PREPOSTEROUS!  REALLY?

Several weeks ago, I was watching the CBC show where people were calling in with their questions.  One viewer suggested that Prime Minister appointed 2 new judges to the Supreme Court, deliberately choosing such appointees, which would support his agenda.  The responding person (a law professor) said with indignation, that it was preposterous even to think that the Prime Minister of Canada can do something improper.  Wow, really?  Prime Minister is a politician, and any politician is by definition a crook, Prime Minister being the greatest crook of them all.

Indeed, ask yourself a very simple question: why would a lawyer (Chretien) or an owner of a big company (Martin) agree to reduce his pay at least in half in order to become a Prime Minister?  The answer is obvious: because now he commands the public purse - billions of dollars, which he can distribute to his friends and they, in return, kick a percentage back.  Just a recent example: Chretien squandered at least $250 MILLIONS on his buddies under the pretext of trying to keep Quebec from separation.  Just one percent of kickbacks (I am sure he got more than that) constitutes $2.5 MILLIONS, which is about 10 times his salary.  Well, now being a Prime Minister starts making sense.

In any so-called civilized country, the main function of judiciary is to oversee government activities, while being independent from the government.  How can they be independent if it is the government who appoints them?  Every judge is nothing but a political appointee.  Remember the prosecutor who through his fraudulent activity knowingly -made an innocent person (Morin) to be convicted?  Well, now he is a judge.  It is ridiculous even to think that government may appoint a really honest person to be a judge.

There is one more thing, which is designed to make judges independent: they are appointed for life, so that they could make the right decisions and not be afraid to be fired.  This is a good idea if a judge is an honest person (which is never the case), in the case of a crooked judge, this idea backfires: it gives him unchecked ability to make any lawless judgment, and this is what usually takes place.

Every time government is caught stealing public money, they appoint so--called public inquiry.  Here, a "proper" judge becomes indispensable: his job is to whitewash, and this is what usually happens, under pretext of "blasting" the government.  Chretien's gang has stolen over $250 MILLION.  Now Martin is spending $40 MILLION more on judge Gomery to find out what happened.  I can tell it for free: Chretien and his friends stole a lot of public money, Gomery in his report will "blast" the government, but all major criminals will go scot-free.

Just yesterday, another public inquiry in Saskatchewan concluded that a native teenager Stonechild was in police custody prior to being found frozen to death on the outskirts of Saskatoon the next day, but there is "not enough evidence" to charge the policemen.  Really?  How much brain does it take to guess what happened to him, especially taking into consideration, that Saskatoon police were doing this kind of atrocities on a regular basis?  This was a premeditated cold-blooded murder, but nobody is using these words.  I guess some people are more equal than others.

In addition, in order to keep its control over judges, it is the government, who every year decides on their pay increases, and they get between 10 to 20 percent increases every year, while ordinary public servant can not get even 3%. Judges claim that they need more money to keep their independence.  Really?  They now get over $280,000.  Would YOU be able to keep YOUR independence for $100,000? I bet you would.  If judges really wanted to keep their independence, government should not be involved in their salaries at all.  Their salary should be fixed once and for all and all additions be related to inflation only.  Since both opposition and judicial system has the duty to provide checks and balances for the government, it would make sense that the opposition, rather than the government, would appoint judges.

Do you think both judges and the government are so stupid and do not understand that government constantly giving raises to judges undermines their independence?  Both are dishonest, but not stupid, they like present situation: government likes being able to control judges monetarily and judges are happy to receive greater additions to their salary than they would otherwise, the rate of inflation being around 2%.  One group of crooks helping another group of crooks.
---

Kings of Israel VS Arafat

Government of Israel pompously declared that they would not allow Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is the city where kings of Israel are buried, not Arab terrorists, thus implying that kings of Israel were good and honourable people, unlike Arafat.  I decided to check the facts, and here is what I have found in the Bible.

First, Jerusalem was not built by Jews, but rather but Jebusites.  For about 400 years after Exodus from Egypt, it did not even belong to Israel.  It was conquered by king David and became the capital city.  It did not though last long: after David and Solomon, Israel has split from Judah and the capital of Israel became Shechem.  Jerusalem remained the capital of Judah.  So, strictly speaking, mainly the kings of Judah, rather than kings of Israel are buried in Jerusalem.  Taking into consideration that kings of Israel were the worst enemies of kings of Judah, being permanently at war, we can not equate them.

Now let us see what kind of human beings were they.  The most prominent of them were Saul, David and Solomon. Here are some details about Saul.  He was obviously a psychotic guy and regularly had psychotic attacks.  David played harp for him, while Saul took a spear and tried on several occasions to nail David to the wall.  All his life he tried to kill David, though David did only good to him.  Funny though, that God got angry with Saul not for all his dirty tricks, but because Saul was not sufficiently murderous, as our "loving" God wanted him to be.

Here is a quote from 1-Samuel-15.  God told Saul through Samuel: "Go, now, attack Amalek ... do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and INFANTS, oxen and sheep, camels and asses". Saul did "kill men and women, children and INFANTS", but he did not kill the animals, he just took them as his loot.  This angered our "loving" God so much, that he decided to take away kingdom from Saul.  Saul suffered a horrific death and his descendants did not have much luck either.  For some reason, our "kind" God feels that the descendants of the sinner should suffer too.

Now about David.  While trying to save himself from Saul, he lived by robberies.  He had 600 bandits, with whom he attacked civilians, killing everybody alive.  Here is a quote from 1-Samuel-27: "In attacking the land David would not leave a man or woman alive, but would carry off sheep, oxen, asses, camels and clothes".  Genocide was not invented by Hitler.  If one would argue, that in David's time, everybody committed genocide, this is just not so: in 1-Samuel-28 we read about Amalekites that "they had taken captive the women and all who were in the city, young and old, killing NO ONE".

When Saul died, only Judah proclaimed David a king, he had a bitter fight with the rest of Israel to become their king.  Everything was good in this fight: bribes, treachery, murder.  David's rule reads like a sleaziest soap: name a repugnant thing, it happened in David's family.  To name just a few: one of his sons raped one of his daughters, then her brother killed the rapist.  His own son rebelled against David and declared himself a king, kicked David out of Jerusalem, raped 10 of his father's concubines in a broad daylight, just to shame his father.  David saw a beautiful woman, who was already married, so he took the woman and arranged for her husband to be killed in a battle.  Enough?

Now about Arafat. The man is a terrorist and a thief. Even presuming, that he arranged all the terrorist attacks, his toll is about 1000 civilians.  David has killed at least hundred times that much.  As a thief, David also robbed much more than Arafat.  So, if you bury Arafat next to David, he would consider Arafat a little lousy apprentice.  Sharon would fare somewhat better: he killed more and he stole more than Arafat.

READ THE BIBLE!
---

Pakistani justice - God's justice

Some time ago, the world was stunned at the story from Pakistan, where the elders delivered what they thought to be justice.  One youth was accused of having sex with a girl.  So, the elders decided as a punishment to him, to publicly rape his sister, which they did.  For a normal person, there is no logic in their actions: even presuming that the youth did something wrong, his sister has nothing to do with it. So, I decided to investigate how did the elders come to their decision.  The Bible gave the answer: the elders did what God would have done, according to his track record.

Just took at king David story in 2-Samuel.  David did worse than the youth: he took an already married woman and then arranged for her husband to be killed.  What did God decide in his infinite wisdom to be David's punishment?  You guessed it right: God decided to arrange a rape of David's 10 concubines.  God's logic was simple: David had sex with one married woman, so God punishes him 10 times his sin by raping 10 of his concubines.  It makes no sense and is repugnant to any normal person, but in God's wisdom, a woman was not a human being, just a property.  For our loving God, it was like "you stole $1, I will punish you by taking away $10 from you".

READ THE BIBLE!  If you have a trace of brain in your head, you will become an atheist, just read the bible and read it attentively.
---

Surprise - surprise

A newspaper in US has published an article, stating that Galiano was a member of Mafia.  Galiano vigorously denies the claim.  The situation seems to me being similar to, say, Dillinger being accused of small shop-lifting and vigorously denying it.  For God's sake, Galiano is a politician, which means a THIEF of a grand scale.  He arranged stealing of over $250 MILLION for his criminal "family" in just one sponsorship program.  His department is in charge of spending tens of BILLIONS of dollars every year. No Mafia can brag of that kind of thievery!         Politicians are the best and richest organized crime in every so-called free and democratic country.  They steal BILLIONS of public money every year and, unlike regular Mafia, they almost never go to jail.

So, from my point of view, naming Galiano a member of Mafia means only an underestimation of the level of his criminal activity.
---

Read the fine print

I am watching a commercial about a new anti-cholesterol medication Crestor.  They show that Crestor is much more efficient than any other medication in reducing the cholesterol level.  There is also a fine print in the corner of the screen: "Crestor was not shown to prevent heart disease or heart attack." Here is my question: why would anyone want to reduce their cholesterol, if such a reduction does not do any good in terms the heart disease or heart attacks?

It looks like the pharmaceutical crooks are finally forced to acknowledge the truth that an artificial reduction of cholesterol does not do any good, though they are doing it in such a small print, that majority of viewers would not notice it and would continue wasting their money on useless medication.  Read the fine print!
---

Crooked judges in Canadian Supreme Court

Parents of autistic children went to court demanding their provincial governments to pay for early therapy interventions, which allows such children to live normal or almost normal lives.  The parents won in lower courts.  Though all judges are corrupt ex-officio, the higher is the court, the greater is the level of corruption.  The parents lost in the Supreme Court.

Here is the logic of the Court of Supreme Corruption.  Canada Health Act guarantees only the services, provided by medical doctors and, since the early therapy, intervention is not provided by doctors, then provincial government is not obliged to pay for it.  Well, did the lower courts notice this little detail?  One should use a common sense.  The need for a service to be provided by a doctor has the root in the necessity that the service be of high quality and beneficial to a patient.  We are conditioned to think that only medical doctors can do it and only their services are worth paying for.

The corrupt judges should have looked at the root of the matter: did the early intervention give results?  If yes, the government should pay for it, because autism is a medical condition in exactly the same sense as cancer or heart disease.  In order to ensure proper quality of therapy, government could impose certain professional standards to be satisfied by therapists, but after the standards are satisfied, the government should pay for the services.

Provincial governments claimed that there are about 100,000 autistic children and at 40,000 per year, their treatment will cost $4 billion, which they can not afford.  I have a solution: we spend over 10 billion every year for the Army.  Why do we need an Army?  The only country which can attack us is the USA, and if they do, Canadian Army stands no chance, so what is the point to waste over $10 billion every year?  Would it not be better to spend this money on autistic children and to spend the remaining $6 billion on building affordable housing for the homeless?
---

Some arithmetics

It is reported, that US spends about $100 BILLION every year just in Iraq.  Here is my suggestion. There are about 4 million Palestinians.  If US decided to give these $100 BILLION to them, each would receive $25,000 per year; a family of four would get $100,000, which is a huge amount over there. They could have built a nice house for themselves and have enough left to live comfortably.  They would not need to fight anyone for the right to return to their poor village, they would not want to blow themselves up just to kill some Jews.

Would not US be more successful in "the war on terror" by spending their money that way?
---

Uncombed thoughts

I do not think that the institute of marriage needs any legal protection.  I feel great pity and compassion for those, who sincerely believes it does.  One thing is sure: if one day, the institute of marriage will REALLY need protection vis-a-vis gay marriage, then it clearly would NOT DESERVE it.
---

Difference between Ecole Polytechnique and Concordia

Every year, on December 6, we see people with candles around Ecole Polytechnique, all kinds of media, for every TV station this is number one news.  There is nobody at Concordia on August 24, not only all city media do not mention anything, Concordia own newspapers pretend nothing happened. Why is this so?  Are Concordia victims less deserving to be remembered, than the victims at Ecole Polytechnique? Yes, they are: at Ecole Polytechnique a bad guy killed good people; at Concordia University a good guy killed bad people.

Nobody wants to recall a murder, which looks like it was justified.  More than that: in two lines, the story is of big scoundrels using small ones to provoke me into shooting them.  This is why the authorities pretend nothing happened; they are dead scared that one day, someone will have enough courage to investigate what really happened at Concordia.
---

The truth about prison guards

It is astounding to watch prison guards on various TV channels lying with straight faces, how difficult and dangerous their job is and how little they are paid.  They show to the public heaps of improvised weapons, seized from prisoners, complain that they are being threatened by prisoners on a daily basis, that if a prisoner attacks a guard, all he gets is a $20 fine and $5 fine for a threat to a guard's life, etc.

And here is the truth.  Prisoner's weapon is not directed against guards.  Some prisoners have weapons either for self-protection or for intimidation of other prisoners.  In twelve years of being in jail, I have seen a lot of attacks on prisoners, but I have not witnessed or heard of a single case of a prisoner using any weapon against a guard.  The reason is very simple: if a prisoner uses a weapon attacking a guard, he will be killed and declared committing suicide.  This is what they did to some Archambault rioters over 20 years ago.

Guards are not really concerned about prisoners' weapons: I watched them on numerous occasions searching prisoners' cells.  They spend maximum of 1 minute per cell, unless they find some "girly" magazines, then they browse through these magazines for several minutes.  I reported this behavior of guards and I got a response that it was none of my business.
This proves conclusively, that guards, as well as their superiors, know that prisoners' weapons are not directed at them.

If a prisoner attacks a guard with fists, he will be beaten by guards into pulp.  I saw one such beating with my own eyes; the prisoner was stoned and the guards deliberately provoked him into making a swing at them, he did not actually hit anyone, but he was beaten unconscious. I saw a guard repeatedly smashing prisoner's forehead against a sharp corner of an iron beam. If a prisoner, who attacked a guard, is not beaten into pulp, you may be sure, this attack was ordered by other guards.

I witnessed one such attack back in Donnacona.  The attacked guard was a relatively decent man and, probably, interfered with other guards' criminal activity, so they decided to teach him a lesson.  The prisoner, who attacked the guard, had no prior incident with him and was stoned for about 10 days prior to the attack: the guards were paying him with drugs in advance.

Guards are paid additional $1600 for dangerousness of their job.  They are afraid that, if there are no attacks for many years, they might loose this bonus, so they arrange fake attacks with some friendly prisoners.  In addition, the "attacked" guard is entitled to 6 months leave with full pay.  I know about at least one such "attack" back in Donnacona jail.

The $20 fine for attacking a guard is a bloody lie; I got $25 fine for about 150 gram accumulation of sugar in my cell; I was fined yet another $25 for having in my pocket my own computer diskette: jailers just like making money off prisoners, so they invent non-existing offenses.  A prisoner will be transferred to a maximum security jail for a verbal threat.  For a physical attack, he will be either killed or beaten unconscious and after that, if he survives, he would be transferred to a Special Handling Unit.

One day, a Deputy Commissioner was visiting our jail.  I saw the corridor littered with peanuts.  I thought at first, that the guards were referring to the size of their brains, but later I was explained, that they were complaining "to work for peanuts".  And here is the truth about their pay.  The average pay of a lowest rank guard is $200 per day.  Their working week is 37.5 hours.  Does this look like "working for peanuts"?

In addition, almost all get paid overtime, which is double of the regular pay.  They don't even have to work more than 37.5 hours per week to get paid overtime, every hour after 8-hour shift is considered overtime.  They can retire after 25 years of service and get 50% of their maximum pay.  Can you do the same at your job?  My top pay as a university professor was less than that.  Have in mind that prison guards are people with little or no education.

And now some truth about the so-called threats to guards.  Majority of prisoners eventually get liberated.  To the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case, where these verbal threats were materialized.  The most dangerous jobs on this planet are miners, forestry and construction workers, jail guards or policemen are not even in the top ten.

Vast majority of prisoners are very compliant, they do not want to rock the boat.  Each time, I was complaining about something, I was told that I was the only one complaining.  Every prisoner wants to get out of jail as soon as possible, so they would not threaten any guard.  An explicit threat is a very rare occasion and the prisoner is usually transferred to Donnacona jail.

So, how does it happen that a prisoner threatens a guard?  Very simple: guards need these threats in order to be able to claim their job to be dangerous, so they do their best to provoke prisoners.  This is how they do it (all the events mentioned were real).  A prisoner gets 9.15 a.m. appointment to see a psychologist.  At 11 a.m. he is still not called, though there is nobody else waiting for the psychologist.  When lie finally sees the psychologist, he asks her, why he was not called earlier and she responds that she had no idea he was waiting.  The prisoner knows, she is lying, because she was passing by on several occasions, but there is nothing he can do.

Prisoner returns to his cell and discovers that his second pillow is gone, though the official permit to have it is still on the wall.  He tries to get an explanation from the guards.  A guard tells him, that his permit is no good: it should be a yellow paper.  The prisoner tries to reason: this permit was good for almost 4 years, why is it no good?  He asks the guard to phone Infirmary and to ask them to confirm, that he had such a permit for medical reasons.  Guard does not want to talk and leaves.

Prison guards have little or no education, but they are quite masterful in the art of provoking prisoners.  The typical scenario goes as follows.  A prisoner asks for something and he is told that his request will be satisfied.  Time is passing, nothing is being done, prisoner starts making inquiries, why his request is still not satisfied.  He does not get any answer, his frustration grows.  Finally, he gets a refusal, without any proper explanation.

Yet another even more frustrating practice goes according to the following model.  A prisoner asks for something and gets it.  After a while, he asks for the same thing again and is refused, though the rules have not changed and he is still entitled to get it.  Prisoner understands an obvious injustice and feels totally powerless.  Guards are pretty close to their goal to provoke the prisoner into making threats.

I have observed on several occasions prisoners so frustrated, that they punched walls with their fists with such a ferocity, that they broke the bones of their hands.  What is remarkable here, that prisoners, though totally out of control, still chose to harm themselves instead of landing their punches on guards' faces.  So, guards might feel themselves quite safe.

Acronym CSC should be understood as Criminal Service of Canada, because they are not interested in “correcting people", since lower criminality is threatening their jobs.  They want jails to be full and they know that a very frustrated person is more likely to return back, than a content one.  So, they are doing their best and are successful so far: jails are full.
---

Liars-liars

About the end of October, Canal D has had a show about me.  It was, as usual, a lie upon a lie upon a lie.  Every event from my life was skewed to prove my insanity.  It starts with statements, that I was born in Minsk prior to war, that my family had to run for their lives upon Hitler's invasion. Immediately,' we see psychiatrist Lafontaine, who explains that this run for my life might have affected me creating my paranoia.  Shut up, you idiot!  I was 18 months old when the war started. I have no recollection of war at all. My first recollection of myself is quite comfortable life with my father near Berlin.  We even had a car.

I wanted to do my research and agreed to work for $7000 a year - this proves my paranoia; I wanted to get married and to have children - normal people do not do that; I reported a teacher smoking in class - only paranoid people do it.  I killed four people and I still continue my research in jail and publish my results - another proof of paranoia.  I am sure that, if I stopped doing my research in jail, they would have declared this fact as proof of my paranoia.  Damn, if you do, damn, if you don't.  Remember Soviet psychiatrists ready to declare insane anyone their government did not like?  As low-life people, as they were, they at least had examined their patients.  Canadian scoundrels do not bother to do even that: psychiatrist Lafontaine never saw me, never spoke a word with me.

Obviously, those, who paid for the show, were desperate to prove my insanity.  Why?  Because when a normal person kills four people, everybody understands that something terrible must have been done to him, but when an insane person does the same, there is nothing to investigate: actions of an insane person can not be reasonably explained.

At the beginning of the show, it is mentioned, that I did my doctoral studies under the supervision of a top Soviet engineer.  Close to the end, they tell the viewer that I was unmasked as fraud, who never had an engineering degree.  Well, what was I studying under the supervision of the top engineer and what were my published articles about?  For low-life people, purpose justifies the means.

The show is mainly narrated by Sheinin, who was Vice-Rector back then.  It is a well-rehearsed dirty spectacle. She was the most vicious and malicious person; if it was not for her actions, everybody would be alive now and I would not be in jail.  She has a lot of blood on her hands, yet she plays some kind of a benign mother-like person, no hostility against me, she even uses the word "genius" when referring to my scientific research.  Her purpose is the same: she did her best to accommodate me, but I was too insane, so there was nothing she could do.

All her stories are half-truth, which is worse kind of lie.  She tells the viewer that I had a strange ability to stare for a long time, without blinking.  No, I never could do that, I blink, like everybody else.  Then she says that upon her arrival she received my letter demanding Full-Professor tenured position, implying that I was out of touch with reality, insane, demanding something, to which I was not entitled.  The only truth part here, that there was a letter, the rest is a lie.  My letter addressed the fact, that I was recommended by my Department and by the Faculty for promotion to Research Professor and that she was ignoring this recommendation, without giving any reason why.  It had nothing to do with tenure (Research Professor is very different from Full-Professor).

Her next story is about a very strange and threatening message, which she claimed I left on her answering machine.  Don't you think that, if such a message existed, she would have played it?  Again, the only truth was that I had left a message, but it was neither strange nor threatening.  It was the Day of Atonement and my message was: it was good time for atonement, I suggested that we met and settle the issues in a civilized and respectful manner.  She never responded.  As a matter of fact, from 1989 to 1992, I tried on numerous occasions to get an appointment with her, without success.  She was always "too busy" for me.

Sheinin mentions, that she was out of town on the day of shooting.  What she does not mention, that she left town 5 days earlier, namely, the day I was served the accusation of contempt of court (August 19, 1992) and the day Hogben first threatened my life.  She also does not tell, that all top brass of Concordia left the town on that day and were not in town on the day of shooting.  Chair of the Board of Governors Gervais resigned.  They all understood very well that they were playing with human lives, but it was O.K. with them, since they were playing with somebody else's life, not their own.

The show features secretary Claassen.  She looks pretty old now, but if you were in Montreal; 25 years ago, you could see her face on the X-rated movie posters.  Swamy hired her as a secretary, though she could not type at all.  She was sitting in a small room near Swamy's office, doing practically nothing the whole day.  The rumor was that Swamy was using her for sex in his office.  The moral of the university top brass was not very high: the female teacher, who I reported smoking in class, was a lover of Director of Continuing Education Potvin, so she feared nothing.  I was kicked out, she stayed at her teaching position, though doing no teaching.

We see Hogben showing me a perfectly normal letter, but I am so insane, that I get enraged by it and start shooting at Hogben.  Lie again - there was no letter.  It was planted by the police and it was planted in a pretty stupid manner.  In the show, it is clinched in Hogben's hand and soaked in blood; in the police photo, it is nicely folded on Hogben's chest, supported by 2 fingers.  Can you imagine, someone falling down and still managing to keep a nicely folded letter on his chest?

I knew this letter was not there, so I demanded to analyze it for my and Hogben's fingerprints.  I knew that my fingerprints could not possibly be there and I had my doubts about Hogben's fingerprints.  Corrupt judge Martin understood perfectly well, that it was a forgery, so he refused my request.  In addition, he did his best to contaminate the letter: he took it out from the plastic envelope and tried to pass it to the jury, so that jury's hands would contaminate it more.

I protested and demanded that he placed the letter back into the envelope.  It was perfectly readable through the envelope.  Finally, Martin complied.  Do you sincerely believe a judge could be really that stupid not to understand that evidence should not be contaminated?

The police certainly did not need to falsify evidence to prove that I shot these people: I did it in full view of everybody around and I never denied it.' So, why did they do it?  Government needed to demonstrate to the public, what triggered the shooting, and they did not want the public to know that I was deliberately provoked into shooting by the contempt of court accusation and Hogben's threats to my life, so they invented a non-existing letter, which they claimed to trigger the shooting.  Since an ordinary letter does not really trigger a shooting, so they needed to make me insane, and they did.

Never in prior life, even as a boy, I got into any kind of physical confrontation with anyone: I always run away.  I never went hunting or fishing.  Though I am not a vegetarian, I never killed even a fish for dinner.  I hate violence of any kind, never watched violent movies, never played computer games with violence.  When a person of this kind kills four human beings, something really terrible must have been done to him.
---

Do you still believe in God?

There are two groups of stupid people: those who are capable to at least understand that they are stupid and those are who are not capable to understand even that. The latest events provide a perfect test as to which group do you belong. Switch TV on, see the reports about tsunami and say aloud: “God loves Us”. If you feel stupid saying this, you belong to the first group, if not, you belong in the second.

One individual on TV said that God’s purpose was to show how generous, compassionate and helpful the rest of mankind would be in this situation. Well, using his logic, Hitler was doing God’s job: he created even more reasons for the rest of mankind to be all the above.

Numerous “respectable” people say that they are praying for the victims of tsunami. Praying to whom? Isn’t He the guy who killed all of them? And He did it on the day following the birthday of his alleged son.

Happy holidays!
---

About compassion

Some time ago, I have written a posting about corrupt judges of the Supreme Court, who effectively denied medical care to the autistic children.  There were responses for and against the judgment, but even those, who supported medical care, argued the monetary issues only, namely, it is less expensive to pay now, rather than paying much more later.  Not a single person mentioned compassion to autistic children and their parents as a valid reason to order provincial governments to pay for the treatment.

It is difficult even to imagine the level of despair of the parents, who see their beautiful and otherwise healthy child slipping away from them, part of the child's brain being damaged more and more with every passing day.  They know that they could stop and even reverse the brain damage, if they only had the money, and this exacerbate their anguish.

No government should be allowed to tell any afflicted child: "It is too expensive to treat you, so we are not paying".  Just reduce the amount of money politicians steal every day and there would be enough money for everything! There seems to be a misconception in public: they naively think that if they refuse to pay for something, their taxes will be reduced.  It never happens.  When government refuses to pay for something, the politicians and their cronies just steal more.

So, how did it happen that in a polite and compassionate country, like Canada, nobody mentioned compassion in the discussion of the autistic children case?  Because the so-called Canadian politeness and compassion are nothing, but a myth.  Canadians can very well fake both and this is why the myth persists.  Italians were deployed 2 days after the tsunami, without much talk about compassion; Canadians took 2 weeks just to talk about compassion.

One may say that Canada showed its compassion when I was accepted as a refugee.  This is what I thought upon arrival, but I realized very quickly that compassion was the last thing here.  I was accepted for 2 reasons: first, everyone from a Communist country was accepted, because it was deemed to harm Communism; second, they understood that they could use me for the cost of peanuts, and they did.  They never gave a damn about me.

Here are some well-known facts of Canadian politeness and compassion.  Children were physically and sexually abused in almost all boarding schools.  Children complained, but Canadians were too polite to pay attention and too compassionate toward the abusers to stop it.  Some law-abiding citizens staged a demonstration against police brutality and of course, they were brutalized by police.  Again, Canadians were too polite to notice and too compassionate toward the abusers to fire them all.

Only in Canada, the police is allowed to drive a child to outskirts of the city and kick him out of the car in winter, without proper footwear and clothing, knowing full well that would freeze to death.  Canadians are too polite to charge them with premeditated murder, claiming not enough evidence.  Well, there was much less evidence against Scott Peterson.  The fish smells from the top: when our Prime Minister was told that peaceful demonstrators were pepper-sprayed, he responded that pepper was something he put on his plate.

This is the Canada the world should know.
---

Bullets that pierced the heart of the nation?

When I heard these words on TV, I felt myself right back in the Soviet Union. What do you think they were talking about? Four ARMED RCMP officers were killed by just ONE individual.  These kinds of words were quite in use in the Soviet Union: all nation was always presumed to think like one man.  If something good happened to Communist Party or its Politburo, all nation rejoiced, in the opposite case, the heart of the nation was pierced.

Try to give yourself an honest answer to the question: did you feel your heart pierced, when you heard the news about the shooting?  I am sure that 99.9% of population would answer negatively.  Probably, 10% would feel saddened, yet another 15% would rejoice, the rest would not give a damn.  I belong to the group of saddened, because to me each news of this kind means that yet another human being was driven into despair, with a very tragic end.

Ask yourself yet another question: have you had any encounter with police and was it a pleasant one?  I bet 10 to one that this encounter was not a pleasant one.  I have little contact with police, I was never beaten up, so I have no personal animosity, but from what I see and hear, I have very little respect for these people.  My first encounter was upon arrival.  Two RCMP officers came and posed me a lot of questions about my life in USSR.  I dutifully answered.  Then, a year later, they came again and started asking exactly the same questions.  It became clear to me they were checking, whether I was telling the truth.  I told them to get out of my apartment and never to come again.  I called police once to complain on a noisy neighbour, having a loud party at 2 a.m. They came, but did nothing to stop noisy neighbour.  So much for protection of citizens.

There are 2 kinds of criminals: not very smart ones, who do not belong to any organized crime and for whom crime does not pay and the smart ones, who do belong to an organized crime, for them crime does pay.  Police is the best organized crime in the country.  They pray on both organized and individual crime.  Here is a typical example.  A drug dealer is standing on the corner trying to sell some drugs.  Police beats him up, takes his drugs and gives these drugs to a drug dealer of their own to sell.  They have license to assault, to rape, to kill, to sodomize with a broom, to leave a child in winter on the Outskirts of a city to freeze to death.  They get away with any crime.

Their mentality is also exactly the same as any other criminal: no matter what crime a policeman commits, nobody would testify against him, they are all brothers.  Any other organized crime behaves exactly the same: they are all brothers.  When one member of organized crime gets killed, all brothers from all over the world are coming to the funeral; the same with police.  This time, 11,000 brothers came from all over the world.  Guess who paid for all this?  You, taxpayer.  How much?  Even presuming a modest $1000 for the plane, hotel, food, etc. for each visitor, the bill comes to $11 MILLION.  Don't you think this kind of money could have been spent better?  If you asked families of killed cops, whether they would prefer to get $3 MILLION each instead of 11,000 "brothers" coming to the funeral, what do you think their response would be?

Let us call a spade a spade.  We have a case of 4 trained and armed people against one unprofessional guy and they could not defend even themselves - four against one.  They swore to protect people and they could not protect themselves, - how does this look to you?  In addition, 2 more cops were at the distance of 100m, they heard shots, understood perfectly well that their "brothers" were attacked.  Do you think they hurried to help their brothers?  Not at all, these cowards ran away, knowing full well that their "brothers" might be wounded and needed help.  They finally came back 6 or 8 hours later and found everybody dead.  How come we hear only superlative praises of everybody instead of the truth?

Just listen to any police press-conference, when they finally get someone.  They are the smartest, the bravest, the best.  The truth in each case is that they were the dumbest and the most incompetent.  Take the latest examples.  BTK was teasing police for over 30 years, he sent them word puzzles with his name and address in full view, they had a recording of his voice, his DNA, his name was mentioned in the list of possible suspects.  His daughter finally came to police and told them that her father was BTK, they took her DNA, it was almost match, only after that they finally realized that her father was indeed BTK.

Could police be more dumb and incompetent than that?  They had a list of suspects, try all for DNA and you get your man.  They did not.  Broadcast every day his voice, somebody would recognize him.  Look attentively at his word puzzle, his name and address was in full view.  The latest hunt for Nichols: police did not even bother to check the parking lot, searching the whole day for a green Honda, which never left the parking lot.  Do you think police finally found the car?  No, an ordinary citizen did.  Now, who found Nichols?  Again, an ordinary citizen did.  Nevertheless, Atlanta police gave the usual self-praising press-conference, they are the best, the most competent.

When you hear the word "Police", what comes to your mind?  Attack with dogs on peaceful demonstrators in Alabama, pepper-spraying students in British Columbia, severe beating of protesters in Quebec City or defending you from a criminal?  Pronounce the word "brutality" and ask yourself, with which word does it associate in your mind.  Is this word “police"?

Latest news about police. Two cops in New York were indicted of being hitmen for the Mafia. One policeman in Quebec City was arrested for violence and rape of women and children, which he managed to perpetrate for 30 years of his service. RCMP work was so bad that even a corrupt Canadian Judge had to acquit two accused in Air India trial. It did not prevent them though to state at a press conference just how proud they were of their work in this case, where they claimed to display top-notch professionalism.

Some time ago, 17 construction workers were killed, when a house under construction suddenly collapsed.  There was no national mourning, no speeches by the head of state, no 11,000 of construction workers from all over the world.  Whatever you see on this planet, was built by construction workers.  They are being killed at the rate of one every 8 hours.  If you wish to honor someone, honor construction workers, not the corrupt police.
---

Medical benefits of laughter

Researchers in Maryland claim to have established that after viewing a comedy, subjects increased the size of their arteries by 20%.  There is one snag here.  Each human body has a finite amount of blood.  If one artery increased its volume, another one should be reduced, otherwise we have a vacuum, which nature does not tolerate.  Now, the real question is: which arteries increased their volume and which decreased?

---

Does Dallaire deserve a medal?

Remember general Dallaire, who was in charge of UN forces in Rwanda in 1994, when about a million people were massacred?  He knew in advance about it.  He allegedly informed UN Secretary General and did not get any support, so he stood by, while thousands of innocent civilians were massacred around him.  He claimed that he did not have enough people to intervene and stop the murders.

He was a top military officer, who was sent to Rwanda to protect civilians there.  Here is the question: was it his duty to intervene and even die defending civilians there and was it a good excuse not to intervene, because he did not have enough forces and because his boss in UN ordered him not intervene?  First, the order not to intervene was illegal and immoral and Dallaire's duty was to disobey this order. Second, his job as a military commander is to defend innocent civilians, and if he had to die doing it, this is what he and his soldiers were obliged to do.

UN Secretary General, whose criminal negligence allowed a million people to be murdered, should spend the rest of his life in jail. We did not accept ordinary Nazis excuse that they just followed orders and we should not accept Dallaire's excuse as well.  Not only he should not be given any medal, but he should spend at least some time in jail for dereliction of duties.
---

Four RCMP officers killed

Media and politicians spend a lot of time paying tributes to "fallen heroes".  Nobody can though name a single heroic thing any of them did in their entire life.  The fact that one person, with no military training, has managed to kill 4 professionals means only one thing: they were also professionally incompetent.

We hear that Roszko had a long history of violence, he was convicted 12 times, though the longest sentence was less than 2 years for sexual assault of a young man.  What did he actually do, if all his sentences were so small?  We are told that he hated police, especially policemen coming to testify.  We know, that more often than not, a policeman comes to court and lies through his teeth.  Imagine, that he was falsely accused of sexual assault, would this then explain his extreme hatred towards police?

This is the main problem with all the media in this country: in "politically sensitive cases", we always hear one side of the story.  One thing is obvious: if someone hates you so much, that he is ready to kill himself in order to kill you, you must have done something very very wrong.
---

Few questions nobody asks

I have seen several interviews with Terri Schiavo's husband, where he proudly announced that all he did was fulfilling her wishes.  Each time, the TV host failed to ask him proper questions.  Here is what I would have asked him.

Question 1: you made an oath to be together in sickness and in health; have not you broken this oath by committing an adultery with another woman and by having children with her?

Question 2: do you think, Terri would divorce you because of your adultery?

Question 3: do you consider yourself a polygamist or an adulterer?

Question 4: would Terri want you now to be her guardian?

Question 5: if Terri knew, how upset her parents were, wouldn't she change her mind and decide to stay alive, just out of respect and compassion for her parents?  I know, I would stay for as long, as my parents would have needed me - this is the least I can do to repay my parents for all they had done for me.

Question 6: if medical science will discover tomorrow means to cure or improve mental status of people like Terri, would not you regret killing her?

More than a half of marriages end up in divorce; I don't think there is even one percent of bad parents, who can not be trusted.  It seems to me totally astounding that the law designates a spouse, rather than parents, to be a default guardian.  Parents are the only people on the planet, who would never betray you, while a spouse often becomes your worst enemy.

US house and Senate had to adopt a totally different law, namely, a spouse, committing an adultery, loses the guardianship rights; in addition, the rules of evidence should be changed: where no written will exists and there is no unanimity between a spouse and immediate family (parents, siblings, children), the error should go in favor of life.  And for sure, a testimony of a husband, who sleeps with another woman and has children with her, should be disregarded.

Yet another thing nobody discusses: would Terri really wanted to die of thirst and hunger?  If this was such an easy death, there would be no fight for an assisted suicide: everybody can kill himself by refusing to eat or drink.  This is what I would want, should I become incapacitated: I want to die quickly and painlessly, with all my usable organs donated, and if my whole body can be used somewhere, I do not really need to be buried somewhere.  We have so many people in need of kidneys, livers, etc.  I would be delighted, if my death could save one or more lives, and so, probably would Terri.

I am pretty sure, at this place some sarcastic idiot would write that I am a bloody murderer and that I should be the last person to talk about saving lives.  Don't waste your time, idiot.  There is no contradiction here: I killed four people, who belonged to a gang, which threatened my life. All my life I wanted to do good, I loved mankind and I still do.

---

What has to happen, will happen???

After the shooting at the school in Minnesota, we saw on numerous occasions a native representative saying that there was nothing they could do to prevent the shooting and that "if something has to happen, it will happen, no matter what we do".  Bloody liar! If there is something totally preventable, it is this kind of shooting. Just stop abusing children at school.

Zero tolerance should be not to "threats", but to bullies.  Kick them out of school.  All children should feel themselves safe at school and should be treated with respect.  No security guard and no surveillance camera would be of any use, when someone decides to commit a suicide and to take some of his abusers with him.  The boy in Minnesota certainly would prefer to continue living, if it were not for bullies, who made his life living hell.  Everybody saw the abuse and did not move a finger to stop it - well, they got exactly what they deserve.  Learn the lesson, and if you don't, you will get it again.
---

Jane Fonda spits at herself

Jane Fonda wrote a book.  She wants to sell it, so she is ready to humiliate herself without limit, as long as she thinks that this humiliation would help her to get couple of additional bucks.  She is appearing at every show imaginable, apologizing for the best things, of which any normal person would only be proud.

The most humiliating was her interview on "60 Minutes".  She was just desperate to be "politically correct".  Stahl played a clip, where young Fonda declared that US government had no right to bomb Vietnam civilians; today's Fonda commented that she wanted to say "to this girl to shut up".  WOW!  This was the time she should have been the most proud of herself, instead she spits at herself.  So pathetic.

Then Stahl reminds Fonda of her radio transmissions to US pilots, asking them to consider the devastating results of their bombing of civilians.  Stahl asks, whether Fonda in fact advised US pilots to disobey their orders, and again Fonda almost apologizes, saying that she just asked them "to consider", rather than to disobey.  She should have responded that US pilots were committing crimes against humanity and it was their duty to disobey criminal orders and yes, she very strongly advised them to do Just that.  She should have also mentioned that over 400 of top Israeli pilots had the courage to publicly disobey their orders some time ago.

The next clip shows Fonda's very modest living conditions at that time.  Fonda describes that she gave away almost all her money to the organizations fighting the war in Vietnam.  She makes some disparaging comments about herself, instead of being most proud.  Oprah does not give even 10% of the money she makes to support her causes.

Last, but not least, Stahl plays the clip, where Fonda is sitting at the gun used to shoot down US pilots and Fonda starts apologizing the most, saying that it was such a lapse in Judgment, that she looked like she was betraying her country, she did not mean it and she was oh so sorry.  She should have instead explained that her country is neither the criminal US government, nor the soldiers committing crimes against humanity.  She should have said that these soldiers deserved death penalty and this is why she supported Vietnam soldiers shooting down US soldiers while defending their civilians.

Imagine a famous German actress during Second Word War speaking against Hitler, entertaining US soldiers, participating in radio transmissions, urging German soldiers to disobey their orders, sitting at the gun used to shoot at German soldiers, would you dare to say that this actress was betraying Germany?  I bet, no, you would call her a German patriot and you would be right: Marlene Dietrich was a German patriot, and young Jane Fonda was an American patriot.

In one movie, Fonda played a prostitute; she is now a real life prostitute, selling her soul for a couple of bucks, which she does not really need.  So sad.
---

About Pope

When Pope died, many TV stations went on almost 24 hours Pope-only everything, as if there was nothing else happening anywhere.  We were told, ad nausea, all the details of his life (and it was quite unremarkable), if Pope kissed this or that child during his papacy, we were shown each one of them and each was asked, how did her life changed due to the meeting with Pope.

One girl was especially hounded: someone decided that she was the angel sent by God to save Pope's live.  Why?  Because the guy, who shot the Pope, said that the girl somehow distracted him.  Nobody can figure out, that God is almighty, if he wanted to save Pope, he could simply deflect the bullet completely away from the Pope or Just to kill the assailant then and there, before he had any opportunity to shoot.  To use a girl was the stupidest thing to do: the girl could have been killed too.

The fact of Pope's survival is interpreted as God loving him.  Would you like to have someone love you enough Just not to kill you completely?  Does not it look more like not hating you enough to have you killed?  Would you say that God adored Pope, if he did not allow assassination attempt to take place at all?

Pope is widely credited for dismantling Communism in Poland.  One may be credited with something, if without him the thing would not happen.  Communism disappeared all over the Europe; is there any reason to think, that Communism would disappear in, say, Albania, but not in Poland?  Of course not, because the person, who single-handedly dismantled Communism, was Gorbachov.  Even if Pope never existed, Communism would have disappeared.  In addition, people, who knew Pope back in Kracow, claim that he was quite cooperative with the Communist government.

Pope is praised for apologizing for persecution of Jews.  This is a positive thing, but is not it too little and too late?  Imagine a new head of Nazi party decides to apologize for Holocaust, would anyone say: "OK, let us forget everything and embrace Nazis"?  I bet no.  Hitler was in power for 12 years.  The crimes of Catholic Church lasted well over 1000 years.  For example, in 1492, they decided to expel all Jews from Spain, unless the Jews convert to Christianity.  Have no mistake, exactly as Nazis later, it was Just a money-making operation: Church got all the possessions of the Jews they killed, as well as the real estate of the Jews they kicked out of country.  Nazis had good teachers.

Germany paid reparations to the victims and their descendants; should not Catholic Church do the same?  Words are cheap.  Even Swiss banks were forced to return money taken from Jews.  Is not it time to investigate all Vatican's assets and to force Pope to return what his predecessors robbed from the Jews, which they killed?

Catholic Church invented the following test whether a woman was a witch: the woman was thrown into a pond; if she drowned, she was not a witch and she was to be buried as a good Christian; if she swam, she was a witch and she was to be burned alive.  Can you imagine a sadistic Catholic priest, who invented this test?  Why did Catholic Church burn people alive?  Here is their explanation: they did not want to spill human blood.  Sounds quite humanistic, doesn't it?

Nazis were declared a criminal organization; the crimes of Catholic Church are much more heinous and were committed over a much longer time span, - it should also be declared a criminal organization.  For Nazis, killing people was a money-making enterprise; Catholic Church took a great pleasure of elaborate torturing of people, in addition to making money from killing them.  Though they no longer torture and burn people alive, they are still committing heinous crimes of child molestation and do their best in covering-up their crimes.

If you compare Catholic Church to any other religious organization, it has committed more crimes, that all others taken together.  Catholic Church is the only one, which had the Inquisition, infamous for burning alive the best and the brightest; it is the only one, which invented a whole arsenal of instruments of torture; it is the only one, which behaves as an independent state; it has its own mercenary army, its own police, its own banks and prints its own money.

The Church is run as a business and the main purpose is making money.  All their restrictions, like prohibition of contraceptives, prohibition of priests to marry, etc., have one purpose – making more money.  Indeed, Catholic families breed more Catholics (more money to the church); celibate priests would not leave their possessions to their children (more money for the church).  It was proudly announced that Pope had no personal possessions, as if this attested to his honesty and integrity.  Wow, both Lenin and Stalin had no personal possessions.  They did not need it: they owned the whole country, and so did Pope.

Pope was often speaking about poor, hungry, etc.  Pope can allocate BILLIONS to whatever cause he wishes, he did not allocate any.  Words are cheap.  The reason is very simple: poverty, hunger and misfortune are the main factors, which drive people to God and into the Church.  Happy and well-fed people do not need God.  Religion is most prevalent in underdeveloped countries.  Pope understood it very well and this is why he did nothing to actually fight poverty.

Pope was also credited with building bridges to other religions.  Indeed, he had several meetings with religious leaders of other faiths.  Let us look deeper into it.  Pope signed a document stating that one can get to paradise only through belief in Jesus.  He was effectively saying to Jews and Muslims: "Though we believe in the same God, you are doing it in a wrong manner, so you will never go to heaven, no matter, how righteous your life is." Had God really existed, don't you think that he would somehow let us know, which is the right religion (if any)?

Other religious leaders knew about Pope's position, so why did they agree to meet Pope?  I do not know much about other religious leaders, but all the rabbis I met were low-life crooks.  Meeting Pope was a good PR exercise and an excellent photo opportunity, and so it was for the Pope.  Did these meetings achieve anything?  The murderous hatred between representatives of 3 major religions is as strong as ever and it looks like majority still do not realize that they worship the same God.  Stupid, isn’t it?

We were shown huge crowds greeting Pope, as if this proves, how good he was.  Regretfully, huge crowds greeted Hitler as well.  If this phenomenon proves anything, it proves that masses are very poor judges of human integrity.  Pope was an actor in the past and he continued his act in his capacity as Pope: all the tricks, like kissing the ground on arrival, kissing children from the crowd are nothing, but acting.  The proof is obvious: Just ask what he actually did for the children of the world.  Practically, not much.

Just look at his reaction to world-wide child molestation by his priests.  Cardinal Law knew perfectly well, what his priests were doing and instead of calling police, he transferred criminal priests to new parishes, where unsuspected children were jeopardized again. Anybody else would have been in Jail for obstruction of Justice and criminal negligence, not Cardinal Law. He resigned in Boston and that was the end of his punishment.  Was the Pope outraged?  Not at all: Law is still a Cardinal, Pope gave him one of the top Rome churches and he will choose the next pope.  Not bad at all!

The media repeated many times that people were waiting 12-14 hours Just to have a glimpse of Pope's body, thus again instilling in us the feeling of Pope's goodness and greatness.  The media just forgot about the size of crowds to see Lenin or Stalin.  It was not in warm Rome, it was in icy-cold Moscow.  Many cried, some were just hysterical, as if they lost their father, and it was all quite sincere.  I was 13 years old, when Stalin died, and I saw it all with my own eyes.  All these crowds and grief prove one thing only: majority of people are plain stupid.

It was reported that Pope ordered all his papers to be burned after his death.  As a comparison, Archimede allegedly asked the soldier, who came to kill him, just not to destroy his drawings.  Archimede correctly thought that his drawings were important for the mankind.  Pope is described as a poet and a great intellectual.  If this was so, would not he have wanted his papers to be conserved and studied by the generations to come?  One can also presume that Pope's papers contained records of some dishonest dealings.  The fact, that another pope made a similar order, does not change the perception of dishonesty, which such an order creates.

Last, but not least: Pope ruined an excellent opportunity to save millions of people.  All he had to do was to make a will that upon his death all his usable organs be used to save other people.  Thousands of people are dying every day due to lack of organs.  While alive, Pope never said a word in favor of organ donation and he missed a great opportunity in his death.  Had he done it, people would follow his example and shortage of organs would be the thing of the past.  The best death for me – being able to save somebody else's life.  I do not need to be buried or cremated: I would prefer that my whole body was used to benefit somebody else.
---

New elections

Recent poll shows that almost 70% of Canadians understand that all political parties are dishonest, nevertheless, when support for Liberals goes down, support for other parties grows.  Why?  Why would you want to replace one crook by another crook?  Every political party is a very well organized crime; they come to power for one purpose only: to rob and pillage the country.  In the past 30 years, it was done repeatedly by both Liberals and Conservatives.  Is not it time to say: "Enough is enough"?

Back in 1994, Cameron published a book "On the take", where she described Mulroney's corruption.  She was a hired gun.  The essence of the book is: Conservatives are bad, Liberals are good.  The first part is correct and I recommend to all those willing to switch to Conservatives to read this book.  In my review of the book (http://geocities.com/benny_patrick/postings3.html), I predicted that Liberals will show themselves as crooks and thieves, as they are, and I was right.

So, what to do, when all political parties are crooks?  The answer is obvious to me, but it seems that Canadians still do not get it.  Vote independent.  Kick professional politicians out of politics.  People in North-Western Territories did it, it is time for the rest of Canada to catch-up.
---

Operation Falcon

US Attorney General and US marshals have launched a public relations blitz.  They called it "operation Falcon".  The claim to catch 10,000 fugitives in dust one day.  Their purpose was to impress the public in order to get more money.  Should you be impressed?  Ten thousand represent just 1% of the total of 1 MILLION fugitives presently in US.

There are two options here: one, US marshals do their job and arrest fugitives as soon, as they get relevant information.  If this is so, then why don't they take 100 days and arrest all the fugitives?  The second option: US marshals do NOT do their job, they had this information long ago and did nothing, until they decided to impress the public by arresting 10,000 fugitives in one day.  Now, which option do you think is correct?
---

Do monarchs serve?

Media refers to prince Reinier as "the longest serving monarch" in Europe.  Since when monarchs are "serving"?  And serving who?  To the best of my recollection, monarchs were always "ruling".  On the other hand, politicians are always calling themselves public servants and claim to be serving public.  Do they?  Of course, not, the only thing they are doing is robbing public purse and filling their pockets.  So, if we are allowing politicians to lie to us about their "service", why wouldn't we allow the monarchs to do the same?
---

Face the truth, Martin

Martin in his speech to the nation apologized for MISUSED and MISDIRECTED money.  Wow!  Really?  Misdirected?  Just slightly deviated from the direction, where the money were supposed to go?  Hey, Martin, why don't you start telling the truth for a change?  The truth is: the money were STOLEN.  Got it, Martin?
---

Do we need new elections?

We hear time and again, that Liberals have lost moral right to govern this country, therefore, we need new elections.  I have a surprise for you: Liberals never had any moral, so they could not lose, what they never had.  Whenever they were in government, it was an unending stealing, with a final crescendo of Turner making all those "friendly" appointments.

On the other hand, all those talking about new elections do not mention one little detail: who is going to replace Liberals?  All indicators point to Conservatives.  Do THEY have moral right to govern this country?  Remember Mulroney and his proud: "You had the choice!" to Turner?  Well, he and his Conservatives were the greatest thieves this country has known.  So, we do not need new elections, if all we want to do, is to kick out old thieves and replace them with new, even more dishonest and much more arrogant thieves.

Unless and until the general public understands that “professional politician" = "thief ", every election will Just replace one organized crime (political party) by another gang of thieves.  It is time to kick all professional politicians out of politics and elect all Independents.
---

About Gomery inquiry

The Liberal government has stolen about $250 MILLION and gave it to its friends.  They got caught red-handed and decided to spend yet another $120 MILLION of taxpayer money on Gomery inquiry.  They pretend, they do not know how it happened.  Check out the lawyers who will get most of this money; can you guess who they are?  Gomery inquiry is nothing, but continuation of stealing and stupid Canadians do not seem to get it.

It was Martin who appointed Gomery.  Chretien and Martin are the main thieves at the top.  Do you think Martin will appoint someone who might expose him or Chretien?  I assure you that when Gomery delivers his "scathing" (this is the cliche media always use) report, both Chretien and Martin will be completely exonerated, exactly as top American generals were recently exonerated of Abu-Ghraib abuse.  This is why Martin begs the public to wait for Gomery's report.

The widely reported attempts of Chretien's lawyer to remove Gomery from the inquiry is nothing, but public relations exercise.  Chretien's exoneration by Gomery will look more convincing in the light of "public quarrel" between them.

They say that Gomery inquiry will assure that this kind of stealing will not be repeated.  Well, I can tell you how to stop stealing for free: establish a rule, that any company, which contributed money to a political party, should NOT be eligible for government contract, as long as this party is in power.

A little arithmetics to better understand, what kind of money is being wasted by Gomery.  There are about 250 working days in a year.  If you divide $120 MILLION by 250, you get $480,000 wasted EVERY DAY.  The money wasted in just one week can buy a good MRI machine, together with one-year maintenance cost.  As far as I know, the whole province of Quebec has only 2 MRI machines.  The initially stolen $250 MILLION could buy over 100 MRI machines.  Government does not have money to buy MRI machines, but it had no problem finding yet another $120 MILLION to waste, knowing full well that this inquiry will not recover a penny of the already stolen money.

Are you really that stupid people that you allow this nonsense to continue?
---

Sponsorship scandal

It is astounding, how much time and energy is being spent on the sponsorship scandal and Gomery inquiry.  The latest estimation of the inquiry cost is $200 MILLION.  Now, what idiot would find it necessary to spend $200 MILLION to find out, how $250 MILLION were stolen, without recovering a penny?

The funny part though, $250 million constitutes only a small portion of the total stolen money.  Some of it we do know, for example, $2 BILLION were stolen on firearms registry.  I use the word "stolen", rather then "spent", because there is no way one can actually SPEND this amount, say, by buying necessary equipment, salaries and external contracts.  For example, you can hire 20 THOUSAND employees and pay them $100 THOUSAND each for this money.  I do not think, they need even 100 employees.  Remember, initial cost estimation for the whole registry was couple of millions.  Do you believe, one could make a 100,000% error?

It was reported back in May that the commission counsel Roy accumulated over $1 MILLION of salary.  Let us do some arithmetics.  The hearings started in September of 2004 and by May he worked less than 180 days.  If you divide 1,000,000/180, he was paid over $5,500 per day, which comes to almost $700 per hour.  Not bad, isn't it?  Now, a good question to ask is: why would anyone agree to pay this kind of salary?  The answer is obvious: the government is buying him off, so that he would do his best to whitewash all major criminals: Chretien, Martin and alike.

Gomery was appointed to the court in 1982 by Trudeau, so he is a Liberal appointee, and this is why he was chosen as a commissioner.  Is not it obvious that government should not be allowed to appoint the so-called "independent" commissioner?  Opposition should do that.  The next good question is: how much Gomery himself is being paid?  And you already know why.
---

Koran desecration

Media has reported that guards at Guantanamo flashed Koran into a toilet in full view of prisoners.  Reporters claim that this was done to exert pressure on prisoners, so that they would start giving out important information.  Now, how stupid one must be to imagine that a devoted Muslim would disclose anything to a person, who desecrated Koran?  The only thing a devoted Muslim would to do is to kill the offender, nothing else.

The real reason for Koran desecration was not to get information from prisoners.  Guards at Guantanamo are scoundrels, but they are not stupid.  They did it for one reason only: to provoke prisoners into violent reaction, so that they would have an excuse to beat them into pulp.  This is what Canadian guards are doing on a regular basis.  I saw on numerous occasions guards provoking prisoners just to have an excuse to beat them up.

Don't believe corrupt media; use common sense.
---

War like no other

You may bet that every day the first words of news from Iraq would mention a new car bombing.  Nobody seems to notice that in the whole history of mankind, you can not recall anything even close to this situation.  There were some suicide bombers in Israel, but it does not happen there even once a month.  In Iraq, it is every day.  What is so unusual about it?  Well, you have to have a car, then you have to have a supply of explosives, then you need to have information on when and where a US convoy would go or Iraqi police would congregate.  Last, but not least, you need to have a human being ready to kill himself.  How exactly do they manage all this?  The only way this could happen - vast majority of the local population supports it.

This war remind me of another one: against Hitler. Russian people has a lot in common with Iraquis: they were also brutalized by a dictator and they allowed it with little or no resistance.  Some even welcomed Hitler upon invasion, but very soon the whole population raised against the invaders.  Exactly the same, as Iraqis, their target were collaborators, they called them "polizai".  They were hated more, than Germans and they were exterminated whetever possible.

Russian Resistance called themselves “partizans"; they infiltrated German institutions by pretending to be collaborators and then channeled important information back to "partizans" in the surrounding forests, which helped them to organize attacks on Germans and real collaborators.  It is absurd to presume that Zarquawi is the one who coordinates all the attacks.  He is no more responsible than Stalin was for coordinating "partizans".  Russian people raised against invaders and they did their fight locally the best they could.  Even if you kill Zarquawi tomorrow, nothing will change: attacks on Americans and their collaborators will not slow down.

American administration (with the help of corrupt media) is trying to convince the public that it is the foreigners, who blow themselves up, while local Iraqis love and support Americans.  Come on, a foreigner has to cross the border, bring with him a car full of explosives, pass through all check points to Baghdad, get information on the place and timing of a US convoy and get there.  This can not be done without help of local population, which can very easily spot a foreigner and report him to authorities.  Obviously, they do not do it: we did not hear of a single case of such an apprehension.

On the other hand, if foreigners really play a significant role in the insurgency, this brings yet another parallel from the history: civil war in Spain against Fascists of General Franco.  There were international brigades, people were coming from all over the world to fight fascism.  Hemingway was one of them.

As Hitler completely did not understand Russian mentality, so Bush does not understand Iraqis and American people will be the one, who will pay dearly for all this.
---

Support the troops??

I do understand those, who support the war in Iraq, when they say that they support the troops.  I do not understand the people opposing the war, who still say that they support the troops.  It sounds to me like: "I am against torture, but I support torturers; I am against rape, but I support rapists."

Who would join the army voluntarily, when country as such is not in any danger?  Let us call a spade a spade: majority of them are good for nothing human garbage.  These are the people, who enjoys killing other people and who wants to do it with impunity; the army is the best place for them.  What is the main subject taught in the army?  It is how to kill more people most effectively in the shortest time possible.  Let us face it: the real profession of every soldier is killer.  It is OK to kill, when it is done in self-defense, it is not OK otherwise.

Kennedy was asked recently whether American soldiers died in vain in Iraq.  He responded negatively, starting that he had great respect and admiration for them.  The reporter failed to ask, what was the point for them to die?  They were not defending Americans, Iraq never threatened or did anything hostile against US, so what are they doing there?  Restoring democracy?  Iraq was not the worst place imaginable: millions of innocent people are being displaced in Sudan, hundreds of thousands are being killed and raped.  Why aren't Americans there?  Could oil have something to do with it?
---

About freedom

I have noticed a peculiar thing about the word "freedom": it was used by Nazis in their concentration camps and by Americans in theirs.  The gates of Auschwitz read: "Arbeit macht frei", the gates of Guantanamo reads: "Honor bound to defend freedom".  Goebbels is turning in his grave, green of envy.
---

About security certificates

Life with time reveals the true nature of a human being.  Many years ago, present Minister of Justice Cotler was fighting (or claiming to have fought) for political freedoms in the USSR.  He denounced the breaches of fundamental human rights there.  I noticed that many people like fighting for human rights anywhere, but in their own country.  It is so much safer.

The true nature of Cotler is being revealed now, when he is a Minister of Justice: he is now doing things much worse than those he denounced so vehemently in the USSR.  I am talking about so-called security certificates.  This is a document, which a Minister of Justice signs and which claims that a certain individual is a threat to national security.

The person, mentioned in this certificate is being jailed, while court reviews this certificate.  The person has no right to know, what exactly is in this certificate, except of general phrases like him being connected to Al-Qaida, etc.  How can anyone defend himself, without knowing in detail, what he is being accused of?

If you are a pedophile, who raped, tortured and killed a little girl, you are entitled to know every little detail in the prosecution file, and this is correct, because you are presumed innocent.  If you are a big mafioso and the prosecutor did something improper, you might even go free, even though you have committed the crime (remember the case of importation of tons of marijuana?)

Why should not the same rules be applied to the so-called terror suspects?  After all, even Cotler admits, that these people have committed no crime, Cotler says that they MIGHT commit a crime.  Should this be enough to keep someone in jail?  Not according to the Charter of Rights.  It states clearly that everyone has the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest, be tried by jury of his peers or be released.

Cotler says that he can not reveal the information about the so-called terror suspect, because it was obtained from a foreign government on the condition of confidentiality and might damage future investigations.  Well, too bad, then you have to release the suspect due to lack of evidence, as you do in all other cases.  You can not have one law, say, for a rapist and another law for a terror suspect.  This is what the democracy is all about.

Now, can an individual be a threat to "national security"?  This term means that the whole nation is in danger, Canada might be conquered, loose its independence, the government be overturned by force.  Can a single person or a group of persons do it?  Of course, not.  British courts have lately had the courage to admit it.  The corrupt Canadian judges are still shamelessly breaching the Charter and supporting the government.

So, what is the government supposed to do, when they receive information from a foreign government, which they can not reveal and which states that a certain individual is very dangerous and might commit a crime?  The same thing they would have done with respect to any other suspect: if they have enough open information to convict him, do it, otherwise place him under 24-hour surveillance and wait until you get enough information to convict.  This is what distinguishes the so-called free countries from the totalitarian ones.  Old USSR was much safer than contemporary Russia, but it does not look like majority of its population wants to go back to Communism.

Shame on you, Cotler!
---

Advertising tricks

Medical crooks do not cease to amaze me with their ingenuity.  Recently, some dermatologists did the following trick to scare people into buying the sun blockers.  They came to a beach and offered the sun-baders to make their pictures in a normal light and . in ultra-violet light.  In a normal light the faces looked smooth, in ultra-violet light the faces looked all in dots, which the dermatologists claimed as evidence of the sun damage to the skin.  The people were so impressed that started buying sun-blockers in groves.

Nobody bothered to ask some very simple questions.  First, here is my ass, which is never exposed to sun, let us make a picture to see whether the dots will be there.  Second, the end of any nose even to a naked eye looks like the most damaged place, while in ultra-violet light there were almost no dots there, why?  Third, what is the evidence that those dots indicate a damage to the skin?  I noticed a lot of dots on my skin, they are called pores and they have nothing to do with damage.  Could it be that the dots we see are just that - pores?

In general, what is the evidence that the skin cancer is caused by the sun?  White people have more skin cancer, than black and there are more incidence of skin cancer in the South, than in the North.  On the other hand, skin cancer often appears on the parts of body, which are never exposed to sun.  Why?  Less than 10,000 people die from skin cancer in US each year.  To place this in proper perspective, people in US are 10 times more likely to be killed in a hospital due to a medical error or twice as likely to be shot to death by a gun.

People are now spending billions on the so-called sun blockers, trying to save themselves from something, which does not threaten them at all: out of 300 sun-baders, 299 never get skin cancer.  If the sun was really responsible for skin cancer, should not the number be much greater?  Last, but not least: if sun were the cause of skin cancer, introduction of sun blockers would have significantly reduced the cases of skin cancer.  Since it is claimed that it takes many years to develop a skin cancer, it would be quite long before anything can be proven.  Here is my prediction: sun blockers will have no effect on the incidence of skin cancer.
---

Pants on fire

Cheney recently said that the insurgency in Iraq is in its last throes, while Rumsfeld said that the insurgency will be certainly defeated, but it might take between 5 and 12 years.  What makes people stupid liars, is that they lie in such a way that exposes the other one as a liar.  If the insurgency is in its last throes, it is about to end, if not tomorrow, then next week or month.  On the other hand, if it is to last at least 5 years, it means that we did not see even a half of it.  Interesting though that no reporter had the guts to confront either Cheney or Rumsfeld with this contradiction.
---

Sick, sick nation

It has been a number of days that the news number one in the media was Homolka.  Scientists have smashed a probe into a comet, trying to discover the origins of the universe.  This can not possibly be the news number one: Homolka is more important.  Thousands of people are being raped and killed in Africa, this can not possibly be the news number one, Homolka is more important.  Thousands of people are homeless right here in Canada, this can not possibly be a subject for the news at all, Homolka is more important.  Hundreds of people are dying waiting for an organ transplant; the media can not spend airtime to publicize their plight for organ donation, they are too busy camping day after day at Saint-Anne-Des-Plaines to catch a glimpse of Homolka, when she gets out of jail.  Sick, sick, sick nation!

One may ask, why am I saying "sick nation", instead of saying "sick media".  Because these media reflect the nation. They would not do it, if there was a general outrage against their behavior. It does not look like there was a storm of phone calls from the public outraged by the media waiting for Homolka day after day even the dumb lawyer for the victims families did not express any outrage at their behavior. I have not heard of a single citizen to stop by the media to slap at least one reporter across the face to tell him to wake up and to stop denigrating himself.  Sick, sick, sick nation!

Imagine a mother, who has a child sick with leukemia and this child might die, unless a compatible donor of bone marrow is found.  Suppose, this mother comes to Radio-Canada and asks for a 5-minutes interview to make a public appeal for a donor.  I bet she would be refused.  The same Radio-Canada has found many times 5-minutes to air an interview with Homolka.  Their English counterpart (CBC) spent time and money to translate it into English and to re-broadcast it SEVERAL TIMES, as if there was something important in it.  After this re-broadcast, there was an interview with the reporter, who did the interview.  She was beaming with pride: she got a scoop, an exclusive interview.  At the end, her English counterpart congratulated her with a "remarkable interview".  Sick, sick, sick nation!

We know by now that every media has asked Homolka for an interview and she had quite a choice.  My little brain can not comprehend, why would they want an interview with her.  What interesting or important could possibly come out of it?  We know that Bernardo videotaped the rapes.  I am sure Homolka's face appears at least for a second on these tapes.  This face could tell us, whether she was a terrified co-victim (as she claimed) or a willing participant.  It would make sense for a reporter to show this part of the tape and ask Homolka to comment.  This did not happen.  The whole interview was a sweet-sweet, god-forbid-to-offend talk.  Radio-Canada proudly claimed that they did not pay to Homolka, but I am sure, with such a competition, her lawyers were in a position to dictate, which questions would be acceptable and which would not.  Sick, sick, sick nation!

I foresee that some dumbhead, who does not know my story, would write that I killed 4 innocent people, while Homolka participated in murder of only 2, so I should be the last person on this planet to comment on the subject.  The truth is that I have not harmed a single innocent person.  Use common sense: why would I kill 4 innocent people in full view of everybody?  Only a totally insane person could do this and I have never been insane.

If one wants to draw an analogy, I could equate myself with one of Homolka's victims, who had courage to kill the abusers, and this is what I did, when I was threatened and deliberately provoked.  Though I was not physically tortured and raped, moral torture was no less painful and no less devastating: my abusers gave me a heart attack, which almost killed me at the age of 51. I still remember their gleeful faces: they were so happy that I had a heart attack, my face was green and I could hardly walk - such a success for them!  They expected me to die any day and their happiness just could not wait.

Though the media did its best to equate me to people like Olson or Bernardo, prisoners understand the difference very well.  While Homolka had to spend most of her jail time in a solitary confinement for her protection, I am very well respected by majority of prisoners, and this is despite numerous attempts by jailers to incite prisoners to kill me. They were never successful in this and I doubt they would ever be.  Prisoners understand very well the moral chasm between those who kill innocent people for pleasure and people who kill their abusers in self-defense.
---

Some arithmetics for Billy Graham

Billy Graham has declared on numerous occasions, how he could not wait to see God and be with God.  If he is right that there is only one God and that everyone dead had to see God after death, here is some arithmetics.  At least 50 million people die every year, which means less than a second interval between deaths.  If God treats everybody equally, then Billy is up to disappointment: he will have less than second with God.  Is this something to wait whole life for?

I have an even greater disappointment for him: there is no God and there has never been one.