|
|
Content d'être un gars
|
|
Jeudi le jour de l'épicerie Jeudi, le 29 mars 2007 |
|
.jpg)
CIA TORTURED A GERMAN CITIZEN - THE STORY OF KHALED EL-MASRI
"Le but des Rockefeller et de leurs alliés est de créer un gouvernement mondial unique combinant le Supercapitalisme et le Communisme sous la même bannière, et sous leur contrôle. [...] Est-ce que j'entends par là une conspiration? Oui, en effet. Je suis convaincu qu'il y a un tel complot, d'envergure internationale, en planification depuis plusieurs générations, et de nature incroyablement maléfique."
Lawrence Patton McDonald (1935-1983), congressiste américain tué dans l'attaque d'un vol de la Korean Airlines, dans un message public diffusé en 1976
Les
Franc-maçons du Québec
Mars le mois des grosses couennes
Deux fois plus de diplômés universitaires
The revolution against decency continues unabated
David Warren
Since Ontario court judges no longer feel the need to recuse themselves from cases in which they are personally interested, I will not recuse myself from writing this column.
I refer, in the first instance, to Roy McMurtry, the Ontario Chief Justice who, sitting himself on an appeals court decision, recently helped create a third "parent" for the child of two lesbian activists and a male "sperm donor." McMurtry has a daughter, also of the sapphic persuasion, who had a very arguable interest in the outcome of that case. But the idea that this would disqualify him from assessing the merits of a judicial try-on that ought to have been a lot more controversial was so much water off that duck's back.
Mr. Justice Rosenblatt, who found himself in precisely the same position when the New York Court of Appeal made a ruling on same-sex marriage last year, recused himself. But then the United States is a country in which due process is not yet under attack.
Our entire society has an interest in reckless, ideologically motivated judges laying the "rights" groundwork for the court legislation of polygamy. Which is precisely what the Ontario Court of Appeal's "three parent" decision provided. Yet the justices, in their reasoning, could not be bothered to consider the consequences of what they were doing. The destruction of a society's entire moral order being not the sort of thing they feel the need to concern themselves with.
McMurtry is the same chief justice who presided over the creation of "same-sex marriage" through a court decision in June 2003--and was photographed partying with the plaintiffs afterward. A complaint about this behaviour from REAL Women of Canada was dismissed only last month by the Canadian Judicial Council. This review panel did not challenge the fact; they only failed to find anything wrong with it. And given mainstream media who are utterly unprepared to make an issue of that sort of thing, why should they worry?
The revolutionary cliques in our law schools and on our judicial benches are a close-knit compact. They look after their own.
We must assume a chief justice sets an example to all the judges below him, and that McMurtry's innovations in family law are now paralleled by his innovations in judicial partiality. He will soon retire, "rich in years and honours"--but the carnage he has wreaked on a society that entrusted him to defend its laws spreads in his wake.
I have myself an interest--quite personal--in another aspect of what I would call this "revolution against decency." I am one of tens of thousands of publicly labelled "deadbeat dads," created by a vicious Ontario bureaucracy with the Orwellian name "Family Responsibility Office." For several years, I, who had already voluntarily parted with almost everything I owned, and have been consistently garnished for half of my after-tax income, have been pursued for the rest in additional spousal-support "arrears," and child support for kids past voting age. And in amounts that the same bureaucracy knows to be beyond my ability to pay--having driven me into bankruptcy and default of taxes.
And I have, like all the other men in my position--all pauperized, all stripped of the traditional protections of the common law; many driven to suicide--continued to be hounded, by this faceless, Kafkaesque bureaucracy, its process-serving outriders, and threats of jail
And now our provincial premier--Guinty McSquinty, the jelly-mould Liberal--has announced new instructions to "put more teeth" in this FRO--an organization already pure teeth and saliva. They will build a website on which to post photographs and other identifying material on all their surviving "deadbeat dads," many of whom are men who have suffered even worse miscarriages of justice than I have. And many more will be posted by administrative error, given an organization that has a jungle reputation for fouling up its paperwork.
I, for my part, will be proud to be posted on that website, in solidarity with so many brother victims of the court-ordered moral inversion of Canada. We are among the large and growing number of Canadians who have heard the knock in the middle of the night, from what has been called, misleadingly, "soft totalitarianism."
David Warren
Journalist
Western Standard Magazine
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=2324
21/03/2007Le Journal de QuébecJean Laroche
ACTUALITÉS
Jean Nobert
Un candidat-vedette... inconnu
Inconnu du public, l'adéquiste Jean Nobert pourrait jouer un rôle important au sein de la formation de Mario Dumont, s'il est élu.
Vendredi soir, à l'émission Madame, monsieur, posez votre question! animée par Claude Charron, Mario Dumont a affirmé que Jean Nobert était l'un de ses candidats-vedettes et qu'il pourrait être appelé à jouer un grand rôle. Pourtant, bien peu de gens connaissent le candidat de Louis-Hébert.
Ami de longue date de Mario Dumont, M. Nobert est en fait l'un des membres fondateurs de l'ADQ. «Mario Dumont m'a même dit que j'étais le premier militant de l'ADQ à qui il a parlé», lance-t-il.
C'est en 1987 que les deux hommes se sont connus, au temps où ils étaient tous deux chez les jeunes libéraux. «On a été invités à quitter le parti, après Charlottetown. C'est à ce moment qu'on s'est dit qu'il fallait offrir une autre voix aux électeurs, qui devaient toujours choisir leur parti en fonction de leur position souverainiste ou fédéraliste», explique M. Nobert.
D'agriculteur à avocat
D'abord agriculteur, puis président de la Fédération des producteurs de lait du Québec, M. Nobert est par la suite devenu avocat. Mais il est toujours demeuré dans le giron de l'ADQ et a pris part à chacune des campagnes.
«En 2003, ça a été tough. Je me rendais à Rivière-du-Loup et j'entendais les résultats. Pour le parti, ça a été une étape très difficile, mais importante. On est revenus vers notre base, après cet épisode-là», explique M. Nobert.
Dans Louis-Hébert
Même s'il gravite autour du parti depuis sa fondation, M. Nobert se présente pour la première fois, cette année, dans Louis-Hébert et est très satisfait de sa campagne jusqu'à maintenant.
«Beaucoup de gens sont surpris de voir que Sam Hamad sollicite un nouveau mandat. Son étoile n'est vraiment plus ce qu'elle était. Quant à André Joli-Coeur, je ne crois pas qu'il puisse bien défendre les intérêts de la circonscription. Il est plus porté sur les grandes questions», affirme M. Nobert.
Rickyno
J'ai lu plusieurs messages dans ce sujet et je constate que plusieurs personnes ne savent aucunement différencier la droite, le centre et la gauche. Ça donne envie de démarrer un parti d'extrême droite juste pour démontrer à toutes ces personnes ce qu'est l'extrême droite en réalité. L'ADQ, c'est de centre-gauche, de centre dans le pire des cas (à vos yeux), mais aucunement de droite, absolument rien à voir, la droite n'existe pas dans le paysage politique Québécois.
Petite parenthèse, la droite, et le centre, est-ce si mauvais lorsqu'on considère que la majorité des dictatures de ce monde son nées de la gauche et l'extrême gauche. Hitler, il était de droite selon vous? PAS DU TOUT, il était de l'extrême gauche. D'ailleurs, d'ou provient l'acronyme NAZI? De National Socialisme... quels partis se targuent d'être Nationalistes et Socialistes? Les partis pour lesquels les personnes se plaignant de l'extrême-droite ont certainement voté.
Un grand vent de fraicheur a soufflé sur le Québec. Ils sont à peine élus et vous criez déjà au scandale, leur carchez déjà au visage, avant même de savoir de quoi ils sont capable. Vous faites pitié de par votre ignorance et votre mauvaise volonté, pure et simple.
La démocratie a parlé, peut-être que votre réaction ne fait que confirmer mes dires ci-dessus à propos de la gauche et des dictatures...
Daniel Petit sème encore la controverse
Plus Carole Théberge braille moins elle pisse
Christian Lévesque promet «du concret»
... De son côté, Carole Théberge a dû étouffer plusieurs sanglots lorsqu'elle s'est adressée à ses militants. «On a fait énormément pour Lévis et Québec. On n'aurait pas pu faire mieux, mais les gens ont fait un autre choix et il faut le respecter.»
Mme Théberge a affirmé qu'elle ne prenait pas cette défaite personnellement, mais qu'elle l'attribuait plutôt à un goût du changement.
Men 'one phone call' from total destruction'from the Ottawa Citizen, November 2000, by David Brown
Accused abusers would lose freedom, property under Bill 117
Ontario's domestic violence war is about to enter its nuclear age with the creation of a legal weapon so destructive no sane man will risk abusive behaviour -- or marriage, or even dating.
["Abusive" behaviour will include stopping aggressive or bad behaviour, being upright, or anything feminist need.]
It's called the "intervention order" and is being fast-tracked through the legislature. It has already passed two readings, is going back for some fine tuning Nov. 7, and is expected to be law before the end of the month. Bill 117's power will make the familiar restraining order obsolete.
Observers say the speed and low profile with which this ultimate weapon has been developed is part of a promise from Attorney General Jim Flaherty. He made it after high profile murder-suicides near Toronto. He wants to "send a clear signal that domestic violence is not tolerated in Ontario."
The new legislation is based on the premise women in abusive relationships can't escape because they are economically dependent. The intent is to correct this by making it possible to immediately transfer all property to her.
Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.
Literally without knowing about it, it will be possible for a partner, almost 100 per cent of them men, to lose freedom and property. The intervention order includes an automatic restraining order.
Any violation of an intervention order will be a criminal offence. It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act.
Transference of property will include leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability.
These points were highlighted by Toronto lawyer Walter Fox during one of the strongest presentations at current hearings at Queen's Park. Outside the hearing room he described the proposed legislation as "a pimp's dream."
Prostitutes approach men asking if they want a "date," since it's illegal to ask if they want sex. Admitting it's a stretch, Mr. Fox said pimps could use the legislation, and hookers, to prey on men.
The hearing is called: "The Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy, Bill 117, The Domestic Violence Protection Act." The small audience of about 40 watching Tuesday's presentations was mainly silent, but broke into spontaneous applause at the end of a particularly tough presentation opposing the legislation. It was from a woman.
"Any man in my life is simply one phone call away from total destruction (when Bill 117 becomes law)," said Dori Gospordaric, co-founder of Second Spouses of Canada. "You have already provided protection for me. It's called the criminal justice system. Now you have provided for me the ultimate weapon. A phone call.
"Being mothers does not make us sacrosanct. It does not make us morally superior. There is no superiority of the uterus ... Funded women's groups claim to represent women. Which women? I am a woman and a mother and I don't care what the gender of my abuser, I want it to stop. You are funding women to abuse me."
She said she was speaking for tens of thousands of women who, as second wives, are guilty by association as public funding helps vilify and launch legal attacks on ex-husbands.
The hearing ended Tuesday with a joint presentation from MP Roger Galloway, co-chair of the federal Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, and Senator Anne Cools, a member of that committee. Mr. Galloway said he heard some 550 presentations on couples issues, and was "no stranger to the problems." He considered the provincial plan overkill, and questioned the right of the province to override the Criminal Code. There is already too much confusion in processes that deal with failed relationships, he said.
"The Criminal Code is being swept aside by this bill."
Senator Cools, a founder of the women's shelter movement and now one of its most vocal opponents, said she was speaking from "decades of experience on the ground in this field.
"This is a human problem, not a gender problem. Both sexes are capable of violence. ... The issue has been falsely framed." She called the latest tilt to the rules of relationships: "A heart of darkness. ... In one decade we've gone from Father Knows Best to Fathers Molest."
She said the majority of men are not abusers, and the intervention order would turn loose a minority of women who would take advantage of the legislation's best intentions.
The report of the special joint committee was handed over to Justice Minister Anne McLellan a year ago and shelved. Ms. McLellan said at the time it would stay on the shelf for at least three years. It appears now in the election platform of the Alliance party. "We will follow the unanimous recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access to ensure that shared parenting is the norm in the aftermath of divorce."
Any offer of relief for children caught in the battle zone of the one-sided gender war (only women's groups are funded) gets my vote.
Although the language of Bill 117 is gender neutral, all recognize it's aimed at men.
Conversation in front of the hearing room Tuesday often referred to Patrick Roy's situation in Colorado. In a fit of temper, the top NHL goalie damaged two doors in his home. When a man loses it and displays temper and frightens his spouse, that's abuse. He was arrested. His wife refused to co-operate with police, but it didn't matter. When she dialled 911, even though she hung up without saying anything, she no longer had input. Current thinking backed by protocols is that by dialing those digits, a woman admits she can't control things around her.
In tomorrow's Ontario, a man making Mr. Roy's mistake could have nothing left by the time the fingerprint ink dried.
Considering the amount of property involved, this could be considered another stretch. But under Bill 117, the door is open for an angry woman to freeze everything. Wealthy men could wind up joining their mortgage-strapped brothers, calling their mothers for a loan, or a sofa to sleep on.
Statistics are the bullets of this war, and all sides use them like snipers. Often there's no way of knowing where the shot came from, or if it was accurate.
Stating a case for a women's group, one presenter said it was common knowledge a woman suffers 24 assaults before she turns to the authorities. There were no questions or challenges from hearing committee members.
While politicians tinker with this new legal weapon, the public attitude seems to be to keep one's head down.
Contre Québec Solidaire, pour un progressisme anti-féministe
