Christopher di Armani.com

Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the foremost defenders of freedom.  His comprehension of the Constitution of the United States of America is arguably one of the best alive today.

Until recently Judge Napolitano had his own show on the Fox News Network called “Freedom Watch” where he would espouse the benefits of freedom and demand America’s government actually live by the Constitution, and not ignore it at every possible turn.

There was a lot made of Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News, telling Fox News to cancel “Freedom Watch” and fire The Judge.  Many wondered why such a popular show would be killed, especially since its ratings continued to climb.

There is a very simple explanation for all this, really.  Judge Andrew Napolitano used his television show to do one thing and one thing only that is completely unacceptable to the Media and Power Elites: he told the truth.  Specifically, he told the truth about the state of America today, and he did it by asking a series of questions that the powers that be do NOT want asked, let alone answered.

While others may disagree, below is the speech that Judge Napolitano delivered on Freedom Watch that I believe spelled his demise.

This speech should be required viewing for every single person in North America, for the truths spelled out in it are earth-shatteringly clear.

If you would like to read the entire speech, you can do that too, courtesy of LewRockwell.com.

If you run a WordPress Blog and value your personal privacy on the internet, please download and install the Stop Bill C-30 WordPress plugin. It will look just like the top right corner of this page. For more information about the plugin, see my article Protect Your Right to Privacy and Help Stop Bill C-30.

Freedom of Speech | Comments (1)

New Hampshire has as it’s state motto the phrase “Live Free or Die“.  If you’re a normal, thinking American you might be forgiven for believing that New Hampshire actually believes in that motto.  In reality, New Hampshire officials, or at least their police, hate the concept so boldly embraced on the state’s license plate.

Anyone doubting that might want to talk to 61 year old Dennis Fleming of Farmington, New Hampshire.  (I’d tell you to ask Carl Drega but they killed him.)

Dennis came home on Saturday, February 18th, 2012 to discover his house had been broken into.  Then he saw local drug addict and criminal Joseph Hebert climbing out of the window of Dennis’ neighbor’s home.

Dennis Fleming yelled at the burglar to stop and then fired a shot into the ground.

“I had drawn my gun … I had a bypass last year, I have a bad knee, bad back, I don’t want this guy to come at me,” he said Monday. “I yelled, ‘Freeze!’ and fired my gun into the ground.”

Not being a complete moron, Hebert stopped and remained frozen until police arrived.

That’s when the motto Live Free or Die had another nail pounded into its coffin.

You see, as well as arresting the criminal for breaking and entering two homes, the police decided to arrest the victim of the crime, Dennis Fleming, as well.  Then they seized all his firearms.

You’d think that a state that had “Live Free or Die” as its state motto would comprehend the concept of freedom. Sadly, this is not the case.

To quote Fox News,

Calls seeking comment from Farmington Police Department Chief Scott Roberge were not immediately returned.

Let me explain it for the freedom-challenged police and prosecutors in New Hampshire.

Freedom includes the right to protect yourself, to protect your property, and it also implies you ought to do the right thing for your neighbor as well.  You know, just like Dennis Fleming did for his neighbors.

 Read More »

Abusive Prosecutions, Liberty, Self-Defense | Comments (2)

This video contains language not suitable for all audiences, as the saying goes, but is absolutely hilarious nevertheless.  This clip has floated around the internet for some time, but never in the context of opposing Bill C-30.

If you have a sense of humour, enjoy.

And while you’re here, how about downloading my Stop Bill C-30 WordPress plugin and installing it on your blog?  It will look just like the top right corner of this page.  For more information about the plugin, see my post Protect Your Right to Privacy and Help Stop Bill C-30.

 Read More »

Oppose Bill C-30 | Comments (0)

The Conservative Government of Stephen Harper has introduced Bill C-30, disingenuously named the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.  This Act seeks to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide police with your personal private information WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.

Warrantless searches are not something Canadians should tolerate or be subjected to. If the police believe someone is committing or has committed a crime, they should be required to go before a judge and obtain a search warrant. Anything less is a violation of our Charter Rights and is 100% unacceptable.

If you believe in your Right to Privacy, and that if police believe you have committed a crime they should be required to go before a judge and obtain a search warrant before demanding your personal information, then please download my Stop Bill C-30 WordPress plugin and add it to your WordPress-powered blog.

The plugin is simple, and as you can see from viewing this page, adds a simple black banner to the top right corner of your WordPress website.  When you click on the ribbon you will be taken directly to RealPrivacy.ca, a website created by Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D., the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

She created this site to help stop what the government is calling “lawful access” legislation.  What this legislation does is anything but lawful, of course, because it strips you of your Right to Privacy, your Right against Unreasonable Search and Seizure, and your Right to Remain Silent.

Help promote Internet Privacy and use the tools provided by RealPrivacy.ca to educate yourself about the perils of Bill C-30 and also to let the government know you will not tolerate this legislation.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and Prime Minister Stephen Harper need to know that Canadians value their personal privacy and will not tolerate a so-called conservative government stripping Canadians of our most precious right: our Right to Privacy.

Download the Stop Bill C-30 WordPress Plugin

Oppose Bill C-30 | Comments (0)

I couldn’t help but laugh as I read reports that Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is suddenly shocked to learn what Bill C-30,the “Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act”, actually contains.

I find this odd, since I’ve listened to him defend Bill C-30 repeatedly and blather on endlessly about how police can never abuse their powers under this act; that he is actually protecting Canadians from abuse instead of inflicting it. All his protestations are despite the fact that numerous reporters and television interviewers who have clearly explained it to him.

If there is one thing Canadians can do with less of (other than all this government invasion of their privacy) it’s politicians that are too bloody lazy to read the legislation they are attempting to ram down our throats.

Minister Toews is either blatantly incompetent or he is attempting to deceive the Canadian public when he claims he doesn’t know what Bill C-30 contains.

Either option is possible.  Both allow for his recent vile and disgusting behavior in the House of Commons, where he said anyone who doesn’t like his atrocious legislation must be in league with child pornographers.

Either is also possible when Minister Toews attempts to make the claim that he didn’t realize that Bill C-30 allows “any police officer” to demand personal client information from an ISP and for any reason, as is clearly laid out in Section 17 of the Act as it currently stands.

“I’d certainly like to see an explanation of that,” Toews told host Evan Solomon after a week of public backlash against Bill C-30, which would require internet service providers to turn over client information without a warrant.

”This is the first time that I’m hearing this somehow extends ordinary police emergency powers [to telecommunications]. In my opinion, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t.”

Well, Minister Toews, if the very first time you’ve heard about the contents of Bill C-30, specifically Section 17, then you must be incompetent.  If the Bill should NOT allow this, then why did you have your minions write it in?

 Read More »

Big Brother, Bureaucratic Incompetence, Oppose Bill C-30, Police State, Political Antics | Comments (2)

The United Nations is not a secret organization.

Everything said and done at the United Nations level is printed, published and online in the form of books, papers, documents and YouTube videos.

The problem is that much is written in invisible ink and the reader must possess the uncanny ability to read between the lines; every word is couched in innocuous-sounding, freedom-loving Double-Speak.

I don’t know if the intentions of some nations were good when the United Nations was formed by a bunch of Communists and the Charter signed in 1945 by the “morally righteous uplifters” to promote the “feel-good tenets” of “world peace”, “security” and “cooperation among nations”.

But the United Nations has certainly strayed off-course into an evil, slow-motion movement toward a soviet (council)-style world government.

The failed United Nations replaced the failed League of Nations, a “feel-good” international organization which resulted from the signing of the post-WWI Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It’s purpose was to achieve “international peace”, “security” and “international cooperation”–all the same “principles” as The League’s successor.

In reports coming back to me, the UN has become hated worldwide. The gullible, bleeding-heart UN reps become cocky, pretentious and obnoxious because they feel superior when in the presence of the dirt-poor countries where they are dispatched to “do good”.

They drive shiny new vehicles, are housed in swanky hotels, where, at the end of the day, they wash off the land’s slime with hot showers, change into fresh clothes, then quaff cocktails before ordering expensive dishes from the menu. The meals are prepared for them; served to them; and somebody cleans up after them.

 Read More »

Bureaucratic Incompetence, United Nations | Comments (1)

While claiming it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to spy on its citizens, the shoe is clearly on the other foot in a lovely social media twist that makes a point to Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews.

Toews is very cranky over how his personal life and details of his divorce, infidelity and lack of child support is being displayed very publicly on a Twitter account called @Vikileaks30.  While nobody knows yet who created the account, the industrious genius behind it is using social media to show Minister Toews exactly what it feels like to have his privacy invaded.  Breaking news has reported that an IP address from Parliament itself was used to create the account and post updates, so someone is probably about to lose their job for doing what is ostensibly a public service.

Others are using the Twitter hashtag #TellVicEverything to make a mockery of the Minister’s apparent need to know everything about everyone.

Personally, I think it’s an absolutely wonderful thing for the Minister to get this first-hand taste of what he has in store for all Canadians should his atrocious and invasive legislation, Bill C-30, actually pass in its current state.

Warrantless searches are not something Canadians should tolerate or be subjected to at the whim of a police member “suspecting” someone may or may not have done something. If the police believe someone is committing or has committed a crime, they should be required to get a search warrant.  Anything less is a violation of our Charter Rights and is 100% unacceptable.

I suppose Minister Toews believes warrantless searches are okay because other legislation passed by previous governments already contain such horrific clauses.  Canada’s Firearms Act, for example, makes provision for police to search the homes of lawful firearm owners without a warrant simply because they own a certain number of firearms.

That is and has always been unacceptable to Canadian firearm owners.  If we can jump through all the bureaucratic hoops, pass CPIC and RCMP background checks, then why do police require the ability to search our homes without a warrant?

If we’ve passed all those checks, clearly we’re NOT the problem.  Yet one look at the Ian Thomson case shows just how poorly a legitimate firearm owner is treated when he dares use one of his firearms to save his own life from three masked fire-bombers screaming death threats and tossing Molotov cocktails at his home.

Warrantless searches are perfectly okay though, according to Minister Vic Toews, as are stripping us of our Right to Remain Silent.  Just like the Firearms Act, the proposed Bill C-30 contains the provision requiring you to assist someone who is searching your home with or without a warrant.

Duty to assist

(3) The owner or person in charge of the place and every person in the place must give all assistance that is reasonably required to enable the inspector to perform their functions under this section and must provide any documents or information, and access to any data, that are reasonably required for that purpose.

Anyone who does not side with him, as in the case of Bill C-30, are obviously just child pornographers that haven’t been caught yet, right?  That is patently absurd, if not downright an abuse of his position, and an insult to every single Canadian who holds their Right to Privacy near and dear.

Vic Toews had the gall to stand in Parliament and say Canadians “can either stand with us or with the child pornographers,” as though the privacy concerns of regular, decent Canadians are of absolutely no importance at all.

A man of any decency would be ashamed of himself for making such a comparison, but it seems the Minister is not such a man.

Naturally, he denied making the statement until he was confronted with his own words on videotape, but that’s hardly surprising for a politician, is it?

 Read More »

Big Brother, Charter of Rights and Freedoms Breaches, Constitutional Violations, Freedom of Speech, Oppose Bill C-30, Police State, Political Antics, Right To Privacy | Comments (1)

I am flipping tired of the unmitigated hubris that continues to spur Canada’s game-playing cops and court system in their indefatigable zeal to prosecute innocent gun owners with the same pesky, recycled sections of the Canadian Firearms Act.

In order to demonize gun owners to the hilt, the Government of Canada saw its way clear, at the behest of the United Nations, to dump the unlawful, unconstitutional, non-Charter-proofed Canadian Firearms Act of 1995 into the Criminal Code of Canada, ironically behind the Constitution Act 1982, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms centrepiece, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.

Turning ordinary citizens into criminals is obscene.

Under the Firearms Act, a person’s Charter right to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is turned wrongside out with a reverse onus provision: a gun owner is GUILTY until proven GUILTY.

Seldom, if ever, do the courts acquit a person tried for firearms infractions. The judges’ thinking is ‘if you’re not guilty you wouldn’t be here.’

Note: See Christopher di Armani’s excellent column herein for a list of 11 constitutional infractions committed between the covers of the Canadian Firearms Act: “Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant understands why gun owners hate the Firearms Act. Pity the Minister of Public Safety, Vic Toews, isn’t listening to her.”

In one example, No. 11, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant said:

“...Bill C-68 allows for both military and foreign enforcement as well, but with no other part of the Canadian Criminal Code enforceable by the military, especially a foreign military. We wondered why that one was added. The truth is this provision was included to legitimize the future presence of foreign troops on our land.”

She then asked the salient question:

“Why would Canada ever need foreign troops enforcing Canadian gun laws?”

The “foreign troops” refers to militaries based in every country of the world that are in the process of being replaced with a One-World Military. It is part of the United Nations’ machinations to spread a One World Government around the planet. A global military will have the international power to ultimately confiscate firepower from the world’s total population, except for the police and military–a game plan which Canadian Firearms Act architects, Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his eager Liberals, salivated to enforce during their reign.

The rub is that Canada would stick its head in a fiery furnace if the United Nations told Canada to do so.

 Read More »

Bureaucratic Incompetence, Canada's Firearms Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms Breaches, Constitutional Violations, Gun Politics, Individual's Rights Violations, Property Rights, United Nations | Comments (1)