Monday, February 28, 2005

Canadian Membership in the European Union Ensures Generational Governance for the Liberals

This is the first of three articles designed to advance a theory. The theory being that our federal liberal government is paving the way for Canada to join the European Union. Canadian membership in the EU would serve two objectives of the liberal party. One is to speed up the liberalizing of moral laws and ensure more need for government. The second is to use the reliance on government that lowered moral standards will create to achieve generational governance. Let us start with the basics.

Conservatives believe in empowering people to live independent of government. Conservative policy works to eliminate government programs, reduce the role of government in our lives and lower taxes. The idea is that people can run their own lives better than government can run their lives.

Liberals believe the opposite. They empower government to serve people with unlimited social programs and regulate the lives of everyone. Liberals create new programs and new government departments to solve society’s problems. Every time the liberals create a new program, they gain influence over people’s lives, but instead of solving problems, these programs create new sets of problems which require even more programs and ultimately more taxes.

The term generational governance is a popular term in America right now. It is the goal of the Conservative Republicans to destroy the Liberal Democratic Party by creating a political reality that makes the Liberal Democrats irrelevant. By vanquishing the Democrats, Republicans ensure that they will continue to govern for generations. Republicans have lowered taxes, which has increased the wealth of Americans and reduced the need for government. Home ownership is at an all time high, especially among minorities. Less regulation has created jobs so that fewer Americans are dependant on the state.

Now, the biggest policy initiative in America is social security reform. Republicans are reforming social security in a way that gives ownership of retirement plans to the individual, instead of making them reliant on a government program. This move will put a final nail in the coffin of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s legacy called the New Deal and eliminate the last major program that makes individual Americans dependant on the state.

The liberals in Canada are engaging in their own campaign to achieve generational governance. Thirteen years of liberal rule, excessive regulation and taxes has kept unemployment artificially high. This has led to more need for welfare, employment insurance benefits, job training and job counseling programs. Our socialized health care is now the number one expense for governments both federal and provincial. Canadian seniors rely on government for the Canada Pension Plan and Guaranteed Income Supplements. And, virtually every Canadian camps out at their mailbox four times per year waiting for that GST cheque.

Liberal and socialist policy is designed to turn Canadians into dependents. Unsatisfied with the control liberals already have over our lives, they press on. Environmentalists have convinced Canadians that unless we spend billions of dollars on federal programs, global warming will kill us all. The liberals told us that we needed a program to register rifles and shotguns to protect us from crime. A sponsorship program was created to advertise how great Canada is to prevent Quebec from separating.

But, the most intrusive program the liberals are pushing now is the national childcare program. If the liberals succeed in implementing a national childcare program, dependence on government will pass from generation to generation. Liberals will tell you that daycare is a voluntary program. Just like everything else, when you are obligated to pay for something whether or not you use it, people will take part. When program usage increases, so does the need for funding. Taxes go up to cover the unexpected shortfall. Eventually it becomes mandatory for children to attend daycare, just as school is mandatory now.

In every example the liberals do not solve problems. Instead, the advance of one policy creates a need for more policies and more government. A national daycare system will lead to government departments responsible for licensing, training and ensuring standards are met. Sponsorship programs lead to inefficiency and fraud, which leads to inquiries that cost almost as much as the program itself. Gun registries start out with an $85 million dollar budget and then grow to over $2 billion. $5 billion gets earmarked for the environment, but CO2 output continues to increase. In all cases the solution for failed liberal policy is more money and more government.

Now consider what is going on in Europe. The European Union now stands at 25 nations and continues to grow. The EU has passed a new constitution which now has to be ratified by member states. Whereas the constitution of both America and Canada affirm that we have a creator which implies a certain standard of morality, the EU constitution ignores all references to God and affirms the divine nature of people on Earth. Morality in Europe is relative.

Canadians are still a socially conservative people that believe in a sense of morality. Canada’s left would like nothing more than to ram extreme left-wing social reform down our throats including legalized prostitution and even more liberalized drug laws. The social problems created from moral decay represent a boom in need for government programs ensuring the liberals rule Canada until kingdom come. The majority of Canadians want no part of it. As a result, liberals act socially conservative and use the Courts to advance their agenda.

Even on the subject of same-sex marriage the liberals acted like they were champions of traditional marriage. Then they sat silent as liberal activist judges in seven provinces and one territory redefined marriage. The liberals were hoping the Supreme Court of Canada would give them the same free pass they got with abortion. Only after the Supreme Court of Canada kicked the issue back to Parliament did the liberals admit they were in favor of same-sex marriage and introduce a bill to implement it. Having the Courts strike down morality laws makes it so much easier for the liberals to save face with the voters.

That is where the European Union comes in. In order to join the Union, the candidate countries need to fulfill the economic and political conditions known as the 'Copenhagen criteria', according to which a prospective member must:

• be a stable democracy, respecting human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. Fulfilling this criterion is a key for the start of accession negotiations.
• have a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union.
• adopt and enforce the common rules, standards and policies that make up the body of EU law.

The key here is the emphasis the EU places on respecting human rights and protection of minorities. How many times during Paul Martin’s speech on the same-sex marriage bill, did he talk about human rights and the protection of minorities? It is no coincidence.

The European Union constitution openly endorses liberalism and eliminates any government policy that stems from a God inspired morality. An example of this is the decision made by the EU over Turkey’s application to the Union. Turkey is a Muslim nation where adultery is punishable by death. In order for Turkey to be considered for membership in the EU, they were told that they must abolish the death penalty and strike adultery from their laws.

People are welcome to debate the validity of laws concerning adultery, but consider the realities that arise from cheating in a marriage. Adultery could result in contracting sexually transmitted diseases which places a burden on the health care system. Adultery causes problems in a marriages creating need for counseling. Family courts get clogged with cases which burdens the legal system. Children of divorced parents often have challenges that require a whole slew of other social programs. Ultimately, none of this matters, because EU members forfeit the right to make domestic laws that are less liberal than the overriding body of EU law. The goal may be to secure rights for people, including the right to cheat on your spouse. But the consequence of less morality is a guarantee of the need for more government.

This reality of EU membership creates the perfect opportunity for the liberal party. Instead of waiting for the supreme court of Canada to strike down one or two laws every decade or so, all God based morality laws could be struck down in one shot. The advantage of membership is the access members have to the worlds biggest export market. By adopting common rules, standards and policies of EU law, the Conservative Party becomes irrelevant because Conservative ideology flows from a belief in God. With the Conservative Party gone, the question is not whether you vote liberal or Conservative. The question is whether you vote liberal, socialist NDP, green, marijuana party, or communist party of Canada.

Since the liberals are the most centrist of the left-wing Canadian parties, EU membership would ensure the liberals are re-elected for generations to come.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Canada, the European Union and the New World Order

Think back to where Canada was in 1990. Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had just scored a victory for minority rights when the Federal Government changed the rules allowing Sikhs with turbans the right to serve in the RCMP. Ben Johnson was trying to claw his way back in sports after a drug scandal that horrified the nation. Canada was taking part in the largest military campaign since World War II under the leadership of our number one ally, America. With Canadian warships and Air Force F-18 fighter jets, we joined in a campaign to kick the butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, out of Kuwait.

Now imagine if you were told back then, that in Canada, Conservatives would be branded as enemies of human rights. Homosexuals would be getting married and receiving full marriage benefits. The federal government would be using tax dollars to grow marijuana in the abandoned mines of Manitoba. Tax dollars would be spent to give drug addicts free heroin. Drug use would be decriminalized. Taxes would go up. Federal spending would double. Parents would be forced to pay for childcare through punitive taxation whether they use daycare or not. Thousands of strippers would be a priority for Canadian work permits. Canada would be opposing our number one defense partner on every major defense policy. Federal politicians would be fomenting anti-American hatred, calling them bastards and jumping up and down on dolls of American presidents. Would you believe any of it?

Yet, this is where we have come as a nation after 13 years of liberal rule. If Canadians could not have imagined how much moral decay would spread in the last decade, what can we expect to happen in the next? More importantly, where are we going as a nation?

In this coming week, the Blue Maple Leaf will publish a three part series on where we believe liberal policy is taking us. Below is a schedule of subjects we hope to cover.

Monday – How current liberal policy changes favor EU membership and Liberal generational governance
Tuesday – Everyone likes a good conspiracy theory. Here is one reason Paul Martin may be pushing Canada toward EU membership
Wednesday – The anti-American agenda and Canada’s security needs.
If anyone would like to send their thoughts on any of the upcoming subjects, your e-mail would be appreciated. To send e-mail simply click ‘view my profile’ at the top of this blog.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Prediction Comes True on Ballistic Missile Defense

Yesterday Prime Minister Paul Martin went public with a firm position on missile defense. Despite his belief that it was necessary for Canada to be at the program's decision making table, he changed his position and announced that Canada will not take part.

The complicit left-wing media is already cheering this decision. Last month the media sowed the seeds for this policy change. Back in January, the mainstream media accused George Bush of bullying Canada into joining ballistic missile defense. At the time, this author said the following:

“The psychology of the left wing media in printing this story is obvious. If the liberals say no to missile defense, then Paul Martin comes off as a champion of Canadian sovereignty that stood up to George W. Bush the most powerful man on earth.”

One month later this prediction is ringing true. Television news including CTV have turned the cameras on people to portray anti-American attitudes as being the mainstream thought among Canadians. One person said, “I think it’s a very good move on our government’s part.” Another said, “I think that’s great that they’re standing up for their own, ah, they're not just going along with what the American government wants them to go along with.”

So the logic of missile defense opponants amounts to a childish rebellion of what the left perceives as authority coming from America. In doing so, Canada has outsourced sovereignty of its airspace to that country. Canada will now have absolutely no say on any decision to intercept incoming nuclear missiles.

Today Paul Martin is talking tough. Talking to reporters he said, “This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission.”

This comment is nothing more than a cowardly attempt by Paul Martin to sound like he is in control. If the enemies of the west launch a nuclear missile strike on America, those missiles are ALL going through Canadian Airspace! What is Paul Martin going to do if North Korea launches a missile through our airspace? How about China? How about Iran? How are the liberals going to demand that communist countries and rogue states respect the sovereignty of Canadian airspace? The fact is Paul Martin can do nothing to stop them and now Canada will not even have a say in how those missiles are intercepted.

Another thing to consider is the point of intercept where those missiles will be destroyed. By deploying intercept missiles in Canada’s arctic, nuclear weapons en route to America could be shot down in remote regions where radio-active debris has little chance of affecting people. America has no choice now, but to deploy interceptors in Alaska and along the 49th parallel to knock out any incoming missiles. Instead of destroying missiles over the arctic, they will be destroyed over the southern portion of Canada, where virtually all of Canada’s population lives.

Consider also the time it takes an ICBM to travel around the world. The average time it would take for a missile to travel, from launch to impact, is about 40 minutes. You can be sure that long before America thinks to ask for permission it will simple launch an interceptor to defend itself.

The is the sad position we find ourselves in, when a liberal politician follows the polls instead of leading the nation.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Liberals Evade the Hangman with Big Spending

The 2005 federal budget came out this week and Canadians have seen the numbers. There is no mistaking this for an election year budget. The tax cuts provided in the budget are so small they would not cover a one month supply of Slurpees for the average Winnipegger, and the spending increases are so big they wipe out the over $10 billion surplus of 2004. The liberal are now spending 50% more than they did in the year 2000.

The most wasteful spending initiative in this budget is the $5 billion dollars earmarked for a national socialized childcare scheme. The liberals still have no plan on how they will implement this new brand of socialism even though they have been promising national childcare since 1993. When finance minister Ralph Goodale was asked how this budget helps people who raise their own children, he dodged the question. Ultimately his answer was ‘nothing’. So we have $5 billion allocated for programs that do not exist, for the purpose of raising children for parents who have kids and then pass the responsibility of raising them on to the Canadian taxpayer.

Also in the budget is $5 billion for the environment. The liberals still have no plan on how it will meet its targets under the Kyoto protocol. So far all the liberals have done is pour millions of dollars into advertising to brainwash Canadians into polluting less. Judging from the boom of sport utility vehicle sales in Canada, that is doing nothing.

The only piece of good news is that the liberals have realized that Canada’s Armed Forces are worth a damn. More money has been allocated for our military, but again we have no plan on what our role is in the world or how this money will be spent. Prime Minister Paul Martin announced today that Canada will not take part in missile defense. This decision means that Canada will have no say in the event of a missile attack. It should also be noted that ballistic missile defense took a quantum leap forward today with a successful test over the Pacific. The Standard Missile-3 is now five for six.

All told this was a very disappointing budget. All through the 1990s, the liberals raised taxes and cut spending to the most important programs, including health care, in order to balance the budget. Now that Canada is in the black the liberals have opened the floodgates of spending instead of giving that money back to the taxpayer. It may have been politically smart for the liberals to give a tiny tax cut and drastically increase spending today, but this budget does nothing for the Canada of tomorrow.

Stephen Harper said it best when he said, “Avoiding an immediate hanging is one thing, expressing a vision for the future is another.”

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Mainstream Media’s Anti-America Agenda and Hypocrisy

Left-wing journalists in Canada have been fomenting anti-American hatred for a long time. They constantly portray our southern neighbors as a bunch of arrogant zealots determined to force radical Christian values on the world. Now the media is using that stereotype to brand Americans as meddlers in Canadian affairs.

The liberal press has cried foul over funding that some American pro-family groups have given to their Canadian counterparts. The media has interviewed left-wing politicians who claim Americans are trying to influence Canadians on everything from same-sex marriage to missile defense. It is not surprising that the liberal media complains when conservative influence drifts north of the border. Yet, consider how this plays out when liberal Americans come to Canada and spread left-wing ideology.

It was less than a year ago that American liberal Michael Moore, a disingenuous filmmaker, came to Canada to promote his newest propaganda film ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’. Only days before Canadians went to the polls in a federal election, Michael Moore urged Canadians to reject the Conservatives and its leader, Stephen Harper.

Not only did Michael Moore try to influence democracy in Canada, but he broke Canada’s election laws in the process. Section 331 of the law states:

No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting...for a particular candidate unless the person is

(a) a Canadian citizen; or
(b) a permanent resident

The left-wing media did not portray Michael Moore as an arrogant American who used his wealth and influence to bend Canadians to his way thinking. Instead, they lionized him. Canada’s media heralded him as a champion of liberal values. The socialist Mayor of Sarnia, Mike Bradley, went to far as to publicly state that he would use his position to make Moore an honorary Canadian citizen to get around the election law. Can you imagine the uproar that would be caused by a conservative politician using their elected position to bail someone like Bill O’Reilly out of a legal problem?

Canada’s left-wing media is so biased these days you have to wonder how much longer it can continue.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

CBC Uses Two Minutes of a Three Hour Interview to Deceive Canadians

Last month, the CBC aired the most biased piece of left-wing garbage ever. The show was a Fifth Estate episode called Sticks and Stones. During the show, CBC reporter Bob McKeown interviewed American Conservative Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter happened to mention that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Bob McKeown said Canada took a pass on Vietnam in a way that completely denied any involvement by our country in that war.

The truth about Canadian involvement in the Vietnam War is very different from what Bob McKeown and the CBC would have everyone believe.

In an interesting twist, Greg Staples just happened to catch an interview of Ann Coulter on C-Span recently.

On the C-Span interview [34:55], Ann Coulter mentioned that she was interviewed for three hours by Bob McKeown. The CBC calls itself ‘Canada’s voice’ and portrays itself as a source for balanced journalism. Yet, the CBC picked the weakest two minutes of a three hour interview to fit its left-wing agenda of discrediting conservatives.

Ann Coulter used her opportunity on the C-Span interview to correct her remark by pointing out, that although Canadians did not fight in Vietnam under the Canadian flag, over 10,000 Canadians did fight in that war with the American army. She also said:

“I would really like the whole interview I did to be played and if Canadian Broadcasting has the testosterone to do it. Why won’t they let conservatives talk live? Why are they so afraid of that.”

Maybe the readers of this article would like to leave a comment with the CBC and ask?

Monday, February 21, 2005

Homosexual Advocates, Pedophiles and the Emancipated Child

The link between homosexuality and pedophilia is not an imaginary line. As the same-sex marriage bill works its way through Parliament, it is worth considering trends that have developed in some European countries.

In the Netherlands, the official age of consent for sexual activity is 16. But as the Holland Sentinel has reported, Holland’s age-of-consent law "permits sex between an adult and a young person between 12 and 16 if the young person consents. Under Dutch law, parents have no clearly defined power to prevent or terminate consensual sexual relations between a 12-year-old child and an adult — much to the delight of that nation’s homosexual lobby.

Not surprisingly, the Dutch Association for the Integration of Homosexuality played a key role in lowering that nation’s age of consent. A brochure produced by the group explains that between age 12 and 16, sexual contacts are punishable only when a complaint is lodged. Only the child itself, his or her parents and the Council for the Protection of Children may bring in charges.

But what if the child — say, a 12-year-old boy lured into a homosexual relationship — does not want to end the relationship? The brochure points out that "the Council assumes authority in case the situation within the family has got out of hand or when children and parents see no way of coping with the situation. Usually the Council will first try and find a solution with the help of social workers and therapists. Should the Council fail to see any feasible solutions, it may decide to contact the Justice Department."

Under Dutch law, concludes the pamphlet, "nobody is allowed to interfere" with adult-child homosexual contacts "as long as the situation is mutually agreeable, but should problems arise, then the sexual relation is certainly punishable." In other words, it’s open season for Dutch homosexuals to prey upon 12-year-olds, as long as they’re careful.

The mainstream media’s campaign of normalizing adult-child sexual relationships has already begun in North America. Two high profile cases have shown pedophiles in their best possible terms. The first case involves Pamela Turner, a 27-year-old school teacher from Tennessee. She was accused of raping a 13-year-old boy over a three month period. The second involves Debra Lafave, a 24-year-old school teacher from Florida who raped a 14-year-old boy. In both cases the women were sexy blonde beauties and the victims were portrayed as having had positive sexual experiences.

If the media can condition people to beautiful blonde women romancing even younger boys, why are older men seducing younger women not viewed equally? What can be said of older women seducing younger women? How about older men seducing younger boys?

If the Liberals are determined to push same-sex marriage rights today, can the rights of pedophiles be far behind?

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Liberals and Human Rights – They Just Don’t Get It

The same-sex marriage debate opened with Paul Martin lecturing Parliament about human rights. In his introduction to bill C-38, Paul Martin said, “When we as a nation protect minority rights, we are protecting our multicultural nature; we are reinforcing the Canada we cherish [17:45]”.

Since when are the liberals champions of minority rights?

It was liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King who, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, invoked the war measures act and went on a witch hunt of Japanese Canadians. Within three months his government took power away from Parliament and forced male Japanese Canadians into camps. The RCMP was given expanded powers to search without warrant, impose a curfew and confiscate property. During the evacuation many Japanese Canadians were given only 24 hours notice to vacate their homes, before being sent to "clearing sites" where they were detained until internment camps were prepared.

When it came to multiculturalism again we can look to Mackenzie King. As Hitler swept through Europe in a quest to annihilate the Jews, European Jewry fled to any nation that would take them in. Many nations received the Jews with open arms. When Mackenzie King was asked how many Jews Canada would receive, he gave the infamous reply, "None is too many". Mackenzie King recorded in his diary that any action permitting an appreciable number of Jews to settle in Canada would undermine the unity of the Nation. He said "This is no time for Canada to act on humanitarian grounds. But that Canada must be guided by realities and political considerations." This is not exactly a liberal endorsement of multiculturalism.

Paul Martin also said, “Remember that it was once thought perfectly acceptable to deny women personhood and the right to vote [18:50]”. This was true and it was a Conservative government that changed this. It was Conservative Prime Minister Robert Borden who, in 1918, passed the bill that ultimately gave Canadian women the right to vote.

Paul Martin continued saying, “There was a time not that long ago, that if you wore a turban you couldn’t serve in the RCMP [18:55]”. Yes, Mr. Martin this was also true. Again it was a Conservative government in 1990, under the leadership of then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that changed the rules allowing Sikhs in turbans to serve with our national police.

All through history it has been Conservatives that extend and protect human rights, while liberals revoke or ignore them. Marriage, however, is not a right. Marriage is an institution. The institution of marriage is equally available to all persons that want to choose a life long partner of the opposite sex. If people prefer to engage in alternate relationships or forgo relationships altogether, that is fine too. Choosing an alternative is the freedom of every Canadian, but the alternative is not a marriage, nor is it a right.

It is not surprising that liberals, who know nothing about fundamental human rights, suddenly believe that same-sex marriage is one of them.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Debating Same-Sex Marriage Through Liberal Spin

Parliament began the debate on the liberal same-sex marriage bill today. The liberals put their spin on the issue trying to paint the image that homosexuals already have the right to marry and have had that right all along.

During the debate, Paul Martin said, “The issue is not whether rights are to be granted. The issue is of whether rights that have been granted are to be taken away.”

Paul Martin is completely lying when he says this. Rights for same-sex couples to marry have not been granted. The Supreme Court of Canada said in a December 9, 2004 ruling that same-sex marriage is not a question for the bench to decide. The Supreme Court specifically said that this is an issue for Parliament to decide. This is why the liberals were forced to introduce a bill in the House of Commons.

Stephen Harper countered saying, “If same-sex marriage were a fundamental human right, then countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, France, Denmark and Sweden are human rights violators. But these countries, largely under left wing governments, have upheld the traditional definition of marriage while bringing in equal rights and benefits regimes for same-sex couples.”

“Separate but equal, is not equal,” replied Martin

It is no surprise that the liberals are debating the issue in this fashion. The debate in the court of public opinion, covered by the mainstream media, has followed exactly the same pattern. The left in Canada cannot debate this issue on the grounds that a same-sex relationship gives anything beneficial to society that warrants extending marriage benefits to homosexuals. Rather, they create the image that gay marriage is the status quo and conservatives are trying to pass a bill to take that right away.

For the record, marriage is NOT a basic fundamental human right.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

John McKellar – The Silenced Voice of Reason in Canada’s Gay Community

The radical left in Canada continues shout out Conservatives on the same-sex marriage debate. We saw this yesterday when Jason Kenney said homosexuals have equal opportunity under current laws to marry. The problem was not the message, but the messenger. When conservatives stand up to denounce the gay agenda, the gay and lesbian advocates shout them out with screams of intolerance. Why then do the liberal media not report on members of the gay community who speak out on gay activism?

One person the mainstream press has ignored is John McKellar, president of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE). This modern day John the Baptist is the product of Toronto’s gay and lesbian community. John had his first homosexual encounter when he was 16, but he did not come out of the closet until he was 18.

More interesting than John McKellar’s sexual orientation is what he has to say about gay activism. He denounces the mainstream gay lifestyle saying, "Compulsive, anonymous sex in bathrooms and parks is much more common than the media want to admit.” He describes bathrooms as "dirty, with a stench of amyl nitrate and human feces. Amyl nitrate was snorted to get a longer lasting erection, and anal sex was going on all the time, with or without condoms. Some men would hang out in the bathhouse all night and have sex with up to six different partners. It was animalistic."

On the recruitment of children, McKellar says that the gay community sees it as necessary to "get the children when they are young to make gay positive recruits, even if they don't necessarily become gay themselves. This is why they want homosexuality and all its perversions taught to the children at the earliest possible age."

Regarding pedophiles - and while admitting that a number of gay publications and organizations support the abolition of age of consent laws, and that pedophiles are more free to express their views in the gay community than elsewhere - McKellar believes that the majority of homosexuals are not supportive of the pedophile agenda.

On transsexuals, McKellar says he feels the most sorry for transsexuals. "They, more than anyone else, are the most neurotic, into drugs, alcohol, and prostitution, as they are totally messed up about their sexuality." As for tax-funded sex change operations, he says, "I don't believe in a lot of gay medicine; it's more mutilation than medicine. The gay community is more well-funded than any else; it should pay for its own elective procedures."

On sadomasochists and leather men, "their thing is sexual domination and submission. They, too, have an immature and unhealthy fixation on their sexuality." McKellar says these groups often practice very dangerous forms of sex as "they have walked on the wild side, and once they have broken one set of taboos, they have to move on to breaking another set to get any sexual satisfaction."

John McKellar sums up gay activism by saying, “I just ignored the gay activists, as they never had anything to say to me or for me. As time went on, especially with the advent of the AIDS epidemic, I came to realize how monomaniacal and nihilistic they were becoming.”

So when a gay Canadian describes the gay lifestyle in these terms, why is it so controversial for a Conservative to say, “Homosexuals have the same right to marry as everyone else, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex”?

Monday, February 14, 2005

Jason Kenney Did Not Say Anything Canadian Courts Have Not Said

Recently this author e-mailed Jason Kenney to compliment him on his taking a stand for traditional marriage. Amazingly, a personal reply came in less than 5 minutes. It was mentioned in the reply that these words were not originally his. Included was a press release in .PDF format. The release read:

OTTAWA – NDP House Leader Libby Davies showed her ignorance regarding the jurisprudence surrounding marriage when she attacked Conservative MP Jason Kenney for citing court rulings on the issue.

Davies was quoted by the Canadian Press (February 13, 2005) as saying, ``I wouldn't expect too much out of Jason Kenney on this (subject), but this is absolutely absurd. If there was an award for making an idiotic statement, this guy would get it.”

Davies was responding to comments made by Kenney during an interview with Punjabi media last month, where he reiterated an observation made by several courts in ruling on same-sex marriage. ``Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they're a man and a woman,'' said Kenney. ``It (the law) doesn't say you can't marry if you're a homosexual. The fact is that homosexuals have been married and do marry.''

Kenney was referring to the 1993 decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Layland v. Ontario, which considered and rejected the claim that the opposite-sex nature of marriage discriminated against gays, stating that:

The law does not prohibit marriage by homosexuals provided it takes place between persons of the opposite sex. Some homosexuals do marry. The fact that many homosexuals do not choose to marry, because they do not want unions with persons of the opposite sex, is the result of their own preferences, not a requirement of the law. Layland v. Ontario (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations) (17 March 1993, Action No. 234/92, Ont. Div. Ct.)

This ruling was echoed by a finding of the Ontario Superior Court in the 2002 Halpern decision, where the majority found that:

The first, and perhaps obvious thing that can be said on this issue is that, there is no lawful impediment that is specific to sex, statutory or otherwise, that prevents gays and lesbians from marrying, provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 CanLII 42749 (ON S.C.D.C.)

The Layland decision was cited approvingly by then Attorney General Anne McClellan in a 1999 speech to the House of Commons, where she declared that “the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.”

The finding of the Court in Layland was also cited by the Attorney General of Canada in its factum before the Court on Halpern.

“It is clear that Ms. Davies is unfamiliar with the jurisprudence surrounding this issue,” Kenney said. “She has every right to disagree with findings made by the courts,” Kenney said, “but she should show more respect than to call them ‘absurd’ and ‘idiotic.’”

Canadians are right to expect more moderate language from politicians debating this difficult issue.

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Mainstream Media Pounces on Comments of Conservative MP

Nothing gets the liberal media more excited than a damning quote from a conservative politician. Any comment that paints a conservative as a racist, bigot or homophobe will do. Since our people on the right are none of those things, journalists lay in wait for any sound bite that can be twisted to fit the profile. Today the Canadian Press got their wish.

The quote is from Conservative MP Jason Kenney and this is what he said:

"The fact is that homosexuals aren't barred from marrying under Canadian law. Gays have every right to marry whoever they want - as long as it isn't someone of the same sex.”

Can you believe he said that out loud?

He then went on to point out that the former socialist MP, Svend Robinson, was once married to a woman. Socialist MP Libby Davies was also married, although Ms. Davies insists she was only shacked up with her male partner for 24 years. We call that a common law marriage in Canada.

"If there was an award for making an idiotic statement, this guy would get it," said Libby Davies. “It's very patronizing."

Trust the socialist NDP to call a common sense comment that is 100% true, patronizing and idiotic.

Saturday, February 12, 2005

Manitoba Métis Federation Continues With Its Racist Hiring Policy

The most racist organization of people in Canada is at it again. The Manitoba Métis Federation has recently advertised a job opportunity at its Winnipeg office on Henry Avenue. What do the aboriginal clansmen need now? According to the ad they need a filing clerk. But not just any filing clerk will do.

“Preference will be given to qualified Métis applicants. Qualified applicants are encouraged to apply and self-identify on their resume.”

It seems that ‘self-identify’ is the politically correct way to say, "take a big red crayon and write METIS across your resume."

So why is the pressure on to hire a candidate of a certain race? Has the MMF hired so many white males lately that Métis are now under represented at the Henry office? Do they even hire anyone that does not have red skin?

This is the kind of flat out racism that we have come to expect from the Manitoba Métis Federation. What is most troubling about this group is the degree to which they accuse everyone else of prejudice but themselves. Only a week ago, Métis leaders were screaming racism when Matthew Dumas was shot by a Winnipeg Police officer. Mr. Dumas was native.

When it was revealed that the Police constable was himself a Métis, Roseau River Chief Terry Nelson uttered the famous phrase:

“It is racist. The fact that a person is Métis, that some part of him is Indian, that doesn't absolve him from all blame. That doesn't give him absolution. [I know] Native people that are racist against native people.”

Yes Mr. Nelson, and we all know native leaders that are racist against everyone else.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

Free Heroin for Drug Addicts Courtesy of Heath Canada

Health Canada has decided to give out free heroin to drug addicts in three Canadian cities. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is funding the study which will experiment on 470 drug addicts in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. During the $8.1 million study, half of the addicts will receive free heroin for twelve months courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. The goal of the study is to steer the addicts away from a life of crime and prostitution.

This experiment follows another trial last year which saw Vancouver host a safe injection site for heroin addicts. The site in the city's Downtown Eastside provided a safe place for addicts to shoot heroin or smoke crack and crystal methamphetamines under the supervision of health care workers. That experiment was a three-year, $3.7-million pilot project funded by Health Canada and the B.C. government. Health care officials called that piece of work a resounding success.

These human trials have already been tried in Switzerland in the early 1990s. Switzerland designated a park where heroin addicts could use drugs legally and get free needles. In 1992 the park had to be shut down when the number of addicts grew to unbelievable numbers. Unrepentant, Switzerland tried again. They ran into a similar problem and had to end the second attempt in 1995.

Switzerland then tried giving out free heroin to addicts in an attempt to reduce crime and disease. They realized that less than 10% of participants were able to kick the habit when the government was giving them drugs for free. Yet, the Canadian government wants to have the exact same experiment here.

If we agree that heroin addiction is a bad thing and heroin is prohibited by law, why is it not enough just to prosecute it as a crime? While prosecution may do nothing for those already addicted, it sends a very clear message to those who may feel pressured to try using drugs. This tough love approach may seem cruel, but using taxpayer money to give out free heroin is not the answer. If your daughter tried heroin and got hooked, would you spend all your money buying her free drugs for the rest of her life?

Liberals never seem to get tired of taking the hard earned money of Canadian taxpayers and spending it by the millions on people determined to blow their lives away. The media continues to portray these social experiments as successful when they achieve some lesser and unrelated goal. Who in this country can say with a straight face that contributing to a person’s abuse of heroin, crack and crystal meth a resounding success?

The tough love approach contributes more to a person's success than the apathy of a liberal who would give an endless supply of drugs to a drug addict.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Svend Robinson Incensed Over Lenient Criminal Sentence

In a bitter twist of irony, Svend Robinson made the news today. Ten months ago he was convicted of theft over $5,000 and released without punishment and with no criminal record. The former NDP Member of Parliament for Burnaby-Douglas was caught on video surveillance stealing a diamond ring for his lover Max Riveron. The judge who sentenced him said in the ruling, “In Canada, we don’t kick a man when he is down”. So why did Svend make the news today? Apparently Svend feels that a Criminal Court Judge’s decision to sentence someone else to six years in prison is too lenient.

This story in the Globe and Mail today reads, “Family members and gay community representatives, including former MP Svend Robinson, strongly denounced a six-year sentence handed to a man yesterday for his role in the beating death of Aaron Webster”.

The story involves a beating death of a naked man, Aaron Webster, in Stanley Park, British Columbia. The area of the Park were Mr. Webster was beaten is a place where gay men like to seek anonymous sex. Mr. Robinson and the gay community feel that six years is too lenient and that the crime should have been prosecuted under the hate crimes legislation the MP managed to pass into law. According to the article, there was no evidence to support a charge of gay bashing.

The issue here is not the fact that the victim was gay. The issue is a Canadian justice system that is too lenient on crime. The NDP is constantly on the front lines pushing for lower sentences in the belief that crime is the result of poverty. They believe tough sentences punish the poor unfairly. The only reason the gay community is fighting for a tougher sentence in this case is because the victim was gay.

Svend Robinson is obviously upset that six years in prison is too low for the taking of a human life. Well Svend, in Canada we don’t kick a man when he is down.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Tina Canadiana Exposes Famous Players Same-Sex Marriage Agenda

Famous Players is the largest movie theater chain in Canada. They have recently been showing pro-gay 'marriage' ads before the start of every movie in all of its theaters across Canada. The ads state, “’I Do’ is the same whether you’re gay or straight” and urges theater patrons to let members of Parliament know “you support Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

This advertisement amounts to a public service announcement designed to sway the political opinions of movie goers. As a result, The Canada Family Action Coalition has launched a Canada wide boycott of Famous Players. Several pro-family groups have joined in and are urging their members to join the boycott as well.

One person who is taking a more direct approach is TinaCanadiana. Tina e-mailed Famous Players to complain that it is not appropriate for the chain to run ads designed to change the shape of a patron’s value system and their political views. Famous Players responded by saying the following:

“This form of paid advertising does not reflect the personal opinion of Famous Players; it is a form of paid advertising on behalf of the organization depicted in the ad. The ad is not a public service announcement; it was paid for…Should an organization want to advertise in our theatres, contact must be made on their behalf. Famous Players does not contact outside groups to advertise on our screens. We do provide equal opportunity for all to advertise in our theatres, given that the content of the advertisement is in no way obscene, the content meets our standards and the organizations willingness to pay to advertise in our theatres”.

After a little digging, Tina learned that the ad was paid for by Mr. Salah Bachir, the President of Famous Players Media. Tina then decided to ask for information on who to contact about running an ad to depict the opposing view. She was told to contact the advertising department of Famous Players Media. In other words, the ad was paid for by a separate company, but the company that paid for the ad is the same one you contact to place ads at Famous Player’s. Hat tip to Strong World.

You have to wonder if a boycott of Famous Players will turn the movie chain into the Gay Bar of the theater world. Guess we will find out.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Shooting Down the Logic of Same-Sex Marriage Advocates

Enshrine Marriage Canada has written a wonderful declaration which defends the traditional definition of marriage. Article one reads:

Marriage and the Family are Universal
All human beings are born of a mother and begotten by a father. This is a universal biological reality and the common experience of all people. The state supports the institution of marriage because it promotes and protects the father-mother-child relationship as the only natural means of creating and continuing human life and society.

When we accept that this father-mother-child relationship is the ideal, it makes sense that the government should protect the traditional definition of marriage. It is also reasonable that government should continue providing special incentives, tax benefits and the like for married couples to promote traditional marriages in our society. Recently on Stephen Fletcher’s home page a critic made the following comment:

“Following from that, the government should bar the institution of marriage to anyone who is sterile, too old to reproduce, or just too selfish to want children. Divorce should be illegal, in order to ensure that children grow up in stable, loving family environments. Co-habitation before solemnization of vows must be strictly prohibited, and adultery, a mortal sin, should be punished by death.”

This kind of comment clearly shows the difference in mindset on both sides of the debate. Conservatives support the traditional definition, because it promotes the best case scenario. Same-sex advocates bash the traditional definition, because it does not always succeed in its goals and discriminates against homosexuals.

Consider this. The government gives tax breaks to students to get a higher education. When a student graduates but cannot find a job in their field, are their tuition credits repealed? Government gives tax credits for people to buy energy saving cars. If a person buys a car that burns half the gas but they drive that car twice as much, does the government repeal the credit? Simply put, the government gives the incentive to promote the ideal.

Traditional Marriage is not about discrimination. As this author can testify, we who are single do not receive the benefits of marriage either. We know that if we want to receive the benefits of marriage all we have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Every man in Canada has the freedom to marry one woman. Every woman in Canada has the freedom to marry one man. If you want to take part in an alternative relationship, or forgo relationships altogether, that is fine too, but you forfeit the right to receive the benefits of marriage.

Giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples sends the message that what-so-ever you do shall be the whole extent of the Law and everything is still your basic and fundamental right.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

CBC Rewrites History – Denies Canadian Involvement in Vietnam

The federal government’s radio and television regulator, the CRTC, recently gave permission to Fox News to air in Canada. The commitment of Fox News to fair and balanced journalism has the ultra-left leaning CBC fit to be tied, since Fox will be competing head-to-head with the CBC for viewers. As a result, the CBC decided to discredit Fox News in the minds of Canadians while portraying Canada as a liberal country that does not take part in America’s unjust wars. Last week, CBC’s The Fifth Estate aired a show called Sticks and Stones for just that purpose.

During the show, CBC reporter Bob McKeown had an interview with an American conservative named Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter was trying to make a point that Canada had traditionally been a very loyal friend of America in armed conflicts and she mentioned that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. The CBC reporter was all too happy to embarrass Ms. Coulter by saying that Canada took a pass in Vietnam. Although this fits with the CBC’s mandate of portraying Canada as a pacifist country, the truth is quite the opposite.

During the Vietnam War, Canada was one of the chief arms suppliers to the war effort. From l964 to 1973, Canadian companies, with the blessing of the Federal government, sold more than $12.5 billon worth of ammunition and supplies directly to the U.S. military. Bombs dropped by B-52s over civilian targets in North Vietnam during carpet bombing raids were made out of Sudbury's finest nickel.

In the mid l960's the unemployment rate in Canada fell to a record low of under four per cent. Much of the country's good fortune was the result of Canada’s connection to the U.S. war machine. Jean Marchand, who was the Liberal Minister of Manpower was asked by a Montreal reporter about the morality of such a "devil's bargain" and the ignorance of the Canadian public to such a pact. Jean Marchand replied, "Do you want to be the one to tell 150,000 Canadian workers that they are out of work 'because' we discontinued producing war material for the USA under the defense contracts we hold with them?"

Another example of Canada's direct role in the war with Vietnam was Agent Orange. This highly carcinogenic defoliant was sprayed on soldiers and civilians alike throughout the war. Agent Orange was first tested in Camp Gagetown, New Brunswick. The company that produced it was located in Elmira, Ontario. This was one of the deadliest weapons used during the war, yet Bob McKeown would have Canadians believe that Canada simply took a pass on Vietnam.

Most disturbing of all is the apathy The Fifth Estate showed for the Canadians that died fighting communism in Vietnam. By saying ‘Canada took a pass on Vietnam’, the CBC decided to ignore their sacrifice. The names of more than one hundred Canadians who lost their lives fighting in Vietnam are written on a memorial called The North Wall. This memorial was erected in Windsor Ontario for Canadian Vietnam Veterans by the Federal Government in 1995 . The plaque reads:


Canadians do remember even if the CBC would like us to forget.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Globe and Mail Fears Early Election – Bashes Conservatives

There are two articles in the Globe and Mail worth commenting on today. The first one seeks to exadurate divisions over the same-sex marriage issue in the Conservative Party. The second involves the upcoming budget and what it will mean for them if they do not support it. Both articles try to shine a bad light on Canada’s only right-wing party.

There is no question that the most divided party on the issue of same-sex marriage is the one that introduced the bill this week. The liberals face deep division in their caucus over this one. Prime Minister Paul Martin has told his cabinet ministers they must vote in favor of the bill or they will lose their post. On a trip to Asia, the Mr. Martin threatened his backbench with an early election before backing off. Yet, threats to the liberal backbench have continued with dissenting liberals being told to take a walk when it comes time to vote.

Conservative leader Stephen Harper on the other hand has given party members free reign to vote their conscience. Yet, the Globe is writing long articles in an effort to exadurate whatever differences of opinion exist in the party. The fact is that the liberals are on the unpopular side of this issue. Already advocates of traditional marriage are asking for a referendum on same-sex marriage.

On the subject of February’s budget, the Globe is out sowing the seeds of resent. In the event this minority government does fall over the budget, the mainstream media has an agenda of seeing the opposition punished for it. The impression they want to portray to the public is that conservatives are too radical and too regional a party for liberals to work with in matters of Canadian interest.

The goal of the mainstream media is obvious. They want to make sure all the negative stereotypes of the Conservative Party are fresh in the minds of voters in the event of an early election. They want Canadians to believe conservatives have no support in Canada east of Manitoba. They want to portray Conservatives as intolerant homophobes trying to push their radical and extreme social views on everyone else. They want Canadians to have an image of Conservatives that are too obstructionist to work with in a minority government. Most importantly, they want Canadians to go to the polls resentful, with a vendetta to punish the Conservatives for forcing them to vote too much.

If Iraqis would risk terrorist attacks, mortars, suicide bombers and death in order to cast a ballot in January’s election, then Canadians will survive marking an X twice in one year.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Racist Metis Leadership are the Biggest Hypocrites in Manitoba

Leaders among Manitoba's Metis communities continue to show how racist and hypocritical they are. For a long time now, the Manitoba Metis Federation has pushed its agenda to secure the best government jobs for its people based solely on race. Even though the Manitoba Metis Federation uses the most openly racist hiring policies in the country, they are quick to allege racism against them. This week's shooting of an 18-year-old who attacked a Winnipeg Police officer with a screwdriver is just another opportunity for them to advance their cause.

Matthew Dumas, 18, was shot in the 500 block of Dufferin Avenue in Winnipeg on Monday, after allegedly pulling a screwdriver on officers who had been chasing him in connection with a robbery in Elmwood less than two hours earlier.

"He (Dumas) had a lethal weapon in his hand and was advancing toward the officer," the officer's lawyer Hymie Weinstein said, adding the cop pleaded with him to put down the weapon and repeatedly warned: "If you don't, I'll have to shoot". That was after Dumas had been pepper-sprayed several times. As Dumas advanced, the officer continued to retreat. Eventually he could not retreat anymore and shot Dumas.

The fact that Dumas was killed and he was Metis is all the justification Metis leaders think they need to allege racism. Now the story comes out that the police officer who shot Dumas is also Metis. Yet, Manitoba Metis leaders still maintain this was a racist shooting.

"It is racist. The fact that a person is Metis, that some part of him is Indian, that doesn't absolve him from all blame. That doesn't give him absolution," Roseau River Chief Terry Nelson said, noting he's encountered "native people that are racist against native people."

Nahanni Fontaine director of justice for the Southern Chiefs Organization added, "yesterday's revelation doesn't change anything. The fact still remains we have a dead child on our hands shot by the cops."

If leaders of the Metis community want to be treated like everyone else then act like everyone else. Stop alleging racism at every turn and stop posting racial profiles of the people you are willing to hire!

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Associated Press Reports American Soldier Held Captive in Iraq

There is no question by now that the liberal mainstream media has an agenda to portray Iraq as a quagmire. Any negative story they can find gets published. All the good news of Iraqi reconstruction or progress is either downplayed or not reported. The liberal press is especially excited when insurgents promise to show a beheading for the cameras in 72 hours if their demands are not met. So, it is no surprise that a story of an American soldier being captured was reported by the Associated Press and published in The Globe and Mail.

According to the AP report, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, Marine Sgt. Salju K. Thomas, said he had no information on the claim but "we are currently looking into it". A statement posted with the picture suggested the group was holding other soldiers.

''Our mujahadeen heroes of Iraq's Jihadi Battalion were able to capture American military man John Adam after killing a number of his comrades and capturing the rest,'' said the statement, signed by the ''Mujahadeen Brigades.''

''God willing, we will behead him if our female and male prisoners are not released from U.S. prisons within the maximum period of 72 hours from the time this statement has been released,'' the statement said.

Photos of the captured American soldier can be found at The Western Standard. The photo shows an American soldier, wearing desert fatigues and seated on a concrete floor with his hands tied behind his back. A gun barrel was pointed at his head, and behind him on the wall is a black banner with the Islamic words, ‘there is no god but God and Muhammad is His prophet’.

The girlfriend of the captured soldier held a press conference to plead for Mr. Adam's release, saying “He’s not over there to hurt anyone. He just wants to help bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. He loves his country, and I love him.”

She went on to plead with President Bush to comply with the militants’ demands, and dismissed suggestions that doing so would encourage them to carry out more kidnappings. American military officials worry his captors may torture the American soldier in an attempt to glean information, but so far John Adam has given only his name, rank and UPC code.

God bless the liberal media, they are so much fun.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Same-Sex Marriage Bill Introduced in Canada’s Parliament

Ladies and Gentlemen, the same-sex marriage bill has entered the building. Today, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler introduced the highly anticipated bill. If this bill passes, Canada will be only the third country in the world to legalize gay marriage.

The left-wing media is quick to point out that this bill provides protections for freedom of religion. They highlight the two carefully worded sections designed to protect clergy from being forced to perform marriages that go against their beliefs. Canada, do not believe for a minute that legalizing same-sex marriage will have no impact faith.

"No religious official will be forced to perform marriages that are contrary to their beliefs," Mr. Cotler said at a press conference in Ottawa.

“The freedom of religion is guaranteed," Prime Minister Paul Martin told reporters after a Liberal cabinet meeting.

"It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs," the body of the bill reads.

The precedent has already been set on this subject with Scott Brockie a Toronto area printer. The circumstance was the same. Brockie maintained that his Christian beliefs compelled him to reject a request by the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives in 1996 to print materials for the group. The Toronto-based CGLA provides information about homosexuals and their history. He lost his case and was fined $5,000.00 on April 15, 2004 by the Ontario Human Rights Commision.

This liberal gay marriage bill is only the next battle in the war on religion.