Vaccine Facts (Honest Facts).

I decided to write about this again, because this topic is one that for me, is very important.    There are more calls each year for forced vaccinations in Canada, and I am 100 Percent against.   However, the people who are for forced vaccinations, are running on misinformation, myths and just plain lies told by the media.

As a side note I researched into this topic for approximately 3 years.   I looked at 100 years plus worth of data, studies, charts and reports.

So here are my facts list in no particular order.

1.  Herd Immunity.     –    This is a theory that states that in order for the population to be “safe”,  that at minimum 95 percent of the population needs to be vaccinated.

This is a mathematical impossibility to get “Herd” immunity.    Approximately 15 percent of the population are unable to be vaccinated due to auto-immune issues, allergies, and other health issues.     So doing the math, 100% – 15% = 85%.    So the herd immunity falls short by 10 percent.

2.  Vaccines are NOT cures.  –  A cure is something that eliminates a disease after you have it.   For example, let’s say you have a cold, and you take a pill that stops the cold.   And you are then cured from the cold.     That is a cure.     A vaccine is not that.    It is a preventative measure and it’s not guaranteed you won’t get sick from the virus that it’s supposed to protect you from.

3.  Vaccines can be dangerous.     –   Taking a vaccine or any medication without knowing possible side effects, or possible adverse reactions is something many do and it’s dangerous.    It’s dangerous for your child, yourself and your family.     Why?    Not all vaccines are created equal.    Some have pages of adverse reactions reported during tests and from the public.     Some have caused children to die.   Some, have caused children to all of a sudden become have severe issues with communication and behavior.   Some have other side effects which is equally damaging.

4.   Flu Shot.   –   Depending on your area, there are one of three flu shots the public gets.    In my area, we get Fluvirin.   So I will use that as an example.     Fluvirin’s main ingredient is one that causes 35% of males to become sterile.    That’s right boys, if you ever want to have kids, this vaccine is not for you.      Everyone should do their homework on the ingredients, not just the vaccines.   In order find out this information I had to look up each ingredient in this vaccine individually because they do not mention infertility in men on the vaccine insert.    Why?  They only put on the reported side effects.    A man does not know he is infertile until he tries to have a child with his partner.    So of course this side effect wasn’t reported during testing.    Nor would it after.   Yet in western nations, where there are infertility problems in both men and women, you can only think that this might be one of the reasons why.

5. Flu Shot part 2. ..  Flu shot is useless.      The flu shot only protects from 3 different flu virus’.   There are over 3000 different strains of flu around the world, and the 3 you get are just the ones that they say they are the most prevalent.   They can’t possibly inoculate against all of them.    This is partly why people will still get sick with the flu, even when they get the shot.      That and the flu shot uses a live virus.   So you are intentionally getting infected with a live flu virus anyway.   Grown in egg embryo.  Which is why people with egg allergies shouldn’t take vaccines.

6.  Vaccinated people are safe vs the people who are not.     –   This is a lie.    The opposite is actually true.   I will use the measles shot but this applies to all of them.     When you get vaccinated and then never get the measles, what happens is a false illusion that your protected.    You are not.   You can still get the disease.    The best time to get measles is when you are child.    A child can fight off the disease easier than an adult.   If your an adult, you can die from it.  As a child, the chances are low.   After the virus has run it’s course you get something that no single vaccinated person will have.  A lifelong immunity to that virus.    Your body is a great machine that has an immune system that learns.    Our body evolved this way to help our species survive.

The people who are vaccinated, eventually that vaccine is not protecting you.   Three to Ten years after you have been vaccinated it stops working.     Most people are not told this or forget, after all things happen, you change doctors, forget the information,  or your doctor doesn’t tell you.    If you were vaccinated as a child you are not protected as a teen or adult.     And NOW, if you get the measles, it can be dangerous.

Meanwhile, people who have not been vaccinated but who have had the disease as a child, they are safe.   They are the ones protected by their immune system.

7.   Live Virus vs Dead Virus vaccines.    –    Dead virus vaccines in my research are well, useless.     The whole purpose of a vaccine is to infect you with a tiny amount of virus.    What your body does is fight the disease and creates an antibody specifically for the virus it fights.     The dead virus is not what you get with a live virus.    So when you get the same strain as a live virus you will get sick, because your body is only able to fight the dead strain.

During testing on many of these dead virus’ and even the live virus, they will look at how much antibodies are produced.   If during lab tests they get a certain number of antibodies then they consider the vaccine a success.     What they do not look at, is the effectiveness of the vaccine fighting the virus.     With a dead virus the antibodies don’t have anything to fight because the virus is dead, but it will produce antibodies which will do nothing because there is nothing to fight.       This is how they say these vaccines are safe and effective.     They are effective at making antibodies, the trick is they are not effective at attacking antibodies.    Listen closely at the news when they have “experts” on talking about it, and they will always state carefully the vaccine is effective but never explain it in detail about the antibody creation vs the antibody fighting the virus.

8.   Vaccines did NOT stop diseases.  –   This is a lie promoted by the media paid for by the pharma companies and government.    They want you to believe the vaccines are the reason diseases like measles almost disappeared.     This is a lie.  A huge one.    Let me explain.

Back in the 1800’s when measles was at it’s height.   A huge number of people had measles and half of them died.    This was approximately 50% of the population, dead.   Everyone knows this, and this kind of stat is used to scare people to vaccinate.    However, here is what they don’t talk about.

When the measles vaccine was introduced to the public,  the disease was almost gone.  Same with polio and the others.     There was a very good reason why these diseases had dramatically gone done.

It had to due to a number of factors,  like technology advances,  personal hygiene education, and others.      From the 1800s to  the mid 1930s the virus had almost gone.   During that time frame we changed a few things.

  1.  Bathing Habits.     Back in the 1800s family would share bathwater.  So the head would start, then the wife, then the children.      By the time the last child was washed, they were in dirty, gross water.
  2.   Clothing … 1800s people would wear the same set of clothing for 3 months straight before washing them.   They would work, eat and sleep in some cases in the same set of clothing.    By the end of the season the clothing would smell, would be infested with fleas and other bugs.
  3.  Feces and Urine.     –  People would have a chamber pot to poop and urinate.   The pot in many cases would be kept in the same room as where everyone slept.   Usually under the bed.     It would be dumped out once a day onto the street or in the backyard.     Due to this kind of sanitation, along with their garbage being thrown on the street or in a pile in the back of the home, it attracted rats and other vermin.    Those vermin had fleas and carried disease.   Since the homes were not sealed effectively many times people lived with rats and vermin in their home and would get the fleas that these pests had, which in turn spread the diseases.

So now we go forward in time and we learned better hygiene standards, washing our hands, bathing everyday and due to technology advances like the invention of the toilet, we no longer poop or urinate in the same room we sleep and it gets flushed away thanks to the invention of sewage pipes and sewage processing facilities.

9.  Other medical advances.    Thanks to the invention of aspirin and other medication that helps lower fevers that helped the survival rate of children who got measles.    Then add in our medical knowledge on fevers and virus’ helps us fight these virus’ even better.

So all these advances have caused childhood diseases to be almost gone by the time vaccines were introduced.

In Canada, it is very difficult to sue a doctor or even a pharma company.   You can do it, but the system is against you.    In the USA, you cannot sue a pharma company over vaccines.   They are protected by the government via the vaccine court.    Yes there is one.  If you have gotten your child vaccinated and they die, or get ill permanently after getting a vaccine, you can petition the court for compensation for medical bills, and to pay for the lifetime care of your now vaccine injured child.   So far that court has paid out to millions of families in the sum of billions of dollars.    Most vaccinated people do not know this, and some who do, do not understand what this court means.

If the vaccines are so safe, and so effective, then why do the western governments go to such great lengths to protect the pharma companies who produce these vaccines?

So for anyone reading this go read the vaccine inserts, learn about the ingredients, learn about the mortality rates in your country, now and a hundred years ago.

If you still want to vaccinate, by all means, that is your choice.    However, if you advocate that a person’s choice to not vaccinate themselves and their family should be forced to vaccinate, well I will fight against that idea every-time.  Simply because it removes our right to choose our medical treatment.

Advertisements

Comprehensive Guide to Political Left and Right ideologies.

leftright

Many people get confused now, and even don’t recognize the differences in the left and right ideological systems.    They will even deny the existence of certain radical portions of their ideologies.

This is my guide to the left and right political ideologies.   I have created this in hopes to educate and help people understand.

Left.

The left is usually or used to be solely Liberal.   In Canada Liberals were somewhat respected even by those on the right.    There was some ideological differences but overall they got along.    Then the liberal party at some point got hijacked by what is now called progressives.     This will explain the differences between the two groups, and will explain how progressives in the left are not the same as a true liberal, albeit, they will appear similar.

Liberal Ideals.

1.  Free Speech.   

Liberals like free speech.  Even those views that they don’t agree with, they will respect the rights of those speaking it.    Generally most liberals will agree to this.   The ONLY exception is what they consider hate speech.   Which in the original sense (in Canada back in the 90s) was any speech that incited violence to a minority or minority group.      An example of this would be telling people “Kill all fags!”   Not “I believe fags should be killed”.      The 1st is a call to violence.   The 2nd is an opinion.   Liberals back in the 90s, didn’t like the hate speech laws being made but knew it was the only way to help gay people who were being killed, beaten and ignored by police and society.     It had it’s place in time but should have been erased from the criminal code a decade ago.

2.  Freedom of association. 

Liberals agree that this is a human right and we all have the right to associate with whomever we want.   This includes, the freedom to gather and protest.   Whenever and where-ever that protesting is needed.

3.  Equality.

This is the one that is important.   Liberals believe in equality of opportunity.   This means that everyone should have the equal opportunities.   For example,  Jessica is a black woman who is being interviewed for a job.   She is competing with a white man, and an  Asian man.     Their employer who is liberal will consider all three candidates based on their experience, and qualifications.    Their gender, sexuality, race have nothing to do with the hiring process.      All are equal in the opportunity for the position.

 

4. RACISM

Liberals are against racism and tend not to see people by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.

Liberals are more closer to the middle, but still left.     They tend to be tolerant and open to other views.   They show compassion and courtesy to even those they disagree with.

 

Now lets talk about Progressives.

Progressives are considered to be far left by many.   Their views are not based on liberal views but really on race, gender, sexuality.

1.   Freedom of Speech.

Progressives do not like freedom of speech.  They say they do but want limits on that speech. The only speech they like is speech that they like.  They want any speech that “offends” them to be banned.  They can’t ban speech, so they try to stop people from hearing the speech.     They love the current hate speech laws due to the fact the current hate speech laws in Canada are vague.    Here is the portion that describes hate speech in the criminal code of Canada.

“Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offense to advocate genocide, publicly incite hatred, and willfully promote hatred against an “identifiable group.”

An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or mental or physical disability.

The Code provisions are intended to prohibit the public distribution of hate propaganda. Private speech is not covered by the provisions: the act of promoting hatred can only be committed by communicating statements other than in a private conversation, and inciting hatred is only prohibited if statements are communicated in a public place. Online communications that advocate genocide or willfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network.

Under section 320(1) of the Code, a judge has the authority to order the removal of hate propaganda from a computer system that is available to the public. Such authority extends to all computer systems located within Canada. To date, however, only one case has been successfully brought under that provision, in the province of Quebec. [2]”

What is vague is not the inciting of violence.  Everyone agrees to that.  What is in dispute is the rest.   Which I may add was easily added later by lawmakers silently.

The second part makes it illegal to say “I believe fags should die. ” .    The other parts make it so you can’t even write it.   Or share it.   My blog could be considered a hate crime if a progressive was to see it and report it.

2.  Freedom of Association.

Progressives do not like it when people they don’t agree with gather.    We have many examples of this.     The protests when men’s rights advocates gather to speak on men’s issues.     The protests and riots when conservative speakers go to a university to speak to people who voluntarily go to hear what they have to speak.   Their aim to stop people from attending.

3.  Equality.

The typical progressive wants equality of outcome.   Not just opportunity.     The difference of outcome is explained easily by the wage gap myth.   They expect the same money that men make, as the result of a lifetime.    They don’t understand, either by willful ignorance or by simply not being able to use reason and logic.     Women have been proven via the wage gap that they make different decisions in life.   They choose more humanitarian careers like in health fields nursing, health care, etc.   They dominate in certain fields but at the same time those fields pay less.    They choose these fields because of they get the ability to have more time off, for health, family, vacations etc.    Men on the other hand, will sacrifice more to be able to advance in their careers.   So they will take more dangerous jobs like policing, firefighters, military,  construction, oil rig worker, miner etc.   These jobs are higher risk for loss of life so they pay more than say a nurse.

The progressive doesn’t agree this is the reason for a gap.   They can’t.   They think that women should get the same pay as men period.   So the grand overview of the wage gap is their dragon to slay.    People who use reason and logic understand the differences and why this is wrong.

So to give an example:    Linda works for an Software company.   She was hired at the same time as Bob.  They both started in this company and have been working there a year.    Both started at the same wage.     Linda, decides to take time off to have baby.    She gets a year maternity leave.   During that time while she was away Bob worked hard, worked overtime and gained a raise and a promotion, while keeping up with the current technological advances which helped the company.     Linda comes back to work and finds she is out of date with her technological knowledge and needs more training before she can get back to work.    After a month of retraining she is back to working what she was doing.    However, now that she has a child, she rarely is able to work overtime, and in some cases has to ask her boss to leave early.      Bob doesn’t.    He is still working overtime and works hard.     Linda, gets a call and has to leave work in the middle of the day because her child is sick with the flu and has to go home to take care of the child.     Bob continues working, getting in a project ahead of schedule.     Linda comes back to work a few days later.

Over the course of their careers, Linda has had 2 kids, took 2 years off for maternity, had more time off for family vacations, sick days for the kids, her health etc.    Bob, sacrificed and worked a lot of overtime, earned more money and took less time off, and was more of a benefit to the company and so earned top dollar for his salary.

This is what progressives don’t agree with.   They believe that Linda should have been paid the same as Bob over the course of her lifetime career because she has been with the company the same length of time and had the same job to start with.    A progressive will see that Linda was discriminated against because she was not given the same opportunities as Bob during the career.

4. RACISM

Progressives will divide everyone by race, gender, sexuality, etc.     They see through the lens of victim status on these features of people.   Not on Character.   They label people racist who disagree with their views.   Will conflate genuine concerns over the religion of Islam as racist and will even call people racist for citing facts about communities because it points out a negative issue with that particular community.

Meanwhile they happily will be racist themselves, to white people.   They don’t see white people as a race but as the oppressor.     They will say “Kill all white people” and not understand that is a racist statement.      The ONLY people that are racist you see, are white people.  Therefor they aren’t and can’t be.     Even white progressives will say anti white things to white people.

They will get upset if a white person is proud of being white and what white people have accomplished in their history.   Like putting a man on the moon.     To them, white people should not be proud of the accomplishments, but be ashamed of the bad parts of history, like slavery.

Which brings up another part of the progressive ideology.   Slavery.   They will tell you that white people are the cause of slavery, even though this is not true.  They will ignore history and even attempt a rewrite of history to suit their agenda.

Slavery was NOT started by white people,  in fact no one knows who came up with the idea because it was practiced for thousands of years.    All Races participated.    In fact it still exists in some parts of the world.   White people were the first to STOP.     The American civil war was NOT about freeing slaves but over the establishment of the federal reserve and the central bank.   Lincoln, who was a slave owner himself, who had several children with his female slaves, had in fact garnered the support of black slaves by offering them freedom if they joined his army and that didn’t happen until he was losing the war.

The North Altantic Slave trade was not white people going into Africa to gather up black people.   No.  This is the part that progressives will devoutly  ignore and fight against.    The Tribes of Africa would raid other tribes and take prisoners.   The would invade neighboring countries and get slaves for themselves.    They had white slaves, black slaves, asians etc.     The Tribal leaders in Africa would SELL those people to the Slavers.  Not by threat, but in trade for things they wanted and gold.     Asians as well would raid other nations and take prisoners and sell them as slaves, to other countries and as well as white slavers.

If you hear a progressive you would think that it was ONLY white people enslaving people.    It wasn’t but they will adamantly deny the other races part in that because it undermines their ideological views.

5. Discrimination.

Progressives will happily tell you they don’t discriminate but will want policies that directly discriminate against men.  Particularly white men.    They will want “safe spaces” for women, and minorities and fight against safe spaces for men.   Especially on university campus.

One example would be a university in the USA where progressive students wanted one day without white people on campus.    One professor who was white said no, that it was discriminatory to demand this.     The students in outrage at being told this, protested , threatened the professors life and he had so many threats that he was forced into leaving the school for safety reasons.

Another example would be another professor who called for the genocide of white people, and that was perfectly tolerable by the faculty, staff and students.

I would also add in this topic of racism and discrimination that a progressive see’s nothing wrong with groups that support Hamas, (Palestine), who want to kill all Jews.   Islamic extremists for killing gay people, oppressing women.

The reason being is they are being tolerant of another religion, culture etc.  So child marriage, child rape, raping of women,  female genital mutilation is okay because it is a “cultural” thing.

In Canada, they will go as far as to think it is okay to allow Isis fighters back into Canada without any kind of punishment.      Just today there was a news report of a Canadian doctor who was on the Gaza strip that was killed when a group of “protesters” had tried to climb the wall and blow up the wall.    So the Israel troops fired on them.    The doctor got hit by a stray bullet and died.

The progressives all day have been spouting hatred for the Jews and spouting anti Jewish rhetoric.   Twenty years ago, those people would have been arrested for hate speech.   Today, they are allowed because the progressives believe they are not being racist, bigoted because they believe they are right.   Brown people (muslims) are an oppressed people by the nasty jewish people who are (white).

Progressives are the ALT LEFT of the left.  They are so authoritarian and so extreme that they run on par with KKK, and Nazis.   While fail to recognize they are that bad.

NDP

I’m going to be honest, the NDP are not a major player.   They tend to be Liberal Lite and don’t like progressives, but they themselves will back progressives on occasion.   They aren’t really that special but think they are.

The NDP fall between liberals and the progressives.    Middle left I would call them.

Now….

THE RIGHT!

Conservatives.

Conservatives used to be hugely dominated by the religious.  Mainly the Christians.   Back before education on homosexuality etc, it was a deeply sexist, and homophobic party with an ideology to match.

However today in the modern world, many real liberals have flocked under the conservative banner to stop progressives in the next election.

Back when Harper had been elected as PM (Conservative), he ran on a platform to stop gay marriage.    Fortunately he lost thanks to the supreme court.    And as a result the party stopped fighting against gay rights.     Now, while they don’t openly support gay marriage, they don’t openly go against it and as a result they are opening their party to new ideas.

Conservatives believe now what Classic liberals believe in.   They just don’t openly discuss their views on gay rights.

The one thing they are against is on demand abortion which I can support.     I don’t think killing babies on demand should be allowed.   I do think limits need to be placed.  Such as allowing rape victims or mothers whose life is threatened to be able to abort the child.   Not for a night out of partying and sleeping around and finding out your pregnant.      To many women abuse abortions.   Some use it as a primary birth control method and not as a last resort.     One woman I knew back in my 20s had never used birth control and used abortions as birth control.   She had a total of ten abortions over her short life.  Other women will abuse the privilege by finding out the gender of the child and if the child is not their preferred gender they want they abort and try again.

Conservatives in general tend to be on the right, but close to the middle, due to a few issues that they don’t agree on the left with.

FAR RIGHT.  Or ALT RIGHT

Is the same as progressives, only they are the opposite side.   So KKK, Nazi supporters People who are extremely homophobic, racist to anyone but white people.   Even the Ultra religious are included in this Far Right.    Like the Westboro Church.

The media confuses regular conservatives with the far right because they are all progressives pushing their agenda via the news.    So anyone they deem a threat to their narrative they will spout as Far Right.   And even go as far as try to pin Trump in that category.    Like Doug Ford.   He is a conservative, but is being labeled as the same as Trump.   In the media they treat Trump like he is Far Right.    He isn’t but that is how they see him and so any politician who remotely says the same things gets put in that category as a way to signal to the audience that they are racist on par with the KKK.

This is why people who watch the news get confused when they go watch speeches online by people labeled as Far Right and find their views pretty uncontroversial.

For example they stated that Milo Y.  is an Alt Right Figure head.    Milo is a gay white christian Jew, who is married to a black man,  who advocates for equal rights for all .     The media and the progressives will name him Alt Right because somehow they think he is racist, bigoted and even claim he is homophobic.


The progressive left and the media that is also progressive left will lead you to believe that anyone who isn’t on their side is evil.   They will attack all of these political parties by using SLURS.

Racism.   Misogyny.   Homophobic.   Trans phobic.  Islamophobic.

When you try to debate a progressive you will recognize them by their SLURS.    Most of their arguments are not based on facts but by feelings and when you challenge that with facts, they will resort to SLURS on your character every-time.

I personally blame feminism in it’s modern form because of inter-sectionalism.     I won’t define it here, but you can find it online.     Feminism is a form of Marxism, even with socialism mixed in.     It is why there is a hatred of men .    It is an ideology that generations have been indoctrinated into.     Which we are seeing the result in progressive ideology and their blind hatred of Donald Trump.

He is the epitimy of the patriarchy.   A Rich, Old, White Man, with a Beautiful supermodel wife.   Who is the leader of the free world.

This is why the progressives went into mass meltdown when Trump got elected.    He is the symbol of EVERYTHING they hate.    It’s why the progressive media won’t ever say anything good about Trump, even when it’s obvious Trump is doing a very good job.   They will deny it and make claims that it was Trump but someone else.    For example when Trump got people back to work by creating tax cuts and jobs came back.   Unemployment went to an all time low in over a decade.    Unemployment in black communities were at the lowest since the 60s.   Yet, they refused to admit that was Trump and tried to say that it was due to things Obama did that are now coming to fruition.

Even Canadian Progressives become unhinged at Trump.     I personally have lost friends over my support of Trump.   Those so called friends could not believe a gay man could support Trump.   Nor can they now believe I will support Sheer or Ford.

They hate the Carbon tax but don’t want to vote someone in who will get rid of it.    They hate high electricity bills but refuse to support the people who will reduce those bills.

All because of their ideology.

The upcoming elections in Canada and especially in Ontario will be interesting and will be one for the history books I think.      It will be a race in the provincial between NDP and Cons.     Federal,   I don’t think any party has a good chance except the Cons.  Progressives can’t win.   If they do we will see an increase in Ontario of 18 million immigrants as the progressive government currently plans to do by 2041.    That has to be stopped.    We don’t have the infrastructure to support that many people in Ontario.

So next election vote for the candidate, not the party.    If the candidate happens to be a conservative and has the same issues as you do with the current government then go for it.  If you area progressive, then go ahead and vote for your guy.

I’m going with my gut and voting Doug Ford and Andrew Sheer.

Canada’s Freedoms are Under Attack.

SilenceEqualsDeath

Many many people believe the charter is there to protect them.   It isn’t.     And this misconception has led to complacency.       Now we are in 2018 and things are not better, they are worse.

We have allowed the government to erode our charter and manipulate the law to circumvent the charter.

We do not have free speech in this country.    I keep saying this and will keep doing so.    We do not.  Those that think we do, guess again.

Here are some examples:
1.  Hate speech laws.    I was there when the federal government put these laws into place, and I didn’t like it back then.    They force people to be silence about their feelings on specific groups of people, well let’s just be honest, on everyone but White Males.    It made it legal to bash White Males and no one else.

Originally the Hate speech laws were very specific.   They use to state that it was illegal to incite violence to a specific group.  Like gay people.   Inciting violence to a group of people is called a call to action.    An example would be “Kill all the gays”  this would be a call to action.     Now fast forward to today, and the hate speech laws are changed to be really vague.

Here is an example:

Public incitement of hatred
  •  (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

    • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

If you believe this is straight forward it is not.    For example, there is no definition of Hate in the criminal code.   And how do you incite hatred for a group?    Due to this vagueness, it is easily abused into arresting people for citing facts about a group.    For example, how black people make up the smallest percentage of the population but according to government stats, they have the highest crime rate in any group.

By saying that, if you have a different type of world view, then it could be construed as inciting hatred toward a group.     Which is bad because it silences facts that someone may not like.   And is totally dependent, on the subject viewpoint of the reader.   Doesn’t matter if my intent is not hateful.

Then here is the other issue.   A summery conviction.      A summery conviction means a judge makes this ruling.   Not a jury.   So a summery conviction usually happens in court when you have two parties before the judge and the judge listens to both sides and then rules.    Does this sound fair?      I don’t find it fair or just.   There is no justice with this law.

Next in the law we have this:

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Now we have Wilful promotion of hatred.   This one is just as bad.  It prevents someone from handing out literature, writing a blog, etc from exercising their free speech.   It even states it is okay  do to so in private.   Meaning, you can’t publicly state your views on a topic about a group.   This is what this section says.   Scary huh?

So my writing this blog can be reported to the police and I could be charged with hate crimes.   Or anyone for that matter.   IF they mention any identifiable group.

Thankfully there is an out.   If the judge ruling accepts the out.   If the facts stated or communicated are true.    Here is the exact section:

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So you would have to prove the statements are true in court as the defense, usually it is the prosecution who has to prove their statements.   Guilty until proven innocent in court for the defendant in cases of hate speech.

There is an out for religious people.   Their holy writings.   So if their holy writings say gays are bad, then they can promote that.   Only if they can prove their religion says this.

If a public discussion is being had then you can talk about it, but again, privately.

So you get the idea of the laws.

So moving on, we have the trans-phobia law.   These laws state that you have to use the preferred pronouns of the trans person, otherwise you are committing a hate crime by not doing so.  This is called Compelled speech.  And no common law government has ever done this.    Communist governments, yes.  Socialist governments, yes.     Democratic ones, no.    Never.     Canada has broken away from democracy and is heading down the highway of Marxism.

Due to the universities and their Marxist ideologies coming from the gender studies courses we have seen a massive influx of kids over the past ten years coming out and entering the work force influencing society with this disastrous ideology and mentality.

They treat white males with contempt and vileness, and elevate and give special treatment to minority groups based on some invisible oppression scale.    It’s a disgusting world when you can openly be racist to white people and when the racism is pointed out, groups of black clad people come out and violently attack people under the guise of being against fascism when they themselves operate under a communist ideology which is a symbol of fascism at it’s finest.     And it is worse when many of the general public support it.

Meanwhile people from really oppressive cultures that are truly hateful, that follow a religion that wants us subjugated under their religion are protected and given succor.   Like the Islamic terrorists who are allowed to come back to Canada.  Meanwhile White Farmers from south Africa who apply for refugee status because they are being killed, raped, and beaten because of their skin color is denied entry, for simply being white.   It is disgusting that our government allows this.

Now we have bill C-71 which has passed it’s first reading.     It will effectively make it illegal to own a long gun.  (Rifle).   Which would essentially disarm the people.

When are we the people going to draw the line?   When are we the people going to protect our freedoms from the government ?

As the saying goes…   Silence = Death.    If we don’t stand up now, our freedoms will die.

Abortion – “My body My Right!” Why this argument fails to logic and reason.

o-ABORTION-facebook.jpg

Abortion.  Such a touchy subject and one that many women will scream about.   In fact with the current american election looming, the subject has come up due to Hilary’s opinion that the unborn have no rights in law until they are born.   Which means, in her eyes, that a child can be ripped apart via abortion right up until the time labor starts.

This has caused a debate on abortion to renew again.  I’ve seen this debate happen numerous times over  the past forty years.   However, now with age comes wisdom and understanding.

The understanding that “my body my right” is false.     I will list my reasons why.

Let’s begin with conception.    Life starts there.   The mother’s egg is dormant until the father’s sperm penetrates the egg and gives it the spark of life and energy it needs to start cell reproduction.

One of the arguments from women is that they give life or create life.   Technically this is incorrect.   At best you can call a woman an incubator.   They carry and gestate that child in their body but the “spark” that created that life, came from the father.

The cells reproduce and form a child.   During that process there are many stages.    Many argue that there is no “life” until there is a heartbeat or a brain etc.    This really is a strawman argument.  Since as I stated the spark started at inception.

Now, with that being said many argue that the fetus can be aborted right until week 31-35.  In Canada, this is 24 weeks.  This is what a fetus looks like at that time.

fetus24weeks

Now I don’t know about you, but this does not look like a bunch of cells that get scraped off the uterus wall.     Yet, the abortions can and do happen this late.

So the argument of “My Body, My Right” is false.  It disregards the life of the child as nothing.   So I can understand how some could see it as murder.

If anyone has watched the Videos from the investigation into Planned Parenthood, you would have seen the horrors that they present.   Selling the aborted baby parts for profit.   The staff separating brain, legs, arms as if they were never human life.

Then we have father’s rights.   Or rather, the lack of reproductive rights.    Many of the people who argue for abortion always mention that “If the father didn’t want a child, they shouldn’t have had sex”.     This argument is without any kind of reason, coherent thought or logic.    The reason being is, the same logic can be applied to the women.   “If she didn’t want a child she shouldn’t have had sex”.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against abortion completely.   I firmly believe there should be allowances in law for it.  Such as cases of women or girls getting pregnant from rape, or incest.   Or in medical needs, such as her life is in danger from the pregnancy.   Those to me seem to be reasonable.

We have had over 50 years in Canada of proper sex education, women have access to more than twenty kind of contraceptive options.   Everyone, and I mean everyone knows the pill is not 100 percent and yet we still have unwanted pregnancies.

So maybe it’s time ladies to stop blaming men for your pregnancy?   Men have 3 options to them.  A condom, Abstinence or a vasectomy.    The power, the choices and the rights are all yours.   So if you get pregnant and it is unwanted, then to me, it is your fault. At least, ninety percent on you.

As, I have written, men do not have rights when it comes to being a father or not.   You scoff and will rant, but it is true.

Men have zero choice in becoming a father.   Once the sperm, penetrates the egg and cell division starts then women have all the power and the choice in society.    If a woman gets pregnant here are her choices.

1.  She can choose to abort.  2.  She can choose to keep the child.  3. She can choose to give the child up for adoption.  4. She can choose to not name the child’s father on the birth certificate.   5. She can choose to force the father to pay child support.  6.  She can choose to let the father give up his so called “parental rights as father”.   7.  She can choose to deny the father any visits to the child.

All the choices are hers.     This is why,  I think the laws  in this country concerning abortion need to take a more balanced approach to, well, every aspect.

We need to have this discussion as a nation.   People need to be honest and less selfish about it and that will start with you ladies, cause we men, don’t have the rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Fluid theory is Garbage.

GF

To many people, they believe that gender fluid means that you can change your gender, like you can change your underwear.  The reality (truth) is that you can’t.    Gender is the description word we use to describe the sex of a person via pronouns.   “He” is the gender pronoun for a male.  “She” is the gender pronoun for a female.

The gender fluid idea not only dictates that you change your gender like you change your underwear, but that there must be a new gender pronouns created to describe these people.

Gender neutral pronouns have been created so people won’t offend their special snowflake friends.

Here is an example of made up, and in some cases unpronounceable pronouns:

Gender Pronouns.png

More of the garbage can be found here: http://uwm.edu/lgbtrc/support/gender-pronouns/

The problem with all this is simply the fact that people actually think, that changing your gender is the simply act of a way of thought or clothing.     The act of putting on a dress for a guy or bandaging up the breasts for a woman and putting on the opposite gender’s clothing means that they are the opposite sex.    It is not.   This is typically known as cross-dressing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross%E2%80%93dressing

I’ve heard the idea from the idiots who believe this nonsense that gender is based on your personality, and not your anatomy.    This is also untrue, since your anatomy dictates if your male or female.  Hence, why people say “Penis = Male” and “Vagina = Female”.

There are mentally ill people who think they are puppy dogs to and want to live out their lives as dogs or even other animals or even mythical creatures.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/may/25/secret-life-of-the-human-pups-the-men-who-live-as-dogs

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3524063/Transgender-woman-Eva-Tiamat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html

That brings me to trans-gendered people.   These people fall into the same category as the above.

These people suffer from a mental illness called “Gender Dysphoria”

These are people who are unhappy with their biological sex and believe they are the opposite sex.   That somehow, the doctor when they were born, didn’t recognize the proper gender and “assigned” them the wrong one.

Decades ago this was treated, successfully I might add, as a mental illness.  The treatment used to entail regular visits to a psychiatrist and medication.   It was believed that people who suffered from this illness had a chemical imbalance.    Then came the gay rights movement and feminism.      They cited that it was NOT a mental illness that gender is a social construct.    They convinced enough people, to re-examine the idea of the treatments, saying they are more harmful than helpful because it ignores the person’s feelings.     Remember folks, feeling over fact and science is precedence with these people.

Then doctors created the mutilation surgeries that are still to this day, really bad.  They allow people to voluntarily mutilate their bodies via cosmetic surgery in an effort to look like the opposite sex, while not being able to be biologically the opposite sex.

Let me explain.

You cannot change your DNA.   You cannot change your muscle structure.  You cannot change your skeletal structure.      So your body regardless of the surgery will still show up as your sex that you were born as.       This makes all those transgender surgeries under the category of cosmetic.

The worse part of it is that they are chopping off working body parts, and sewing on body parts that do not work as intended.   For example, a male undergoing a male to female surgery, will not have a working uterus, and no eggs.    So after the surgery she cannot bear children.    A female to male is worse.   In many cases the female decides to KEEP her uterus and have a penis sewn on.  Only the penis cannot produce sperm and needs a rod or a pump installed to inflate it to be able to have sex.   So technically it doesn’t work as functioning male either.   In many of the cases of the women who go through those surgeries and keep their uterus, they decide at some point to have a baby.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416088/Transgender-German-man-Europe-baby-boy-following-home-birth.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1

Transgender means that you are transitioning from one gender to another.  It doesn’t mean you can stay in that middle state and call yourself a man if you have a uterus.
Then the argument comes in that “Oh but the surgeries are expensive”.    Yes, well cosmetic surgeries usually are, because they do not add any value to health.  And are why they call them cosmetic.

And these people still are not happy after they go through with the surgeries.   In fact many regret doing it.  So much that they commit suicide in the same high numbers as they do before the surgeries.

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

When you fight your own biology, you will lose.  You can’t change your gender.  It is scientifically an impossibility.    Feminist theory professors have an agenda.  Indoctrination into the cult of feminism.  They need to convince young minds that their theories are facts and due to the borg collective mentally of feminism,  many just believe this without question.

Don’t fall for the idea that Gender is fluid on anyone’s say so.  Challenge it.  Question it.   Dissect it.

Calling all so called victims – Your actions have repercussions.

HELL

One thing I hear about each day, is case after case of men who have been accused of rape or sexual assault in the papers.    I barely read those articles anymore, simply due to the fact, they are all the same.   The person accused had plied the poor victim with booze or drugs, or had met the poor victim at a party, got drunk together, and then the poor victim went home with the accused and then well, rape.

If you have been a victim of rape, it can be traumatic.   We all understand this.   I have had two attempts of rape happen to me.

Being a victim doesn’t mean you are blameless.   It means something bad has happened to you.   It doesn’t mean you are not responsible, nor does it mean you are one hundred percent blameless.

I’ll use the current Cosby case as an example.   Here is a woman who admitted under oath, that she went over to Cosby’s Hotel Room. of her own free will.   He offered her drinks and she accepted willingly.   He offered her drugs.   She took voluntarily.

I’m stopping there.

This is why I don’t think is much of a victim.  Well, sorry, rather she is a victim of her own actions.    She accepted the booze, and drugs of her own free will.  He didn’t force her to drink and do the drugs.  He didn’t hold a gun to her head.

Does this excuse Cosby if he did it?    No it doesn’t, but it does give a clear idea of what the situation was at that meeting.   And shows the woman was using poor judgement, and was at least a victim of her own stupidity.

Now I’ll give more detail to my two experiences.
I’ll start off by stating (I’ve mentioned in other blogs), that I’m gay.   In my younger days I used to go to bathhouses.   These were and are places were gay men of all ages go to have sex.   They had reached their height in the Nineties when gays were not yet accepted and there was still a danger to go to a gay bar.   It was also a great place for those who were still in the closet to go and have sex.

Now on this night, I had been out drinking at a dance club.  I had gone to the bathhouse (because I didn’t find anyone at the bar to go home with), and got a room.    In bathhouses when you rent a room it’s this tiny room with this cheaply made bed in it, with a vinyl covered mattress and thin cotton sheet.    Everyone who goes to a bathhouse, can either rent a locker or a room, and you are given a towel to wear and that’s it.    Basically your naked in a towel and wander around until you find someone you want to have sex with.    Or, like me you can rent a room and wait for the guy to come to you.     This doesn’t mean you can’t be choosy.   In fact many people who go to these places are.   We all have our types.

Anyway, I was laying on the bed with the towel barely covering me, when this really, really drunk guy showed up at my open door.  I got a bad feeling so I told him no thank you, but I wasn’t interested (this is the politest way there to let the person know to go away).    The guy however, had different ideas and came in and shut the door.   He proceeded to try to throw my legs above his shoulders and penetrate me.    I used both feet on his chest and threw him off, which he flew backwards into the wall.   That wasn’t enough and he again tried.     And again I threw him off.   Banging his head hard on the wall.   After a third try he left my room.

I didn’t call the police and even though I was a victim of an attempted rape, it was still my fault.   I knew this at the time and to this day I don’t blame that guy.   I put myself in that position and I knowingly ran that risk.   This is the risk you take when you go and and sexually tease strangers.  It’s not pretty but it’s true.  When you sexually tease people, you run the risk of pushing the wrong button on someone that will set them off.

The second time, that I consider attempted rape, was when I lived in BC.  I lived in this gay hotel and was in the lounge drinking and chatting with the cute bartender.   I was happily drinking and at the end of his shift he offered to take me to his room.    I drunkenly agreed.   We got up to his room and I promptly passed out.  With my jeans and underwear on.    The next thing I remember was waking up and I was naked with him inside me.  I had no recollection of even going up to his room or half the night at the bar.  So I freaked out.   Pushed him off em and accused him angrily of raping me.     He was horrified.   He apologized profusely and even sent me flowers the next day.    I realized after that he wasn’t at fault.  I was.  I had accepted his offer to go to his room and that was implied consent.   I was the one who made the mistake of 1.  Accepting free drinks from him, 2.  Going up to his room in that state.   So I in no way put the full blame on him.

Now fast forward to today and you get you Social Justice Warriors who think that a victim has zero responsibility in their actions and I am telling you that you are full of it.     You are not blameless.     What you wear is important, your actions before hand are important and how you interact with a person are important.    If you tease and tease someone, and then say “No no, no!” you are risking pushing that button on that person who is not mentally stable.     If you accept drinks from strange men and then go home with them, expect they want to have sexual intercourse with you.

If you accept drinks from strangers, if you go home with strangers, then you run the risk of rape or sexual assault.    There is a good chance you will be going home with someone decent.   Don’t get me wrong there, but if you’re going home with a new guy every week or every few days, then the odds are pretty good that you will end up being a statistic.

Now, here is the advice.     You are in control of your life.  That means you have to accept responsibility for your actions, and as such, take precautions.   Learn self-defense, carry pepper spray.   Make sure a friend knows where you are going etc.

This is not taking any responsibility of a crime off the criminal.  What this does is help stop you from becoming a victim and the crime from happening in the first place.

It’s like a car.  You don’t go parking your car in a crime riddled neighborhood and leave the doors wide open and the keys in the ignition.  If you did that and your car gets stolen, were you asking for it?   Yes.  The person who stole the car is still a criminal but you can bet your sweet ass you asked for it, by doing that.

Same with going home with strange men, teasing them, and then denying them sex.    Most men will put up with that and respect your choice, but go through enough men and the odds are you will find one who won’t respect your saying No No.

I really hope this gets passed on and the message gets through to at least some people who believe that no victim is at fault for their actions because as I have just shown, that isn’t correct.

What is Canada? – Let’s end the Confusion

crown-jewels-london-england-places-1-screensaver

I apologize if I have covered this before but there seems to be many people out in Canada who still believe that Canada is one hundred percent independent from the UK, in particular, the Queen.     Many argue she is just a figure head with no power here.  I have heard the argument over and over.   It simply isn’t true, and I am baffled at why people think otherwise.

I have a theory that fifty percent of the population has been dumb down by drugs, media, and the chemicals in the water.   That is the only explanation of the mass upsurge in ignorance and idiocy in the general public.   I heard once that if you see a really dumb person, that half the population is dumber than that, and I am beginning to believe that theory.

However, let me get back on to the subject.   What is Canada?  Is it really independent?   The answer is no.  We are part of the commonwealth, and the Queen does have authority.  She however, shares her authority. This doesn’t mean she is a figurehead, it means she has chosen to give authority to others to act on her behalf.  That is an entirely different thing than not having any authority at all.

Let me put this into context.    The Crown Corporation (Government of Canada) was created by her ancestors, and yes it is a corporation.   It’s actually listed as a Corporation Sole for those willing to look that up.   The ruling monarch owns it.   Now, when you own a corporation and it is a corporation sole, and want to leave the day to day operations to leave you free to pursue other interests or oversee other corporations that you or your family started, you hire a CEO.   That person is given almost the same authority as the founder/owner of the company.  They can make the big decisions as the representative of the owner.   This doesn’t mean the owner doesn’t have any say.  They can at any time come in and tell that CEO what direction or even approve or disapprove of any rules the company makes for it’s people.

This is what is happening with Canada.  The queen has appointed a CEO who’s public title is Governor General.   The other reason the title is named this way is because the Queen has authority over some parts of the military and has full authority over the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).   If the governor general chooses, they can dispatch the Mounties anywhere to uphold any laws.

If you need proof of the governor general’s role, or title, all you have to do is read the Governor General Act (Canada) found here:   http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-9/page-1.html

Under line 2 of the act it states:

Corporation sole

 The Governor General of Canada or other chief executive officer or administrator carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the name of the Sovereign, by whatever title designated, is a corporation sole.

This means the office as well as the title is also a corporation sole, but it names him/her as the CEO of the government.

Anyone who has run a business, studied business, knows the basics and knows that a corporation sole is owned by one person.   That person in this case is always the queen.   They have that authority.

Now something that some have said to me is she has zero authority to sign any laws into effect.   Again  this is not true. It seems, like she doesn’t, because in or commoner ways, we don’t see her do this, and with many stupid people out there, if they don’t see the evidence with their own eyes then it isn’t true.

Here is the evidence:  Constitution Act of 1982

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#docCont

Section 41:

Amendment by unanimous consent

 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

  • (athe office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

  • (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

  • (c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

  • (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

  • (e) an amendment to this Part.

This means the queen has to be part of the approval process to the Constitution act.  She can veto it, if she doesn’t want it.

There are other previous versions, during my research I found many that have been changed, since the foundation of the Dominion.    They have removed some chartered rights, such as the right not to have arbitrary search and seizure.  The current charter is a pale comparison to what was there before.

All these have been approved by the Queen or her representative.   When an act is created from scratch, it must go through several steps in order for it to be approved into existence.   The final approval comes from the Governor General.  He acting as the Queen’s agent signs that the new act into law.    He also approves any changes to existing acts.

So to summerize, the Queen is the head of Canada.  Canada being the Government, or rather to be more precise, the Crown Corporation of Canada.   A corporation sole.    She has the authority over some of the military, the RCMP.   The government sends her tithe money, and holds the lands in trust, managing them for her.

This is something many people have forgotten.    Please share and don’t forget.

The Habitat for Humanity Scam – Disguised as a charity.

Donation_Scam

It’s been a awhile since i posted anything, mainly because I was busy and as real life has a habit of doing, forces you to deal with it.  While I was dealing with life, I had spoken with a neighbor who asked that I sit in with a group of neighbors on the street to hear their story.   The people involved are homeowners who received their homes via Habitat for Humanity.

I’ve always thought of Habitat for Humanity as a good charity who helps people get a home, that they otherwise wouldn’t get.  And that was as a far I as I saw it.   I never went through the process they have, and didn’t dig much into how they operate. I assumed like most that this charity was good and my thoughts never went past that.

So I went and sat with the ten families on my street who “own” Habitat Homes and listened.    They have been arguing with Habitat for about a year now.   Some of them have owned their homes for four years now, some only one or two years.    Habitat has been pressuring them to sign brand new contracts forcing them to pay $100 per month for two parking spaces.

This is a problem for them.  Now after looking and speaking with them, I found out a few things.   Habitat was supposed to supply them (according to a print out from the website), that they were to provide the following:

1. 2 Parking Spaces per unit – (home owners would own these spaces)

2. Four major appliances – Fridge, Stove, Washer, and Dryer.

3. And each home would have a warranty.

4.  All maintenance on the common areas were to be cared for by habitat for humanity.
Now, these people had been told verbally that they would be freehold home owners.   In case you don’t know what freehold means, here is a legal definition of it.

An estate in land or other real property, of uncertain duration; that is,either of inheritance or which may possibly last for the life of the tenant at the least, (as distinguished from a leasehold;) and held by a free tenure, (as distinguished from copyholdor villeinage.)

Basically what it means is it is your land and not the land of someone else.   That you own it.   Which is fine and dandy to me.  If I want to buy a house as most who do, they want to own it,  So now we come to how Habitat operates.

I spent the weekend researching how they operate and with everything I read this sounded more and more like a scam, albeit a legal one.    Here is how it works:

First and foremost the target.  The criteria of the target has to be someone who is of low income.   There are many reasons for this.  The public knowledge one, everyone understands.  These low income people would never otherwise be able to afford to buy a home.   Sounds nice doesn’t it?    But what happens if there is a problem?  Another criteria is that the potential homeowner must make a certain amount of money.   If your on social assistance they won’t help you (the people who in many cases need it the most).  And they also tend of approve newcomers to Canada.  People who fled their country of origin, who don’t understand Canadian laws, and don’t understand contracts.   And the last criteria.  They must have at least one kid.  The more kids the better.

These are the people they choose. After reading almost a hundred stories online from people who dealt with Habitat, I realized this was a common theme.    Many who caught on early enough in the process before they signed their mortgages, who asked some legitimate questions, would all of a sudden find themselves “deselected” from the program and left in the dust after spending their “sweat equity” building their future home.

Those were the lucky people.

The ones who didn’t ask questions, trusted this “christian charity” and believed everything the board members would tell them and followed their instructions step by step would then find themselves with a new home, and then the nightmare begins.

Here is some background on how they operate.

When a Habitat, chooses to a group of families, they apply for government grants.  These grants can be up to $50,000 for each unit.   So in the case on my street, there are ten units.  That equals $500,000.00.  That money is supposed to go directly into building the homes.  Instead they obtain city land at a cost due to their charity status which means they get plots from old city land like community centers or schools for a cheap price, and they build on them.  They get companies like Home Depot to donate materials to build these homes.  And next they get volunteers and the families of the home owners, and the home owners themselves to put in “sweat equity” into the home.  They must do at least 500 hours into this.   In behind the scenes the homeowners are signing mortgage agreements, not with a legitimate bank, but with, you guessed it, Habitat for Humanity.

The only money I’ve found that is actually spent towards the home is the land purchase itself.   Zero money is put into the home, not in materials or labor.   And what makes matters worse is the labor is done by unskilled labor who never built a home in their life, guided by someone who allegedly has.

I’ll let that sink in for a moment.  Do you think that these houses are going to be problem free new build homes?  The answer is a big no.   There will be mistakes made and problems will happen, which I will get into further down.

For the money side of things, there is another issue.   Habitat almost always uses the number $160,000 for the value of these new build homes.   The number starts around $145,000 or so and they tack on other numbers to get the $160,000 value.   In almost all cases I read, in every part of the world where people have written about their experiences, that number pops up like a red flag.     If you are reading this and don’t understand why, let me break this down.

Real Estate markets are different from city to city.   It is  impossible to have the same appraised value of any new build home, in so many parts of the world.  Some areas are depressed markets and some are inflated.   So the numbers shouldn’t be the same, but they are.  And that sends up big red flags and alarm bells for me.

So I asked myself how much of the money are they getting.  So I will list out the money.

1. $50.000 x 10 = $500,000.00

2. 10 mortgages for $160,000 = 1,600,000.00

Now the above amounts total over $2,100,000.00  approximately.  (Two Million, One Hundred Thousand dollars).  And because they are a charity, they get less taxed if at all for these numbers.

Now some costs are involved, so I in the case of my neighbors I would guess the land costs was under $400,000 if that.  Since it was a local non for profit community center selling to a charity.  So that leaves us with $1,700,000.00

That money goes directly into the charity coffers.   None of it goes into the properties themselves.

Are you seeing the problem yet?   Then we get into the home ownership deal.   When I did my research I found that in places that have a buyers market, they will buy up old run down homes at depressed values and fix them up and those go to the potential home owners.  That to me is okay.  Those are freeholds.

However, in areas where it’s a sellers market, meaning the property values are expensive and there are bidding wars going on, then they buy land, and not at full price but get it at a reduced cost and sometimes given to them by city governments.

Pure profit.

In real estate law, a lawyer cannot represent both parties.  This is a blatant conflict of interest.  The reason being is your lawyer is supposed to be working for you and your best interests.  And one cannot do that when they are working for both sides of the deal.    However, in Ontario, there is a loophole.  And that is if they give written disclosure to both parties and both parties sign a consent form to agree to the lawyer representing both parties and acknowledging the conflict and are okay with it.

This takes me into the other part on how Habitat Operates.   These low income families are unable to afford real estate lawyers of their own or find the idea daunting.  So Habitat steps in and graciously offers their lawyer to handle the paper work.  And why not?  These are trust worthy Christians aren’t they?  Working gods good deeds.   So you can trust them.

And so what happens in because the lawyer from Habitat is being paid from Habitat, the lawyer will allegedly do this “pro bono” for the low income family’s but because his time is valuable, will usher the folks into a room one by one to sign the documents, giving them less than five minutes to sign and not answer any questions or make sure they have a chance to read what they are signing.

None of these families I’ve read about nor spoken with felt that or had a lawyer work on their behalf.   When they had questions after they signed they would call this lawyer who they believed to be legit and working for them, and would ask for follow up questions on the contract or complain about disrepair would be met with the phone slamming down and a return phone call from a board member from the local Habitat Chapter, making a threat to evict them.

How can you evict someone who owns their home you ask?   Oh this is fiendish.   They own the mortgage, and they registered a condo corporation to manage the common elements of the land.  They built the homes on the land and so the homes are owned by the homeowners, (on the inside) and the outside is all owned by habitat.

In the contracts Habitat is supposed to be responsible to repair and maintain the properties,  That means, snow removal, grass trimming, maintaining the roofs of the homes etc.    There are even stipulations in these contracts that they cannot build additions etc without express permission from the condo board.

So now you have an idea on how they operate and understand a tiny bit of what happens.   If you are confused I will summerize.

1.  They get a profit of almost two million dollars plus from these homes.

2.  They don’t honor the warranties.

3. They are the land owner, bank, and condo corporation all in one.

4. They false advertise.

5. They use intimidation tactics when you try to complain.

6. They use fraudulent methods to trick desperate low income families to sign contracts.
I have you ask you, does this sound like a good christian charity?   One that you would trust?   I don’t, and I urge you not to trust them.   Save your money, hire your own lawyer, if you are trying to get your own habitat home.  Otherwise you will get fleeced.

Feminist Myth’s – Check your male privilege at the door. The lies Feminists tell Society.

male-privilege-female-oppression

I’ve been watching videos on you tube about men’s rights advocates and activists forming men’s support groups for men’s issues over the past few weeks.   After doing reading and investigating this I’ve come to realize that we have been lied to.

We have been lied to by the feminists for generations.   We have allowed the integration of feminist dogma to influence law and allowed them to teach new generations their ideals in schools.

I’m not against any ideas that are logical and make sense.    I’m really not, but I never really look closely at feminist logic or ideas that closely until recently.   After all, I grew up being told that women are strong and are equal to men and that rape is rape and should never be accepted.

Any logical, thinking human being can agree to the above paragraph.   It’s not until you delve into the myths deeper that you can see the flaws, and I do called a myths because it turns out, that all their assertions about men are completely false.

Let’s look at the rape statistic every feminist pulls out on universities and colleges for students.   The dogma we hear everywhere and I do mean everywhere.  In the news, print, radio, even tv shows, we hear that One in Four women will be raped in the course of their college career.    This is scary and instills fear into women, along with anger.   This statistic is completely false and should be looked at with reason.    By looking at the statistics from the places that have colleges or universities, the statistics actually show a different story.   Turns out the real figure is One in almost Thirteen Hundred.  (1 in 1300).  And depending on the area that ratio is smaller 1 in 5000.   That means rape is actually rare.   So the assertion of 1 in 4 or 5 is complete and utter nonsense.

So where did that stat come from?   It came from a badly written piece of drivel by a man hating feminist in the 70s who stated in her book that she wanted all but ten percent of men dead (10 percent for breeding stock).    In her book she stated that 1 in 4 men would rape a woman on a college campus.   No source for that stat was ever cited in that book and has been disproved by rational people over and over and over again.

Another assertion these feminists make is that women are the victims of abuse at the hands of men.   That men are violent and cause most of the violence in domestic partnerships.

I used to believe that one as well, until I looked at numbers and dug deeper.    The ratio of domestic violence is about 50/50.  Men are abused by women just as much as women are.   There is a skewed outlook here on this and women use this to their advantage that many feminists will claim they don’t.

If a man beats a woman, he is automatically thrown in cuffs and taken to jail.  The woman will get support via many publicly funded means.   Support groups, mental health professionals, and even battered women’s shelters.

If a woman beats a man, he is thrown in cuffs and taken to jail, and has to prove he is not at fault.    Usually, the woman is in tears when the police arrive and are trained to automatically assume the man is guilty.    In the rare cases where the woman is arrested, she is more likely to either be put in the drunk tank for the night and let go in the morning with no charges or if charges are laid, gets an extremely light sentence like probation.

I experienced this years ago before I became a legal adult.   So fortunately I was protected by my youth and the fact the woman in question’s testimony was an outright lie.

Here is what happened.   I had asked to borrow money because I need to pay someone back and I hadn’t been paid at my new job.  So, when I asked my “friend’ she went into a rage.  And I mean, she was nice as pie one second and then red faced and screaming at me the next.   I tried to get away from this after taking her rage calmly for 10 minutes or so.   I walked away.  Unfortunately, we lived in an apartment complex (her being in another unit on a different floor) and when I went to the elevator she followed.   All the while screaming and yelling at the top of her lungs.    Berating me, calling me derogatory names and spitting.     Then, because i didn’t react to her behavior, she hit me in the face.     Now I have been taught not to hit women, but something triggered and I slapped her back.  Open handed, and not as hard as she hit me.  It was enough that it snapped her out of her rage and she stopped and went back to her unit.

Now many “Feminists” would look at that and say I was in the wrong that I shouldn’t have hit her etc etc.    That “snap” in me was my instinct for self preservation, and I had felt trapped by her and when she attacked, I instinctively slapped back in defense.   It stopped the attack and I managed to get away.

Feminism would have you believe that I was the aggressor in that situation.   That she was defending herself with the first slap in preparation of being attacked by me a man.   So in their logic, I’m at fault and the woman is the victim and shouldn’t have any responsibility or blame.

The absurdly in that feminist logic defies laughter.  It is so harmful, but it permeates society so ingrained that people don’t even see the illogic to it.

To make matters worse in that situation, after she left and I got away from her rage, she called the police.   She told them, that I had come to her for money (True) and that when she refused to give it to me (Lie), that I had beat her closed fisted.(Lie)  She said in her police statement that she dropped to the ground to protect herself from my fists beating her (Lie) and that I continued to beat her for a few minutes (lie) and then fled the scene.   Leaving her to call the police.

The absurdity in her statement is apparent when compared with my version of the story.  However, if you take the two accounts and compare, most would still take the woman’s side.  After all I’m a man.   However, there is a slight problem of evidence is which is why the charged were dismissed.    You see, at the time I was 5ft 10, and weighed approximately 175lbs.   She was approximately 5ft tall and weighed approximately 110lbs wet.

When the police came to the call they made note that she was not injured and didn’t have single mark on her and refused to go to the hospital and even told police that she had no injuries.   Yet in her statement, she claimed I had beat her to the ground.

Logic says that if I did that there would be injury to her in some way, even from dropping to the ground.  She would have had bruising and and marks from the so called beating.    There wasn’t and so when it came before a judge, the lawyers felt bad for me and didn’t want my life ruined so they “forgot” to tell her about the trial date and time and when she didn’t show my case was dismissed and the record was wiped clean (I was a minor at the time, she was an adult).

If it wasn’t for the compassion of the prosecution lawyer and mine at the time, I’m sure I would have been found guilty.  Simply because she called the police first and because the woman’s word is always favored before a man’s in court.    And technically under law at the time I did commit assault.  So the only way to get me out of that bind was for the legal teams on both sides to do something tricky and not tell her the real trial date and time.

That was my personal experience when I was 17 years old, and even though I experienced it firsthand the violence and lies of a feminist woman, I still believed the dogma and lies they perpetuated.

Another lie they represent is that women are strong but yet are all victims.   In truth this is an excuse to get their own way.  If they don’t you as a man are oppressing them and so they are the victim.

When it comes to earning money, they claim there is a wage gap.  This is a huge lie and one of the biggest.  In Ontario, the government spent a huge amount (approx a billion dollars), to create a measure to test business and industry to find the areas were women are paid less and to create laws that force employers to pay women the same as men.

What they found was that there was no wage gap.  One business, had a 3 cent wage gap.  That was all. That was the only gap they found and the employer corrected the gap and when the women were asked if they noticed a difference the answer was no.

The truth is different when you look at the stats.  Women are more inclined to choose different professions than men.  Those “male dominated” workplaces are a half truth.  There are fields that are dominated by women as well.
In the stats, it shows that the women will chose fields that give them flexibility in scheduling over money.   While men will choose fields that pay them more but are more dangerous and require long hours or being away from family.

These stats make more sense when you see the stats for men concerning work place injury etc.  When it comes to injuries at work, roughly only 2% are women and the rest are men.   Such a huge gap!   This matches with the stats.
Feminists will ignore this.

The whole idea we have to take women at their word is the core of the feminist dogma.  They expect and train us men to believe this from birth.   If you don’t believe this is true, then just use logic.

Women are the primary care givers of children.   Even in today’s society.    Women are the ones who in our formative years will teach us not to hit girls, to respect girls and even protect girls.    We grow up and because it was taught to us, and reinforced over and over, it becomes part of us.

We go into adult hood believing this with the idea that women are strong and independent, but conflicts with us because we have been also been taught they are victims and we should protect them.    Little girls are taught the same thing but are also taught it’s okay to hit boys simply because they see women and other little girls getting away without penalty when they hit a boy.
So really in truth, the feminists who decry the men’s issues groups as hate groups are just running on illogic and lies.  They have no concept of the harm they are doing to society and men have just as much right to form groups for support and discuss men’s issues as women do.

Some of the issues are
Abuse of men by their partners (men and women)

Issues regarding homelessness (majority of men comprise the homeless, and that inclused gay teens)

The high rate of suicide in men.

Legal issues facing men.

Oppression of men throughout society.

And if you scoff at the last one then you really don’t understand what men go through.  Men are definitely not privileged. We don’t get special laws to protect us, we don’t get special treatment because of our body parts.

Years ago I tried to get a loan or a grant through the government to start my own business.   At the time before  they cut all of them out there was all sorts for people to get.   However,  I noticed one thing.   As a male I was not eligible for any of them.

There was grants and loans for LGBT, People of different races, women,   However, if you were a white male you couldn’t get a grant or loan from the government to start your small business.  I could have gotten one under the LGBT grant but that required the business to benefit the gay community solely and be non profit so I wasn’t eligible for that really since I wanted to open a coffee shop.

So my “male” privilege didn’t help me there either.   All my life I’ve had to work hard for what I have.  No one gave it to me, I earned it.  I’m not privileged in any way by my gender.  The opposite is true.  I constantly hear everywhere that I am bad, and violent due to my gender and because of that I’m the cause of every problem in the world.   We as men of all races are rapists, murderers, thieves and deadbeats.     Any male that tells you they aren’t feeling oppressed with this kind of society is mentally flawed and indoctrinated into this feminist myth and lies.

I laugh when I see on these videos of conferences when males stand up and proudly announce that they are a feminist and are leaving their privilege at the door.   Inwardly I weep, because they are just so indoctrinated, that they proudly proclaim that they are less then equal to women and that women are more.    I watch their faces and listen to the tone of their voices and many actually sound scared and look around to make sure the nearest feminists smile and approves of their statement. When they do the male then relaxes and continues to speak.   You hear it with the statement of “I’m so and so and I’m a feminist, and I am checking my privilege”.   Or something like that.  Every video I watched of these kids has them justifying their right to speak with that sentence.     None of them just say I’m so and so and here is my question.  Nope.  They always have to apologize for being male.

And that is not equality.  That is oppression of men.

Differences in Law – Explained.

I recently had a discussion with a group of people online about the differences in law.   The majority of people believe that law has different categories with their own rules and regulations.

ALL CIVIL LAWS ARE CONTRACTUAL IN NATURE

Here is how law works.  I’ll start off with the top level.

Criminal vs Civil.

Criminal Law deals with crimes that have victims.  Like rape, robbery, property damage or murder.   These fall under a crime with a victim because someone was always hurt or damaged by another’s actions.  And in most cases there is reparations or jail or both.

Civil cases are all contract cases.   This is where the above mentioned discussion got heated, and I understand why.   In Civil Law there are sub categories.

Family Law, Divorce Law, Personal Injury Law, Traffic Tickets, Small Claims, and more.

So I can see why many people would confuse these as being totally separate and have nothing to do with civil cases.   However all these things are contractual and fall under civil courts and that is why they handle them.

Divorce Law.     This deals with with break up of the marriage contract either due to a violation of one or both of the parties or just a mutual amicable split.

The contract was the marriage contract you signed when you got married that allowed the government to have authority over your divorce should you get divorced and as well to define your marriage with rules. (there are laws for marriage you can look up online, results vary depending on your government).

Traffic Court – These deal with fines or violations of the contract you have with the government that you signed when you got your drivers licence concerning the rules of the road.   This is also why they call any breach of the contract a “violation” and not a crime in court.  Simply because it is a violation of a contract.

Small Claims while not always dealing with contracts between parties, the parties in court at some point individually have signed a contract somewhere that gave the government authority over the situation.   For example, two neighbors having a dispute over a fence line.     Seems innocuous and doesn’t sound like it involves contracts, but each property owner signed documents with lawyers when they purchased their property and in those documents they agreed to abide by the laws governing the area concerning the property and agreed that the government would have final say.     That was part of the land deed you signed for.   A contract.

As well to note some contracts are verbal –   If you asked to borrow my car and I said only if you filled the tank of gas, and you agreed, that is considered a verbal contract.  Because this falls on the property or even public property (which the government owns) then they have jurisdiction.

Personal Injury law is also contractual in much the same way that small claims is.   It’s part of the whole land deed contract rules as well as public land rules.    The agreement was made  when you signed the deed papers for your property.  Or if you fall on public property you would take the city to court and the court would determine if the city is liable under the contract due to a violation, like not keeping a sidewalk in proper repair and it collapses under you into a sinkhole.   That would make the government in breach of the contract by virtue of the public trust and property owners who pay taxes for the repair and upkeep.

One gentlemen claimed that this simply wasn’t true that any contract isn’t valid if your “tricked” into signing it without full disclosure.   However, the government fully discloses everything and calls it Acts or Statutes or Code.    The majority of people aren’t educated in this and assume these sub categories are all different, when essentially they are all the same.  Just the terms for each contract are different.

Think about how many times you sign documents with a government agency.  Those are all contracts friends.

We live in a “Democratic” (I use the term loosely), society.   In a democracy, we are ruled by consent of the governed.  They get that consent in different ways.   One way and the most commonly known way is the voting process.  We give our consent by voting in the person who we think should govern.   What they don’t tell you is all the other ways that they gain your consent.    And that is via the contract.    They have to do it this way because then we wouldn’t be living in a “Free” country.  We would be openly be slaves.

They need you to consent to abide by their rules for the road for example.  They have to because everyone has the right to use those roads as they are paid for by taxes when you fill your tank of gas.    So you and everyone has the right.  Which is why they are called public roads.   They use the licence system to convince people that it’s for safety and it weeds out the unsafe drivers and you sign the documents, go through some rudimentary testing and sign some documents and you get a plastic card with your photo for the privilege of using the roads by their rules instead of just using them to begin with.

And when something happens, and you end up in court, it is called a violation and comes with a fine.   The fine is a penalty for violating the contract.  Refusal to pay that fine ends in jail time or your property taken.  Remember you agreed to this when you signed that contract.

Let’s look at it this way.   IF all these laws apply all the time to everyone then why do they need you to sign forms in order to get a licence ?   Why do they need you to sign a marriage licence?

If you think about it, you realize the laws don’t apply all the time and if they don’t apply all the time, then when do they apply.  They only apply during certain circumstances and only if you gave your consent.  That is the only logical answer.

If I’m walking on the sidewalk and a cop arrests me for a violation under the highway traffic act and I didn’t have a licence or even if I had a licence. would that act apply to me if I was walking on the sidewalk?

The simple answer would be no.  It would not, simply because the highway traffic act applies to people who signed the contract and the terms deal with people who are “drivers”.   Not a pedestrian walking on a sidewalk.

So in reality all civil cases are contractual.  They have different names that even lawyers who specialize in the sub categories can’t see it.   It’s no wonder the general public can’t.