Blah! Blah! Blah!

Here (sadly) we go again. Another brutal and senseless killing. Another innocent bystander the victim of a random gunfight in the streets of Toronto. She is not just another statistic..she had a family, a life, and a name. It was Jane Creba and she was ONLY 15 years young.

Once again we have our Liberal boneheads in Ottawa churning out their typical, boring, repetitive, and insulting rhetoric. Why they are so mad that they are going to declare war on gun crimes. Omigosh! No way! You mean they are actually going to address the criminal element? Wait a second...how many times over the last twelve years of Liberal leftwing lunancy have you heard that one? C'mon, be honest.

In fact just today Liberal advisor Scott"beer and popcorn" Reid stated the most rehearsed and widely used mantra chant of:

""The prime minister's message was simple and direct: our government is committed to combating gun violence and keeping our streets safe,"

Really Scott? Do you mean it for true and for real this time?

It continues with Prime Minister Paul Martin (a Liberal), Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (also a Liberal), and Toronto Mayor David Miller (sigh! another Liberal) coming together for the following statement:

"The trio has vowed to use all levels of government to bring about tougher sentences, tougher bail conditions and the full force of the RCMP and Justice Departments."

Am I just being cynical or have we not heard these exact statement's in previous years past? The ultimate slap in the face to all Canadians , in my humble opinion, came from Immigration Minister Joe Volpe when in his infinite wisdom declared that the Liberal government would set up...are ready for this....(suspense is killing ya isn't it?)........gulp!....ANOTHER TASK FORCE!

GASP! Wow Joe that is incredibly profound. What a novel idea. I am sure that this time around a task force will most definetly, absolutely, and without a doubt clean up gun violence for sure. I feel much safer already knowing that you will not rest until your precious (read: stupid) task force gets to the bottom of our gun problems in this country. What would we do without Liberals?

In all seriousness, none of the above will have an impact on gun crimes. Right now we have a gun registery that has cost the Candian taxpayer almost 2 billion dollars. Has it lead to the reduction in gun crimes? Of course it has not. Criminals are not going to register the guns they intend to kill people with. HELLO PAUL MARTIN!!!

Has more lenient and rehabilitating sentences reduced gun crimes? Nope. If the criminal element is not taught "consequences for your choices" as opposed to Liberal philosphy which would say to the criminal element "Bad Billy (slap on the wrist) now you behave and don't do that again or we will have to get heavy handed and send you to a country club!"...we will only continue to see gun crime increase. If there is no fear of the law and it's consequnces(because we don't really have any) then there quite simply is no fear at all.

Unfourtantley in Canada we no longer have a justice system..we have a legal system. Justice is becoming a thing of the past. What Liberals do not seem to grasp in their tiny "peabrains" is that gun control (and now banning of guns) is NOT crime control. Even IF it were possible to remove every single gun out of Canada criminals who intend to kill would then pick up bats, knives, cueballs, etc.

As long as we have a government in power that is more concerned about coddling the criminal and making perpetraitors the victims rather then holding them accountable for their crimes (not that Liberals know anything about accountability) then nothing is about to change any time soon. Sadly there will be more Jane Creba's in the news and more phoney, superficial Liberal concern. Blah..gun registery...blah...ban guns...blah...educate criminals...blah...not their fault mommy spanked them...blah...etc.

To think that for years Canadians have been getting sucked into the Liberals ONLY election ploy that Conservatives are scary and buying into the "better the devil you know" line. Wake up suckers and ask yourself the question on January 23/06 about just who really is the scary one?



Sometimes the "Devil you know" just happens to be the "Chief Demon!". Until next time...

Sinners rejoice!

"So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."



"And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night."



"An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."



Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
(Luke 2:4-14)

This entry is dedicated to the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Prince of peace, the wonderful counsellor, the Saviour and redeemer of mankind, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the Great "I Am", the one who was..who is.. and is to come, the Son of the living God.

By my own willful choice to surrender my life to him he now calls me His friend, His Child, His brother. It is common tradition to celebrate a family member's birthday. Today(and all week) I will celebrate my brother's birthday. Happy Birthday Jesus my bro and thank you for coming to to earth to take my place in death so that I might have life everlasting.

Merry Christmas to all my fellow blogger's and "anonymous" readers. May God's peace rest upon you all. Remember....



Until next time...

The Rebutt!

For those who have been following the debate between myself and my blogging buddy Mandora, we have now reached the final stage. I will now give a final response, to her response, to my opening arguement of the debate (that took long to say) In keeping within the context as what some may percieve as a battle of the sexes, in true female form, she will get in the last word! Without further adue...

I certainly admire my respective opponent's passion for "family". But to suggest that pro-family advocates need to embrace same sex marriage as this somehow, in her words,

" serves to strengthen the primacy of the nuclear family model, and acts as a way of glorifying marriage and the monogamous way of life."

...comes across as a contradiction of terms.Nuclear families, in most cases, are the direct result of one or more partners in the relationship NOT practising monogamy in the first place. How does this glorify marriage and the monogamous way of life? I, personally, felt that was a self defeating statement.

Those types of sentiments sound all fuzzy and warm on the surface but in reality fuzzy is all you are left with. Although the nuclear family is a reality for some(I know, I grew up in one myself) is this the highest standard of a model we feel we should set the bar for in achieving stability within the functioning family? I feel we do ourselves and children a great disservice. I am confused at how this could "glorify" marriage. The definition is no longer understood, because by redefining it, it is no longer consistent. If we were to start calling cars-trucks because car owners felt inferior, then everytime somebody mentioned that they owned a truck you would be confused as to whether or not they really just owned a little 3 cylinder hatchback or a an 8 bangin' SUV! I would like to go after this more but that is for a different debate. The key issue of my opening arguement was focused on whether or not the introduction of same sex marriage will affect religious rights and freedoms as well as one's right to freedom of conscience. Mandora had alot of valid things to say in her arguement( not that I agreed with alot of it), nonetheless, they were areas I could respond too quite easily. However there will be areas in my rebuttal that I will not address at this point, not because I am avoiding them but because in my understanding of Mandoras response I felt, in some areas of her response, that it went off in some directions that neglected the foundation of my opening statement.

If you recall, all Canadians were told back in the 1990's that introducing benefits for same sex couples by recognizing them as a common law relationship would not lead to redefining marriage. We now know that to be untrue. 2 year's ago we were told that redefining marriage will not hurt or remove anyone's religious rights/freedoms. Also untrue as that is now becoming self evident. Mandora makes mention of Section 15(1) of the Charter and she is correct when she says that the reference in the Charter regarding sex "... does NOT include sexual orientation." It was meant for gender, HOWEVER, judges in this land, who already wield far too much power regarding social policy, "CHOSE" to interpet that term to mean sexual orientation. Had it been worded as gender we would not have the room to "muddy the waters" as we have today. Instead though we are now setting the platform for a flood of human rights abuse's, civic lawsuits, and heading back to the court's for more "interpetations" and "definitions". All for the sake of redefining a word that signified the committed and monogamous bond between a man and a woman. A word that is sacred to many and even for those of a non faith, still representative of solid family structure.

I am sure proponents from both sides of the spectrum can solidly agree that the Charter was designed to protect the freedoms of Canadians, not just as a whole, but as individuals as well. They are also "meant" to protect every citizen from coast to coast. Not just those in Ontario or Britsh Columbia. Not just homosexuals or Christians, Muslims or atheists. Everybody is included regardless of color, race, gender, both religious and non religious beliefs. It was also intended to place everyone on an equal and fair playing field. So are we still equal now that the current Canadian Government has forced redefinition upon and against the will of the majority? (keep in mind that the 5 months of polling leading up to C-38 consistently showed that 68% of Canadians did not want marriage redefined. The majority only shifted when a civil union was suggested) I would strongly suggest that equality, fairness, and protection under the Charter is now fast eroding due to this very legislation. Allow me to demonstrate with a parallel.

Under the Charter, Canadians are guaranteed the right to freedom of moral conscience. This helped aid physcians who had a moral dilema with regards to abortion. Not all physcians hold a "higher" faith or belief in God, yet many struggled with what they felt was a violation of the hippocratic oath to preserve life by all means. Others accepted science that supported that life begins at conception, and then of course there were those who had religious reasons. Physcians were allowed to refuse patients this procedure and yet continue their practice of medicine, without threat of losing their license, on grounds of "freedom of moral conscience". They do not have too have religious reasons.

In contrast, we have Justices of the peace and marriage commissioners, who are having the same moral struggles regarding marrying a same sex couple. Instead of accomodations being made for them, governments are blatantly discriminating against them by revoking their licenses! The Charter seems to have gone out the window on this one. According to the powers that be, marriage is a Provincial jurisdiction. I pointed this out to the C-38 committee when I presented to them back in June/05. They were offering to ammend the bill to cover marriage commissioners and JP's. My response to them was that unless they were willing to fulfill their "Obligatory" duty as Federal MP's and invoke the Charter where Provincial Governments were violating and oppressing the "rights" and will of the people, one hundred amendents were as useless as the paper it is written on.

To date we have seen first hand Governments who are willing to openly violate and discriminate against religious freedoms in this country by going out of their way to not defend these people by punishing them for exercising their fundamental freedom to moral conscience they are supposedly guaranteed under the Charter. This is not equal and fair treatment. This is not respectful of Charter freedoms or basic human rights.

In conclusion, Mandora stated in her response the traditional definition of marriage(by the way it goes alot further back then the 19th century) that in it's original content somehow was "...forcing gay couples to take on a hetro lifestyle." I don't know of any gay people who were forced to go straight over this but on the other end of the spectrum I know of an entire nation that has been forced to accept gay marriage, whether they like it or not. The other message that has been sent is we can all kiss our religious freedoms goodbye at the same time. There is no longer an equal balancing of rights over this matter. Governments have been unable to make same sex marriage work in this country "without" removing rights and freedoms away from others.

One more step closer to a social communistic state. Over to you Mandora...

The debate!

I have been invited by a "Blogger buddy" to participate in a blog style debate. So the following may not come across as my usual style of rant. For those who visit my site on a regular basis I would encourage you to visit Mandora's site

You will have a better understanding of the rules of engagement. You will also be encouraged to participate by reviewing the debates and casting your vote with the blogger of choice. However, your vote must be based on who you feel made the better arguement and not because you agree with the individuals particular view on the subject. Let the games begin...



"The stripping away of religious rights and freedoms in Canada... home of the tolerant!"

One of the hottest debates still going on in this country has been the issue of gay marriage. It has been a long time since such an area of contention has aroused the passion of the public. The "Yes" side versus the "No" has not been designated to anyone individual group. We had Liberals, Conservatives, NDP's, and Independents all take opposing views. We have seen homosexuals come out opposed to same sex marriage (although Liberal media bias try's to stifle them) and we have seen those on the more conservative platform come out in favour. To simply say that this is a neo conservative/evangelical Christian movement for those opposed would be misleading. To say that those in favour is soley driven by homosexual activists only, would also be misleading. There are so many different angles to approach this hot button issue on. There is marriage as a sole family unit, "rights and freedoms", and charter issues to religious reasons as well. I am going to delve into only one area of it though. That being the agruement of "rights".

One of the biggest arguements to come out of this debate is that this is a "rights" issue and that by not allowing gays and lesbians to marry there is a violation of freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of human rights and freedoms. Let's look at the history of the Charter here. The Charter in it's original content does not include the term "sexual orientation". It never did. This terminology was "read" into the Charter by activist judges back in 1984. It was stated back then that this very "reading in" would eventually one day lead to redefining marriage. Of course the Liberals told us that was not true(we all know how much we can trust a Liberal) But let's also take a look at the role of a judge. A judge is NOT elected they are appointed by the governing party. Their role as judges is not to determine social policy or to write and/or re-write the laws of the land. That is the job of elected parlimentarians. Their job, quite simply, is to enforce the law of the land, not change it to suit their personal views.

The big question then: Were homosexuals being denied the "right" to marry? The answer is clear, NO they were not. There has never been a need to redefine marriage because homosexuals have always had the "right" to marry provided it was a member of the opposite sex. Nonetheless, the "right" has always existed under the definition of marriage being understood as one man and one woman. No "rights" were being violated and they were not being excluded, they simply did not fit the definition. A definiton, by the way, that has stood the test time over many different faiths/religions and non religious society's as well as the many different nations worldwide over the course of history. Was it necessary to redefine? Of course not! This may be a lame comparison but we know that their are men out there who claim to feel like a woman on the inside but have no desire to have a sex change operation. Do we now redefine the term woman to include the male anatomy to accomodate these individuals? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. Marriage defined makes up the family unit of one man one woman, husband and wife, mom and dad. If "everybody" constitutes a marriage/family unit, then there is nothing left to define it because nobody would understand what exactly that would consist of.



The other aspect of the "rights" arguement is that redefining marriage will not have an effect on the "rights" or "religious rights" of other citizens. This arguement is absolutley false. Before the marriage bill C-38 was even rammed thru the House of Commons, we heard how Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary was "threatened" by government representatives that his church's tax charitable status would be removed if he continued to encourage his parishoners to contact their Federal MP's and voice their opposition to bill C-38.(talk about Stalinism). It does not stop there. In both Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have witnessed Justices of the peace and marriage commissioners being forced to resign or having their licence's stripped away from them for not wanting to perform same sex ceremonies due to religious conflicts. How tolerant. How respectful of one's religious rights. Marriage commissioners who had been performing service's for as long as 25 years and made this their livelyhood were now kicked to the curb. Was it not Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler who said:

"We cannot allow equality rights to trump religious rights"

In effect, that is precisley what has happened. By placing gay rights over top of religious rights there is now an established "heirarchy" of rights. This flies directly in the face of the Charter that declares everyone is "equal" and should be treated as such. This is clearly not fair and equal treatment of the Canadian people. This instead is giving preference to one group of people based on a sexual lifestyle by removing ones "right" of religious freedom. It also says that if you hold any religious beliefs that disagree with homosexuality you are no longer welcome to apply for a marriage commissiners license. It says to the public that"we will go out of our way to accomodate homosexuals but will not make any accomodations to those of religious beliefs". It says "In fact we will weed them out!"

I know this firsthand as I also held a license to marry people in the Province in Manitoba. I find it very contradictory of the Provincal Government that prior to same sex marriage being legalised here, again by one unelected judge, I was always allowed descretion. If at anytime I was uncomfortable with a couple I was not obligated.

For example (no this did not actually occur) if a couple came to me and wanted me to perform satanic vows, obviously, being a Christian I would not be comfortable with that and decline. They could then continue down the list of 600 other available commissioners who may be willing to perform their desired ceremony. In fact, you actually did not have to give a reason at all. Yet when it came to gay marriage it became an attitude of "to hell with your religious beliefs!" Either you violate your Christain faith or resign. Again, another clear display of tolerance. This was not only a direct violation of my religious rights and freedoms(supposedly gauranteed under the Charter) but it was also blatant discrimination. (I have taken action but that is not part of the debate).

Can we honestly say that redefining marriage was a good thing and that nobody was directly affected? I would strongly disagree. Same sex marriage has stripped away the "rights" of the majority and handed them over to a minority group that had NEVER lost their "rights" in the first place.

Word up Mandora...

Tis' the season for insult

Everybody gather into your imaginary box's for a moment. I need you to put on someone else's shoes for a moment. Are you ready? Here we go...

It's YOUR birthday (for arguments sake, will say your name is Joe). OK it is officially Joe's birthday. Everybody on the planet knows Joe and once a year stops to celebrate Joe's birthday. Joe is known to be a very positive person who only desires to shine love on every soul he comes into contact with. This is Joe's day and should be celebrated as such.

However, one dark and evil day, a feminst group of hardcore "man-haters", wanting to be known only as "womyn" not "women", came along and decided that Joe was simply to masculine sounding and was offensive to them. They did not seem to mind taking time off to visit and celebrate with family and friends over the designated days off for Joe's birthday, they were just offended by Joe. Even though Joe never wronged them in any way. Anyways, the evil feminists felt the name should be changed to Jolene's birthday.

This, however, sparked an outrage among the gay, lesbian, and transvestite community who felt not only was Joe to masculine but Jolene was to feminine. Neither of these names was sufficent for Joe's birthday (remember him?) because they were not "gender" friendly. They felt Joe's day should be changed altogether to a more suitable name such as Marion's birthday. This name could apply to both sexes, therefore, it was deemed "safe" and non-offensive.

But it did not stop there. The anti-Joes in Quebec and France were very offended by the use of a most commonly used french name (Marion) and wanted it changed to a more english known name such as Jordan. This way the french could distance themselves from this mostly english tradition celebration. Remember, anything that seperates french from english is considered victory to them. OK?!?!?!

Good! It will be called Jordans Birthday then? Not so fast. You see the Canadian Government's language police agency felt that Jordan still sounded too much like Joe and was just as offensive if not more as now it was subtley re-introducing Joe back into the picture. "We can't have that, everybody would be offended and we could have a revolution on our hands!" they exclaimed with panic stricken faces.

"We will never be able to satisfy everyone so maybe we will just call it "Person's Day". It is gender friendly, does not insult the french or the english the gays, lesbians or transvestites, it does not use derugatory terms such as "women", is not chauvinistic, and makes no direct reference to anyone individuals birthday. Terrific, we solved the problem and nobody should get offended. Aren't we great!"

At the end of the day, of course, none of the groups mentioned above (when asked) had any inkling as to what exactly they were celebrating.

Of course the one group left out of the whole equation was all the people who personally knew and loved Joe. They celebrated Joe's birthday as Joe's Birthday because , well , it was HIS to celebrate. Why would they change it? For those who were offended by Joe's birthday...nobody was forcing their hand to even celebrate it. It appeared that "everybody" else just wanted to jump on their own political soapbox to tear down the one individuals special day. An individual who never brought any harm upon them and only wanted the very best for them. That was his birthday wish every year even for those who detested him.

For those who have not caught on yet, Joe is Jesus Christ and the "other" groups are political correctness gone mad! Welcome to Christmas time in Canada where we have multi-faith or multicultural tree's. We say things like "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" or "Best Wishes". All for the sake of not offending others.

However, I consider myself a true Canadian. I am offensive, intolerant, and I am Canadian! So let me wish you all a very Merry CHRISTmas. I would also like to remind you that Jesus IS the reason for the season (whether you like it or not!), and may God Bless you richly this CHRISTmas season as we celebrate the true meaning. The birth of God's son, Jesus Christ, who came into this world for you and me.



If that is not offensive enough for you, just wait till you read my Easter entry. Until next time...

(PS: I would like to hear yor responses regarding what Christmas is to you? Has political correcteness gone overboard?, and whatever other comments you may have. Be sure to check back as I will respond)