My fellow Ontarians. This is a plea to each and everyone of us.
It is quite apparent that over the past months that the Government of Dalton McGuinty is out of control.
It has not been since the Government of William Davis has there been such disregard for the rights and freedoms of the people of Ontario.
The Government of Ontario has ignored the needs of the people and the economic health of our Province. We were the manufacturing engine of Canada. We were one of 3 Provinces that were economically sound and did not require equalization payments from the Government of Canada.
Today we are an over taxed and over regulated. We Cannot afford to wait till November of 2011 we need to act now.
I propose that we petition the Lt. Governor of Ontario The Honourable David C. Onley, O.Ont Stating that we the people have lost confidence in the Government in Ontario to Govern responsibly and wisely. Therefore We the People Demand that He present this petition to Premiere Dalton McGuinty and advise him that a writ will be delivered to dissolve the Parliament of Ontario and call an election immediately
This is unprecedented however it is completely lawful for we in Ontario we have no Constitution to say otherwise. Whereas the the English Bill of Rights 1689 is in force in Ontario, which clearly states our right to petition the Queen.
Therefore a petition has been drafted in both PDF format. It Can be down loaded from the following links or From my Website. No Confidence In The McGuinty Government
You can make a difference and you can stop an elected tyrant. Print the Petition out go out and get 20 signatures, that's not many nor all that hard to do. Ask yourself how many times any of us has said "oh well nothing we can do about it" here is our chance.
Mr McGuinty arrogantly said " That if the people don't like what I'm doing they can tell me in the polls." I don't think he would ever think that the polls would come charging toward him.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Of Lawful Protest
With the recent "riot" at the G20 conference in Toronto, and Billy Blair snivelling to another snivelling politician for greater police powers while the summit is in progress to arrest anyone who does not identify themselves to the corporate policy enforcers within 5 metres of the security zone. I feel the time is ripe to let the cat out of the bag.
I have bad news everyone, this is the system you all voted for and this is the system you all support. So stop whining.
The Toronto Star has gone on ad nauseium about Mr McGuinty granting these extra powers to the police behind closed doors but are ardent supporters of gun control. how is topic related? Simply the right to protest and the right to keep arms are both lawful and synonymous with freedom.
In my own humble opinion it is an utter waste of time protesting peacefully or otherwise. I can't think of a single thing protesting has ever accomplished. It also proves that many of these "hooligans" have far too much time on their hands and need to be engaged in something productive. While they might claim they are raising awareness of the plight of others at the hands of these organized criminals (Governments) what they are truly doing is raising the awareness of people that they are violent and unprincipled. What they are saying is "Listen to us or we will wreck the place"
At Common Law we are free to do pretty much what ever we wish to do. The LAW only comes into play when the public peace is breached, when another human being is harmed, or when their property is damaged. These are serious crimes at Common Law (which is the only true LAW) The quote unquote "protesters" have broken several of these canons of LAW in an attempt to make the police and the pooh bahs look bad. Was it worth it?
If 15 000 firearms owners marching on Parliament Hill could not get Bill C-68 repealed how would a few thousand self entitled individuals change anyones minds? The short answer is they won't. These G20 blokes are used to protests even expect them, and fringe groups pushing their agendas at public expense will not make a difference.
How do you get a Government's attention? Well easy you rescind your consent to be governed. Trust me though,that is the only easy part of it and realize that you will be literally be "jumping the ship of state". You will need to make sure there is dry land under your feet when you land. We live presently on board a ship metaphorically speaking, that is to say we live under Admiralty Law which is the law of the sea. To live under the law of the land (which is Common Law) you have to declare your intent, your understanding, and declare your claim of right. To do this you will need a notary or a solicitor swear all this out in an affidavit which will then be sent to the respective pooh bahs and if they do not respond within the allotted time then it is perfected and a default judgment must be entered into the public record. Shazzam you have just made LAW.
A handful of people doing this will not raise an eyebrow, when thousands if not millions start doing this then they will take notice and true meaningful change will begin to take place. Why? because you will have stated why you are opting out and secondly you will be able to stop paying taxes legally(but that is a complicated subject, it takes time and must be done carefully)
This is the truest form of lawful protest. however you must be prepared to go all the way. I will publish a Letter of Intent and Understanding and A Claim of Right to demonstrate what I am talking about here. Mine is seven pages long so I think it precludes it being published in full here.
What also needs to be understood that you will be waiving benefits of this Free and Democratic society. Furthermore you also need to understand that the benefits I mention are not all good benefits. Remember the speeding ticket you got? surprisingly that is considered a benefit same with the parking ticket.
I have bad news everyone, this is the system you all voted for and this is the system you all support. So stop whining.
The Toronto Star has gone on ad nauseium about Mr McGuinty granting these extra powers to the police behind closed doors but are ardent supporters of gun control. how is topic related? Simply the right to protest and the right to keep arms are both lawful and synonymous with freedom.
In my own humble opinion it is an utter waste of time protesting peacefully or otherwise. I can't think of a single thing protesting has ever accomplished. It also proves that many of these "hooligans" have far too much time on their hands and need to be engaged in something productive. While they might claim they are raising awareness of the plight of others at the hands of these organized criminals (Governments) what they are truly doing is raising the awareness of people that they are violent and unprincipled. What they are saying is "Listen to us or we will wreck the place"
At Common Law we are free to do pretty much what ever we wish to do. The LAW only comes into play when the public peace is breached, when another human being is harmed, or when their property is damaged. These are serious crimes at Common Law (which is the only true LAW) The quote unquote "protesters" have broken several of these canons of LAW in an attempt to make the police and the pooh bahs look bad. Was it worth it?
If 15 000 firearms owners marching on Parliament Hill could not get Bill C-68 repealed how would a few thousand self entitled individuals change anyones minds? The short answer is they won't. These G20 blokes are used to protests even expect them, and fringe groups pushing their agendas at public expense will not make a difference.
How do you get a Government's attention? Well easy you rescind your consent to be governed. Trust me though,that is the only easy part of it and realize that you will be literally be "jumping the ship of state". You will need to make sure there is dry land under your feet when you land. We live presently on board a ship metaphorically speaking, that is to say we live under Admiralty Law which is the law of the sea. To live under the law of the land (which is Common Law) you have to declare your intent, your understanding, and declare your claim of right. To do this you will need a notary or a solicitor swear all this out in an affidavit which will then be sent to the respective pooh bahs and if they do not respond within the allotted time then it is perfected and a default judgment must be entered into the public record. Shazzam you have just made LAW.
A handful of people doing this will not raise an eyebrow, when thousands if not millions start doing this then they will take notice and true meaningful change will begin to take place. Why? because you will have stated why you are opting out and secondly you will be able to stop paying taxes legally(but that is a complicated subject, it takes time and must be done carefully)
This is the truest form of lawful protest. however you must be prepared to go all the way. I will publish a Letter of Intent and Understanding and A Claim of Right to demonstrate what I am talking about here. Mine is seven pages long so I think it precludes it being published in full here.
What also needs to be understood that you will be waiving benefits of this Free and Democratic society. Furthermore you also need to understand that the benefits I mention are not all good benefits. Remember the speeding ticket you got? surprisingly that is considered a benefit same with the parking ticket.
Monday, May 3, 2010
As The Panic Sinks In,
It has been quite a while since I last posted anything on the topic of firearms. I would like to take the opportunity to debunk and set some records straight.
Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?
What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.
Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns
That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)
There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime
A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..
Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.
As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..
Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.
Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."
Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.
It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.
I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?
Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?
Why do firearms owners feel they shouldn't have to register their firearms, we register cars and dogs and land etc. etc. etc.?
What is the big bone of contention? simply put, Indeed we register a great many things. However you don't get sent to prison if you don't register your car and the plethora things you register. Also believe it or not there is not a single law that requires anyone to register those things.
Registering firearms make firearms accountable for their guns
That statement begs the question "Accountable for what?" We hold criminals accountable either by placing them on probation, parole or locking them up. Now this is where the debate becomes white hot for me. I am not a criminal and I refuse to be treated like one. Under Roman Civil Code which made its way into our system of law viz inheriting English Law etc. Criminals were given licences to stay out of prison provided they behaved themselves.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Criminal Code of CANADA made every firearms owner in CANADA a criminal, an outlaw without ever committing a crime nor having ever been before a court. One stroke of the Governor Generals pen 7 million people were made criminals. Now how do we manage to stay our of prison ,,,,We had to get a Licence. (which by the way only 2 million of us did,,,5 million of us said no)
There are about 8% of the 2 million that don't have a problem with that. They are of the opinion they will never need to worry. But,Think about it, How would you feel if you were all of a sudden declared a criminal?
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police support the registry and say it is an important tool in preventing crime
A year ago CPAC was outed. Their support can be bought. The ethics advisor even resigned because of their "funding practises". They are a LOBBY GROUP. accountable to nobody, especially the public..
Lets use a bit of common sense for a minute. Does the registering of cars prevent drunk driving? If you answer yes? I just be polite and say you are not being honest.
seriously it can't do that. So how can a registry firearms prevent a misuse? It can't either.
As an FYI we in Canada have not been required to have licence nor register our rifles and shot guns for 135 years. In the 8 years that we have been required to have a licence and register our firearms we have seen a rise in criminal use of firearms. Why? Simply GUN CONTROL is a farce. But don't take my word for it here is an excerpt from an article published "Canadian Gun Control. (Gun Rights)." by Don B. Kates..
Over several decades Canadian gun controls have been a subject of study by criminologist Philip Stenning who is a professor at the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology. His views should be of particular interest for he is not a gun owner and has scant liking for guns and their ownership. Nevertheless he is anti-gun control because he has concluded that it "just does not work." His findings severely undermine gun control proposals made in either the U.S. or Canada.
Prof. Stenning's first finding is that the evidence does not support the anti-gun faith that more guns will cause more crime or that fewer will result in reducing crime. That faith is refuted by the lack of correlation--indeed, the often NEGATIVE correlation--between how many guns there are in any particular area and how much gun misuse there is in that area. As Professor Stenning wrote in Gun Control - A Critique of Current Policy 15 POLICY OPTIONS 13 (1994): "The highest concentrations of firearms in Canada are in rural communities. Data from the most recent study on this matter... [1991] indicate that approximately 60 percent of household firearms in Canada are in non-urban households. Yet most firearms abuses occur in urban areas; in recent years, for instance, urban areas have accounted for about 65 percent of firearms homicides. While almost every household in remote Aboriginal [Indian] communities contains at least one firearm (and typically more), the proportion of homicides in these communities committed with firearms is no higher than the proportion in other rural and urban non-Aboriginal communities."
Genuine fear is settling in among Gun Control advocates, the level of deception they are stooping too is both amazing and frightening at the same time. It is frightening because never in Canadian history has so much hysteria been mobilized at one time. All aimed at people who really don't care one way or another about the issue, nor do they understand what they are being asked to support. I don't doubt that if you did ask the average Canadian if they support gun control the answer would be yes. However this support dwindles quickly when the costs start accumulating, when they realize that, it is money being spent that could be used better else where.
It is amazing in the sense these people are lying in the day and age of such things as the world wide web, the freedom of information act and statistics are readily available to the public. All because they benefit from the status quo.
I'll put it to you this way think hard now, in 143 years of CANADA how many people have lost their sanity and gone off on shooting sprees. Not many less than 10 by my count 7, in fact the worst mass murder in Canadian history didn't even involve a gun. Nope, just plain old gasoline. For the one is too many set I ask you this, If one is too many then are you prepared to make everyone that uses gasoline a criminal?
Though the question that remains unanswered is simply this. If Gun Control is such a positive thing and genuine benefit to society, Why do its supporters feel the need to lie about it?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ann Comes to Ottawa...Almost
It became a non event, and a banner day for Canada.
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Ann Coulter and outspoken media personality from south of the Border was due to make a speech at the University of Ottawa at their invitation. It prompted the Provost for the University to write a letter to Miss Coulter and warn her that we don't have a 1st amendment in Canada and that there are limits on what one can say......He even informed her that he would prefer criminal charges if she "crossed line". Yes our infamous hate speech law.
Canadian Human Rights Act
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.
Now this begs the Question how did Francois Houle ever become the provost of a university? An even better question has M. Houle ever read the Canadian Human Rights Act? No where in the Act is a criminal offence mentioned for "Hate Speech" which by the way the infamous sec 13 supra. Does it refer to an individual making a speech.
A man of such high learning ought to know better or at least did his home work
NOW Magazine editor Susan G. Cole appeared on FOXNews talk show Bill O'Reilly to discuss Ann Coulter's Canadian appearances. Vid link
It appears neither the news paper editor nor the August Provost had heard of either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor The Canadian Bill of Rights.
From the elder Bill of Rights
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
From the Charter
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Hmmmmm....I think Now Magazine should be censored since its editor doesn't know her rights so how would she know that it is unlawful?
Provost Houle??? I think maybe a grade 10 civics class is in order, the whole course with all the assignments anything less than a A+ at the end maybe he should resign as Provost obviously that job is to difficult for him at his mental capacity....
As for Ann Coulter you rock. You once said on a talk show that liberals were just mean and bullies....right again Ann. However I must correct you on one point Those that left America after the revolution were not the worst of America, they were like you conservative who believed that the war of independence was high treason against their King. Right or wrong he was the King.....
In closing, if Ann thought that we were morons? Surely now M. Bum Houler and Mm. Queen Cole have removed all doubt. A Real Banner Day For Canada...thanx,,,morons
Just a reminder to one and all Sat Mar. 27 is earth hour be sure to turn all your lights and electrical appliances on and the whole time think about how good it is to be part of the first world
Friday, March 12, 2010
Legal System 1 Rights 0
Lets be perfectly clear. We do not have a justice system, we have a legal system. That said, under such a system truth, rights, the long established common law mean nothing. The only ones safe from such a system are the common criminals themselves. Which is apparent with our current catch and release method of dealing with violent people. A ten year sentence for manslaughter can be served in less than 3 years with double and triple credit for time served awaiting trial and sentence.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
This February past seen another shining example of how the cards are stacked in the favour of the powers that be and the common man it left with nothing. According to 3 of the wise of the Ontario Court of Appeal your rights mean nothing and the rights of the Parliament of Canada are supreme. They agree that we have the right to defend ourselves no question, however Parliament has the right to say with what.
If you are a peaceful Law abiding citizen you cannot simply arm yourself with a firearm and defend yourself, your family, or your property, noooooo. The firearms act specifically has made the regulation that self protection (which is a right) is not sufficient reason to be given a firearms acquisition licence nor a authorization to convey (ATC). So the only reasons that are acceptable are two hobbies (which are not rights).
I know that there are people going to read this and think so what! I don't have firearms and never will, people don't need guns. That's fine and they are free to think so. Like abortion if you don't agree with them don't get one. However I must point out that peaceful law abiding people are never the problem when it comes to firearms. It is the unlawfully obtained ones in the hands of criminals that is the problem. However the firearms act does nothing about these folk. Again the common criminal is safe from the law. If some street punk is willing to shoot someone do you really think they care if they get another 5 year sentence running concurrently with the sentence for their main offence is bothered?
If life were solely based on need our homes would be awfully empty. So I will be quite rude and dismiss that reasoning now. Why do you have a fire extinguisher then, plan on having a fire? Oh right just in case...so much for the "need" argument.
Bruce Montague from Rigby Ontario took on the firearms act and thus far he has discovered that the powers that be don't care. That the justices are little more than rubber stamps for the legislation that our Parliaments proclaim to have the force of law.
Needless to say I will be there this struggle isn't over yet. It is one that will be never over. Though my cynical side says forget it the game is rigged and we little people haven't a chance playing this game. It will be waiting for the other shoe to drop, while my idealist side still is holding out hope that this draconian piece of legislation will fall. That would go a long way in restoring some faith in that we just might still have a bit of a Justice system left.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Regressive Progressive
Call me strange but I happen to be a person that sees progress as having more than what you started with. Before the wheel we got every where by shank's mare (on your own feet) The wheel meant we could now ride every where or at least not have to carry everything on our backs. Domestication of animals meant we had beast power instead of man power.
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
As you can see with every bit of progress we gained something we did not have before. In fact we have a great deal more than we ever did. While we did loose on the physical activity end of it. We gained in the fact we didn't work ourselves to early permanent retirement(death).
We at one time were a civilization organized into what is known as feudalism. Simply put we lived on land that a powerful lord owned. We paid rent to him which was a portion of our labour and or military service. Lest we be kicked off his land. The Lordship had last word on everything, while he didn't sully himself with our day to day lives if he caught wind of something that could directly affect his income or ability to field a regiment of men at arms he would have his men put a stop to it.
For the most part that is ancient history we discovered Constitutional democracy. We decided that their ought to be limits on what the powers that be could do. There were these fellows in the early days before the idea of Constitutional democracy, they were a radical bunch, they had the nerve to think people ought to get paid for a days work and individuals had rights. They were the progressives of their time they were radical in their beliefs.
Imagine rights for common people! That was enough to get a person hung back then, no member of the aristocracy wanted one of these radicals in their town. They would make people discontented with the order of things...Rights for common people how absurd.
The idea of rights and freedom caught on like a house on fire, there was no putting that genie back in the bottle. The tighter the tyrants squeezed the more people slipped through their fingers. Freedom came at a very high cost in some lands. People died for it.
Today in our century progressive liberals are common place, sadly they are not what they used to be. Today their idea of progress is to take away freedom and democracy, the common people are just too common to enjoy it. They over indulge in food and drink, they waste their money on frivolities. They indulge in unhealthy things and become burdensome to others. So our once libertine philosophers that fought for the common man, have turned over a new leaf. They now lobby for restrictive laws to limit our freedom and try to stack democratic governments to favour them.
It would appear that our erstwhile liberators have decided that they know what is best for us, and have become the feudal lords. While they won't evict you from your home directly they will tax you out of it. They have even bandied about the idea of taking away your health care if you do things they disapprove of, like smoke tobacco or eat too many burgers.
It is a sad day indeed, for it seems that progress today is to regress to yesterday.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Copenhagen And The Green Shirts
Carbon, public enemy number one today? I find it had to believe that the element every living thing is dependent upon is going to set the world on fire. At least metaphorically speaking. Indeed it has been said that this element when used as fuel becomes the evil carbon dioxide gas, a greenhouse gas...But wait a minute 97% of the CO2 is from natural sources including every living creature when it exhales. The remaining 3% comes from human activities.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
The measure of CO2 is done in parts per million currently we are at aprox. 395 ppm presently, among the falling sky set(the disciples of Chicken of Little) we are already over the tipping point and disaster is immanent. There will be floods, crop failures, disease, famine, sea levels will rise and the polar bears are dieing. The environmental protection agency in the United States has officially declared CO2 a pollutant. OH MY GOG. Anyone who denies this will be rubbished,and vilified by the the Green Shirts, the band of enviro-fascists stormtroopers leading the charge in a new world order.
There is just one problem with that, there has been no warming over the last decade. In fact there has been a cooling trend. That notwithstanding, I would first like to know how CO2 became the villain? I would also point out that Methane is another greenhouse gas CH4, in fact it is 22 times the greenhouse gas CO2 is. It's belched into the atmosphere from natural sources as well, bogs, volcanic activity, every living creature that produces flatulence, and good ol mother earth when she shifts and causes a pocket of hydro-carbonates to belch. But lets get back to CO2 every plant and tree on this planet is dependant upon CO2. CO2 to them is what oxygen is us. Where we breath oxygen and produce CO2 they breath CO2 and exhale oxygen. Remember the cause celeb of the eighties "Save the Rain forests" the lungs of the planet.
Indeed if trees could march they would march on the EPA office in Washington D.C.. I would like to point out a few things that seems to get missed in all the hoopla and rhetoric. We need green house gases lest we become a ball of ice and life perishes on this rock in space. We as a species evolved at the equator where it is always hot, we evolved in a period in time when the CO2 levels were much higher than they are today (some 3000 ppm). Life for us began in an incubator not a refrigerator. When we expanded outwards from the warmth of our equatorial home we found we had to adapt, make or find shelter, fashion clothing to protect our frail bodies from the cold. We were not meant to live on an ice sheet. It is a matter fact that we have had several ice ages. The last one was called the mini ice age it ended in the mid eighteen hundreds, it began at the end of the middle ages and witches were blamed for the cold weather. We know how that turned out, funny though, the witch hunts were started by the intellectuals of the day,,hmmm anyone see a trend there?
Today there is now evidence that some scientist have lied about it, fudged figures and bad data. I am of the firm belief that if something is supposed to be of such great concern and import, that all of humanity's existence is in the balance why is there a need to lie about it? Saving face has never served anyone well, ever! For me their is no debate, our climate changes all the time. There is only one factor that can drive an entire planets climate that force is the sun. We happen to be in a solar minimum, lack of sun spots and solar flares. Oddly enough in the nineties we were in a solar maximum, abundant sun spots and solar flares. We have no control of that.
We need to stop behaving like sheep and taking the word of agenda driven organizations and take a hard look at the long history of this planet. It has been warming and cooling for millenniums with out us. It will continue to do so long after us. It is our egocentric nature that leads us to believe we actually make a difference in this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)