I AM CANADIAN! >:(

The following is a letter to the editor of the "ConservativeTruth.org" Tom Barret. Only this is te converted Canadian version. You can "Read the original letter here"


As the Canadian version reads:


IMMIGRANTS,NOT Canadians MUST ADAPT.

I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Canadians. However...... the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the "politically correct! " crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Canada. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand. This idea of Canada being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Canadians.......we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak ENGLISH/FRENCH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

"We Stand On Guard For Thee" is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan.. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women.......on Christian principles.............founded this nation..... and this is clearly documented.It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home.........because God is part of our culture.

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY,our land, and our lifestyle. But once you are done complaining....... whining...... and griping....... about our flag.......our pledge...... our national motto........or our way of life....I highly encourage you to take advantage of one other Great Canadian Freedom.......

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

Wow! Strait and to the point. Now I do not want this to be misconstrued as a "resentful" statment. I have many immigrant friends who actually cannot understand our lack of culture. (I have to explain to them that we lost our identity's trying so damn hard to not be like Americans even though we pretty much are)

I do not take issue with our immigrants retaining their cultural identity and bringing it here. In fact I welcome the educational exposure to it on a "folklorama" level. But as a Canadian I too feel I must draw the line when my country is supposed to stand on it's head to accomodate them all. This feat is impossible and causes too much unwarranted anomosity.

Take for example how the laws have now changed to "accomodate" the Sikh religion by allowing their children to wear their sacred kirpan (a 6 inch blade) to a public school while my kid's would be suspended for carrying a dull 2 inch swiss army knife.

"But that is part of their religious lifestyle" you might say. Well, the Chrisitans would argue that so was the Ten Commandments and prayer but they had no problem taking that away from the public school system did they?

Muslims, over the last year and half, have been trying to introduce Shria law into the Province of Ontario. For their people only of course. This is where the water's truly get muddied.

If you do not like our rule's, and our laws do not suit you, then TAKE OFF EH!

I hear the middle east is nice this time of year.

Until next time...

More hypocritical tolerance >:(

Open your ears to any bleeding heart Liberal/NDP/left wing(nut) and you will hear them expound on the virtues of a society that is capable of tolerance. A society that allows differing points of view. One that allows freedom of speech and the "right" to peaceful protest.

Sounds good doesn't it? Sounds maybe even fair? The only catch is that you MUST agree with the left wing view or all the above is disqualified. Your permitted your right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest provided it falls in line with the leftist perceptions and views. If not...well then they exercise the "right" to stifle your freedom of speech as well as unpeacfully silence your right to peacful protest.

Such was the case for Rose Mawhorter On April 7th, 2006 Rose was attacked and assualted by an unknown assailant for ...guess what? Exercising her democratic right to peacefully protest the genocidal practise we like to sugar coat with the medically known term abortion.

I find it rather odd how many "pro-choicer's" can be permitted to shout out loud about their "right to end life" in the city streets without any interference but when the shoe is on the other foot "It simply will not be tolerated". The pro choice advocate seems to have the self appointed "right" to silence any in opposition to their views. For those who may be questioning the whole incident was caught on tape . Be aware of the language content as some of these pro choice advocates are so full of rage when you confront them about their human indignities.

Of course they are probably just overtired from screaming at anti-war rallies about all the senseless killing's going on over in the middle east. Not even realising the soldiers are fighting for their democratic right's to snuff out the life of their own children here at home. Sheesh, how ungrateful.

You have guts Rose Mawhorter. Stand firm sister and stand tall. The killing of the innocent should NEVER be tolerated for the sake of "convience".



Until next time...

Just one look (that's all it took)

I just spent the previous post defining the difference between a "Biker" and a motorcycle enthusiast or in some cases, those who are known as RUBS. (Rich Urban Bikers) I will actually give much more credit to the "enthusiast". At least they put effort into riding their motorcycles.

But this entry is actually not about taking my little potshot's at these individuals.

Nope. Today I wear my heart on my sleeve. The photo of my motorcycle in my previous post was actually taken about 2 years ago. This past Saturday evening a "solid" bro and myself were up till 4:00am giving the old girl a new paint job. Here is the end result:



another angle:



and one more:



Not bad eh? Tribal flames done up in my club's color's. Black, yellow, and white. So why the "heart on my sleeve" statement? Well, after working on the old gal till the wee hours of the morning, after just a few hours of sleep, I was up Sunday morning heading out with the BOYZ enjoying their envious, green eyed, salivating looks of hidden jealousy.

My bike has never looked so good and I was quite pleased with how "she" turned out. But for over a year now I have been considering a change. As much as I love to ride my loud, lean, mean, and nasty machine there is one drawback. My wife cannot be with me due the small tiny, teensy weensy seat on the back and the overall narrowness of the frame. It was simply to uncomfortable for her and I missed her on the back with me.

So I prayed to God that he would help me first to sell the bike, get more then it may be worth, and set me up to purchase the next Harley (of course) without incurring any debt.

He is a good, faithful, and trustworthy God. I came home Sunday evening and placed an online ad. The next day I recieved one call from a young fella about 4 hours away from where I live. I e-mailed him some photo's. I suspect he wet himself as he showed up the next day (today) with cash in hand ready to pay full asking price. Because of high fuel prices and the fact he had to drive 4 hours here and then back I knocked off $200.00 so he could have some extra fuel money.

God answered this prayer with such smooth transition and quickness that I struggled letting her go (sniffle!) :(

...even though it was exactly what I asked Him for.

Think about it...painted Saturday, rode it Sunday, and sold it Monday! What a whirlwind. But the new bike is already lined up and has a wider frame, a much bigger and more comfortable seat, and of course a bigger LOUDER engine with sreamin' eagle pipes. (Woo Hoo!!!). I am confident in it because I rebuilt the engine on it myself. (I am buying it from another buddy).

It was hard seeing the old gal that I had invested so much time, energy, and money in, drive away for the last time. But I thanked God for helping me out and hearing the sincerity of my prayer.

Then I picked up my bike helmet and looked at the back of it....



...and somehow everything seemed a whole lot better.

Until next time...

It's that time Harley :)

No, it's not actually a movie review you are about to read. It is that statement that I say to the "other" lady in my life every spring. The statement itself just reminds me of one of the greatest movies of all time. Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man. In the movie, Marlboro uses the line "Harley...it's that time again." They then hop on their bike's and get into all kinds trouble. Cool ;)

Two weeks ago I walked into my shed and said those very words (my other spiritual side) "Harley...it's that time again". Rolled over the engine and drove over 200kms in +1 tempatures at breakneck speeds of....nevermind, my wife might read this.



That's my baby! She's LOUD and proud. I built alot of her. Some of it over and over again. Ride an engine hard and fast and you'll spend alot of time blowing it up and re-building. It is no hobby, it is a way of life. Not many understand.

Oh sure there are alot of bike's on the highways and alot of different ride groups. But most are NOT bikers. Motorcycle enthuasists yes, but biker's no way. What defines the biker?

He is set apart in many ways. He is not one of these types like your typical RUB (Rich urban biker) who can be spotted a mile away. They are the one's with the shineist bike's (i.e. no bugs! due to lack of riding) and the cleanest leather's you have ever seen. RUB's like to drive their trucks to the nearest motorcycle rally with their bike's in the back. They unload their bike about a block away, put on their leather's and their "I'm a big bad ass biker for a day" attitudes. They are so obvious it hurts. Sometimes it can hurt them as a "biker" does not buy it and usually expresses that to the individual.

I must credit some of them though..at least they stop to roll around in the ditch first to give off the "appearance" they rode a long way. But a true biker will ride long distance's in the rain, wind, and cold along with the nice weather. Personally, I once did 6 hours straight in the rain. Not as enjoyable but if one consider's themselves a biker then get on the dang thing and ride it!!!

A real biker "Knows" his bike. When broken down he can actually pull his bike apart on the highway and do the required maintenance. Unless of course he blows the engine. In which case he get's a RUB to go home and get his pick up so he can take it to his "own" garage and fix it himself. When other biker's talk "engine" talk a biker actually understands the conversation taking place. He participates and does not just nod his head like a dumbass who has no clue as to what you are talking about. A real biker knows the difference between a "bro" and a phoney.

He has an established group of "brothers" who he is tight with and who understand one another. They understand the hunger and craving to be on the road with the raw power of Harley horse power rumbling underneath.

A few weeks ago I was still suffering the symptoms of PMS (Parked motorcycle syndrome) but today is a brighter day. Time for me , the Harley, and the highway to become one again. Time to feel alive again.



Until next time...

Awards and responses :)

I would first like to thank all of you who participated in my previous post "What about you?" It was interesting, fun, and funny getting to know some of the intricacies of you people. I had a number of laughs on some of you.

I did say that I would respond to the questions posed to me but first I would like to hand out a few awards to some of you, not because one person's response was better then another's, but because it keep's the whole thing interesting. And should I ever do another "Fun" blog it may inspire more to participate. Let's begin...



Best "Pet Peeve" award goes to Nog for his short but to the point answer - "Heathens"

Best "most embrassing moment" award goes to Aaron ( I laughed hard for about a minute strait on this one) - " Falling down an entire flight of stairs my freshman year in college - and starting to cry."

I can relate Aaron. As a biker, when I see that first snowfall of the year and I have to put my bike in the shed for the winter I start to...uh ...ahem...you know what? Ummm...never mind. Moving right along...

Best "something nobody know's about you" award goes to Marco - "I wrecked a newly rented car with Hertz's entrance door"

Another good chuckle. Nice one Doc! :)

Best "Funny runner" award goes to Mandora - "probably, cause it usually means I'm being dragged by two big dogs"

The mind visual alone was enough to earn you the nod for this prestigous award.

Best "question's for God awards goes to Truth seeker a.k.a Q - " Why did you let the serpent in the garden? Who did Cain and Abel marry? Who shot JFK?"

The JFK is driving me nut's. I HAVE TO KNOW!!!

And finally...

The Best "I suck at... but convince other's I am good" award goes to the Queen bee herself, Queen of light an joy - "Adding really quickly without a calculator but I’m getting better"

This gave me another chuckle because I envisioned someone asking you a difficult equation and you just bursting out an answer so convincingly that they would take it at face value even though it might be the wrong answer.

Now on to your questions:

The Queen asked:

" How much do you love me?"

The Intolerant One (TIO) said:

Unconditionally :) As far as the east is from the west!

Truthseeker a.k.a. Q asked:

" where did you get your attitude from?"

TIO said:

I would say that my attitude has been influenced by the crowd I grew up with. I believe we are all influenced and shaped to some degree by the enviorment and people we tend to surround ourselves with. In my case I have always been around biker's and other "roughnecks". There are no shades of grey with these types. Everything is strait up and no pussy footin' or sugar coating is welcome. If one has something to say then "say it and say it to my face" is the motto. I will credit Jesus Christ for helping me develop a way to channel that attitude in a far more productive and constructive manner. Before I would just hit you if I did not like what you had to say. Now I see the importance of learning about the things you choose to stand for. Know why you support or do not support something, like an ideology or belief for example. Educating one's self and gaining knowledge are actually good things to do. Christ has also taught me the importance of effective dialogue. People may not see eye to eye with you but your getting nowhere by smashing them in the mouth. As the scriptures say "Come and let us reason together" says the Lord - Isaiah 1:18

Marco ask's the question I assume directly aimed at me:

" Whys does a smart person not accept the theory of Evolution?"

TIO said:

I had a chuckle with this one Marco. I knew you would bring something like this up LOL! For the number of debates we have had on this topic I would answer your question with the identical question. "Why does a smart man such as yourself believe evolution with all it's indescrepancies?" I already know your response as you have explained it before.

I am not convinced of this theory because the science is refutable and often contradictory. What once supported this theory 20 years ago has been cast aside due to other scientific discovery. It has no solid foundation. Good arguements but nothing concrete. Therefore I will continue to reject it as the ONLY valid answer to man's origins. For the record, I rejected this theory back in high school long before I ever became a believer in God.

Nog asked:

" If you were allowed to choose your country of birth, would you even consider choosing Canada before the United States?"

TIO said:

Yes I would still consider choosing Canada. But that does not mean that I would have gone with it. There are pro's cons on both sides of the border. But I do not feel I would be disappointed with either choice. I think highly of the United States and would be just as proud to be an American as I am a Canadian.

Mandora ask's:

1.)What's your first name?
2.)What makes your faith in God so strong?
3.)What do you think is the single most important trait in a human being?

TIO said:

1.) Kevin, but let's stick with TIO or Q-TIP

2.) There are so many reason's I could write a blog series. But I will try and sum it up. If you have ever read the Bible about the apostle Paul's infamous "Road to Damascus" expeirence found in the book of Acts then that would be similiar to what I expeirenced back on July 20, 1997. Except I did not go blind for 3 days. It changed my life in a literal instant. At that very moment I walked away from a life of hard drinking, drugs, and very hard/fast living (I was a bit of a naughty boy!). No regrets. I will never make bones about it, there really is no other God except the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And Jesus Christ is the son of the living God who paid the price for mankind and without Him there is no salvation. Period. Every other faith/religion is just a deception to draw people away from the true God.

3.) Loyalty

And late comer...ahem...Vile Blasphemer (hey, the guy has been very polite) ask's the question:

" Will there be Oreos?"

TIO said:

Do you mean in heaven?

If there is something I failed to respond to please let me know. This has been a refeshing breather from my usual political rants and scientific/moral debates.

On a side note I have considerd everyone's recommendations on what some of my future posting's should be. Thanks to all for the ideas.

Until next time...

What about you?

I have been challenged by a bloggin' buddy to step outside of my "comfort zone" and post something that is different from my usual entries.

A while ago we were in a discussion about our respective blogsites. She had informed me that she does indeed come by for a visit and had even added me to her links. So I posed the question:

"If you come by so often then how come you rarely participate in the discussion's?"

A fair question I thought to myself as I often post on controversial issue's that evoke discussion from both ends of the spectrum (that being the "left" and the "right")

Her royal highness told me (and I love her for her direct approach) that it was because I needed to do something that was "FUN!" in order for her to feel more inclined to participate.

Now in my mind I am thinking, there is nothing more fun then disecting the theory of evolution, or exposing the lunancy of the "left" (they can be a little hypersensitve at time's). Or my favourite past time, watching former Prime Minister Paul Martin say "Black" and then discover that his most recent poll indicated the people said "White". So he now says "white" only to discover the following week's poll now says "Black" again and so Paul has changed his position to....well, you get the picture. Watching Liberals in action is one endless comedy routine for me.

But, alas, I must say the Queen had got me thinking. "Fair enough", I thought to myself. Not everybody wants to respond to politics, science, and controversy. And I always enjoy a good challenge like this where I have to completely change directions. So here is my first kick at the cat at trying to be "FUN" from a different perspective. I will admit that I have stolen this idea but I enjoyed doing it on other site's and it is an opportunity to get to know some of you a little bit more. I hope you will join in!

ALL ABOUT YOU QUESTIONS: (All questions are optional. You do not have to answer the one's you are not comfortable with...chicken! :)

First the basics,

1.) Gender?
2.) height?
3.) age?
4.) hair color/length?
5.) eye color?
6.) After your basic description, name someone famous you feel you closest resemble.
7.) What made you choose that person?
8.) How would you best describe your personality? (BE HONEST! even if your known to be bitchy)

Now something more personal,

9.) What are your pet peeve's? (Mandora, you are not allowed to say the Intoloerant One!) I want to hear all of them.
10.) Tell me your most embrassing moment. (I love this part)
11.) What is something that nobody knows about you?
12.) What are you really good at?
13.) What do you suck at?
14.) What do you suck at but delude yourself and possibly other's into thinking your actually good at?
15.) Who is your favourite actor? Actress?
16.) What is your favourite movie of all time? (Your answer should be "Star Wars")
17.) What is your favourite book?
18.) What is your favourite music/artist?
19.) What is a characteristic that you love about yourself?
20.) Do you look funny when your running? :)

Something spiritual,**Note: If you are one of my atheist bloggin' buddies look at these next 2 questions like you died and found out you were wrong.

21.) If you could spend 5 minutes alone with God, what are the top three questions you would have for Him?
22.) When you think of God what comes to mind?

Something political,

23.) Depending on where you live, name one thing about your current Prime Minister/President that you admire, even if you did not vote for them.
24.) Name one thing you dislike about them.
25.) If you were in charge of your home country what would be your top five priorities upon entering office?

and finally, for my own information and just plain curiosity,

26.)Have you been to my blog before?
27.) If you have or are even a regular visitor what do you like about it?
28.) What do you dislike about it? (Please tell me it is how intolerant I am)
29.) For those who have been able to get to know just a little bit about me thru this site and maybe other threads from various site's I will open up the forum. What is the one question you have always wanted to ask me but never have? (You can have more then one should you choose)
30.) If you are a regular visitor, what keeps you coming back?

Last question,

31.) What is the one topic you would like me to post on that I have not yet written about OR a posting that I have previously done and you would like to see a follow up too?

I thank all in advance who should choose to participate. I look forward to your responses. This entry was a real challenge for me as I am completely out of my element. But I shall look forward to posting my next entry on yet another controversial topic that will stir the lulled masses of mainstream society.

Until next time...

Ultimate Hypocrisy!

I would like to introduce to you the future of Canada. His name is Gavin Gardiner.



He is the President of the the students union at the University of Saskatchewan.



He is also a bonafide "supporter" of religious bigtory, religious intolerance, and hatred towards all that is sacred to the Christian.

At the University of Saskatchewan is a little "rag" known as the Sheath. In recent weeks the rag mag has come under heavy scrutiny for it's tasteless and despicable cartoon portrayal of Jesus Christ.

"Oh no, not another religious cartoon uprising" you may be thinking to yourself. But hang on a moment...this is the same rag that "refused" to publish the cartoons of Mohammed, the Islamic prophet, that sent half the world into a tailspin over the last month. Apparently they wanted to respect the sensitivty of the Muslim community.

My how thoughtful. My question is did they really with hold the cartoons out of respect and tolerance for the Muslim community or was it for fear of being s**t kicked by a group of angry muslims? What happened to every publisher's famous battle cry for "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press"?

I know the answer...they fear! They feared Muslim backlash. Why else would they choose not to publish the Mohammed cartoons and yet publish something even far more offensive about the Christian God? Because they know Christians will not proclaim "Holy Jihad!" and send in suicide bombers while rioting in the streets.

The story of the cartoon in question goes like this... a little over two weeks ago this "rag", in it's ever compassionate tolerance and respect towards the religious communities of our country, published a cartoon of Jesus Christ performing fellatio on a "captalist" pig. Mocking not only Christ but His jewish decent as well. I have seen the copy but this type of crap deserves no recognition which is why I have chosen not to publish it. Instead, you should read President Gavin's stupid response to supporting the publication of this hate literature!

So now we go back to the question, when does freedom of the press become considered "abuse" of the press for the sake of promoting hatred?

The Sheath's editor in chief Will Robbins, Production Manager Liam Richards, and Public Editor Christine Otsuka, being of sound state and mind, all approved the cartoon. In doing so the have violated section 14(1) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code which very clearly states:

PROHIBITONS AGAINST PUBLICATIONS

14(1) No person shall publish or display or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a NEWSPAPER, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any PRINTED MATTER OR PUBLICATION or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement or other representation:
(a) tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the enjoyment by any person or class of persons, on the basis of a prohibited ground, of any right to which that person or class of persons is entitled under law; or
(b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or the class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

Clearly the code was violated. Yet I have very little expectation that the Saskatchewan human rights commission (SHRC) will even address the matter. It is becoming increasingly and painfully obvious by the actions of commissions across this country that they are more concerned about the "rights" of homosexuals and "free speeech" advocates that time and time again we are seeing them actually snuff out religious right's in this country. Human rights commissions are continually contravening the very code they are sworn to uphold.

To critisise Christianity is one thing even I will not take issue with from a publication perspective. But to willfully and intentionally go out of one's way to RIDCULE, BELITTLE, or otherwise because a "rag" editor feels it is his/her "right" to "freedom of the press" ends up placing one in a position of abusing their mandate by allowing them to promote hatred towards another group they deem beneath themselves.

Gavin and the group of religious bigots he stood behind should bow a knee to the God they insulted and thank Him that this "biker" was not around them when I first saw the cartoon. Although I have had time to "simma down" (and pray for them) at the moment I originally viewed the cartoon, had they been standing in the room with me, they would have been introduced to what we Christian bikers affectionatley refer to as:

FIVE FOLD MINISTRY!



Administered in love ...of course.

Until next time...

You tell me!

In recent weeks I have been surfing over various different "left" wing site's. They have been doing their typical denounciations of, now Canada's, involvment in Afghanistan. Apparently, according to them, we are now at war!



I found that interesting considering that Canada has not declared war, and could not, without being in direct violation of international law. Neither has the Taliban declared war on Canada. I have yet to hear from the UN speaking out in condemnation against Canada's participation as well.

What has been going on is the final stages. The Afghanistan government has asked the Canadian forces to "move in and establish democracy to the region" by weeding out the remaining insurgents. This IS a mission not a war. Will the Canadians shoot to kill? Yes. That is part of the mission of removing terrorists from the region. The Taliban are not interested in leaving, or negotiating for that matter, so they will be pushed out at the request of the Afghanistan government.

Yet we have the "left" convincing themselves that because we are in a region at the request of the home country this still constitutes a war. They, along with the NDP and Liberals, are NOW calling for parlimentary debate regarding Canada's involvment as a nation. Just a little bit too freakin' late for that now, is it not? That debate should have taken place long before we ever agreed to send troops in the first place. You do not send troops to a volatile part of the world for the purpose of establishing freedom and democracy just so you can pull them out half way thru because they now will have to fire shot's at those who would do everything in their power to continue the oppression of basic fundamental human rights and freedoms.

The other part of the "left's" paranoid delusions of grandeur stems from the fact that, as far as they are concerned, the Americans are calling the shot's and are behind Canada's further involment with the current situation. Funny, Canada stood it's ground against the Americans when it said no to the Iraq war but yes to helping root out terrorism in Afghanistan. Canada made it's own choice's and decision's (definitve and distinct from the Americans) when it came to the war on terrorism. Canadian's do have a mind of their own but the "left" does not want you to believe that.

One thing that I will agree with the "left" on is that neither of us want's to see all the violence continue. But freedom has never been free, it has always come with a price. If we allow terrorist factions such as the Taliban to continue to flourish they will overun us all. They are non-negotiable. They do not fight fair. They hide in the hills and dress as civilians drawing fire towards the innocent. They have no honor on the battlefield and are cowardly in their attacks on innocent women and children just to "make their voice's heard". In short, they do not play nice.

I, for one, am proud of our solidiers for the job they are doing over there with what little they have due to Liberal mutilation of our military. I thank them for defending basic human rights and freedoms. I support my Canadian troops in these times.

The "left" on the other hand would rather condemn them now. Of course what do you expect? Whether it be American democrats or Canadian Liberals/NDPers, these people are often clueless as to what they really do support or not support. If the Canadians stood back while human rights were violated by these types of regimes the "left" would be screaming for them to get in there and do something. When we do decide to step in they now want diplomacy with terrorists.

Yet one of the more important factors the "left" has blinded itself to is that in Canada, because of our brave men and women in uniform, they have the RIGHT to protest the mission/war on terror in the first place. Without our soldiers defending our freedoms, that freedom to protest would not exist. Instead everytime one of these self righteous "loony lefties" stood up to protest their government they would be shot dead in the street for defying and dishonoring their government. Don't believe me? Just ask the young students of China who have lost their lives for disagreeing with the government of China.



Thank you to our Canadian troops for "Standing on guard for thee"

Until next time...


**On a side side note. Because I , obviously disagreed with the "left's" view on a number of different site's, I expectedly was called "different" kind of names. (Your not allowed to disagree with them) But I must say on some of the more civil sites I visited I was referred to as "right, rightie, conservative, neoconservative, and one colleague at work called me a pseudo conservative"

So here is what I am looking for, as my header state's "You tell me" what catergory you think I fall under(not that I really care) I am doing this out of plain curiosity. Here is how it will play out:

You can ask me any question that you feel would pertain to getting inside my head on my political views (social, foreign, economic, justice, healthcare, etc.) and I will answer honestly and to the best of my ability. If you require furhter explanation I will do so. I am not looking to dispute my views. We can do that later. For now analyse my answers and when it looks like the question period is over, after your review of all answers, you make the determination as to what catergory you feel I fit in and why.

I hope some of you will take the time to participate otherwise I will decide for myself and then you will disagree with me and we will have ended up nowhere.

PS: Of course feel free to agree/disagree with the above entry as well.

NOW it's personal!

**DISCLAIMER: What you are about to read is directed at "Radical, militant, extremist", Islam and is not intended to offend those Muslims of Canada or any nation for that matter who practise their faith in peace.





In recent weeks I have been involved in various blog discussions regarding the Muslim upheaval and rioting due to the cartoon carictures of their prophet Mohammed and how the images of him in media has deeply offended and insulted them.

When the riots first began my original take on the matter was, although I in no way condoned their actions, I understood the insult and offence they had taken. Speaking as a Christian, on a continous basis I have to endure people constantly "daming God" and "cursing Christ" in their everyday spoken language. (Funny how they don't believe in Him and yet they talk about Him all the time!) I have also had to witness a society that has painted portrait's of Christ in a jar of urine, Mary (His mother) feeding Him feces, Jesus giving fellatio to the disciples, and all kinds of other blasphemous vile crap that the world want's to call art. It is nothing short of garbage.

Yet thru all this, as angry as this has made me, I remember what my God has said:

" I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me."

Deuteronomy 32:41

It is not my job to defend God. It is my job to honor Him before man and bring His message of hope to the world. For those who refuse and continue to live in wickedness and rebellion to Him, well, they have made their choice and God will deal with them.

Needless to say I can relate to the offense and insult that Muslims have felt with regards to their faith. Yet somehow Islam is convinced that they must defend their god. Is he not big enough to do that himself? At first I believed this truly was about insult but as the weeks have gone by the violence has continued and spilled over into other countries. I am no longer convinced that this is a statement of offence in as so much that it is now a chance of "oppurtunism" to USE this scenario to further the eradication of the "Infidel".

On Saturday February 18, 2006 in Nigeria, Muslims pillaged, plundered, and killed 15 of my brother's and sister's in Christ while burning 13 churches to the ground. Why? Because of the cartoon's, they claim.

WHAT DID CHRISTIANS IN NIGERIA HAVE TO DO WITH DANISH CARTOONS AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? What did THEY specifcally do to provoke this insanity?

You (Muslims) have the audacity to call "others" son's of the devil? You hypocrites! You behave and treat God's creation just like the devil himself would.





And what is your rationale? You say that you are outraged? Because of cartoons you have turned the world upside down...because "you are outraged!" You dance around this planet "claiming" to be the religion of peace and tolerance while all you bring to this world is death, mayhem, and destruction.

If you are such a loving, peacful, religion then where was your outrage when:

- Muslims flew commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.

- Muslim officials blocked the exit where school girls were trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.

- Muslims cut off the heads of three teen aged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school by the way.

- Muslims murdered teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.

- Muslims murdered over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.

- A Muslim attacked a missionary children's school in India. Killing six innocent people.

- Muslims slaughtered hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Where the children were shot in the back! (You punk a** cowards)

- Let's go way back. Muslims kidnapped and killed athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.

- Muslims fired a rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.

- Muslims murdered more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Where over 700 were injured.

- Muslims massacred dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.

- Muslims murdered (again, in cold blood) innocent vacationers in Bali.

- Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.


- Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world.

- Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hung them from a bridge.

Where then, oh great purveyors of "tolerance and peace", was your OUTRAGE?

I no longer believe the world is fooled by your mask. Your intentions have been exposed for what they truly are.

Until next time...

Not as close as once thought!

"[Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of it's more aggressive advocates would have us believe."

Michael Denton, molecular biologist

Although I can appeciate the evolutionists scientific view when discussing the origins of life I am also amazed at how "their" perception on the matter is to be the only one considered as "scientific" (according to them) as opposed to those within the science community who feel that the same science points towards Intelligent Design. After all, are not both theories? And are not both theories based on science? And most importantly, do they not both have a belief?

I have often discovered that the evolutionist will dismiss Intelligent Design because it requires belief in a deity. Yet at the same time the evolutionist requires a same "belief" that there is nothing after life. If neither can be "proven" and both are considered theories based on science then one cannot claim to be science while the other is simply dismissed.

A friend of mine on the evolutionary side of the spectrum once explained it to me this way:

"...someone who arrives to a conclusion that we were made by a supernatural being using science is biased.[That] is, science cannot deal with knowledge beyond nature."

Says who? What if the more the science of evolution is tested for it's merit the more it leans away from evolution and more towards Intelligent Design. For example, one of the "scientific" arguements for the evolutionary process is the close genetic similarities between man and chimpanzee. That being a difference of 1.6%.

I could argue that there are many species, fruits, and atmoshpere formations that share identical genetical similarities and I could also point out the none of them imply evolutionary relationship. But for the sake of the evolutionist, let's stick to the science.

Here is what we know of random genetic mutation. That the slightest altering of the genome is fatal to the extreme and crippling to the least.

" The vast, vast majority of genetic mutations are usually lethal, or at least crippling to the organism, drastically damaging survival and function. A few examples in humans include trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome), polycystic kidney disease, and cystic fibroses…The important point is that science has now quatitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.000000 percent) of an animal’s genome is relentlessly fatal!…Now the genetic difference between human and his “nearest relative”, the chimpanzee, is a least 1.6 percent. That doesn’t sounds like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random changes. A random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal (and, of course, the death of a crippled mutant animal ends all possibility of further change)…obviously there is no way to bridge even small genetic gaps successfully between animal species closely resembling each other.”

Genetics Researcher Barry T. Maddox, “Human Genome Project: Quantitative Disprove of Evolution”, Cleburne, Texas: Self Published, 1992, pp. 1-3

A difference of 48 million nucleotide and if so much as three are out of order it is fatal! Mathematically speaking the difference is not only astronomical but the chances of this randomisation ever occuring are about 1 in 10 with about 60 zero's after it. By scientific standards that would be declared impossible.

But what if the genetic difference between man and chimp were to be larger then 1.6%? The chances of natural randomisation would be up against even greater odds. Impossibiltites we could not mathematically fathom.

“What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have evolved from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.”

Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D


So what does science tell us today? Is it still as conclusive about our genetic similiarties? I am not so sure. It was , Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology who around 1972 came up with the conclusion that genetic similiarities between man and chimp were 98.5%. I am quite sure that evolutionists would vehemently defend these findings by a respected colleague. After all he is a fellow scientist and evolutionist.

But what if Roy Britten himself were to dismiss his original findings based on his own negligence? It is certainly within the parameters of responsible science to correct original findings...is it not? According to Roy Britten the genetic similaritiy between man and chimp is now 94.5%. Here is a recent update:

“The new figure, 94.5 percent or less, was proposed by the same man who many decades ago had published the 98.5 percent figure, Roy Britten (California Institute of Technology). Britten’s original 98.5 percent figure compared only one type of variation, called single base variation, in which a single “letter” of genetic code is different in corresponding strands of DNA from humans and chimps. However, there are two other major variations that Britten ignored in his original analysis. These types involve large sections of many “letters” of DNA, called insertions and deletions. When Britten factored these types of variations in, they added 4 percent to the difference between humans and chimps. Further, this difference is based on only about one million DNA bases out of the estimated three billion that make up each of the human and chimp genomes. Britten says of his estimate, “Its just a glance.”

Marvin Lubenow, “Bones of Contention”, Revised and Updated, Master Books, 2004, pp. 304-305. Lubenow quotes Britten from Andy Coghlan, “Not Such Close Cousins after all”, New Scientist Magazine, 28 September, 2002, p. 20

The math is beyond impossible. Will the evolutionist accept this. Maybe, but I suspect they will either find a way around it or simply dismiss it. I am left to conclude that well meaning and respected evolutionists will not embrace the "possibity" of Intelligent Design (even if the science is there to suggest it)quite simply because they do not WANT there to be anything beyond nature.

With more biochemists, biologists, and other researchers (not necessarily individuals of any faith) over recent years raising serious objections over the science of evolution it is no longer a debate of science vs. religion but one of science vs. science. Until next time...

HALLELUJAH!

Alright, after this, no more politics for at least.....2 more blogs.

But I must say now that the Conservatives are in power I cannot wait for them to reveal their "dark and hidden" agenda. Oooooohhh it will be so scary!

First the evil sith lord, Darth Harper, will:

- Bring accountability back to government by implementing the Federal Accountability Act. Pretty scary already huh? How will Liberals cope? Honesty? Integrity? What is that? they will ask. Darth Harper, are trying to confuse them? That is not very polite.

- Not only continuing to fund daycare but actually provide parents with a little bit of extra financial help of $1,200 per year for every kid under 6. Considering 75% (yes that is an actual figure) of parents do not use "Institutionalised, Government knows best, parents know nothing" daycare programs, speaking as a parent who's kids were raised at home, I say it is about time. I know..gives you the chills doesn't it? Darth Harper? You may want to rescind this offer as we are a bunch of weak willed brainless idiots who will actually spend this on "Beer and popcorn".

- Crime control not gun control. Wow! What a concept! Darth Harper is going to abolish the gun registery. Screeeech!!!! Now what will we waste our tax dollars on? That was a great way to throw away 2 billion dollars and watch gun violence increase. I knew Darth Harper had a hidden agenda (I can't believe I voted for him) now he is going to start punishing criminals! How mean.

- A free vote on same sex marriage. What? Democracy in the house of commons? But Darth Harper...Liberals are not used to that. They are more accustomed to bringing in bills (like C-38) that they were given no mandate for and the majority (of the people) do not support anyway, and ramming it down our throats. It is called "forced acceptance" and if you do not accept it...well, you are un-Canadian! Representing the wishes of your constiuents? Being allowed to vote with your conscience? Darth Harper your trying to turn us into a REAL democracy. This is frightening!

- Improving cross border relations with our American neighbours. Gasp! Now you are going to far Darth Harper. If we actually start getting along with the Americans why that would mean our softwood , BSE, and other trade issues would begin to disappear. Who then would we have to call names? Who would we display our anti-American attitudes toward, even though we spend more time trying to be just like them?

- And the scariest thing on your hidden agenda...an actual military. YIKES!!! Do you know what that would mean Darth Harper? That would mean we would actually be prepared in the unfoutunate event of something like an icestorm or a flood. That would also mean we could actually fly our troops over seas...IN OUR OWN PLANES! instead of renting out or asking George W. if he would mind if our guy's "hitched a ride" with his. Why we could patrol our own waters (with boats that float) INSTEAD of the US Navy! Your really freakin' us out with your "darkness"! We could patrol our own airspace as well. Ohhhh do stop you royal sithness! Don't you know the reason we are never bombed by terrorists is because we have no military and that terrorists think we are just: "a bunch of nice people who can't defend themselves, so we will just leave them alone".

Yes it is "dark" time for the Canadian Empire. It is about to be overrun with accountability, responsible fiscal management, integrity, and....eeeeeeekk....that really evil word....common sense! All these factors would make up good government and we just cannot allow that. That would quite simply be too un-Canadian!

RIGHT PAUL?



(sniffle! That's right Darth Harper)

It's OK Paul. I am sure one day your party will return to it's glory days of waste, mismangement, scandals, and endless criminal investigations. A time where once again you can show us that ONLY your "Values" are what make someone truly Canadian.

Until next time...

Desperate times call for desperate measures (very desperate!)

In my very first blog posting back on September 15, 2005, I am quoted as writing:

"I think Liberals are complete idiot's."

Some well intentioned friends of mine felt I was being somewhat "harsh" by name calling and a little arrogant. I explained to them:

"First off, that statement does nothing to bolster my own ego so it cannot be one of arrogance. Secondly, it is not name calling if the statement is true!"

With just under a week to go until E-Day (election day), Liberals are once again reaffirming that very statement that I made. With the lasting impression of the Liberal "military" attack ads on the Conservatives still fresh in the minds of Canadians, they have become literally a desperate bunch saying whatever comes to mind in hopes that it will bear some resemblance of logic!

In typical Liberal spin, Prime minister Paul Martin was busy last week doing yet more damage control by trying to deflect the attention away from "The Ad". First by admitting to the approval of it personally and then turning his story completely around and saying he did not approve of it. "The Ad" somehow ended up on a blogsite first! Huh? Don't believe me? See for yourself

As you can clearly see and hear from that vid clip, I have been completely exonerated for calling Liberals idiots. According to what you just saw, they (Liberals) also think of themselves as idiots!

Now in order to play fair I have drawn something from a Peter Worthington (Sun Media) article (slightly altered) just to show I am not as impartial as a Liberal and to practice only what they are good at preaching. Tolerance. So without further delay here are:

"16 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE LIBERAL"

1.) Because you believe in the Official Languages Act and that every public servant, even in the most remote part of B.C., should be fluent in French -- but government business in Quebec should be in unilingual French.

2.) Because you believe only lawyers from Quebec are qualified to be prime minister of Canada.

3.) Because you believe the federal government should be completely controlled by Quebec.

4.) Because you believe all criminals are just poor misunderstood victims of society and can be easily and quickly rehabilitated; also, only they have "rights," not the victims of their crimes.

5.) Because you believe criminals like Karla Homolka should be pampered by living in a "cottage" with her own key, and be allowed to have pyjama parties and go out on shopping trips; that killers in prison "resorts" on the Pacific coast should eat filet mignon, have barbecues, go whale-watching and have their own golf course, while our senior citizens have to eat leftover Kraft Dinner.

6.) Because you believe mass murderers under the age of 18 should be protected by the Young Offenders Act (now the Youth Criminal Justice Act) and that law-abiding citizens don't have the right to know who they are.

7.) Because you believe it is fair that Quebec is the sole province allowed to be in charge of its immigration policy; that they receive five times the amount of federal immigration money that Ontario does, even though Ontario has to teach many of them how to speak English, while Quebec only allows immigrants who already know French.

8.) Because you believe it is only fair that Liberals steal as much tax money as possible from us, through every conceivable means, from the HRDC boondoggle to the $2-billion gun registry that doesn't work.

9.)Because you believe that if your family is the victim of a home invasion you should NOT have the right to protect them in our own home.

10.) Because you believe in huge government bureaucracy and high taxes, and that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

11.) Because you believe in having essentially no military because everyone loves us and we will never be called upon to protect our country.

12.) Because the NDP's Jack Layton smiles too much.

13.) Because Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have a hidden agenda and are very scary people.

14.) Because you believe that we should alienate our neighbours to the South; that all Americans are morons and know nothing about Canada; and that we should continue to align ourselves more closely with our true friends, France, China and Russia.

15.) Because you believe everything the Liberal-controlled media tells me, especially the CBC.

16.) Because you believe that no one should ever be held responsible or accountable for his or her actions in today's society. It is always someone else's fault.


These are definetly desperate times..that call for change. I am curious...how will you vote and why? Are you voting Liberal because Paul Martin says (again) that the Conservatives are to scary? Are you a past Liberal supporter who is dumping them this election and choosing another party? Are you going to vote at all?

January 23, 2006 may God bless Canada. Until next time...

The Titanic...arrogance that could not sink (apparently)

In Canada we know the ship as the SS Liberal. That SS could definetly be applied in more ways then one. With only 10 days to go until the January 23 D-Day for what appears to be the very timely and long overdue sinking of the Liberal party, listening to some of the most ludicrous promise's spilling out of Paul Martin's mouth have left my belly aching with laughter.

While dodging media scrutiny over insulting attack ads about the military Paul was trying to condemn Stephen Harper about his economic proposals asking the question:"Where was he going to get all the money from to pay for his parties iniatives?" When all was said and done the Conservatives spending would total about 60 billion dollars. I think Paul needs to be reminded of something...



And that was BEFORE the election was even called. Add that too what he promises to spend now and he almost double's the Conservative platform! It would appear that Stephen Harper is a bit of a penny pincher when compared to the Prime Ministers spending habits, would it not?

What about the Prime Ministers promise that his "first priority" back in office would be to remove the "not withstanding" claus. A very dumb, stupid, and VERY SCARY move on his part. But nonetheless important to a desperate Prime Minister..so important "in fact"(PM's favourite phrase) that he forgot to put it into his 85 page "New Liberal Red Book". Which by the way was only printed 7 hours before last Mondays leader debate. How do you leave something like that out when it is your "first priority"?. Maybe because your making it up as you go hey Paul? I know, I know, deny and lie.

But the highlight had to come with those asine and stupid attack ads especially the military ones they alleged pulled and were not even meant to be on their website. Even though they are running in french in Quebec right now. To coin a Liberal phrase "I am not making this up".

What you may not be aware of is that there were actually 14 commercials made in all! Two of them actually did not make it to the Liberal website. They inform us of the real Stephen Harper(Again!). Boy what would we do without the Liberals to keep us abreast of the reality. The other commercials are as follows:

Liberal attack ad #13

and

Liberal attack ad #14

So far the Liberals have been accused of twisting and distorting the truth about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. (No, Liberals bending the truth, why that would be lying to Canadians!) I think a more accurate commercial should have gone a little more something like this:



At least it is more accurate and does not allow for scrutiny. In a Liberals world, scrutiny leads to mutiny. Liberal MP candidate Keith Martin called the individual who approved the military commercial "an idiot". Uhhhh Keith, ahem, that idiot would be Paul Martin. Even the Deputy Prime Minister was out of the loop by saying that the Prime Minister, to her knowledge (which ain't all that much), did not approve of the commercials. Huh? But he just said he did and was called an idiot because of it! Sheesh! Tell me my fellow Canadians that you do not want more of these people come January 23.

There has been something awfully familiar about Paul Martin over the past couple of years and I am not quite sure what that is. You know that whole "I am not a crook" thing...wait a minute...I GOT IT!



I knew it. I knew I recognised this guy. Only Paul is really not a crook because, well because.....he said so!

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!



Like the Titanic, I suspect the Liberal ship is about to sink. Bon Voyage!

Until next time...

They just don't get it!

Yesterday Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty announced his new (but very old Liberal response) initative of pouring more money into the ongoing trend and uprise of gun violence in our Canadian cities. He plan's on spending an amount of fifty one million dollars to address this situation.

Now I do not want to knock a guy for trying but this was a very predictable response by Governments. So predictable in fact that I kicked myself for not writing it into my previous blog entry. One thing you can count on when it comes to a Liberal government, whether it be Federal or Provincial, is they can never come up with any new or innovative ideas when it comes to tackling the serious issues such as gun violence. Whenever they want to "appear" like they are addressing the issue to the electorate they simply rely on their typical band-aid solution...."Let's just throw money at the problem and it will go away."

Money is not necessarily a bad thing to invest, when you know where to put it. But when you continue to funnel money into the same areas and the problem continues to escalate it is time to re-evaluate and look at different options. Maybe the money is going into the wrong areas or maybe financial investment has nothing to do with addressing the core root of the problem.

My bloggin' buddy and dear friend Jeff pointed out something to me in my previous blog. It was that I seem to have alot to say about the ongoing problem of gun violence but that I offered no real alternative's or solution's. He makes a very important statement and challenge. One that I take to heart.



So what exactly would I do if had the authority to change things? Well I do know that I do not have the perfect solution, in fact I do not believe anyone does. However, my focus would be on reducing the amount of gun violence, not thru punishing law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners(gun registery) but by tightening up the criminal justice system overall. Making the criminal not only accountable for his/her crime but paying the full price for it and making their time of incarceration one they would not want to expeirence over again.

Dalton Mcguinty, like every other Liberal before him, has decided to put more police on the streets. Noble but will this reduce the gun crimes? No it will not. In Canada today, even if you had one police officer per person this would still fail. Why? Because the police have already been doing their jobs and doing them quite well when it has come to arresting criminal offenders and getting them off the street. The problem has been in judges allowing violent offenders out on bail or when keeping them incarcerated while awaiting trial, multiplying their time served anywhere from double and even triple. (I.E. a criminal sitting in jail for 6 months waiting for his trial a judge will count this as 18 months served towards his/her sentence.)

The other problem is the plea bargain. Violent offenders can barter with the courts to have sentenced reduced by pleading guilty. Huh!!! Does this make logical sense? You are guilty of second degree murder but because you admit to the crime the courts will reduce it to manslaughter and a potential 15 year sentence can now become 2 years less a day. This will not even get you into a Federal Penitentary but a minimum security facility. A more accurate definition would be a country club. Here is the clincher...with "good behaviour" they could be out on the streets in 18 months.

Good old Canadian justice. We are so loving, friendly, and tolerant. Our problem is not in the lack of law enforcement on the streets but our lack of law enforcement in the courts. The pampering of criminals with lenient sentences in no way acts as a deterrent. If they know they can get away with it with a relatively light sentence the trend will continue.

So here is my 6 point solution:

1.) If, for example, you are guilty of second degree murder and the evidence is already stacked against you. That is what you will be tried for. No pleading to a lesser charge. It undermines the victim, the justice system, and the accountability of the perpitraitor.

2.) If you are in custody waiting for trial for a period of six months...then six months is what will be taken off from your final sentence, NOT 18 months.

3.) If your sentence is for 15 years then that is what you will serve! Not serve 9 years and then get released early for "good behaviour". Only with good behaviour will you get out at the end of those 15 years.

4.) If you show absolutely no remorse for your crime, refuse to take part in any rehabilitating programs, and are still considered a "high risk" to re-offend once released into the public then your stay in jail will be extended indefinite.

5.) Prisoners would NOT have certain "rights" attributed to them. They gave up those rights when they took the life of another. Convicts will not have the right to vote(as they do today). They will not have the "right" to color TV's, satellitte cable, their own tattoo parlours, access to pornography, and a fully "paid for" university education. Covered by you the taxpayer, of course.

6.) Strong measures in place to hold judges accountable for handing down lenient sentences where there is already evident history of a violent past.

In conclusion, jail was never meant to be a "FUN" place to be. It was meant to serve as a deterrent. It is meant to be remembered as a place that one does not want to go back to. Until there is a factor in place that holds criminals responsible for their actions(and the judges who put them back out on the streets) sadly we will see this terrible trend continue to escalate regardless of how many police officers are out there. If it were you...what would you do?

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)