Wednesday, August 31, 2005

MPI Serving as Piggy Bank for Doer Government

Jeff Niederhoffer is a Winnipeg lawyer and political activist. He is also someone that does an excellent job of exposing Manitoba’s socialist NDP government. For this reason, The Blue Maple Leaf is happy to chronicle his work. The following is his latest article:

In the wake of media reports a month ago, Manitoba motorists undoubtedly were interested to learn that the Doer government is using Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) premiums to pay for non-MPI programs and to pay the salaries of non-MPI bureaucrats.

Our Premier and his Cabinet apparently see MPI as a slush fund. From a taxpayer's standpoint, this diversion of MPI monies is a questionable arrangement in its own right, but the situation becomes even cloudier once you follow the money. The Doer government seems to be going to great lengths to encourage an unusually cozy relationship between MPI and other government agencies. The provincial Justice Department is a case in point. This year alone, MPI funds have been used to pay the salaries of fourteen probation bureaucrats, two Crown Attorneys and even a member of Attorney General Gord Mackintosh's executive staff. In other cases, MPI monies are used to underwrite government programs and even the existence of whole agencies. The Doer government funnels MPI monies into such agencies as the Public Utilities Board (PUB), the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Compensation Appeal Commission and the Claimant Adviser Office, as well as the entire Winnipeg police auto-theft unit.

It is striking the extent to which the Doer government seems to view MPI as an all-purpose piggy bank. What is even more striking is the extent to which the Doer government is turning a blind eye to the serious conflicts of interest generated by this arrangement. PUB approves MPI's rate increases; the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission hears appeals of MPI decisions. Is anybody going to seriously dispute there is something amiss in allowing MPI formal control over the budgets of the agencies which oversee and regulate it?

Although an important question, the more important question is why the Doer government would choose such an awkward, questionable and frankly unnecessary means by which to fund salaries, programs and agencies.

Nobody disputes the need, for instance, for a PUB or for an Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission. Nobody disputes the need to have these agencies fully funded, and the Doer government would have no problem securing funding for them through Treasury Board, if Doer & Co. were so inclined. So why the need to have these agencies funded through MPI, unless, arguably, the purpose is to give MPI subtle leverage vis a vis these agencies?

This question is unlikely to be answered anytime soon, as both Attorney General Mackintosh and representatives of MPI predictably are staying mum. Their silence is deafening. The lack of a vigorous defense from the provincial government speaks to the fact that having MPI directly fund programs and agencies is, ultimately, indefensible. Opposition Leader Stuart Murray has called the Doer government's raid on MPI funds "outrageous". It is difficult to disagree, just as it is difficult to escape the conclusion the provincial government is not leveling with taxpayers. In the wake of these revelations, MPI ratepayers are no longer innocent. If nothing else, we now know that, while our premiums may go to MPI, they will not necessarily remain there.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Homosexuality verses Incest in the Eyes of Religion

A criminal court in Ontario convicted a mother and son of incest last week. The liberal media was silent on the case that involves a 43-year-old mother and her 25-yeald old son from Kitchener. Both these adults were convicted of a crime for their involvement in a loving adult sexual relationship. The couple had three children together.

The story comes only a month after the federal liberals succeeded in redefining marriage to include homosexuals. The liberals say they made the change to end discrimination once and for all in this country for people involved in adult sexual relationships.

At the same time that liberals were working to redefine the 6,000 year old definition of marriage, the liberal media was doing everything in its power to portray homosexuality as being mainstream. One of the most popular tactics they used was to give a booming voice to people of faith willing to endorse homosexuality while branding those religious followers who were opposed as being intolerant.

The media was filled with stories of ministers that would say positive things that might advance the gay agenda. When the Christian United Church lobbied the Supreme Court on behalf of same-sex marriage advocates, they were praised. The media gave loving support when Jewish Rabbis got together to sing the praises of gay marriage. Even Moslem groups that supported the gay agenda were put on a pedestal by the liberal mainstream media when they spoke in favor of same-sex marriage. The media was relentless in amplifying the few dissenters of the three major religions which overwhelmingly oppose the concept of homosexuality.

The liberal media also used the death of Pope John Paul to advance the cause of gay advocates. The media branded the late pope as being too conservative and demanded that he be replaced by a more progressive spiritual leader. When it was announced that Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger would be the next pope (Pope Benedict XVI), the liberal media was horrified. He was immediately branded a radical conservative, with extreme views that would set back the church a thousand years. The liberal media did not even try to hide their bias.

Given the reporting of Canada’s mainstream media, you could only conclude that liberal journalists were hoping for Reverend Gene Robinson to become the next Pope. The media and gay rights advocates gushed with stories of him all year. For the first time ever gay advocates had an open homosexual promoted to the position of Bishop in a Christian church. The liberal media could not hide their glee when Gene Robinson went on the recorded as saying that he believed Jesus Christ was gay and then gave his flimsy reasoning to support his belief. His comments were made in spite of the fact that Jesus himself makes it clear that no homosexual will ever inherit the kingdom of God.

How is it that the media can find clergy in every major religion willing to advance the gay agenda, but none to endorse incest? Not only do liberal people of faith not endorse incest with the fervor they use to promote the gay agenda, but they describe incest as sick. Since the bible is the book that all three major religions are based on (in addition to the Koran for Moslems), it is worth exploring that book to illustrate a point.

The bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong and there is not a single character in the entire book that was portrayed as being gay, not even Jesus (sorry Gene).

[Leviticus 20:13] “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; there blood will be on their own heads.

In fact, one of the most famous stories of the bible is the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. In that story, God himself rescued Lot and his family before He rained down fire and brimstone on two cities of people whose most prevalent sin was homosexuality. It is an amazing story when you consider that it took place between 4,000-4,150 years ago and the term soddomy is still used to this day to describe homosexuality. God did not do this because he believed homosexuals should have the right to marry and receive full marriage benefits from government as liberal clergy and the liberal mainstream media would have you believe.

Where then does the bible stand on incest? After all, the children of Adam and Eve did not have the childern of neighbors to marry and have children with. Nor did Noah’s children, Ham, Shem and Japheth, have anyone to repopulate the Earth with after the flood.

What is interesting about the Soddom and Gomorrah story is what so many people do not know. God rescued Lot, his wife and two daughters, because Lot was a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord. As they fled the coming destruction, Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot then fled to a cave where he lived with his two daughters. Not only that, but Lot fathered children with both of his daughters.

Interesting, is it not? Lot was not only a polygamist, but he was also the most famous man of incest in human history. Lot’s older daughter named their son Moab and he bacame the Patriarch of the Moabites. The younger daughter had a son named Ben-Ammi and he was the Patriarch of the Ammonites. Most importantly, Lot was considered a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord. So much so, that God himself sent his angels to rescue him. In spite of this, liberals fall silent when an adult woman and her adult son are convicted of a crime in Canada for doing the same thing that a righteous man of God had done.

This begs the question. How can gay advocates and the liberal mainstream media promote same-sex marriage by amplifying the voice of liberal clergy who defy the clear teachings of scripture while being so intolerant of incest, also in defiance of teachings from that same book of scripture? Since the religion of liberalism can always find reasons to justify their position, what justification do liberals have for continuing to discriminate against two consenting adults in a committed loving relationship when those two people just happen to be related?

The fact that liberals would use religion to advance the cause of same-sex marriage while continuing to oppose incest is baffling.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

An American Rags to Riches Story - With a Twist

From time to time The Blue Maple Leaf receives interesting e-mail from his American friends. One such letter arrived today from Rory Roderick, with an interesting story. Here is what it said.

An unemployed man is desperate to support his family of a wife and three kids. He applies for a janitor's job at a large firm and easily passes an aptitude test. The human resources manager tells him, "You will be hired at minimum wage of $5.35 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address so that we can get you in the loop. Our system will automatically e-mail you all the forms and advise you when to start and where to report on your first day."

Taken back, the man protests that he is poor and has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this the manager replies, "You must understand that to a company like ours, that means that you virtually do not exist. Without an e-mail address you can hardly expect to be employed by a high-tech firm. Good day."

Stunned, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having $10 in his wallet, he walks past a farmers' market and sees a stand selling 25 lb. crates of beautiful red tomatoes. He buys a crate, carries it to a busy corner and displays the tomatoes. In less than 2 hours he sells all the tomatoes and makes 100% profit. Repeating the process several times more that day, he ends up with almost $100 and arrives home that night with several bags of groceries for his family.

During the night he decides to repeat the tomato business the next day. By the end of the week he is getting up early every day and working into the night. He multiplies his profits quickly. Early in the second week he acquires a cart to transport several boxes of tomatoes at a time, but before a month is up he sells the cart to buy a broken-down pickup truck.

At the end of a year he owns three old trucks. His two sons have left their neighborhood gangs to help him with the tomato business, his wife is buying the tomatoes, and his daughter is taking night courses at the community college so she can keep books for him.

By the end of the second year he has a dozen very nice used trucks and employs fifteen previously unemployed people, all selling tomatoes. He continues to work hard.

Time passes and at the end of the fifth year he owns a fleet of nice trucks and a warehouse that his wife supervises, plus two tomato farms that the boys manage. The tomato company's payroll has put hundreds of homeless and jobless people to work. His daughter reports that the business grossed a million dollars.

Planning for the future, he decides to buy some life insurance. Consulting with an insurance adviser, he picks an insurance plan to fit his new circumstances. Then the adviser asks him for his e-mail address in order to send the final documents electronically.

When the man replies that he doesn't have time to mess with a computer and has no e-mail address, the insurance man is stunned, "What, you don't have e-mail? No computer? No Internet? Just think where you would be today if you'd had all of those five years ago!"

“Ha!" snorts the man. "If I'd had e-mail five years ago I would be sweeping floors at Microsoft and making $5.35 an hour."

Which brings us to the moral of the story:

Since you got this story by e-mail, you're probably closer to being a janitor than a millionaire.

Sadly, I received it also.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Canada's Liberal Party and its Worthless E-mails

The e-mail that the liberal party sends its followers is always interesting. Today, we here at The Blue Maple Leaf received an e-mail as a follow up to a survey the liberals put out last month. In that survey, this author said that his number one priority for the federal government going forward is tax cuts. Keep that in mind as you read this latest e-mail. It reads:

Dear Michael,

In our first survey you told us that health care was your number one priority, as it is ours.

What element of our health care accord is the most important to you?

• Reducing Wait Times and Improving Access
• The Wait Times Reduction Fund
• Strategic Health Human Resource Action Plans
• Home Care
• Primary Care Reform
• National Pharmaceuticals Strategy
• Ensuring the Health of Canadians
• Prevention, Promotion and Public Health
• Accountability and Reporting to Citizens

Thanks for your participation!

Mike Eizenga, President
Liberal Party of Canada


Obviously responding to these liberal surveys is pointless. Any option that would involve for profit, private health care reform is non-existent. Although it would be tempting to select “Accountability and Reporting to Citizens,” if you do that you will most certainly get a follow up e-mail from the liberal party. That e-mail would begin with, “Dear Michael, in our follow-up survey you said that spending more on health care was your number one priority. What a coincidence, that is Paul Martin’s basic fundamental number one priority as well!”

If you ever wanted proof that the liberal party hears only themselves, just sign up for their worthless e-mails.

Friday, August 19, 2005

Divorced Father Wants Right to Marry His Daughter

Paul Martin’s federal liberals officially passed a law which redefines marriage. Marriage in Canada is now defined as, “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

The liberals and homosexual advocates adopted this new definition, because they claimed that the 6,000 year old definition we were using until 2003 was discriminatory. They argue that by redefining marriage this way, discrimination is now a thing of the past. Or is it? Consider the scenario found in the comments of an anonymous reader to this blog. He writes,

“I am a 50-year-old divorced father who is very much in love with his 25-year-old daughter and she is deeply in love with me.

Our relationship just started a few years back, shortly after her 23rd birthday.

She and I love each other very much and would also like the right to marry. After all, we fit the criteria established by advocates of SSM - we're two consenting adults and we're not hurting anybody else. As well, I had a vasectomy, and we're not going to be having children.

I look forward to the gay community - and straight people who support SSM - to now champion my cause. Surely, to avoid being accused of hypocrisy, you must do so. You can't argue that my relationship is "morally reprehensible" because that would make you no different than those you attack for not supporting SSM.

And if your argument is that incest is illegal, well so too was homosexuality at one point. And if it were today, would you be arguing that SSM is wrong because homosexuality is illegal? No, you would argue to first change the law making homosexuality legal THEN allowing gays to marry.

If marriage being "one man to one woman" is deemed unconstitutional, then certainly "two people" is exclusionary as well by definition.

If we're in love, we're consenting adults, and we're not hurting anyone else, what's the problem I ask the SSM advocates?

Anyway, I look forward to all the supporters of SSM supporting my cause and applauding me, because I know they don't want to be accused of hypocrisy.

Imagine two gay men getting outraged at people who do not understand or embrace their relationship and then those same two turn to me and tell me my relationship is wrong.”


If you were a supporter of same-sex marriage and you disagree with this father’s position, then you may want to ask yourself just how tolerant and accepting you really are.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

The State has no Business in the Bedrooms of the Nation

A high profile case of incest has finally come to light here in Canada. The case involves a 43-year-old mother from southwestern Ontario and her 25-year-old son. The two were posing as husband and wife and they had three children together. A criminal court recently found the pair guilty of incest.

The CP report was published in the Winnipeg SUN, but other players in Canada’s liberal dominated mainstream media are strangely silent on this story.

It is worth asking, why is incest a crime in this country? After all, it was liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau who on December 22, 1967 uttered the famous phrase, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” He used this line back when Canada was debating whether or not to legalize homosexuality.

Another moral relativist named Christine Overall wrote an article that appeared at the christiangays.com website. In her article, she agreed with Trudeau’s logic so long as those in the bedrooms are consenting adults. She argued that the state should have no role in limiting consenting human sexual and romantic relationships.

When Paul Martin’s liberals made same-sex marriage the law of the land this year, the Canadians for Equal Marriage celebrated. They called it a proud and exciting time to be a Canadian and added,

“In a generation, Canadians will look back on a time when lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-identified people were denied full citizenship, just as we look back on the days when women or Aboriginal people could not vote or times when Canadian citizens were interned because of ethnic origin. We will talk about these days and this battle. We will be proud, as Canadians, that we rejected rejection, that we ended exclusion, that we said to LGBT people: there are no second-class Canadians, you are full members of the community, without caveat or exceptions.”

They may say that a generation from now, but they would be wrong. They would be wrong because at the same time that homosexual relationships have been elevated to the status of equal to marriage, other Canadians are being thrown into jail on account of their sexuality. Children of incestuous couples are being taken away from their parents. And we are not talking about adoptive parents. These are the two biological ones.

During the same-sex marriage debate, Conservative groups stood up to denounce changing the definition of marriage. They talked about the slippery slope. They said, “If you legalize marriage for homosexuals today, will family members be allowed to marry tomorrow?” Yet, these Conservative groups were shouted down by the gay rights advocates and the liberal media always took their side.

The media spent the whole summer printing story after story, on the radio and on television, branding Conservatives as being out of touch with the mainstream of Canada. The media branded them as Neanderthals, clinging to an outdated definition of marriage. They called anyone who opposed same-sex marriage a bigot and preacher of hate. They accused every Conservative who used the slippery slope analogy of fear mongering as they pointed out the one thing which was obvious to everyone except the fear-mongering, hate-filled, bigoted, hate preaching, out of touch, Neanderthal Conservatives. That one thing is that, “Incest is against the law in Canada!”

Yes, and homosexuality was against the law in Canada until a liberal stood up and said, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.”

Monday, August 15, 2005

Recounting VJ Day – A Reason to reflect

The Winnipeg Sun published a touching article today about a Canadian World War Two survivor. George Peterson of Winnipeg was a prisoner of War and held by the Japanese for four long years. While in detention, he was starved, tortured and used as slave labor. He was taken prisoner along with 1,976 other Canadians soldiers while trying to defend Hong Kong from a Japanese invasion. Outnumbered, the Canadians did not stand a chance.

Mr. Peterson recounts the horrors he faced while he was a prisoner. At 84-years-old, he still remembers how the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought about the end of the war and saved his life. He also remembers how the crew of the American Battleship USS Iowa treated him like royalty during the 6 week cruise back home.

The allied victory over Japan gives us a good reason to reflect on how our American friends helped end a war and helped bring a group of brave Canadians home.