Monday, October 31, 2005


About two weeks ago someone very close to me had an awful experience. Really awful. The kind of experience that I observed at Queen’s University. The type of experience I write about. I’ll relate, then comment.

My friend works at a daycare center for fairly well-to-do parents in Toronto. It is for pre-schoolers. Again, the demographic is very upscale…very Rosedale. They play games with the kids, teach them, and try to instill in them a respect for their fellow classmates. My friend, since the beginning of the fall term had experienced some minor setbacks such as one overly rambunctious child biting her on the shoulder, but for the most part, all was good.

Unfortunately, there is always a problem child. A child that just won’t listen. A child that is spoiled at home and always asks “What about me…me, me, me, me! You know the type. The type that pushes and shoves; creates havoc and never seems to learn. The type of child that can’t be corrected. The type of child that most likely is not corrected at all at home.

So, my friend and her partner (two to a class), had to deal with a child like this in her class. She told me of how difficult the child was to deal with. Not a bad kid…just a spoiled kid who would not listen. Her and her partner would often have to spend too much time on this child. My friend and her partner are great with the kids. My friend loves children. She has made a lifetime of working with under-privledged children in cancer camps and with mentally handicapped athletes. She has worked with every demographic and age group. If ever someone was destined to work with children…it is my friend.

Unfortunately, this problem child at many times would have to be told to stop what she was doing, bullying and hitting other kids. My friend-a strong child’s rights advocate who would never hit a child- would have to say things like “Stop that” or “Cut it out” or “Leave that child alone”. Now one day, the problem child’s parents came to pick their daughter up early. They heard my friend ‘reprimanding’ their child who was bullying another. The next day my friend got a call from her boss saying the problem child had been pulled from the class and the parents wanted their money back. They weren’t happy with the fact that their child had been singled out.

Now, I have left out two details of the story thus far. I’ll reveal them now.

My friend is white.

The child was Hindu. You can see where this is going can’t you.

My friend’s boss thankfully defended my friend, but it didn’t matter. The parents were convinced that both my friend and her partner were racist and demanded that the centre hire more ‘qualified’ ethnically sensitive daycare staff. She thought my friend was too young and unqualified. My friend is thirty and has worked with children all of her life.

Now, thankfully, nothing came of this, which is why I have waited to write about it. But…now my friend, who was traumatized for weeks for this has lost all enthusiasm for working with children. She has gotten frightened about how she acts around the children she is now in charge of.

Today, she went to her job dressed up for Halloween. She was reprimanded because Halloween is a “Christian Holliday” and the parents of the children (all of whom were going trick or treating tonight) may be offended.

(Interesting how when Orthodox Jews, Muslims or Christian Asians then complain of same-sex marriage being taught to their kids in school they are told to pipe down and shut up. Funny how tolerance works, eh?)

Now my friend is fairly apolitical and has opinions all across the political spectrum. She even has many NDP-like positions and considered voting for Jack Layton in the next election. She is now vehemently opposed to and terrified of political correctness. I suspect Stephen Harper just got another vote.

Is this what we’ve come to? Is this where we’re going?

Sadly, had the parent chosen to take her claim to the Ontario Human Rights Commission or to court my friend’s life would have been destroyed. Period. New Left Oppression Theory and Identity Politics presume you are guilty of racism (or misogyny or homophobia) and let you presume your innocence. Which you can’t.

How does one prove that one does not possess feelings that one does not possess?

It is a literal impossibility. Canadian Human Rights Tribunals are little more than modern day witch hunts which I believe should be dismantled immediately. They are kangaroo courts akin to the dark ages. Guilt is assumed and innocence impossible to prove. Even if my friend’s boss testified for her, her boss is white and Jewish.

How would that play out?

What if the human rights tribunal panelist was pro-Palestinian and New Left in their politics? Statistically this is exactly what they would be. Of course then the assumption would be “How can a white Zionist Jew know about oppression due to race?” See the murky waters we get into really fast when we make policy based on Identity Politics and not empiricism?

Oppression Theory assumes racism is seeped into our very souls by two thousand years of white, Judeo-Chistian, white male oppression. How can you prove you don’t have it when the very assumption is that you do?

Unofficial multiculturalism I endorse. The fact that immigrants can come to this country and feel free of harassment is a good thing. But official multicultural policy as set by the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP is quite frankly a horror show. Contrary to what it says, it serves nothing but to help divide us and keep white New Left politicians in power.

Now as for the woman with the problem child? Perhaps she has experienced much racism in her life and she believes she is sheltering and defending her daughter. If that is true then I would disagree with her actions but at least understand and appreciate them. It is possible.

It is also possible she and her husband are third generation Canadians who earn 150-200k a year; live in Rosedale; have never encountered real racism in their life aside from maybe being served too slowly at a Tim Horton’s in the suburbs once while on their way to their cottage in Muskoka but because they are force fed a steady diet of ‘oppression theory’ from the CBC, teachers, government and media they believe they are oppressed by my friend who doesn’t even know how she will pay her rent next month. This is also possible.

Now, because I know the demographic of this day care centre, I know which one I suspect.

Official Liberal Party of Canada multicultural policy for the past several decades has raped our country of our history, our souls and our pride. It teaches Canadians that you are either an ‘oppressor’ or the ‘oppressed’ based solely on your race. It teaches new Canadians to always be suspicious and never trust someone who is different. It breeds both class and racial tensions and doesn’t allow us to see truth.

If we don’t kill it soon…it will kill us.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005


In this release, Hillary Clinton, the junior senator form New York, calls for the addtional taxing of 'big oil' companies so that their revenues could be put to use to find alternative sources of energy.

""The energy revolution can be as big and important as the industrial revolution and the explosion of the information age," Clinton said.

She proposed a "strategic energy fund," which would be created by a portion of profits from large oil companies.

The money would give consumers and businesses tax incentives to be more energy-efficient and be used to stimulate research investment, she said. Companies that invest in alternative energies and promote efficiency would be exempt, she said."

Hmmm, we'll bite and raise her two.

Do you think the junior senator from New York would also agree with taxing the pornography industry and condom companies who exploit sexuality and promote promiscuity by making a portion of their profits go to AIDS research and the stopping of sexually transmitted diseases?

Should Hollywood be taxed to find better ways of not glorifying gun and gang culture to youths?

We would love to hear what the junior senator from New York would say to these questions. We suspect that she would reject them.

It would hurt her fundraising efforts from these industries in 2008.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005


This story in the Toronto Sun is perhaps one of the happiest and saddest I have read recently. A true story of immigrants fed up with the tyranny of Fidel Castros’s communist Cuba who deciding to make a life for themselves in Canada by defecting:

“More than 20 members of Cuba's world-famous national chorus are singing songs of freedom today after defecting in Toronto.

Members of the National Chorus of Cuba dodged security officers and jumped into waiting cars, some on Sunday and others yesterday, said Cuban exiles who planned the defections.

"These people are scared for their lives," said Ismail Sambra, president of the Cuban Canadian Foundation. "They are worried about their families back home.

"It took a lot of planning to get this far." “

These people should be applauded for their courage. Sadly, they also fear for the family and friends they leave back in Cuba. We are not surprised that this story has not gotten the attention it deserves. If ever there was a story the Canadian media should trumpet as a testament to this country then this should be it. But they don’t. Most of our media and political elites believe Cuba to be a paradise.

We have one recommendation that should happen to these people. They should all be given jobs within our public school and university educational system where they could teach Marxist professors and students with ‘Che’ shirts about the horrors and repression that is still happening in communist Cuba.

These people show true courage. They are a testament to the human spirit. Their families in Cuba are in our prayers.

We would also like to offer a prayer for Rosa Parks who died at the age of 92. A pioneer of the American Civil Rights movement, Rosa Parks made history when she refused to give her seat up to a white man on a bus. She is not only a testament to character, fortitude and strength, but also to the fact that even though everyone may be against you, change can still happen. She is also a monument to the fact that sometimes, true change can come from the most unlikely of places.

May her soul rest in peace.

To our readers, we apologize for the brief entries of late. There should be a new Dossier up in the next few days.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005


First off this article in USA Today that says how teens think oral sex is ‘like…no biggie’.

“Among teens, oral sex is often viewed so casually that it needn't even occur within the confines of a relationship. Some teens say it can take place at parties, possibly with multiple partners”.

Make no mistake, this is the true legacy of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Not the Middle East, not the economy and not his relationship with Hollywood. It is the fact that he made oral sex just another ‘thing’ for emotionally detached and disengaged teenagers to do on a Friday night. Now, almost a decade later, those kids that came of age during the Lewinsky fiasco and heard all of the media defending Clinton and his lying are seeing it as not a big deal. And the price further generations pay for the decadent indulgences of the baby boomer ‘me’ generation will just go on and on and on…

As for the new Strategic Council poll that puts the Conservatives at 25% to the Liberals 38%. To quote a song, “Don’t let the bastards…drag you down”.

What is wrong with Canada cannot be fixed by a minority government win by Stephen
Harper. That would only result in a daily caterwaul by the Toronto media of ‘racism’, ‘misogyny’ and ‘homophobia’.

Canada’s problems are deep rooted to the core. It is fed by a system of teachers, professors, judges, unions, media, corporations, lawyers etc. And it will not change any time soon. Like Clinton’s legacy, future generations will pay for the ignorance of the Canadian public now and no 2 ½ year term by the Conservatives would fix it.

That said, I respect and admire Stephen Harper. My advice; don’t go out like a lamb. Go out like a lion. Become a true Conservative and call things like you see them. To hell with the media. Call Paul Martin a ‘lying crook’ in those terms. Tell people political correctness is a load of BS and a culture based on dependence is a culture based on weakness. Hey, it worked for Richard Pryor in Brewster’s Millions.

Here is another story from US NEWS that says Vice President Dick Cheney could resign and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice could be elevated. I seriously doubt this would happen but it would set the stage for Condoleezza Rice in 2008. I personally would love to see her run and would love what she could bring to the office of the President of the United States.

That Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate is a lock. She will be tough to beat. Make no mistake. However, I would love to see how the left tries to make the argument that Condoleezza is a ‘racist’ or a ‘misogynist’. They would have to get a whole new playbook. And remember, Hillary Clinton also supported the War in Iraq. It would also force both the African American vote and the women’s vote-already bleeding to Bush- to consider their options more closely.

That would make for a healthy election and some great debates.

And finally, our support and respect goes to former NDP MP Bev Desjarlais. Were she in my riding I would vote for her in a heartbeat out of principal. Jack Layton and Svend Robinson said she would pay for having a conscience and they came through on their threat.

I have never had too much respect for Jack Layton, he always seemed too rooted in the elite, wealthy Toronto ‘arts’ crowd. Now, I have none. He has shown he has no tolerance for conscience, freedom of religion, or democracy.

I recommend those that support her-of any party-call her constituency office and offer her a voice of support. These things help.

Sunday, October 16, 2005


This is yet another conversation taped by The War Rooms undercover Agent Starr. It took place on October 12, 2005 as the “Mother” is picking up her daughter, “Apple” from an elite elementary school somewhere in the urban Toronto core.

APPLE: Mom, what’s an übersexual?

MOM: What?

APPLE: An übersexual?

MOM: Where did you here that word?

APPLE: In school.

MOM: Well, according to the enlightened folks at J. Walter Thompson, it’s the next phase of masculinity or “M-ness” where males embrace the qualities that are positive about being a man such as compassion, leadership, confidence and respect for women. They reject those qualities which are bad, such as lack of respect for women, emotional emptiness, beer, sports and the Toronto Maple Leafs.

APPLE: Who would be an example of übe…über…?

MOM: Übersexual. Well, Bono and Ewan Macgregor.

APPLE: That’s Obi-wan Kenobi. I like him. Apparently he’s such an übersexual that that had to digitally erase his übersexuality in a movie he did last year. We learned about that in media class.

MOM: Übersexuals are the type of men you should try to attract when you grow up.

APPLE: Who else would be übersexual?

MOM: Bill Clinton. He’s the most übersexual man of all.

APPLE: Didn’t several women accuse him of rape?

MOM: Only poor, white trash women. They don’t count.

APPLE: Well, what happened to the metrosexual?

MOM: That was a fad whose time has come and gone.

APPLE: But wasn’t metrosexuality supposed to be the peak of man?

MOM: But then we realized that peak was represented by Carson Kressley and the boys from Queer Eye.

APPLE: Is Carson Kressley an übersexual?

MOM: No. He’s a homosexual.

APPLE: Can a homosexual be an übersexual?

MOM: I’m sure most like to think they are. But that’s not really what we’re talking about.

APPLE: But we were taught in Mr. Jones sex class today that the height of male sensitivity was for him to have a sexual relationship with another man.

MOM: You were! Who is this Mr. Jones?

APPLE: He’s our sex-ed professor. He’s a Raelian.

MOM: That makes him omnisexual. I guess that’s alright.

APPLE: Omnisexual?

MOM: They have sex with everything.

APPLE: Everything? Even vacuum cleaners?

MOM: Everything. He should have taught you that. I’ll have to write a letter to the board of education about that.

APPLE: What about bi-sexual? My friend Lisa said she might be that after taking Miss. Ryan’s female studies class.

MOM: Bisexuals are people who are very confused. Homosexuals hate them for straddling the line and omnisexuals hate them for holding back. Your little friend has a tough road to hoe ahead of her.

APPLE: Is George Bush an übersexual?

MOM: No. He’s asexual. And evil.

APPLE: Where do heterosexual men fit into all of this?

MOM: They are a dying breed. And thank Gaia for that too.

APPLE: What did heterosexual men do to make them so hated?

MOM: They did bad, evil things like play with guns, hunt deer, watch Clint Eastwood movies, eat pizza and whistle at women while they worked at their menial jobs on construction sites.

APPLE: But they sure lasted a long time.

MOM: But their time has come and gone.

APPLE: But ultimately isn’t it heterosexuals who most women want to fall in love with.

MOM: Not anymore. Not if we get 24/7 government daycare and a turkey-baster.

APPLE: A turkey…now I’m confused.

MOM: Don’t be. It’s all perfectly natural.

APPLE: So lemme see if I can put this together. An übersexual is the most desired of male species but even they can be accused of rape.

MOM: Yes.

APPLE: Metrosexuals are really closeted homosexuals who can’t really help out the female species.

MOM: Right.

APPLE: An omnisexual likes everything except for the bi-sexual who is even disliked by the metrosexual and the homosexual who can’t relate to the übersexual.

MOM: I’m so proud of you.

APPLE: And a heterosexual is most needed for women but they’re time has come because the government will finance our Thanksgiving dinner.

MOM: Not quite…but I’ll let that pass.

APPLE: So I think that leaves me with only one option about my sexuality when I grow up.

MOM: What?

APPLE: The convent.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005


This is the sort of article that does not surprise me at all. It is in today's Toronto Star where Joey Slinger goes on a vitriolic, hate filled rant against Roman Catholics. He suggests shutting the church down, mocks the Eucharist etc.

Do not buy that this is a satirical argument. This is the real deal in a major Canadian newspaper.

He is defending Paul Martin against potential retaliation from the Vatican. Now I have just written extensively on this issue and will not re-iterate my arguments but please note what I have said all along that the New Left's philosophy is grounded in the Marxist/communist movements of the 1950's and 1960's. They do more than just apply it to economics however, and also apply it to issues of gender, race and sexuality.

Hatred for Christianity/Catholicism is a prime component of this and it will not abide in Canada anytime soon. With the New Left, the 'whack-job' idea thrown around today is debated in parliament tommorrow...and usually passed as law.

Things are going to get much worse for Catholics and Evangelicals in Canada before they get any better. Of that much I am sure. The level of vitriol I have heard from some of my own friends, unsolicited, regarding Catholics in the past week alone makes me feel this will come to a head sooner than later.

Canada is headed for a massive showdown between church and (Liberal) state and it will affect many.

Normally on principal I do not agree with the concept of hate crimes laws; but if Canada is to be a country where Bishop Fred Henry can be called before a human rights tribunal for being a Catholic, then I do demand consistency.

Now, I am not naive; the Ontario Human Rights Commission is a veritable kangaroo court which is pure New Left and they are most likely laughing with the hate of Slinger's article as I write. So be it.

Should this issue affect the Liberals in large Toronto ridings populated with many older ethnic Catholics (ie. Davenport/MP Mario Silva, Eglinton-Lawrence/MP Joe Volpe) expect them to take action soon.

Regardless of one's personal beliefs, freedom of religion is tantamount to a democracy. The issues of freedom of speech and freedom of religion are inextricably intertwined. There cannot be one without the other.

New Canada has found its home and it will tolerate no one who disagrees with it.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Happy Thanksgiving! and Aristotle

We would just like to wish all of those that read us a Happy Thanksgiving!

There is much to give God thanks for here. Our home, our family, our friends, our food and our faith.

It is easy to focus on the negative some times in life...what we do not have. Today is a day to focus on that which we do have.

Also, we came across a quote that we thought we'd share. The War Room believes that for there to be true change, it must first come through culture and the arts. We came across this quote moments ago and thought it was quite reflective of the times in which we live.

“When storytelling goes bad in society, the result is decadence.” –Aristotle

Again, just a thought, and a continued enouragement to those who have more non-popular thoughts and beliefs to pick up a pen, pick up a camera, go on a stage, pick up a brush...and tell your stories.

They need to be heard.

God bless and have a safe and Happy Thansgiving!

Saturday, October 08, 2005


The concept of ‘separation of church and state’ is merely a ruse used by many politicians at this point in history to fear monger to an increasingly ignorant populace.

Let’s be clear. It is explicitly found nowhere in the Canadian constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed the first line in the Charter is…

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

This might shock same law professors.

The Separation of Church and State is an American concept. It’s origins have been debated but some trace it to Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote dated January 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association who were being persecuted at the time. Here is the phrase:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

The true intent of this concept is the exact opposite of what Paul Martin and so many left-wing politicians believe. It means the state cannot enforce its will upon the people of the church nor enforce a state church…it is there to protect freedom of religion not restrict it.

It does not mean that the church cannot try to lobby and influence the state. In a democracy everyone has a right to do so.

The concept of separation of church and state that Paul Martin and so many other ‘Catholic’ politicians refer to is the one bastardized by John F Kennedy. When he ran for president, America still had a very protestant ethic which was fearful of Catholics or (papists) and they worried that at the end of the day the Catholic politician would pledge allegiance to the Vatican over America. Kennedy in order to get votes said he would never choose the Vatican over America nor let his beliefs influence who he was and thus the notion of the non-Catholic-Catholic politician was born.

Fop extraordinaire, Pierre Elliot Trudeau perfected this hypocrisy.

Now, it didn’t matter so much then because many had the same morality regardless of religion. However, as the left-wing parties of both America and Canada have become more dominated by the ideology of the New Left which places a prime emphasis on abortion and gay rights, usually propagated by activists who vehemently hate Catholics it has shown itself to be a problem.

Now, Catholic politicians such as Paul Martin, John Kerry, Joe Volpe, Ted Kennedy find themselves in power in parties where Catholic values are not just disagreed with but vehemently opposed. Because these men care more about power than faith…they co-opt the original meaning of separation of church and state to mean something it does not.

The Vatican now has serious problems with it. As they should.

I’ll be blunt. I think Paul Martin should be excommunicated. I say that with no joy and I get no satisfaction out of it. But he has mocked and ridiculed the Catholic Church openly. More so, he has allowed for the passage of laws that will indeed make to very difficult for Catholics to raise their children as such in Canada. The Vatican should make a very world-wide visible example out of him.

No one is forced to be a Catholic but if one is going to be they should act as such.

And yet the Liberal Party of Canada is dependant on Catholic votes. It is a huge part of their base, especially in amongst ethnic communities. I suspect this will wean away gradually in the future as more young people begin to see the effects of New Canada on their families. As more Liberal politicians encounter this I suspect they will get more and more hysterical.

They will (and already have) called Catholics (and Evangelicals) a threat to democracy etc. The old allegiance to Vatican or country question will come up. Let it.

Jean Chrétien was a vehement anti-Catholic. Paul Martin claims not to be yet under him the New Left have virtually taken over the Liberal Party and made it very hostile to any one of serious religious faith. Unfortunately they still rely on the vote of many religious constituencies to get into power.

They fear monger to the Italian, Portuguese and Asian Catholic communities about the Conservatives while behind the scenes they themselves work with those who pose the biggest threat to them.

This issue is not going to go away but the ball is now in the Vatican’s court.

For almost four decades ‘Catholic’ politicians have courted ethnic Catholic votes during election cycles only to betray them once behind the corridors of power. No one more so than Paul Martin.

Merely denying him communion is not enough.

Paul Martin should be excommunicated.

Verbally, publicly and internationally. He should be made an example of.

Only then will this issue come to a head and will the exploitation of poor and ethnic Catholic voters stop.

They will kick and scream and yell if this happens…and that’s how you will know it counts.

Monday, October 03, 2005


The War Room will not mince words on this issue. Paul Martin should be excommunicated. From his vehement contempt of Catholic teaching on issues such as abortion, to same-sex marriage and his exploitation of the issue of 3rd World Debt, Paul Martin has openly mocked and ridiculed Roman Catholic teaching; that teaching which he claims to adhere to.

He has not only compromised his own Catholic views but more importantly, he has forced other Catholic politicians to compromise their own beliefs by threatening their livelihoods and careers if they did not vote for his legislation. He has permitted laws to be passed that will enable Catholics in Canada to, at worst be prosecuted and at best have a very difficult time raising their children as such.

The following two part Dossier will deal both with Paul Martin’s beliefs and how he has used deceit in the argument of separation of church and state. This is an issue that not only Catholics should be concerned with, but any Canadian citizen interested in issues such as truth, integrity and morality in government.

The War Room has watched in amazement Paul Martin’s comments on this issue. My views on Paul Martin over the past decade have run the gamut from inspiration to
frustration to disappointment to flat our contempt and now…regardless of the next election results…sadness.

This is a man who understands neither the philosophy of Catholicism nor the concept of the separation of church and state. His views are rooted in the dated, laissez-faire approach to Catholicism that is based in the 1960’s and early 1970’s.

I believe that Paul Martin believes that he is a good Catholic. Yet…I do not think he understands why he should not believe in either abortion or same-sex marriage. He does not understand the philosophy behind the rhetoric. More importantly, he is weak and lacks the courage to defend his views to those that hold sway over him.

Catholicism is a philosophy that is about natural law; that the human being has dignity during all phases of its life from conception, during life and until death. That the human body is a vehicle for one’s soul and that vehicle must be treated with the respect and dignity that God imparted upon it.

Catholicism is opposed to abortion because abortion presupposes one of two things; that the fetus is either not human and should be discarded as trash or that the fetus is human but does not deserve to be treated as human.

Catholicism believes in helping the poor and as such the Vatican was the prime lobbyer to the United Nations in supplying cheaper pharmaceutical drugs to combat AIDS in Africa.

Catholicism believes that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman that is family/child based. That it is an institution created by God through nature by which a man and a woman can show love to each other through sexuality which can result in the creation of lineage…family through which the entire human species can be sustained.

Because the church believes that every human body is sacred, even the sick and frail body, no one has the right to destroy it; even the owner of the body itself. This is why they are opposed to euthanasia.

Now all of these are much more complex than I have made them but Paul Martin seems to not even understand this basic philosophy. He is of a generation that heard the rhetoric but did not think to ask the question; why?

Now whether or not you, the reader, believe in these arguments is not pertinent to the debate of whether or not Paul Martin should be excommunicated. These are core tenets of Catholicism. They are non-negotiable. The church here is merely asking a question:

If one does not believe in these tenets, or in Paul Martin’s case vehemently opposes them, why then would one call themselves a Catholic?

Paul Martin calls himself a good Catholic but as a politician he says he believes in the concept of the separation of church and state.

As a Catholic, he fails to understand that his belief system becomes who he is. Ones actions define who they are…not their words. In a democracy the Catholic politician has a duty to say this is who he/she is and the electorate can accept or reject them.

In a democracy, no one forces another to adhere to the tenets of a specific religion or faith. But if one is going to promote themselves as being an adherer to a faith they should at least let it define who they are and be consistent.

The hypocrisy in this issue is astounding.

The United Church has spoken up countless times in support of same-sex marriage and the media encourages them. When Pope John Paul II spoke out against the war in Iraq he was lauded.

Yet…when the issue is one of conscience in the case of abortion or same-sex marriage the Catholic Church is effectively told to ‘shut up’ by people such as Paul Martin, and the media. The arrogance and lack of logic bedazzles.

In the next installment will look at the origin of the concept of the ‘separation of church and state’ and how it has been both abused and misused in this case.


Sunday, October 02, 2005


This essay was originally published last week. When I came back from the week-end I found it missing from my blog. I do not know if this is a fault of Blogspot or if I was hacked. I re-publish it here again in a slightly altered form.

With her induction this week as Canada’s new Governor General, Michaëlle Jean seems to have sent many hearts aflutter with her impassioned speech.

With phrases such as:

“Every Canadian woman, every Canadian man prizes that freedom and would defy anyone who tried to take it away – of that I have no doubt.”


“More than four centuries ago that spirit of adventure drove women and men to cross the ocean and discover a new world elsewhere.”

Many conservatives and hitherto non-believers were very much cast under her sway. She used the language they wanted to hear and they heard what she said. But what did she mean?

I have noticed, especially in the past few year’s amongst my New Left and liberal friends a resurgent patriotism with regards to Canada. Whereas during the nineties they would speak of Canada in derogatory terms and lump it with America as a great exploiter and capitalist nation, now they passionately defend it. They are almost….dare I say American in their defense of it. Talk of Canada as a wealthy exploiter nation brings looks of derision; they want to understand our history and better yet, they want to export it.

Why the change? Why the language used in Michaëlle Jean’s speech?

Many have said that this was a true patriot’s speech. Many conservatives have allowed themselves to say that this was no ‘liberal’ speech and have applauded it.

My first question with regards to Jeans references to freedom was…free from whom?

All language is imbued with meaning. Words only have meaning with respect to context and morality. The right and left do not speak the same language anymore.

To a conservative, the word terrorist conjures up an image of a member of Al Quaeda, chanting just before he straps a bomb to his body and goes running into a group of unarmed civilians.

To a New Left liberal, the word terrorist conjures up an image of President Bush reading his bible before he is about to give a speech to the nation about the state of New Orleans that is about to be carried on FOX news.

Same word…different meaning. So again I ask Jean…free from whom?

I submit that the past two years have been an extraordinary time in Canadian history and the New Left knows it.

That the Liberals will come through ADSCAM unscathed shows them that they are the entrenched establishment and can exploit the populace with its own consent.

The forced passage of same-sex marriage ensured that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms will now be interpreted through the prism of Marxist Oppression Theory and Feminist Gender Identity Theory.

The fact that a report last week stated that Canadian business’ are taxed at a level that is second only to communist China shows that our business community and entrepreneurial spirit will for the foreseeable future be curtailed by a government that can dictate what can and cannot be done.

I do not know Michaëlle Jean. I do not know what is in her heart. I only know what I suspect. That she has been picked by the establishment because she is part of the establishment. That she refused to swear in on a bible yet had token ‘gospel’ singers at her party said much from a cultural vantage point.

The Canada Michaëlle Jean pledged alliance to in her speech was very much New Left…New Canada. It is not the Canada that fought Hitler in WWII and considers morality a bedrock of society.

“And that is how I am determined that the position I occupy as of today will be more than ever a place where citizens’ words will be heard, where the values of respect, tolerance, and sharing that are so essential to me and to all Canadians, will prevail.”

As she tells us, Jean’s Canada is the one of tolerance and sharing.

A Canada governed by human rights tribunals and hate crimes laws.

A Canada where one can have legal sex with a 14 year old but has to be afraid of imposing traditional morality on their children.

A Canada where the greatest perceived threat comes not from foreign weapons aimed at us but from our American friends to the south.

A Canada where churches can be threatened by the government but questioning the government makes one a 'bad citizen'.

A Canada where foreign citizens are allowed to come onto our soil and influence our elections so long as they agree with the incumbant parties political agenda.

A Canada where the populace is not allowed to express itself freely and can only be what they are told…not who they are.

Jean’s speech said much. She is a true patriot. But before you say she represents all you hold dear and true, ask yourself a question.

Jean says we are a free country…but free from whom?