Was the recent attack and murder of 6 muslim men at a mosque in Quebec city the action of a lone racist gunman or was it something more? The timing and location of this event are highly suspicious, coming only a day after the Prime Minister openly tweeted that Canada would be accepting the refugees banned from the U.S.

While Canada is unmistakably a nation of immigrants with enough room for a few more people, the current post 9/11 clash of cultures has put the western world on edge and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency is proof that unfettered immigration is of concern to the under educated and unemployed American voter.

While the acceptance of refugees into the country is a noble and compassionate policy the driving factors of this mass migration is conveniently ignored.

First, that the West has been bombing the middle east, Afghanistan and parts of Africa for decades and the destruction of these lands leads to the displacement of people.

Second, the clash of cultures created by the waves of immigrants entering our country has led to political push back from a population that sees immigration as a negative.

Third and most importantly, the secretive, almost dishonest way government has sold it’s action policy towards Terrorism and Immigration.

Is immigration the side effect or the reason?

Was the Quebec mosque attack the act of an angry hater or a way to sell more muslim immigration to an already under employed Canadian population?

Journalists at Press For Truth believe there may be a CSIS connection to this story.

What we know for sure is that the RCMP and CSIS have a history of entrapment and the use of false operations for the purpose of affecting public opinion.

Is this latest event one of them?

What not to do case study #1, Madonna, who is pushing 60:

(No, the answer isn’t Photoshop. Photoshop is part of the problem.)

Camille Paglia writes at the Hollywood Reporter about Madonna’s “prolonged midlife crisis” that has her insisting on still dressing in outfits that would have been trampy for her in her early 80s heyday and shrilly screeching “misogyny” when men no longer find that sort of thing sexy.

Paglia helpfully suggests that maybe Madonna ought to look to the longevity of stars who have aged a little more gracefully (not to mention doing so without wearing any ass-exposing dresses), a stance for which the deluded feminazis will no doubt consider Paglia a traitor to her sex rather than, say, a sane person with functioning eyes and a sense of dignity.

If aging stars want to be taken seriously, they must find or recover a mature persona. Stop cannibalizing the young! Scrambling to stay relevant, Madonna is addicted to pointless provocations like her juvenile Instagrams or her trashy outfit with strapped-up bare buttocks and duct-taped nipples at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Gala in May. She has forgotten the legacy of her great precursor, Marlene Dietrich, who retained her class and style to the end of her public life.

If you’re wondering what that Met Gala atrocity looked like:

(Before you complain that that photo just made you vomit and/or lose your appetite: We know how tough it is to stick to diet-related New Year’s resolutions, so we’re just doing our part to help you keep yours. You’re welcome.)

As a palette cleanser, here’s Marlene Dietrich in her 60s:

(Plus an interview with Marlene from the same era, in which she’s far saner than Madonna about the whole myth of the sex goddess thing.)

Anyway, Camille continues:

Most disappointing about Madonna’s speech was her collapse into rote male-bashing, which has escalated in Hollywood and surely will increase its cultural isolation from the national audience. The young Madonna was refreshingly sane in her teasing affection for men. Top movie actresses once projected an emotional depth, composure and adult authority that can only be called womanliness. Ingrid Bergman, Susan Hayward, Elizabeth Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Sophia Loren were no victims: They’re strong-willed personalities — onscreen and off. But all of them liked men, and it showed.

Read the rest here.

Wait, no… wrong gay dog pic… more like this:

Or this:

Anyway…

We almost missed this late-December gem from David Cole over at Taki’s Magazine, all about the amusing parallels between people sneaking their pets into gay bars while pretending they’re service dogs and dudes wanting to sneak into women’s washrooms while pretending to be transsexuals and the laws that make it all OK whether people like it or not:

…She was direct in her response: “It was less likely anti-straight bias than it was all about the dog. Lots of queer bar owners hate the ADA because of the service-dog regulations.”

I was surprised. “But I thought gays loved their dogs…you know, pampering them, dressing them up in little hats and bow ties and shit.”

“Exactly,” my friend answered. “Queers are always trying to bring their non-service dogs into gay bars, and the owners and managers hate the ADA for the fact that it makes it almost impossible to turn them away. It’s a feeling of government intrusion; the owners feel like their right to run their own business is being violated by a law that demands access in the name of civil rights.”

LOL… oh that’s funny… maybe not for the average run-of-the-mill queer folks, but in light of their activist shit-disturbers, it’s hilariously obtuse. And Cole agrees:

Okay, this is rich. Gay club owners getting pissed off about federal laws mandating access in the name of civil rights. But here’s the thing: The gay bar owners have a point regarding service dogs and the ADA. The law is a hot mess of government illogic. Establishments are allowed to bar any dogs that are not “genuine” service animals (as opposed to simple pets or “emotional support animals”), but, and here comes government doing what it does best—crafting irrational and contradictory rules and regulations—establishments may not demand proof that a dog is a genuine service animal. In other words, you can ban non-service animals, but you are banned from asking for proof that an animal is a service animal; you have to take the customer’s word for it.

Gee, that sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it?

Read the whole thing here.