Warning; We are not a politically correct site. Don't like us? Don't read.

Monday, July 10, 2017

It's summertime...time to enjoy the family.

Go to the beach with the kids.
Be back soon...

Wednesday, July 5, 2017

It says it all on where we are at...satanists vs Pro-life.

Satanists mock babies in face-off against pro-life prayer warriors in Michigan
"Why in the world would Planned Parenthood want to let themselves be associated with this?

The Satanic Temple held a similar counter-protest in the Detroit area last August, as faux priests poured milk over women pretending to pray.
The group says it does not worship a literal Satan, or even believe in his existence, but are dedicated to using the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom against pro-life and Christian conservatives.
For instance, Satanists have petitioned for a "religious exemption" from pro-life laws, saying that Missouri's informed consent law violated the religion of Satanism.
Although not associated with the Satanic Temple, a group of abortion supporters chanted “Hail Satan!” while pro-life Christians sang “Amazing Grace” at the Texas statehouse before the passage of that state's ban on abortions for babies capable of feeling pain, in July 2013.
Read whole story here.
They don't believe satan exists???? But they do it's work???
First of all when someone does this they believe in Heaven and hell, and second when you side with what is basically evil against life, well, these "people" will not like the place they are headed to...

Even freedom has to have limits, when you accept anti-life in a society, like these fools, you accept evil has a place in society. Whats ridiculous about giving free reign to evil, which is based on chaos and division, you give a place to what is the main tool to destroy what is good in life. After all evil has one goal....to destroy the circle of life.
Why would anyone give rights to an ideal that seeks to wipe life off the face of the Earth...
And if anyone believes they do not worship satan but claim to be for freedom of religion, then you don't understand the best tool behind satanism, "to make people believe satan or evil does not exist".
Whether one believes in the devil or not, the point is, evil does exist, give them a platform and they become...an acceptable part of society and evil acts are explained as an acceptable part of life...
And when that happens, we already lost...
The warnings are there...evil and it's servants are visible for all to see...what happens next is not up to those who provide them with a platform (elitists) but to the people who can put an end to all this overnight.

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Morning Joe; When you stab someone in the back, don't expect them to be nice, sit back and do nothing. Hypocrites.

Before...Watch MSNBC’S Mika Shamlessly Flirt with Donald Trump

After...With all the anger and nasty comments coming from Mika and Joe of MSNBC, the video below makes you wonder if the nasty Mika is just an act…Ya think? These two couldn’t be happier that now they’re in the spotlight.

“I think Trump is such a narcissist, it’s possible he is mentally ill in a way and this is on the table, I said it months ago and now everyone is starting to say it like it’s new, and it’s ok to say. He’s not well,” she said. “At the very least, he’s not well. And he’s so narcissistic he does not believe the rules apply to him, and that’s where the ignorance label may apply because this is a man who says he can grab women anywhere because he’s famous.”
Then something very curious happened.
Scarborough looked off camera and can be heard saying, “What’s that? Wow,” Then Willie Geist showed him something and the two started laughing. Then a clearly not listening Scarborough, banged the table.
“Stop right there,” he laughed “I need an eject button.”
“He posted it?” Scarborough appeared to ask someone else?
Brzezinski finally realized that nobody was listening to her and demanded an explanation.
“Nothing I have said is crazy,” she said.
“We’ll talk about it in the break,” said Scarborough barely able to get it out through his own laugher.
The show soon went to break. When it returned Scarborough joked about “keeping it in the guard rails.”
Brzezinski appeared to offer an explanation of her actions. “I am keeping it in the guard rails. Everything I’ve said you all have thought and you know and you’ve said in your own way.”
“You’re going to talk to me about a filter?” she snapped at Scarborough.

Explaining the MSM and morning joe.
“You attack a man repeatedly who’s a proud man, who’s an accomplished man, who is a man’s man. You attack him personally. You attack him for his looks. You attack him for his genitalia. And at some point, a man’s gonna stand up,” Levin said on “Hannity” Thursday.

What about other MSM's thoughts on all this?
CNN Producer: Voters "Stupid as Sh*t"– American Pravda

Monday, July 3, 2017

So, you want to be just like europe do you??? ‘Death Panel’: European Court Says Terminal Baby Must Die Despite Parents Funding Extra Care

This is what happens when you give up your rights to the state.

A European court has ruled that the parents of a critically ill baby cannot privately pay for him to go to the United States for “experimental treatment”, and the child must stay in a British hospital to “die with dignity”. The parents of 10-month-old Charlie Gard are reported to be “utterly distraught” after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) denied them a final effort to save their dying son.
After losing a battle in the UK’s Supreme Court, they had appealed to the court in France to fight the decision of British doctors at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, who argued the baby could not be saved in the U.S. and must “die with dignity”.
Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, had raised more than £1.3 million to take Charlie to the U.S. for partially untested, “experimental” treatment, which they claim could save his life.
Britain has a socialised healthcare system, and despite the fact his parents raised private funds for treatment, the courts could have acted as what some in U.S. politicians call a “death panel”, decided who is and who is not worth saving.
“We strongly feel as his parents that Charlie should get a chance to try these medications. He literally has nothing to lose but potentially a healthier, happier life to gain,” the mother wrote on a crowd-funding page.
Some on social media agreed with the parents and expressed anger at the court;
 European Court of Human Rights? Odd name for a death panel. Look out America. Single payer coming

 very evil people.....$entencing a child to death! What an anti-child pagan $ociety we are.

Charlie was born healthy, but suffers from a rare genetic condition, called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, and has serious brain damage.
The ECHR ruled Tuesday that the British hospital was correct and the treatment in the U.S. could not help Charlie. The court said the application by the parents was “inadmissible” and added that their decision was “final”.
They acknowledged “sensitive moral and ethical issues” had been raised in the case and said they respected the “domestic legal framework” of the UK which had come to the same judgement.
A spokesman for Great Ormond Street Hospital said in a statement: “Our thoughts are with Charlie’s parents on receipt of this news which we know will be very distressing for them.
“Today’s decision by the [ECHR] marks the end of what has been a very difficult process and our priority is to provide every possible support to Charlie’s parents as we prepare for the next steps.
“There will be no rush by Great Ormond Street Hospital to change Charlie’s care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion.”
However, Charlie’s mother argued: “We just CAN’T let our baby die when there is something that might help him! We won’t give up on him because he has a rare disease.
“He deserves a chance and he deserves a life as much as anyone else. We understand that rare diseases don’t get enough funding for research but why should that be a reason for a child to die?! He’s here now and this could help our baby.”
When the state promotes immoral behavior as normal, immoral behavior is the norm. 
Whatever happen to the saying from dr's "to do no harm"
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards.

We are headed in the wrong direction, now they are promoting euthanasia laws because health care cost too much. What? To many seniors? Or in the case of european socialism, to many kids???

But then again, there is always those who care enough to do something for the vulnerable among us...
President Trump Offers Hope to Family of Terminally Ill British Baby

Friday, June 30, 2017

Feminism under attack as women defend men’s rights

As a fresh-faced 18-year-old Daisy Cousens left school firmly on board the feminism bandwagon. Like many millennial women she’d been seduced by what she now sees as an “entrenched victim mentality”, convinced the scales were tipped against her because of her sex. “I assumed I’d have to work twice as hard as men for half the recognition and that violent predators lurk around every street corner,” she says.
It took her years to discover she’d been duped. “I realised the feminist view did not reflect my life experiences. I grew suspicious. I couldn’t believe that somehow in Western society women were paid less than men or had fewer rights than men. And given my experience of men, I refused to believe there was an undercurrent of misogyny among all the wonderful men in my life,” says the 28-year-old, who is part of a growing global band of female activists speaking out about the demonisation of men. Some of the leading lights in this group will hit our shores next month to speak at an international men’s issues conference.
Cousens’s turnaround happened when she was working as a research assistant at the Menzies Research Centre, which led her to start asking questions. She found, for instance, that the much heralded “wage gap” largely could be explained by differences in men and women’s work and lifestyle ­choices. That was the beginning.
Cousens discovered a thriving online world questioning the feminist narrative and revealing the silencing of critical issues affecting men and boys. She’s now writing — mainly in The Spectator Australia and Quadrant — about what she sees as a “silent war on men”.
She is one of many women hosting screenings of Cassie Jaye’s controversial documentary The Red Pill, in which the young feminist filmmaker looks seriously at men’s issues and decides they warrant proper attention. Jaye renounced her feminism in protest against the way extremists were silencing discussion of such matters. Ironically Australia is the only country to ban a series of screenings in response to protests from small groups of feminists.
Cousens is confident of a full house for her screening, given the media coverage planned for Jaye’s appearance at the International Conference on Men’s Issues on the Gold Coast from Friday to June 12. The conference promises to be an interesting time for Cousens because, as a wannabe Honey Badger, she’ll also be meeting Karen Straughan and that’s as good as it gets.
Straughan, another speaker at ICMI, is one of the founders of the Honey Badger Brigade, a band of brash, witty female activists who’ve taken up the fight for a better deal for men and boys. Six years ago Straughan was a Canadian waitress and divorced mother of three who started blogging about how easy it would have been to use the family law system to destroy her ex-husband. She was astonished at how law and social institutions were stacked against men.
Straughan posted a blog (girlwriteswhat) that included this pithy summary of marriage today: “For women, marriage is all benefit and zero risk, and that’s why women are whining about men’s reluctance to tie the knot. But for men, it’s the other way around — no guaranteed benefit, and the kind of risk an adrenaline junkie would eschew.” Next came a YouTube video, Feminism and the Disposable Male, that has raked up more than 1.5 million views.
Through her social media activities, Straughan got to know other women interested in men’s issues, such as Alison Tieman who, with Straughan, started a Honey Badger radio show. Then there’s blogger Janet Bloomfield, whose take-no-prisoners writing style soon attracted a big audience for her JudgyBitch blog promoting “the radical notion that women are adults”.
When protesters threatened to shut down a men’s rights conference in Detroit in 2011, the Honey Badger Brigade flew in to act as “human shields”. It helps to have women involved because female activists can’t be dismissed as sad losers, suggests Straughan. “Men run the risk of being perceived as dangerous or threatening when speaking up,” she says, adding that male activists tend to be “mocked as whiny man-babies or dismissed as dangerous extremist reactionaries who want to make it legal to beat your wife”.
And the name Honey Badgers? That came from a funny YouTube video — The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger — that shows the vicious animal sticking its nose into bee-filled holes, gnawing on mice, tearing the heads off snakes and shaking off venomous cobra bites. It’s pretty silly, admits Straughan, but watch her shrug off the constant abuse she receives from feminists or reducing Naomi Wolf into a quivering heap on a television panel and you’ll see there’s something in it.
During Straughan’s visit to Sydney next month she will be appearing on Sky News’s Outsiders program, giving a talk at the Sydney Institute and doing a Q&A with viewers of Mark Latham’s Facebook page.
Then she’ll head up to the Gold Coast where she’ll join impressive speakers presenting at the men’s conference, including a striking number of women — such as Jaye, who is presenting a special screening of her movie.
Then there’s Erin Pizzey, world-renowned as the founder of Britain’s first women’s refuge, who back in the 1970s attracted the wrath of feminists by speaking out about women’s violence. Her determination to promote the truth about domestic violence — that it isn’t a gender issue — led to death threats, forcing her for a time to leave the country. She has been campaigning for more than 40 years about this vital social issue. Unfortunately ill-health has prevented Pizzey travelling and she’ll give her lecture via Skype.
Another Canadian speaker, Janice Fiamengo, is a professor of English literature whose hugely popular weekly YouTube program, The Fiamengo File, highlights the damaging impact of feminism in academe. She is scathing about women’s studies, which she believes has devolved into an intellectually incoherent and dishonest discipline replacing a callow set of slogans for real thought.
Local female men’s rights activists are excited about the chance to discuss with these luminaries how to get men’s issues on to the public agenda. Women such as Melbourne mental health advocate Rae Bonney, whose work with male-dominated workplaces reveals many of the contributors to the high male suicide rate, such as facing a biased family law system.
She says: “It’s both alarming and heartbreaking that so many of our social systems prevent men from getting the help and support they so desperately need. Every day I hear another story of a man who’s lost absolutely everything, often facing unproven accusations of violence and abuse.”
Bonney is on a high after hosting a recent Melbourne screening of The Red Pill, one of many I’ve organised through Fan-Force, a system that allows people to host local screenings of movies of their choice.
“We had nearly 200 people, including young women, couples and of course many men. There were a few tears and much applause before and after it ended. There’s a real sense that at last men’s issues are getting the attention they deserve,” says the delighted Bonney.
One real sign of a shift in the cultural dialogue is an upcoming event on ABC2’s Hack Live on June 20, Is Male Privilege Bullsh!t?, a debate where Jaye and various Honey Badgers will have a rare opportunity to show there are two sides to this story.
Most people, men and women have always known, in order to make things better for the next generation, we have to work "together". 
The idea feminism have that they speak for all women is something they falsely convince themselves of.
They are a very small minority among women and those who have that ideal, specially in the education system, eventually come to their senses once they are out of college and into the real world.

Men, "real men", have always defended the right of women to live safe and free and to be what they want to be.The idea men want women to stay in the home barefoot and pregnant is no longer part of the male thinking. If it ever was in the past, is because the world as it was, kept women safer at home...(a long long time ago)
After all men are fathers and certainly do not want their daughters to be anything else than independent women capable of handling the world before them. Not in the clutches of a controlling person.

In the feminist and mangina world, their "all men bad" philosophy, accuses the fathers, husbands, brothers and sons of women to be animals who go around looking for someone to rape and control them into slavery.
Their stupidity and hatred of the male species is causing their own downfall...
By always falsely accusing all men of what they perceive men to be, usually because of their own shortfalls, they open the eyes of "normal" women of the hatred feminism have for their own fathers, brother, husbands and sons.

I don't know if feminism ever had the high morals when it came to women's rights, in my opinion they were always a hateful ideology. 
Women's rights was not won by feminism, but by men and women working together for a better world...
They have become the clowns of society, that's why they are so angry lately whenever someone confronts them with the reality they created...
Less and less rational people take them seriously anymore, let alone any male who claims to be a feminist, which most women cringe when that claim is made.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

John McEnroe Won't Apologize For His Serena Williams Comments. And He Shouldn't.

On Sunday, tennis legend John McEnroe ruffled the feathers of feminists everywhere when he explained that tennis star Serena Williams, while being the "best female player ever," would rank around 700 in the men's circuit.

Here's the exchange with NPR reporter Lulu Garcia-Navarro:

    Garcia-Navarro: We're talking about male players but there is of course wonderful female players. Let's talk about Serena Williams. You say she is the best female player in the world in the book.

    McEnroe: Best female player ever — no question.

    Garcia-Navarro: Some wouldn't qualify it, some would say she's the best player in the world. Why qualify it?

    McEnroe: Oh! Uh, she's not, you mean, the best player in the world, period?

    Garcia-Navarro: Yeah, the best tennis player in the world. You know, why say female player?

    McEnroe: Well because if she was in, if she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world.

The Left, all too quick to be outraged, branded the colorful tennis player a sexist for daring to voice such a simple truth rooted in (apparently misogynistic) biology. The media, needless to say, began sharpening their knives for McEnroe the moment the NPR interview was published.

On Tuesday morning, CBS This Morning jumped at the chance to press the tennis star for his recently-committed sins against Feminism, but when confronted, McEnroe refused to apologize.

"I'm just waiting, would you like to apologize?" asked co-host Norah O'Donnell.

"Uh, no," answered McEnore, before lamenting the asinine tendency for those in the tennis world to compare men and women.

Good for McEnroe. He shouldn't be bullied by the media into an apology for stating something so obvious, backed by enormous evidence.

First of all, McEnroe did not slight Williams at all, as has been suggested. He made it clear that Williams is the "best female player ever — no question," and only made his comment about a possible 700 ranking when pressed by NPR. So the claim that his comment was "unnecessary" and therefore insensitive is absurd.

And then there's what McEnroe actually said. What is so offensive about Williams ranking 700 in the men's game? As noted by The Daily Wire on Monday, it seems fairly obvious that Williams would actually rank around 700 in the men's circuit if you look at the female star's Universal Tennis Rating and her previous interactions with ranked male players:  

    Looking at Williams' Universal Tennis Rating (UTR), which is the assigned numerical rating to all tennis players — both men and women — ranging on a 0 to 16.39 scale, the female athlete rates at 13.36, whereas dominant male tennis players like Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic rate at 16.26 and 16.27 respectively. The scale places Williams on-par with average men's college players (ranks about 97th out of the top 125 college men's singles) and nowhere near top-world-ranked men.

    Furthermore, in 1998, Williams actually played a set against a male tennis player ranked 203 in the world, Germany's Karsten Braasch. She got her butt handed to her in embarrassing fashion, taking a 6-1 loss as her opponent smoked cigarettes and sipped beer in between change-overs.

Not to mention that small detail called biology. Williams is at such a disadvantage against men because of her genetic make-up: as highlighted in Psychology Today, "Men are on average taller than women, have more muscle mass, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments, have bigger hearts, a greater lung volume, and a higher red blood cell count."

The effort by the media to shame McEnroe for expressing an obvious truth is terrifying. McEnroe should be applauded for refusing to offer an apology after disrupting the safe spaces of biology-denying feminists.
It's so sad to see feminists and their manginas having their panties in a bunch about what is nature and reality...
As much as they try so hard to push a ridiculous notion that men and women are the same, they always forget to add nature into the equation.
This doesn't mean women are lower than men, it simply mean men and women have differences...this isn't a bad thing, as a matter of fact, when men and women deal and respect the idea that we do have differences, we achieve more in life. As we said before, give to women what belongs to women and give to men what belongs to them....
Our differences simply mean we have to meet and understand each other, taking the time to know a person, if we where all the same as the left, feminists and their manginas seems to promote, what a boring world it would be...
And anyway, looking at the mess the world is in at the moment, isn't it a good thing that strong masculine men are capable to protect women's rights to be what they want to be? If all men become weak manginas where would feminist's right to b*tch at everything and anything be today?
Would radical islam for instant allow them to enjoy the freedom to nag us the way they do?
Would democracy or freedom of speech they seem to attack every day even exist?
Who hold up the pillars of democracy?

Maybe, secretly they do want to be "controlled" since they promote wearing scarfs, which by the way is made to hide the femininity of women, so as not to get raped by men in the muslim world...

Accepting we have differences and trying to live with them advance the human specie, their way restricts us by not trying to find common ground...that's why the left is loosing ground to Trumpism, they are too...restrictive and lack understanding and acceptance of individual differences.
Their way of thinking will be gone in the near future, these hateful ol'dinosaurs of a time passed are even been rejected by the young generation of today....sure they will be around for a while but not with the power they use to have or enjoyed and abused. And that included their lowly mangina supporters.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Feminist Magazine Demands White Women Abort Their Babies to Solve Racism

"The white family unit must be destroyed"
A feminist magazine is calling on white women to solve historical racism and white supremacy by aborting all their babies.
In an article entitled, Beyond Pro-Choice: The Solution to White Supremacy is White Abortion, writer Nicole Valentine blames “white families” for standing in the way of a “progressive society” by “initiating their parasitism” to exert “full dominion over the enslaved and oppressed people of color.”
“Whites are embedded from birth with the sense of common white identity, and this identity conditions them to replicate the white family unit, thus furthering the cycle of white supremacy in America. That is why the white family unit must be destroyed,” writes Valentine.
“White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite. White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children,” she adds.
Valentine goes on to demand that white women also adopt black children “who have lost their parents to the destructive white supremacist society that you have enabled and encouraged.”
The magazine, which describes itself as being “dedicated to promoting diversity and multicultural values,” is loaded with other stories that border on being satirical, including “Women can’t be rapists,” “Childhood toys are racist!” and “It’s time to talk about Whitesplaining”.
The website’s “about us” page also blames “radical right wingers” as being “responsible for several hate crimes and terrorist attacks.” The writers are mostly “current and past students”.
Valentine’s argument that white women need to have more abortions because “women of color do not often have the same privilege to choose termination as do white women” is complete nonsense given that black children are aborted at three times the rate of white children.
The article received hundreds of negative comments, with respondents pointing out the blatantly racist tone of the piece.
“Sometimes I think there must be a contest going on in which the author of the most radical, insane, warped, twisted and fever-brained article will win a prize. If so, this hateful screed should surely win at least an honorable mention,” wrote Steve Biddle.
“If this is not incitement to genocide, I don’t know what it is. If you change the term “white” to anything else, it looks exactly like that no matter how you flip it,” remarked Victor Crainic.
Can feminism drop any lower than this?
Racism comes in many form and this is definitely one of them...
Instead of trying to work together to make a better world for the next generation, they keep on trying to stay relevant by promoting anti white hate, add that to their anti-male rhetoric and if anyone listens to them the specie if f*cked...
If there is one thing we can learn from history, it's that group such as this never stop at one, if they succeed, they will eventually target another...that is the reality of established racism...feminists are no different.
Idiocy of a lower intellectual life form (feminism and their manginas) is so obvious, we just have to look or in this case read about it, it's there for all to see.

If we are to evolve as a species, groups such as these who thrive on division and hate, must be eradicated, otherwise, we will always be at each other's throats and be servants to the elite, as they keep us divided in order to keep their power and wealth, keeping it in the hands of a very few.
Maybe that is what we deserve by not demanding they go away, or exposing them for what they really are, which a rational population would do if they understood what their goals really are. Division, Power and Greed.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Freedom is Fading in Canada? A good read.

It wasn't too long ago that the mainstream media in Canada bashed PM Stephen Harper for attacking our freedom. This message was adopted by millions of young Canadians, who could repeat claims such as "Harper is silencing journalists" in any debate on the matter. Headline after headline questioned how our most sacred value could be given up, especially regarding freedom of the press. He's gone, so where are we now? The World Press Freedom Index, which ranked Canada 8th in the world in 2015, now ranks us in 22nd, and we didn't fall because other countries are doing better. The media outlets that had gotten the youth riled up when Harper had us at 8th place ... are now relatively silent. 

In fact the tone from mainstream outlets about freedom, which was apparently the most desirable trait to have in a society has flipped. According to the many media sources, it's now less important to allow in a society and simply "used as a tool to allow hate speech". 
Global News recently put out an article for Canadian citizens on how to "report hate speech". Nothing was written to distinguish it from undesirable speech, unsurprisingly. Suggested actions to report dialogue to police and others to get it censored were described in detail with tricks such as appealing to a large community to ensure a mob works together to silence it. 

Canadians, when polled almost always state that freedom is their strongest and most important value, but
the multi-faceted right is being chipped at from all angles simultaneously at a worrying pace. M103 was a motion which sparked the conversation about being able to criticize or dislike Political Islam. Although only 14% of Canadians supported the motion - Liberals pushed it through. There are other articles that will more thoroughly explain the debate, but I'll give the highlights. The motion contained wording that asked for a "whole of government approach to eliminate islamophobia". The issue is that "islamophobia" according to the definition especially relates to a dislike of political islam, not discrimination against muslims which is already illegal. Liberals responded to criticism with "the motion is about protecting muslim people from discrimination not Islam the ideology from criticism". Conservatives than said "well we are both on the same page about discrimination being wrong, so can we change the wording to more accurately describe your explanation?" to which the Liberals refused for an unknown reason. 

In the case of M103, not only was freedom of speech put under challenge and limitations, but the primary argument from the anti-M103 side was completely ignored. It get's worse though. While M103 was a motion, meaning they were funding a commission which would investigate legally binding laws to enforce their findings, actual laws are already bring passed such as C16. C16 is described by many in the media elite as "protection from discrimination against transgendered people". Mainstream news outlets have described opponents to the bill as bigots who hate transgendered people and want to be able to discriminate against them. The wording of the motion states that “This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination”. If that was it, and context was not important, there wouldn't be any significant portion of the population against the bill. Context, is everything. In the legal world however, context and related laws are extremely important. 

When C16 was introduced the government website had a link to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, stating that the bill would be interpreted by policy precedence from them. The government has not revoked the claim, although in attempt to mitigate the scandal, the link was taken down. Why was this alarming? The OHRC states "refusing to refer to a person by their preferred pronoun constitutes as a form of harassment". There are unlimited preferred pronouns one may demand to be called. Traditionally titles were voluntarily used such as calling a doctor Dr. X, Canadian law has shifted to legally enforce the use of any pronoun for any reason. Some pronouns which have been demanded to be used by university students are: "jam, xe, ve, zij, and þau (not a b, that's an icelandic symbol þ "

Many argue that a government that increases spending, is one that removes freedom from the citizens. The more the government increases taxes and allows a few elites within itself to decide how to spend the citizens money, that is a control mechanism. Canada has moved towards being a country where a few elites in the government decide what to do with "Canadian money" rather than allowing the citizens to spend their money as they see fit. Criticism has arisen around the new carbon tax which has said unfairly targets low-income Canadians who have to spend a higher % of their income on heating their home, driving to work and buying food at the grocery store. As new taxes remove families ability to chose their own homes and food, the government gains tremendous control over them by supplying their own controlled social housing and food programs. 

Regardless of where you stand on the United States current political situation, it's important to understand why they value their constitution in a global climate that suffered from rulers abusing their powers - and still are. The founding fathers in the United States understood that tyrannical governments would always assume power by controlling speech first, then physical control after. In countless military coup's around the world, radio stations are almost always seized by the new government. After the ability to control communication, the ability to defend oneself is almost always restricted immediately after. The 2nd amendment is second, because it ensured that even if a tyrannical government in the United States controlled speech, they would not be able to take away Americans ability to defend themselves. Nazi Germany did not simply go door-to-door to take Jewish people away to concentration camps. Laws were passed to control the press, while strict gun control measures were imposed. For the record I am not saying that anybody in modern day is comparable with the Nazi Party in Germany, I am simply using the most understood historical guideline of how to control a population, even if the intentions are vastly different. 

Taking away freedom from a population is useless without indoctrination, people debatably crave freedom and as countless revolutions in human history have shown they will join with their families and communities to regain independence. While attacks on families have been historically implemented by the Liberal Party of Canada to take aboriginal youth from their families in order to control the population, no outrageous laws to control the family unit have been suggested ... until now. Ontario has passed Bill 89, which allows the government to access how committed to LGBT parents are, and if the test is failed, kids will be taken into government control. While the government has stated that "gender identity is fluid and contextual" if parents attempt to shape their child's identity against the governments will - the government will enforce their own context ... a foster home. 

If those in power in Canada are actively looking to continue increasing their control over the citizens, it is only reasonable to assume that stricter measures will be employed to take away Canadians ability to protect themselves. Propaganda has started being disseminated among the public in such a way that would imply legislation is on the horizon. A widely distributed study with the headline "One youth shot every day in Ontario" was spread through CBC, The Globe and Mail, The Huffington Post and others. There are lot's of breakdowns that debunk the propaganda in the article online, but those have significantly smaller reach and don't have access to tax dollars. Here are some of the highlights of instances that intentionally mislead Canadians to stir up emotional responses and a climate for increased government control. 

1. Youth's in the study includes adults aged 24. This is in contrast with Ontario's youth justice system which stops at age 17
2. The definition of "firearms" included paintball guns, airsoft toys, slingshots and BB guns were also included. 
3. "Are shot" is used in the headline but the study is actually about injuries. Needing to get an icepack for a paintball bruise counts. Police shootings are also lumped in. 

With this clearly visible trend of the government amassing power over the citizens, anyone can see that the ability to defend oneself is next on the chopping block, regardless of your political leanings. While new laws to restrict things such as firearms have not yet been released as of June 7th (in the afternoon), since I started researching and writing this article the Liberals have stated they will be looking to bring back a registry for long-gun owners. I'm sure I'll have a lot to say, in the next coming weeks about that, you can follow along on the Narrative Facebook Page if you're interested. 

Although I already chose the title Freedom is Fading in Canada, and I think the alliteration is too good to pass up on, perhaps I was understating the rate or erosion given this new development.
Well written and interesting...
What is disturbing is how many people are silent...

Monday, June 26, 2017

JUDGE JEANINE NAILS THE UNHINGED LEFT: “The left’s hate is a danger to us all’

See video here...
Judge Jeanine nailed it tonight describing the unhinged left. She is so right to say the left is a danger to us all. She is especially worried for our President and other leaders in DC. She’s so right!

PIRRO SAID: “We are now in a danger zone of complete hatred and chaos unlike anything we’ve witnessed in American history. The normalization of calling for the assassination, decapitation or the beating of any president is simply shocking. And it is the extension of this hatred that trickles down and motivates people like the shooter of Congressman Scalise. That shooter wasn’t crazy. That’s too easy. He hated Republicans and thought they should die.”

“I worry, though, and you should all worry for our president and all elected officials… The trickling down of hate is a danger to us all”
What’s not helping is that the former President and Hillary Clinton are fueling this rhetoric. The bitter Democrats waisted no time in continuing the violent rhetoric almost immediately after Steve Scalise was shot! The ironic thing is that this only damages the Democrats!

The Chair of the DNC Tom Perez has been going out giving obscenity laden speeches. He’s the leader of the party and he sets the tone. How in the world is this negative rhetoric helping anyone? The big loser in all of this is the American people. DC is in gridlock on getting things done when the Democrats don’t even try to be civil.
People get shot and democrats, the left, praise it, you get actors and singers who believe their words carry political weight, leftovers of a past time, (who the f*ck is patti lupone by the way) and the most disturbing, disgusting (pro isis) picture. Or that Shakespeare in the park show of an assassination.
Let's get real for a minute, all this is politics a la Soviet and Nazi era...

There is no doubt in anyone's mind kathy griffin tried to resurrect her failing career, if she ever had one, with that sick photo chute, but it backfired on her in a big way...and so it should....(never thought she was funny)

Then you have politicians like maxine watters who no longer have a message for the people and tries to stay relevant with the ridiculous.   Impeach 45 chant...Impeach for what watters? Winning the election according to the constitution? Stop making a fool of yourself.

Thing is, these people are so out of touch they don't realize they represent only themselves and have no idea they are making fools of themselves. The majority of people believe in democracy, those who do follow them are the lowest of the population, filled with hate because they didn't get their way in the last election.
If anyone was trying to cause a violent uprising, these idiots are in the forefront, they are a very small minority and the msm is giving these "nuts" a stage to spew out their undemocratic message...
If they think their message will get them power, they are sorely mistaken.

There last hero, obama made a mess of things, doubled the debt with nothing to show for it, promised to end the wars, yet continued them and made things worse. (Libya, Syria)
His only political message was, "if you don't vote for me your a racist". Which turned race relations decades back. Let alone his administration's abuse of power which is starting to come out.

Instead of concentrating on the democratic election of 2018 and 2020, the radical left is more interested in causing violence and dissent. Where is the pelosie, the shumers, the clintons, the obama in all this?
They would have a better message if only they would stand up and say; ENOUGH, this is not what the democrat party stands for. 
Don't they believe in democracy anymore instead of pandering to such a small minority, they have no chance of attaining power with such a tiny voting block.

It's not a matter of right or left, no one in their right mind would vote for a group who promotes violence, racism and hatred instead of a political message benefiting the population. 
By alienating those who voted for Trump, those who follow politics for the right reason and independents, they are pushing away the majority of people.
All this shows one thing...POWER AT ALL COST" at the expense of the people...
This is not democracy, this is the path to violence.

Those in the democrat party who have a rational mind and understand what's going on, should stand up, rebuild the party by getting rid of the idiots in their ranks, only then, would they be taken seriously again...

Friday, June 23, 2017


 She thinks white men are a bigger terror threat than Islamic jihadists. You have to try hard to be this stupid.

There is no sense in debating or analyzing the left anymore, their stupidity and hate speaks for itself.
I'm still waiting for someone in that group to stand out and tell these idiots...ENOUGH!