Flinging Poo!

I am sure you have all been wondering "What's up with Intolerant? (Then again, maybe not!) I took a little breather to surf the web for some stimulating Canadian political debate. What I came across was unbelievable...and yet very believable.

For those of you who read my last post I called my own Prime Minister to task for his double take on income trust funds. I headed over to another site where there was some typical conservative bashing and how the Prime Minister is a big fat liar, ad nauseum. I decided to take part in this particular debate to remind them of the last 13 years of a Liberal government that was so bogged down in scandalous corruption that they are the first political party in this nation to be under federal investigation. At least that was going to be my intent.

Then I was challenged by one of the biggest "Left wing nut's" I have ever come across in my entire life. He goes by the moniker of SolarisZen. For some reason he wanted to take the debate into the "gay marriage" territory. I have actually been trying to avoid this topic, for the time being, as it is always going to be there and I just wanted to change direction simply for the sake of change. But Solaris wanted to engage and being the tolerant individual that I am I decided to oblige him and indulge.

I am already well aware of how some of my left wing blogging buddies feel regarding the topic of gay mariage. But what I am about to display is the actual dialogue between myself and this (ahem)....you know what? I just do not have a nice word for him. Anyway, focus not on the topic but the content of this deluded individual. This crackpot measures above and beyond the typical left wing stereotype. In fact he epitomizes it with his name calling, accusations, rhetoric, and insinuations while avoiding any and all support/responsibility for his rationale and claims. On one point I ask him a total of five times to demonstrate his "evidence" for a ludicrous claim he has made regarding our Prime Minister as a racist. In fact anyone who contributed to the discussion that did not agree with him (regardless of the topic) was cast as a "Hateful, racist" (LOL I am laughing as I type this :))))

I will say this. I do have a greater appreciation for my left wing friends who continue to visit this site. Because of the level of maturity and mutual respect many of you have shown I know that despite people like Solaris not all "Lefties" are like him. I am also quite sure there are many of the "Right" persuasion who are just like Solaris.

I still have no idea what exactly he was trying establish. He was either drunk, stoned, or just plain stupid. I will admit as you read the dialogue that I am guilty of getting just a little bit RAW with the lad. Some of it tongue in cheek, some of it to provoke (just a little ;) and some just to drive him a little stir crazy (like using his own words against him like "hate" and "phobia") but what can I say? He was asking for it.

The following was our entire dialogue. I have left in all his bad grammar and spelling mistakes for good measure. Without further adieu sit back, grab your popcorn, and (hopefully) have a little chuckle. This guy takes the cake!

It all begins with my response to someone else:

TIO said:

Yeah those liberals were such a wonderful honest bunch. They would never screw anyone over would they? Hmmmm smells like remnants of "And if elected I will abolish that stupid tax the GST!" I assume you were saying the same thing back then as well?

SolarisZen said:

here is some info for you... it was Brian Malruny who brought in the GST!!! And I would rather the liberals than a party that are fundamentaly racist!!!

TIO said:

Actually it is Mulroney and I am well aware he brought in the GST. What exactly is your point? As far as your "racist" comment regarding Harper would you care to back that up with some concrete evidence? Or is it just another "angry" word you throw around loosely just like other term's such as homophobe, bigot, or my personal fave INTOLERANT? :p

SolarisZen

No problem, he brings up the whole gay marrige, a topic that is NOT nessessary and does nothing for those people with that sexual orientation,

TIO said:

It was never necessary to re-define the term marriage in the first place. Gays always had the RIGHT to marry therefore they were never discriminated against. He brought it up because...
A) 67% of Canadians never did support it (they supported civil union) B) Liberals are incapable of understanding or comprehending the term "Free vote" (Not forced vote on Cabinet Ministers)...
C) Gay marriage has everything to do with other people in this country who are now losing their own fundamental freedoms (moral conscience, religious) guaranteed to them under the Charter. If they cannot be protected (even though the Charter says they are supposed to be) then throw the Charter in the garbage can!

SolarisZen said:

Religon has NOTHING to do with people getting married!!! Also where are YOUR facts on this 67% when the MAJORITY or canadians are tolerant and want answers to real questions such as health care and education not what people do in the bedroom! )
Yea it is because if one loves someone theno they can get MARRIED and be reconized as a MARRIED couple. Not just a "civil union between two men" bull. Thanks for the spin but no thanks, I rather stick to reality!

TIO said:

Religious rights and freedoms have nothing to do with it? Is your head that far up your rear? Explain that to the numerous marriage commissioners (who are NOT gov't. employee's BTW) who lost their licenses to marry couples because the Charter that supposedly protected their rights failed them to accommodate a sexual lifestyle...Re: 67% December/03 Compas polling asked the question of Canadians regarding their views on gay marriage. Results: 30% don't recognize them at all.37% recognize them as civil unions, not as marriages. Only 31% percent supported while the other 2% had no response. That was neat how you deflected the onus off yourself from providing any evidence regarding you delusions of Harpers racism. Back it up or shut up! If what people did in the bedroom did not actually affect other's rights and freedoms we would not be having this debate. However if your so keen on sticking to reality (as you say) then I am sure you would be the first to defend those whose Charter rights who are being discriminated against by having both their religious and moral conscience freedoms trampled upon for not violating their supposed right to freedom of religious expression by marrying gay couples? You do recognize their rights as well do you not? Or are the only rights gay rights?

SolarisZen said:

The right to religion is that one can practice it. The right to marrige is that one can get married when two people are in love and be reconized by sociaty as religion in and of itself is reconized (i.e. the religion of BOB.) It is that simple! Religion does not trounce indevidual rights!!! I'm not here to convince you, since you are VERY angry and rather that you deal with your personal issues you are forcing your hate on others and that is not right in any religion or sociaty. No, religious rights do not! How many religions advocate violence like your own. Christianity accepts and promotes love but yet here you are spouting hatred towards people with different sexual orientation. Even with the "war on terror" where its muslims vs christianity. There is no such thing. Both religions teach tollerance but then there are people like you who turn it around it hate. those that do DESERVE to loose their licence and even a lot more!!! (take note of his "Tolerance")

TIO said:

LOL your response is so utterly typical and asinine. Your redundant rhetoric was so predictable that I could have written your response for you. One does not agree with gay marriage therefore they must hate homosexuals. Oh do shut up already! So far thru out this diatribe you continue to deflect the reality (again, which you claim to live in) and address the Charter and human rights issues that have already affected INDIVIDUAL Canadians. ALL are equal under the code. Homosexuals rights cannot trump individual religious rights and freedoms. It goes both ways. You cannot substantiate anything you say so you resort to accusing myself and others of hatred and intolerance. That's it? You cannot debate logically or intellectually so you bombard the other side with unfounded claims and name calling? Just like your "racist Harper" comment, which BTW, I am STILL awaiting your source of foundation for such a stupid remark. You accuse myself of anger yet when I read thru your list of comments to others you call them idiots and morons while making false accusations against them and others. Just who is the angry one here? So let me see if I understand you here by your venomous "rage of red" verbal diarrhea. I advocate violence? Do show me anywhere in my comments where I have done so. I spout hatred? Why is that? Because I disagree with gay marriage? Demonstrate where there is hate in such a statement. Or is that your idea of "Tolerance"? As long as someone agrees with you they are considered tolerant? If that is the case you would not know tolerance if it slapped you upside the head. Tolerance does NOT mean one MUST accept something they hold a moral conviction about, unless of course they live in your totalitarian world, in which case "Forced Acceptance" is tolerance.

SolarisZen said:

Isn't that interesting. Your first statment here describes you to a tea! I say no one should trumph indevidual rights. You come along and start ranting how religion is indevidual when in fact it is not and since not all people belong to your religion or even agrea with yoour ideals then you call us facist. Now I see you have no idea what you are talking about! Again no accusations here. Who is the one that goes on about morality and values? If you have such issues I think you need professional help. Not be here banging on on why it is ok for you to hate then lable and accuse other people of hatred since they are against your value system. Its idiotic to see why you are wrong but then its ok for you to spin and accuse us of being wrong while labling us as stupid and accusatory. Again. You think relgion is an "indevidual right" I didn't kow I was automatically part of your religion thus I have to obay your "morals/values" and you call me a facist? lol no accusations here. You practice your name to a tea. Again. there is plenty of evedence. a PM should NOT call Canada a "welfair state" or even take the rights of indevidual canadians away over hateful religions that ostracize INDEVIDUALS simply because of their sexuality!!! It has not affected indevidual Canadians? Why? Because religion has nothing to do with the indevidual. I agree my response is "typical," asinie? Nope since only a hate monger would view such comment as so. If you weren't homophobic then what is wrong with two people that love each other getting married? And no religion has nothing to do with love! Not everyone has a religion that is so "hell"bent on hate!


(Are you starting to get the picture?)

TIO said:

You clearly type with an angry hand. Let's see if we can penetrate your narrow minded, intolerant, bigoted, Christianphobic mind with some yet more reality. Under the Charter INDIVIDUAL Canadian citizens are guaranteed their freedom of religion and moral conscience. It does not read as a group. BTW there is NO mention of "sexual orientation" in the Charter as it reads today. Try reading it some time. Twice you accuse me of calling you fascist. Again another statement displaying your lack of credibility by putting words into my mouth that I have not said. If I did then quote me otherwise stop making false claims. You only end up reinforcing the claim that you are indeed accusatory. You seem to suffer from paranoid "delusions of grandeur" that anyone who opposes gay marriage is A) religious B) Hates homosexuals. Here is some more reality for you hotshot. There are many gay people who do not favor it either. And those of us who do oppose it are not all religious. AND some of us "religious" folk still have loved ones , working relationships and friendships with gay people. Sorry, Tolerant gay people who respect our right to disagree. In the real world it is quite possible to co-exist in society while not always agreeing. To be able to express one's viewpoint without being accused of hate where there is none. That is the true meaning of tolerance. Something you fail to realize. In your world it is "agree with me or I will hurl insults at you and accuse you of hate". I am not intimidated by such irrational thinking. The word homophobe is not even applicable in many cases. Many, like your self, use it to try and instill guilt and to shame others into silence so they will not exercise their democratic right to freedom of expression. If you want to label someone a homophobe, by definition of the word, you must first prove hate. Simply disagreeing with gay marriage is not hate. Thru out this dialogue you have continued rant and rave and yet when challenged you have backed up squat! YOU said Harper is a racist? Prove it! YOU said I hate gay people because I disagree with gay marriage? Prove it? (Prove it to my gay sister too). YOU said Christianity is full of hate? Tell that to the homeless (gay and straight) who are fed and sheltered by their many agencies. You have avoided every challenge to support your inflammatory accusations with evidence. Back it up or shut up!

SolarisZen said:

great lets see those facts!!! If there is no hate you wouldn't be spouting such rehtoric. Any normal, logical human being knows when two people lobe each other they can get married. YOU bring religion into it when it has NOTHING to do with the rights of an indevidual. I love to see these people who you claim are agianst such freedoms by warping religion to such a hateful adgenda. Again, you love using the word "accuse" or accusatory. Here is a hint. To accuse someone is to lable without knowing facts. Telling me "in your totalrian world" stats that you have accused me of being a facist, where you site "christianphobia" and religion over and over again to promote your hatred. Thus you have proven with FACTS that you are racist/prejudgist. Again, calling me angery and spouting off viteral of "Christianphobic." I like the "narrow mind" comment. Since you refuse to accept that people are not born christians at birth! They join a GROUP much later in life. I understand you don't know much about the charter but sexual orientation IS there. For instance one CANNOT discriminate based on sexual orientation such as a job.

TIO said:

Let's try this one more time Mr. Grumpy pants. Do you actually read what I write or do you skim over it quickly while having a tantrum? First you ask for facts? Since when have you provided one single fact yourself? For the FIFTH time, what do you base your delusional opinion on Harper being a racist? You have continued to avoid your own comment without any factual support while constantly demanding facts from me which I provided re: majority of Canadians who do not support gay marriage. You want more facts? Then start providing your own. Secondly the Charter reads as "sex" referring to gender NOT orientation. Supreme court judges have read it into the Charter but orientation is not in there. You are thinking of the human rights code. It's no wonder you cannot provide facts. You cannot seem to get them straight. Regarding my "Christianphobia" comment, that was an intentional shot to show you how ridiculous you sound when you espouse "homophobia" every time someone does not agree with your perception. Re-read what I said. Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage that does NOT make them a homophobe!!! Re: "groups". I guess then it would be fair to "label" the gay community as a group as well? Re: fascist. Go back and read your own comments thru out this thread. You have accused everybody of being fascist. And calling me racist?!?! Now I know you are truly disturbed. Speaking as a Caucasian male my aboriginal wife just about fell over laughing when I showed her your dumbass statement. It is quite clear you are incapable of backing up anything you say but you are very good at avoiding responsibility or accountability for your own comments. Thereby invalidating your weak points. The rest were not points at all. For all the name calling and false accusations you have hurled my way you clearly display your close minded, Christianphobic, religiously intolerant, and bigoted attitudes towards all who do not agree with your way of thinking (or lack of). If the "politically correct" of society were to remove all penis's from statues because they deemed them "not gender friendly" you would be the first one in the crowd to ignore the facts and instead blame it on the Christians saying that we said it was too pornographic. It has been a blast watching you substantiate absolutely nothing you have said. I am off to hold an intelligent conversation with my 7 year old. Hope one day you can get over your "hateful" ways :)

There you have it folks. The entire onus is on me to prove everything well Solaris was able to rant and rave and do everything else he accused me of. That was the best laugh I had all week.

Now we have all heard the expression that "If you do not have nothing nice to say then do not say anything at all". Fine then, how about I just tell the truth? Solaris...when you talk you come across as a moron.

Until next time...

Tit for Tat!

Recently a bloggin' buddy of mine posed the challenge "I'd like to see you take someone to task from your own side (politically, that is). As I am almost always up for a good challenge I thought why not?

If we truly consider ourselves respectable, mature, and somewhat intelligent individuals capable of responsible verbal dialect even in the midst of heated passionate debate and disagreement then we should also be just as responsible in owning up to the reality that those people/politicians/ideologies we stand by and support will at times fall short. We must come to expect that there will be those on the other side of the forum who will be quick to point it out. That is part of the adrenaline rush of debate. The other question is "Are we willing to acknowledge it when it does happen?" Because regardless of one's political stripes it is always inevitable that somewhere down the line the party in power will drop the ball big time.



But I must admit it is quite the challenge when one is about to embark on a mission of exposing a hypocritical position taken by the one they support. Such is today's entry on my Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I voted for this man thru my local representative and for the most part I have been proud to call him my leader. He is consistent, he has kept just about every promise he has made (the only struggle being he is dealing with a minority parliament which can make it a lot tougher) and unlike a liberal, he does not pay attention to the latest polls. He is quite capable of making a decision. I have more respect for someone who is willing to make decision (even if it turns out to be the wrong one) then one who is afraid to make one at all. (See previous Prime Minister, Paul Martin)



However that being said, recently there has been a huge kerfluffle when Prime Minister Harper reneged on a campaign promise to not tax income trusts. I am actually providing the smoking gun evidence to you right here:



Yes that is my Prime Minister sticking both feet in his mouth. One thing that can be very frustrating for any of us is when we place a government in power only to have them blatantly disregard a political campaign promise. Here is the thing though. I actually agree that he and his Finance Minister, Joe Flaherty, came to a very responsible and tough decision. It just irks me to no end that they said they would not do this. Why could they not have said during the election "It is not our intent..." because at the time it most likely was not. Instead they place themselves in the position of being portrayed as blatant liars because they made it a promise as opposed to an area they would try to avoid taxing.

The decision itself was a good one. Considering a conservative government is often accused of getting into bed with corporate America the opposite has taken place in this instance. Income Trusts were beginning to get out of hand with big money corporations such as Telus & BCE investing big money without paying any taxes on it due to tax loopholes on investments. If it is one thing the Harper government cannot be accused of it is "sucking up to the corporate world". In fact the Prime Minister is quoted as saying :

"Everyone in this country knows that in the last few months, what we have seen is the beginning of the conversion of major corporations to income trusts, which would have resulted in them paying no taxes whatsoever,"

"It would have shifted the tax burden to ordinary Canadians,"

"That is not fair, that is not what the government promised. This government is determined to have a fair system of taxation. . . "

The other thing to keep in mind here is that Finance Minister Joe Flaherty did not try and go around the campaign promise and put political spin on it. He simply acknowledged that they did indeed say they were not going to tax the Income Trusts but when he discovered what the Prime Minister acknowledged his response was:

"But this was ... necessary, regrettably necessary, but necessary for fairness and for the sake of the Canadian economy."

I agree with the decision. I just do not agree with the way it all went down. Unfortunately they make themselves out to be liars even though they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.


On a side note, here are some of my favourite poitical photo's for my fellow "lefty" pundits.

For Lucy,



And for KA, Karen, Nog, and Dr. Marco,



Nothing like a Canadian Conservative shaking hands with your boss! (LOL)

Until next time...

Reflections (A year in review)

Although this is a little overdue, back in September was my one year anniversary as a blogger. So to begin off my "New" year into bloggerdom I have changed the banner but kept the template. I did not want to go to drastic. The banner change was not only a reflection of something fresh and new but I felt the background was rather symbolic of the nature of the topics and the discussions that go on here. Rather stormy at times :)

My goal from the outset was to stir the proverbial pot. Discussing the things that fly in the face of an all too politically correct society that is afraid to say the simple words..."I Disagree".

Regarding my views on such racy topics such as abortion, gay marriage, homosexuality, Canadian politics, terrorism, evolution, war in Iraq/Afghanistan, our soldiers, religion, and so on I would say that I have remained true to my moniker. Not because I actually am intolerant of people with opposing views but my experiences in a mostly dominated liberal society have branded me as such.

As I like to say, "If you ever want to be branded as INTOLERANT, then win an argument with a Liberal!" I make no bones about my views. In a true and free society I should be entitled to them with a degree of respectful disagreement not verbal diarrhea and rageful tongue lashings from those who profess to belong to the "Tolerant elite".

For the most part I can say I have been pleasantly surprised by a number of you from the "Left" side of the spectrum. Although I never expected to have so many of you come to a site that disagrees with your own personal views, values, and ideologies I am glad to welcome you. I value and appreciate your input and respect your right to disagree with me.

I may not have met the bulk of you in person but I consider many of you my friends. From the "Left" I think of Lucy, Karen, KA, Mandora, The Queen of light and Joy, and Dr. Marco. From the "Right" or more to the right I think of Bewoulf (Pro theism), Jeff (African Perspective), Nog , and new friend Courtney. I also remember "Q" whose input I miss. I hope he is reading this and stops in to say hello. If I missed others please accept my apologies.

I am proud to say I have only ever deleted one comment from this site in it's entire existence. It came on what I felt was definitely the most heated discussion of the past year. That was June 4/06 entry "The sick mind of the Progressive left". The comment did not address the topic and was just slinging mud in quite a vulgar manner. It was a touchy subject as it challenged certain ideologies of the extreme far left.

Yet some dumbass remarks I will allow to stand. For example, October 7/06 entry "AIDS: A gay mans disease" warranted a comment from "anonymous" referring to me as a disgrace to Christian bikers. I was not sure what being a Christian or a biker had to do with writing a piece about what a gay and lesbian organization was promoting but I allowed it to stand because I do support freedom of expression (within reason). And really, considering my personal past, I have heard a lot worse.

As I embark on a new year on blogger I hope many of you will continue to come by and submit your input. I value you as people, even IF some of you have views that are warped (LOL)

I leave you with this as I would not be the The Intolerant One if I did not.

Evolution is dumb
Abortion is mean
Gay marriage is wrong
Euthanasia is twisted
Safe sex=False sense of security
Atheism is sad
Liberal=indecisive (better take a poll!)
Religion sucks
Relationship with Christ is salvation and TRUTH!

Now show me the love.

Until next time...

Mincing words

I really cannot comprehend these days what it is with the masses of the "politically correct/elite" and their refusal to deal with the English language. What exactly is the purpose of having a language with words if every time a word is used in it's proper context it is deemed offensive? Or, if in the case of evolutionary debate, when you point out to the atheist that they are using the word design and in doing so by the very definition they are implying a designer. (Design demands/requires a designer) Otherwise it is a clear misuse of the word. They like to accuse you of "haggling" or "quibbling" over terminology.



But then what is it's purpose? I know those on the "left" side of the spectrum like to redefine terminology and words every time they begin to trip on their own words. This somehow allows them an "out" from the proverbial corner they just painted themselves in to. Either the terminology is minimized, redefined, or dismissed all together.

I have decided that is NOT how I am going to play the game. Words have definition for a reason. So we know what the (Bleep!) the other person is trying to say. Let me elaborate my point. Today's word is a very offensive word. But that is not what matters. What matters is this...is the word applicable? That word is "Whore".

Whore as defined in the English language is as follows:

1. A prostitute.
2. A person considered sexually promiscuous.
3. A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

Now let's look at the following true story in Canadian politics. Her name is Belinda Stronach. She has been referred to as a whore. Is the term justified?



After a failed leadership bid for the conservative party (most likely because she was a rookie MP) an inexperienced Belinda decided that she wanted to have it all in politics. As a spoiled little rich girl who was used to getting whatever she wanted, losing the leadership bid to Stephen Harper was too much. She had designs on being a somebody in politics. To the point of compromising who she claimed to be. On May 17, 2004, Belinda "crossed" the floor over to the Liberal party. What's the big deal you might ask? Timing! This was the day of a crucial budget vote. Budget votes, when lost by the reigning party in power, bring the house down. This is considered a vote of non-confidence and the government in power must now call for an election because in it's current state it cannot do business in the house without the support of the opposition parties.

The 2004 budget would have brought down the governemnt. Except Belinda crossed the floor that day and voted with the Liberals. She blabbered about her "moral" reasons but it seemed rather questionable that the moment she crossed the floor she was handed a very lucrative Cabinet position. Usually these positions are reserved for those with expeirence and are known for their loyalty to the party. Belinda had neither and then serving Prime Minister Paul Maritn was desperate to cling to power. So he dangled a a carrot in front of her. Essentially he bought her vote. Under the term "Whore" Belinda fit both 1 &3. 1 because she was "paid" off for her actions and 3 because she was willingly to compromise her principals for personal gain. If you will she was a "political whore" of sorts.

But the definition does not just end there. This past year she has been relationally (IE sexually) linked to NHL hockey player Tie Domi. I guess that would not be such a big deal EXCEPT Tie Domi is married and it is not to Belinda.



Speculation does cross one's mind when rumors start to fly and I will usually dismiss them but there were some factors that contributed to the reality of this relationship. One, neither of them denied it. . Two, Tie Domi's wife discovered recently that when he was supposedly with his team on a few occasions he was actually in New York or Calgary with Belinda. Three, Oh Yeah! The photograph taken of Tie with Belinda in public areas confirming these (ahem!) stories.



Aside from Belinda's adulterous relationship with Tie Domi she has also been known to "other" men in the House of commons. Peter Mackay for example. At this rate, Belinda also qualifies for definition number two when applying the word whore. So let's not minimize reality by mincing words because we are supposed to be sensitive towards those who incapable of displaying the same quality.

Her actions speak loud and clear of who she is and how she lives. I always say "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...then it's a DUCK!"

Belinda...your a whore!

Until next time...

Check it out!

Alright, no fighting words today. I have officially been pimped out. Or another way of putting it...I have been profiled.

It is always cool when one hooks up with another blogger. I would love to personally meet everyone who continues to visit my site. Unfourtanetly that is not always reality.

If you would like to satisfy your curiousity then check it out here!

Maybe one day you and I will hook up as well.

AIDS: A gay man's disease

I am quite sure as one reads the title to this latest article many of you almost immediately had your blood levels boiling to a very dangerous point. Some of you, without even reading what I am about to present, may be thinking "Boy do I ever want to throttle this guy for his redundant ignorance" Or maybe you are thinking "Here we go again. Another Christian right wing (nut) blaming a killer disease on the homosexuals"

But what if I told you that I am not the one spreading this message? What would you think if I told you that it was a message being spread by a homosexual advocate organization? Would you even believe it? To be honest with you I would not even believe it....if I had not seen it for myself.



A new ad campaign being sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Center is now going back on it's original position of the last 25 years that AIDS is not a gay disease and now claiming that it is.

I am not going to rub this in anyone's face with childish "I told you so" retorts. Because that would not be conducive to discussing a very serious fatal illness. Nor do I accept that it is entirely true. HIV is not soley a homosexual disease. It is, however, and always has been predominantly found in homosexuals, mostly gay and bi-sexual men. The facts support the reality that AIDS and the practice of homosexuality are closely linked. Which is why I do not find it a contradictory statement to suggest that HIV is indeed a gay disease.

Let's review, not my own findings (I would just be accused of looking up research that favored my view anyway) what Lorri L. Jean, Chief Executive Officer, of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center has to say regarding this campaign that his organization is spearheading.

"In Los Angeles, the data are very clear: though gay and bisexual men make up less than 7% of the population, they account for more than 75% of those living with HIV and AIDS. The hugely disproportionate impact of the epidemic on our community is undeniable and unacceptable, and has been so for 25 years."

Yikes! Those are indeed scary statistics. But it is not just in L.A. alone that we find this trend. For example, in my own home country of Canada where the entire population of the country is 32,650,175 (still a million and half less then the entire population of the state of California) the numbers are very similar.

In Canada homosexuals make up less then 2% of the population (although we will just round it off to 2). 57,780 Canadians are infected with HIV. 55% of infected Canadians are homosexual men. Once again, clearly in the majority. It is also suspected, although not proven, that a number of those in Heterosexual/endemic category (individuals with an origin in a country where HIV is endemic (mainly sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean) engaged in same sex encounters in their own homeland but never viewed this as something they needed to share with their wives. A common practice within certain African cultures that is never spoken about among it's citizens only known that it does indeed go on. This of course, if proven, could inflate the numbers.



(Canadian statistics, MSM representing male gay sex)

Why such high numbers within the gay community? For one thing, anal penetration is not conducive to natural design. Linings in the human body are torn, sometimes beyond repair. This certainly allows for higher chance of infection to occur. The other reason has to be the intentional behavior of some within the homosexual community. These are not people who are not educated on the dangers of sexual promiscuity. The practice of "so-called" safe sex has permeated society to the point that you would have to be dead not to have heard about it at least 5 times within your life time.

Yet there is a continual, intentional, rebellion to all the warnings that go with this lifestyle. A practice known as "Bare backing" where gay men literally throw caution to the wind to engage in unprotected sex with a complete stranger because of the supposed "rush" they get from knowing they could be having sex with an HIV positive male. Potentially playing the proverbial game of "Russian roulette" for the sake of a few fleeting moments of sexual climax suggests that their is something more to it then just two people wanting to engage in same sex.

This is a dangerously psychological problem as well. To know that your sexual lifestyle is a high risk even with protection and yet to willingly choose to throw even that away to have unprotected sex, to the point of looking for it, with a complete stranger has me questioning one's mental stability. The following is taken from the About: Aids/HIV website:

But what of the positive man who infects the willing. What drives them to knowingly give an illness to an otherwise healthy man? One "gift giver", as positive men are often called, reported,

"It was the most incredible feeling of power. I was going to take something from him, and that power gave me a rush I'd never known."



This is truly disturbing and sad. I applaud the Gay and Lesbian center for it's very bold, and I am quite sure controversial, approach to addressing this epidemic especially among the gay community. Their response was mature after 25 years of denying what was reality. They have now stepped up to the plate to take a degree of ownership. And I say good for them. As I reviewed statistics at various sites the trend , every four years, continues to rise rapidly within the homosexual community. The facts are there. This indeed is a dangerous sexual activity to engage in. HIV, for the most part, is a gay man's disease.

Until next time...

Double Standards Part 2!

Chalk another one up for "Dumb ass decisions by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission". Before I even begin I have to ask the question:

"Are these people for real?"



Our story begins with 17 year old identical twins Amy and Jesse Pasternak. Two good ole’ Canadian girls from my hometown of Winnipeg city who have a passion for our beloved sport of hockey. They love the game so much that, naturally, they want to play the game for a team in an organized league. Sounds good so far. Canada’s women took home the gold in the past Winter Olympics so to see young ladies want too continue that dream is encouraging. And just as luck would have it Amy and Jesse’s high school (West Kildonan Collegiate) just happens to “ice” a girls hockey team every year. Great! Right?

Well, not really. You see Amy and Jesse are just not content playing with girls. They wanted to try out for the boys team. There is only one problem...their not boys. Matter settled then? Your a girl so you try out for the girls team correct? Not according to them. These little princess’s felt that because they were denied a tryout on the boys team (because they were NOT boys, DUH!) that this constituted an act of gender discrimination. WHAT?

The twins began their little quest back in June of 2006 by filing a complaint of gender discrimination against the Manitoba High School Athletics Association (MHSAA) for not allowing them to try out for their boys high school.hockey team. The response from MHSAA is that there was simply no need for the girls to cry “discrimination” when a team was already available for them to try out for. That of course being the girls high school team and guess what? The boys are not allowed to try out for the girls team. All things now being equal..case closed!

Not for the Human Rights Commission. The fact that they even considered the case in the first place shows just how mentally challenged these people really are (that means they are brainwashed with political correctness BTW) The case was not only sent to adjudication but the asinine, redundant, and blatantly bias findings of the adjudicator HERself , M. Lynn Harrison, was clearly demonstrated in her own discriminatory settlement. That’s right! The adjudicator settled a matter of “perceived” discrimination by discriminating against the MHSAA.



First she ruled in favor of the girls saying that the MHSAA did discriminate against them due to the fact they do not have penis’s....er...I mean their gender. The immediate response to this was that this will open up the floodgates for boys too try out for girls teams. However, Ms. Harrison made sure that would not happen either. Are you ready for one of the most outlandish discriminating decisions ever heard of by the “great defenders” of human rights, dignities, and did I mention freedom from discrimination?

After awarding the girls $3,500 each for punitive damages (yeah, whatever, like they were out any money) and the right to try out for the boys team she went on to say that there was no need for concern of “fallout” regarding boys trying out for girls teams because, in her words:

“This ruling only applies to girls wishing to play boys hockey”

The ruling only affects girls who want to play boys hockey. It does not allow for boys to try out for girls teams. So that’s it! Let’s settle a matter of gender discrimination by committing gender discrimination? Does the commission even begin to concieve how ridiculous they look? I think not. Here is the Commissions lawyer, Sarah Lugtig, in HER own words:

“Female hockey is a very different sport then boys’ hockey and very few women are able to play on men’s teams,” (That’s because they are women, NOT men stupid!)

More stupidity..

“You need girls-only teams to ensure girls have equal access to sport” (Right , only the boys are not allowed equal access because they have to make way for the girls in order not too be discriminatory)

In the end, West Kildonan Collegiate’s girls hockey team was absolutely insulted by the fact that these two girls did not want to join their team. And the Pandora’s box of boys wanting to try out for girls teams.... you know the box that the “All knowing” human rights commission said would never be opened?

Well, it only took 2 days. The following taken from this link

"At least half a dozen boys have asked for a chance to try out for girls' high school athletic team since the Pasternak twins won their controversial human rights' case last week".....(and)

"Two boys want to try out for a girls' volleyball team because their school doesn't have a boys' team, another boy wants a spot on the girls' curling team for the same reason, another boy wants to play girls' fastball and two boys who didn't make their high school boys' basketball team want a crack at the girls' team."

Let the games begin. Until next time...

Not another double standard!

It was back on August 18, 2003 at the Manitoba Legislative building (see photo above) where I attended a Pro-marriage rally. As expected a number of advocates (about 49 in total) for same sex marriage and local gay and lesbian groups showed up to voice their opposition to the majority's position on the issue.

However, I recognized their right to "Peaceful Protest" permitted to them under the law and the Canadian/Manitoban human rights code. These are basic fundamental freedoms that are "supposedly" recognized in a free and democratic society. Canada, The United States, and even our motherland, the United Kingdom all espouse the inherent right to freedom of speech, freedom of moral conscience, and freedom of peaceful gathering. Sounds fair...doesn't it? It probably would be IF there was not such a double standard. Either these fundamental freedoms apply to ALL or none.

At the pro family rally that I was in attendance it was hard not too notice just how loud , obnoxious, obscene, and unruly these particular protestors were. Every time a speaker got up to the podium the profanity laced heckling and vulgar name calling began. Nearly drowning out the speaker's voice. (Yeah I know... more liberal tolerance) If that was not enough, they then proceeded to stand in front of the speakers waving their flags and banners. Their blatant disrespect for a groups right too peaceful gathering combined with their childish antics was frustrating to say the least. But what made it more frustrating was watching law enforcement stand idly by and do nothing! Maybe that would not be such a big deal IF it went both ways. However in an increasingly politically correct society where the only rights are gay rights there is an obvious bias to those who are opposed.

Let's take Stephen Green, National Director of the UK organization Christian Voice, for example.



On September 2, 2006, Stephen was in attendance at a homosexual Mardi Gras that was held in the Welsh capital of Cardiff in Buke Park. Well, actually, he stood outside the park entrance as people entered in. His purpose? Too hand out a pamphlet to all who passed by titled "Same-Sex Love - Same-Sex Sex; What does the Bible say?" His actions were no different then when we see a PETA rep handing out their own anti-fur brochures in a public setting. The pamphlet was certainly no "Fred Phelps/God hates fags" literature either. It simply established homosexuality as sin thru some scripture references. But also focused on repentance, redemption, and salvation thru Christ which is a demonstration of God's love.

Stephen's treatment for exercising his fundamental right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest (how much noise can one man make?) was incarceration! That's right. As Stephen was quietly distributing his literature and speaking with those who would listen an Inspector Chad, wearing a fluorescent vest with 'Minorities Support Unit' on the back (Minority support unit? Why not just say "The anti-Christian/pro-gay unit" ?) detained him when he refused to surrender his RIGHT to freedom of speech. According to reports he was held in a Cardiff police station cell for over four hours before being charged with:

'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986'.

Are you friggin' kidding me? One man? Arrested and charged for handing out a piece of paper which the intended recipient has every right to throw into the trash should they choose. The obvious blatant discrimination and bias directly, willfully, and intentionally aimed at those who dare to oppose has once again exposed the double standard set by the hypocritcal movement of the tolerant left. It is now official. Political correctness has gone absolutely out of control.

Here, in effect, is the message being sent then. Gay and lesbian groups have every right to yell, jump, and stomp up & down while yelling hate filled profanity at people attending a pro-family/traditional marriage event. This is their "right" to freedom of speech. When the shoe is on the other foot ( a far more mature approach by Stephen I might add) the "right" does not exist. I share Stephen's sentiments when he says:

"All the same, I am astonished that South Wales Police have a special unit dedicated to silencing those who disagree with homosexuality. Stonewall, the homosexual rights organization, say the South Wales Police 'Minorities Support Unit' 'works closely with the LGBT communities'. Maybe they work a bit too closely when an evangelist can be victimized simply because he is giving out leaflets quoting verses from the same Bible police officers swear on in court."



Freedom of speech has become a mirage. A distant memory. Something that only exists if one goes along with the dictated status quo of the mad followers of political correctness, leftwing lunacy, and one sided tolerance. Which in reality is not freedom of speech at all.

Until next time...

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...