RSS

The Mainstreaming Of Circus Freaks

Will S.:

The TERFs won’t like such ‘cat-trans’ moving in on their ‘crazy cat lady’ territory. ;) (Hat tip.)

BTW, I notice it has an Om symbol on its left arm. It may want to research hijras and learn how they’re treated in India; most are whores for pervs who like tits with dicks. So much for Hindus being ostensibly ‘enlightened’… Another confused Millennial hipster twit, just like that other tranny who waved a Commie flag and dressed in a commie uniform (like they’d accept it).

Originally posted on Goodbye, America (in a photo):

The hideous details. Gotta love the nonconformity, too. A cat tattoo? How predictable.

View original

 

Obvious Things

Originally posted on Uncouth Reflections:

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

ChestertonIn the red circle of the desert, in the dark and secret place, the prophet discovers the obvious things. I do not say it merely as a sneer, for obvious things are very easily forgotten; and indeed every high civilisation decays by forgetting obvious things.

— G.K. Chesterton, “The New Jerusalem”

charles-bukowski-hulton-gettythe important
thing
is
the obvious
thing
that
nobody
is
saying

— Charles Bukowski, “Always”

View original

 
6 Comments

Posted by on August 2, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Ni Lampedusa, ni Bruxelles, être Européen!

An inspiring European reactionary video (hat tip: Sanne):

 
10 Comments

Posted by on July 31, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Jihad vs. McWorld, all-female edition

Speaking of fanatic Muslim women being violent against other women, here’s yet another case of Jihad in France:

A 21-year-old French woman was allegedly attacked by a group of Islamist women for wearing a bikini in a public park in France.

Protesters responded with a bikini rally in the park named Léo Lagrange in Reims, northern France, to express their outrage about the incident. Hundreds more took to social media using the hashtag #JePorteMonMaillotAuParcLeo, which means I wear my swimsuit to Park Leo, causing the hashtag to go viral.

The young woman, Angelique Sloss, was sunbathing with two friends at the park when she was allegedly set upon by a gang of five young women between the ages of 16 to 24 years old.

All the attackers have since been arrested and are scheduled to appear in court later this year. The oldest three women — Ines Nouri, Zohra Karim and Hadoune Tadjouri — are set to appear in court in September.

Authorities say the attackers were from a largely Muslim housing estate.

The incident began when one of the Muslim women allegedly shouted at Sloss for acting “immorally” by wearing a swimsuit in public. Sloss responded and the women began slapping and punching her.

A passerby eventually broke up the attack. The bikini protest and campaign was organized by an anti-racism organization called SOS Racisme in France.

Well, at least none of the women in question were topless

Women and men joined the campaign and have taken photos of themselves wearing swim suits in public parks and beaches and posted them on Twitter to show their support.

One Twitter user wrote: “All women are free to wear what they want, and no one can decide for them.”

{Sigh} No; that should not be the argument; the argument should be that aliens from an alien culture should not try to impose their ways on us; and moreover, we ought not to let such aliens in, in the first place.

Idiots…

While many in France assumed the attack was religiously-motivated, the Mayor of Reims, Arnaud Robinet, said: “We have to be very careful not to jump to conclusions. All the same, I can understand why people have assumed that this attack had religious motives. If that turns out to be the case, it is a very serious incident.”

Ah, of course it was religiously motivated! What else motivated the Muslim young women to attack the Western woman? (They are of course much more devout than their topless Ontarian counterparts, which I suppose is somewhat commendable…)

Dhimmi twit, just like other progs elsewhere

 

ISIS Beheads Woman as Sick Wedding Present for Rival, Says Defector

“Bring me the head of… that bitch!”, basically.

And so, the manly men of IS do one woman’s bidding against another… {/sarcasm}

It’s funny; Team Woman only goes so far; even in the absence of Team Her Man, a woman will still see other women as rivals, and plot against them… :)

 

Federal Court Rules Pharmacy Must Stock Morning-After Pill Despite Religious Beliefs

Federal Court Rules Pharmacy Must Stock Morning-After Pill Despite Religious Beliefs.

Incredible.

SEATTLE, Wash. — A federal appeals court has ruled that a pharmacy in Washington state must stock the morning after-pill despite the owner’s beliefs that the item is an abortifacient and thus contrary to his religious beliefs.

As previously reported, in 2006, Ralph’s Thriftway owner, Kevin Stormans, received a call inquiring whether the location sold the morning-after pill. After replying that the pharmacy did not carry it, he began to receive anonymous complaints via phone and email. Ralph’s Thriftway was soon also picketed and complaints were filed with the Washington Board of Pharmacy, who launched an investigation.

The following year, the state passed regulations requiring that pharmacies stock and dispense the morning-after pill, and ADF filed suit on behalf of Stormans and two of his pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, who objected to the requirement because of their Christian faith.

Later that year, a federal court ruled in favor of Ralph’s Thriftway, stating that the new regulations “appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception.”

But the matter soon moved to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the regulations were placed on hold while the matter proceeded in court. On Thursday, the court unanimously ruled that Ralph’s Thriftway must stock Plan B despite his religious objections.

“The rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications,” Judge Susan Graber wrote for the panel.

She said that while the pharmacy was willing to offer referrals, doing so is not acceptable due to the urgency a woman might feel to obtain contraceptives.

“Speed is particularly important considering the time-sensitive nature of emergency contraception and of many other medications,” Graber wrote. “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs.”

The court also opined that referrals could result in causing women to re-think taking the drug.

“Additionally, testimony at trial demonstrated how facilitated referrals could lead to feelings of shame in the patient that could dissuade her from obtaining emergency contraception altogether,” Graber stated. “In our view, the commission’s decision not to allow facilitated referrals falls within its stated goal of ensuring timely and safe delivery of prescription medications and, accordingly, does not demonstrate discriminatory intent.”

Stormans said that he is disappointed in the ruling and doesn’t believe that she should be forced to violate his conscience.

“The state allows pharmacies to refer for all kinds of reasons. In practice, it only bans religiously motivated referrals,” he said. “With 33 pharmacies stocking the drug within five miles of our store, it is extremely disappointing that the court and the state demand that we violate our conscience or lose our family business.”

“All we are asking is to be able to live out the beliefs that we hold, as Americans have always been able to do, and to be able to refer patients for religious reasons, as the medical and pharmaceutical associations overwhelmingly recommend,” he said.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), one of the legal groups that is fighting in defense of the pharmacy, likewise opined that the ruling was unjust.

“No one should be forced to choose between their religious convictions and their family businesses and livelihoods, particularly when the state allows referrals for just about any other reason,” she commented in a statement. “The premier medical and pharmaceutical associations all support the right of a provider to refer patients, and all other states allow such referrals.”

The decison will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thus, we see that it isn’t merely in regards to homosexuality-related issues that progs target Christian businesses, and courts rule against them; whether it’s contraceptives, or the abortion pill, the same thing happens.

(BTW, sadly, Health Canada has just approved RU-486 here, so no doubt Canadian Christian pharmacy owners will end up facing this situation eventually, too…)

 

A cop wrongly told three Ontarian sisters that they were breaking the law cycling topless; feminists lament that more Ontarians don’t take advantage of their freedom to go topless in public

It has been legal for Ontario women to bare their breasts in public for two decades now, though apparently a police officer didn’t know that, recently:

Three Kitchener, Ont., sisters are planning to file a formal complaint after they say they were stopped by a police officer for cycling topless.

Tameera, Nadia and Alysha Mohamed took off their shirts while riding their bikes in downtown Kitchener on Friday evening because of the heat. They say they received mostly positive reaction, until a police officer stopped them on Shanley Street.

“He said, ‘Ladies, you need to put on some shirts,'” said Tameera Mohamed. “We said, ‘No we don’t … it’s our legal right in Ontario to be topless as women.'”

(Which is true, alas. BTW, interesting that Muslim women would go topless. Guess they’re not all that devout…)

And so naturally, they’re planning a rally to protest their treatment.

Dozens of people are expected to show up to a demonstration in Waterloo, Ont. on Saturday, a week after three topless women were stopped by police.

It’ll be interesting to see how many protesters go topless in solidarity.

Because, despite the law allowing such for two decades, few take advantage of this ‘right’, much to the chagrin of feminists:

It’s been more than 20 years since Gwen Jacob walked topless down a street in Guelph, Ont., and was charged with committing an indecent act. That sparked a court battle that ultimately vindicated her, and the courts ruled it was legal for women to go topless in Ontario.

Just because it’s legal to go without tops, however, doesn’t mean it’s culturally any easier for women to do it now than it was for Jacob in 1991.

“We have a pervasive culture of women being harassed on streets all the time,” said Aimee Morrison, associate English professor at the University of Waterloo and frequent commenter on women’s issues.

Morrison says many women still fear being harassed, so opt to remain covered. “We very much have a culture of policing what girls and women can and cannot do with their bodies in public spaces, in order to be deemed blameless or appropriately feminine,” she said.

No, stupid fembot; it’s women themselves who don’t want unwanted male attention, not out of fear, but thankfully out of some vestigial Anglo-Saxon modesty, that still remains in this province. For which I am grateful.

“The law is a little bit more progressive in its understanding of what is and is not indecent between men’s abilities to go topless and women’s abilities to go topless,” said Aimee Morrison,

“But culturally, there is not a norm in Waterloo Region, or in Canada or North America generally where we are used to seeing women do this,” she said.

That’s because most people still recognize that there’s a difference between men going topless and women doing so, because men’s chests aren’t sexual.

“I just wouldn’t feel comfortable doing it,” said Morgan Scoyne, who said it didn’t make a difference whether it was on a city street or at the beach.

Exactly!

The fembot blames ‘rape culture’, of course, as if such a thing existed.

Anyway, I, for one, am glad that just because a law changed in a particular prog direction, hasn’t meant that many have embraced their new ‘right’, and that existing cultural norms have prevailed to such an extent that even a law enforcement officer is unaware that the law has changed.

I’m grateful for small victories in the cultural war; this is one of them, notwithstanding the prog legal victory.

 
9 Comments

Posted by on July 30, 2015 in Canada, good news, The Kulturkampf

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 377 other followers