The secret of the ooze

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed"

Charles Darwin

Ahhh yes, Charles Darwin. The founding father of the "Religion of evolution". I say religion because it is a theory which requires a lot of "Belief" in something that was never witnessed , lacks evidence, the "evidence" it claims is often questionable and, at times, easily scrutinized, and often has science contradicting itself. Yet evolutionists will quite often vehemently defend it's inconsistent findings, even unto the point of twisting and distorting their own science to try and substantiate their claim.

While the evolutionist/atheist almost demands evidence of a deity they seem content without providing their own regarding Theories. They intentionally neglect the FACT that what they purport to be "truth" is called theory for a reason. Because it is not substantiated, thus proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt that it is indeed factual. It therefore requires an act of "Faith".

One of the other early theories that Charles came up with, and his devout followers adhere to even to this day, is the "belief" that life was conceived essentially in a warm little pond over billions of years. It is known as the "Primordial soup" theory. Over time, science has tried to refine and hone this theory into a mold that would explain, not only the origins, but evidence that life began on it's own and not thru a creator.

Today it has become indoctrinated into our college/university students at the great secular church's of educational institutions that primitive earth was at one time covered with pools of chemicals that included an atmosphere that was capable of forming life. The energy that "supposedly" helped charge or breathe life into these chemicals was lightning. No actual evidence is offered, just "faith" in a theory that misleads it's followers into believing it actually occurred.

One of the main reason's people are lured into believing and accepting this theory as fact go back to 1924 when Russian biochemist, Alexander Oparin, proposed (not proved) that complex molecular arrangements and the functions of living matter evolved from simpler molecules that existed on the earlier stages of earth. It was then suggested in 1928 by British biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, that ultraviolet light reflecting on earth's primitive atmosphere somehow caused sugars and amino acids to concentrate in the oceans. Thru this amazing act of disorganized chaos, life amazingly formed. (And all the atheist's children said?....Amen? nope. Nothing, they don't believe in anything!)

It was later suggested (again, not confirmed) by Nobel Peace prize winner, Harold Urey, that apparently earth's primitive atmosphere (based on Alexander Oparin's assumption) would have made it favorable for these organic compounds to have emerged. Harold Urey was also the Ph. D. advisor to Dr. Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago. Dr. Miller is well known for putting this theory to the test in what was considered to be a landmark experiment. It was an experiment that was hailed as a major breakthrough for science that , once again suggesting, the successful experiment in fact proved conclusively that life could have emerged from non living chemicals.



Now we get to the fun part. This where we see science dissect science and destroy their own theory. This "experiment" performed by Dr. Miller consisted of a re-created atmosphere (in the lab of course) of primitive earth where he shot electricity through it to simulate the effects of lightning. It wasn't long before Dr. Miller discovered amino acids, the building blocks for life, had been created. While many evolutionists went into a state of euphoria over this claiming that life was not a chance event but an inevitable event that comes along naturally when physical conditions are right, overlooked one major problem that invalidated the experiment. (I know, they still will not concede it too this day). It was this:

Whether it was Dr. Oparin or Dr. Miller, neither one of them had any solid evidence that the earth's atmosphere was actually composed of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Which were the gases used to conduct the experiment. It appears Dr. Miller wanted to achieve a chemical reaction that would be favourable to his experiment and would obtain the desired results by (here we go again) proposing/suggesting that the atmosphere was rich in those particular gases.

But even Dr. Oparin was intelligent enough to recognize one very important factor in the equation. It was this. That inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide will not react to this type of experiment. Why do I bring these two gases into the equation now? Since 1980 to the present, NASA scientists have shown that gases such as methane, ammonia, and hydrogen were not factors in primitive earth's atmosphere. What was in fact present was water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Had Dr. Miller conducted his experiments with the correct three gases, his experiment would not have achieved the same results as amino acids would not have begun to create life. With water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen you cannot achieve the same results.

In essence, the "deck was stacked", as they say, by Dr. Miller in such a manner that in order to achieve a desired result he could only include gases in his experiment that would give him favorable odds. Not accurate odds. Considering science prides itself on rational logic and analysis with absolute unbias I think it would then be fair to suggest that it is indeed past time to CAN this theory.



Unless of course one wants to continue to choose to believe in the religon of the ooze, against all odds.

Until next time...

Hezbollah (Party of Cowards!)

As the world continues to watch the horrors of war unfolding in the middle east on the borders of Israel and Lebanon it has caused many on the outside looking in to engage in emotional and, at many times, heated debate.

Often as is the case the "Right" wing come to the defense of Israel. We are often lumped together by "Left" wing pundits as a group of overzealous Christian fundamentalists who, "solely" for Biblical reasons, defend Israel's actions taken against the Hezbollah. They often forget that many "Right" wingers are not people of faith/religion but simply hold more conservative views.

On the other side, again as is usual , we have the "Left" wing pundits denouncing Israel and calling for a ceasefire. They believe that one can broker a “Peace” deal with a terrorist. Yeah...right! They also often tend to assume that because the “Right” believe that a nation has the right to defend itself when it is attacked unprovoked, that this make’s them a bunch of blood thirsty savages enjoying the blood shed on CNN.

I have seen the images of dead children being held in their parents arms and felt anguish for these people. I stopped a moment and imagined holding one of my own and instantly welled up with tears. My heart and prayers go out to both the innocent’s of Lebanon and Israel.

I hate the fallout of war and yet I recognize that it is not always avoidable. I wish it was. But sometimes it becomes a necessity even though nobody wants it.

As I am sure many of you have done, I too have asked the question “What just happened? Why? And who truly is responsible?”

These same questions were asked during the reign of Hitler. Winston Churchill lost his following election for going to war and yet many will agree that standing up to Hitler was (now hindsight) the best thing that could have been done for mankind.



Today those decisions still have to be made. Israel is in a tough position. They are surrounded by nations that harbor and support, both financially and politically, terrorist organizations like the Hezbollah who have only one objective. The complete eradication of the Jewish people and annihilation of Israel. A short list but pretty nasty.

While on the other hand, anytime Israel has had to defend itself against such hate filled attacks on it’s nation, it is THEY who come under international scrutiny. Not the aggressor’s. It is Israel who is always pushed into coming up with some sort of ceasefire plan for something they did not start. Is the focus not just a little bit misdirected? Where are the The great purveyors of human rights known as the U.N. and their condemnation of such barbaric acts like the ones unleashed by the Hezbollah? When do they decry the death of innocent Israeli’s who also lost loved ones from rockets that were not provoked thru a declaration of war but a straight forward act of aggression? Lack of support from the International community or the U.N. is a statement of support for the actions of terrorism.


Let’s make no bones about how this started. Hezbollah attacked Israel first! As a nation, just how does one expect Israel to respond?

(How the International community would like them to respond)“Oh great and terrible leaders of Hezbollah, we do not know what we did to offend you but what ever it is we are truly sorry and beg your forgiveness. Could we just sit down and broker a peace deal that we know you will ignore anyway but it should pacify you for at least another 8 - 10 weeks until your hate begins to burn towards us again?”

Hezbollah is not interested in negotiating. In fact, they are not interested in war because they already understand that war on an equal playing field (out in the open) would mean a swift defeat. They know if they had the balls to fight in a war they would not need to hide in civilian homes, in foreign countries, kill innocent civilians with their gutless suicide bombs that they detonate in public malls and on school buses full of children (funny how the international community forgets those acts) , and using the local women and children as human shields. These are not the actions of soldiers but of spineless cowards.

A true soldier would don a uniform and meet Israel out on the battlefield. But that would take courage. Something Hezbollah does not have.

So how do they win sympathy from “Left” wing pundits and the U.N. (Useless Nations)? They rely on the “Propaganda strategy of the more civilized society’s” They actually hate western society but they know how to manipulate it by first embedding themselves into suburbia, virtually ensuring innocent civilian deaths, they can then draw fire towards themselves thru provocation and show the world just what big bad Israel did. Hezbollah understands how to exploit the weakness of a "civilized" society that focus's on the innocent's killed by the responders as opposed to lashing out and dealing with the perpetrators who intentionally and willfully set out to take as many innocent lives as they possibly can. (again, see definition of the suicide bomber)

What also seems to be overlooked thru out all of this is that by Hezbollah moving rockets into villages AND THEN FIRING THEM at a neighboring nation, this is a direct violation of the Geneva convention. Where was the uproar on this one?

There is no debate that Israel has taken innocent lives in the pursuit of responding to Hezbollah attacks on their nation but there is certainly a difference between Israel and Hezbollah when it comes to the killing fields of war. Kathleen Parker summed it up better then I could when she said:

" let's be clear on the issue of moral equivalence. There is none. Hezbollah aims to kill civilians; Israel aims not to. But by firing rockets from civilian areas, Hezbollah forces Israel to return fire, thus inciting the condemnation of civilized nations and fueling the reliable outrage of the Arab street.

The fog of war may prevent absolute clarity, but this much seems certain: Those dead women and children are casualties of Hezbollah, not Israel."





As far as Hezbollah themselves are concerned, they picked this fight, and they will get exactly what they were asking for. I do believe that Israel has finally had enough and is fed up with Hezbollah, Hamas, the PLO, and the International community of the all too sympathetic civilized elite."

Until next time...

Where is the love?

 As a Christian I am commissioned by God to present His wonderful plan of hope, redemption, and salvation for mankind thru His one and only son Jesus Christ. The Holy Bible testifies of this plan and records it's fulfillment, that being Christ's sacrifice on the cross, in the New Testament.

God truly is love. For there is no other god who can ever make the claim that they loved their own creation so much that they would sacrifice their own life in order that man could have life eternal in the next life. Now there are those that would argue against that but it is, at least in most cases , due to the fact that they are unwillingly to accept a God who will not accept sin. However, love is not love without discipline. Neither does it hate when enforcing discipline. Love does not allow free reign when it foresees tragic consequence. It instructs, guides, and directs with the other's well being in mind. It is not necessarily about what one wants as opposed to what one needs. Love always has the best intention for the other.

The last 3 out of my 4 postings had to do with the homosexual lifestyle. A sexual lifestyle that has been pushed real hard in recent decades for acceptance. As a Christian, for me to accept the lifestyle, would be an act of defiance to God. In essence I would be saying that I do not whole heartily follow Him because I am not willing to adhere to His word, His moral law, or to follow Him wholeheartedly.

But does that constitute hatred towards the homosexual? Or bigotry? Does that qualify me as a homophobe? Or God for that matter? Let's get this right out in the open and get to the meat and potatoes of the matter. Does God hate fags? Not a term I care to use but you will understand right away why I just used it. According to this self proclaimed Christian (I use the term quite loosely) who goes by the name Fred Phelps, He does. (Allow me to refute the fool)



Fred is an ordained Baptist minister and the founding member of "God hates fags." I spent a solid 45 minutes previewing his website before I literally began to feel nauseous. I read some of his "teachings" and previewed some of his videos so I could see for myself where he came up with this grand delusion that "God hates fags". I also discovered God hates just about everybody else, that is according to Freddy.

For example, I just about fell over when Freddy referred to Billy Graham as a "whore"! WHAT!!! Billy Graham? Even the most vile of sinnerdom respect's this guy. He is the epitome of a Christian. He presents the gospel truth in a very "Christ-like" fashion. In a way of compassion, genuine concern, and love without sugar coating the truth for the sake of appeasing the world. I strive to be Christ like myself but with my own fallibilities being half the man Billy Graham is would be quite an achievement. Anyways, that is a bunny trail for another time. Moving along...

Apparently God also hates:

-America
-American soldier's (ironic considering they are fighting to preserve Fred's right to espouse his deluded message)
- Every other minister of the gospel that espouses God's love (even though they adhere to biblical teaching's)
- and everyone outside of Fred's congregation.

**Note** I could not find any scriptural references to support Fred's delusion.

You see, Freddy feels that because the Bible renounces homosexuality as a wicked abomination and a detestable sin before God (which it does and up to this point I am in agreement) this must mean that God hates homosexuals as well. This is where Freddy and I will have conflict. The scriptures have always been clear that it is the act (sin) that God despises. You see the Bible declares ALL sin detestable and this would include murder, theft, embezzlement, lying, cheating, and other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, rape, and so on. Homosexuality is not singled out.

There many scriptural references I could easily bring into this but anyone who has taken the time to thoroughly read the bible in it's entire context will logically arrive to the conclusion that although God does condemn sin He also provides a message of hope thru redemption and salvation. It is one offered to ALL mankind including homosexuals. For....

God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it. John3:17

Would God do this if He already pre-determined that He hated you? Would Christ lay down His own life in such a horrible and torturous death because He hated you?

Christ died that ALL might have life eternal. I say might because God has left the decision in the hands of the individual. But His love has already been displayed up front. Christ displayed His love for us in the face of sin when we read John 8 where we find a woman caught up in sexual sin (adultery). It reads:

"Teacher," they said to Jesus, "this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?"

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, "All right, stone her. But let those who have never sinned throw the first stones!" Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to her, "Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"

"No, Lord," she said.

And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more." John 8:4-11

This woman, at this point, was without hope and without God. Yet Christ LOVED her first by forgiving her. BUT, He did not condone her sexual sin but instead told her to turn from it practice it no more! This woman turned out to be Mary Magdalene. She was not one over by Christ's disdain and hate for her but love. This is how Christians are supposed to be a testimony to the rest of the world. By sharing God's love, not condoning sin, but loving the sinner. Something every Christian was at one time and still has a tendency to slide into due to our fallibilities. Sadly, this is something that has not sunk in with Freddy.

Freddy also thinks that God laughs when homosexuals die or any other unrepentant sinner for that matter. I sought the Lord on this one asking Him if what Freddy says could possibly be true and His spirit brought a verse to me immediately.

"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live."
Ezekiel 33:11

Hmmmm...don't know which God you are serving Freddy but it isn't the God of the Bible. Sounds more like God's adversary....I have read that he is filled with hate.



(notice a resemblance?)

Until next time...

What women want!

In light of the fact that I will be heading out on my long awaited vacation, I decided to step outside my usual comfort zone of political/moral debate and pen (type) something more on the lighter, but truthful side.

After all, if God did not have sense of humor..then neither would we. Sometimes we need to step out of the "Battle Arena" of ideological debate and take a moment to laugh at life, and ourselves, in agreement.

The following is one of my rare personal musings at one of God's finest creations. Women!




If it is one thing in life I have come to accept about women it is this. I will NEVER fully or completely understand these complex creatures. The answer as too why was actually not that hard to discover but rather quite simple. The reason I, or any other male for that matter, will never fully understand them is because we are NOT women!

How does one begin to comprehend astronomical estrogen levels in a human being that can lead anywhere from flying debris (pot's and pans), to outbursts of tears (for what appears, at least
to us men) apparently for no reason, to other times of unprovoked feelings of (ahem!) shall we say
...arousal? Estrogen levels that peak like a volcanoe and simmer like a sunset. I often shake my head in utter amazement and total confusion over this.

Thru many years of observation and very in-depth study thru "listening" (key in on that one guy's) and asking direct questions I have discovered that although I cannot fully understand a woman I can gain much insight and knowledge of how to successfully interact and grow in a continuous lifelong journey with the one I call my soul mate. Some things I have learned, not necessarily understood, about women are as follows:

1.) They like to be listened too BUT, they do not always want one of our analytical, self righteous logical, and whimsical responses. As men we often tend to look at every "dilemma" in life as a problem to solve or a mountain to conquer. Women do not always appreciate this approach. Sometimes they just want to be heard.

As tempting as it is gentleman we really need to bite our lips real hard and just shut up! As difficult as that can be at times, when the female has reached the end of her "outpouring" she will let out a heavy sigh of relief and thank you for "being there for her".

Without saying a word, you have just scored some major points that will payoff later :)

Of course, at the end of her outpouring, should she pose the question.."So what do you think?". You darn well better have been listening because those points you just scored will take double the effort to win back.

2.) The List. You all know this one don't you guys? It is endless and changes daily. Get use to it.

You will notice that what you do not accomplish on the list for that day WILL be revisited at a later date when it is convenient for the said "warfare" you and her are about to engage in. By the way guy's, you should already know what that list consists of without her even having to tell you.

It does seem unfair when our "list" is so much easier to apply because it consists of only two items that never change...feed us and GET NAKED!

See ladies, simple. We males creature's are an easy and simple two step maintenance plan. From our perspective, it just does not get any better then that.

3.) Another thing about the ladies, and this one is tough to grasp for us guy's, but when they just want to be held, they actually want just that. They don't always want it to lead to sex. (I know, I do not get that one either)

4.) Romance is not always a quiet dinner and a movie or a loud monster truck rally. (That is not to suggest you should never do those things, although I would ixnay on the monster truck rally). There is almost no communication in that. That is why they often want to go places where the focus is on each other. Like walks in the park or along the beach. I personally am not big on this but if love is an action then make the sacrifice.

And yes, there is pretty good chance her list will come out of those long walks. BUT as I stated earlier, the big points are scored here.

In fact you will be quite surprised just how far a single rose will get you in the points book. I don't know what it is but there is "power in the flower" that makes her look at you all dreamily like you just rode in on a stallion in your shining armor.

5.) If she tells you that she thinks she is "looking" fat, do yourself a favor and absolutely NEVER agree to this. It will take approximately 6 months to recover all your lost points and then after that you are still on a probationary period.

6.) Always remember why you chose her to be yours. When she wakes up some mornings looking like Pam Anderson WITHOUT make up be sure to tell her what a beauty queen she is in your eyes.

7.) You must know and anticipate her every need, whim, and thought. She expects this. Women have this delusion that we men have the uncanny ability to read their minds. No matter how many times or how many ways you explain to them that we do not, it still will not register with them.

Your going to have to find a way to "roll with it" and discover ways of making a "quick recovery" when the ball is dropped. Good luck gents, your on your own out there.

8.) The mind of a woman is another fascinating, intriguing, and sometimes scary thing to grasp.

In the mind of man we tend to think in "box's. You know? One thing at time. We have "problem's to fix box's", "work place box's", "friend's box's", "Toy's box's", and lot's "Sex box's" (by the way ladies, it means we are thinking about you, our spouses, a lot). We even have box's full of absolutely "Nothing" at all.

When you ask the question..."dear, what are you thinking about right now?" and we respond "Nothing". That is because we really are thinking about nothing!

Unlike the mind of a man I have discovered that women think along the lines of "noodles". Their thoughts and emotions are crossing over, overlapping, and intertwining constantly. Not only that but they are capable of having more then one thought at a time. In fact, they can be known to have as many as six to seven things rolling around their pretty little brains...ALL AT THE SAME TIME! That is incredible.

It would also explain those awkward moments of intimacy when you think she's havin a rather enjoyable time and decides to do blurt out the grocery list???

Beware men as these "noodles" are hard to keep up with but it can be done. That is why it is crucial to listen intently. You will notice how in a conversation how they tend to "jump" a noodle. The end of their conversation had absolutely nothing at all to do with the beginning of it but somehow to them it all ties in. Do your best to keep up to it and do not bother trying to understand it. You won't.

9.) Multi-tasking. See above explanation for how their brain functions. This also explains why they are better at it. The down side to it is, like we think they should always want to have sex, they think we should be quite capable of doing 14 things all at one time while planning out the other 23 in our heads as we work.

10.) When you tell her you love her, look into her eyes and not the ground (coward). Caress her hair, stroke her shoulders, hold her, and pretend that you do not want to have sex. But mean the things you say and do.

Gentleman, just follow these easy 10 step guides to "possibly comprehending" the complexities of a woman and you will have a fulfilling life of going to bed full and naked.

I am off for now. When I get back from my vacation, I shall return to my regular entries of slaughtering the political correct and the ideologies of our secularized and so very tolerant society. I will also be sure to offend by proclaiming the supremacy of Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and King.

Until next time...

More gay tolerance :p

Isn't it just like the radical militants behind the homosexual agenda of "FORCED ACCEPTANCE" to continue, once again, making a clear display of their hypocritical tolerance? In the eye's of these self righteous sexual freedom fighters tolerance defined means:

"You accept my sexuality as normal or you will be labelled, targeted, smeared, and accused of fear mongering as well as instilling hate. We will outshout you and use words such as "homophobe" and "bigot" to guilt you into submission until you show us our version of tolerance."(In other words, you better dam well agree with them)

Ironically they would not grasp the meaning of tolerance if it slapped them up side their intolerant little heads. Tolerance is not neccessarily agreeing with one another. It means agreeing to disagree respectfully. For example I may say to a homosexual:

"I recognise you as my fellow human being and as a contributing member of society. I also recognise that what goes on behind closed doors is your business. However, since you insist on making your sexual prefrences public knowledge on a weekly basis thru your pity parades, protests, and shoveing it in my face thru media I will now exercise my fundmental right to freedom of moral conscience allowed to me under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to inform you that I do not recognise your sexual practices as normal, natural, or Godly. That is my entitled opinion and inherent right to freedom of expression. Would you now care to join me for a cup of coffee to talk about motorcycles and sports?"

As you can see by my response, I have exercised the true meaning of tolerance. I have freely expressd myself, my view, my opinions, and my values in a very non hateful, non fear mongering, and non threatening way. I have displayed my secureness in my sexuality and my willingness to co-exist with them in society. This is all possible without having to embrace their sexual lifestyle.

However I do not expect them to realise that. Why? Not because they can't but because they absolutlely refuse to. Yet another "choice" they make. They proved that once again this week when "TOLERANT" homosexuals and their supporters showed up at Ryerson University to protest the honorary doctorate being handed out to renowned ethicist Margaret Somerville.



What did she do that got the gay masses in a stir? Just what was her appalling, hateful, fearmongering, bigoted, and homophobic crime?

**DISCLAIMER** before I tell you I must warn you the answer is rather disturbing.

Well, she....oh I don't know if I can repeat it....but she....oh here it goes....she DISAGREED with same sex marriage!!!. There I said it. But can you believe it? She actually disagreed with homosexuals. HOW DARE SHE?

She is qouted as saying in her acceptance speech:

"I am pro-gay rights, but I am also pro-children's rights, and same-sex marriage is one of the very few areas where those rights are in conflict,"

"A child's right to its natural biological mother and father can't be set as a value in society if we recognize same-sex marriage."

Did you catch that venomous rant? What hate. What fearmongering. What homophobia. What bigotry. What intolerance! (I hope you all denoted my sarcasm)

Margaret, this is Canada, home of the disgustingly politically correct. You are not ALLOWED TO DISAGREE with the homosexual community. In fact you are not even allowed to have an opinion on the matter if it disagree's with the gay community. You are only allowed to freely express yourself if your opinions and view points line up with theirs. Otherwise they will show up to bully, ahem, I mean protest you into embrassment. This is how they practise TOLERANCE. The following is taken from the Canadian Press:

"Protesters from Ryerson's gay-rights support group, RyePride, joined a group of activists from the University of Toronto as they stood out front of the university's auditorium, some wearing Halloween masks as they brandished picket signs and waved rainbow flags.

As Somerville took the stage, several other members of the official party entered the auditorium wearing rainbow pins and necklaces, while others carried small rainbow flags.

When Somerville was summoned to receive her award, several academics on stage behind her silently hoisted banners and rainbow flags with slogans such as 'My Ryerson honours equal rights' and 'Equality.' The crowd stood and cheered in support of the display.

Several even turned their backs when Somerville was hooded."

There is never a reasonable or logical counterpoint to this ongoing heated debate. If there is then let's hear it without all the (Yawn) "homophobic" terms and endless harrassments they call protests. It is just getting so old and tired already. But, sadly, the term homophobe is the only weak argument they can come up with. Take our token protestor in the crowd with their typical "one line" response.

"Homophobia is not honorary," said one protester. "It shouldn't be celebrated by granting an honorary degree." (Erin Atack, Canadian Press
Published: Monday, June 19, 2006)

You catch that? No intellectual response just typical labelling terms. In other words, the strategy is:

"Let's just call them names until we get our way!"

Margaret Sommerville, I commend you for standing by your beliefs and your principles which you are entitled to in a free and democratic society without expeirencing your own fear of reprecussion from these bullying types (who are the fearmongerer's again?) who refuse to acknowledge their own intolerance towards those with a differing view.

And to the supporters of the FORCED ACCEPTANCE AGENDA...



What can I say? Thanks for setting such a fine example for the youth of our future. By your bullying, fear mongering, labelling, and intolerant ways you continue to display that the best way to deal with an agenda is to bully the opposer's into submission. Clearly another fine example of your tolerance.

Until next time...

Way out in "LEFT" field

In retrospect of my previous but most recent entry regarding "Left" wing ideology and the implications of re-defining terminology, I must say that for the most part the response I recieved from the "Left" wing pundits was expected and predictable.

I will add, to be fair, that there were some who displayed respectable maturity in their responses regardless of their disagreemet of the said topic. To them, some of the following may (or may not) even apply. I was pleasantly surprised to see some of those on the "Left" eager to discuss and debate these hot button issue's without resorting to school level name calling and swearing tirades. They have earned my respect as an "Admirable Adversary".

To the rest of the "Left" wing band of screamin' banshee's who decided to join in to the arena of discussion and debate, thanks for contributing your rants that had absolutley nothing to do with the post. If it is one thing that I can always count on when it comes to the "Left" and debate and that is their predictability.

One does not need to be a prophet in order to accurately determine the outcome of any discussion with them. What it always boil's down to is this...

When the topic is irrefutable they resort to the only strategy they know, (which does not amount to much) that being:

First, attack with strong word's/names that will instill guilt into the "Righty" so that he/she feels shameful and terrible for having the capability to think for themselves and offer up an opposing view. A "Righty" should never be allowed to have a differing view from the "Left" without feeling like they are some religously, homophobic, bigoted, racist. Even if the "Righty" just happens to be a black, gay, atheist, conservative.

(For those who are still convinced that there are no gay conservatives you may want to "stop in and say hello to my fellow conservative comrade and blogger." It would be rather obvious on which areas we would disagree on but this may shed a little bit of light for the "Left's" delusion that ALL homosexuals hold to leftist views.) "There is even American organisations as well! Gasp!" Anyways, back to the list.

second, if this does not work, attempt to derail and divert the topic to something else that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. This way the "Lefty" can now control the debate and bring it down to a level that they can understand and provide something that, well sort of, almost sounds intelligent. If the "Righty" actually falls for this tactic but the "Lefty" now finds him/herself being defeated by their very own argument then they must resort to talking circles. Example: (Lefty speaking)

"Well, no, that was not exactly my point, my point is, and our polling numbers show, that...well...uhmmm....well you know exactly what I mean. You know what? YOUR JUST A BIG RACIST, INTOLERANT, DIGRESSING, BIGOTED, HOMOPHOBE!!!!"

Another term for this type of "Lefty" circle talk is called Liberalspeak!. When they have nothing better or intelligent to say they just say anything. Which essentially is nothing!

Thirdly, If both steps one and two fail, they resort to what "Lefty's" do best. Rant, rave, swear, and call the "Righty" a bunch of ugly names while mentioning how unintelligent he/she sounds. It's rather entertaining at this point as they do not even see the irony of their own behaviour.

Ahhhh yes and number four is a personal favourite of mine. A "left" strategy that can sometimes get me in stitches because they think this (ahem, cough, gag) tactic is somehow effective. That strategy is the ever famous "Let's attack their religious beliefs and tell them how intolerant they are!!!" Naturally, they once again fail to see the irony of their own intolerance.

The above was par for the course in my June 4th entry. I wrote about the dangers of re-defining terminology. Actually I wrote about it last year as well with a complete "forecast" on the serious implications that re-defining marriage would have. That of course being that once you accomodate one group for the sake of their "sexual freedoms and RIGHTS" that other's (read: pedophiles, polyigamists, beastalists, etc.) would use the same claim to their own sexual freedoms and rights. The proverbial pandora's box has been opened.

Naturally many from the "Left" could not absorb the content of the article because they are too quick to rant and too slow to think straight.

First I was accused of homophobia. (Big yawn) Yeah sorry guys...you know I have got to remember to tell my gay friends that I live in fear of them. Of course when this tactic did not work I was then accused of Linking homosexuality too pedophilia. Yet when I challenged the "commentor" to show me just one line in the article where I linked the two, well, lo and behold they just disappeared.

Number two tactic then kicked in where another "one time comment wonder" stopped in to throw a bone at evolution. Huh? Your mad at the topic, you have no rebuttal, so let's talk about a myth so full of hole's it makes a fishing net look like a solid substance. This, of course, was not allowed to go nowhere so we then proceeded to step three....

Name calling. The "Left" could not successfully rebutt said topic sooooo....now they were so mad that by calling me a few harsh names this was somehow going to bring me to the point of saying "Uncle". Rrrriiiiiigggghhhhhtttt!

In fact I even recieved an e-mail thru my "Profile" contact link from someone blabbering on about how proud they were of Canada's mosiac culture (I have no idea what this had to do with the article but for sake of arguement I would respond that this is the reason we also have no national identity), that I was a racist??? (Even though there is not one mention of anything "racial" in the article. This "white trash" better also remember to tell his first nation's aboriginal wife and kids that he is a racist as well as a homophobe now.) and to finish it all off I was called an ignorant SOB. Siigggghhhhh...another angry rant that successfully managed to address nothing.

And then finally, my moral view was called into question because my faith in God was the underlying foundation to my social views. Duh! Apparently moral views are not allowed to apply where one has a belief in a deity. My goodness, how tolerant of the "Left". What was really bizarre about it all is the "Left" will often command that one leave their faith out of a debate. Which to my own credit I actually did. Nowhere in the article was my faith or any religion once brought into the entry. It was clearly targeted at political ideology and the train wreck of over used and abused cliches like the term "Rights".

So what did the "Left" do? The one thing they often tell me not to do. They brought my faith into the subject. (See, I told you they cannot make up their minds) What they forget in all of this is that they too hold moral values and social views and those values and views were influenced by something or someone as well. But in their cess pool of arrogance they feel their "beliefs" are the moral highground. Funny, that is the very self righteousness that they accuse the "Right" of.

As I pondered the past few weeks of the entry/comments and questioned why the discussion went everywhere except where it should have gone, that being, some acknowledgement from the "Left" that re-defining marraige is already turning out to be a bad idea with some very negative social implications, it was the words of Jack Nicholson that came to mind as I envisioned him bellowing out at the "Left"...

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


Your RIGHT Jack, they can't.

Until next time...

The sick mind of the "Progressive" left >:(

**DISCLAIMER**This is not meant to be taken personal by my "lefty" friends and fellow bloggers. This entry is aimed at a very dangerous ideology that stem's from the left wing think tanks world wide.

If it is one of the most frustrating things I have never been able to comprehend from those on the "Left", is why and how, on God's great and green earth they are absolutley incapable of learning from other's grievious mistakes. How utterly stupid, ridiculous, and redundant is implementing that which has already proven itself to be a dismal failure and a contributing factor to moral decay and societal justice breakdown in a civilisation.

Yet such is par for the course when we discuss the insanity of the "Left". These are the people who make the self righteous, and I might I add, very humble claims of their "Forward thinking" ways which somehow make them the great purveyors of the "Progressive" movement in the further evolvement of their world of delusional Utopia.

When we discuss the moral politics of any nation the "Left" proclaims that issues such as "reproductive freedom" and "gay marriage" are just yet another advancement of their forward thinking policies to complete acceptance of diversity. Including different morality and value issues. After all, they argue, it is about human rights! The "Right" is often accused of being stuck in the stone ages. Unwilling to come out of their rut's. The "Right" is quite often labelled as bigoted (and my personal favourite) intolerant!

Often the "Left" will point out how abortions and gay marriage will not have any detrimental effect on society and that things will continue on as they always have once people become accustomed to it. As "Progressively forward thinking" and left leaning Sun media columnist Lyn Cockburn points out in a recent article she did about Canada's first two same sex RCMP couple "tying the knot" (Oh yay :p):



"Their nuptials will constitute the first ever same-sex marriage in RCMP history."

"As much as there is an ongoing controversy about same-sex marriage, this is also a matter of firsts"

"In every case (regarding first's), there was an outcry, a sense of outrage, however muffled, however loud."

"The firsts go on and on, dragging prejudice, controversy and condescension with them.

Until, that is, we get bored with them. We are no longer surprised or even interested that the cop is a woman (for example)...."

First (no pun intended) off, who cares what their occupation is? The men in question are not the first gay couple to marry. Secondly, Canada is not the first country to introduce this unneccessary insult to human rational by re-defining marriage. The continued mantra chant of the "Left" is that morality issue's such as abortion and same sex marriage are basic human rights.

Here is what the "Left" ignores, turns a blind eye towards, and a deaf ear. Many of these social issue's have already been tried by other nations and are going exactly the direction that us "stone age" conservatives said they would go.

Let's just observe the trend here in Canada and where we are heading. When Liberals introduced the legalisation of abortion decades ago they came in on the platform that this procedure was only going to be legal in cases where the patient's and/or babies life was at risk or in cases of rape or incest.

Conservative thinker's said that this would lead to de-valuing human life and eventually this procedure would be treated as just another form of convienient birth control. Liberals in their grand foresight of utopia said that would never happen.

So let's see just how far we have come under these "Progressive" thinkers.

Last year in Canada over 400,000 women became pregnant. Of those 400,000 plus women who were impregnated, over 106,000 of those babies lost their live's in the abortion mills of our "Progressive" nation. All in the name of "reproductive freedom" and the "Right" to choose. Of those 106,000 lives that were snuffed out, an astounding 103,880 WERE NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY! What a "Forward thinking" way to build a nation with a future. Conservative forecast was bang on!

Of course we are now dealing with same sex marriage and where it will lead our nation in the future. Liberals see this as a "progressive" move in our country like they are the first ones to ever come up with the idea. They stubbornly refuse to look at other nations who have implemented these policies and are paying a heavy price "All in the name of human rights". Conservatives, including myself, have said that re-defineing marriage will open up Pandora's box to many different groups wanting to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preference's and lifestyle. This would include polygamist's, pedophiles, incestous relationships, and even those who practice beastiality.

Just to further back my point, in the comments section of my October 15, 2005 entry titled "I am not an animal", I respond to a fellow blogger regarding same sex marriage with the following qoute:

" allowing legislation to reflect what some may consider the norm is just another part of the slippery slope. Many sexual practises will start lining up at Parliaments gates such as the polyigamists, incestous parents, and pedophiles. They will eventually use the same argument about how natural it is for them. I know that may sound far fetched but don't forget that 12 short years ago when homosexuals were fighting for same sex benefits the very same Liberals in power today were the ones who said yesterday that those benefits would not lead to redefining marriage. I am quite convinced that polygamy will be the next thing on the Liberals agenda of forced acceptance of unnatural sexual lifestyles. (Should they remain in power)"

Sound far fetched to you? Think it would never happen here...or any where for that matter. For the record, polygamist's are now starting to line up in Alberta for their "right" to be married to more then one woman. But it goes even further then that. The "progresive forward thinking" nations of our ever expanding world of Tolerance, Acceptance, and Diversity" head down an even darker path that is so twisted and sick.

One of the most "Progressive and Forward thinking" Nations in the world today is the Netherlands. So progressive are they that prostitution, marijuanna, abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage are ALL legal. Once again all in the name of human "Rights". So what is the next step for such a progressive nation to lead us into the future by setting their fine example of human dignity and morality?

How about what I and every other "Stone age" conservative have already forecast. A new political party has emerged known as the Charity Freedom and Diversity Party. Their platform? Quite straight forward. (qoutes taken from every blinking newsite off the web)



"The NVD is Europe's first political party dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia."

My, how Progressive. Let me guess, because it is about the "RIGHTS" of the children. Am I far off?

" The newly formed Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party of the Netherlands has introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights and has vowed, "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

Yep, I was right. Good to see they put the children first by looking out for their "Rights". So what exactly are these perveted pigs looking for in their agenda of children's human rights? Well keep on reading:

" a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals" (They eventually would like to see consensual age done away with completely)

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper." He goes on to say "We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion,"

"The party wants private possession of child pornography to be allowed"

" It also supports allowing pornography to be broadcast on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening."

"Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal" (I was unaware an animal could even consent to sex in the first place!)

"The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public and promotes legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

This, my FORWARD THINKING AND PROGRESSIVE LEFTWING NUT friends is what happens when marriage has no direct reference or definition. It is the end result when sexual "Rights" trump everything that is common sense and dencency. Just ask Belgian child rapist, Marc Dutroux, who I am sure will be one of the NVD's biggest party supporter's.



We "Stone age" Right wing Conservatives have said for decades that this is the dark path liberalism would lead us down but apparently we were just too narrow minded and intolerant in our views. It can and will happen over here if forward thinking liberals continue to allow countries like the Netherlands to be their example.

And the final question...will the Charity Freedom and Diversity party get their official party status? YES!!! Of course they will. They have RIGHTS you know.

Until next time...

A Tribute

With all the negative and continous onslaught of mankind's futile attempts at doing absolutley everything in their feeble power to try and discredit the ONE who paid the ultimate price for them.

Thru their on going and relentless pursuit of trying to dissolve anything and everything that the TRUTH of the gospel account on the life and times of Jesus Christ thru twisted and distorted versions of fictional accounts based on half baked truths to come up with "POPPYCOCK" mindless bestsellers like The Da Vinci code......

Well I have decided not to go on the full frontal assault as that simply becomes an exercise in futility. In fact, I should not even be surprised when I hear about these fictional delusions and how people are swallowing them up like dragonflies in a mosquito pond. Jesus said, and He was once again right I might add, that in latter times:

"For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to right teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever they want to hear. They will reject the truth and follow strange myths."

2 Timothy 4:3-4

My resolve has been strengthened not weakened. My faith continues to flourish amidst the dark times of mankind's denial. And why would it not? The Word, Jesus Christ, has spoken that these times were going to come when His return was close at hand.

So in order to hit back, Christian style, I have composed a video of the truth. It comes from my heart and is just a little gift that I offer up to God. You could say it is my "technologically advanced" Thank you card.

Because I remember Him and what He did, as well as acknowledge Him as Lord and Saviour, I know He will also remember me in His Kingdom.

It is also designed with you in mind as well. I hope, even if you do not believe, that you would still enjoy it.

OOPS! :(

My fellow bloggin' buddies I have dropped the ball.

In my previous post I gave credit to an editorial that has been circulating for some time. Because I believed the sincerity of the intentions of those who sent it (and I bear no ill will at all towards them) I took the editorial verbatim WITHOUT FIRST DOING MY HOMEWORK! (shame on me)

"Anonymous" left a question asking for a copy or direct link to the editorial in question. I thought to myself...

"That's easy enough, I will just track it down on google!"

It turns out this editorial has been circulating everywhere on blogs (for over a year) with no viable or direct link to the Toronto Star but simply doing what I did and crediting them for the article.

After 45 minutes of intensive search I finally rooted out the source. It was in fact NOT an editorial but a letter TO the editor.

The editor in question is a man by the name of Tom Barret of the "ConservativeTruth.org" who publishes for an American Conservative weekly magazine. The letter in question is dated "March 8, 2004"

It turns out this letter has been "converted" to a Canadian version that credited the Toronto Star with the editorial. I have actually recieved this letter before in the past and it has always turned up the same. Although that is no excuse for "assuming" it's accuracy that is precisely what I did. You have my sincere apologies for misleading any of you.

For the record I still stand behind the content of the letter and will be altering my previous post so that it is more accurate in representing the real intention of the posting. That way the debate can continue for those who would like to carry on.

Now for those who truly forgive the error of my ways just write back in the comment section "YOU ROCK INTOLERANT ONE"! I will then be at peace.

Until next screw up :)...

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.