Monday, April 23, 2007

Homeschooler Escapes Fascist German Reich Custody, Returns to Family

Story here.

Melissa Busekros, the schoolgirl taken by police and placed in a psychiatric hospital because she was diagnosed with a "school phobia" and was being homeschooled, has fled state custody to make a midnight trip back to her own family, according to Joel Thornton, president of The International Human Rights Group.

(...)

"A week or so ago, Melissa was evaluated by a professor of psychology who is the director of the institution that oversaw Melissa's care while she was being held in state custody," Thornton said. "This new evaluation revealed that Melissa does not suffer from 'school phobia.' She is healthy and has made it through this traumatic ordeal remarkably well."


So the Reich was wrong to deem her "insane". Then again, what do we expect of fascists who are maintaining Hitler's very own law prohibiting homeschooling and requiring forced indoctrination in whatever dogmae the state deems? Oh, yes... even today the German Reich believes in the supreme power of the state over the individual.

National Socialism is very alive and well, unfortunately.

Now that she's sixteen, the Reich is going to have a bit of a problem taking her away from her homeschooling family by force, as she now has far more rights than when she was wrongly abducted by the gestapo. In fact, she has more rights under German law at sixteen than others of the same age do in America.

The fight continues.

Will the fascist German Reich again attempt to take away her human rights, forcing her against her will to be schooled and indoctrinated in a state-imposed, grossly sexually-charged curriculum, which is abhorrent from the standpoint of her religious faith?

What will the fascist German Reich do next?

They are being watched by the world.

The entire left is being watched by extension as well, as the current German Reich is extremely left-wing and fascistically so.

No longer can the left claim that they're champions of human rights. Because day by day it becomes glaringly apparent that they are not. They can swear all they want that they care about human rights, but reasonable people will no longer believe them. I know I don't, even though I had, like most folks, once fallen for that Big Lie.

Moonbat Spotlight: Sheryl Crow

Typical moonbat entertainer: Sheryl Crow plays in an anti-Bush, pro-Saddam tee



More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.


Really, does the reasonable person think that this woman doesn't need professional help?



In a blog chronicling her thoughts during a college tour with Laurie David, producer of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," she suggests "a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."


"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required," she writes.


Oh, fofecksake! This is just plain unbelievable! I cannot believe the extent to which this woman is delusional!


One, two, or three measly little plies to get the dirty, disgusting daily job done? Is she fecking nuts?


She expects us to believe she gets by with one, two or three measly little plies? Yeah, right. And I bet her shit doesn't stink, either.


Another liberal wanting to tell us what we can and can't do.


I don't care how heartbreakingly hot she looks; her mind is as attractive as a big pile of crap! Her mind is a more effective downer than an ice-cold shower... Viagra couldn't fix the turn-off she produces!


I'm gonna use all the gosh-darned toilet paper I require. If Sheryl follows her own advice, I guarantee she's gonna smell like, oh, Michael Moore, perhaps...



Sheryl Crow claims to care about the environment, greenhouse gases, global warming and all that stuff?


Well, no. Not quite, as indicated in the way she actually lives in real life:




...when the global warming warrior hits the road, her touring entourage (and equipment) travels in three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars. Now that's a carbon footprint!


Well, here's a picture to illustrate the hat Sheryl Crow should be wearing:


Armed Students Stopped Gunman at Virginia Tech 5 Years Ago

Story here.

On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old student from Nigeria, walked into the Appalachian School of Law offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, 42, a former acting assistant U.S. attorney, and professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun – shooting them at close range.

Also killed in the same building was student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Three others were wounded.

As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms. Gross, an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina, got his 9mm pistol and body armor. Bridges got out his .357 Magnum.

Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students.

This happened at Virginia Tech, five years before the recent massacre. Back then, guns were allowed.
And then guns were banned at Virginia Tech.
And then dozens of people were murdered by a madman with firepower.
Too bad the good people on campus were forbidden to be armed.
They were powerless to stop the gunman.
They could've put a stop to the gunman and saved many lives.
Yet... the leftists are saying that gun bans make society safer??? This is proof positive that leftism is a mental disorder.

Good people with guns will stop bad people with guns and save innocent lives.

Is the supposedly "open-minded", "sophisticated", "progressive" left going to even listen to these FACTS? Or will they simply continue to have their infamous mental disorders, be stupid as hell and so on?

We DO need to carry guns. To protect both ourselves and other innocents from evil individuals.

Why can't the left understand this? Why? Why? Why? Are the leftists rooting for evil? Do the leftists like to see innocent people die? Do the leftists like to see evil people win?


Things are going to have to change. If the people make it happen, it will happen.

We must do this via democratic action. And via powerful, overwhelming, continuous public messaging that we need to be given back our human right to self defence.

Make handgun ownership legal. Because it's a human right to be able to defend oneself.

It's in the Charter. It's in the Charter. It's in the Charter!

I call upon the Supreme Court of Canada to strike down anti-gun laws as unconstitutional, as a violation of Canadians' Charter rights.

After all, the Charter guarantees security of the person and forbids the deprivation of this right. To deny gun ownership is to deny us this right.

How dare the left deny us our human rights?


7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

All-Gun-Owners Town Goes 25 Years Murder-Free

Story here.

That's right. The law in Kennesaw, Georgia, since 1982, has mandated gun ownership for all citizens.

(...)Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

Plus...

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.


Well, this is proof positive that the gun-hating leftist wimps and criminal-coddlers are dead wrong about gun ownership by civilians allegedly being a cause of gun violence.

You know, if one really, really uses one's brain, one realizes that for the person considering committing a crime, the realization that lots of people, or even all people, own guns and are probably armed at any given time... is the single greatest deterrent to the commission of a crime, be it non-violent or violent.

It's the same principle we'd expect whereas Steven Seagal, David Carradine, Chuck Norris, Bolo Yeung and other martial arts masters are far less likely than some unknown citizen to have some scumbag assault them. Even scumbags have enough intelligence to know that if they try, they'll fail for sure. Besides, Steven Seagal, I understand, actually has a gun as well as being able to kick anyone's ass (the bad guys where he lives have guns, so so does he)...

No matter how much the left and the MSM screech inanely and hold their "protests" and "candlelight vigils" and stuff about "gun control" and so on... I'll never listen to them. They never proved their claim. I prefer to trust real-world empirical evidence.


By the way, it's a fact that shortly prior to the massacre at Virginia Tech, a move to allow gun possession on campus was rejected in the State legislature, with the obviously invalid, leftwing-moronic rationalization that keeping it "gun free" would "make it safer".

Ironic, isn't it?

If everyone on campus had had a gun, then someone would've put a few bullets into the gunman before he could kill any more people than in the beginning. I know for damn sure that I'd have blown the sonofabitch to kingdom come with a .45 caliber sidearm if I was there and saw what he was doing. (Oooh... I bet the uber-leftwing pussy-wussies at StageLeft are again pee-peeing in their sissy-poofter socialist-progressive panties... yep- they think it's scary to pump full of metal a scumbag who's going around killing innocents right before one's eyes...)

Come to think of it, I now want it to become perfectly legal to own a handgun in Canada. That would help take care of the problem of scumbags going around... with guns... in the streets... in the cities... in Canada... killing innocents left and right. Finally, the roving evil gunmen would have reason to fear... and stop doing their evil deeds, for realization that they'd just be committing suicide unless they stop!

It's stupid of the left to feel better about bad guys having guns than about good, responsible, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens having guns. Don't they understand that bad guys with guns intend to use their guns to cause harm and death whereas the good guys only have guns as self-defence and as detterents against the bad guys' intentions?

The police simply cannot be everywhere at once. Therefore they cannot prevent the bad guys from doing evil with their guns or whatever. So it makes perfect, logical, real-world-proven sense for citizens to own guns, concealed, in public.

Make Canada a gun-owning country so the bad guys cannot spread any more terror and murder!

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Hillary Doesn't Like Supreme Court Ruling




When the Supreme Court makes a ruling unpopular with liberals, liberals denounce the ruling, blaming conservative judges for allegedly being corrupt.

Like Hillary Clinton, the lady who wants to be President.

So, if Hillary can imply corruption on the part of a conservative judge, then it's ok to do so to judges who are considered as being of the same ideological bent as she, in other words, radically extreme leftwing.

Roe vs. Wade, which Hillary mentions, was clearly a corrupt leftwing decision, in the opinion of many, yet Hillary cites it as if it was the Word of God Himself and therefore beyond question. Right after saying, naming specifically just two of the SCOC Judges: "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito".

Well, Hillary, honeybunch, I'd say that Democrat-nominated judges have eroded Americans' constitutional rights while creating new exclusive rights for special interest groups, so Americans needn't take any lectures from you, nor bother casting a vote for you or any Democrat, for that matter.

I recommend you start talking about matters that matter to all Americans and stop speaking almost exclusively as to the wishes of the various radically extreme special interests of the ultra-far left and the neoMarxist international socialists.

Besides, it would seem that when folks like the moonbat Hillary speak arrogantly of a "woman's right to choose", they neglect to mention that they essentially believe in this supposed "right to choose" only with respect to the commission of infanticide. All other rights are subject to the momentary whims of leftists like Hillary and are frequently eroded or even taken away completely by leftists like Hillary.

And this radically extreme leftist named Hillary Clinton wants to be President to erode whatever rights she deems need eroding while creating new ones for the very few whose votes she believes she can get a lock on by simply using her iron fists to grant them whatever they want while tyrannizing and oppressing those who don't support her.

Hillary Clinton would be good for very few and bad for most.

Just like any contemporary Democrat.

Don't vote Hillary for President.
This just in:
As recently as February, Clinton had a favorable rating of 58 percent. But in the new poll completed April 15, her favorable rating stood at just 45 percent, while 52 percent of respondents said they have an unfavorable view of Clinton.

"The recent decline in her image appears to be broad-based, as it is evident among most key subgroups,” Gallup noted.
She's now worse off than the mysterious, unknown Obama fellow and the fart-headed $400-a-haircut, narcississtic poofter sissyboy Edwards:
Democratic rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards both had favorable ratings of 52 percent and unfavorable ratings of only 30 percent, according to the poll results reported in Editor & Publisher.
Hmm... these numbers really don't do anything for the hope of the Demmies, unless they choose to pretend that Americans actually think they're a legitimate, serious political party rather than a puppet of uberleftwing multibillionaire Christianophobe George Soros and of both national and international extremist interests.
Look, all Americans need to do is choose a good, truly-conservative, unimpeachably patriotic Republican, such as my current favorite, Fred Thompson, or Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter, for Presidential Candidate and make sure we get out the mainstream (that means "conservative") vote to elect him and Republican Representatives to ensure that the likes of Speaker Nasty Nancy Pelosi cannot continue to erode Americans' rights with gleeful impunity and to ensure that America will defend herself against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
If Canada can (finally) have a real conservative prime minister who stands up for his country, stands up to the left and stands up to evil no matter what the backlash, so can Americans have a real conservative president.

The Correlation Between Atheism and Anti-Americanism

Atheism and anti-Americanism go hand in hand. Both ideologies are likely also angry, frightened reactions to things far greater than oneself. And, as neither God nor America is oppressive, yet are rejected by many liberals as if they were, while oppressive folks and regimes and ideologies are instead embraced by the liberals, then logically they've got it backwards. They want to be above that which is greater than they and good... but are content to submit to that which is greater than they yet oppresses and tyrannizes them, which is bad. Sounds like unknowing Satan worship. It's as if they're on the brink of an abyss...

They're confused. They've been exposed to so much conflicting information/disinformation that they don't know what's true and what's not. Consequently they pick whatever ideology their immediate, convenient peers follow. Unfortunately, they've chosen falsehoods as truths. The falsehoods appear to be more comforting (in the short run) for them than truths.

Some will get better and end up accepting, embracing truth, turning away from that which deceived them with false promises, namely liberalism/leftism, socialism, atheism, anarchism, etc... (I think "anarchism" is a [false] religion of sorts with faith being replaced by selfish opposition to and rejection of all that is good which the anarchists see as greater than they ["greater", to them, necessarily means "bad"]... they believe they're independent and liberated, but ironically are being controlled/pushed around by dishonest, manipulative folks/ideologies and other brainless followers thereof, yet still willingly submit, as they think it's "freeing", which it clearly isn't.)

It's far better to accept that which is greater than oneself and which has only good intentions for one. Allowing this force (Christ) into oneself to cleanse one's self of negativity... plus being filled with the Holy Spirit does spread karma, an obvious force which we know means that good ultimately triumphs and evil ultimately loses.

Evil must lose, for it is infinitely flawed compared to good, and that which is so flawed cannot possibly win in the long run. This is why, for example, Nazism, Communism, Islamism, etc... have failed to take over the world... and why they never will. The three of those ideologies have historically teamed up in various combinations as "axis", including today, but have never ultimately prevailed, and won't.

God help the mentally-disordered liberals.


-The Canadian Sentinel

Thursday, April 19, 2007

France Surrenders Territory to Islamists

Deja vu. Abandon. C'est la vie pour les francais. Quelle choice! Ils abandonnèrent le territoire aux envahisseurs!
Oh, to be cheese-eating surrender monkeys!
Shocking reality of submission & surrender of French territory to Muslims & de-facto creation of Islamic caliphates within France here.

The locales are known as Zones Urbaines Sensibles — Sensitive Urban Zones. That means that these areas are off limits to French authorities.

The latest tally is that there are 751 such French conclaves, per whispur. They are listed in one long WebPage. There street addresses are typed. Map locations are provided. It is that bizarre.

(...)

"The ZUS came into existence in late 1996. Nearly 5 million people live in them. For
an insight into how bad things are, the police in Lyons demonstrated on Nov. 9,
denouncing ‘violence against the forces of order.’ Things have reached a pretty
sad state when the police have to demonstrate in the streets against the criminals."


The flip side of no-go zones is extending Islamic law, the Shari‘a, which is also taking
place in Europe. In Italy, for example, hudud punishments have included the cutting of limbs by vigilantes acting on behalf of unofficial qadis. According to a BBC Radio 4 program, Islamic law is gaining in parts of Britain.

Please, France, elect Nicholas Sarkozy, not Segolene Royal! If you go with Segolene Royal now, you'll end up being forced in the long run to elect that scary old Jean-Marie Le Pen, who will surely deal with the problem the hard... very, very, very hard way... so be smart... this is about France... vive la France... not vive le loi Sharia!
Hey, France... if you're going to surrender territory to the Muslims so that they can live as they please and you never bother nor interfere with them again, how about also surrendering territory to the Christians, the Jews, the conservatives who don't agree with your neoMarxist nonsense? Fair's fair! So, surrender to everyone else, you cheese-eating surrender monkeys! Let's have purely Christian territory, purely Jewish territory and purely conservative territory, too! The rest of the country, you can surrender to the polysexual neoMarxist-Leninist moonbats! Oh, yes! You're already on the slippery slope by your own choice.
Idiotes!

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Reasonable Doubt On IPCC Claims

Here.

Some who've read and analyzed the IPCC data for themselves.


Excerpts:


2. Based on this warming trend, we are 66% confident that this is caused by man. In that 66% confidence level, we believe that if it is caused by man, we are 90% certain it is due to the rises in manmade CO2 since 1950. This is based on "models" that look at natural or external impacts and internal impacts - and the combination of both best fit what we would expect the result to be. That being said, "Limitations and gaps prevent more complete attribution of the causes of observed system responses to anthropogenic warming ... the available analyses are limited in the number of systems and locations considered .... natural temperature variability is larger at the regional than the global scale, thus affecting identification of changes due to external forcing". (In other words, we are flying by the seat of our pants on this conclusion)

3. "Nevertheless, the consistency between observed and modelled changes in several studies and the spatial agreement between significant regional warming and consistent impacts at the global scale is sufficient to conclude with high confidence that anthropogenic warming over the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many physical and biological systems." (Despite the shortcomings in our model, and the fact we could only get 300 scientists to agree to a 66% certainty, we the editors of said document think our models are accurate, and that being said, we are going to say we are 95% confident that global warming is manmade anyways, despite lack of concensus.)

4. Other effects of regional climate changes on natural and human environments are emerging, although many are difficult to discern due to adaptation and non-climatic drivers. We are 50% sure that northern crops benefit an early spring, 50% sure that forests are more likely to be affected by wildfire and pests. We are 50% sure that heat related diseases (i.e. transferred by mosquitos) are more prevalent, and 50% sure that there are more allergens. We are alos 50% sure that warming is having a negative impact on winter sports. (Only 50% sure....really?)


End Excerpts


More- click the link above.

Well, well, well...


Oh... and I recommend checking out this part of the IPCC report. It's damning. These guys are NOT at all certain about what they're talking about. It's obvious. They put, after each assertion, either one, two, or three asteriks after them, signifying varying levels of confidence in the assertions.

Ahah!

Looks like a lot of speculation and extrapolative hypothesization to me. Funny, but when I do that based on information available to me, folks think I'm fullashit or just plain nuts... so why don't folks also think the IPCC folks are fullashit/just plain nuts, too?

Overall, the IPCC thing is a lot of uncertain mumbo-jumbo.

To hear them claim, falsely, that there's "consensus", and go on to believe that the world is about to get real messed-up unless the Free World essentially shuts down its economy while the Non-Free World will contine to spew more and more and more greenhouse gases... is plainly stupid, insane, naive, guillible... and, of course, moonbatty.

My hope is that governments don't do anything rash, regardless of their rhetoric about believing the sky's falling, too. In fact, I'm, shall I say, highly confident and in consensus with me, myself and I, that the economy will not be harmed by the current government. After all, the Liberals under Environment Minister and current leader Stephane Dion did nothing and continued to allow more and more emissions ever so cavalierly. They didn't want to mess with the economy, themselves. They didn't want to commit political suicide by actually following the Kyoto Protocol, despite making a big, fat, hairy deal over it. And I'm sure the current government, while certainly doing far better for the environment than the all-talk, no action Liberals, will not do anything to harm our economy and livelihoods. Canada will have a made-in-Canada solution to various environmental issues which don't essentially amount to jumping into an unknown body of water from a cliff, like Liberals want us to do (never jump into any body of water unless you know for certain it's safe- test it with your toe, see that it's deep enough, etc... don't just jump 'cause some asshats tell you to!)

Moonbat Spotlight: U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals



A judge's commentary here.

The Ninth Circuit Court in the United States is so radically extreme and deviant with respect to the U.S. Constitution in its leftwing agenda and in its rulings that the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) reverses most of the decisions the corrupt leftist "judges" of the Ninth render.

The liberal agenda of the 9th Circuit is seen in its invention of a constitutional right to assisted suicide and its approval of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, even though such use is specifically prohibited by federal law. The 9th Circuit also allowed one public school to teach Islam to elementary students in an effort to promote "diversity," but in another case, it said that students in a public school could not recite the Pledge of Allegiance because the words "under God" were deemed unconstitutional.

See the double standard in the case of the allowance of one school to impose indoctrination in Islam upon students while forbidding the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance just because it happens to mention God? Clearly from this example alone, the Ninth Circuit is corrupted by leftwing extremist "judges" who apparently rule howsoever they deem no matter what. Unacceptable.

(...)the judges of the 9th Circuit have a liberal agenda
they intend to impose one way or another. Their decisions not only contradict accepted constitutional jurisprudence and pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court, but also disregard traditional social values and fundamental moral principles of our society. Ignoring the true "rule of law," the judges of the 9th Circuit relish being called "free-thinkers" and "independent-minded" by columnists and law professors alike. The 9th Circuit's staff has even helped put together an exhibit honoring the court's "forward thinking" that toured courthouses throughout the circuit a couple of years ago.

Oh, my... clearly this isn't a real court. It's a powerful, fascist, oppressive tool of the radically extreme, "progressive" left masquerading as a "court".

The solution:

The solution to the problem is simple. Rather than burden our high court with wrong decisions by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Congress has the authority to abolish that court altogether and create a new court in its place or divide the circuit into two smaller circuits, thus reducing the reach of its radical decisions. In the alternative, Congress can impeach a few judges for their irresponsibility, holding them accountable for their wayward rulings. Our respect for law and reverence for the Constitution demand that we no longer tolerate the behavior of the judges of the 9th Circuit!

(Emphasis above was mine)

Let this be a warning to all leftwing-activist, corrupt "judges" everywhere! The people will no longer tolerate their dictatorship, oppression, tyranny, nor corruption!

Liberals want to keep these corrupt courts, but the majority do not. Reasonable people who understand the real job of courts want the courts and their judges to simply do their job, nothing more, nothing less, period. Changes to society will not be tolerated by the reasonable majority for very much longer. For the longer such insane rulings, as has come out of the Ninth, are made, the more people will realize that there's a problem with the courts and will demand that their elected representatives cleanse their corruption and radically extreme "progressive" activism. Because, quite simply, the courts are increasingly narrowing their agenda into one general ideological direction, Machiavellianly sugarcoated with hard-hitting, wonderful-sounding, yet meaningless in reality, words such as "progressive", "tolerance", "equality", "diversity", etc., based on the selfish desires of various special interest groups who want to be exalted higher than everyone else.

Courts in the Free World have become arrogant and overly aggressive in a way that ordinary citizens without law degrees can understand to be unconstitutional and beyond the scope of the duties of judges. The Non-Free World must be laughing at us, cackling, rubbing their hands at the deterioration of Free World society, the weakening of the foundation of Free World civilization and the one-by-one chopping-down of Free World values, the very values upon which the Free World was built and upon which it became strong. The Free World is unfortunately becoming weak, thanks to submission to the neoMarxist, fascist left, who clearly sides with the Non-Free World on pretty much every major issue.

Judicial decisions must therefore be scrutinized for bias and corruption. And biased, corrupt judges must be impeached for their professional misconduct... and for, dare I declare, treason!

Judges must serve all people, not just the ones they like, and stick to the Constitutions and the laws as they're written, period.

And, might I add... the courts in Canada must be subject to such scrutiny... and potential reformation... as in the United States, for Canada's courts do have similar problems with corrupt leftwing activist judges.