Thursday, November 12, 2015

When the Absurd Becomes Reality! (Part 10)

Students sign petition to ban radio stations from playing 'racist' song 'White Christmas'
Rebel Staff
22 December 2015

Is 'White Christmas' Not PC Enough For College Campuses?  
College students are taking political correctness to ridiculous new levels.
A reporter from MRCTV went to George Mason University to see is college students would sign a petition to stop radio stations from playing 'White Christmas'.
“It's insulting to people of colour. It perpetuates the idea that white is naturally good and other colours are bad,” he tells a student who eventually signs.
“He says I'm dreaming of a white Christmas like the ones I used to know,” he tells a black student. “Well, what were those Christmases like? Were there no black people around?”
“It doesn't mention anything about climate change either,” he adds.
He clearly trolls the students by citing 'micro-aggressions' and asking where the nearest 'safe space' is. The worst part? They take him seriously.
After only an hour, 18 students signed the petition.
We're doomed.
Freedom: Becoming An Endangered Species
By Lee Duigon
December 10, 2015
In trying to shut down free speech on their campuses, college zombies are only imitating older, more powerful world-shapers all over the planet—men and women who mean to have it their way, or else.
What we believe, and our ability to say what we believe, are at the heart of who we are. Libs and progs are working to drive a stake through that heart. We have no right to be who we are. We must be what they think we ought to be. And heaven help us if we aren’t.
In Australia, the usual gang at the “human rights” agency has demanded that Catholic churches all over Australia jettison Catholic teachings on marriage and replace them with teachings approved by the LBGT-whatever community. It seems these teachings, which have remained the same for thousands of years, violate the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Law, which has existed for only a very few years. A man who insists he is a woman, and who aspires to run for Parliament as a candidate for (what else?) the Green Party, has threatened to sue all the Catholic bishops in Australia unless they… well, it sounds like he wants them to declare him Pope.
This is so extreme, so over the top, that even at least one of the “human rights” commissioners, and a few members of the legislature, has said that, really, the law ought to be amended so that loopy stuff like this doesn’t happen anymore. But, as we might expect, a coalition of the Greens and other left-wing lice in Parliament have blocked, so far, any attempts to change the law.
Meanwhile, on the opposite side of the world, in Merrie Olde England, birthplace of the Magna Carta and the English Common Law, a gaggle of top judges and lawyers from assorted countries met in konklave to see if they could find a way to turn “the consensus on Climate Change” into… a law. Sponsored, of course, by the United Nations, the konklave’s organizers declined to release the names of the participants.
Is it just me, or is there something a bit shady about that?
Mind you, they say they don’t intend to make it actually against the law to disbelieve in Global Warming/Climate Change. Maybe if they could get inside your head, they would do something about your private beliefs. On second thought, delete the “maybe.” But for the time being, since they have no way yet of getting inside your cranium and rearranging the furniture, all they mean to do is to codify the “facts of Climate Change” into law—so that it will be a matter of law that Global Warming is a “fact.”
That’s Science for you, these days. A bunch of judges and lawyers decide what’s a fact and what isn’t. But then Science isn’t science anymore, is it?
It’s difficult to be sure about how this would work. Would it mean that anyone who expresses doubts about “Climate Change” has committed a punishable, criminal offense? Anyone, or just academics, politicians, or celebrities? Would it become illegal to publish remarks skeptical of Global Warming?
One name that did slip out of the konklave, a big-time British lawyer named Sands, said that, although the “facts” of Climate Change were “established” beyond a doubt, there were still “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals” continuing to challenge “the broad emerging consensus”—gee, I thought it had emerged already, like Dracula—and that the world’s courts, starring [trumpet fanfare] the International Court of Justice, could play a role “in finally scotching these claims.”
Does that sound menacing to you? It sounds menacing to me.
Is it any wonder that the bad guys out in Muslim-land look at the Western countries and think they’re ripe and ready to be plucked right off the tree? That, indeed, they’re just about ready to fall from the tree without being picked? “Dude, we can do it! Push ‘em just little harder and they’re goin’ down! Allahu akbar, baby!”
Why shouldn’t they think like that? Our national leaders hate and despise their own people, our ruling classes make war on our most basic institutions—family and church, especially—our teachers and professors addle and confuse whole generations, and anyone who tries to defend her own country’s way of life is called a fascist and a hater: as the American nooze media defame patriot Marine Le Pen of France.
Had enough yet, everybody? Or do we still not know a judgment of God when we see it?
© 2015 Lee Duigon - All Rights Reserved
Lee Duigon, a contributing editor with the Chalcedon Foundation, is a former newspaper reporter and editor, small businessman, teacher, and horror novelist. He has been married to his wife, Patricia, for 34 years. See his new fantasy/adventure novels, Bell Mountain and The Cellar Beneath the Cellar, available on
“At my last birthday party I had fun and really let myself go. Literally. I opened the cages where I keep my clones and I let myself go, all 333 versions of myself.”
Jarod Kintz, Who Moved My Choose?: An Amazing Way to Deal With Change by Deciding to Let Indecision Into Your Life      
A Genocidal Obsession Against America and Israel
But so obsessed is Mr. Obama with helping the chief purveyor of terrorism in the entire world gain a fast-track to nuclear bombs
By Joan Swirsky
August 25, 2015
Certainly you read about the six-year-old from Colorado Springs who got suspended from school for sexual harassment, specifically for kissing his little classmate on the hand.  It was his second suspension, the first for kissing the same little girl on the cheek when he was five.
Think of what “the authorities” would have done to this menace if he had told his teacher he hated her, or worse, that he wished she were dead. Permanent exile? Reform school? Mandatory psychotherapy? Banishment to Siberia?
The point is that this child’s totally benign, even sweet, behavior was taken with dead seriousness by the [idiotic] powers-that-be, and if he had verbalized any angry feelings, you know the punishment would have been even more draconian.
Contrast this with the behavior of the man who occupies the Oval Office when listening over the past decades to the bellicose chants of the mad mullahs in Iran—“Death to America, Death to Israel”—with the man who apparently thinks it’s okay for Israel’s enemies today to chant: “Israel must be obliterated!”
For this man, Barack Obama, no problem.
In fact in an interview in The Atlantic in May, writer Jeffrey Goldberg asked Mr. Obama how he squares his admission that the Iranian regime represents “venomous anti-Semitism” with his eagerness to sell them nukes, Obama—incredulously—responded in the following way:
“Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”
Obama’s genocidal agreement
Uh huh. And it clearly doesn’t preclude Iran from carrying out a nuclear attack on a state and a people that has obsessed this lowly species of “clerics” for a lifetime of all-consuming hatred. The same self-interests didn’t stop Hitler! But Mr. Obama knows all this.
He is acutely aware that just this week, Iranian, ahem, “Supreme Leader,” Ali Khamenei, called for the destruction of the “barbaric, wolf-like and infanticidal regime of Israel” and the dispersal of the Jews who had emigrated to Israel from some other place.
But so obsessed is Mr. Obama with helping the chief purveyor of terrorism in the entire world gain a fast-track to nuclear bombs that he and his laughably impotent Secretary of State, John Kerry, caved on virtually every issue—on more than 12 key issues, also listed here—that might have kept both America and Israel if not safe, than safer.
Then we learn of secret talks in which the Obama regime agreed and approved—in 2011, no less, behind the backs of every American—that Iran had a “right” to operate a nuclear program.
Of course, sane people pushed back immediately on Obama’s genocidal agreement. Within weeks, a majority of Americans of every political affiliation rejected the deal, as did every Republican member of the House and Senate—and also increasing numbers of Democrats.
Anti-Semitic code words: Jewish “money” and “lobbyists” opposing the Iran deal, all of which dredge up the toxic canard of dual loyalty
Again, Obama showed the sentiments he simply can’t conceal, using all the anti-Semitic code words  that Jews have heard for centuries. His words “dredge up the [forgery of] “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” said the esteemed political science professor and Ford Foundation fellowship recipient Abraham Ben-Zvi of Haifa University—accusations about Jewish “money” and “lobbyists” opposing the Iran deal, all of which dredge up the toxic canard of dual loyalty.
In the news at the same time that the deadly deal with Iran was struck was an announcement that a Manhattan Federal Court awarded an immense amount of money—in the billions—to the families of American victims who were wounded or killed in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) bombings and shootings that killed 33 and injured hundreds between 2001 and 2004. And as day follows night, Mr. Obama went to bat for—drum roll here—the terrorists! He insisted that the court lower the judgment so the extant Palestinian terrorists wouldn’t go broke.
Brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it?
A child barely older than a toddler gets slammed for kissing his cute little girl crush, but a thug regime totally dedicated to murdering Jews and Americans gets a pass from Mr. Hope and Change.
And people wonder why a billionaire candidate who is pro-American, pro-Israel, pro-military, pro-capitalist, pro-taking out ISIS, is galloping toward a presidential nomination and why a doddering, lying, pro-Obama candidate is not only going down, but probably to Leavenworth!
President Obamas Department of Injustice
By Alec Karakatsanis
Aug. 18, 2015
WASHINGTON — LAST month, President Obama used his clemency power to reduce the sentences of 46 federal prisoners locked up on drug-related charges. But for the last six years, his administration has worked repeatedly behind the scenes to ensure that tens of thousands of poor people — disproportionately minorities — languish in federal prison on sentences declared by the courts, and even the president himself, to be illegal and unjustifiable.
The case of Ezell Gilbert is emblematic of this injustice. In March 1997, he was sentenced to 24 years and four months in federal prison for possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. Because of mandatory sentencing laws, Mr. Gilbert was automatically sentenced to a quarter-century in prison, though even the judge who sentenced him admitted that this was too harsh.
At his sentencing, Mr. Gilbert noted a legal error that improperly increased his sentence by approximately a decade based on a misclassification of one of his prior offenses. In 1999, without a lawyer, he filed a petition seeking his release. A court ruled against him.
Nearly 10 years later, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in another prisoner’s case, confirming that Mr. Gilbert had been right. A public defender helped him file a new petition for immediate release in light of this new decision.
Mr. Obama’s Justice Department, however, convinced a Florida federal judge that even if Mr. Gilbert’s sentence was illegal, he had to remain in prison because prisoners should not be able to petition more than once for release. The “finality” of criminal cases was too important, the department argued, to allow prisoners more than one petition, even if a previous one was wrongly denied.
A federal appellate court disagreed, and in June 2010, three judges set Mr. Gilbert free. The judges rejected the administration’s argument as a departure from basic fairness and explained that it simply could not be the law in America that a person had to serve a prison sentence that everyone admitted was illegal. Mr. Gilbert returned home and stayed out of trouble.
Here’s where it gets interesting. There are many people like Mr. Gilbert in America’s federal prisons — people whose sentences are now obviously illegal. Instead of rushing to ensure that all those thousands of men and women illegally imprisoned at taxpayer expense were set free, the Justice Department said that it did not want a rule that allowed other prisoners like Mr. Gilbert to retroactively challenge their now illegal sentences. If the “floodgates” were opened, too many others — mostly poor, mostly black — would have to be released. The Obama administration’s fear of the political ramifications of thousands of poor minority prisoners being released at once around the country, what Justice William J. Brennan Jr. once called “a fear of too much justice,” is the real justification.
In May 2011, the same court, led by a different group of judges, sided with the original judge, saying that the “finality” of sentences was too important a principle to allow prisoners to be released on a second rather than first petition, even if the prison sentence was illegal. A contrary rule would force the courts to hear the complaints of too many other prisoners. Mr. Gilbert was rearrested and sent back to prison to serve out his illegal sentence.
Judge James Hill, then an 87-year-old senior judge on the appellate court in Atlanta, wrote a passionate dissent. Judge Hill, a conservative who served in World War II and was appointed by Richard M. Nixon, called the decision “shocking” and declared that a “judicial system that values finality over justice is morally bankrupt.” Judge Hill wrote that the result was “urged by a department of the United States that calls itself, without a trace of irony, the Department of Justice.”
Judge Hill concluded: “The government hints that there are many others in Gilbert’s position — sitting in prison serving sentences that were illegally imposed. We used to call such systems ‘gulags.’ Now, apparently, we call them the United States.”
Two years later, the Justice Department used a similar tactic to overturn an entirely different federal appellate court decision that could have freed thousands of prisoners convicted of nonviolent crack cocaine offenses — again, mostly impoverished and mostly black — on the grounds that their sentences were discriminatory and unjustifiable. The administration again did its work without fanfare in esoteric legal briefs, even as the president publicly called the crack-cocaine sentencing system “unfair.”
In 2013, several years after sending him back to prison, Mr. Obama granted Mr. Gilbert clemency, and the president has recently won praise for doing the same for several dozen other prisoners of the war on drugs. Mr. Obama even visited a federal prison last month, staring into the cells — emptied for his visit — of some of the men whom his own administration has needlessly kept there.
But Mr. Obama must take steps to further undo the damage that he has done. He should use his clemency power to release all those currently held in a federal prison on an illegal sentence. And he should appoint a permanent special counsel whose job would be to review new laws and federal court cases on a continuing basis to identify and release other prisoners whose sentences retroactively become clearly unlawful. That the Department of Justice and Bureau of Prisons have never created such a position is an outrage. If we fail to demand change now, this moment for justice may be lost.
Alec Karakatsanis is a civil rights lawyer and co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, which litigates on behalf of indigent clients.
The Unnecessarily High Cost of Inmate Calling Charges Is an Injustice
Mignon Clyburn
Posted:  10/13/2015
There are approximately 2.3 million Americans currently serving time in our country's prisons and jails. In order to stay connected, the majority of those incarcerated -- and their families, friends and legal representatives -- often have no choice but to pay exorbitant per-minute rates, connection fees, and service fees to companies that provide inmate calling services.
The costs of these calls far exceed the actual cost of the call and take advantage of the lack of choices people in prison have in reaching family members and legal counsel. While prisons and private service providers enjoy the profits of these exorbitant charges, the burden is borne largely by, and at the expense of, incarcerated individuals and their families.
As efforts to reform the criminal justice system continue to grow in magnitude and scope, efforts to reform our sentencing laws are important, but not enough. We must also reform the way prisons operate and the way the imprisoned prepare to reenter society. Therefore, while it may seem not seem like a major issue on its face, the unnecessarily high cost of inmate calling charges is an injustice that must be addressed so that inmates can stay in touch with their families and plan for successful reintegration into society. That's why we are joining together to address this issue.
This month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is poised to implement regulations that would ensure just and reasonable phone rates for incarcerated individuals. Under Commissioner Clyburn's leadership in 2013, the United States took important steps in the right direction to achieve this goal; however, more work remains to be done.
Currently, the prison calling system continues to leave millions of Americans paying their dues to society either struggling or unable to stay connected with the outside world. There are fees to open a calling account, fees to add money to the account, and fees to close an account when inmates are released.
These charges often weigh most heavily on inmates' families, who may have also lost the primary earner in their household with their family member's incarceration. Many families report paying providers $400-$500 a month, or over $5,000 a year, just to stay in touch with their loved ones -- double or triple the average American's monthly phone bill. We recently heard from a NAACP pro bono lawyer who paid $56 for a four-minute conversation from an incarcerated client.
Because there is only one call provider per facility, rates often go unchecked. In fact, many call providers have payment arrangements with correctional facilities whereby the facility receives a "cut" of the provider's earnings -- in one case, as high as 96 percent of gross revenue. These profit-sharing arrangements, known as "commissions," create perverse incentives whereby prisons don't seek the lowest rates for inmate calling services, but rather the provider that offers them the largest slice of the pie.
Ruth Amsani Perry, who pays these high phone rates to stay in touch with her incarcerated husband, paints the problem this way: "I understand [inmate call providers] need to make a profit, but there is a clear difference between profit and exploitation."
Reginald Dwayne Betts, a Yale Law student, Soros Fellow, published author, poet, and teacher began an eight year stint behind bars at age 16. The Supermax prison where Betts served his sentence was too far away for family to visit regularly, so phone calls made a world of difference. "Those calls meant I got to be connected to a world that wasn't governed by violence," said Betts, "And that helped me come back. My family knew me while I was in prison, so when I came out I wasn't a stranger returning -- I was a son."
For Betts' mother, call payments became a significant expense, a price many parents of incarcerated people simply cannot afford.
Currently, 1 in 28 American children, and 1 in 9 African-American children grow up with an incarcerated parent. In prison, Betts, who knew plenty of fathers, and is now a husband and father of two young boys himself, stresses the importance of a parent's presence: "Kids need to hear your voice. They don't understand cost. But cost means calls to kids are often the first to fall by the wayside." Calling costs are not the only reason families torn by incarceration fall apart. But if straws break a camel's back, Betts says, "Prison phone rates are one of those straws."
Bethany Fraser, whose husband has been behind bars the last three years, knows how painfully high phone rates make it difficult her and their two sons to stay connected. "Choosing between essential needs and keeping kids connected to their parents is a choice no family should have to make."
We could not agree more.
Each year, approximately 700,000 inmates are released from prison after paying their debts to society. A study by the Justice Department found that three out of four ex-offenders were re-arrested within five years of their release. Yet studies consistently show that meaningful contact behind bars can make a real difference in maintaining family ties, promoting rehabilitation, and reducing recidivism. In other words, high inmate calling rates stand in the way of formerly incarcerated people turning their lives around and not committing new crimes.
In his 2004 State of the Union Address, then President George W. Bush affirmed that "America is the land of the second chance -- and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life."
When President Obama commuted convictions of 46 drug offenders earlier this year, he also affirmed that "we have to ensure that as [inmates] do their time and pay back their debt to society, that we are increasing the possibility that they can turn their lives around."
The ideal that America is a place that values second chances is both bipartisan and rooted deeply in our country's history, and the opportunity and ability to turn one's life around is a fundamental principle of justice and of the American Dream. Unfortunately, it seems this principle of American values has gone missing from our broken justice system. Fixing the way inmates interact with the outside world is an important step in restoring it.
13 Quirky Canadian Laws You Won't Believe
By Lucy Izon
From weird and wacky to downright crazy, these strange Canadian laws will have you wondering what your elected officials were thinking.
Canada's Quirkiest Laws
You’d be surprised to learn what’s against the law in Canada. For example, recently a Toronto businessman found that to sell edible underwear in his 'Adult Entertainment’ store, he’d need a food license. Who knew? Here are 13 more strange Canadian laws you never knew existed.


A Petrolia city rep says this unusual law simply aims to limit excessive noise between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., but according to Article 3, 772.3.6 on the town's website, "Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing is prohibited at all times." Keep your enthusiasm to yourself, folks.


Keep Your Booze at Home
According to the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (which dates back to the time of prohibition and bootleggers), you can only legally move a bottle of booze from one province to another with the permission of the provincial liquor control board. The situation changed on May 28th, 2012, allowing you to legally move wine, but little else. Guess your moonshining days are over, eh boys?


It's Illegal to Attach a Siren to Your Bike in Sudbury, Ontario
Since 1973, the only noise-makers Sudbury cyclists can attach to their bikes are bells and horns. Breaking noise bylaws in Sudbury can lead to fines up to $5,000. Who attaches a siren to their bike, anyways?

It's Illegal to Skinny Dip in Bancroft, Ontario
Travel writer Melanie Chambers highlighted this unusual bylaw ban, and it may well still be on the books. Either way, be sure to get your skivvies on before you get your skinny on.



Don't Pay With too Much Change!
While it won't make you a law-breaker, according to Canada's Currency Act of 1985, there are limits to the number of coins you can use in a transaction. Now that we've put the kibosh on the old penny, are you accumulating nickels? If it’s nickels, vendors can say no to any purchase over $5, while the loonie limit is $25.

Taxi Drivers Can't Wear a T-Shirt in Halifax, Nova Scotia
According to Halifax's Regional Municipality Bylaws for Taxis and Limousines, number 42 a) stipulates drivers must wear shoes and socks, keep their attire in neat and tidy condition at all times, and absolutely cannot wear a t-shirt. Looks like summer is a whole lot hotter for cabbies in Halifax.

It Was Illegal for Non-Dark Soft Drinks to Contain Caffeine
It used to be the case that Sprite, Mountain Dew and other non-dark soft drinks couldn't contain caffeine, but that all changed in March 2010 with the advent of "energy drinks" like Redbull. Now you can have caffeine in soft drinks like orange and grape soda—but there is a limit, and it’s still lower than colas.


It's Illegal to Build Big Snowmen in Souris, P.E.I.
Souris, P.E.I. is well-known to summer visitors for its curious 'Singing Sands' Beach, but few know of a local law that warns residents against building monstrous snowmen. If you live on a corner lot it’s against the law to build a snowman taller than 30-inches. Fear of Frosty's revenge, much?


Get Your Margarine out of Here!
Few may remember this, but thanks to lobbying by dairy farmers it was illegal to sell butter-coloured margarine in Ontario until 1995. In fact, margarine was altogether banned in Canada from 1886 to 1948 (there was a brief reprieve during WW1).


You Can't Just Jump in the Lake in Toronto
According to the Toronto Port Authority, you can’t swim anywhere in the harbour that has not been designated as a swimming area by the City of Toronto. So, if you’re out on a boat and want to cool off, keep this in mind. Historically, there was also a law that you couldn’t swim in Toronto Harbor in 'less than-seemly'attire. Travel writer Mark Stevens pointed out this ruling: “When the nude beach at Hanlon's opened Police were ticketing using this bylaw." That law has been updated, and you can now officially swim naked IF you are at the nude beach.

Keep Your Comics Clean
Our 'Spidey Sense' just started tingling! The way Canadian law currently stands, "Everyone commits an offence who… (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic." For the full story read: Under Arrest – Canadian Laws You Won’t Believe by Bob Tarantino.


Clotheslines Were Banned
Talk about being hung out to dry! Many Canadian communities long restricted the use of clotheslines because they just didn't like the look of them. Now because of increased energy consciousness the provincial government has stepped in with a ruling that overrides neighbourhood regulations.


Keep Your Kids at Home in St. Paul, Alberta
St. Paul residents don't have to worry about their kids sneaking out late at night. It's against the law for anyone 15 or younger to loiter in a public place without supervision of a parent or guardian between 12:01 a.m. and 6 a.m. Take that, whippersnappers!

From weird and wacky to downright crazy, these strange Canadian laws will have you wondering what your elected officials were thinking.

Also See:
When the Absurd Becomes Reality!

(Part 1)
23 March 2009
(Part 2)
07 August 2009
(Part 3)
21 February 2011
(Part 4)
21 November 2011
(Part 5)
24 December 2011
(Part 6)
13 April 2012
(Part 7)
19 June 2013
(Part 8)
21 March 2014
Science Fiction or Future Reality?
01 November 2008
What is Truth? - Is Everything Relative? Does the End Justify the Means?
28 August 2009
Are You Reality Denied?
25 March 2011
"Wrongful Birth" Insanity!
14 November 2011
It's Everywhere: Be Wary of Myths, Fabricated Lies, and Distorted Data!
29 August 2015