The trouble with people who are born into wealth is that they often have an inflated sense of their own ability out of all proportion to their actual skills and achievements. Justin Trudeau is a former snowboarding instructor and part-time drama teacher. He was raised by a Prime Minister, so he thinks he should have a turn. Now that he’s failed to perform, he’s using violence to silence dissent.

Trampling elderly, disabled woman

Here’s the video of Trudeau’s militarized mounted police charging the peaceful protesters in a cavalry charge, which tramples an elderly, disabled woman with a walker.

That’s the best I can do on Friday night when I’m writing this.

Assault rifles for me, but not for thee

Just to be clear, Trudeau has deployed militarized police with assault rifles to arrest peaceful protesters, and to perform illegal searches on vehicles:

Those are M-4 rifles they are carrying. They’re like our civilian AR-15 rifles, except M-4 rifles fire full automatic. One trigger pull, many bullets. Those are illegal in America. With 30 bullets per magazine, Trudeau’s militarized police could kill an awful lot of people in a short time.

One of the first things Trudeau did after he took office was enact a massive gun ban, to remove almost all firearms from civilians. That’s standard operating procedure for dictators. When you want to violate human rights, vandalize and steal property, arrest people for no reason, the first thing you do is take their guns. Everything is easy for a dictator if the dictator is the only one with guns.

As you can see, Trudeau has no problems deploying militarized police with armored vehicles, assault rifles, body armor, etc. It was also reported that he deployed snipers on the roofs. With a 50% tax rate for top earners, Canada collects a lot of tax money to spend on their militarized police force. All this battle rattle for a bunch of unarmed protesters honking their horns, and singing the national anthem. They must have been really afraid of the children jumping around in bouncy castles.

So will Trudeau be in trouble if it’s found that he ordered this cavalry charge? Not at all. The Ottawa Police will lie for him. They already are claiming that someone threw a “bicycle” at the horses, but the video is pretty clear. The “bicycle” is lying at her feet, and she is lying on the ground. They can say whatever Trudeau tells them to say, but we have video and photo evidence of what really happened.

Trudeau can try to block the video in Canada, but it will survive on American web sites. Trudeau can order the blocking of those American websites in Canada, like China blocks websites with  the Ti4n4nmen Squ4re m4ss4cre videos, but Americans won’t comply. He doesn’t have a long enough reach to silence us with “publication bans”, the way that Canadian courts routinely silence Canadian journalists. And he won’t be able to run us down with soldiers on horses, either.

Several officers beat a woman with a rifle muzzle

I thought this video of several police dragging a woman behind a line of officers, and then beating her with a rifle muzzle, was interesting:

This is several very big, very strong men, beating a woman with a rifle loaded with bullets. Breaking every firearm safety rule. You NEVER point a weapon at someone like that, because of the possibility of accidental discharge. They are literally beating her with it, and the other officers in front form a line to prevent anyone from filming it.

The Ottawa Police denied that this event happened, even though it’s on film. And the Canadian mainstream news media (CBC, CTV, etc.) backed them up. More beating up of protesters here. The news media and police who are covering up this violence don’t think anyone will see these videos. Their victims are scum, they think, and deserve to be treated like this. There is nothing in the secular left worldview that would stop them from doing these things, and then lying about it. Nothing will happen to these police officers, because the secular left sees their victims as subhuman scum.

Pepper-spraying and arresting journalists

Trudeau’s militarized police are very hostile to independent journalists who report things that make him look bad.

Rebel News reports:

While covering the police action against the Freedom Convoy protesters in Ottawa, True North‘s Andrew Lawton was pepper sprayed by police.

Candice Malcolm, the editor-in-chief of True North has now hired a lawyer to take the police to court.

Trudeau bought off the big corporate journalists with taxpayer-funded subsidies, so they’re no threat to him. And he controls the government-run CBC. He pledged to give the CBC $675 million to save them from bankruptcy, because no Canadians would watch their propaganda. They won’t report anything against him. And they’re probably leading the propaganda charge to keep Canadians from finding out what really happened.

What’s interesting about the trampling of this woman is how the supporters of the dictatorship are responding on social media. She was a dangerous threat to the police. She asked for it. She deserved it. She was going to throw her walker at them, so they had to run her over. Just any kind of hypothetical they can come up with to justify violence against people they see as beneath them. It doesn’t matter if there’s no evidence for their claims, they don’t want to believe that they are on the side of intolerance and violence.

None of these videos were reported on any mainstream news media in America, except Fox News who posted this story on their front page:

• ‘TYRANNICAL’ CRACKDOWN: Religious leaders send scathing message to liberal government as police descend on ‘Freedom Convoy’

Tucker Carlson covered it. And it was also on “The Five”. But Canadian progressives don’t watch these shows. They don’t see the videos. So they just mindlessly parrot whatever their politicians and journalists tell them. Most Canadians are horribly uninformed, just like most people in the Soviet Union were brainwashed.

For a Christian reflection on these events, check out Bill Muehlenbeg’s post.

Related posts

• Dictator joins hacker, Big Banks, Big News Media and Big Tech to destroy liberty
• Trudeau uses assault rifles, armored vehicles and snipers to ban peaceable assembly
• Did Justin Trudeau’s hateful rhetoric incite an Antifa member to commit domestic terrorism?
• GoFundMe seizes nearly $10 million of donations intended for Canadian truckers

This story is interesting because the alleged gunman Quintez Brown previously expressed his desire to defund the police, and ban guns for law-abiding people. I guess he wanted all the guns for himself, so he could shoot at Jewish men. And then he wanted the police to not arrest him for it.

Here’s the story from Breitbart:

Attempted murder suspect Quintez Brown took part in a March for Our Lives gun control rally in 2018, where he told MSNBC’s Joy Reid that Congress needed to pass “commonsense gun reform.”

Breitbart News reported that 21-year-old Brown allegedly entered Louisville mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg’s campaign headquarters Monday and fired multiple rounds from a 9mm handgun. Greenberg was not hit by any of the bullets but his clothing was grazed.

WDRB noted that Brown “has been active with Black Lives Matter Louisville and the University of Louisville’s Youth Violence Prevention Research Center.”

[…]A video tweeted by Andy Ngo shows Brown at a 2018 March for Our Lives rally, telling MSNBC’s Joy Reid that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was going to be voted out of office if he refused to support gun control.

He supports banning guns, but only for law-abiding people (his potential victims). You can’t ban the guns of criminals – they don’t care about the law already, so they don’t care about gun bans. Gun bans only affect the victims of criminals.

The shooter was “honored” by Obama:

Like most BLM activists, the shooter also wants to defund the police. All the better for he and his BLM buddies to escape the consequences of breaking the law.

Here are the details from Breitbart:

Brown was arrested on Monday less than half a mile from Greenberg’s office at 10:25 a.m., according to the Louisville Metro Police Department’s citation.

Ten minutes before, police said they were called to the 1200 block of Story Avenue, where Greenberg’s campaign office is located, over “reports of an active aggressor.”

Greenberg told media on Monday that he was at his office that morning, in a meeting with four of his staffers, when a man with a gun walked in, aimed directly at him and opened fire. Greenberg said a member of his staff was able to slam the door shut. Staff then barricaded the doorway. Greenberg and his staff present in the office were uninjured, but Greenberg said a bullet hit his sweater and shirt.

When police arrested Brown, they say they found a drawstring bag with a 9mm handgun, a handgun case and 9mm magazines, in addition to a loaded magazine in his pants pocket.

[…]Brown is charged with attempted murder and four charges of wanton endangerment in the first degree.

And he’s been bailed out by Black Lives Matter, thanks to their generous donors:

The Louisville Community Bail Fund has posted bond for Quintez Brown, the prominent Louisville activist charged in the attempted shooting of Democratic mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg.

The Louisville Community Bail Fund is managed by Black Lives Matter Louisville.

Since the victim was a Democrat politician, the mainstream news media was united in wanting to blame Republicans for the crime.

Here’s an example from the far-left Las Vegas Sun:

The alleged shooter, a 21-year-old political activist, was arrested near the scene and later charged with attempted murder along with four counts of wanton endangerment.

While there’s been no indication yet that the activist had ties to any right-wing organizations, the shooting comes amid a rise in threats against politicians fueled by increasingly violent rhetoric coming from extremist Republicans.

That’s what the mainstream news media said about a literal BLM activist. That’s why I recommend that you get your news from places like The Federalist, Breitbart and Daily Signal. If you’re relying on the secular left to tell you the truth, you’ll be waiting a long time.

Pro-family conservatives are very passionate about making sure that children grow up with a mother and a father. Most say that both men and women need to do better to stop fatherlessness. But in practice, pro-family people direct their criticism towards men only, giving women a free pass. Let me explain why this approach is not likely to solve the problem of fatherlessness.

Pro-family conservatives typically target the man who had the recreational sex, and try to urge him to commit to the women after the woman gets pregnant. Why won’t this work? Well, it won’t work because the man who was selected by the woman clearly wanted sex more than he wanted commitment. That’s why he had sex first, instead of committing first. He was selected for sex without having to show any ability or desire to commit whatsoever. So, you can’t really go back to him and say “now you have to commit”. The time to get him to commit would be BEFORE he got what he wanted, and the only person in a position to make that happen was the woman.

So what about the woman? What did she want? She is probably hoping that the man she is choosing to have sex with will commit to her, because she has given him her body. The baby is there to make him more attached to her, since the baby has his genes. Unfortunately, this is not how men who value premarital sex actually work. Wanting premarital sex is a sign of wanting pleasure – not of wanting commitment. The reason why we need to talk to the woman is to tell her that she will not get what she wants by giving a man with no interest in commitment premarital sex. It doesn’t work. If you want a man to commit to you, then you have to choose a man who wants to commit, and then let him commit.

So, that’s why I recommend we approach the woman first. We don’t approach men, because they want sex, not commitment. We approach women, because they want commitment, and they don’t get it.

Now, how do pro-family conservatives respond to this? Well, they think that women should not be challenged to do anything differently at all. If you tell women to make wise choices, then you are shaming them, judging them, blaming them, etc.

But just think of some parallel cases, and see if you can see why it is not wrong to ask women to make better choices:

1. If you invest your money instead of spending it on alcohol and cigarettes, then you can retire earlier.
2. If you go to the gym 3 times a week, and eat healthier, you’ll live longer and be slimmer.
3. If you study computer science instead of English, then you’ll be able to find a higher paying job more easily.

The goal in telling a woman these things is not to shame her, but to help her to get a good outcome by making better decisions. The world is the way the world is, and she won’t be able to get a good outcome from a bad decision.

Now here is another one:

If you make a marriage-ready man commit to you before you give him sex, then your children are more likely to have a father in the home.

Now look at that statement. It’s not shaming women at all. Everyone agrees that men who have recreational premarital sex should be avoided. We’re not blaming women – we’re trying to get a good outcome for them by telling them the truth so they can make a better decision.

All we are saying to women is this: 1) focus on marriage early, so you can use your youth and beauty to lock down the best man possible. 2) And make commitment your top priority when choosing a man. This is good advice for her, and for her children.

When we are giving good advice, it’s not our concern that people feel shamed, or that they don’t like us. Our goal is not to make them feel good, or to make us feel good. Our goal is to make the children have a father in the home. I am fine with being hated for now, so long as I get a good result in the end.

Women these days often complain that they want to get married but can’t find a good man. But what I have found is that these same women deliberately choose to spend their late teens and 20s pursuing relationships with good-looking, tall men who have no interest in marriage or family. What I would like is for pro-family people to tell women to focus on finding a good man who is willing to love her and commit to her when she still has her youth and beauty to attract a good man.

There is no point in standing by silent while women waste their teens and 20s on bad men, then expect the good men they passed over to marry them in their 30s. Those good men understand that they were not the first priority for these women, and that their willingness to commit will not get them any respect from women who ranked commitment LOW on their list of criteria for men.

Men have preferences about women and marriage. You can’t bully a man into marrying an older woman who had other things to do with her youth than investing in him. A man marries a woman when she makes him her top priority, and sacrifices her happiness in order to love him and build him up. The earlier she chooses him, the more he is loved, and the more time they have to build together. It’s not blaming women to decline a marriage with them, any more than it is blaming a house that you don’t want to buy. Men are people, too. And men get to decide whether marriage is good for them, based on the value of the marriage offer.

I want to end by talking a bit about myself. I am not white, and was raised by two poor immigrant parents in a non-Christian home. When I was in grade 5, I received a New Testament from the Gideons. I read it, and I was happy to get some guidance on moral issues, as well as learning how to put myself second and serve God. The more I put God’s agenda first, the less I made bad decisions. I studied hard to be able to get a good job so I could give to charity. I was debt-free and financially ready to marry in my early 20s. I was a good steward of my money, and contemptuous of alcohol, drugs and status-enhancing material things.

The end result of that was a long period of chastity and sobriety, during which I accumulated 950K in cash (so far), and a fully paid off house that I bought new valued at around 300K. The point of me saying this is clear – what works with people who need help is to tell them the way the world really works, and what decisions they can make to get out of the mess they started off with.

Everywhere you look today, people are TERRIFIED of telling people who look like me that the solution to their problems is to read the Bible and make God their Boss. Instead, Christians are being dragged into secular solutions to the problems I had: Marxism, destroy the family, single mother welfare, abortion, etc. They don’t want to offend people who look like me by telling us to make better choices.

Their motivation is the same as the pro-family people who don’t want to offend women. “Let’s tell them that the bad decisions they are making are actually good decisions, so they will like us. And when it blows up in their faces, we will just blame those people over there, and demand that they change”. No, the solution to problems is found in the choices we make.

Blaming white people would not have helped me to get where I needed to go. Why do we shy away from telling the women who freely choose bad boys and make babies with them that the solution to their problems is in their own hands? It’s because we want to feel good. We want them to like us. But Christians ought to understand that the best thing you can do for someone is offer them the Bible, and urge them to bring their actions inline with it. And the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If a woman takes that seriously, then any children she has will not be fatherless.

A while back, I was asked to mentor a young lady who was born in a divorced home. Her mother made her with her father, then her mother divorced her father. Then her mother married her stepfather who treated her very badly. She shacked up with an atheist and got pregnant, then killed her baby. The atheist dumped her. When she came to me, she was tired of her own decision-making, and wanted to learn how to make men like her without having to give them sex.

So, I put her on a learning plan of Christian apologetics, economics, science, history and philosophy. Today, she is married to her husband and has a son. She organizes apologetics conferences in her spare time. And the highlight of my life so far was that phone call from her where she explained how I was right about everything, and that now she understood why I had told her to make those better choices.

It was not easy. There were times where she chose more bad boyfriends – annoying unemployed students who were younger than her! – and she was mad when I didn’t approve of them.  But she kept coming back for more advice whenever things failed. And in the end, she succeeded. Her husband loved her the moment he saw the books on her bookshelf. And today, her son has a father at home.