For your eyes only

I always find it rather odd how the masses continue to believe and follow that which is not proven, questionable, under scrutiny (and rightfully so), and yet allow themselves too be duped that a hypothesis is a reality. That a theory is a fact.

It is a message that is pounded into them time and time again without solid consistent evidence and those that continue to question or simply do not accept based on the lack of evidence are made out to be portrayed as archaic stubborn headed dinosaurs who are refusing to accept the obvious. The obvious according to the mainstream doctrinal teachings that is.

The problem is how can it be obvious when based on incomplete and insufficient data that does not allow for scientific conclusion of "absoluteness" and instead requires more "Guesstimation" on percieved probably's? Which in reality is more close to a "maybe" and further away from actuality.

Many of these theoretical "possibilities" that are being espoused as truth claims that, only supposedly intelligently superior human beings are capable of accepting, seem to be missing some of the most vital and crucial ingredients that would not even fly if they were on trial in a court of law.

That being eyewitness accounts.



In fact "eyewitness" accounts, when they have taken place, still had the masses flocking the other direction when the evidence is before them. Take, for example, Planned Parenthood's version of "Safe sex". Throw condoms at kid's and the teenage pregnancy rate's will drop and so will the rate of STD infections. Hmmmmm well, 30 years later we are now dealing with not only a consistent rise in teen pregnancies but also in teen abortions. We have now gone from 2 sexual diseases in the 1960's to almost 30 in the 1990's. A minority of them lifetime and some of those fatal. With the evidence and eyewitness accounts before us....the community of the superiorly intelligent ignore the obvious and throw more condoms at them. After all, "The little darlings are going to do it anyway!" Typical mantra chant of the defeatist attitude. The problem has escalated to gigantic proportions.


(A very sad reality/consequence when "permission" is essentially given to kids by other adults who are NOT the parents)

Of course we can also bring in the never ending debate of the origins into this and the often questionable "science" behind one of the world's most organized religion's with it's policy of narrow minded intolerance towards suggestions of other possible scientific theories. I always thought ALL theories were to be considered "equal" until one was actually proven true.


(Evolution wants you to "believe" that this is your descended late great Uncle Harry)

Then of course there is the latest propaganda spin coming from way out in "Left" field. The "Chicken Little's" featuring Al Gore & David Suzuki co-starring with United Nations IPCC in the latest version of "The sky is falling.....AND IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!" Apparently, and as is usually the case, very questionable science and shaky theories are to be the only acceptable "truth" by these alarmists that global warming is a man made problem (Yawn!). That is a very interesting position to take when considering the cold weather and large amounts of snowfall that has been received in the past month.



In fact this time last year (the week between April 1-7, 2006) the average temperature on my side of the world was averaging between 3 and 8 degrees Celsius which is quite normal for that time of year. I had already been riding my motorcycle for a week and a half at that time. Same time only move forward to 2007 and the temperatures this past week, one year later, have hovered between -14 to as low as -29 with lot's of snow and ice left to melt. In one year the tempature difference was as much as 37 degrees Celsius. As I type this we are dipping down too -14 tonite. Last year, again, our high was +10. Nice call Al & Dave. Keep cranking out the BS!


(Behind my house last week and...)


(Ice jams on the Red river nearby where the spring thaw froze up and caused this mess. Global warming could have avoided this!!!)

But people still tend gobble it all up. Mind boggling. People "believe" evolution with out ever giving an eyewitness testimony of ever seeing it actually take place. They believe that sex is safe even when they do witness the destructiveness it can have when one is promiscuously abusive with it. They believe global warming is man made without ever seeing the verifiable science to support it.

And yet just over 2,000 years ago a man was buried in a sealed tomb under protective custody of the Roman Empire upon the request of the Religious zealots who wanted to ensure the body was not stolen under cover of night so His followers could not make radical claims about him. It was not a matter of His body going missing that trouble these individuals. It was what actually took place 3 days later that they were afraid of. He rose from the dead not by way of passed on legends or fairy tales. If that were the case there would be so much more to speculate on. Instead He was witnessed alive and well roaming the land of Israel clearly displaying His defeat over death and the grave. This miraculous event was "eye" witnessed by over 500 people over a 40 day period. Yet today many do not believe them. 30 more witnessed His ascension into Heaven.


(The risen Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. Jesus Christ the Lord of Heaven and of Earth. The Alpha and the Omega. The First and the Last. Amen)

Eye witness testimonies do not seem to hold as much water as speculative, unproven, never before seen footage. Many would rather believe and accept that which was never witnessed. It would appear many try to simply avoid the real truth. Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, has risen indeed. Happy Easter!

Until next time...

An inconvienent film (For Al Gore!)

Last post I challenged the validity behind the claim's of man made global warming. I did this on the basis that I find there are always too many people on this planet who are so quick to be led around by the "Chicken Littles" of our day and age regardless of their lack of credentials or evidence to support their theories.

Yet many, maybe due too political ideological preference, will suck up whatever these enviormental gurus feed them. Everybody as of late has jumped on the Al Gore "The sky is falling" bandwagon and promoting his film, An inconvienent Truth, like it is the only acceptable formula on global warming. Despite the reality there is actually no substaniative evidence to back his claims. Just old outdated hypothesis.

Yet the deluded masses continue to absorb it as the truth and nothing but the truth. But if climate change is truly open for discussion/debate then Al Gore's devout followers should also consider the following "film" in their open minded approach in addressing an "apparent" problem.

I stated in my previous article that I believe that the likes of Al Gore and David Suzuki are promoting propaganda. Simply because they do not appear to be open to any other discussion on climate change unless it agree's with their unfounded theories. According to the following film/documentary, I am not alone.

If you have been sucked into their fairy tales but still consider yourselves open minded individuals willing to consider other scientific perspectives with regards to climate change then make yourself a bowl of popcorn and sit back to enjoy the next hour and 16 minutes. What you are about to view is a real "mind" opener. I am, however, anticipating many of my eco green duped (mostly "Lefties") friends to come by and discredit absolutley everyone in the video as opposed to actually considering what it has too say. Enjoy!

**SPECIAL NOTIFICATION** Since I first posted this video. I have had to re-post it twice due to it (the URL link) mysteriously disappearing first off google then off YouTube. All with in an 11 hour period. You think someone does not want this message to get out? I have now posted it in 8 different segements. Let's see if they are still here when I return from work in 8 hours

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Until next time...

An inconvienient myth?

"Do you see what I see? Truth is an offence! Your silence for your confidence."

James Hetfield, Metallica



I was having a coffee with a dear friend the other day when the question I have been anticipating (eventually from somebody, not necessarily him) finally came up.

"So, did you happen to see Al Gore's "An Inconvienient Truth"?"

At the time my response was "Not yet" but that I planned on it.

"Right now", I responded, "I am too busy listening too Canada's version of Al Gore, David Suzuki, spread his own environmental doomsday propaganda."

Now before you all go off on me like I have my head in the sand regarding the disgusting way we Earthlings treat our planet...just step back, step off, and hear me out.

One thing myself and some of these self proclaimed environmental saviors will agree upon is the reality that we are not doing ourselves, the animal kingdom, plant life, or our planet any favors when we are pumping out vile amounts of pollutants in the air and dumping ton's of toxic waste into our water systems. We, in many ways, are our own worst enemies. It is an area we need to come together in and unanimously agree to simply clean up our own backyard.

But the bigger question at stake here is "What does this have to do with global warming?" It is one thing to expose what we are doing to our planet but it is another thing to link it to a "possible" warming trend that, at least at this stage of the game, remains an unproven theory based some "loose" science. (Hmmm smells like remnants of evolution)

It was only 30 short years ago these same "alarmists" were decrying the inevitable catastrophe of the approaching global cooling trend. While we were still polluting our planet back then we were, at the time, being told to brace for the next Ice Age. Apparently because the seventies were a little on the chilly side

The other thing to consider in this "heated" (pun intended) debate is the credentials of those who promote their cause by instilling a fear in the populace that provokes a sense of anxious reactionism.



Al Gore is not a climatologist.




Neither is Canada’s David Suzuki.

Yet many will accept what these "Prophets of nature" tell them without scrutiny or question. I would even suggest these people are in a majority. But just because the majority follow does not always mean the teaching itself is accurate or correct.

So what exactly lends these gurus credibilty? Is it their "open mind" to consider ALL science on this subject? In David Suzuki's case, apparently not. On Febuary 15, 2007 David was a guest on the John Oakley Radio show when host John posed a very fair question to the "open minded" Dr. His question? "What about the science that is now surfacing that states that global warming is not man made?" Dr. Dave's intelligent, and might I add, mature response to respectable debate? Nothing! He got up and left the studio. A response befitting to your more "arrogant" evolutionist type that makes the all too common statement: "If it's not my science then it is not science! It must agree with my theory ONLY". That is mighty tolerant of you Dave.



He further demonstrates his love for the environment by traveling the country in his "rock-star-style" diesel-burning tour bus, emitting more greenhouse gases during his tour's (approx. 30 days) than many of us do in an entire year. A bus that is capable of carrying up to 30 people was home only to 8. Comfort and convinience over the enviorment. Nice one Dave! A real environmentalist true to his cause would have peddled it on a ten speed. But alas we are only willing to talk about it not actually make a sacrifice or set the example ain't that right Dave? Al Gore likes to one up they guy by showing up on his private jet. Nothing like ozone killing jet fuel in the air while on your way to save the world from people, well, just like you Al.


So what are the "other" guys saying that had guys like Dr. (ahem) David at a loss for words? And what is the "truth" that Al Gore appears to conveniently ignore? Here is just a tidbit:

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Some more...

"Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

And more...

"Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

It was Al Gore himself who said in his film "Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,"

This is just a small portion of it Al but there it is. As long as we are on the whole "Truth" and presentation issue what exactly are they saying regarding your own misinformed presentation? Well Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia had this to say:

""Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Are you done picking on ill informed Al Professor Bob? Nope! Alright then, carry on:

""The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

Speaking of Junk science, what did they have to say on the matter?

So here is what it all boils down too. Is there global warming? Maybe, maybe not. Is the science there to positively and accurately conclude that there is indeed a man made connection? No. I would suggest that even if we shut down every coal burning plant, oil well and ocean platforms. Got rid of all our vehicles and planes and simply lived off the avails of natural Earth....at the end of the day we would STILL experience climate change.

If non-climatologists such as Al and David consider themselves pioneers for our environment then let go of the political agendas and listen to the science.

Until next time...

The Dark, deceptive mask of Multiculturalism

What comes to mind when one hears the phrase "Multiculturalism"? It is a phrase often intended to invoke a thought of united harmony between fellow human beings in such a manner that we, although one may not necessarily recognize or accept, can at least learn an appreciation for differing cultures and beliefs. A term that cry's out to unite us together, regardless of those cultural differences, as the human race. A movement of noble intent to once and for all put an end to racism and unite us under one banner. The Human Race!

It was only a few short decades ago that this movement began to catch on with a number of countries that wanted to embrace "acceptance" and (my favorite word) "Tolerance" towards our differences. On the surface it all sounded good. Masquerading as a gesture of goodwill towards the masses as way for us to all come together and experience warm and fuzzy feelings about our differences by showing the rest of the world that our society could co-exist together. Celebrating our cultural heritages while living under one flag. One nation united (now let me get offensive to some) Under God!

So the deeper question in all of this is: "Have we accomplished what we set out to do?" "Are we more united then ever? Or are we more divided then ever?"

I would suggest, sadly, that the latter has prevailed. Since it's inception (multiculturalism), nations such as Canada, and even the United States, has slowly begun to witness the erosion of their own identity as a "people". Instead it has become engulfed in a mass drive to point out each and every single discrepancy and nuance about just how different everybody is from one another. Racism, essentially, has once again resurfaced in a different disguise by coming in the proverbial back door to once again infiltrate us to the point that we no longer recognize a fellow human being as such but immediately begin seeking out the "differences" within them. Rather counter productive of the original intent behind a united human race poised to eliminate the ugliness of racism.

Racism CAN NOT be eliminated when the sole focus is constantly on the "differences". Ending racism meant to look past one's cultural background. Looking past the color of one's skin and seeing the human being within. No "One" master race but a united race of human beings sharing the same planet. All wanting to know, learn, and love. Living peacefully with one another. Multiculturalism, the integration of the many different races, has failed this goal miserably. One only has to ask the question, "With all the exposure and "education" of the differing cultures why has racism continued to rise?"

Might I suggest that in part has to do with a simple job application and government enforced "quotas" in order to accommodate "minority's" as I wrote about here in November 2005 Do not think for a moment that this still does not go on. That's how we address racism? By committing racism and cloaking it in multicultural fairness and equality.



And what about our continous labelling? One example that comes to mind is U.S. Democratic Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama. Born an American citizen in Honolulu, Hawaii, I noticed that he is not referred to as an American. He is referred to as an African American! All though Barack is rather proud of this delusional title he is, in fact, NOT an African American no more then I am a European American. Barack was not born in Africa he was born in the United States of America. Yet he would rather be identified as an African as opposed to what he is, an American.

And so the trend continues in western nations. We no longer have Canadians/Americans. We have African Canadians, Mexican Canadians, Arab Canadians, Native American Canadians, Asian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Jewish Canadians, Irish Canadians, and the list goes on and on and on....

The segregation does not end there. We continue to promote this unusual form of unity by further separating ourselves thru media such as Black Entertainment Television (BET), the Black sports network, or The Aboriginal Peoples Network (APN). We have awards such as Black Enterprise Awards, Black Engineer Awards, and even a Black weblog Awards. Not to single out the black people, there is also Aboriginal Music Awards, Aboriginal Achievement Awards, and The Aboriginal Peoples Choice awards. The Spanish have the MTV Latino Awards and the Billboard Latin Music Conference & Awards. In sports there is the North American Indigenous Games.

To be fair and honest I wanted to see what the Caucasian race was up too as well but was hard pressed to find any of the above in their categories. Let's call a spade a spade here. If the "White" man had his own television station, awards program, or sports Olympics I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts it would be labeled as a racist outlet.

Let me be absolute clear here. As a Caucasian man married to an aboriginal woman and with many friends across differing cultural divides I harbor no animosity. The purpose and intent of this post is based on what I see as an observation over a long period of time observing a movement that is bringing us backwards, not forwards.

As a "White Judeo-Christian male" I am not alone in my views of Canadians loss of identity thru multiculturalism. First generation Canadian and practicing Muslim, Professor Mahfooz Kanwar, whose family roots are in Pakistan had this to say on the matter:



"I used to support multiculturalism. I believed it gave us a sense of pluralism, diversity, and a variety of cultural and social customs. Now I believe it is not working."

"I have appreciated the Canadian system of accommodating people from around the world. But I also notice a lack of assimilation. I don't expect newcomers to integrate to the extent of converting to Christianity. I don't preach total amalgamation of subcultures, but it is the responsibility of minority groups to assimilate to the Canadian culture. That is missing in today's Canada."

"Those who feel their home land is better should go back. Canada must not allow ethnic groups to create problems for our justice system..." (A good example of what he refers to would be this!)

"...by fighting governments in their homeland. If they have issues back home, they should go back and fight from within."

As a Muslim, I'm irritated by Season's Greetings, not Merry Christmas. We're obsessed with political correctness. I'm not defending vulgarities. I'm simply suggesting too much political correctness hinders communication. In lectures. I can't use some words to make a point because of multiculturalism."

"We're afraid of offending some minorities. I wish we had a common code of ethics....(where) we all loved to be Canadians NOT hyphenated Canadians."

And in conclusion the Professor says:

"Multicultalrism threatens Canada. Multiculturalism and political correctness hurt the Canadian identity. It makes Canada a country of wimps!

Multiculturalism is a disaster that allows people to marginalize themselves. We can never find unity and harmony thru segregational identification. Instead it backfires from it's original intent by pitting "this group against that group" by consistently exploiting what is "different". Unity is not achieved by division.

Either we reverse this policy soon or it's back to the stone ages.

Until next time...

Two Birds with one stone

I am now OFFCIALLY home from vacation. (My previous post was actually done from my In-laws computer) There are a number of things I wanted to "hammer" away at regarding post topics but I am going to stray from my usual offensive, but always sincere and honest, rhetoric in order to reflect on a couple of highlights from my trip.

Of course there was the wonderful time of family reunion and meeting my "new" nephew for the first time. But those events are to be expected during the Christmas season. That is what it is all about.

This particular trip, however, had more to it that is not something one comes to expect when on Christmas vacation. I had the awesome opportunity to hook up with, not one, but TWO fellow bloggers .

If you are a frequent visitor yourself then you may be familiar with them already as they comment from time to time and are linked in my "Bloggin' Buddies" section.

They were her Royal majesty The Queen of light and joy and my most treasured adversary Mandora.


(TIO, The Queen, and Mandora. I had to doctor another photo of me over top as I forgot to put my "Verbal vigilante" mask on!)

It was great being able to hook up with them out in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Often when one has dialogued with people over the "Net" there are many questions that are rolling around in our heads about the person at the other end such as:

"Are they really like this?"

Do they honestly believe that?

They talk tough, but are they really a wimp in person?

They say they are single BUT are they really married?

Or in my case,

"What on earth do they look like?"

Then we try and put an image together in our heads of that person based on what we have learned of them online assuming everything they have shared over a period of time is genuine and sincere.

I was most certainly not disappointed with these two (the Queen and Mandora). In fact, I would say my assessments of these two were pretty bang on and what I expected. Which demonstrates to me they are true to form. In other words, what you read is what you get!

First the Queen. I had the pleasure already of hooking up with her this past summer/fall (it was near the end of summer) when she was in Manitoba so I already had the heads up about her BUT I never posted about it as she did. So allow me to tell you a few things about this woman of mystery. Her moniker is most definitely appropriate. She can almost literally light up a room with her joy. Her laugh is contagious. No matter how down one may be in life her humor (and laugh) will soon have you laughing and giggling right along with her.

People feel good around her and her talent does not stop there. What an exceptional artist. Now I am not one of these artsy fartsy types who thinks dipping a brush into a paint can and whipping it on to a canvass constitutes a masterpiece but this is not her style anyway. She applies a lot of time and effort in her pieces and everyone one of them has specific, intentional meaning behind them. She taught me how an artist recognises the difference between what is truly art and what is garbage. I walked away with a deeper insight and maybe just a little more appreciation towards the art "culture".




(I can always rely on Mandora to "ignite" the storm of debate. BTW she is seven feet tall so you have an idea how big I am. OK, I made that up)

Now on to the equally compelling and unique Mandora. It was a special meet. You see, Mandora was my first! (Get your minds out of the gutter people) By that I mean she was my first left leaning voice of adversity. We met across a crowded blogger space last year when she went at me about my views on Saddam and Iraq. I knew right then that we were destined to "combat" from that day forward and we soon became bloggin' buddies. It has been a tumultuous and volatile relationship but it has survived (LOL)

The bigger question was could she survive meeting me for the first time and looking upon the "Man behind the mask"? When she first saw my face she could not believe that there was someone better looking then Brad Pitt. I think her words were "(gasp!) YOU ARE A GOD!!!" OK, OK, I made that up too! I look more like that wrestler "The Anvil" so I was just pacifying myself.

Anyway, we also hooked up a couple of times and had a meeting of the minds. Mandora, although holds true to her fundamental or core beliefs, is not closed off to suggestion or considering other's perspectives. She is also not one who wants to "get into it" (debate) right from the get go. My impression was that, for her, there is a time and a place where the discussion will arise. In fact she struck me to be more open minded then I had pegged her for that I almost suspected she was a secret Right winger on a covert special ops reconnaissance mission. But that was another thing I learned about her. She really does not care for the left/right labels. On some of the more controversial morality issues she tends to lean left but there were other issue's where she would lean more to the right.

Overall she was just a pleasant person to interact with. I'll admit, not as feisty as I anticipated, but I suspect that maybe that was a good thing. Beside's, first time meetings should not be about how you can get a person's goat but just getting to know them period.

The meeting with these two ladies was a memorable one. Even though they post their picture's (yes, that is really them you see on their site's) it feels somewhat more complete when you meet them face to face in the flesh. Thanks ladies for making my trip that much more special.

Until next time...

The gallows of Haman

”Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant.” Galatians 6:7 (NLT)



The past week has been an intriguing one regarding the interests of justice. Quite often in today’s world we observe the common criminal literally getting away with murder all in the name of human rights and dignities allotted to them by the bleeding hearts of delusional sympathiser’s. Today’s common criminal, rather then be sentenced with a punishment fitting for the offence caused, are quite often instead rewarded with conjugal visit’s, smoking privileges (even though smoking is against the law in any Canadian Federal building), voting “Rights” (only in Canada), and should they so desire can “re-habilitate” themselves with a University education paid for by Joe Canada. Nothing like doing time on the taxpayer’s dime.

It can leave anyone who is frustrated by this continued practice of criminal coddling begging the question, “When will justice ever be served?”

As I perused the news reports on Saddam Hussein’s final execution I realised that there is still justice in the world. Although in Canada we have a “Legal” system as opposed to a true justice system where the punishment actually fits the crime, elsewhere in of all places Iraq, justice was being meted out fairly in accordance with the crimes. What made it all the more ironic was how the scriptures foretell these types of scenarios playing out. Often when we are dealing with tyrannical dictators who are vicious and unrelenting in their pursuit of absolute power the masses lose hope in their freedom ever being restored. More then anything I believe, as we all most likely do, that justice can be painfully slow in coming. BUT eventually it does come.

Take for example the story found in the Book of Esther. It is 10 chapters in length and found in the Old Testament. I will do my best to brief you about it.

It is a story about justice. About reaping what one sows. How God can orchestrate circumstances to bring deserved justice. It begins with Queen Esther’s uncle Mordecai. A man who raised her as his own when her parents passed. We discover that he was a man loyal to the King.

” 21 One day as Mordecai was on duty at the king’s gate, two of the king’s eunuchs, Bigthana and Teresh—who were guards at the door of the king’s private quarters—became angry at King Xerxes and plotted to assassinate him. 22 But Mordecai heard about the plot and gave the information to Queen Esther. She then told the king about it and gave Mordecai credit for the report.” Esther 2:21-22

Yet there were those who plotted evil against him (Mordecai) by wanting him (and ALL the Jew’s) dead. Introducing…Haman! The Prime Minister over all the nobles making him the most powerful official under the King. Because of Jewish custom and law Mordecai would only give reverence to the King not his officials. So we have the ground work laid out for Haman’s abuse of power by manipulating his position.

”5 When Haman saw that Mordecai would not bow down or show him respect, he was filled with rage. 6 He had learned of Mordecai’s nationality, so he decided it was not enough to lay hands on Mordecai alone. Instead, he looked for a way to destroy all the Jews throughout the entire empire of Xerxes.” 3:5-6

Mordecai simply became Haman’s “in” or rationale for justifying the persecution of all the Jewish people in the Persian Kingdom. Haman headed directly for an audience with the King in order to hatch his plans and put them into motion.



”8 Then Haman approached King Xerxes and said, “There is a certain race of people scattered through all the provinces of your empire who keep themselves separate from everyone else. Their laws are different from those of any other people, and they refuse to obey the laws of the king. So it is not in the king’s interest to let them live. 9 If it please the king, issue a decree that they be destroyed,… “ 3:8-9

The story continues to unfold as Mordecai sends word to his niece, Queen Esther, requesting her assistance in the matter. She begins by approaching the King, who was very fond of his Queen, by granting her any request she ask’s. Even up to half his kingdom. Her request was simple. A banquet dinner that she would prepare for him and his Prime Minister, Haman. The gloating continues…

” 9 Haman was a happy man as he left the banquet! But when he saw Mordecai sitting at the palace gate, not standing up or trembling nervously before him, Haman became furious. 10 However, he restrained himself and went on home.
Then Haman gathered together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, 11 and boasted to them about his great wealth and his many children. He bragged about the honors the king had given him and how he had been promoted over all the other nobles and officials.
12 Then Haman added, “And that’s not all! Queen Esther invited only me and the king himself to the banquet she prepared for us. And she has invited me to dine with her and the king again tomorrow!” 13 Then he added, “But this is all worth nothing as long as I see Mordecai the Jew just sitting there at the palace gate.”
14 So Haman’s wife, Zeresh, and all his friends suggested, “Set up a sharpened pole that stands seventy-five feet[a] tall, and in the morning ask the king to impale Mordecai on it. When this is done, you can go on your merry way to the banquet with the king.” This pleased Haman, and he ordered the pole set up. 5:9-14

Later that evening as the King experienced trouble sleeping he felt the strong desire to look up the history of his reign (Can we say, God inspired?) where he was reminded of the plot to assassinate him and the man, Mordecai, who exposed the plot. The King asked the question:

” 3 “What reward or recognition did we ever give Mordecai for this?” the king asked.
His attendants replied, “Nothing has been done for him.”
4 “Who is that in the outer court?” the king inquired. As it happened, Haman had just arrived in the outer court of the palace to ask the king to impale Mordecai on the pole he had prepared.
5 So the attendants replied to the king, “Haman is out in the court.”
“Bring him in,” the king ordered. 6 So Haman came in, and the king said, “What should I do to honor a man who truly pleases me?”
Haman thought to himself, “Whom would the king wish to honor more than me?” 7 So he replied, “If the king wishes to honor someone, 8 he should bring out one of the king’s own royal robes, as well as a horse that the king himself has ridden—one with a royal emblem on its head. 9 Let the robes and the horse be handed over to one of the king’s most noble officials. And let him see that the man whom the king wishes to honor is dressed in the king’s robes and led through the city square on the king’s horse. Have the official shout as they go, ‘This is what the king does for someone he wishes to honor!’”
10 “Excellent!” the king said to Haman. “Quick! Take the robes and my horse, and do just as you have said for Mordecai the Jew, who sits at the gate of the palace. Leave out nothing you have suggested!” 6:3-10

Yikes! Talk about taking your lumps in a heavy form of true humility. After Hman’s embarrassing parade thru town he now had to head over to the King’s for the banquet. The King once again made his request to Esther to make her desires known to him. The lumps were not over yet. Read on…

” 3 Queen Esther replied, “If I have found favor with the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my request, I ask that my life and the lives of my people will be spared. 4 For my people and I have been sold to those who would kill, slaughter, and annihilate us. If we had merely been sold as slaves, I could remain quiet, for that would be too trivial a matter to warrant disturbing the king.”
5 “Who would do such a thing?” King Xerxes demanded. “Who would be so presumptuous as to touch you?”
6 Esther replied, “This wicked Haman is our adversary and our enemy.” Haman grew pale with fright before the king and queen.” 7:3-6



It turns out that in order for ALL the Jews to be eradicated from the land that would also have to include Queen Esther who also happened to be a Jew herself. With Haman’s wicked plot now exposed the King executed justice swiftly and immediately.

” 9 Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, "A gallows seventy-five feet high stands by Haman's house. He had it made for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king."
The king said, "Hang him on it!" 10 So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai.” 7:9-10 (NIV)

By the very gallows that Haman built to hang Mordecai on, he himself hung from. Justice in it’s truest form. As it is written, Haman reaped that which he planted.

And so it was with Saddam. A man, a tyrant, and brutal dictator who for almost 3 decades tormented, tortured, and murdered his own country men and any with in his reach who opposed him or his Presidency. This did not exclude family members.

On Saturday, December 30, 2006, Saddam hung from the jail house complex he once used to house over 15,000 political prisoners who simply "Voiced" opposition to his regime. It was there they suffered vicious and brutal torture's and were often killed. Many were even used as guinea pigs in chemical weapons test's.



It was a long time coming. Especially to the Iraqi people who lived in fear of his iron fist. All though Saddam requested to be executed by firing squad (this is viewed as dying with dignity), it was refused and rightfully so. He died as the common criminal that he was. Justice has been served!

Until next time...

Apparently, I am not alone :)

**Personal note** First my apologies to those of you who have continued commenting on the previous post. I know some of you have made statements certainly worthy of response. Please know that you have NOT been snubbed. As a Christian this is always an important time of year for me. And too busy. With year end fast approaching my workload at my place of employment has gone thru the roof. Also making preparations for my family and I as we are officially on a two week hiatus for the holidays come Friday and I have been pouring a number of hours continuing to build up my motorcycle club's website. By the time I get to reading what you have to say only my brain is responding and my body is dragging me off to bed. I appreciate and value everyone's input so please know that there is no intent to ignore. On that note...



Last post we got to, once again, dance thru the yearly ritual of political correctness at Christmas time. As usual I had my take on it which would be predictable to most. Although every year I keep hoping and even praying that I will not have to expose yet another form of religious intolerance and bigotry based on one individuals extreme bias's towards a particular group of faith. Especially when the "group" is not responsible for the said blame.

Up here in the great white north (that would be Canada) Judge Marion Cohen's decision of ignorance was felt across the land and quite the uproar it stirred. But here is what made the uproar so intriguing. The uproar was not coming from the Christian community. It was coming from everywhere else. Take for example Edmonton Sun's very Pro choice, pro gay (marriage), pro feminist, anti-religious, and very liberal, Lyn Cockburn. The following snippets are taken from a recently published article of hers.



"And in Toronto, Judge Marion Cohen ordered that a small Christmas tree in the Ontario Court of Justice be put in a back hall away from the entrance because its presence suggests to non-Christians that they are "not part of this institution."
Oh, for God's sake, put the damn thing back, judge."

"Christmas is - or ought to be - a time of joy; a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ for those among us who are religious. A time of peace, kindness and reflection for those who are not. It is a time to be enjoyed by all, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists. It is not, or at least it should not be, exclusive. Something tells me Jesus would not have approved of His birthday party invitations going out to selected Christians only."

"At my corner store, the Muslim owner tells me his little boy has a long list of things he wants for Christmas, the No. 1 thing being, of course, the newest PlayStation. Dad rolls his eyes at the specific requests of small boys and then wishes me a Merry Christmas as I leave the store."

"If a Muslim pleasantly wishes me a Merry Christmas, am I insulted? Not unless I'm off my meds."

Not bad for a Liberal!

You can read the article in it's entirety here.

Even more surprising was a response written to the editor of the Winnipeg Sun from A SIKH!!!



"My family is not Christian by any means. We are Sikh. Yet we put up a Christmas tree and call it a Christmas tree. And every day, my girls come and ask if it’s Christmas yet. It’s not a holiday tree and certainly not a multicultural tree. There is nothing multicultural about a green tree with ornaments hanging from it.
Why can’t people just stop whining about everything? If you don’t like it, if you don’t believe in it, then don’t put a tree up. But my Sikh family will continue to celebrate Christmas because it may not have the Christian meaning for us but it certainly is a time of giving, sharing, caring and being with family.
To those who can’t live with the term Christmas tree ... BAH HUMBUG!!!"

Kiran Singh

You can read more responses here

I must say that is encouraging to see that other's out there from a variety of different backgrounds, beliefs, and ideological values can still see the stupidity, ignorance, and redundancy in boneheaded decisions such as the one Marion Cohen made.

Merry Christmas to all!

Until next time...

The Judge who stole Christmas

It never ceases to amaze me how there is no end to the absolute asinine, redundant, mean spirited, ignorant, and brazen religious bigotry that is displayed every year at Christmas by some "hoity toity" public official going out of their way to remove all that encompasses the Christmas season for the (gag me) sake of political correctness and their cautious approach not to offend other's

Last year in Boston, Mass. public officials wanted to declare the annual Christmas tree a "Holiday tree" so as not to offend other minority groups who do not celebrate Christmas. The year before it was going on up here in Manitoba when we had a similar circumstances at a well frequented cultural area known as the "Forks". And the previous year before that our illustrious Provincial Minister of multiculturalism (yeah, like we need one of those) Becky Barrett declared the annual Christmas tree in the legislative buildings a "Multicultural tree".

All this insanity over the years continues around the same old BS rhetoric. "We, the politically elite, do not want to offend ANYBODY, so we must demonstrate our tolerance towards those of diverse cultural backgrounds"

Let me translate this into reality for you. What a stupid and redundant statement like that REALLY says is "We, the one's who are far superior to you, would like to Lord and abuse our high profile positions by manipulating our powers to remove all that is Christmas in the name of tolerance by displaying our own intolerance for one singled out group known as Christians."

Every year, somewhere else it continues to happen using the same old line about the trees offending other cultures. Problem with that line of crap is none of the other "cultures" are actually saying they are offended. In fact, a public media poll they did last year her in Manitoba, with the Forks Holiday tree debacle, many cultural minorities were stopped and asked the question "Does a Christmas tree offend you?". The response was unanimous across the board. Not only did it not offend them but they were insulted by the "elite" for implicating them as the reason for the "non offensive" change.

In Toronto, Canada (and these people really do believe they are the center of the Universe) ONE bigoted judge is at again. Justice Marion Cohen, a Toronto judge, has ordered a Christmas tree out of a downtown provincial courthouse lobby, saying it's not an appropriate symbol to non-Christians. Once again, common decency and respect for the Christian aspect of the holiday season is blatantly discriminated against. Just who is really being offended here? People who are non Christians or one judge with a huge chip of religious intolerance on her spiteful little shoulder? Let's see what the people who work in the building have to say. I am quite sure they can't ALL be Christians.

(You can read the rest of it here!)


Alright Marion, allow me to have my two cents as well since you are so big on what is appropriate and what is not.

- We do not all recognize Halloween or Wicca, therefore so as not to offend all of us non wiccan's, we demand you remove any witches or symbols that make any reference to witchcraft thereof.

- We do not all recognize Judaism and therefore in keeping with "appropriateness" we demand that all the Menorahs be removed from every and all celebrations of Hanukkah as this may be deemed offensive to the many non practicing Judaists.

And while your at it Oh great and wise Judge Marion, we demand the cancellation of Ramadan for all of us non Muslims, as well as the removal of the lighted lamps of the Hindu's during Divali to accommodate all of us non Hindus.

Last but not least, let us not forget the atheist's, who's own symbol can be considered offensive to those who believe in a deity. If you "accommodate" one you must accommodate all. That would include all of us non atheists!

Joke Marion..er...(ahem)...I mean Judge Marion this is Canada. A democracy that is home to many different cultures and cultural celebrations. One is not obligated to celebrate anyone else's traditional customs and/or holidays. But neither are they entitled to simply remove them. Especially by passing the buck off on other people who never claimed "offense" was taken in the first place. That is just a cloak to hide one's own bigotry toward another group, in this case the Christians (again)

This yearly ritual of political correctness has become as ridiculous as myself telling a stranger that because "I do not celebrate your birthday you are not entitled to a birthday cake because it is a symbol of a day I do not recognize and therefore it is offensive." Get the picture?

Judge Marion, you want to be a grinch at Christmas time? That is you right in this country. Don't like Christians or symbols of our celebrations? Fine don't look at them or recognize them. Go home and be miserable this year. But if you want to live in my country where I am expected to tolerate a lot of BS flung my way as a Christian then I expect the same from your end. If you would rather live in a society that "dictates" the terms of what ALL must accept then you are just as entitled to leave my country. Saddam would have embraced your dictorial style with open arms.

In the meantime, Marion, may God bless you anyway this CHRISTmas season (yes I sincerely mean that) and may He soften your hard heart.

Of course I would not be The Intolerant One if I did not leave you (Marion) with at least one more offensive Christmas image/symbol. (Viewer descretion is advised!)



I know, pretty offensive huh?

Until next time...

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...