Vaccines, kill you later!

vaccination-shots

I’m so over the vaccine debate that to me it’s a done deal.  I’m against it.   Yet, daily I see posts from people who are for it and who are against it.    The reasons from the pro side just don’t add up, nor do they make any sense.

The latest diatribe I heard from the pro vaccine side is trying to discount the inserts as something not to worry about, or that people don’t understand how to read them properly etc.

No friends, the inserts are very clear.

Here is the MMR2 Insert in PDF.

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

Notice the six pages, (yes six) of adverse reactions, which include but are not limited to death and other various lifelong medical problems.

Notice the part where it says it is NOT 100% effective 100% of the time?    This means it doesn’t work.

Yet people still advocate for this poison and discount these warnings as nothing to be worried about, and at the same time make comments like “There is only a 15% chance of getting an adverse reaction, that means it’s still 85% safe”.    (They obviously didn’t read the NOT 100% safe part.)

Another nail in the coffin I found just today, was a paper that cites a 120 years worth of history of diseases and vaccines and their effects written by a doctor.

Here it is:

http://vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/02/smallpox-declared-eradicated-while-still-alive-and-well-by-viera-scheibner-phd/

Now I read this and now know that there are many doctors and medical professionals who know this information.  They know it is harmful.  And in fact they discuss how the vaccinated population are at risk of death if even small pox breaks out.   Not the  people who decided not to vaccinate.  They discuss it clearly and explain why this is.

This is something I’ve known for years, but yet people have seem to have just forgotten.     Our immune systems are made so we can get sick and develop natural antibodies.     The vaccines don’t do this.     They never did.

Silly people cite that these diseases were wiped out by vaccines, but the truth is they weren’t.   They disappeared due to better hygiene, better sanitation and better food preparation.    Diseases come and go as well throughout history.  Some diseases have even been found in arctic ice samples.   (Think of the arctic ice melting now, scary huh).  The common denominator in diseases in hygiene, sanitation and food safety.   Your less likely to get sick if all three of those conditions are good.  Not any vaccine.

When these vaccines were introduced, the diseases were almost gone, not by any drugs but by better standards of living.

Now we have occasional outbreaks of measles, mumps etc.   And they have always been traced back to vaccinated people.  Always.    The media doesn’t report that very loudly though.  They don’t want to loose all that advertising revenue from the drug companies, but that still doesn’t change the fact that vaccinated people are more at risk from a disease than those that have not been vaccinated.

Our bodies get a disease by breathing in or eating some microbe or virus via mouth, nose or stomach.   It has to then get to our blood stream but it first gets analyzed  by our immune system and antibodies keyed to our body are created and when the virus hits our bloodstream, our immune response already has started to respond and attack it.   Then when the virus has been eradicated from our body the specific antibody’s dna or structure is stored in our dna so when or if we get infected again, our body can easily and quickly create new antibodies to attack the virus.

A vaccine does not do this.    The vaccine is injected into us bypassing the normal natural ways we contract a disease.   As well, depending on the vaccine, some vaccines have dead virus’ in them.   So the antibodies that are created from that dead virus have certain problems.    The first being that the antibodies are being created to combat something that is already dead.  The other issue the antibodies in the virus are not keyed to your body.  They weren’t created by your body so when they are cloned by your body they really aren’t beneficial to your body.    Imagine a clone of someone else.   Then cloning that clone a few million times, and then take an organ from the final clone like the liver and transplanting it in you.   The chances the organ won’t do anything are pretty high and most likely your health will be compromised.

This is what a vaccine is. Or does.   It leaves you compromised health wise.      It offers a false sense of protection from disease.     Which is better a lifelong immunity or something that is temporary, can possibly harm you for life and even kill you if you get sick.

No thank you.   I’ll not vaccinate and keep my health thank you.

 

The Era of Stupid People….

We have gone into an era where stupid people are in the majority, thanks to previous generations who decided that spanking was bad for kids, giving ribbons for participation or just showing up for class to make the students feel good about themselves.     A generation of helicopter parents who balked and turn white at the very thought of their child going outside alone to play, or catching a normal, childhood illness.

We have kids now, who thanks to the removal of cursive writing in grade schools are unable to sign their own name.   They can type it, but can’t even hold a pencil the right way, let alone sign their name.

College students are going into school not knowing how to cook or clean for themselves, because their mothers didn’t teach them or did it all for them.

We have these same people who are now voting age voting idiots like this one below:

trudeau_transparency_20140611

Who think it’s okay to discriminate against his own gender because of his upbringing and to please his wife and her friends.    To pander to special interest groups and discriminate and call it equality.

Yes, my friends, we live in an age of stupid people.   The same people who believe what they get told in the news at face value when a quick search online and a few documents to read will say otherwise.

These are the same people who scoff at people who do the research and can back their facts with evidence and proof.   That doesn’t matter though, because then these stupid people decide that you need to be censored and try to assert that what you are saying is an attack against them personally and hate.

We have the same people who cannot recognize freedom and think freedom is having no choice, and no right to say no to a government.   The idea that you have to give up freedom to have it, or that silly thing called freedom of speech is fine as long it doesn’t go against your ideas.

Beware, the more stupidity is not called out and tolerated, the more the lies are perpetuated and passed on to new generations.

Take responsibility for your children, teach them yourself, don’t let others do it for you, because otherwise you end up with what we have today.

Feminists try to get Documentary banned!

DSC01401-Version-2-800x445
(Image courtesy of original article: https://anongalactic.com/feminists-are-trying-to-shut-down-a-documentary-on-mens-rights/)

The documentary film, being created by feminist and filmmaker Cassie Jaye.    The film called “The Red Pill”, documents the Men’s Rights Right Movement and sheds the light on the issues that men face into today’s society.

Feminists of course, see this as an attack on them personally and want to shut it down.  As usual, when something is not about them or links feminism in a bad light, which this film points out how, when, why and how feminism has taught people to think that men are the boogy man and gives a glimpse to who the real bad guy is.

(Sneak Preview Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK7n_XA40V8 )

For decades, men have been fighting for men’s rights, but until now men’s voices have not been heard.   This film is a must see for anyone who wants to learn the truth about feminism and the Men’s rights movement.

Question you may want to ask yourself;

Do you know of a father who was denied custody to his children?
Do you know of a father who was denied custody to his children and the mother is abusive?
Do you know any man who has committed suicide?
Do you know any man who was homeless?

Do you know of a man who has been sent to jail for not paying child support because he couldn’t afford to?
Do you know of a man who was denied the right to be a father because the mother didn’t want to be a mother and got an abortion?

These are just some of the issues cover in the film.    I for one, think this film is due, and encourage everyone, feminist, MRA, or neutral to watch.

That is, if the feminists don’t shut it down.  After all, we can’t have free speech can we?

I thought I heard it all… until today.

Confused_baby

Today I heard a term I first heard on South Park and never heard about again.  At the time, I had no clue what South Park was joking about and frankly, laughed along with the episode, (Cartman is fucking funny!)

Today,  I ran into it again.  It was on a youtube video from a self described CIS male feminist, about why he needs feminism.  He started his dialog with describing himself as a “Identifying as CIS with his assigned gender”.    This caused me to do a search online for the term and get more information.

Here is the Wikipedia entry on it.

Cisgender and cissexual (often abbreviated to simply cis) describe related types of gender identity where individuals’ experiences of their own gender match the sex they were assigned at birth.[1] Sociologists Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook define cisgender as a label for “individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity” as a complement to transgender.[2]

Please read that entry carefully.   If you are scratching your head, it is the same reaction I had.  There are a few issues with this.

Gender isn’t “assigned at birth”.   You are either male or female.   That is the way it is.  You can’t magically assign a baby with a penis as female or vice versa,   So by identifying your self as CIS your basically saying without saying it your male or female.  In the case of the experience with the video, he was male.

He continued by stating he needed feminism because while being CIS he didn’t fit the “Idea” of male by others and would experience shaming etc from other males or females.    So his reasoning was to join a group of females and males who are for the oppression of men.      He then continues and talks about how he has trouble finding potential dating partners and it is obvious he is leaving out pronouns in his descriptions.   For example he will not say He or She.  It’s always partner.   So for me being a gay man, and having seen this over and over and over and over and over for almost thirty years, I pegged him as being gay and in the closet.  Which if he was in the states, I can understand why depending on which state he is in.

CIS?  I’m so floored by the idiocy of the feminists and yet am in awe.  Not because they are great.  I’ve made it clear in previous pages that I hate feminism and all it stands for, but for the way it has interwoven so much into society that is can turn anyone from identifying from their gender to some fake one.

According to feminist theories from what I am reading they basically want to eliminate any type of gender identity.  That’s right.  They want eliminate the idea I’m a man because I have a beard, or that we identify a woman because she doesn’t have a beard etc.

I am honestly thinking I have to hit my head on a brick wall to make myself stupid enough to believe this garbage.  And yet we have millions of young girls going to university, spending billions of dollars in tuition to learn this in gender studies.

And these young feminists wonder why their Bachelor in Gender Studies has no value in the world?

What is Truth? – Something to Ponder

questionmark

A question nobody really asks?   I’m not talking about what the truth of something.  I mean, the word truth.   What does it mean?

The dictionary defines it with many different definitions.    I believe this to be wrong.   Truth cannot have different meanings.  It simply can’t and be truth.  I think real truth, the truth that can’t be disputed falls under the fourth definition:

a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

This is pretty straight forward and means the truth, is truth by fact, or ideal.

I’ve had meaningful conversations with people who actually believe the truth is whatever the majority believes.   In their minds, if the majority says Blue is really bacon, then it becomes bacon, even though it’s really blue.

The media influences the masses in so many ways that, many will take the word of of the talking heads as truth.   They can’t comprehend the misuse of words, you know, a change of a word here or there, and it changes how we perceive the “Truth”.  Then take into account the truth is altered more by unchecked sources.

This is why I have become jaded on the media.   The truth is not really the truth from the media.  It is a stream of stories that never have any facts checked, never check the credibility of sources, or check to see if witness statements are really true.

In today’s world, we see more fake news than real news.   Many false flags, in the hopes of causing fear and terror in the masses by governments that run with an agenda that is neither moral, nor for the good of the people.

We have censorship of the truth to the point where a simple video by a witness is no longer shown by the media unless is goes along with the government’s agenda.

This is why many people have turned to the internet for the truth.   We all have phones and cameras.  Daily hundreds if not thousands of videos or images are uploaded, that show the real truth.

Here are some truths ignored and lied about in the mainstream media.

Sandy Hook was a Hoax.  No one Died.

Boston Bombing was a False Flag.  No One Died.  The injured were confirmed crisis actors.

Aurora Colorado Movie Theater shooting was a False Flag.  There was someone outside the theater who passed the gunman the weapon via the emergency exit.

And really, the most famous but not the first, 9/11.  False Flag.   How can you believe it wasn’t with so much evidence showing it is?   From the news reporter who reported the second tower collapsing 20 minutes before it actually did, to the explosions which over 2000 demolition experts from around the world have said over and over, that it was a controlled demolition.  After all, 2 towers come straight down? And the third just blows up from the gases in the sewer?  Plus the pages upon pages more evidence to show it was an inside job.

Cassidy Stay Hoax.   Little girl magically survives a point blank shot from her aunt’s ex boyfriend, which she magically deflects with her finger?  Is that even plausible?   Gun experts say no.    Yet the masses believed it.   They didn’t even question the fact that they had T-shirts and bracelets already set up to sell the day after the tragic event.   Things that take time to design and implement.  Even a GoFundMe page was set up.   Then the whole stage speech, with the Dumbledore reference, with the older gentleman behind her coaching her on her speech.   Two days after she witnessed her entire family dying, she is telling the press that “they are in a better place”.

Hogwash.   No word since the big media frenzy, but you can’t find any presence of her online, or any of her relatives either.

All of these instances are lies brought forth that serve an agenda, not only in the united states but in Canada.   Everyone knows that what happens in the united states happens here in terms of the laws passed.

In light of these events in the USA, we had similar events happen in Quebec Moncton and Ottawa.
Mainly we had three shooters.   Three alleged radical terrorists. And three pushes for laws removing our freedoms.

Don’t believe something to be true just because someone told you it is.  Find out for yourself.   The truth is often, ugly and dirty and not many like it, but honest people will respect it, and move forward with it.    Those who don’t are doomed to repeat history and hurt themselves and others.

The myth of “rape culture”

For the past couple of years, I have been hearing more and more the words “rape culture”.   I didn’t understand what it meant and to this day, I am not understanding the meaning.   Why?  The meaning is very generalized.  Here is an example, one of many I might add, that no one, and I mean no one has the same definitions.

From Wiki:  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture)

Rape culture is a theoretical concept (a qualitative theory) in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.

Behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, or refusing to acknowledge the harm of some forms of sexual violence. The notion of rape culture has been used to describe and explain behavior within social groups, including prison rape, and in conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire societies have been alleged to be rape cultures.

I checked many other groups and websites for their definitions, and they all had very broad descriptions of the meaning or some actually citing mundane activities as being part of this myth.

Some of these activities include, but are not limited to:

Asking a woman on a date.

Offering to buy a woman a drink.

Complimenting or commenting on their clothes, hair, looks.

On my social media profile friends list, I had a model on it, who’s specialty was nude modelling.   She proudly displayed each and every image that was taken of her on the social media site.  As a professional photographer, I saw the images for their artistic beauty and didn’t think about them.   This past couple of weeks, a guy on her friend’s list, had made a comment that was inappropriate and rude.   He was basically telling her (in a douche way) that he thought she was hot and wouldn’t mind hooking up with her.

She turned him down, in a very spectacular fashion, and then blocked him.    This I felt should have been the end of it.   Instead, she went on a rant, and drew many people in.  All agreeing with her and talking about rape culture and some like myself didn’t see it that way and said so, and in response they attacked those people and accused them of being part of the problem etc, etc etc.

At one point I had to make a comment, that was both a message to the model and as well to the people commenting.    I stated that while I didn’t feel the guy’s comment was appropriate, I didn’t think her 2 week rant was either.    This prompted attacks from others to me.   Yet when I asked straight forwards questions using logic and critical thinking, I would not get a response but attacks and name calling.

This is what I basically said:

To (Model Name), while I appreciate your work for it’s artistic value, I do find these kinds of rants to be counter-productive and a tad unprofessional.   Here is why, in this world you get many types of people, and some not all, are going to misstep in life.  They will say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing etc.   In this guy’s case, he was arrogant and said something that you weren’t open to.    You stated that just because your a nude model, doesn’t mean you want to sleep with every male out there, and I agree with you on that.   However, you didn’t just block him and ended it.  You went on a week long rant, and drew more and more people into this so horrible victimization of you.   There was no victimization, there was a guy who was a douche, who said something inappropriate.  Now the problem I am having and finding unprofessional is the fact you are omitting your part in this.   You chose to be a nude model.   That was your choice.  You chose to post those images on a social media site publicly.  That was also your choice.    Now while I understand that is not an invitation, there are some people out in the world who have no sense of decorum or decency.  This is not me saying I approve, this is just me stating a fact.   These people exist.  And when you post anything, they will come out and say something, that someone will find inappropriate.   When it comes to social media you can do several things, you can ignore it, delete it, or block the person.   You did this.  You blocked him.

You are not a victim.  You blocked him.

There was no rape.  He didn’t rape you.

There was no sexual assault.   He didn’t touch you.

(I didn’t say it in those words but that is what I was driving at).     Some got it.  One guy in particular attacked me in private messaging for a few days over this, and every-time time I asked him how my actions rape culture, all he could say was that I was blaming the victim.

“What victim?”, I asked.

“Your an idiot”, he said.

“How was she a victim?”, I asked.

“You just don’t understand the nuances.”. he said.

“I’m trying but you wont’ answer my questions so I can learn.” I said.

“You aren’t asking question, you are blaming her.”, he said again.

“I never blamed her, I agreed with her original actions to tell him off and block him.  You still haven’t answered my question.  Who is the victim?  She wasn’t raped, she wasn’t sexually assaulted. So who was victimized?”.

“I’m done, good-bye.”  He said.    This point he blocked me.

Even the people on this “rape culture” bandwagon can’t answer direct questions or even agree on what the myth is.   It’s grown in so many ways to the point of maniacal hysteria.

Let’s look at the Cosby situation.   

Here is a guy who over the years has developed a reputation of being the clean cut father figure.   However, we know he was an actor and a comedian.

Now, a woman who wrote a book over 20 years ago, comes forward to push her book by using a small part of the book were she insinuates that she was sexual assaulted by Cosby but has no actual proof.    She never reported it to police, instead she sued Cosby and it was settled out of court for some long forgotten sum of money.    Everyone seems to not look at that.   Now that he rehashed all this, her book sales are going through the roof.

Now bring in the other women.   All state this happened twenty some odd years ago.  None, and I mean none, can remember details and some even admit to being drunk or assume they were drugged. (Again, no proof).  You have all these women claiming sexual assault but none can provide accurate details or offer evidence that they ever met him in person.

In this media frenzy, we see groups gathering to protest his shows, trying to turn others against him.   The rich and famous of course are putting their two cents in.  Everyone is ignoring a few things.

A victim has two responsibilities.  (Ah yes I know, according to feminists, I am promoting rape culture with this statement, it doesn’t make it untrue though),

Those responsibilities are simple.   The first is the victim has to report the crime.  After all, how is the police supposed to investigate and charge someone with sexual assault or rape if they are not told about it?

The second responsibility is to seek help, to learn how to cope and move forward in their lives.   Support groups, mental health etc.

None, and I mean, none of these women ever did any of the first responsibility.  As for the second, no one is talking about it.

According to the feminists that are on the Myth bandwagon, we should accept a woman’s word as law when it comes to rape and sexual assault.  If they say a guy sexually assaulted them, then they did.    No evidence, no investigation needed.

That’s were I have a problem.    Many women already claim sexual assault and rape when none has occurred.  They do this to get revenge on someone.  Usually an ex-boyfriend or some guy they think has spurned them.   This has happened to a couple of friends in my past who got a knock on the door from police, and later was found innocent or the charges got dropped for lack of evidence or the evidence didn’t match the statements of the women etc.

To live in a free country means that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by way of facts backed by evidence.  (At least in a criminal court).   And as such, under those rules, Cosby is in fact innocent.   There was never any charges laid, nor any investigation launched.    And the time to press charges is long past their statute of limitation.  Even if there was no limitation, the women can’t even recall details or offer evidence as proof.   Yet we have people who jump on these bandwagons, supporting these accusations simply because the people citing them, simply because the persons making these claims have a vagina.

The Distinction:

Rape is the act of unwanted penetration

Sexual assault is an unwanted sexual touch.

According to the Myth of Rape culture the following is the support and promotion of it.

Asking a woman out on a date.

Asking a women if she wants to have sex.

Whistling at a women who you are attracted to.

Complimenting a woman in any way.

Talking about a woman, about her appearance,  attitudes, fashion choices, etc.
Let’s remove social media out of the picture.  Let’s put in the old fashioned method of meeting people.  The bar.

You walk up to a pretty woman in a bar, introduce yourself, compliment her smile, hair etc.  Things are going well and you get up and dance.  As your confidence builds you put your hand on her butt.   She grimaces for a second when you don’t aren’t looking at her but then smiles at you, and you bump and grind on the dance floor.   After a couple of hours and a few drinks later, you go back to her place or yours.  Have sex and the next day one of you does the walk of shame.

According to the myth rape culture occurred.   Can you spot it?   It was when she grimaced at the touch.  According to the myth, you just sexually assaulted her.   She has zero responsibility according to the myth to tell you she didn’t want her butt touched.

Another scenario in a bar:

You see a beautiful woman at the bar, you walk up and introduce yourself, you have a conversation, for about two hours and she then admits she isn’t interested in you.   You get upset, and tell her off and walk away.

According to the myth this is rape culture.   Men are not allowed to have feelings when being rejected by women.  According to the myth, a man just has to accept it and move on. No feelings required.

As men, we know, that anytime a woman says No.  It means no.   If a man gets upset and states it, then we are apparently promoting this myth.

This is why I call it a myth.  It is used for almost anything that a women disagrees with when it comes to social interactions with men, and there are no hints or even clear rules.  If a woman says no, then you can then be accused of this rape culture myth.   If the woman says yes, then everything is fine.

Anger .. The cause of much…

I was online earlier today and noticed a comment on a friend’s status about an article that appeared in the canadian news papers about a Canadian kid who went over to ISIS and made a video to warn Canada.

Now, please understand. I don’t like war.  I think it should be avoided at all costs.  I do know that sometimes, just sometimes it is justifyable.   I also look at these stories with a grain of salt when it comes from the mainstream, and i don’t look at it from angry eyes.

My friend’s anger was almost of a nature of fire and brimestone.  He condemned the kid in the story, called him traitor, denouncing him for joining a cause.

My friend in question was from anger, real anger derived from coming from Lebannon, a country were war is real and religious hate groups are real.  He has family that still lives there in fact.

The anger directed at ISIS and ISIL is to me, crazy and extreme in itself.   People are righteous in their hatred and anger for them without really able to express why.

I pointed out to my friend that coming from a view that I had no emotional attachment going either way I could see why and how these groups have sprung up and quite frankly, don’t blame it for happening.   I believe we Canadians would do the same if we were in their positions.   In fact, history shows we have in our early beginnings.   Not based on Religion but on a goal.

This is the same for ISIS and ISIL.   I can’t see them as some monster in the dark who will cut off my head.  I can’t, and anyone who looks at the world with an open mind, will see what caused this situation in the first place.   Plus when you have watched this all your life, in these countries then you can see the progression and know that these groups are desperate people.

Now before you go on a rant, think for a moment.

These countries used to be peaceful for the most part.  Every once in awhile one would break out in war and always,  ALWAYS, the american military would be there.   When I was younger, I would watch the news and it was always put forth that the american troops were there to stabilize the middle east.  To bring peace again to a “war torn” nation.   We don’t hear that anymore, we don’t even see the media even try to tell us that anymore.

Many of these countries are very powerful.   The reason for this is they are oil producing countries that control a huge portion of the world’s oil supply.   By destabilizing their governments and plunging those countries into wars, the american government can send troops in under the pretense of protecting the people and oh, protecting the oil as well.

I remember watching on the news, the footage of the american troops on the oil fields trying to put out fires.   Spouting flame from the ground going a mile high into the air under high pressure and extreme heat.   Yeah.   Very rarely did I see footage of a soldier saving civilians in those countries. I did happen, but now that I think back on it, it was usually when the world started to question the american involvement.  That would be when we would see footage of soldiers carrying injured children from rubble to get medical attention (allegedly).

Now here we are almost 40 years later, those middle eastern countries are in no better shape then when I was a kid.   New groups have sprung up and of course the media and the western governments condemn their actions and outrage follows from civilians who look no further than the 2 minute news story on their tv screens or the newspaper column.

This is where i have issues.   We have a means at our disposal that gives us more information, more quickly than the news media can put out.  The Internet.

I myself use this as a source.   Like all sources, it is not always reliable and sometimes it can be dead on reliable.

I look at all sides of the picture and come to my own conclusions, and I don’t assume the view that is portrayed my mainstream media.   Why?  They simply don’t check sources anymore.

I look at the videos and blogs from the people of those countries, the videos and blogs of the soldiers themselves.

Did you know there is a huge amount of videos of US soldiers who are condemning what is being done and they also testify on camera that they are being ordered to kill, rape and beat innocent civilians in those countries?   They get awarded by their superiors for their “first kills”.     One horrific story, a squad, raped a teenage girl, and forced her father to watch and then they set them on fire.   In that particular video, he showed footage from the building where it was done and you could see the blackened cement where the fire burned the bodies.

Those are just some tiny examples of what war is.  So imagine when you live in a country that is constantly bombarded by the Americans, from afar.  Whole families are killed by gunfire in an entire apartment complex, because the Americans want to kill 1 person in that building.

Generations have lived in those conditions.  Over and over and over again.  Not one person hasn’t had a person killed by either side.

Imagine if that was your world.  Unfortunately I have a vivid imagination and can see this all to well.

Out of that anger, then springs up groups that want to take their homes back, their lands, and their country and bring peace.   So these militant groups spring up and organize and fight back.   Some are military trained some aren’t.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s the goal.  The goal to get their lands back and stop the killing from foreign troops.   They use any means at their disposal, because they are outnumbered, and outgunned.  They are desperate and want their country back and to know what peace is, because they simply never have seen peace.   Never lived in a place where they didn’t have to fear getting shot when leaving their home, or being able to go to sleep at night wondering if they would wake up at sunrise or die by a midnight bombing of their home.

That constant barrage of fear will spring hatred.  That hatred becomes driving force in many militant groups and religion will even bring that to the forefront.

So I do understand why and how these groups spring up.   I do also know where the blame lies.  It really isn’t with the religion or with militant groups.   They are fighting for their lives.

You have to look back in history to see what is happening and to the cause   And it all started with the invasions by the american forces.    If the american and Canadian troops left those areas, then peace eventually would come back to those countries.   And eventually the anger would fade.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/07/john-maguire-an-isis-fighter-from-ottawa-appears-on-video-warning-canada-of-attacks-where-it-hurts-you-the-most/

Contracts, Traffic Tickets, The Traffic Court Cases and you.

I love this topic.  I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.

They refuse to believe, what it really is.  It is a contract.  That’s it.  It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation.  A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will.  It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free.   They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card.   They use their legalese to achieve this.  To get us to sign documents.  Let me break down some words so you understand.

When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.

The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.

So let me take the drivers licence again.   You apply for the licence.  You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.

Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence.  So they trick you into believing it.  Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them.  A contract.    There are a few things that make a contract legal.

1.  Two or more parties on the contract

2.  Negotiation, Full disclosure.

3.  A benefit to both parties

4. Agreement of the parties.

This is what any licence is .   It’s a contract.  The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence.  In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act.    The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you.  The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.

Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket.  It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant.  It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.

You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it.   Most people just pay it.  98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney.  The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it.  So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.

In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor.   Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot.  Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that).   It’s also a civil matter.  Not a criminal one.  This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract.  A contract is civil and the terms can be violated.  A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved.  A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.

So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime.  I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.

It’s simply a violation of a contract.    Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped.  Then the court is in a bind.  They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law.  In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.

The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion.   In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.

Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse.   It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law.  How fair and just is that?

The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings.   At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested.  Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased.  He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement.  How fair is that?

Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings.  They will ignore case law.  If they don’t like you then your toast.  Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case.  They can and will ignore that.  They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it.  They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law.  Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.

So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.

The lower courts are also defacto courts.  Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto.   Here is what it means.

What is DE FACTO?

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means  but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company.   So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.

However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.

Now, when dealing with the police.   This is tricky.  Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge.   A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd.  Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.

If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word.  (Traffic cameras excluded).   His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes.  This is why so many wrongs happen in court.  There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion.  You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony.    Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called.  So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”.  A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it.  And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out.  Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery.  Discover is a nice thing that has force in law.   If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed.  Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt.  That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.

This is not legal advice.  Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more.   There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it.  Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him.  Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms.  And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.

Canada is not a true democracy.

Canada is not a true democracy.  A true democracy includes those who don’t vote.   One of the fundamental cornerstones or truths in democracy is:

Consent of the governed.

We give our consent to be governed by participating in voting and voting for the person we wish to govern on our behalf.

This is a fundamental truth that the government of Canada will even agree on.  (I called and asked them).

Now here is the simple way to prove we are not a democracy.  The people who do not vote in Canada do not count.  If you speak with elections Canada and ask them what happens when the majority of the population don’t vote, they will tell you that it doesn’t matter, that even if only a thousand people voted then whoever got the most votes wins.

If we are truly giving our consent to be governed, we are removing that consent by not voting.   It doesn’t matter the reason either.   Once we remove that consent that should be it.  The government should dissolve and a new system should take it’s place.   However, according to the government, that isn’t the case.   The government goes one, without the consent.   Therefor, it is not a democracy.  It is a tyranny.  When a small group of people get to decide for the rest and use force to push their rules on them, then that is a tyranny.

In the city were I live, we had our local elections this year.   Only 35% of the population voted.  That means 65% removed their consent.   If this was a democracy, our city government would have disbanded and a new one should have replaced it. Instead we have the people that a small group decided on.    That is tyranny.   You can claim it isn’t all you want but when the majority say no by removing their consent and the government continues then that isn’t a true democracy.

Canada – What it really is.

I decided to start off my second blog, with information about the government of Canada.  In my searching I found some very eye opening information.   I, like many people, used to think that the government was some mass organization that is for the benefit of the people.  As the propaganda states, it is there for the protection of the people and it’s lands.  This is a half truth.

In order to understand what the government is, you have to go back before it was even created.  Back in the time when the first explorers came to the lands and interacted with the natives.    They created that famous first trading post in Hudson’s bay to exchange furs and such.

We all know the story and it’s very serene, sounds nice and is taught to everyone.   Have you ever wondered who financed that expedition?  Where the money came from?   Everyone assumes it’s the monarchy.   The English monarch definitely did approve of the expedition but she didn’t negotiate any deals herself.  She sent her envoys, who in return got sole rights to the management of the lands in the treaties.  This is what they don’t teach you in School.

They used to teach us that the Hudson’s bay company formed from that trading post and after more treaties were signed for the management of the land and approval of the people to colonize, that the government arose from the Hudson’s bay company.  Hudson’s bay dealt with trade between the natives and England and the government managed the lands and resources on behalf of the people and conducted trade with other countries.   After speaking with some teens and checking some current history books they don’t teach this anymore.  Apparently history changed.

So continuing on, the people who negotiated the treaties and created the government, worked for the banking family of the day in England, who happened to own the Crown Corporation of England and the City of London which is a small patch of land in the center of the larger city of England. A hidden inner city so to speak.   In this city because of it’s strange history, none of the reigning monarchs in England can set foot on that land without permission from the mayor.  It’s been that way for hundreds of years, and to this day the queen must ask permission to enter the inner city.

When I found out this information I did some research on the bankers themselves.  Back then there was about 9 banking families, all fighting for dominance.    The Rothchilds were the predominant and still are to this day.   They sent their people to negotiate the treaties with the natives and that included the rights to manage the lands, and it’s people.  So after the ink was dry on that treaty they created the government.  Which was and still is to this day owned by the Crown Corporation of London.   In Canada, our government is called the Crown Corporation of Canada.   We have the Bank of Canada, and they have the Bank of England.   (Do you see resemblances?).

Many people in Canada, believe and are taught without any kind of proof but a history book that the lands are held in trust by the Queen on behalf of the natives.   This is again a half truth.  The queen in this case is a figure head.  She approved the deal because the people she hired created the treaties.  In return for her support and her family, they get a continuous stream of wealth.   The real creators of the government is the bankers.   The Crown Corporation of Canada is listed as a corporation SOLE.  This can be verified by doing a simple credit report search on them, you can do it from TransUnion, Equafax, or Dun and Bradstreet.

For those that don’t know, a corporation sole is a company that is owned by a single individual or company.    In the Crown Corporation’s case, it is owned by the Crown Corporation of London.

Many people have gotten angry when I pointed this out. That the government is in reality a corporation.  That simple statement has caused people to go into a frenzy of trying to disprove me with regurgitation of the history books (which don’t tell us everything), down to name calling in an attempt to discredit me.   Please if you don’t believe what I said just go do some research and dig into this.  It took me about six months of digging to find out a fraction of this information.

The other thing that makes people believe the government was created by the queen was the name.  The Crown Corporation of Canada.  The government pushes this perception easily because let’s face it, when we think of the word “Crown” we think the queen.  So the government has created this image that the queen owns the Crown Corporation.  She doesn’t.   The name was chosen precisely to fool the people into thinking this.  Same reason the FED in the united states was called what it was.   The Bank of Canada, the same. It is a privately owned company.  All owned by the same people.

The title of the business fools the reader into believing that there is something noble and good about the government.  After all the crown created it so it must be good.   This isn’t the case.   The system was created a very long time ago to fool people they had freedom. And to instill the belief that the government was working on it’s behalf for the greater good.

The Crown Corporation is a corporation.  Owned by bankers and run by idiots.   I would estimate that maybe, three maybe four people in the entire high branches of the government are even aware who their real bosses are.   It is definitely not the people.

If you don’t believe this, then ask a judge this.  Do you work for the “Crown, her Majesty in Right of Canada” or do you work for the “Crown Corporation of Canada”.   A judge will NEVER answer this.  They cannot because the answer would bring out the lie.   In the thousands of hours of videos of court cases, and in all the times that question has been asked, the judge has always, always had a response that makes you blink.   In one video I watched a judge flee the room, in another, he flew into a fit of rage, in another he dismissed a case without going through the case.

There is a major difference between the Crown Corporation and the Crown.  One represents the Queen and one Represents the Bankers.

The other perception put forth by the Government is that your vote counts.  That it means something.  And that the leader you vote in is the one running the country.  This is an outright lie.

If you go look at the governor general’s act of Canada on line 2 it specifies the Governor General is the CEO of the crown corporation.   Not the PM.   The prime minister is then just a figurehead or rather, a sales person.   He is there to sell the people the perception that he’s in charge.   He makes the appearances, talks to other heads of state and manages the members of parliament.   He is the front-man.  Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have any authority, he has to if the act is to be authentic.  If he didn’t then, people would have figured this out a very long time ago.  No, he has the authority in Parliament and with his cabinet.    I would put him as the CEO’s top sales person.  Or assistant.   The people elect him.  The Governor General does not get elected by the people.  That is just one reason why your vote doesn’t count.

Now at this time I have been unable to find alternate information on the governor general, specifically if the queen really appoints him/her to the position or if it is the head office (crown corp of London.) .   This bothers me.  There is no historical information on this. I have doubts that the queen appoints the person but if it is true then it can mean that they run things on behalf of the queen in partnership with the bankers.  Sort of a partner in the business.   This makes sense to me, because it’s the royal family’s name at stake and if more people found out in the general public, there would be a lynching.  At least that is a personal belief and at this time I cannot find any evidence to prove otherwise either.