning friends see what can happen when you fall out of favour with our justice system.

Yours in Liberty,

Bruce Montague

P.S. I was in a discussion with my son who is a Lutheran pastor and this famous quote came up. It seemed quite applicable in this case because most people, if they are not gun owners don’t realize the threat this law is for everyone.

“In Germany they first came for the communists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist.
They came for the Jews
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade Unionists
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

– -Pastor Martin Niemoller (Lutheran Pastor)

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

June 4, 2014

Gunsmith Bruce Montague, Dr. Henry Morgentaler and Abortion Law

Bruce-Montague-Court-Ruling
Keltie Zubko, Mike Ackermann liked this post

That may seem an odd title but it will make sense shortly.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in R. v. Montague, 2014 ONCA 439, in which the government’s desire to seize Bruce Montague’s complete firearms and ammunition collection came to its unjust conclusion.

Ontario’s Court of Appeal heard arguments for and against the forfeiture of over $100,000 of firearms and ammunition on November 15, 2013. At that time they reserved judgment to give justices Feldman, Gillese and Tulloch time to rationalize the State’s cash grab.

Justice Feldman, writing the appeal court’s unanimous decision, took 32 pages to explain seizing Montague’s entire firearm collection and ammunition was not only constitutional, it was also rational and proportional to the “crime” Bruce and Donna Montague committed.

For those unfamiliar with this case, Bruce Montague traveled across Canada for 18 months seeking arrest for violating Canada’s Firearms Act. Being a man of principle he believed, as I do, that Canada’s Firearms Act violates the rights of those mere citizens who dare own firearms.

Montague believed a constitutional challenge of the Firearms Act would result in the court declaring it unconstitutional, forcing the government to write a more sensible and rational law, one that does not violate our constitutional rights.

So why did Bruce Montague allow both his business firearms license for his gunsmithing business and his personal firearms license expire?

To answer question that I need to step away from Bruce Montague’s case and go to Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the abortion issue and the legal term “standing”.

Prior to this ruling, section 251.9 of the Criminal Code,allowed for abortions to be performed at only accredited hospitals with the proper certification of approval from the hospital’s Therapeutic Abortion Committee.

Three doctors, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott, set up an abortion clinic in Toronto for the purpose of performing abortions on women who had not received certification from the Therapeutic Abortion Committee, as required under subsection 287(4) of the Criminal Code. In doing so they were attempting to bring public attention to their cause, claiming that a woman should have complete control over the decision on whether to have an abortion.

Abortion was illegal when Morgentaler first opened his Toronto abortion clinic, except in very specific cases and with very specific permissions required. Morgentaler disliked that, and wanted to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s abortion statute but an individual cannot challenge a law, any law, unless they have what in legal terms is called “standing”.

This means unless the law will adversely affect you personally you have no right, or “standing”, to challenge the legislation. In other words, unless you are charged with breaking the law you have no standing to challenge the law in court.

So Henry Morgentaler broke the law. Repeatedly and across the country. He opened an abortion clinic, performed illegal abortions until police arrested him and charged him with a crime. He then posted bail and repeated the process in another process until his case eventually landed before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion law, leaving Canada with no law on abortion at all to this day.

Henry Morgentaler is hailed a hero for his fight for “abortion rights”. He was awarded the Order of Canada “for his commitment to increased health care options for women, his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy and his leadership in humanist and civil liberties organizations.

In other words, for daring to violate Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to make his point in court.

Without violating that law Henry Morgentaler did not have “standing” to challenge its constitutionality, which brings me back to Bruce Montague.

The issue the courts consistently refused to acknowledge is Bruce Montague specifically and deliberately broke the law in order to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s Firearms Act, just as Henry Morgentaler did with Canada’s abortion law.

At every level of our justice system, from the Ontario Provincial Police (who used Bruce Montague’s gunsmithing services themselves) and Crown prosecutors to the trial judge, superior court judges and Court of Appeal judges, every single one attempted to paint Bruce Montague as a danger to society; a threat to the nation and a potential terrorist.

Not a single person in the entire justice system ever acknowledged Bruce Montague’s very public protests across the nation or his repeated and public statements against the Firearms Act.

Montague_PlacardThey simply branded him as a terrorist, a threat to public safety, and mainstream media outlets did what they do best; they parroted the party line on Bruce Montague even while running photographs of his public protests alongside their “articles”.

For example, the Court of Appeal in 2010 made this ludicrous statement, as though Bruce Montague actually intended to violently overthrow the government.

In September 2004, acting on the authority of two search warrants, the police seized more than 200 firearms and related devices, together with in excess of 20,000 rounds of ammunition and boxes of military­ related books and associated paraphernalia from the Montagues’ home. Many of these weapons were discovered in a hidden storage room in the basement of the house. It is fair to say that the quantity and nature of the seized arsenal of weapons and associated items may have been sufficient for a small-scale insurrection.

No, it is not.

Bruce Montague’s sole desire, as he stated repeatedly and publicly across the nation, was to challenge the constitutionality of a law he felt violated his Charter Rights and Freedoms. He was not preparing to mount a “small-scale insurrection“.

At no point would any level of our justice system acknowledge, just as the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to acknowledge in Monday’s ruling, that Bruce Montague could not challenge the constitutionality of a law without “standing”; without breaking the very law he disagreed with and be charged with a crime.

Henry Morgentaler did so and we rewarded him with the Order of Canada, citing “his determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy”.

Bruce Montague’s “determined efforts to influence Canadian public policy” earned him 18 months in prison.

He also forfeits his life savings in firearms and ammunition (valued at over $100,000) and that still isn’t enough punishment as far as the government is concerned.

The Government of Ontario, under Ontario’s civil forfeiture law, will now steal the Montague’s family home and acreage valued at roughly $250,000.

By the time our government is done with Bruce and Donna Montague they will be penniless, homeless and jobless, and Canadian judges dare call this “justice“?

Only to fascist thugs who refuse to face the most fundamental fact of this entire case: Bruce Montague used civil disobedience in order to challenge the constitutionality of a bad law.

Anyone who believes Bruce Montague deserved to spend 18 months in prison, forfeit his entire life savings and now forfeit his home and acreage on top of it all clearly checked their humanity at the door.

Yes, I mean you, James McKeachie.

It is in no way “proportional” to the victimless paper crime committed by Bruce Montague. He refused to renew his firearms license. He refused to obtain registration certificates for his firearms. For this he will lose everything he worked his entire life for, including the beautiful log home he literally built with his own two hands.

[50] Some Canadian case-law has held that forfeiture will not be cruel and unusual punishment for someone who deliberately chooses to commit an offence that puts the particular property at risk, regardless of the value of the forfeited property in comparison to the gravity of the offence: see Turner v. Manitoba, 2001 MBCA 207, 160 Man. R. (2d) 256; R. v. Spence, 2004 NLSCTD 113, 238 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 259.

[51] In this case, it is most unfortunate for the appellants that they chose to challenge the firearms licensing laws by putting all their firearms at risk. However, in my view, the fact that it was their deliberate action that put so much property at risk is not the full reason why its forfeiture does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. It is because the forfeiture consequences cannot be viewed as grossly disproportionate or even disproportionate at all.

As I said earlier, there is no way to challenge the constitutionality of a law in Canada without breaking that law so you have “standing”.

That is not a choice to put your entire life savings, home and property “at risk”. It’s a decision to challenge an unjust law that unfairly penalizes Canada’s most law-abiding citizens: legal gun owners.

Seriously… who else must pass repeated police background checks and notify the government within 30 days of moving residences or face 2 years in prison?

Certainly not rapists and child molesters.

Forcing them to register is a violation of their civil rights.

Gun owners however, as evidenced by Bruce Montague’s case, have no civil rights. Rendering him penniless and homeless is a rational and proportional punishment for the crime of refusing to obtain a firearms license.

[59]Considering all the factors as they apply to the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the cumulative forfeiture of these weapons would outrage community standards of decency so as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

So says the Ontario Court of Appeals, who clearly don’t listen to the Montague’s community members or anyone in Canada’s vast firearms community. Every one of us are outraged at this cruel and unusual punishment that rendered the Bruce and Donna Montague penniless and will soon render them homeless as well.

But once again I forget; we’re gun owners. We are not part of the “community standards of decency“.

We’re lower than rapists and child molesters.

 

 

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

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player