Bre Faucheux's Blog, page 43

October 29, 2016

“I’m sick of it!”

Michael Moore had this to say on Bill Maher last night (not that I watch Bill Maher, I just read it on Breitbart).


On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” filmmaker Michael Moore reacted to the FBI announcing it was taking a second look into Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails by stating, “She has been attacked and abused for 30 years. I’m sick of it. I don’t want to hear this 11 days before the election. … Bill, this is just such bullsh*t.”


Moore said, “This is just another one of these things. She has been attacked and abused for 30 years. I’m sick of it. I don’t want to hear this 11 days before the election.”


“I’m sick of it”… I’m just waiting for the usual remarks from the left. “This is sexist. They’re only doing this because she’s a woman. This is partisanship.”


No sweet snowflakes, this is a woman who committed a felony that would have you and me in prison for the rest of our lives. As someone with friends who work in the state department that have to get their security clearance renewed every year, I can safely say that this woman has gotten away with something that even FBI Director Comey claimed anyone else would be indicted for.


I already speculated after this first happened that there was one giant reason as to why Comey didn’t indict HRC. This has to go all the way up to the top. To POTUS. Wikileaks already revealed that Obama emailed Hillary while she was using her private server, lied about not knowing of its existence, and that he used a pseudonym when he emailed her. Will Obama get charged with perjury? No. He wasn’t under oath when he said he didn’t know about it. But aiding and abetting, possibly. There are countless others who knew about HRC’s email server and didn’t say anything. Indicting Hillary would have meant causing the entire playground to come crashing to the ground.


Good. Let it. Drain the swamp.


But hey, libtards like Moore say they’re “sick of it” because it’s abuse and not a felony that would have landed his fat ass in jail. Because facts are sexist. Or racist. Or some other word libtards like to use these days.


Got news for you, Moore. There are plenty of us who are delighted to hear this eleven days before the election. Elated! Ecstatic! Dancing on the rooftops. I first heard it when I was driving on a busy freeway. Not recommended. But the happy dance ensued anyway.


 


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 29, 2016 05:56

October 21, 2016

Goodreads goes full SJW

I’ve had a beef with Goodreads for a long while now. I first found their system irritating because they won’t allow the authors who have an author profile on their site to make changes to their books. As a self-published author, I often make changes to my books. Descriptions, cover art, etc. But given that when I was first starting only a few years ago and didn’t know how things worked, I didn’t realize that when I made a change to my book, it was listed as an entirely new book. This made it difficult for readers to find which book to review given that the same book is often listed but with a different cover.


Then I started to notice that fake reviews were popping up everywhere. Goodreads is a website that’s supposedly aimed at reviewing books. Not really. It’s a website that appears more like a forum discussion of authors and books. I find that at least 1/4 of the books reviews on it aren’t genuine.


One thing I respect about Amazon (who ironically owns Goodreads), is that they removed all fake reviews of books and other products from their website. They have an efficient system for finding fake reviews or people selling reviews for a product that can mislead the customer. Many authors were shocked when tons of their non-genuine reviews were removed. Goodreads obviously doesn’t care about their reputation in this regard given that people can review a book on their website before it’s even released by the publisher. And often times, books that don’t even exist.


Given the drama of my recent diversity videos, I was prepared for the SJWs to go after my livelihood. Meaning my book brand. They left the usual comments on my books that had little to do with the actual books, and had everything to do with me being a supposed white supremacist because I had the audacity to cite facts and statistics about the white birthrate being on the decline. Quite dramatically I might add.


I emailed Goodreads asking if the problem could be amended because fake reviews were being posted. I knew they wouldn’t do it before I asked. But what I didn’t know was that their reasoning would be about as SJW as one could possibly imagine.



Hi Bre,
 
Thank you for contacting us about this, though we sincerely apologize for the delayed response.  We have evaluated the reviews you mentioned, but unfortunately they didn’t meet our standards for removal, as they don’t appear to be violating our review guidelines.  To clarify, members are entitled to express their views in their review space, even if an opinion is highly critical or discusses controversial social views.  Honest reviews (positive or negative) are extremely important to us. 
 
It may help to know that we are in the process of looking into these reviewer’s accounts to make sure they are abiding by our rules in all other respects, and we will be sure to take any appropriate action necessary.  If you have any further questions or concerns, please let us know and we’ll be happy to help.

Sincerely,
The Goodreads Team


Controversial social views? Honest reviews that don’t even discuss the book, but the author’s political views? Let me get this straight… A review can be legitimate if it’s deemed to be discussing social issues even if it has absolutely no connection to the book that they are actually reviewing? In other words, discussions on social justice are perfectly okay even if they don’t talk about the book and it’s directed at the author’s political beliefs.

And they’re going to look into the reviewer’s accounts? Not gonna hold my breath on that one.

Not even a year ago, Vox Day opened up a group on Goodreads called the Rabid Puppies as a part of his campaign to help authors with conservative voices and genre fiction to get nominated by the far-leftist Hugo Awards who are well known for caving to politically correct culture to signal their leftist virtue through the publishing industry. The group was thrown off Goodreads and many of those who joined it, including Vox Day, were banned from Goodreads and had their accounts deleted. IN UNDER 36 HOURS OF THE GROUP BEING CREATED! No explanation was given.


Their official policy reads:



Goodreads policy allows users to rate a book as soon as it is listed on the site. We do not dictate on what basis Goodreads members form their personal opinions about a book, so we have no rules about reading the full text of a book before rating and reviewing it. We recognize that not everyone will agree with this policy, but it is one that has worked well for the Goodreads community over time.
Users are entitled to express their honest opinions about the book, even if others feel them to be misguided or wrong. We don’t evaluate a reader’s opinions based on how, when, or why they made a judgement about the work that they read. Given the subjective nature of reviews, it’s hard to designate one review as “wrong” and another “right.” Even if we could, it would be impractical to manually verify the authenticity of every statement made in a Goodreads review, and we have to be consistent in how we apply our policies.  


Wait a minute… they have a policy of non-interference with reviews, but they banned Vox Day and his followers for having the wrong opinions? Further proof that SJWs don’t need logic or facts to further their non-arguments.

Kevin, a friend of mine via Instagram (follow his amazing Instagram page ‘kxu65’) informed me that he once received death threats via Goodreads. This was five years ago. Apparently, he gave a review that a few leftists didn’t like and they promptly called for his blood. Kevin contacted the Goodreads employees to see if anything could be done. Not only did they do nothing about it, but the moderators of the group he was partaking in ended up leaving the group.

I’ve even heard that Goodreads places a special interest in promoting books that channel an SJW or leftist narrative. Why doesn’t that surprise me?

Once again, I knew that Goodreads wouldn’t take down the reviews. But curiosity got the better of me as far as what they would say. I wanted to know just how SJW Goodreads had become. I got my answer.

Don’t count on me using it anymore. I may even delete my account. Although, I do wish their company was public. I would short the stock today if I could.

1 like ·   •  1 comment  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 21, 2016 11:13

October 20, 2016

Selective memory problems?

Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Thursday, “Selective memory is exactly the point” when it comes to the mainstream media’s reaction to Republican nominee Donald Trump suggesting he would wait and see before accepting the election results on November 8.

“All he said was, ‘I’ll wait and see what the results are,’ which is a reasonable position, I suppose,” said Caddell, also pointing out that Democrats challenged the results of the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004.


Hillary Clinton and Al Gore were still claiming Al Gore won the 2000 election as recently as last week in Florida on the stump together:


As the crowd chanted and Hillary smiled and nodded approvingly, Gore continued his thought process by suggesting that he actually won the 2000 election by warning the young voters to not be in a position “years from now” welcoming Hillary Clinton and saying to her “actually you did win, it just wasn’t close enough to make sure that the votes were counted.”


Through this entire sequence, Mrs. Clinton continued to smile and nod in agreement.


Additionally, Democrats, including current Secretary of State John Kerry, accused George Bush of stealing the 2004 election: “A profile of Secretary of State John Kerry published Sunday in The New Yorker reveals that, 11 years after his election loss to George W. Bush in 2004, Kerry still believes he was robbed via systematic fraud.”


Thank goodness I’m not the only one who thought the very question of whether or not Trump would accept the results wasn’t only ridiculous, but also massively hypocritical. Citizens in Florida still claim that their ballots were rigged during the Bush/Gore election. And that was back during the days of using paper ballots. I remember seeing the paper ballot and it was designed to be massively confusing. It also didn’t help matters that Bush’s brother Jeb was the governor of Florida at the time. Yet, Bush got away with it.


Yet the democrats are now trying to demonize Trump for claiming that he will wait to see what the results are before he deems them acceptable. They have a history of not accepting the results. Gore didn’t. Kerry didn’t. That answer to me screams common sense. To democrats, it seems to scream radical.


This has surpassed common sense and breached the realm of the ridiculous.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 20, 2016 11:00

Obama claims ignorance

President Barack Obama did know that Hillary Clinton was using a private email address, despite his assertion that he learned about it “through news reports.”

The president’s answer was a problem for Clinton aide Philippe Reines, who flagged the issue for top Clinton aides as well as White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri in an email.


“It’s not unreasonable to assume that Josh [Earnest] is going to get asked how this was possible, and he should have the factset,” Reines wrote on March 8, 2015. The email has been made public as part of the WikiLeaks releases of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta’s private email account.


Palmieri confirmed that it was “standard practice” at the White House not to confirm anything about Obama’s email, and that both of the president’s press secretary’s were aware if the issue.


“They know POTUS and HRC emailed. Josh has been asked about that. Standard practice is not to confirm anything about his email, so his answer to press was that he would not comment/confirm,” she wrote.


On March 9, White House press secretary Josh Earnest clarified that Obama knew Clinton’s private email address, but wasn’t aware of other details.


“Yes, the president was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her … but the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business,” Earnest said during the White House press briefing.


Yeah… I’m gonna call bullshit on this one. I had a sneaky suspicion that this was the exact reason why Hillary wasn’t indicted. The tentacles of her email server scandal wiggling their way to the top of the government. More than likely to Obama. If Hillary was indicted, they would have to bring the whole ship down. There exists a law (and I don’t know the exact language used for it but nevertheless) that states those who are aware of a breach of security on any level have to report it. If there were emails exchanged between Hillary and Obama, this means that he’s complicit with a crime.


I have a few friends who work in govt and the state department. They have to get their security clearance renewed every year and they have to have a special briefing. One HRC can’t even remember because of her concussions apparently. This woman potentially caused the greatest cyber security threat the U.S.A. has ever seen. We will probably never truly know the real ramifications of her lack of responsibility.


This is why Trump says that her so called “experience” is bad experience. Yes, she has been vetted. Yes, she’s seen the presidency up close. Yes, she’s met with foreign leaders. And after all of that, she still sucks at it.


Can I also just mention the fact that Obama gets the highest level of security clearance in the world? How is it possible that he wasn’t aware of what Hillary was doing? It’s not. He knew. He also knows that he can get away with knowing.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 20, 2016 09:57

October 16, 2016

An unrelenting stream of immigration…


And people wonder why I consider illegal immigration the most important issue during this election.


Biden is the worst kind of leftist. The kind that hates his own so much that he thinks them being a minority is a source of strength. If we continue down this road, we will have no culture. We will have no single American unified identity. We will watch the decline of the U.S. in the same manner Rome fell.


Fuck Joe Biden.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 16, 2016 12:22

October 15, 2016

Republicans below human?

I’ve never liked Bill Maher. Ever. He lost me when he claimed that those who work in the oil industry shouldn’t have jobs. But this…


On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher wondered if it was possible to be a good person and still support GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.


Maher said, “The people of Idaho, Wyoming, Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, I know they’re Republican, mostly, but they’re human, right? These are human beings? What the f*ck does it take, in this country, to have being a human being supersede being a Republican?”


After former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) stated that there are good people who are supporting Trump, Maher asked, “Can you at this point?” After Kerrey argued that you could, Maher stated, “I don’t get that.”


He added, “If the basket fits. Well, if you’re deplorable — I mean, if you have deplorable beliefs, you’re deplorable.”


It appears that being conservative, a Republican, or a Trump supporter makes you below human now. Not just deplorable, but subhuman. And people wonder why there’s so much violence being done at Trump rallies toward his supporters?


Trump is Hitler. His supporters are deplorable. They’re sub-human. Say these things enough, and the easily persuaded low IQ morons will believe it. They will see it as their civic duty to take down his supporters by any means necessary. Even doing physical harm to them. Then what does the tolerant left do when this happens? More often than not, they laugh.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 15, 2016 10:16

October 13, 2016

Fewer whites = progress

Borrowed from Vox Day’s blog because it’s too good not to spread.


Ethnic cleansing used to be a bad thing.  But in America, when it happens to white people, it’s called progress and the “new face of California.”


The town of Santa Ana has been almost 100% purged of white people.  They were pushed out not by tanks and machine guns, but by a massive influx of people speaking a different language and bearing a different culture who expected everyone to adapt to their norms.


Today Santa Ana is nearly 80% Hispanic and less than 10% white.


But I thought diversity was our strength? Why didn’t the white folk stick around?


This all goes back to my blog post on ‘English is the new racism.’ People seem to want diversity and multi-culturalism until they realize that their neighbor is performing female genital mutilation on their daughter or when their neighborhood is completely overrun by people they can’t even communicate with because of language barriers. Makes it exceedingly difficult to borrow a cup of sugar.


But if anyone points out this type of thing, they’re automatically called a white supremacist or a racist.


Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be interviewed by Thor Holt of the ‘Write with Courage’ podcast. He told me that he met an Indian man in the UK who was a Brexit voter. He was labeled a white supremacist for doing so. An Indian man! The words racist or white supremacist are thrown at anyone who dares dispute the leftist narrative. But in this case it’s truly disturbing. When white people have to leave an area because it’s not a place they recognize anymore, they’re called racist.


Let’s look at what really happened here. An invasion. Their city was invaded by people who couldn’t speak English and whose culture was so different from their own that it didn’t feel like home anymore. And if they complain, they’re racist and they don’t want to learn about other cultures.


I guess they should have just learned multiple other languages in order to communicate, right? Let’s not be fooled. That wouldn’t be enough to please leftists.


Get ready, because if an amnesty law for illegal immigrants is passed in the years ahead by the left, we’ll see more of this. People overrun by other cultures who don’t care about American values and don’t even try to assimilate. People who bring their own culture and don’t have respect for the one they’re entering. The magic soil theory comes to mind yet again. That immigrants who set foot on American soil are instantly American and they share our values and western traditions and culture. Or do they?


When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Unless you’re entering the U.S. Then anything goes…


Diversity + Proximity = War!


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 13, 2016 14:01

HRC executive order on guns

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released hidden camera video on Thursday, which shows Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold, a Democratic challenger for U.S. Senate, telling a Palo Alto, California, fundraiser that Hillary Clinton might use an executive order to enforce gun control.


In a video shot during the fundraiser, O’Keefe asks Feingold, “If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do could do to, uh…”. Feingold jumps in and says, “Well, there might be executive order.”


O’Keefe responds by acting like he was learning this for the first time. In a surprised voice, he saus, “Oh, so she can…I know that President Obama…” Feingold then takes over the conversation, saying, “He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting periods. But what we all need is to win the Senate, have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House.”


O’Keefe also spoke with Amy Rao, Clinton’s friend and host of the fundraiser. On hidden camera video, Rao says, “Hillary wants to shut it down. She wants to shut it down,” referring to guns.


Rao continued: “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close the loopholes, get rid of assault weapons. She’ll get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets. She’s going to make all that stop.”


The line that stands out the most to me in this article is, “if we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close the loopholes, get rid of assault weapons.” This is the kind of willful ignorance of the left that drives me out of my mind. And the arrogance of those in power that allow this kind of willful ignorance to spread. An assault weapon is often misconstrued as as a military automatic weapon. Which one needs a special permit to acquire and isn’t available to the average citizen in the U.S. But this kind of language makes it sound to the average person who knows nothing about guns that there’s a big scary weapon out there that anyone can buy.


Second, simple hand guns can be assault weapons. More deaths happen through hand guns than big scary black rifles. And if we really want to be realistic, recent crimes statistics have shown that more people have died in recent years from physical fights than firearms in general.


This “gun show loophole” people talk about are personal sales. Also known as privates sales. Meaning, if you’re at a gun show, a private individual can sell you his gun. Most states require a background check but this kind of instance doesn’t always involve one.


Here’s the thing… even if the law was enforced in a way that made the gun show loophole completely illegal, it wouldn’t stop. People who want to sell firearms are going to sell them. Remember when making marijuana illegal totally stopped the sales of marijuana? And how it didn’t cause lots of youths to be thrown in jail for minor drug offenses with maximum penalties in already overrun prisons? Yeah, that worked out great.


I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. Making something illegal won’t stop crime from happening. And thinking that there’s such a thing as “common sense gun control” is one of the biggest lies the media has taken part in perpetuating to the public.


But let’s face it. HRC doesn’t want to just get rid of assault weapons or loopholes. She wants all your guns. I guarantee you it’s one of her goals. And if she gets her Supreme Court picks who will undoubtedly be anti-second amendment nuts, she’ll have her way, with or without the House or Congress’s consent. I dare anyone who says otherwise to look at how Obama sold the internet to the U.N. recently. Nothing is beyond the realm of possibility when it comes to the power these monsters have.


 


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 13, 2016 13:27

October 12, 2016

When facts don’t care

When facts don’t care about anything… from your feelings to what you think you know, the results might force you to change your mind. Or assume the whole world is conspiring against you as the left often does.


There are two things that non-profit group Safe Minds—committed to “ending the autism epidemic”—doesn’t understand: First, that there is absolutely no link between vaccines and autism. Second, how research works.


I Fucking Love Science reports that the group just put out a statement discrediting a recent study they funded that, once again, shows that there’s no link between autism and vaccination. The study was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and is the result of six years of research focusing on whether giving baby monkeys vaccines results in the development of “autism-like behavior or neuropathology.”


The study…involved 79 infant monkeys in six groups. Two groups were given thimerosal-containing vaccines. Thimerosal is an antiseptic and antifungal agent that was frequently used in vaccinations until it was removed in the U.S from vaccines given to children in the 90s, and is frequently cited by anti-vaxxers as a cause for autism. The next two groups were given the MMR vaccine (also claimed to cause autism) without thimerosal, and the final two were given saline injections as a control.


And here’s what the study found:


No behavioral changes were observed in the vaccinated animals, nor were there neuropathological changes in the cerebellum, hippocampus, or amygdala. This study does not support the hypothesis that thimerosal-containing vaccines and/or the MMR vaccine play a role in the etiology of autism.


Now, this is great news for parents who were considering not vaccinating their kids because it’s even more data that shows that foregoing necessary vaccinations is dumb as fuck and puts both the non-vaccinated kid and the people around them in danger. But if you’re running a group predicated on the notion that vaccines are bad, you’re probably not going to be as pleased with the results. And Safe Minds isn’t. In fact, they want to know exactly what happened and why the study they funded didn’t give them the results that they wanted.


This is the statement that Safe Minds put out when asked about how much they paid to help fund the study:


“The epidemic of autism is expected to cost the country $1 trillion by 2025 if prevalence trends continue. In a recent study, over 40 percent of parents agree or strongly agree that vaccines played a part in the development of their children’s autism. The vaccine primate study in question consisted of multiple phases. The initial phase found a series of negative effects in infant reflexes and brain growth among those exposed to vaccines. The second, recent phase purported to find no effect. SafeMinds has concerns about changes in the study design protocol and analysis that may have led to these contradictory results. We are in the process of collecting and reviewing additional information regarding this study.”


So let me get this straight… if a study shows the exact opposite of what you want it to, there must have been something wrong with the overall procedure? That makes perfect sense. Because there’s no universe in existence where a preconceived notion upon conducting a study could be proven false. Especially something potentially dangerous like not getting your kids vaccinated because some Hollywood actress said there’s a link to autism.


Oh wait, I forgot. Facts are racist. And bigoted. And gender is a social construct, not biology.


*headdesk*


Sounds like the recent studies conducted that proved “rape culture” wasn’t a thing. And the feminists on the left claimed that the lack of results to prove their theory was ‘disheartening.’ Meaning you think more women need to be raped? Oh wait, everyone is conspiring and not telling the truth because you’re theory can’t possibly be wrong.


*headdesk*


GET YOUR KIDS FUCKING VACCINATED!


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 12, 2016 10:23

October 11, 2016

I like men to be men

“For a culture to be balanced and to work out well, you need to have both a masculine part and a feminine part. And now the masculine part is lost. We see the consequences of how the post-modern values are just a construction. It’s very fragile fundamentally. And we now see that we don’t have any males that can stand up, who can fight back those male aggressors that we are facing. So the vacuum that feminism has created means that women are becoming victims of those male aggressors.”


– Iben Thranholm


This comment was made in an interview Thranhom gave regarding the current European migrant crisis and the feminization of men. My spell check tells me that’s not even a word, but I’m going with it.


The interviewer promptly stated that if men act like men and are aggressive, we have more wars and violence. I guess that’s how we should fight these days. Just submit. Fighting back might imply that we actually value our lives.


Can anyone imagine if we didn’t let our aggressive men into battle against fascism, communism, or any other dictatorship?


Thranholm suggested that there needs to be a male revolution where these men in Europe who are allowing their culture to be stripped away by not protecting their women from the ever growing rape epidemic that’s exactly in line with the number of Muslim migrants being allowed in, are forced to recognize and embrace their own masculinity.


I’m reminded how how Chris Kyle was demonized after he was made into something of a hero after the success of his book, American Sniper. Especially after the film came out. His “aggression” was seen as a character flaw rather than something that kept Americans safe.


If my nation is threatened, I want the men to be men. I want them to defend our nation and take pride in doing so. People of this generation seem to believe that the only way to maintain peace is through acceptance and tolerance. History proves quite the opposite. Peace is only maintained by having the bigger club. The sharper sword. The more powerful gun. The more destructive bombs. Many people believe that Japan surrendered from WWII because of the nuclear bombs. It didn’t. It was from all the fire bombing on their villages that were made of wood. Yes, there was a horrific amount of bloodshed. But what followed was a peace agreement that saved the lives of what has been speculated to be thousands if not a million American and Russian soldiers and countless civilians.


The EU’s womanized politicians have proven to Europe that they are no longer capable of protecting their people. They are more concerned with appearing politically correct, tolerant, accepting, embracing the notion of “stronger together” and diversity that has resulted in more terror attacks than the mainstream media is even willing to acknowledge.


Thranholm claimed in another interview with Stefan Molyneux that some European politicians are trying to create a law that states anyone who expresses hatred or even skepticism for another ethnicity can potentially be expelled from their country of origin. Men who see potential threats, recognize them, and call them out, might be exiled for even daring to say that there’s a problem. Europe, where is your survival instinct?


Maybe it’s my respect for the U.S. Constitution and the American way of defending the U.S. from “all enemies foreign and domestic” that helps me to see that the only way to stop an enemy is to say that one exists, but this seems to be falling by the wayside in favor of tolerance, acceptance, and diversity.


I blame feminism. I blame the leftists for teaching the upcoming generations that gender is a social construct and that they don’t have to embrace their masculinity if they don’t want to.


I want the men in America to be men. I want to feel protected. And I’m not ashamed or weak for say so.


 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on October 11, 2016 10:06

Bre Faucheux's Blog

Bre Faucheux
Bre Faucheux isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow Bre Faucheux's blog with rss.