Danny "Whiny" Williams.

Here's someone that truly embodies political behaviour at it's most vile, This Premiere didn't get everything he wanted from the Federal Government and is now campaigning against his own Conservative party (although federally and not yet provincially).

I think the thing that bothers me most about "Whiny" Williams is that he has the audacity to TELL people how they should vote because that's what HE wants!!!! I have no problem with people expressing their opinions on who and why they would vote one way or another, and I respect their right to have, express and act accordingly. I do have a problem however when someone tells others they should vote one way or another (and this is especially inappropriate when it comes from someone placed in a position to represent people that may not agree with his position).

I think this campaign has the potential to backfire on him, but it's not only that, it could severely affect the people he is supposed to be representing in Newfoundland and Labrador! Does this guy really think he's going to get anything better from another party climbing to power? Is he being paid by another party for this anti Conservative campaign? Or is it something as simple as "I didn't get what I want, so I'm gonna stamp my feet and yell and scream till I get it"? (And I am presuming the latter, which is what prompted my nickname for him, but who really knows.)

Honestly if he were my Premiere, he would know exactly where I stand and so would everyone I was able to speak to.

This guy makes Newfoundlanders look like selfish little children, and I feel sorry for the people that he is supposed to be representing.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Elizabeth May, and what she thinks of Canadians. Hey May, aren't you Canadian?

Wow, I don't get around the "blogosphere" much but after Mike Duffy mentioned this on Friday I had to check it out and hear for myself. I don't often visit partisan sites like "Buckdog" because I find them much like some religious extremists out there, but with the shear amount of information available , and the mainstream media doing their level best to lead Canadians by manipulating stories and headlines, I may have to check out more sites just to find important items like this (even though most of it is the same old rhetoric).

Listen to Ms May's view of Canadians for yourself.

Thanks to Buckdog for the heads up.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for! (And if at all possible, try to THINK past the rhetoric).
Bob

Leader's debate.

With Elizabeth May now being allowed into the Leader's debate, I have to wonder what criteria is standard for allocation of a position in it?

Not that I have any major problem with her being there, but I'm wondering now if the qualifications to participate are low enough to allow other national parties like the Marijuanna party (which I should point out is a single issue party as well) leader a spot at the debate? I mean if we set the standards to where you don't have to have a sitting MP to be allowed in to the debate, nor do you require a platform that encompasses all aspects of Canadian society, should we not then invite all of the national parties to have their leader at the debate to represent them?

However critically I must say that after May did everything just short of actually saying she would be voting Liberal, this appears to me to be nothing more than a ploy to have a dual Liberal voice on the panel to combat a weak Liberal leader with a bad political policy (Green shift plan).

On a final note I have to correct The Green party leader when she said that it was the "outcry" of the people which changed whether she was allowed in the debate or not, it was her own outcry of "discrimination" because she's a woman that changed the outcome. I guess she is a true politician, she'll say or do anything to get what she wants. (Sounds very much like very young children too doesn't it.)

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

The Liberal "Green Shift" plan revealed!

It's pretty much just as the name implies;

They are going to LIBERALLY try and SHIFT the GREEN from your wallet into theirs!

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

McCain / Palin vs Obama / ?

Where do I get my McCain / Palin lawn sign? I love the fact that there is not only a woman running for VP but obviously a woman of character and morals, something which is sadly missing from a majority of politicians today.

I just wish that more people valued character and morals over smooth talk and personal gain, and this includes not only politicians, but every single person on this planet.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

For Green Party supporters.

For those of you out there that questioned PM Harper when he said that Elizabeth May (loosely quoted, not verbatim but the meaning is unchanged) shouldn't be in the debate because she would eventually show her support for the Liberals by endorsing them.

Check it out for yourself.

The record clearly states that May is nothing more than a Liberal in disguise, so voting Green means voting Liberal.

Make your vote count by KNOWING who, and what you are voting for!
Bob

Sask Party takes the lead...

After hearing ridiculous statements telecast like "My Baba taught me to support her party" (not an exact quote, but it is an accurate reflection of what the young man said) from a future voter in Saskatchewan, I am really concerned about the voters which will follow suit and vote "like they've always done" without actually thinking about what is best for our province.

This is the one problem I have with democracy, which is, to put it bluntly, that some people are too stupid to vote.

The simple fact is that most people don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and, whether this is because of being too busy or just too lazy, I have to tell you that it is YOUR responsibility NOT JUST TO VOTE but TO KNOW HOW TO VOTE. Sure voting is simple; make a little X on the ballot form, but are you voting because you know what that person and/or party stand for, or because it's easy and "that's how you've always voted"? There is no more STUPID way to vote in my opinion (unless of course you vote based on what a party did 50 years ago instead of looking and what they are currently doing).

It's about using common sense, and taking the time to KNOW what's going on and who would do the best job for you and your province (or for that matter even your country)!

Congratulations, Sask Party! We expect great things and some of us will be watching closely.

How did YOUR MP vote?

Here are the results of the vote to reopen the same sex marriage debate.

The one thing I feel compelled to say is this: Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean that we should. What I mean is just because the government can say that gays are "married", does not mean that it is either right or appropriate to do so. Human beings are capable of horrendous atrocities, but just because we have the ability to do these things, should we do them? The same applies to moral standards, just because we can say that "everything is acceptable" does not mean we should. Right will always be right, and I for one will never recognized the fallacy of "gay marriage".

Bob

*Results taken from Hansard on the official House of Commons website.
_____________________________________________
(Those in favour of reopening the same sex marriage debate)

YEAS

Members
----------
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Batters
Benoit
Bernier
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonin
Boucher
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Byrne
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Carrie
Casson
Clement
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Doyle
Dykstra
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Flaherty
Fletcher
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lee
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacKenzie
Malhi
Mark
Mayes
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Nicholson
Norlock
O'Connor
Obhrai
Oda
Pallister
Petit
Poilievre
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Ritz
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Skelton
Smith
Solberg
Sorenson
Stanton
Steckle
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Wappel
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Yelich

Total: -- 123
___________________________________________
(Those opposed to reopening the same sex marriage debate)

NAYS

Members
----------
Alghabra
André
Angus
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Baird
Barbot
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Blaikie
Blais
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Cannon (Pontiac)
Carrier
Casey
Chamberlain
Chan
Charlton
Chong
Chow
Christopherson
Coderre
Comartin
Comuzzi
Cotler
Crête
Crowder
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dhaliwal
Dhalla
Dion
Dosanjh
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Emerson
Eyking
Faille
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Gaudet
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Hubbard
Ignatieff
Jennings
Julian
Kadis
Karetak-Lindell
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Keeper
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lalonde
Lapierre
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
Malo
Maloney
Manning
Marleau
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (LaSalle—Émard)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
McGuire
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Merasty
Minna
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Mourani
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nadeau
Nash
Neville
Ouellet
Owen
Pacetti
Paquette
Paradis
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Peterson
Picard
Plamondon
Prentice
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Richardson
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simard
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Amand
St. Denis
Stoffer
Stronach
Szabo
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thibault (West Nova)
Turner
Valley
Verner
Vincent
Volpe
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilfert
Wilson
Wrzesnewskyj
Zed

Total: -- 175

PAIRED

Members
Galipeau
Loubier

Total: -- 2

The future holds 20/20 vision of the past.

I heard it said that History will have 20/20 vision on actions of the past, and this is obviously true. But what will they be saying about the actions we take now? Will they look back and say “Now that person stood for morality and did what was right even in the face of public pressures!”? Or maybe they would even say “Wow that was some pretty bad legislation, just look at the problems it caused for so many of us as we grew up!”?

Now obviously I’m talking about the whole gay marriage agenda here; because I see a future where our children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences of weak and immoral men (and women), and their self serving legislation. Men and women, who would rather be seen more tolerant than moral, people catering to public whim instead of reasonable values. The unfortunate rub to the situation is that the general populous is exactly the same way, and that is why these tolerant and immoral people retain a place in government.

So the real question is this; are we considering the future ramifications of the legislation we put into law, and are we looking at what future generations will think of this “liberal ideology”? Remember, these future generations will have to live (and when they look back will have lived with) the consequences of the actions we perform today. I foresee these future generations looking back and seeing a society more interested in themselves, than in the children they were responsible for.

What will your legacy be, tolerance or morality?

The most vulnerable in society.

My latest letter to the members of the House of Commons about the truly most vulnerable people in society:


"Dear Members of Parliament,

I would like to address a fallacy being raised in the House of late by the Liberal party concerning the “most vulnerable in society”.

First I must say that while illiteracy is unfortunate, and requires assistance for it is prevention and correction, it does not make someone the most vulnerable of society. Although illiteracy can be a cause of emotional pain for someone unable to read, their simple embarrassment cannot compare to the plight of those that are truly the most vulnerable in society.

The truth is that the most vulnerable in society are children, especially the unborn child who, since the commonplace acceptance of abortion, are subject to the mother’s whim whether it lives or dies. These are the most vulnerable of society, and although I feel sad for those that cannot read or write, I feel heartbroken for the children that were murdered before they even had a chance to live.

It disturbs me how the Liberal party has devalued human life and overvalued illiteracy by confusing the true meaning of being vulnerable. Those in society that are illiterate are fully capable of finding assistance to correct their deficiency, but who does the unborn child turn to when the government they live under doesn’t consider them important or worthy of protection? This is an area that government has failed the truly most vulnerable in society.

Is the murder of innocents justified simply because it is condoned by the government? What about the slaughter of Jews in Germany and Poland? Was that acceptable because the prevailing government believed it to be so, or was it morally wrong no matter what the government at the time believed? We’ve taken away the death penalty for those that deserve to die, and imposed that penalty on a class of people that are completely vulnerable and innocent. Why? We kill children now because they are inconvenient. How selfish our society has become.

It’s up to you all, whether you are a member of the governing party or not, to stand up for all of society. It’s time to change the “Honourable” title given you into something you deserve through your actions. A strong person stands up for themselves; a stronger person stands up for others."

Bob

Liberals continue on like pit bulls

After several days (I believe it is day 5 of the alleged "dog" comment), the Liberals are still pushing for an apology to something they think they heard that might have been inappropriate.

(Boy is that warped, how about some apologies for the income trust scandal, or the adscam boondogle. I think the Liberals should either put up or shut up personally.)

But opinion being set aside we need to understand that human nature is to change memories to suit the desires of the individual: when you take into account the only Liberal desire is to be in power, we should understand where their "facts" are coming from. The Speaker of the House has reviewed this matter twice now, The first time with the official Hansard reports, and the second with video of the period in question. In both of these incidents there was no conclusive evidence that Peter Mackay made any remarks about Stronach being a dog.

So where does that leave us? First off remember that we are dealing with politicians here, and although I have far more respect for the Conservative party than I ever will for the Liberals, I am honest enough with myself to understand that they all play the political games. If it was said it was said, Stronach should deal with it like the man she wants to be (but then Mackay should also apologize). If it wasn't said, are the Liberals willing to apologize for their aggressive attack on Peter Mackay? Further still are the Liberals willing to apologize for recorded comments that were inappropriate? Either way they all need to start living up to the "Honourable" title that precedes there names, it’s not just for show but can actually be a standard for even political lives.

It should by now be pretty obvious to most people that this is political wrangling to try and foster support for the ailing party. I’ve said it before; the Liberals are unscrupulous power mad politicians that will do anything to regain their communistic dominance over Canadians.

Bob

Feminism, sexism and equality don't mix.

First I'm going to start by bluntly saying, if women want to be treated like men they had better forget about “sexist” comments. You can't have it both ways. If you want to be treated like a man, you need to suck it up and take slurs like one. Let’s face facts, what you're really after is an elite status and not equality! There is absolutely no way that you can say on one hand that you want to be treated as equal to men and on the other hand say that you can’t take a comment like a man.

Equality means that you will be treated exactly like men (if that’s your wish) physically, emotionally and verbally. HOWEVER that isn’t what feminazi’s want. What they are after is to be treated like women when it suits them and treated like men when it might benefit them. Well you can’t have it both ways, you either deal with manly things in a manly way or else you get treated like a woman. It’s your choice, but let’s have the lines clearly drawn.

Oh by the way Belinda, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…… I’ve made my feelings well known about Belinda’s immoral actions, and the sheer audacity she has that makes her think she deserves an apology is unbelievable. Has she apologized to Tie Domi’s wife? Whether she believes that she was the issue or not, Leanne Domi obviously sees her as a major contributor to the marital collapse, and that is enough to warrant an apology.

Has she apologized to the Conservative constituents she betrayed by her defection?

Demanding an apology in this situation is just another cheap politically motivated tactic to bolster support of a corrupt and immoral Liberal party. It’s time for the women out there that are supporting her to use their own minds and see this for what it is, instead of being pawns in a political chess game. (For those feminists out there I’ll say it like I would to a guy, get your heads out of your butts and wake up, you boneheads.)

Bob

Items not conducive to sleep.

As I was trying to sleep my mind kept mulling over today’s session of “Question Period” in the House of Commons (hence the title of the post), and two things kept jumping out at me that the Liberal opposition kept mentioning.

The first and foremost of these things was how they kept using the term “most vulnerable in society” in reference to those less fortunate in our country. I think that the Liberal’s have no idea what this phrase means or how to use it, simply because they fail to recognize that in 13 years of power they have endorsed murdering the truly most vulnerable in society, the unborn. I mean let’s get real, sure there are those among us that can’t read or write, but does this warrant them the moniker of “most vulnerable in society”? Hell NO! (Excuse the expletive, but it was needed for proper emphasis.) The most vulnerable people in society are those that are unable to protect themselves like children, ESPECIALLY those that you don’t even have to face to kill!!!! So while these illiterate masses that the Liberal party keep referring to may be unfortunate, they are NOT the most vulnerable and are fully capable to seek help for and by themselves.

The second point was this new trend in the Liberal ranks of calling the Prime Minister (or the Conservatives in general) “mean spirited” and it’s almost like a party requirement to call them this at least once by every member! But let’s think about this, “mean spirited” doesn’t even come close to what the Liberal’s did even in their last turn “at bat”. I’m talking specifically about taking away the right for children to have a Mother and a Father! Homosexuality is all about self gratification through unnatural sex, not about love or family, so why on earth would any sane and rational person even consider saying that a homosexual couple are “married” or a “family”? I mean first off they cannot have children in the relationship they chose (other than by traditional or conventional means, even IVF requires both male and female reproduction units and is thereby a traditional method), so this disqualifies them as a family to begin with. Secondly the mere act of homosexual sex is a perversion of the natural act, and really for the participant and not for any other purpose than satisfying their lusts. Finally the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals is the sexual partners they prefer; and since true love seems to come and go with today’s societal values at a whim, one must conclude that homosexuality is about the act and not about love.

I can not fathom how anyone with a conscience could support a party as immoral and objectionable as the Liberal’s. Unless you have no clear idea of what they have done, or how they have eroded Canadian values by bad policy and legislations, you could not support them with a clear conscience. They have attacked family values, supported murder of the truly most vulnerable in society both through abortion and feminist agendas. They have told us that Canadians are too stupid to see through their lies (and they may be right, look at all the people out there that still support them) by favouring their wealthy friends with government contracts and moneys. And they have forgotten what this Country was built on, the values and morals of the people who fought and died for it. Shame on them, and shame on you if you don’t look at the facts before you decide who you’ll support.

It’s a late night, with many thoughts and very little tact available. I believe fully that sometime people need a kick in the pants to get their heads on straight; I hope this was yours.

Bob

Now that this is off my chest, I leave with a few profound quotes to ponder;

“The official's heart must stand at attention before his mind.”
A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

“Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.”
Aristotle

“It is far more honest to be undeservedly ignored than to be honoured without merit.”
Denis Fonvizin

‘The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness.”
Edvard Teller

“In free countries, every man is entitled to express his opinions and every other man is entitled not to listen.”
G. Norman Collie

“It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.”
H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Judy Sgro, are you deaf and blind?

Yet another Liberal MP came out today to tell us how the PM is using smear campaigns...... WHAT????? I guess it's not liberal policy to watch their own speeches or campaign techniques! If only the Liberals would stop being such hypocrites and start taking responsibility for their own mistakes!

“It is better to have people assume you’re an idiot, rather than open your mouth and prove them right”, this would be a good ideology for the Liberal party to adopt.

Bob

Ignatieff, showing true liberalism.

New possible leader of the liberal party, but the same lack of accountability being shown.

Instead of apologizing for singling out Israel in his allegation of war crimes, front runner for the Liberal leadership Michael Ignatieff decided to take the same old Liberal stance and attack the Conservatives for pointing out his egregious error. It seems that this is modus operandi for Liberals, and since it's worked before, they'll stick to it.

So why didn't he apologize for accusing Israel of war crimes? (Whether or not he now says that both sides committed these crimes, he needs to apologize for singling out one side only.) It goes to show that Liberals speak first and attack the Conservatives later to cover their blunders. Ignatieff even went so far as to accuse the Prime Minister of being power hungry (paraphrased), but looking at Liberal history of doing anything to stay in power this is the pot calling the kettle black!

If there was any irresponsibility in what was said, it falls directly on Michael Ignatieff. Alternately it was very responsible of the Prime Minister to admonish the Liberal hopeful for his obviously one sided view.

Bob

Hey Belinda, truth can NOT be opinion!!!

Background for the title; Belinda Stronach has neglected to either deny or confirm allegations of an adulterous relationship by telling the Toronto Sun "There's been a lot written about me, and I'm not going to comment on those allegations -- whether they're true, they're false or they're somebody's opinion,".

Well Belinda lets look at this logically, if you did have the affair it is true and therefore fact NOT opinion. If you did not have the affair the allegation is then false, also a fact, and therefore again NOT opinion. There is no way that these allegations could be opinion as they are either true or not true and in no way subjective which would make them opinion, so this is obviously a ruse to confuse those out there watching. See where I’m going with this? The most simply conclusion to the reason she would give such a lame excuse is blatantly obvious.

And then we move on to the current leader of the liberal party who said "Canadians are well beyond such judgments. I think Canadians have come to a point in our national life where we recognize that private lives of people are private lives. Unless it impinges on their public duties, it is not relevant to Canadians." What a load of Liberal manure.

Umm excuse me, but moral character SHOULD be important to Canadians, and we NEED to judge the people running our Country by their actions! If you want your private life kept private, become a private citizen. If you want to be in the public spotlight you have to take the good with the bad. The reactions to allegations like this is a good way to judge the character of the person, and when Belinda has taken extreme steps not to deny it you know where her values are. (Not that we didn’t already know she was pro-abortion and anti-family, but this scandal really proves she has true Liberal values.)

Bob

Pro choice, what does it mean?

This is going to be a short post, but hopefully it will make my point. Simply put Pro-choice is Pro-abortion, and pro-abortion is pro-murder.

On the appointment of a more conventional right wing Supreme Court Judge, this is a quote from pro Pro-abortion group who condemned the appointment because of his more "Christian" morals. Carolyn Egan from the abortion rights coalition said, "From what we understand, he [Judge Brown] holds these views himself. I think people should be aware of the views he has and how they could potentially impact on future decisions."

I have to ask about these "future decisions"; if it is wrong to murder your neighbor or even someone who performs abortions, why is it acceptable to murder the most innocent and helpless of us all? Murder is murder, no matter what nomenclature you put it under. So is there really any decision?

It's time for a return to values that protect the innocent and helpless, and not those based in self importance of self gratification.

Justice Brown, congratulations! (It's about time!)

Bob

Government for ALL people.

The Liberal party; yet again the voice of stupidity.

When the Conservatives are trying to fulfill their campaign promises to reduce waste in government, they get accused of axing programs that support equality (In particular I am referring to the de-funding of Status of Women Canada, a feminist, left wing, anti-life, anti-family activist group). I believe that this is a critical and important cut for them to make because NO government should support ANY activist lobbying group, and that is especially true of one that promotes and encourages the SLAUGHTER of innocent unborn children!

What’s worse is that “pro choice” MP’s are even elected to their positions! Because if you think about it logically you would realize that if they have no respect for the life of an innocent unborn child, what respect will they have toward the elderly or for that matter your life or mine?

The only, I repeat THE ONLY activist groups that the government should support are those that respect and encourage the protection of ALL PEOPLE (ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES!) Forgive me for getting a little impassioned here, but most activist groups only care about themselves and not the good of the whole community or society they live in. We have to get over our selfish ways and start to think about the good of everyone over our own desires, and only then will we have a country we can all be proud of. If the activist group is for only one gender, promotes or encourages harm to any persons born or unborn, or is for an “alternate” lifestyle that does not promote a healthy society, they do not deserve Government funding.

In the Toronto Star “Liberal MP Maria Minna (Beaches-East York) said the government can't publicly announce that it is axing Status of Women Canada because it would provoke a public "backlash.”” So ask yourself this, who would the backlash come from? It would come from those who will gain from it. The ones whose agendas would be furthered or pockets would be lined.

Well we know where the liberals (and the mini liberals, aka NDP) stand; they stand for alternate lifestyles, feminism, and killing babies. All of these are designed to destroy family and loosen morals so that everything is acceptable. But everything is not acceptable; we know what is right and what is wrong. However it seems like the only ones who stand up are the ones that are in favour of what is wrong. I say stand up for what you know is right! Pro-choice is WRONG!

Belinda Stronach (and I presume she is speaking of REAL women Canada) said "They should be rejected because they're anti-choice and they're also anti-equal rights. They don't support equality.” But true equal rights encompass the rights of ALL people, even the unborn (which, again, are INNOCENT AND HELPLESS). And if you can’t trust your Government to protect those unable to protect themselves, they SHOULD NOT be in Government! See more on Belinda's murderous agenda here!

The Toronto Star report here, and the Lifesite news report here.

Bob

Liberal monsters in the closet.

The issue of gun control has been in the media once again because of the killing in Québec. I saw an interview where the victim’s father was questioning the Conservatives agenda to dismantle the taxpayer funded boondoggle called the gun registry, asking "why make it easier"? Easier to what though? How would the dismantling of an unnecessary tax burden make it easier? This was not a case of someone taking a hunting rifle out on a killing spree, but a semiautomatic already restricted weapon. Even though my heart goes out to the victim's family, let's take a look at the truth of the situation:

The plain honest truth of the situation is that no registry would have stopped this killing! The weapon used in this offense was a restricted weapon which was covered by its own registry even before the long gun registry initiated by liberals. Gill's weapon of choice was a Beretta CX4, a 9 mm semiautomatic assault weapon, something which, as I've already pointed out, was restricted prior to the gun registry and required a background check to purchase and a permit to carry out of the owner’s house.

The problem is not "guns": After all the truth is, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". We need to look at the motivation behind the shooting in Québec, and not just react with a knee jerk of "we need more gun control legislation". What we truly need is for parents to be proactive in the raising of children and teaching them appropriate morals and family values, thereby strengthening society’s fabric of community and care for each other instead of the individual.

There is also a dispute on whether violent games should be banned or not, and the problem I have with this was addressed by Prime Minister Steven Harper. If we want to live in a communist regime, then we can start banning books, video games, television programs, media information etc… And then who is it that will be choosing the morals and values that the rest of society has to live by? I'm hoping you see where this all leads. However if we choose to live in a free society, it takes every individual being accountable for his or her own actions! It is a matter of poor and/or weak parenting which is the root cause of a lot of problems society has.

The truth is: Society has created monsters by the liberal values it chooses, and now we have to live with them.

Liberals block true freedom of speech in Alberta legislature.

Once again I am appalled at the Liberal and NDP mandate to take away freedom of speech for ALL people, even though it is clearly stated that all Canadians have this Right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After reading this article on Lifesite news I needed to voice my outrage at this inexplicable move by the Liberal and NDP parties. The reason I find this move so hard to understand is because they blocked a bill to PROTECT Canadians, and thereby reinforced the Homosexual initiative to take away any voice that may have a view which says that lifestyle is wrong (whether it be Christian OR non-Christian.)

To see for yourself please visit the official site for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at Canadian Charter; However I will still quote the section giving ALL Canadians these rights:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association. "

Now you may ask yourself "why would they want to do this", then again you may not even care, or hopefully you just don't understand the fact that this will affect you no matter who you are in Canada. First the reason why they would do this is to appease the militant and raucous homosexual activist groups which lobby the government continuously with shouts of intolerance. Secondly the world we live in does not promote self control or conservatism and wholesome values, but promotes the idea of selfishness, self importance and self/instant gratification.

Now this may be an in depth views of the problem, but to break it down you just can't have one law mean two things based on a persons/groups viewpoint. Simply put I mean that if it is ok for Homosexuals to have parades and promote their opinion that their lifestyle is valid (as guaranteed in the Charter), then it is equally ok for those in opposition to publicaly voice their opinion to the contrary (as this is also guarateed in the Charter). No matter who you are, Canadian law GUARANTEES us the "a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression", and this gives us the right to accept or decline homosexual marriage based on beliefs. This is ESPECIALLY true since homosexuality is NOT a HUMAN RIGHT, but is a human perversion of the natural act of procreation.

So then how do the Liberals and NDPs justify this move to abolish a bill that protects freedoms? Well I guess we will see how they try in the future, although as you might have guessed I see this as completely unjustifiable, and a mockery of Canadian politics which is being manipulated by an unscrupulous and militant special interest group.

Bob