NOW it's personal!

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





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

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

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

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

Deuteronomy 32:41

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Muslims massacred dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.

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

- Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.


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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Not as close as once thought!

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

Michael Denton, molecular biologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D


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

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

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

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

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

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

HALLELUJAH!

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

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

First the evil sith lord, Darth Harper, will:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RIGHT PAUL?



(sniffle! That's right Darth Harper)

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

Until next time...

Desperate times call for desperate measures (very desperate!)

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

"I think Liberals are complete idiot's."

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

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

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

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

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

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

"16 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE LIBERAL"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Liberal attack ad #13

and

Liberal attack ad #14

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



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

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



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

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!



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

Until next time...

They just don't get it!

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

So here is my 6 point solution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blah! Blah! Blah!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Sinners rejoice!

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



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



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



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

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

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

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



Until next time...

The Rebutt!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate!

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

"We cannot allow equality rights to trump religious rights"

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

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

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

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

Word up Mandora...

Tis' the season for insult

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Joy to the world!

Sing along everyone...

"Joy to the world
the Liberals fell
I hope they rot in ...."



Whoa!... that was not very Christian of me. Actually, what I do hope is their deluded ideals rot with their defeat. Any predictions?

I have 2 possible scenario's.

1.) Like the previous elections we could have a vote split only this time coming from the left instead of the right. The Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance are no longer competing against one another and have united.

On the other hand you have 2 very socialist (read into it, communistic) left leaning parties in the NDP and Liberals. Some would suggest that the Liberals would steal most of the left vote, however, I would not hold my breath on that one. Many Liberal voters are not impressed with the outcome of the Gomery findings which found the Liberal party of Canada GUILTY as charged (wait a minute, we don't charge MP's, we just pat them on the bum and tell them to smarten up!)...anyways, guilty nonetheless of corruption.

Many Liberal supporters were also vehemently opposed to same sex marriage (bill C-38) and vowed not to support the Liberals in the upcoming election over that one issue. Since they may not feel inclined to vote for intergrity in government, such as the Conservatives are offering, and instead choose to believe media bias slander how Stephen Harper is satan incarnate (blah, blah, blah...same old rhetoric that eastern idiots fall for everytime) they would most likely cast their vote with the NDP or maybe even the Green party. This would open up the door to make some gains for the Conservative party in Ontairio. The Liberals are pretty much a write off in Quebec.

This would allow for a possible minority or even slim majority for the Conservatives. That's right folks, you read it here first. I am predicting a Conservative government.

However, my OTHER prediction may also come to pass as well.

2.) The reason I am called intolerant is because I will call a spade a spade. So let's lay it out.

The Atlantic provinces like working on their lobster boats for only 3 months out of the year and getting paid by the Liberals to sit around for the other nine months. Why would they bite the hands that feed. Their vote is bought and paid for by you the taxpayer.

Ontairio, these are the real scary people. I am almost convinced that these people have been lobotmized and had little Liberal microchips implanted into what is left of their brains. These microchips are set to trigger brain impulses that go off everytime the Liberal record of mismangement, waste, scandal, and corruption is brought up. Paul Martin sits in 24 Sussex drive and hits his little remote device and everyone in Ontario all of the sudden tunes into this radio message being transmitted that sounds a little something like this:



"This is Paul Martin...Stephen Harper is a bad man...he is satan...he has a dark hidden agenda...he will screw you worse then we do already...don't focus on billion dollar boondoggle...don't focus on useless 2 billion dollar gun registry...don't focus on government kickbacks to faithful party supporters...don't focus on adscam...don't focus on culture of entitlement...don't focus on health care ( we are going to privatize it anyway and blame the Conservatives)...don't focus on our depleted military...don't focus on ethics in government (we're not sure what that is)...please, don't focus on the sponsorship scandal, we promise to clean up government corruption for real this time, we really do mean it, please vote Paul Martin...Stephen is a bad man...he is dark and evil...better the devil you know because nobody mistreats the way we do...bad, bad, bad Stephen!!!

Although I pray for outcome #1 if Ontairio is as stupid and as gulliable as they are known to be when it comes to predictable voting patterns, then unfortunatley prediction #2 instead will come to pass where we will most likely see another Liberal minority.

My other fear for my country will then most likely become a reality...leading into my third and final prediction. The rise of a powerful western seperatist movement. Don't believe it?


(official logo of the WESTERN BLOCK PARTY)

Look at the rise Liberals have given to Quebec seperatism by their decietful treatment and behaviour. When it comes to the west...never say never. Until next time...

Canada...home of the red, white, and racist!

For those of you who have faithfully followed my entry's onto this sight you may recall my posting of September 19, 2005 titled "Multiculturaism - The new human segregation".

One of the points I was trying to establish in that particular entry was how, in order to stem the tide of racism, we in effect have reversed it. By going out of our way as a society to point out everybodies "differences" whether it be by skin color or cultural background we ended up far away from the original goal of equality regardless of ethinic background.

Remember the purpose? To offer EVERYONE fair and equal treatment. For those of you who may have thought I was a little off my rocker with that particular entry of September 19, then consider the following editorial written in today's Winnipeg Sun. It not only backs my original point, it sums it up.


************************************************************************************

Winnipeg Sun, November 25, 2005

How lovely that it only took three days worth of public backlash for the federal Public Works Department to rescind an utterly racist and discriminatory hiring policy that would have seen the department only hire, well, anyone but able-bodied white men for the next several months.

"It was misconstrued by some as being non-inclusive and this was not the intention," said a spokesman earlier this week. "So as a result of the concern expressed in this regard, the department is rescinding this special measure."

So that's that, right? Hardly.

Because this is neither a new policy nor one limited to Public Works. Last February, it was the Correctional Service of Canada that was under the hot lights when it came out that the department was throwing out all job applications not from aboriginal or visible-minority candidates.

At the time, we searched the Government of Canada's job site and found a number of other positions all over the government where one's gender, disability and skin colour were the primary factors in being hired by Ottawa. And the common denominator remained that white men need not apply for many government jobs.

Now, even though Public Works has publicly backed off its discriminatory hiring policy, other departments still quietly engage in the same kind of racism the Liberal government would instantly denounce if a big private-sector company announced it would choose its employees by skin colour.

The Environment Department, for instance, has been advertising for a "regional environmental effects monitoring co-ordinator" in Alberta.

The job pays more than $66,388 a year and the ad notes: "This position will be staffed through Environment Canada's employment equity program ... only members of a visible minority group will be considered."

Ditto for the web and graphic designer job being advertised by the Canadian Grain Commission in Winnipeg: Only visible minorities may apply.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is looking for fishery officer trainees -- and "candidates must clearly self-identify as belonging to one of these groups ... aboriginal persons, visible minorities and women."

It appears that nothing has changed with Correctional Service of Canada, either, as it's seeking parole officers in B.C. who "self-identify" as an "aboriginal person, visible minority or a person with a disability."

"ALL THIS FROM A GOVERNMENT QUICK TO BRAG ABOUT CANADA'S TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY."

Unless you're an able-bodied white male wanting a government job, that is. Then you're not tolerated in Ottawa.

************************************************************************************

So there you have it folks. I was once in denial about it but it in fact is true. Racism is definetly alive and well in Canada.

It sure is nice to see the high level of "tolerance" on behalf of Paul Martin and his merry band of corrupt, and now racist, Liberals. Thanks Paul, it's comforting to know someone of your (ahem!) calibur is running the show. For that allow me to award you...well, the highest medal you are worthy of recieving. On behalf of all Canadians!



The sad reality of it all is he will probably wear it with pride. Until next time...

It doesn't take a genius!

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer (19th century German philosopher)

Imagine yourself admiring that masterpiece painting. That work of art and asking the obvious question, "Who created such a classical portrait?"

Or maybe your tastes center around fashion. "Who designed that awesome looking evening gown?"

Cars perhaps, "Who came up with the idea for the new look of the 2006 Corvette?"

Whatever your flavour notice one thing these questions all have in common. "WHO" designed, created, and came up with the idea. The question demands to know what brains are behind the design. It is a natural, typical, and common question for anyone of us and we have all asked it at one time or another and will continue to do so thru out our life time's.

Now imagine the frustration you would encounter if, when you ask these very simple questions of curosity, you were given one of the most asine answers there can possibly be. "It just happened over time."

"What? That makes no sense!" you may say.

"No, really!" comes the reply,"that painting your admiring there actually has no intelligence behind the design of it. One day a puddle of paints were all mixed together and as time went on they began to seperate themselves over this fallen tree that had flattened itself out into a canvass. (again, over time). The tree formed a flat enough surface that the paints eventually began to evolve into their own distinctive colors. As they grew and evolved they matured into the shapes you see on the canvass forming a beautiful picture."

"Did you actually see this phenomal metamorphasis take place?" you ask.

"Well uh no, not exactly..." comes the response.

"Then how do you know?" you ask. " I am sorry but this portrait just has far too much creativity and intricate design to have JUST HAPPENED! Somebody had to have created this magnificent work of art! It is simply far to complex, mysterious and awe inspiring to have just happened!" You finish up exasperated.

You would most likely walk away from someone who responded in such a manner perplexed by the absolute denial and idiocy of their statement. TELL THE TRUTH! Of course you would. This is how the believer of the theory of evolution sounds. Take important notice of two things in that last statement. First, you must be a "believer" in evolution. Second, it is ONLY a theory. Although it is taught in educational (snort!, snicker!) institutions like it is an actual fact we must always bear in mind that not one single person ever witnessed this so-called process of mutation take place.

In fact, the theory, and the believers/followers of it, are a religion unto themeselves. After all, religion is about having faith, is it not? Evolution would have us believe that the human race was spawned from monkeys. There is no answer as to why "some" monkeys have not evovled but that does not really matter. What matters is this whole mutation process that evolutionists build their case on. It is one that has quickly begun to fall apart over the last decade with discoveries of DNA and Genomes. According to science, monkey genomes began to mutate and eventually man began to evolve from this process over a period of 600,000 years. A guess of course, because once again, nobody actually witnessed it happen. The problem, today, with this argument is that science has now tampered with mutating the different genomes. What science has discovered is that every time a species genome was altered in any way by about .000,000,000,1 (that is one billionth of one percent) the mutated gene ALWAYS, (100%) of the time, died. The genome difference between a man and his closest living relative (gag!) the chimpanzee had a genome rating difference of 1.8%. When you compare that with a billionth of one percent, that number difference is astronomical.

That is just the very tip of the evolution iceberg that is starting to fall apart. So why are people so quick to accept a flawed theory over a creative God? I believe it boils down to people who don't want to accept accountability to a deity. Those who do chase after this belief system don't realise just how religious they are. They will venhemently defend it by going as far as twisting and distorting scientific facts to suit and justify what they believe.

With all the holes in this theory continuing to grow bigger by the day I have begun to realise that it takes far more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God!

Just who is the founder/god of this particular faith movement? He goes by the name of Charles Darwin. If this is the god the rest of the world wants...



Looking like that they can have him! If that is what awaits them in the afterlife....Oh wait! I forgot they don't believe in that. What a way to live. Buying into the religion of evolution so you can spend the rest of your life looking forward to nothing. I think I'll pass. Evidence of creation is just far too obvious to me. Until next time...

Don't forget Canada...TO FORGET!

With a another Canadian election on the horizon I have decided to give those liberal minded voters a glimpse into the real world of politics. Since their small minds do not allow them to "read between the lines" I have decided to do it for them.

The following is a satirical look into what is REALLY being said when a Liberal speaks. Although the dialogue itself is a parody the content is so close to the reality it is downright scary that anyone actually supports these yahoos! Without further adue...

"Ladies and Gentleman, allow me to introduce to you the master of extortion, the King of corruption, and one of the greatest money launder's of our time...the less then honorable former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien!"



(phony applause) Jean Chretien:"Tank you, tank you veddy much. Eet iz grate too be ere wit chew tooday. Wit anudder eelection a round da corner I know dat da peepoll of Canaduh wheel be once again dere for da Liberal partee of Canaduh to poot uz back where we belong."

" I muss say dat az a former Prime Minister I wuz so grateful for da lack of memoree dat my fellow Canadianz ave. Moss governments would not have gottin pazz da first term in office after da billion dollarz boondoggle. Instead, you allowed uz tree more terms. Dis after da likes of da $2 billion dollarz gun registry, da tax on tax of gazzoleen, da guttin of our hellt care syztum (I ave a pryvate doctoor anywayz), and of courze da adscam scandal. A few million of your tax dollarz well spent for da cause of national unitee. OK a qaurter of a billion but zat iz nutting compared to what could ave been had we lost Qeebeck. Den whooz butt would we have to kizz?"

"I am zo glad you people are such imbeeseels when it comes to your patetic memoreez. I akchewallee fooled you back in ninety tree when I said dat I wood eeliminate da GST. Heh heh..I wuz juss joking you morons. But you still bought into it and put me into 24 Sussex. For dat I tank you as well. But letz not forgett how well I managed your munee Canaduh. While our mazzive militaree were off on one of deir manee pisskeeping missionz wit deir boken uh..uh..what do you call dem? Oh yeah, deir broken helleecopterz, I wuz able to fly around da world in my new challenger jetz and pretend to be on fact finding missionz. Tanks to your small brainz and even smaller memoreez, Canaduh, da Liberal partee can look forward to manee more yeerz in power."

Now allow me to introduece to you da fewture of Canaduh, dis is my brudder Mr. Ditherz. Das Paul for dose who don't know dat.



ann my udder brudder Mr. Ditherz #2. Das Jack, again, for dose who don't know.



Togedder deeze two wheel be unstoppable. Oh sure needer of dem can make up deir mind. One day Jack iz yelling and pointing fingerz at da corruption, den he propz da government up, den he goez back to akuzationz all over again. In dee end hee wheel crawl back into bed wit Paul. Dey are two of a kind. But daz OK beecauze I know dat no mattur how bad dey govern dey can still count on you support in da next eelection."

"In fact you shood ave seen da look on Paulz face whenI told im juzz how stoopeed da voterz of Canaduh are."



"Wedder da eelection eez called two day or nexx yeer, heee wheel still be da top dog. Tank you Canaduh for allowing dis government to soak you four azz long azz we ave. We hope to not let you down in da future. On voting day remember should you suddenlee ave a memoree of some of da tings dat have gone on wit da Liberals dat maybee you don't like. Maybee you want to vote for da conservateeves keep in dat pee brain mind of yourz dat dey are da ones wit da evil and dark hiddan agendaa. Remember, a voat for da Liberal partee is a vote for tyrannical dictatorship...uh...uh..I..uh..meen DEEMOCKRASEE! Soo juzz forget about da pazzt and look to da future. I tank you." (more phony applause)

So goes the world of Canada. When the time comes for accountability we can all count out Onatirio. For some reason they are content with continous lies, corupption, and deception. How unfourtunate and how predictable. Bring on the Western Block. Until next time...

When a man loves a woman

Who can find a virtuous and capable wife? She is worth more than precious rubies. Her husband can trust her, and she will greatly enrich his life. She will not hinder him but help him all her life.

She is clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs with no fear of the future. When she speaks, her words are wise, and kindness is the rule when she gives instructions. She carefully watches all that goes on in her household and does not have to bear the consequences of laziness.

Her children stand and bless her. Her husband praises her: "There are many virtuous and capable women in the world, but you surpass them all!"

Charm is deceptive, and beauty does not last; but a woman who fears the LORD will be greatly praised. Reward her for all she has done. Let her deeds publicly declare her praise.

Proverbs 31:10-12, 25-31

These words from God's Holy Bible are a reflection of the most beautiful woman I know, that would be my wife. She is everything that today's secularized, liberated, decieved, and deluted women despise. Instead she epitomizes everything that women were originally designed for. She is a real and true woman. A woman who has discovered the true essence of love, family, and sacrifice. My wife realise's that love is not some "euphoric" feeling like when you first meet, but that it is an action. Love is not about "ME" it is about "YOU". It is about sacrifice.

When it came to the decision of having children my wife put any of her own personal dreams and ambitions aside to raise them in the home. Having children and paying someone else to raise them simply made no sense to either of us. Moments like baby's first step or first word were witnessed and shared with me by her, not the daycare worker/sitter. The children were always well rested, fed, and getting to know their parent more and more each day. Because of her role in the home we have a very close and complete family. Our children feel very secure and stable. On a number of occasion's where my wife would need a weekend getaway with some girlfriends, I would step into her role of feeding the kid's (usually take out because I burnt everything), cleaning(house & clothes), bathing and dressing the kid's (usually had to do this more then once a day, kid's can get messy real quick), grocery shopping (this was scary as I usually just got lost), and the numerous other task's that she would perform on a regular basis. She would do this daily for the last 10 years making it look so effortless. Yet leave me alone for a weekend and I was a walking disaster.

What was the cost for her to raise our children during those critical and impressionable years? (Remember, once they are gone, you can't have them back) A smaller home instead of 2,000 square feet of walls I do not really need? One 4 cylinder sedan instead of three gas guzzling SUV's just because...? A small beat up old Harley instead of the big old windbagger's? How about her dignity, self esteem, self worth, and feminity? She laughs at women who somehow feel they are robbed of these feminine qualities because raising their own children is supposed to be a sign of weakness. That a stay at home mom is "supposedly" unfufilled in her life. When I compare this to the immeasurable role and importance of how my children have turned out...there actually is no comparison at all. The cost is priceless. I am well pleased that my wife was there to share the memories not only with me but the kid's themselves. Never once has she ever uttered a word of regret but instead has always been very confident and fulfilled in her role in the home. She put our children and husband ahead of herself and today that Proverb rings true as my children stand and bless her and I as her husband praise her when I declare "There are many virtuous and capable women in the world, but you surpass them all!"

Because of this I FIRMLY believe that there is not a single career driven woman out there today who could hold a candle to my wife. NOT EVEN CLOSE!

Yet in today's western culture it has become ingrained into today's women (no I do not mean every single one of them) that a "true and successful" woman is somehow defined as being career oriented. She is the one wearing her power suit with briefcase in one hand while dropping baby/toddler off at daycare with a bottle of fake breast milk. She is simply "too busy" to give baby the required nutrients that naturally comes from the breast. In fact, so as not to incovience mom during birth, a ceasaran was planned ahead well in advance. It's then off to work for that all important career while somebody else get's paid to raise her children and instill their moral values and choice's in to their kid's rather then themselve's. By the time mom pick's up baby/toddler she is just too exhausted from giving herself to others all day that cooking a decent meal for the family is just not an option. It's either frozen quick fixes or take out, at least most of the time. Time for the kid's? What time? Mom doesn't usually walk in the door until 5:30/6:00pm. She is physically wiped, mentally stressed, and spiritually sucked out. The last thing she wants is to deal with kid's hopping on her lap. This usually causes a verbal blast towards them about mom needing some time to herself. The kid's crime...wanting to spend time with her and share their exciting moments of the day. After supper it is bath time, a short story, and off to bed so mom can have her down time to recoup in order to give all her energies to other people the following day.

Where is the time for a relationship with your own children when a life is lived like this? What about the husband? I can only assure you that all of her stresses are "his fault" even if they really are not. This is what society calls a "successful" woman?

If this is the world view of a successful woman they can have her. I prefer my God's version..she is written about in Proverbs 31. She is my wife. Until next time...

Do as I do, NOT as I say!

It is already common knowledge to those of you who peruse my venomous writings that I am no fan of Liberal party's, thinker's, or way of life. But they are not alone in their twisted, deceptive, and self righteous way of thinking. There is yet another deluded mindset out there. They are known as the NDP (Nasty Defecit Party or my other fave, the No Damn Plan party). They lay claim to be the supporter's of a healthy and clean enviorment and big proponents of the Kyoto Accord. You know the accord don't you? The one where Canada is supposed to control it's toxic emission's only apparently we are failing miserably at it. We have signed this accord with the understanding that those who fail to reach their mandatory emission control targets must pay a heavy fine. However, they are allowed to buy "credits" from other nations who have signed onto the Kyoto agreement. Here is where it get 's really interesting...the other countries signed onto this agreement will never have to pay a single penny into the coffer's pot even if they far exceed their emission's limit. This is because they are third world nation's and will not be subject to financial penalty. Canada is the only country that will have to pay into it! Make's perfect sense does it not? The NDP slammed the U.S. Government for not signing on to this ridiculous accord and yet the US is not only meeting but far exceeding their own pollution control expectations, which have far stronger demands then Kyoto, making Canada look like a bunch of fool's. But what do you expect from a party that has prostituted itself to the Liberals time and again. These (NDP) are people who show up to their own press conferences in their gas guzzling SUV's telling us we need to be more conservative in our fuel consumption.

Their most recent display of typical adopted Liberal hypocrisy, came in the form of the same sex (Bill C-38) vote back in June 2005. This same party, which has also laid claim that they are the great purveyors of human rights and democratic reform, clearly displayed how far from the truth that statement actually is when it came down to this particular vote. While continually pointing accusing finger's at the Liberal Party for it's constant "confidence voting" imposed upon the party faithful (i.e. vote my way or it's the highway) the NDP turned and did EXACTLY the same thing by forcing the hand of their own party faithful to vote ONLY in favour of the bill or face consequence's. Party leader Jack(ass) Layton claimed that same sex marriage was a human rights issue and, because his party was such BIG supporter's of human rights, NDP MP's must vote in favour or face severe reprimand.

The problem with his arguement is that it has never been a human rights issue. Homosexuals have always had the right to marry...provided it was a member of the opposite sex. However, the RIGHT still existed. There was never a need to re-define marriage. Homosexuals have, for many years, enjoyed the same benefits as hetrosexual couples. What the NDP managed to accomplish thru this ridiculous vote on re-definition was, essentially, to remove the rights of some(marriage commissioners, clergy, etc.) ignore the will of the majority(68%) of Canadians who did not want marriage tampered with, and give them to a minority group of people(gays and lesbians) who never lost their rights in the first place.

Now we have a party in the NDP who DENIED it's own party members to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of moral conscience, which is gauranteed under the Charter of Human rights and freedom, in the House of Commons. They also denied their MP's to democratically represent the will of their constiuents. With the exception being NDP MP Bev Desjarlais who recognized this act of anti-democracy and bravely defied her party leader instead choosing to represent the will of the people who put her in office. She has since been stripped of her portfolio and most recently lost the vote to represent the NDP in her riding in the upcoming election.

Let's not forget Liberals either, who called it a free vote and then forced their 72 cabinet ministers to vote in favour. Once again calling it a "vote of confidence" while maintaining to the Canadian public that it was a "free vote" What???? So much for representing the will of the people and exercising democratic reform in the House of Commons.

Combined, these two parties are downright scary. Liberals swore up and down 12 years ago that same sex benefits to gay couples would NEVER lead to re-defineing the institution of marriage and yet here we are today. And they did it without a mandate from the Canadian public!!! We have the NDP who are supporter's of terroist's (see Svend Robinson in Palestine defending Yassar Arafrat) defenders of grand larceny(again see Svend Robinson "pocketing" a $60,000 ring apparently because he was distraught over a hiking incident 7 years ago? Whatever.) and adversaries against keeping the Christ in Christmas(once again, see Svend Robinson)



So what's next for these two hammer and sickle pusher's? Right now there are men out there who claim to feel more like a woman on the inside but have no desire to "alter" themselves physically. Should we then re-define the term woman to "include" the male anatomy so as not to offend or ostracize these people? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? So was re-defining marriage. Keep voting in the communist dicator's and it will become reality. Until next time...

I am not an animal!

Imagine, if you will, how exactly you would feel if someone approached you and justified your sexuality to the equivalent of an animal. I don't know about you but I personally would be down right insulted. Yet here we are in the day and age of forced acceptance and "postive" tolerance(what a joke) being brought down to that level. Back in the spring(2005) when the whole gay marriage issue was being force fed down the throats of Canadians I took notice of a number of editorials and letter's to the editor(of a number of newspapers) rationalizing why the homosexual lifestyle should be welcomed into the fold of marriage. In a typical display of liberal idiocy, those in favour of gay marriage with their infinite wisdom felt comparison's to the animal kingdom was justification enough to accept homosexuality as a normal sexual lifestyle. The rationalisation given was simply this "...because the animals do it." Wow, how profound. Although I am not a homosexual, and I will NEVER recognize a same-sex marriage as legitimate, I did feel insulted on behalf of the gay community that there are people out there who, in defense of homosexuals, would lower them to the standard of an animal! At least I still recognize them as part of the human race and treat them as such. What these defender's of "goodwill" do not realise is the pandora's box that they are opening when they make such dangerous comparison's. If we are to accept the homosexual lifestyle as "normal" because "the animals do it" then one has to be prepared for acceptance of all the animals sexual practises and adopt them as normal for human's as well. Not just homosexuality. If we parallel our sexuality with animals here's what we are in danger of saying is acceptable.
1.) Animals DO NOT ask for permission to have sex with their partner. If we apply the term"..because the animals do it" we then justify non consensual sex or rape as an acceptable sexual lifestyle.
2.) Some animals kill their mate during the act. Because the animals do it we must now accept necrophilia as a normal sexual lifestyle.
3.) Monkeys, for example, have sex with their own children when they are as young as 2 years old. Because the animals do it we now say that incest and pedophileia is also a normal, therefore, acceptable sexual lifestyle.
4.) Some animals will kill another male species and take his female companion. Because the animals do it we must now accept that it is OK for a man to murder another man so he can take his wife for himself.
Are you begining to get the picture? The human race should always hold itself to a higher standard. The reason some animals engage in homosexual activity (listen up you liberal moron's who don't do your homework) is because of over population. It has nothing to do with a strong urge to be with the same sex. It has everything to do with an internal clock inside that goes off during certain times of the year that says I must pro create RIGHT NOW! It is almost as if their body instinctively takes over because they are being told they need to "release" their seed. Is it normal for them to engage with another animal of the same sex? No, it is because that is what is available to them. Unlike human beings who can exert self control, they cannot. My final case in point is this...when your neighbour's pooch run's across the street to mount you and furiously begin's to hump your leg do you:
A) Say to your self "I think this is the begining of a beautiful thing" or...
B.) Say to yourself "This is just NOT NORMAL!"
Think about it! Until next time...

"...And Justice for All!"

"Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real"

James Hetfield, Metallica



For those who have not heard yet, Toronto resident and fitness physical expert David Carmichael, was found "Not criminally responsible" for the first degree murder of his 11 year old son, Ian. Was he guilty? Yes, the evidence not only pointed directly to him but he confessed to his crime. Yet he is still not responsible. Imagine that! You committ a heinous crime, you were aware of the act while you were committing it, and even though you are GUILTY you are just not responsible. Only in Canada! Where the perpetraitor's become victim's. Forsceneic psychopath's, I mean pyschiatrists, testified for both the Crown and Defence stating that he was suffering from a severe bout of depression. Yeah, that is too bad but how does this justify murdering your own child? According to Liberal appointed(that means un-elected) Ontario Superior Justice Helen Rady the rational(I.E. Justification for first degree murder) is because of Mr. Carmichaels disorder this "...rendered him incapable of knowing it was wrong." I consider the same line of reasoning every time I want to withhold paying any taxes but apparently there is no cop-out for that. I find it rather ironic that Judge Rady claim's that David was incapable of "...knowing it was wrong." when Dr. John Bradford of the Royal Ottawa Hospital testified that Carmichael believed killing Ian was the "morally right" thing to do because he thought the boy was growing increasingly violent and was going to stab his sister. Huh? If he didn't know right from wrong, as the judge seem's to think, then how could he possibly know or distinguish if ANYTHING at all was morally right? The intelligence of Judge Rady get's even better as she bellows out the rehearsed mantra chant of our (gag, puke!) justice system when she states (get ready, you have heard it all before) "I am satisfied that Mr. Carmichael poses no real threat to the public." Did you recognize that one. Judge Rady ends with "Indeed, Mr. Carmichael LIKELY poses more of a threat to himself than to the public." He likely? But the Judge is not exactly sure. I wonder if Ian would agree with her statement. It's amazing how Carmichael recalls everything about the night in question when he confessed to police how he gave Ian a mixture of sleeping pills with oranje juice, waited for him to fall asleep, then strangled him. Only he is not responsible because he was depressed. I get very depressed every time I am reminded that Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister but it certainly would not justify me taking a life now, would it? But, alas, this is justice in Canada. We are such a weak and tolerant society. What we cannot wake up to is the reality that justice and tolerance cannot co-exist. Otherwise we end up with numbbrained, deluded idiot's on a bench telling us we need to be more understanding of people like Dave Carmichael who premeditate the murder of their own children. To think our country has the gumption to condemn places like China for their inhumane treatment and violation of human rights against their own people while we coddle our own criminals for treating their victim's in the same manner. But that is typical Liberal hypocrisy in action. On the other hand, even if David was to be convicted of first degree murder, a charge carrying 25 years to life, this is afterall Canada where we apply the metric system to our sentence's. He would have been out in, oh..., probably 14 or 15, no let's be generous 18....days. Corrections Canada (Government of Canada) would not want to keep him in there too long because he would be taking up valuable space reserved for the real criminals of Canada. You know those hardened ones that try to get away without paying their taxes, or the prairie wheat farmer's caught selling their product over the border because their own Government wants to screw them with below rock bottom pricing, and of course the law abiding outdoorsman who did not register his hunting rifle. We all sleep better in this country knowing they are off the street. Until next time...