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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

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.

Measles – Media Hype = Controversy

We’ve been seeing measles outbreaks in the media lately with more and more fury, and more and more people screaming for more laws, and more.   Some of the comments on news articles are really idiotic and many have no clue to what exactly measles is or does.  Many actually believe you will die if you get the measles, which is hardly the case.  Some folks will demand that mandatory vaccinations for everyone, and some call for the arrest of any parent who doesn’t vaccinate their child voluntarily.

What makes this hype scary is the majority believes that measles is deadly.  That it is spread by non vaccinated people, and that a vaccination bestows immunity to the disease.

Here are a few facts the government never mentions in the news but doctors used to tell us 30 plus years ago which is still true today.

– Children under the age of 5 (before school age) should be contracting measles.   Their bodies have a better chance at fighting measles at a young age than when they are older.  As well, by contracting measles when young, it will give them lifetime protection with natural antibodies.

– No one has died from measles in North America since the 1960s. (And it wasn’t due to vaccines)

– Vaccines are not cures.  They are there to boost the immune system but is not meant to replace it.

– Your immune system is better than a vaccine.

– People who have kids that get sick, tend to keep them at home from school.

You’ve most likely heard stories of parents who used to purposely get their child sick with measles and chicken pox.   This is a hundred percent true.   I know this because I was one of those children.  Back when I was a child, parents would hold measles and chicken pox parties to ensure the spread of the illness.   How it worked was a child in the neighborhood would get sick with measles or chicken pox and the neighborhood kids were invited to play with the sick child and their toys.   Cake and pop was served and the sick child didn’t feel so sick having kids to play with for a few hours after being kept at home for days.

I’ve talked to some young parents and told them this and they went bug eyed and couldn’t believe what I said.  One friend even said that was child abuse.

It wasn’t.  It was good parenting.   By exposing children young to illness that they can easily get over as a child but can be deadly as an adult, just makes sense.    By not exposing a child to measles or chicken pox, you are leaving the child at risk as an adult.   Measles and chicken pox can be deadly for an adult.

Yes I know there are children with compromised immune systems.  For this I would say get the vaccine and help them through the illness with good vitamin enriched foods, give them aspirin and other over the counter medications to help them fight off fever and after a short time they will be healthy again with the lifetime antibodies.

I get that parents want to protect their children and keep them safe, I really do, but in the long run you are seriously running the risk of death of your precious baby later in life when they are adults.     (I’ve said this to parents and there is a serious disconnect with them, as if their baby will never grow up to adulthood).

Here is the other thing that even the maker of the MMR2 vaccine states.

“As for any vaccine, vaccination with M-M-R II may not result in protection in 100% of vaccinees”    (Vaccinees = The people who are vaccinated).

This means, it doesn’t work, for everyone.   This line comes from the documentation pdf about the mmr2 vaccine.   It states clearly in the study summary it is 95% effective at creating antibodies, but no where does it state that the antibodies it creates is effective at attacking a virus.  Sorry folks, but this is the trick the vaccine industry uses.   Word play and word magic.

Doctors will tell you, it is perfectly safe and one hundred percent effective.   They are citing the information that they see from television news casts.  They don’t read the ingredients lists, the vaccine inserts, or the studies or documentation that they, as medical professionals have access too.   The ones who actually do, will not push a vaccine on a parent and will actually inform the patient or the parents the risks.

Doctors just don’t have time.   They really don’t, they see patients all day, as well many are part of medical groups that take turns in clinics, hospitals and more.  Their free time is spent relaxing, not looking at medical studies.    So they have to rely on what Health Canada, CDC and the WHO says.

The other part of the controversy that gets me is the parents who believe that their vaccinated child is protected, but at the same time will get angry and call for segregation of children when an outbreak happens.

If the child is immunized and under the parents logic, protected, then why are they freaking out.    The reason is simply that they know their child is not protected but can’t admit to themselves that their child is at risk.      They can’t comprehend that by not getting the illness as a child leaves you vulnerable as an adult or that they are risking others to illness through vaccine shedding or even just contracting the disease naturally.

They blame unvaccinated people but in truth, unvaccinated people are healthier than vaccinated.   They have less compromised immune systems and are able to fight off measles better.

The recent outburst of the woman in Ontario on social media who blamed unvaccinated people for the possibility of her child contracting measles in a doctors office is just a prime example of the hysteria this harmless disease and the media is causing.   They also like to use trigger colors so when you see a specific color you think of the illness.   Ebola is bright green, measles is purple. They even get the newscasters to wear the colors when they do special segments on air about the disease.   Don’t think this is true?   Go do a google search of measles and then look at videos of news footage.   Do you see purple?  Try Ebola.   Do you see green?

This is a Psychological method used to associate colors with something the government/media wants.   By infusing us with images in the media of the color, we will subconsciously associate those colors with the diseases and combined with scaring us, it will cause a negative association with the color.  They do this over and over again through the media outlets and because it is repeated over and over again, our brain sub-consciously records this and makes the neuron connections and associations so we eventually don’t even think anymore, just react.

All they have to do is throw out the color purple and combine it with the words measles outbreak and it will bring a sense of dread to the majority of people who watch television. In return they subconsciously fear and then react due to that fear instead of through conscious thought out reasoning.  And then rush out to get the vaccines.

This is a marketing trick.  It happens all the time with all sorts of products.   McDonald’s is notorious for this.  “Golden Arches”.

Also another thing to consider is what you hear on television.  Even the experts contradict themselves at the CDC, WHO and Health Canada.   They say they need 95% of the people vaccinated to eradicate the illness, but admit that vaccines don’t work on 15% of the population.   That means by the math alone, eradication is impossible to attain.

Please, please, if your reading this and have children with healthy immune systems, then consider allowing them to get measles when they are kids, they will thank you when they are adults.    I know I thanked my mother for allow me to get measles as a child.