Watch: Teen Saw Police Helicopter And Thought He’d Have Some Fun. He Learned A Big Lesson.

A video uploaded to YouTube this week by York Regional Police reveals how seriously law enforcement officers treat a potentially deadly prank. In a description of the video, the agency states that 19-year-old Vaughan, Ontario, man Nicholas Caranci was one of three subjects spotted by a police helicopter early Sunday morning.

While looking for a suspect in another case, the pilot reportedly noticed a light shining from the ground. A short time later, officers on the ground approached the location as Caranci hopped a nearby fence, dropped what was later determined to be a pellet gun, and attempted to evade officers on foot.

The gun was equipped with a laser pointer, which was identified as the light source observed by the pilot.

When police search dogs entered the mix, it was only a matter of time before the suspect ended up in custody. He has been charged with three criminal counts: mischief endangering life, unlawfully engaging in behavior that endangers an aircraft, and projecting a bright light source into navigable airspace.

The police department has offered some relevant facts for anyone considering similar activities:

York Regional Police reminds the public of the potential harm laser pointers can cause. Health Canada advises that a split-second look into a laser pointer can result in a condition called flash blindness. This is similar to the effect you get during flash photography, where the image of the flash remains in your eyes for a few seconds, then fades away. However, for a pilot in control of an aircraft flying over populated areas, the consequences can be serious. Those who aim these pointers at aircraft are putting lives in danger, not only in the aircraft but on the ground. There is a serious potential for harm to the pilot and the prospect of a crash.

h/t: Fox News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Megyn Kelly’s A Distraction: Here’s The Real Donald Trump Story From The Debates…

Still distracted by the picture above? My point exactly. Don’t worry, so am I; but that doesn’t change the issue at hand. There was a lot of blood in the water over the weekend; and like a shark feeding frenzy, everyone circled around it, hoping more blood would be spilled.

Meanwhile, while everyone was talking blood, sexism, Megyn Kelly, and hurled insults, there was a Trump soundbite no one seemed to be talking about. At the GOP debate last week, Donald Trump kinda sorta defended socialized medicine in Canada. Because that’s such a resounding success.

Watch the clip:

Last I checked, socialized medicine was frowned upon by the Republican party; and the last presidential candidate who supported it got an butt-whooping in 2012, delivering another four spectacular years of Obama. You da man, Romney!

Should Donald Trump attack reporters for asking questions he doesn’t like? Mmm, probably not. Should Megyn Kelly have asked that first sexism question at the debate following the fake, Democrat-created War on Women meme? Mmm, probably not. Was it a good thing that Megyn Kelly kind of hid behind a sexism shield when she also answers, with no qualms, plenty of sexist questions from Howard Stern? Not to mention, lest we forget, this picture. Mmm…you get the idea.

But all of this is a giant red herring. Donald Trump, whether you love him for his policies, his insults, his business record, his golf courses, or if you just love everything about him, the man still said socialized medicine was a good idea.

But let’s all focus on the blood comment. That’s totally, like, super important.

Dummies. All around.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

The Sodomites Are Aiming For Your Kids!

“The laws that they mean to use as a shield are fast becoming the spear to overthrow the laws as they intended them to be.  People just did not figure that out until after the fact.”

The New York Times reported on July 27, 2015 that “Boy Scouts End Ban on Gay Leaders.”

The Boy Scouts of America claims its child abuse prevention program is the best in the country. However, there have been over 2,000 cases of abuse in the Boy Scouts. Here are some examples.

  • In 2005, the man who ran that program, Douglas Smith Jr., was sentenced to eight years in a federal prison for trafficking in child pornography on the Internet.
  • David Watkins, a former Boy Scout leader, has been charged with sodomizing a boy under 13 years of age in his troop.
  • Scout leader Brett Tayler was charged with more than 30 counts of child molestation and exploitation. He is suspected of molesting at least 10 boys from ages 6-9 years old.
  • Scout leader Peter Robert Stibal II was sentenced to 21 years for sexually abusing four Scouts from 2003 to 2008 and possessing child pornography.

If such crimes have already come to the light in the Boy Scouts, one must ask why the radical homosexual lobby is determined to force the BSA to allow homosexuals to infiltrate their organization.

I warned America that Canadian Scouts (CS) decided to allow females, atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals to join the CS. In 1999, they approved the establishment of an all-homosexual troop, which now marches in Canada’s “gay pride” parades. Within five years, scouting membership dropped over 50 percent. Many scouting camps and offices were closed, and the staff was laid off.

As one would expect when the doors to sinful behavior are swung open. Sex abuse by leaders in scouting is another tragic consequence (Romans 1:24-27).

Boys who become scouts to receive a healthy, moral upbringing are instead becoming lifetime victims of criminals who prey on children.

Even worse is the lack of justice these young boys receive. Canada’s epidemic of child sex abuse is largely swept under the rug to protect pederasts.

Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, stated: “The notion that we need to protect homosexuals more than we need to protect children … has been a disturbing trend.”

The Scouts is not the only area affected by the radical homosexual lobby’s bully pulpit. The education system is targeted in a large degree.

After Canada passed homosexual marriage legislation in 2005, Phil Lees of Canada’s Public Education Advocates for Christian Equity (PEACE), who spent most of his career in public education, said the same-sex “marriage” law had an immediate effect on Canadian schools:

Experience shows that whenever homosexual marriage becomes law, children will be exposed to an increasingly sexualized curriculum and school environment at an early age, as early as kindergarten.

In Canada, the radicals have sought to lower the age of consent to 14 years old for anal intercourse.

America’s school curriculum is not too far behind Canada’s.

America need not look any further than Canada and take heed to the warnings while it still has the time (Ezekiel 33:4).  After all, these are your kids.

Teachers Preying on Students

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Exposed: Putin And Buffett’s War On U.S. Pipelines

Abundant, reliable, affordable oil and natural gas empower people. They support job creation, mobility, modern agriculture, homes and hospitals, computers and communications, lights and refrigerators, life and study after sundown, indoor plumbing, safe drinking water, less disease, and longer lives.

Hydrocarbons make plastics, pharmaceuticals, and synthetic clothing. They create fertilizers and pesticides, to improve crop yields, reduce food prices, and improve nutrition.

But the Sierra Club,, and other radicals want to keep America’s oil and natural gas bounties in the ground. They block leasing, drilling, and fracking. They block pipelines that transport oil and gas to refineries, power plants, factories, and homes. And the more their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantras fall on deaf ears, the more absurd their anti-energy campaigns are getting.

Hydraulic fracturing and Canadian oil sands development made North American petroleum production soar, created millions of jobs, sent oil, gasoline, and natural gas prices plunging, and provided some of the few bright spots in the 2008-14 Obama economy.

New pipelines were approved and constructed, including the Keystone system’s first three phases. They augmented 2.5 million miles of liquid petroleum, gas transmission, and gas distribution pipelines that already crisscross the United States.

But when the Keystone XL segment was proposed, intense opposition suddenly materialized. Protesters railed that habitat disturbance, potential leaks, climate change, and ending fossil fuel use necessitated “no more pipelines.” Now, the Sandpiper Pipeline from North Dakota’s Bakken shale region across Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin, is meeting similar resistance.

As with Keystone, the protesters say they’re just concerned student, hiker, and Native American grassroots activists: average citizens who just care about their environment. The facts do not support their claims.

In reality, they are being bankrolled by billionaires, fat-cat foundations, and foreign oil interests.

Putin-allied Russian oil billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found.

Sandpiper opponents are also being funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations, researcher Ron Arnold discovered.

It’s true that several small groups are involved in the anti-Sandpiper protests. However, the campaign is coordinated by Honor the Earth, a Native American group that is actually a Tides Foundation “project,” with the Tides Center as its “fiscal sponsor.” They’ve contributed $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.

The Indigenous Environmental Network also funds Honor the Earth. Minnesota corporate records show no incorporation entry for the Network, and 95% of its money comes from outside Minnesota. Tides gave IEN $670,000 to oppose pipelines.

Indeed, $25 billion in left-wing foundation investment portfolios support the anti-Sandpiper effort. Vastly more backing makes the $13-billion-per-year U.S. environmentalist movement a power to be reckoned with, Arnold and I document in our book, Cracking Big Green.

These tax-exempt foundations do not simply give money to pressure groups. They serve as puppeteers, telling protesters what campaigns to conduct, what tactics to use. Meanwhile, donors enjoy deductions for “charitable giving” to “education, conservation and other social change” programs.

Tides Foundation combined cash flows exceed $200 million annually, Canadian investigative journalist Cory Morningstar reported (here and here). Like Arnold, she and fellow Canadian sleuth Vivian Krause have delved deeply into troubling arrangements among Big Green, Big Government, and Big Finance.

Morningstar calls the San Francisco-based Tides operation “a priceless, magical, money funneling machine of epic proportions.” It enables über-rich donors to distribute funds to specific organizations and campaigns of their choice, without disclosing their identities.

Even more interesting, among Tides’ biggest donors is Obama friend and advisor Warren Buffett. Beginning in 2004, Buffett funneled $30.5 million through his family’s NoVo Foundation to Tides. The cash ultimately went to selected pressure groups that led campaigns against Keystone, Sandpiper, and other projects, Morningstar and Arnold found.

By donating the market value of greatly appreciated Berkshire Hathaway shares to NoVo, the Omaha billionaire avoided income taxes on his gains. Even more important, while public, media, and political attention was riveted on Keystone, Berkshire Hathaway quietly bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Union Tank Car manufacturing company – with no notice, dissent, or interference, Morningstar observed.

When Keystone XL et al. were blocked, more oil was shipped by rail – much of it via Buffett companies. In fact, oil-by-rail skyrocketed from 9,500 carloads in 2009 to 450,000 carloads in 2014. Mr. Buffett’s “investment” in anti-pipeline activism garnered billions in rail revenues.

The anti-pipeline campaigns blocked thousands of jobs and increased risks of tank car derailments, like the Lac Megantic, Quebec spill that destroyed much of the town and incinerated 47 people.

That may help explain why Mr. Buffett recently criticized President Obama’s veto of Keystone XL legislation. He now says the pipeline would be good for both Canada and the United States, and it is a mistake to jeopardize trade relationships with our northern neighbor.

But the campaigns rage on. Mr. Buffett helped unleash a beast he cannot control. The campaigns are not grassroots, or even Astroturf. Their “green” tint is the color of unfathomable behind-the-scenes wealth.

The clandestine Buffett-Berkshire-NoVo-Putin-Tides-activist-railroad arrangement reflects “a devious strategy on the part of both benefactor and recipient,” Morningstar concludes. “At minimum, it demonstrates an almost criminal conflict of interest.” Legislative investigations are needed, especially since the Justice Department is hardly likely to look into what its key allies are doing.

Meanwhile, pro-Sandpiper students from the Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow presented these inconvenient financial truths to pipeline protesters at a recent University of Minnesota rally. “Buffet’s Puppets,” the CFACT students called the protesters.

How did the Buffett-Tides-Putin allies react, when they learned they are being used by billionaires? They dug in their ideological heels and shouted insults.

One red-faced protester walked away. Others intensified their chants or shouted racially tinged epithets at the multi-ethnic CFACT students. None wanted to discuss funding issues, America’s need for oil and jobs, or how best to transport fuels safely.

This is what passes for “environmental studies,” “robust debate,” “higher education,” and compassion for blue-collar families on campuses and picket lines today. No wonder “environmentalism” and “liberalism” have become such pathetic political philosophies.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Jewelry Store Posted This Sign Inside Their Shop, Now They’re Under Attack For It

The religious owner of a jewelry store in Newfoundland, Canada, is being forced to defend himself following a public attack by a lesbian couple that bought a set of rings from the business. According to recent reports, Nicole White and Pam Renouf were encouraged to visit Today’s Jewellers when they were in the market for engagement rings. At that time, there was no apparent disagreement between the customers and retailer; and both women put money down on their purchases and left satisfied.

White and Renouf were apparently so pleased with the experience that they recommended the shop to others – an act that ultimately resulted in the current controversy. At some point since their purchase, the women heard from a friend who visited the store on their referral that the owner had hung a sign defending traditional marriage.

“The sanctity of marriage is under attack,” the sign said. “Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman.”

White said that, despite her positive experience as a customer, she was incensed upon hearing that such a sign would be hung in a public place.

“It was really upsetting,” she complained, suggesting the sign showed “how much they are against gays, and how they think marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

The couple has subsequently demanded a refund, a request co-owner Esau Jardon granted. Nevertheless, the backlash his business received from local media has forced him to respond. Some of the backlash, he said, has come in the form of direct threats against the business and its owners.

Jardon defended the sign, insisting it is in no way a prohibited form of expression and does not imply any discriminatory beliefs on his part.

He concluded that he feels “really bad” about the customers’ hurt feeling, though he declared “we will not retract from what we believe.”

Should business owners be allowed to operate according to their religious convictions? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth