More gay tolerance :p

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

She is qouted as saying in her acceptance speech:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several even turned their backs when Somerville was hooded."

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Until next time...

Way out in "LEFT" field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"


Your RIGHT Jack, they can't.

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Until next time...

A Tribute

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

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

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

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

2 Timothy 4:3-4

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

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

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

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

OOPS! :(

My fellow bloggin' buddies I have dropped the ball.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next screw up :)...

I AM CANADIAN! >:(

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


As the Canadian version reads:


IMMIGRANTS,NOT Canadians MUST ADAPT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

More hypocritical tolerance >:(

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

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

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

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

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

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



Until next time...

Just one look (that's all it took)

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

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

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



another angle:



and one more:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Until next time...

It's that time Harley :)

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Until next time...

Awards and responses :)

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

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



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

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

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

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

Another good chuckle. Nice one Doc! :)

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

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

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

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

And finally...

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

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

Now on to your questions:

The Queen asked:

" How much do you love me?"

The Intolerant One (TIO) said:

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

Truthseeker a.k.a. Q asked:

" where did you get your attitude from?"

TIO said:

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

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

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

TIO said:

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

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

Nog asked:

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

TIO said:

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

Mandora ask's:

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

TIO said:

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

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

3.) Loyalty

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

" Will there be Oreos?"

TIO said:

Do you mean in heaven?

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

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

Until next time...

What about you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First the basics,

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

Now something more personal,

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

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

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

Something political,

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

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

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

Last question,

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

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

Until next time...

Ultimate Hypocrisy!

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROHIBITONS AGAINST PUBLICATIONS

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

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

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

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

FIVE FOLD MINISTRY!



Administered in love ...of course.

Until next time...

You tell me!

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Until next time...


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

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

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

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

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

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?