Friday, June 30, 2017

Multicultural rape in Florida

Two suspects are wanted for violently raping a woman in Florida to 'teach her a lesson about dating black men'. Justin Akeen Fedrick, 27, Keon Dellshai Gordon, 26, are wanted for the incident at Clermont, Florida, on June 22.

Police say they are armed and dangerous and have warrants for their arrests. They are accused of raping the woman while another man, Rodney Cooper, 32, stood guard outside a room in a house where the woman was attacked. 

The woman was with friends at a house when Cooper allegedly pushed her into a room. It is not clear whether he was part of the group.

He is then alleged to have stood guard outside while Fedrick and Gordon violently raped her, authorities said.

According to a police report seen by The Orlando Sentinel, they launched their attack to 'teach her a lesson about dating black men' and threatened the 'next time would be 10 times worse'.

The pair raped then sexually battered her, according to police, and left her inside. She escaped and ran across backyards in the neighborhood, worried that they would come after her.

Police eventually found her after being called by her boyfriend who she'd managed to reach on a cell phone. He told authorities she was 'bleeding and limping'.

Cooper was arrested on a kidnapping charge and was held on a $50,000 bond the next day but police have not been able to locate the other men. They are considered dangerous and have violent pasts.


Trump gets results on illegals

A BALTIMORE restaurant has slammed the US government after more than 30 staff quit following a surprise visit from an immigration agent demanding employees’ paperwork.

Gene Singleton, co-owner of the BoatHouse Canton restaurant, posted an open letter to Facebook on Saturday describing the “saddest day for the BoatHouse family” in its three-year history.

“Based on our Government’s current practices of targeting the Hispanic Community, properly documented and potentially less than properly documented are all fearful of being separated from their families, many with small children,” he wrote.

“Many went home to pack up and leave. This was a sad, emotional, tragic event.” But he added that the restaurant’s “policies and records are in compliance”.

Mr Singleton told The Washington Post an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent walked into the restaurant at about 3pm on Thursday and asked for the manager. The agent delivered a letter demanding a list of anyone who had worked at the restaurant in the past two years along with their employment eligibility forms.

“The guy was nice and polite,” he told the paper. “There was no scene.” But he said word quickly spread through the kitchen, and that evening a manager received a call from a chef. “He told him, ‘All our people are really fearful. I’m not sure if they’re going to come back tomorrow’,” Mr Singleton said.

The next day more than 30 staff failed to show up, leaving the remaining 90 or so to run the restaurant, turning away customers without reservations and serving a stripped-down menu. “The other 90+ of our employees and managers rallied and have pulled through like champions and the team and family that they are,” he wrote on Facebook.

He added that the restaurant was creating a “Heart of the House Fund” to “assist our displaced families with their transition”. “A portion of all revenues will be contributed to this fund,” he wrote.

“Everyone is invited to come and enjoy the great experiences that the BoatHouse has become known for and support our Heart of House Fund. As a group, these people are some of the best I have ever come to know.”

Responses on Facebook were mixed, with some praising Mr Singleton as a “class act” and others vowing never to return. “You’ll never see a dime of my money,” wrote Ryan Joseph.

“Honest question here and not intended to be rude but were they legally authorised to work? Did they not have appropriate documentation?” asked Joey Freshwater.

Joseph Di Seta said people should “wake up and stop living in a fantasy where you think every place you step foot in does not have someone working who is an illegal”.

“And there is a good chance some of these workers are here legally but still afraid,” he wrote.

Some were not convinced. “I’m a legal immigrant,” wrote Shane Mummery. “Why would any legal immigrant be afraid? What fantasy world are you in? People who have not broken laws have nothing to fear. Newsflash — there are plenty of restaurants who don’t hire illegals ... you know why? They are law abiding.”

Scott Ogden hit back. “This list of comments is a sad array of racism, anger, xenophobia and vile sentiments,” he wrote. “Much of America, like the Oval Office and West Wing, have become an embarrassing s***show.”

According to the Pew Research Centre, there were 11 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2015, with around eight million in the workforce, accounting for 5 per cent of the total population of those who were employed or unemployed and looking for work.

During the election campaign, Donald Trump campaigned hard against illegal immigration, but vowed to primarily target “bad hombres” with criminal records for deportation. But Trump’s cancellation of Obama-era policies of lenience towards illegal immigrants with clean criminal records has led to a rapid increase in detentions and deportations.


Illegals fleeing from Trump to Canada not faring too well there either

You may recall from earlier this year we learned that Canada was facing a new sort of border challenge. People were actually fleeing from the United States and crossing over illegally into the Great White North. These were primarily illegal immigrants looking to escape The Wrath of Trump according to most accounts, but nobody seemed terribly upset about it at the time.

Any why not? If you’re that worried about being caught, Canada is famous for its incredibly friendly people, generally socialist environment, generous welfare benefits and back bacon. They’re generally good with almost anyone showing up provided you’re not too much of a hoser, eh? And to top it off, the new Prime Minister was no fan of Trump’s either so he pretty much rolled out the welcome mat and said he wasn’t going to be taking any new, extraordinary measures to stop the flow of illegal aliens.

So how’s that working out for them now? Apparently the reality of a flood of illegal immigrants (or should we go ahead and start calling them “undocumented” once they’re somebody else’s problem…) turned out to be a bit more than the system was prepared to handle.


Thousands of people who fled to Canada to escape President Donald Trump’s crackdown on illegal migrants have become trapped in legal limbo because of an overburdened refugee system, struggling to find work, permanent housing or enroll their children in schools.

Refugee claims are taking longer to be completed than at any time in the past five years, according to previously unpublished Immigration and Refugee Board data provided to Reuters. Those wait times are set to grow longer after the IRB in April allocated “up to half” of its 127 tribunal members to focus on old cases. The number of delayed hearings more than doubled from 2015 to 2016 and is on track to increase again this year.

Hearings are crucial to establishing a claimant’s legal status in Canada. Without that status, they struggle to convince employers to hire them or landlords to rent to them. Claimants cannot access loans or student financial aid, or update academic or professional credentials to meet Canadian standards.

So rather than the normal two month average, it’s taking new arrivals an average of almost six months (and in some cases nearly a year) just to get a hearing. Until then, they’re having a hard time finding a job, getting anyone to rent them an apartment or qualifying for the many other benefits the Canadian social welfare system would generally be passing out.

Remarkably, the Canadians care so little for their border security, however, that even these folks “in limbo” are still able to collect C$600 ($453) a month in government social assistance. That’s not much, but it’s better than having to hunt and fish for all your meals I suppose.

Two things immediately come to mind here. First, as far as these “immigrants” (read: illegal aliens) go, it might be worth remembering that you are still in the country illegally. Personally I’m glad that you’re somebody else’s problem now and wish you the best, but it really can’t come as that much of a shock that people don’t want to hire or rent to you when you haven’t even been vetted to ensure you aren’t a terrorist.

The final question, however, is for Canada as a nation. It’s a pretty small country by population, though they have a tremendous amount of land. Their infrastructure isn’t all that huge. Once word gets out in the illegal alien community down here than anyone can show up without worries and begin collecting a check on day one, the trip may become even more popular. How many people in that category can you afford to absorb before your resources for your own citizens become strained to the breaking point? That’s about the time that people tend to start feeling considerably less “charitable” and begin asking their government what the heck is going on.

You might want to start getting an answer ready now.


This New Law in Canada Could Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender Ideology

Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, just passed a law that could allow the government to remove kids from their home if their parents oppose the new transgender ideology.

Could there be anything more terrifying for parents than that?

It’s not hard to see why the passage of Bill 89 captured the attention of so many across the globe.

But how did this bill—which is about foster care and adoption—get caught up in politically correct ideologies about “gender identity” and “gender expression” in the first place?

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

It didn’t come out of nowhere.

Ontario has passed five gender laws in the past five years, few of which received much media attention or even opposition in the legislature. Bill 89 is the latest in this litany of bad legislation.

It was back in 2012 “gender identity and gender expression” were added to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, making Ontario the first jurisdiction in North America to pass such a law.

With that initial snowball, the avalanche got rolling.

Facilitated by a majority government and a lame-duck opposition, the following bills sailed through to provincial law in Ontario:

Bill 13, also in 2012, compelled public schools to have gay-straight alliances and demanded schools combat “homophobia” and “transphobia.”

Bill 77 in 2015 prohibited particular forms of therapy for minors who struggle with gender dysphoria or other aspects of their sexuality, against the advice of numerous psychiatrists and counsellors.

Bill 28, which passed into law in December 2016, removed the terms “mother” and “father” from Ontario law, and permits “pre-conception agreements” allowing four unrelated and unmarried people to become parents.

All of this led to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, which passed into law just over a week ago. It is still commonly called Bill 89.

Bill 89 is a child protection bill that aims to make changes to our foster care and adoption system across Ontario. It regulates the Children’s Aid Societies, which includes over 40 organizations across the province responsible for responding to child protection concerns.

The impetus for Bill 89 was, in part, the murder of a 7-year-old girl while in the care of her Children’s Aid Society-appointed guardians.

The new law makes a number of innocuous changes and even some positive ones to how children who are abused and/or abandoned will be treated.

Yet the controversy stems from the inclusion of language from the Ontario Human Rights Code into the new child welfare act. This takes us right back to 2012 when “gender identity and gender expression,” two nebulous terms, were added into the Human Rights Code.

Prior to Bill 89, social workers considered principles in a child protection case—principles like continuity of care, stable family relationships, and respecting cultural, religious, and regional differences.

After Bill 89, social workers attempting to assess a child’s situation must now consider the specifics of the Ontario Human Rights Code, including “[a] child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.”

Incorporating the Human Rights Code writ large into Bill 89 is problematic.

The Human Rights Code is intended to be applied to commerce, not families—to employment, housing, and other services. But at the same time, the code also has protections for freedom of conscience and religion.

With Bill 89, Human Rights Code language moves into the private domain of the family, but without including specific protections for conscience and religion.

The most serious and immediate risk is not that children will be arbitrarily removed from a home by some kind of gender police, but rather that prospective foster or adoptive parents who disagree with new gender ideologies will be less likely to be chosen.

This decreases the pool of loving families who can foster children, doing those kids a disservice. While statistics are hard to come by, in some communities in Ontario, it’s estimated that half of all foster families are practicing Christians.

Parents need to be ever vigilant. The reality today across North America is that fashionable new trends are being pushed into law at a dizzying rate.

All of us need to be on the alert for seemingly small or inconsequential developments in language, policy, or law. Little words like “gender expression” can represent big ideology, and they are worth combatting wherever they crop up.

Five gender bills in five years makes Ontario’s story a cautionary tale for our friends and neighbors to the south.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: