Archive for September, 2006
Posted on September 30th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception, Economics
Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; they shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate.
- Psalm 127:3-5
Sorry, lefty. You need kids to support your ideology. And since you aren’t having any, well…so much for the future of the left….
1 Comment »
Posted on September 30th, 2006 by Paycheck in Catholicism
I know this sounds so very looney and impossible, but a Catholic Bishop using his authority can actually have an impact on our current immoral culture. Exhibit A below.
I hope more Bishops start to realize that they should start exercising their moral authority more and stop trying to appease the spirit of the age. It’s time for the iron fist to fall…
Calgary Bishop Wins Battle to End Gambling Fundraising for Catholic Schools
By Gudrun Schultz
CALGARY, Alberta, September 29, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Calgary Catholic school board has finally agreed to stop funding school programs with the proceeds of casinos and bingo halls, after a lengthy dispute with Bishop Fred Henry.
The Calgary bishop had called for an end to gambling as a school fundraising source, saying the practice was immoral. The district refused to comply, issuing a formal statement of refusal on May 31, 2006, arguing that extracurricular programs would be cut as a result, including bands, choirs and sport teams. Almost two million dollars were raised annually through gambling by the board. The board instead accepted a Task Force recommendation that Calgary schools should assume authority over fundraising decisions.
Bishop Henry, who had first raised the issue seven years previously, issued a strongly-worded warning saying the use of gambling funds by Catholic schools was no longer an option and the issue was non-negotiable. He reminded the Board that under Canon Law, the law code of the Catholic Church, “no school may bear the title Catholic school without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.”
“Morality is not determined by a straw-vote,” he wrote in a pastoral letter in June. “The School Board, the individual schools, and related parent councils and societies must get out of bingo and casino gambling fundraising activities. There is no question as to ‘what’ has to be done but there is room to negotiate ‘how’ and ‘when’.”
Following yesterdays’ announcement of capitulation by the board, Bishop Henry called for a rebuilding of the relationship between the diocese and the board, saying, “Now is the time to move on and solidify again the partnership that we had.” (Source)
No Comments »
Posted on September 30th, 2006 by Paycheck in LifeStyle Choices, Religion
The more things change…the more they stay the same. Here is an article I wrote for Challenge Magazine last year. I think it basically spells out the source of our malaise…
There are many theories why our current western culture is in a state of deep moral and spiritual crisis. Some claim that poor and even heretical catechesis and the scandalous negligence of many bishops in using their authority to root out dissent and restore order in the church have helped precipitate the decline of the Church and western society as a whole. Others point to the sexual revolution and the western Church’s failure to combat its effects. The rejection of Pope Paul VI’s prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae and the virtual whole scale capitulation to contraception by the western (and particularly the Canadian) Church all but sealed our fate.
There are many other reasons for the suicidal path our culture seems to be taking, of course. And while it is true that these and other issues are indeed part of the problem, they are not the source of it. In fact, they represent symptoms of a disease plaguing a culture which has turned in on itself; a culture which has refused to play the part of “brother’s keeper”.Personal morality and relativism have shaped a culture that no longer is concerned about their neighbour’s objective well being. Because religion is no longer discussed in polite company, it has been relegated to a private affair to be exercised within the enclosed walls of a Church or home. With this entrapment of religion, morality, because of its inextricable attachment to faith, is also unwelcome in the secular world order. Subconsciously, this anti-religious sentiment seeps into the crevices of our resolve and weakens its foundation, rendering the Church tepid and soft.
The failure of Catholics to confront this attack has largely been a pastoral one, despite the endless doctrinal errors spread by dissident theologians. Parents, for instance, no longer put up any real resistance to their children marrying outside of the Faith. Human Rights Commissions, the new instruments of politically correct tyranny, target Christians and their businesses while the great majority of so-called Catholics shrug their shoulders and carry on with summer vacation plans. Bishops refuse to get serious about sexual immorality. They send out letters to premieres and prime ministers, but rarely do we see them exercising some discipline among these prominent pseudo-Catholics. The Faith means little to us. Why then should it mean much to them? In short, we all go along to get along.Former Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, of course, was the poster boy for the new private morality in Canada. His “sexual détente” of the State having no business in the bedrooms of the nation was a slick way of saying that we are not our brother’s keeper. Trudeau and the generation of his day accepted the notion that morality – sexual morality in particular – was a private affair between two consenting adults. Today, of course, we are reaping what the sexual libertarians have wrought. In a supreme ironic twist, the gay marriage propagandists have crossed over to oppose even Trudeau’s very liberal vision of society. With the passage of gay “marriage” legislation, it turns out that indeed the State has a role in the bedrooms of the nation after all. But it is the exact opposite role of what it should be. Instead of defending the natural law which is its duty, the State’s role has been manipulated into subverting the same natural law which is the basis for its existence.
And so, the great façade of this sexual détente has ended up in the dustbin of history – precisely where its political cousin of the Cold War did. There can be no compromise or accommodation with the culture of meaningless sex. It is a fight to the death and there can be only one victor. Either sex is a divine participation in the life of God which, in turn, sustains the human race, or it is a form of narcissistic nihilism, consigning us to a cheap orgasm and then an uneventful, early, and cruel death.
Canadian Catholics – from Bishop to Layman – bought the lie that immorality could be kept a private affair. We now know differently. We know that failing to be our brother’s keeper in private means allowing his sin to become part of public policy. When the State told its citizens that whatever they did in the privacy of their own bedrooms was licit, it was only logical that various sexual interest groups would demand that the State extend that sanction to the public square. Why? Because man can have only one morality and not two despite what the liberal establishment have long maintained. There is no such thing as a private morality and a different public morality. Our human conscientiousness cannot sustain such a permanent contradiction. The passage of Bill-38, the same-sex “marriage” legislation, all but proves it.
The anecdote to our current malaise is to counter the indulgent vice which put us here with sacrificial virtue which can rescue us. When U.S. President George Bush visited Ottawa last year, he was met with the usual cabal of international socialists, anarchists, and the rest of the “loony-left” contingent. These people hold to the same typical leftist causes, but few of us know the real reason for their unanimity on social issues. What is the connection, for instance, between the left’s opposition to the war in Iraq and their support for abortion? In some respects, these positions are contradictory, but the left has no problem with internal contradictions as long as they serve their self-interest and self-preservation. The reason why the social left in this country is able to hold these seemingly contradictory positions is because of their collective abhorrence to sacrifice. A soldier laying down his life for his country or a woman accepting an unwanted pregnancy is anathema to these people. These two scenarios both involve individuals who sacrifice for a supreme good, yet they are rejected precisely because they put “the other” ahead of themselves.
Courage and sacrifice are indeed the cure for our disease. They represent two essential ingredients required in order to renew our culture. It’s where, as the expression goes, “the rubber meets the road”. Writing letters to the prime minister only goes so far, after all. It’s safe and painless. Exposing oneself to public ridicule, possible loss of employment, and incrimination, on the other hand, separate those who merely preach about Christ from those who actually walk with Him. As I publicly told Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty during an all-candidate’s debate in the 2003 Ontario Election campaign: “Mr. McGuinty, if you call yourself a Catholic, then it’s high time for you to walk the talk.” The reaction to my challenge was, let us say, not warmly received by the majority of the audience.
We like to talk about the cross. Few actually volunteer to join our Lord in His crucifixion. As a Catholic activist, I am thoroughly convinced that unless these two qualities of courage and sacrifice manifest themselves in healthy measure soon, our recovery will be a long and arduous one. We need many Catholics to shake off the lethargy of complacency and comfort, and start to make the necessary sacrifices for the good of our country and to be our brother’s keeper. We keep hoping for a new Spring time in the Church, but we fail to understand that we are required to get down on our hands and knees and actually do the seeding.
Back at the turn of the 20th century, David Goldstein, an American secular Jew who once championed the Marxist socialist movement, became disillusioned and horrified at the true anarchical and vicious aims of socialism. Goldstein began to realize that religion was the only way to counter this enormous threat to civilization. His study led him to convert to the Catholic faith – the only force, he reasoned, that could truly counter the atheistic and immoral socialist philosophy then (and still) ravaging the world. Aided by Church authorities, Goldstein spent the rest of his adult life in the public square debating socialists, anti-Catholic Protestants, and former Catholics. He became one of the most brilliant defenders of the Catholic Faith in the twentieth century. Looking back on his travels, he once remarked about Catholics, “The trouble is not with the other fellow, if Catholics were underlings, the cause will be found within themselves. Timidity is their sin, as a people. There is not a group of Americans to be found who are more timid when it comes to setting forth its claims and demanding its rights than the Catholic group.” Obviously, David Goldstein had never met a Catholic north of the 49th parallel.
As a 36-year old husband and father of three young children, my family has had to make extraordinary sacrifices as I have attempted to turn the culture away from its suicidal path through various political and social activities. Whether it has been running for political office, organizing Parliament Hill rallies like the March for Marriage last April which drew 15,000-20,000 people, or co-founding a private Catholic elementary school, the sacrifices have been steep. Less time with my family and a lower paying job are two sacrifices which have been necessary. Physical, spiritual, mental exhaustion, rejection from family and friends, misunderstanding, slander, and few tangible results are the rewards of such ventures. But Our Lord never promised any differently to those thirst for what is right and just in this world.
More Catholics need a hunger to defend basic Christian morality and work to stop the social and moral destruction that is ruining so many lives in this culture. More Catholics also need to appreciate the consequences of abandoning their duty to be their brother’s keeper. A few consequences come to mind: loss of religious freedom, severe persecution, and then martyrdom. We need to stop kidding ourselves that the current moral unraveling is “coincidental”. It is not. The forces of hell have been unleashed on the World, and they are looking to consume us. We need to fight back, and we need to do it right now – not tomorrow or the next day but at this very instant. And we must be persistent and unyielding in our resolve because the other side is relentless in their attack. They won’t stop until they destroy us. We need to have the faith of Abraham, a complete abandonment to the divine will, and willingness to put our whole selves on the line. Money, reputation, community status, family relationships – everything. In our efforts, however, our generation must also consign ourselves to the fact that we may not see the victory here on earth, and therefore we must accept that our role is merely to hold the fort until the next generation becomes victorious in this particular battle. In other words, our hope is, ironically, in death – the death of this perverse culture and the endurance and eventual rebirth of our own.
1 Comment »
Posted on September 29th, 2006 by Paycheck in Islam
Back in my former life as a wanna-be Catholic Apologist, I used to run an Apologetic’s website (ahem…I still do…but it’s not as current as I would like it to be) called The Catholic Legate. Check it out. It’s a website devoted mostly to explaining and defending the Catholic Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings.
I got a call from one of Michael Coren’s assistants a few days ago, asking me if I (or someone I would recommend) would like to appear on the show with an Evangelical Protestant and a couple of Muslims to discuss the recent blowup (isn’t that an appropriate word?) over Benedict’s comments by the Muslim world. The show is scheduled to air on next Tuesday (Oct. 3). I won’t be going because of family and work committments. Besides, I would have to brush up on the history of Islam which is something I have really yet to study in depth. And, frankly, I simply don’t have the time right now, although admittedly, it would have been great exposure for either The Catholic Legate or Social Conservatives United (which ever label I chose to apply).
I ended up sending one of my staff at The Catholic Legate to do the show. Ryan Prong is a convert to the Catholic faith, and has been with me at the Legate for 4 years now. We talked today about the approach he should take on the show and some of the issues which needed to be addressed. Stuff like the limits to religious freedom, the persecution that Christians are currently experiencing in countries like Saudi Arabia, and the second class status of Christians in Muslim countries under Sharia law. Anyhow, I won’t spill the beans on how I think the show is going to go, but one thing is for sure, the Catholic side is not going to be represented by a marshmellow Academic. I advised Ryan to be polite, but aggressive with his Muslim opponents.
Tune into Crossroads TV to catch all the action on Tues. Oct. 3 at 6pm.
I asked one of my other colleagues at The Catholic Legate who specializes in Church History to give us all a quick primer on the history of Islam and its confrontations with the West. I figure since the liberal secularists clearly want to live under Islam because they keep killing off our future (contraception & abortion) and destroying foundations of society (like marriage), it would be good to get acquainted with the so-called religion of peace which the weak and liberal will be adopting or else.
I have left in his facial expressions
Okay, well …. In essence, Mohammad preach “violent evangelization” ever since he himself led the forces of the Arab city of Medina against his home town of Mecca, which had previously opposed him. It is said that Islam preaches “religious tolerance.” That is not so. What it preaches is tolerance for other monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism) ONCE the adherents to these faiths are under Islamic rule. Before that time, the Islamic theology of the “world of war” applies. The Koran divides the world into two camps: The “world of Islam” (that is, the world that is in “submission’ ["islam'] to Allah and the teachings of Mohammad) and the “world of war” —that is, those parts of the world (esp. the Christian West) that have not yet been brought under Islamic dominion. As long as one is in the “world of war” (as opposed to the “world of Islam”), a Muslim is free to wage war against him, kill him, and take his possessions. …all with God’s blessing. And, if this Muslim should die while fighting in the “world of war” (that is, in the process of trying to extend the “world of Islam”), then he will go immediately to Paradise and spend all eternity having sexual orgasms with 70 black-eyed virgins.
Those are “the rules.” And, agian, it is only once a Jew, or Christian, or Zoroastrian has been conquered and is under Muslim authority that their “imperfect” Islamic traditions are tolerated …and barely tolerated at that. This was not so much a religious teaching, as it was shrewd politics. For, when Islam first extended its control over Zoroastrian Persia and over Christian Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, and N. Africa, the overwhelming majority of their subjects were non-Muslims. Thus, of course their religions were “tolerated,” because the first Muslims were not in a position to do otherwise.
In other words, they needed to consolidate their hold on these regiions, and the only way to do that was to be nice (or apparently nice) to the native majority. Once their hold was consolidated, however, the rights and privileges of Christians (and Zoroastrians in Persia) were slowly taken away. In this, the Muslims essentially made it so uncomfortable to live as a non-Muslim, that the natives eventually saw the “wisdom” of converting. Christians were taxed, Muslims were not. Christians had to do all of the unsavoy jobs, Muslims were above such things, etc. Essentially, non-Muslims were marginalized, second-class (or third-class) members of the society with very few rights of their own. And, even today, in Islamic countries, it is unlawful for Christians to worship openly (or even to ring church bells), and if someone converts to Christianity, they are (under Islamic law) to be executed. This is not “religious tolerance” in any sense of the word. In addition to this, Muslims believed in polygamy. Thus, whenever possible, they would take Christian wives. However, their offspring was not permitted to be Christian; and in this way they “out bred” the Christian majority, repopulating the regions with good Muslims. When Mohammad died (A.D. 633), most of the Arabian pennisula was under Islamic control. This was done in large part by military conquest, and by diplomacy backed up by military power. His successors (the first Caliphs), following his teaching to spread the religion by the sword (that is, to impose the “world of Islam” upon the “world of war”), set out to conquer their Zoroastrian and Christian neighbors –that is, the Persian and the Byzantine Empires, respectively. At this time, the Persians and the Byzantines had been fighting bitterly against each other for over a generation and had, essentially, exhausted themselves and their military and financial resources. Islam took advantage of this. They first swept up into Mesopotamia and Persia and crippled the Persian empire. By 636, they had conquered Damascus and separated Syria from the Christian Byzantine Empire. Soon after, in 637, they conquered Palestine and took Jerusalem away from the Christians. By 640, they had captured Alexandria and made Egypt too into an Islamic state, imposing their laws and traditions on these enormous native Christian populations. So, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were no longer part of the Christian Roman Empire.
Then, in 658, the Christians caught a little break because Islam erupted into civil war over who should succeed to the Caliphate. The two contenders were the Sunnis and the Shiites, and Islam was divided from this point on.
Between A.D. 670 and 698, the Sunni Muslims wrestled N. Africa from the Byzantines and made it all the way to the straights of Gibraltar. In 711, the Muslims crossed over to Spain and conquered it, taking it away from the Visigoth Christian rulers. They continued to press their advantage and, in 732, crossed the mountains into France and tried to subdue France too. But, they were halted in their tracks by a Frankish-Romano army led by the Frankish king, Charles Martel, who defeated them at the Battle of Poitiers. I say “Frankish-Romano” because the Franks were forced to recruit the native Roman peasants as field army to deal with the Muslim host. This stops the Muslims advance in the extreme West.
At the same time, another Arab army tried to capture Constantinople, but they are thwarted by the Byzantine invention known as “Greek fire,” which burns the ships of their navy and forces them to retreat.
So, by the mid-700′s, the Muslims had conquered the entire Persian Empire, and had taken all of the Mediterranean regions of the Roman Empire, with the exception of Italy and Gaul in the West and Greece, the Balkans, and western Anatolia in the East.
Then, in the early 800′s, the north African Musims wrestled Sicily away from the Byzantines and began to advance up the Italian pennisula. At this point, Rome itself was seriously threatened; and in the reign of Pope John VIII (872-82), they sacked the Roman suburbs and succeeded in burning St. John Lateran cathedral, before they were driven off and eventually paid to go away.
At this point, the Arab rulers of Islam began to become more worldly and politically savvy (that is, corrupt). They were no longer really interested in subduing the “world of war” so much as consolidating all the lands that they already held. For, they held everything that was of any real material value. Italy and Northern Europe were really back-water regions with nothing great to offer, and Constantinople was too diffiult to conquer. So, from about 900 to the 1040′s, Islam gave it a rest.
However, meanwhile, something happened in Islam itself. The old Arab aristocracy was slowly giving way to their Turkish generals. The Turks were far more dynamic and warlike than the Arabs, and (as the Germans viewed the Romans) they considered the Arabs to be corrupt sissy-boys who did not deserve to rule.
Thus, by A.D. 1000, the Turks had taken over and revived the old Islamic desire to subdue the “world of war.” They conquered what few Byzantine provinces remained in Eastern Anatolia, then set their eyes on Christian Armenia. The King of Armenia asked the Byzantine Emperor for help, and the Byzantine Emperor led an immense army into Armenia to crush the Turks once and for all. Only, that’s not what happened. At the battle of Manzikert in 1047, the Byzantine army was slaughtered and the emperor was killed. Now everything that remained of the Eastern Christian empire (even Constantinople itself) was threatened. It was the successor of this Byzantine emperor who wrote to the Roman Pope and asked him to send Western armies to aid the Eastern Empire. The Pope who received this letter was Blessed Urban II –the Pope who called the first Crusade! And THAT’S how the Crusades came into being –as a long-overdue response to Islamic aggression, and when the Christian West really had no other choice.
So, from the 1090′s until the mid-1300′s, the Christians and the Turks battled over the Holy Land, with the Christian West evetually loosing ..not so much because the Turks were so great, but because of the Christians’ own in-fighting and inability to consolidate what they conquered (or re-conquered). When the last of the Crusading forces were finally driven out of the East, the Turks pressed their advantage and captured Cyprus and western Anatolia. They then cross the Bosphorus and captured modern-day Bulgaria, surrounding Constantinople. Then, in 1453, Constantinople itself fell to the Turks and became an Islamic city. These same Turks continued to press their advantage in the West, when they were stopped by the navy of the Catholic League at the Battle of LePanto, off Greece (1571) and at the gates of Vienna, Austria in the 17th Century. With these two events, the advance of Islam was ended until our present time. For, in WWII, the Turkish Empire that was halted at LePanto and Vienna finally fell (corrupted from within). Secular Britain and France divided up the Middle East, and evetually gave freedom to the Arab natives who had been dominated by the Turks (they also, with the US and UN gave Palestine to the Jews). These Arab natives, who were (and still are) poor peasants for the most part, yet who still remember their “glorious” Islamic past, now want to resurrect their jihad against the “world of war.” …and it is from this desire that Wahhabi Islam (the beliefs of the terrorists) comes. It is the same old godless cult that set its eyes on the Christian West 1,400 years ago.
So, that’s the story in a nutshell, John. Please let me know if you need more or if you need me to clarify anything. God bless- Mark
No Comments »
Well, it looks like the bleeding heart liberals are at it again. As soon as Harper does anything sane on the culture front, the Left goes beserk over their perpetual entitlement to use taxpayer’s money to ram through their perversions.
Lorne Gunter wrote a very revealing piece in the National Post a couple of days ago about the CCP:
“The CCP may be funded by Canadian taxpayers, but it has been taken over by the very special interest groups that are its major beneficiaries. Aided by their ideological supporters in the academic and legal communities, these “rights-seeking” advocacy organizations use the program to fund court cases whose goal is a radical interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Most of the time, when such cases get to court, these left-leaning government-funded organizations are opposed by traditionalist or right-of-centre groups who receive no tax dollars to cover their legal expenses.
In a recent court challenge on same-sex marriage, the program funded interventions in the case by the gay rights lobby EGALE and the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-Sex Marriage. Yet despite the fact that the program is funded by taxpayers, it paid none of the fees of the lawyers representing citizens’ groups opposed to changing the traditional definition of marriage.” (Source)
If the socially retarded Left wing in this country really thought that they could win the culture war, they would never sully themselves by accepting government money. The fact that they do hold out their hands, shows you that not only is their philosophy of life bankrupt and demented, but they have the audacity to mandate the Right wing pay for their ridiculous views.
Want to push the next sexual escapade on the public square? Fine, but don’t do it on my dime. Send my regards to Bill Gates and friends. Maybe they can help you.
Next on the agenda: Rabble.
No Comments »
Posted on September 26th, 2006 by Paycheck in Islam, Religious Persecution
A dhimmi was a title accorded a non-Muslim living in a Muslim State in accordance with Sharia (Islamic law). Early in the eighth century, rules were created for the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims of conqureed (mostly former Christian) lands. The Dhimmitude Club was originally restricted only to Jews and Christians who were considered “people of the book” and they were accorded certain second-class citizenship within the Islamic State. Followers of other religions and atheists, however, were considered non-montheistic and shown the axe.
Aside from some very basic security and the right to practice a limited form of their religion, Dhimmis didn’t have a lot of human rights which we now take for granted in the West. Premium taxation was one concrete instrument that Muslim States levied on Dhimmis to ensure they knew their place in Islamic society.
Why do I bring this up? Well, because it might very well be the future of the West in a couple of generations.
Last week, we had the whole brohahaha over the Pope’s rather academic and historical remark about a Christian Emperor’s reference to Muhammed in less than flattering terms. And just today, we have yet another instance of Western capitulation and cowardice in the face of Muslim fanaticism:
THE bloodstained King of Crete stumbles onstage and holds aloft the decapitated heads of Poseidon, Jesus, Buddha and the Prophet Muhammad. “The gods are dead!” he calls out to the audience.
German operagoers will not be seeing that scene or, indeed, any scene from one of Mozart’s most powerful works. For fear of Muslim anger, the bosses of the world-renowned Deutsche Oper in Berlin have cancelled performances of Mozart’s Idomeneo. The decision has unleashed a storm of disapproval from politicians and writers, who claim that Germany has fatally compromised the freedom of expression.
Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Interior Minister who is due to open a conference today on Islam and German society, said that the decision to cancel the opera was insane, laughable and unacceptable. Other politicians said it was irresponsible. (Source)
Well, Wolfgang, it might be funny and insane to you, but you and most of the Western world are not getting it at all. The Islamic terrorists see your culture as:
And guess what? They would be right. They know that the West has long forgotten the value of sacrifice. And they also know that any culture that loses its sense of sacrifice in order to protect itself is slim pickings for a culture that will sacrifice anything to be victorious, even life itself.
You all remember how our coaches in high school told us that the other team won because they “wanted it more”. In other words, they were prepared to sacrifice and suffer the pain and suffering which that sacrifice brought in order to be the champions.
Same deal here, folks. It’s not complicated.
Islamic fanaticism knows that we Westeners are not prepared to suffer sacrifice or pain in large measure. No. We need that slow, progressive, numbing injection we get at the dentist’s office so that when the drilling does start, we won’t feel a thing.
In other words, as Wolfgang above lamented, we are slowly giving up our freedoms and our culture step-by-step, until one day when we wake up in the morning, there will be no difference between the Sharia and Western law because it will be the same thing.
And we’ll all be dhimmis too, with all of the rights and privileges that that status accords.
No Comments »
Posted on September 26th, 2006 by Paycheck in LifeStyle Choices, Marriage
TORONTO — Liberal MP Belinda Stronach is being named as the (e)X-factor in a divorce application filed by Leanne Domi against her former Maple Leafs player husband Tie Domi.According to a published report, Domi believes her husband and Stronach have been involved in an “intimate sexual relationship” since he began working with her on her political campaign in January 2006. (Source)
Whether Ms. Stronach is guilty of procuring adultery or not is for the court and the contestants to determine. However, if it is true, don’t you find it ironic that a woman who is so concerned about equal rights and respect for the “marriage” for Adam and Steve, can’t figure out what marriage means between two heterosexuals?
Note to Ms. Stronach: Marriage is more than a relationship between two people. It’s a sign that says: “my man, stay away.”
No Comments »
Posted on September 26th, 2006 by Paycheck in Conservative Party, Feminism
OTTAWA — The government will use a surplus of $13.2 billion to pay down the federal debt while at the same time making $1 billion in spending cuts over the next two years. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird released the numbers Monday afternoon and said they have eliminated “wasteful and ineffective programs.”… Other programs and departments that were targeted include: Status of Women Canada, the Visitor Rebate Program, the Court Challenges Program, and the Youth International Internship Program. (Source)
“Wasteful and ineffective programs”. I like that Johnny. I like it alot.
You know, here I was running as Independent in Ottawa West Nepean, fearing that John Baird would be a nightmare for social conservatives, and look what happens?
He turns out to be the main player in advancing the social conservative cause by dismantling the pillars of social liberalism!
Is it me or does anyone else see the irony in all of this? If John Baird is the kind of liberal who doesn’t care what he slashes as long as he does slash, he can be sure we’ll be suggesting many other targets for him.
No Comments »
Posted on September 25th, 2006 by Paycheck in Social Conservativism
This past Saturday’s Globe & Mail (Sat. Sept.23, F6-F7) featured a fair and balanced column by free-lance writer, Christopher Dreher. It was a full two-page spread on social conservatism’s jump into the political arena entitled, “In Ottawa, faith makes a leap to the right“.
Social Conservatives United got a nod of recognition as one of the up-and-coming social conservative organizations in Canada too, thank you very much.
Apart from the usual kind of commentary from various leaders across the country, I found this little fact quite interesting:
“…the Toronto based Campaign Life Coalition’s newspaper hit a circulation of 30,000 after almost two decades; after putting Webportal, LifeSite.net online in 1997, it now gets 20,000,000 page views per month (not all, of course, from Canada).”
I know this is hard for the dumb and dumber in the media echelons to get, but the brutal fact is that the Left is dying and so is the circulation for those media outlets who cater to them. It’s called the Roe Effect – named after the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in the States. The idea behind it is that Liberals abort or have a token child for cosmetic purposes, while Conservatives believe it’s their God-given duty to have many children for King and Country. Ergo, in a generation, the Liberals will be wiped out. And only we’ll be around. I love it.
Anyways….the Globe & Mail is forever phoning me to buy a subscription. Other times I have to trudge through Loblaws so I can see a poor fellow trying to push a free copy of that rag on the next unsuspecting customer.
“Would you like a free copy of the Globe & Mail, sir?”
“No, thanks. I have plenty of toilet paper at home.”
No Comments »
Posted on September 25th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
On Sunday September 24 around 1pm, CFRA 580 News Talk Radio here in Ottawa aired an audio clip of Belinda Stronach being interviewed in one of those Parliamentary scrums late last week.
Describing the pro-life and pro-family women’s group Stronach said, “This is a group that is anti-choice, anti-gay, does not support equality for women and wants to obliterate the Department on the Status of Women. This group’s website even has links to sites that suggest that day cares do not care and homosexuality is a psychological disorder.”
Actually, it is a psychological disorder, Belinda, and more and more psychologists are removing their support from the APA’s 1973 political move to remove homosexuality as a disorder.
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, August 29, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) –President of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Gerald P. Koocher, broke with the APA’s long-held stance against homosexual re-orientation therapy earlier this month, saying the organization would support psychological therapy for those experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions, the National Association for the Therapy and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) reported.
Speaking of government funding for women’s groups such as REAL Women Canada which are pro-life, Stronach said, “They should be rejected because they’re anti-choice and they’re also anti-equal rights. They don’t support equality.”
So, let me get this straight, you don’t think that a Canadian woman who does not share your views on abortion or gay “marriage” should have a say in the agency which purportedly represents all women in Canada and tries to ensure the equality of women?
So what you are telling us, Belinda, is that some women are more equal than others. Correct?
That deserves some serious applause. Let’s give it to her everyone. Well, done Belinda. You sure are a shrewd feminist-politician, Belinda, I’ll grant you that.
Ladies and gentlemen, if Belinda Stronach is the product of what the Status of Women is trying to sell Canadian women, we have nothing to fear except ensuring she gets maximum press coverage for her views.
Just step right up to the microphone Belinda and just let it out, baby. You don’t need Paul Martin or Stephen Harper to be a star. You can do it all on your own. Sing it to the rooftops and be proud of yourself.
“My Canada excludes women who don’t think like me.”
You go girl!
1 Comment »
Posted on September 24th, 2006 by Paycheck in Feminism
I guess the Status of Women is really taking a beating these days in the press and in Parliament. Working women are starting to wake up to the fact that the Status of Women don’t represent anyone but themselves and perhaps a very dead Pierre Trudeau, while everyone else, on the other hand, is starting to realize that this Gerintology throwback-to-the-sixties agency is bleeding the taxpayer for absolutely no purpose except communist style women’s liberation: liberation from your children, liberation from your husband, liberation from your femininity, liberation from your…brain. You get the picture.
Anyhow, kudos to my good friend and prolific blogger, Suzanne, who recently got cited in some papers by calling into question the funding for this overbloated agency. Lots of stay-at-home moms ( you know the ones I’m sure — the ones that actually raise our nation’s children but don’t get the lucrative tax breaks offered for institutionalized daycare because well, I guess, they’re not “professional enough” to raise their own children) can tell you that $23 Million buckaroos, representing the SOWs annual budget, sure does buy a lot of diapers – 23 Million or so actually.
Suzanne has been able to unite a modest but growing group of bloggers (including yours truly) who want to keep up the pressure on the government to dump this porker. At the very least, the Tories should provide funding to actually help women find equality IN THE HOME and WITHIN THE FAMILY by giving them a true choice to stay home. Why did we elect the Tories anyway? To parrot the idiotic, androgynous ramblings of the Loony Left? C’mon Bev. Crack open the file again and stop milking Canadian women. That’s my money and my kids’ money. Give it back and stop funding Henry Morgentaller’s trips to Honolulu.
2 Comments »
Posted on September 24th, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says it’s up to parents, not lawmakers, to stop students from arranging fights and then posting the bloody brawls on the Internet. (Source)
When I ran against McGuinty in 2003 (as the FCP candidate in Ottawa South), I told him at one of the All-Candidate’s debate that no social policy legislated by the government was going to fix society’s problems with crime.
I said to him and the people in the seats: “Unless you fix the family, all of your problems are going to be 10 times worse than they are today.”
There are two things to appreciate here:
1) That my prediction, sadly, is coming true (Exhibit A: Ottawa’s escalating violent crime; Exhibit B: The You Tube Fights which Dalton is complaining about)
2) Dalton is starting to understand that good parenting and family life are the best way of solving society’s problems and not government bandaid laws.
Let’s hope that his government starts to reflect the benefits of strong families in his policies. I guess if Dalton is starting to get it, that’s just another reason to keep John Tory out of power. We need a real conservative in his place. No point in delaying what we socons need. Vote for Dalton, if you have no Family Coalition Party candidate.
Here are my opening and closing remarks against Dalton at that All-Candidate’s debate back in 2003. Fasten your seatbelts.
No Comments »
Posted on September 24th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception, Economics
In a move clearly aimed at encouraging more births in this country, a top government official has come up with a plan to re-introduce the long-abandoned childless tax in Russia.Speaking to the press after a seminar that focused on low birth rates in Russia health and social development minister Mikhail Zurabov suggested that childless taxpayers should help the state support families with children and thus at least partially assume the cost of encouraging more births….
The country’s population is declining by at least 700,000 people each year, leading to slow depopulation of the northern and eastern extremes of Russia, the emergence of hundreds of uninhabited “ghost villages” and an increasingly aged workforce. Official Russian forecasts, along with those from international organizations like the UN, predict a decline from 146 million to between 80 and 100 million by 2050…
In his state of the nation address earlier this year President Vladimir Putin said the most urgent problem facing Russia was its demographic crisis….
These days in Russia many married couples are reluctant about having babies, even if they are well-off and can afford to multiply. Many of the generation of those who are now in their 30s and 40s have already developed a set of personal values and there is hardly a place for a kid in their lives. Maybe, they would not mind a surcharge to exonerate themselves. If, of course, they ever experience any pangs of guilt…
Well, it’s not like there is not plenty of evidence that Russia, Japan, and most of Europe is dying, and no amount of financial incentives are going to put humpty-dumpty back together again.
I give it one more generation (perhaps 1.5 generations) before the West fades to black. If you’re looking for good returns on your investment, the only industry you are likely to find any growth is in retirement homes and funeral parlours – that is, if there is enough skilled labour to build them. The Gerintology Generation is about to burst the West’s opulent and decadent lifestyle, and all of those idiots who thought morality had no impact on the bottom line are going to get a cruel lesson in Economics 101.
There’s gonna come a point where young people are going to be the hottest commodity on the planet, and yes, I say commodity with trepiditation. As the New Italian Minister for Families recently admitted,
“Maybe we should have confronted this problem 30 years ago, but we didn’t and so we know the policies that we put into place have to be powerful,” said Rosi Bindi, the new minister. “There has to be an immediate inversion of tendencies.”
The problem here is very simple. We need to acknowledge a basic fact of civilization: no kids, no future. And kids requires sacrifice. Say it with me folks, s-a-c-r-i-f-i-c-e.
Understand that contraception and abortion have ruined the West.
If you want to understand why we are in the mess we are in today, visit my little venture and order some of the recordings. Let’s start admitting the truth about our predicament and start honestly talking about our most holy secular sacraments of contraception and abortion.
Western civilization depends on it. You can’t keep killing your future and expect this not to have any impact on the culture. It takes time to unravel, but now 40 years since the advent of the Pill, we are beginning to see the consequences of our choices.
What’s amazing to me is, despite the incontrovertible evidence of our population implosion, the Left is still pushing condoms and abortion like the crew of the Titantic was pushing lifesavers. Remarkable.
No Comments »
Posted on September 24th, 2006 by Paycheck in Catholicism, Islam
In the fullness of time, we can be sure that Almighty God knew that the Islamic religion would pose a serious threat to Christianity. God also knew that the Spanish missionaries would face grave resistance in the “new world” from the mighty Aztec Indians. The Aztecs worshipped an evil stone “serpent god” that demanded human sacrifice. It was extremely difficult to win souls for Christ from these bloodthirsty savages. However, with God all things are possible. Our Lady appeared to a humble Aztec Indian convert by the name of Juan Diego in 1531. When asked her name by Juan Diego, at the request of the local bishop, Our Lady’s response, in the Aztec language, included the words “te coatlaxopeuh” (pronounced: “te quatlasupe”) and meant “one who crushes the head of the stone serpent.”
To Juan Diego and his fellow Aztecs, this revelation had great meaning, coupled with the miraculous image of Our Lady standing on top of a “crescent,” the symbol of this evil serpent god. A tidal wave of conversions to Catholicism ensued. However, Bishop Zumarraga, who was from Spain, made what was no doubt a “heavenly mistake” that one day may lead to the mass conversion of Moslems. To the Bishop’s Spanish ears, Our Lady’s Aztec name of “Te Quatlasupe” sounded just like the name of the revered Madonna from Spain with the Islamic name, “Guadalupe.” Hence, the bishop named the Mexican Madonna “Our Lady of Guadalupe.” It is interesting that the “crescent” is also the symbol for Islam and that America’s Shrine to Our Lady has an Islamic name. (Source)
No Comments »
Posted on September 22nd, 2006 by Paycheck in LifeStyle Choices
This past August I ventured to Lansdowne Park for the annual exhibition with my family. I’m sure many of my fellow so-cons know the drill: rides, rides, and more rides for the kids. Walking up and down the paths is no easy feat with 4 kids under the age of 9, but it does have its moments.
“Look ma! Four girls!”, the kid yells out.
“Shhhhh, honey, they’re not all theirs. It must be a daycare,” responds mother confidently.
After spending the day watching my little women travel the world on planes, trains, and automobiles, the missus and I decide to head back to the ranch with the youngins. But wait, the kids decide that it’s time to pry open Dad’s wallet one more time. As we pass by one of those “fishing venues”, the attendant screams out, “Prize every time!” Huh? Prize every time?! Man how things change. When I was a kid back in 1975, you had to draw blood to win anything.
Then again, the attendant merely repeated the mantra of the left in a slightly different way. It’s the “entitlement syndrome”
I’m entitled to:
1) Canadian citizenship even if I have barely lived in this country.
2) Security even though I oppose a strong defense or military action.
3) Redefine marriage so that it can fit my lifestyle.
4) Create and chattelize children through buying & selling of pregnancy.
5) Destroy human life so I can live as I wish.
This self-absorbed, narcisstic society is sinking very, very fast. And you have to wonder what the soldiers over in Afghanistan are fighting for. They are sacrificing for what exactly? Families, traditions, honour, decency? No. They’re sacrificing for a hedonistic West who supports a multi-billion dollar pornography industry, the wholescale slaughter of the unborn child, a vicious gay agenda which seeks to silence and destroy the lives of ordinary Canadians. And the list goes on and on.
The culture of self-entitlement demands its entitlements, but what people don’t seem to get is if you are taking more than you are giving in the moral sphere, you go bankrupt just like in the financial world.
Receiving a prize every time can only last so long.
1 Comment »
According to today’s Globe & Mail, Stephen Harper has appointed Ontario Justice David Brown to the Ontario Superiour Court bench in the Toronto region. Judging by Justice Brown’s past assistance to social conservative and Christian groups in defending the traditionl family and the dignity of the human person, this is indeed is a welcome move from the Prime Minister.
In the past, Prime Minister Harper had demonstrated poor judgement in stifling debate on abortion within his own Party, and, in fact, promised the Canadian public that he would not allow abortion legislation to see the light of day. This action and many others had led many social conservatives, including yours truly, to question whether the Prime Minister was taking our support for granted.
But this latest move will help give social conservatives some real hope that he will appoint judges and other influential persons who reflect positions consistent with the common good of our society at large, instead of the shrill liberal ideologues who are destroying are country from within.
If Mr. Harper is signalling that he wants to offer an olive branch to social conservatives in the Party for past indiscretions, I think many of us on this side of the fence will accept it warmly. However, if this is a case of 1 modest step forward and 2 bigger steps backwards, we’ll be back to the old days.
I, for one, will be watching closely. And so will social conservatives across the country. The next election will be a real challenge for the Conservative Party, and it would be a real misfortune for the right, if social conservatives were given another viable option on the right.
Stay on the right side of the path, Mr. Harper, and we’ll all be happy.
No Comments »
Posted on September 19th, 2006 by Paycheck in Catholicism, Islam
On May 13, 1917, the Mother of God appeared to three shepherd children in Fátima, Portugal. The extraordinary visions, occuring on the 13th of the month for six months, are perhaps the most celebrated and famous of the Catholic faith. According to one of the child seers, the Blessed Mother confided three secrets to the children and exhorted the children and the world to do penance and pray the rosary. An entire account of the Fátima apparitions can be read here.
Recently, I have been thinking a lot about Fátima, and its significance to our current situation with the Muslim world, in light of the big broohahaha generated as a result of Pope Benedict’s comments. Being of Portuguese heritage (my parents are first generation immigrants), I had always been fascinated by the fact that Fátima had a connection with the Muslim world. (The city itself is located about 120 km north of Lisbon in central Portugal.) Fátima is originally an Arabic name, once given to one of Mohammed’s favoured daughters. It is therefore very popular name given to women among Roman Catholics and Muslims alike.
After eight centuries of Muslim rule of the Iberian penincula, the Christian kingdoms of north Portugal and Spain defeated and conquered the Southern Muslim forces. The Reconquista, as it is commonly referred to, resulted in the capture of a Muslim princess from Alcácer do Sal named Fátima who was so named in honour of Mohammed’s daughter. Of his daughter, Fátima, Mohammed once said: “She has the highest place in heaven after the Virgin Mary.” After her capture, she was betrothed to the leader of the Christian forces, and later baptized into the Catholic faith before her marriage in 1158. The village of modern day Fátima was given the Islamic name of this Princess.
Reports from Fátima indicate that thousands of Muslims make pilgrimages to the Catholic Shrine every year because of the devotion to the Blessed Virgin in the Islamic religion. The Koran mentions the Blessed Virgin Mary 30 times, while no other woman’s name is mentioned. In the Koran, Mary is described as “Virgin, ever Virgin.”
Now, let’s fast forward to the year 2000 when the third and final secret of Fátima was finally released. Here is a fair description of the events leading up to the release of the third secret by the Vatican:
Due to the long delay in revealing the third secret, all manner of theories circulated in the Church. Some claimed that it spoke of nuclear war, the deposition of the Pope, the assassination of a Pope, or the replacement of a Pope by an imposter. Finally, during a visit to Portugal for the beatification of the visionaries Francisco and Jacinta (Lucia was still alive), Pope John Paul II announced through his Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, that he had decided to make the text of the third secret public. A few months later, the text was released by the Vatican, together with a discussion of the meaning of the text.
“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’ And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White, ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.” (source)
The subsequent interpretation of this account by the Vatican sees these events in the past and referring principally to John Paul II’s near death at the hands at Mehmet Ali Agca, a Muslim Turkish assassin. John Paul II was shot on May 13, 1981, sixty-four years to the day of the first apparition at Fátima. Even Pope John Paul II is said to have believed that the text refers to the failed assassination attempt by Mehmet Ali Agca on May 13, 1981, against him.
While this is probably true, we have to wonder if the story of Fátima is completed. Our Lady promised that her Immaculate Heart would eventually triumph. And most of the commentary up to now has always focused on the evil of Communism since she herself predicted that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world. But buried in there somewhere is Fátima. Why did heaven choose this village, the village named after a Muslim princess who converted to the Catholic faith?
In the current turmoil with the Muslim world, it is almost too inconceivable to believe what her appearance at Fátima might suggest: the conversion of the Muslim world to the Catholic Faith. How this can possibly happen, nobody really knows and even my speculations here are just mere musings on my part. Then again, if the West is plunged into a future conflict with the Muslim world, you have to wonder whether the the Third Secret really applies more to Benedict than it does to John Paul II.
5 Comments »
Posted on September 16th, 2006 by Paycheck in Islam
I was going to offer a rather lengthy commentary on the recent blow up surrounding the Pope’s rather academic comments, but I decided to shorten it somewhat and simply let David Warren do the talking for me in this bulls eye article, a selection of which I provide here:
Here is the point Pope Benedict was making, also in the words of that learned Byzantine emperor, speaking on the eve of one of the many sieges of Constantinople:
“God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. … To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.”
It is a point the Greek-educated and Christian emperor takes as self-evident, but which is not self-evident to a theology that holds God entirely beyond human reason, and says He may command whatever He commands, including conversion by force should He so will. As the Pope said, it is a conflict that stabs us once again today: Does God act with “logos”? (This is the Greek word for “reason” as well as “word”) How do we defend this very Catholic (and Orthodox) idea outside the Church, where our own theological assumptions are not shared?
This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.
By turning the story back-to-front, so that what’s promised in the lead — a crude attack on Islam — is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.
So with the typical reaction of Muslim extremism, 2 eternal truths have been revealed:
1) The Muslim world, judging by the rather whole scale denunciation of the Pope’s rather tame comments, is not prepared to dialogue with Christianity, much less the West, in anything that can resemble a civil dialogue. The only way of life they seem to understand is to conquer or be conquered. You just have to wonder whether the idiots at the BBC or The New York Times have figured out that, in their quest to destroy Catholicism, Christianity, and anything resembling decency in the West, the Jihadiis are not going to cut them any slack if and when they take over their operations. Then again, these particular puff pieces are simply fronts for Al Jazeera any way.
2) John Paul II was a politician his whole life. He knew how to sidestep these sorts of things in dealing with the Communists all those years. Poor Benedict was a professor. He was used to academics. And since this was primarily an academic exercise on his part, he simply tried to explain in a civil and Christian manner the Catholic position by referencing an historical text, and, I might add, distancing himself from the Emperors rather blunt (and correct) assessment.
But even that politically correct gesture did not fly with Muslim leaders. It appears they have a problem with their violent past and letting go of it in the 21st century.
Now before the MSM froth at the mouth at promoting Benedict’s comments as an “obvious outrage”, you would think they think twice about undermining the god of free speech they have been worshipping all these years. Then again, I never believed they were interested in Free Speech. The Mohammed cartoons proved that. Modern journalists, by and large, are just good ol’ fashioned champagne liberal hypocrites. They’re all for free speech as long as they’re the ones writing the speeches.
The BBC and the rest of the MSM are culpable for any Catholics or Christians hurt, as a result of any misrepresentation they promote in Benedict’s speech. They should go to jail.
No Comments »
Posted on September 16th, 2006 by Paycheck in Conservative Party
That’s the headline from a CP report appearing in the Toronto Star on Thursday.
Here’s the salient portion:
“Neither IQ level, nor political astuteness are prerequisites to be a candidate — just a citizen over 18 with a reasonable credit record, no serious crime sheet and a surname other than Riddell,” Finley wrote in a December e-mail to Ian Brodie, who now is chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.”
Well, if that was the criteria, I totally understand why they pick the candidates that they do. Of course, if that was the sole criteria for the admission into the Tory club, there would have been no beef with letting yours truly stand for nominination in Ottawa West Nepean.
If it’s not intelligence or political history but only someone who hasn’t had any financial difficulties or has a crime record, then why wasn’t I allowed to run, Doug?
I’ll tell you why. Because I dared to tell the truth about the documented and journaled health consequences of gay sex when no one else wanted to touch that issue with a ten foot condom.
So, Doug and Ian, here’s a message you can send to the boys in the inner chamber: make sure you put integrity and honesty in the optional qualities of anyone seeking a Conservative Party nomination.
No Comments »
Posted on September 15th, 2006 by Paycheck in Violent Crime
“You will come to know him as Trench,” the 18-page self-profile begins:
“He is not a people person. He has met a handfull (sic) of people in his life who are decent. But he finds the majority to be worthless, no good, kniving (sic), betraying, lieing (sic), deceptive mother f–ckers. Work sucks. School sucks. Life sucks. What else can I say.”
This sick young man actually had a lot of other things to say…
Dislikes: THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT
But to be more specific:
F___ng Religious People Who Think They Know Everything…..And Then They Stick It In Your Face Cuz’ They Think They Know Everything (They Don’t Understand That They’re Just A Bunch Of Little Sheep) Catholics…
Church Going Assholes
Bible Thumpping Know-It-Alls
Damn I Gotta Lot Of Dislikes
Child Molesting Priests
Did I Mention That I Hate The World Pitbulls (They’re Too Dangerous) Waking Up
The City It’s Just So Damn Crowded
The Human Race
So very unexpectedly, the social leftists and the liberal MSM are just clamoring to capitalize on the event, calling for tighter gun laws. I know it’s hard to believe, but stranger things have happened. The typical headlines are so painfully predictable: “Registry flares up” and “PM to look at toughening laws in wake of Dawson shooting”. My goodness, folks, registering guns is not going to stop the hate. Hate will always find away of killing…and getting the guns to do it. Are we so obtuse to think otherwise? But instead of recognizing this simple fact, our culture and the politicians who represent it refuse to acknowledge that we have lost any sense of an objective morality or any kind of appreciation for the sacredness of human life and the human person.
It takes courage to admit that we are wrong and that we are going in the wrong direction. And because we don’t have politicians with courage, we continue to go in the wrong direction. ‘Cause you know, the most important thing is staying elected, no matter what the cost. “It does not matter if the ship is sinking, just as long as I’m captain,” seems to be the order of the day. (Sidenote for Mr. Harper: if you don’t find your backbone on the internal culture war that is ravaging this country, no amount of freedom fighting in Afghanistan is going to mean a hill of beans. Your attention to the disintegration of this country would therefore be most appreciated. We don’t want more useless gun laws. We want a little bit of honesty, some moral courage and a dash of real leadership.)
Mr. Gill had no meaning in life. He hated God and he hated us “Church Going Assholes”. He hated people who claim there is meaning and purpose to our existence. He hated authority – civil or moral. Mr. Gill is a by-product of our sick culture, a culture of nihilism and death. Granted, he took his views to the extreme, but they are not at all inconsistent with a culture that sees everything as relative and nothing as absolute. That treats human life, the Christian faith, and meaning to life as arbitrary and quaint ideas.
Let us not delude ourselves. There will be more killing rampages. There will be more laws to “protect us”. There will be less freedom.Why did Mr. Gill kill? Because he hated God and could find no meaning to his existence. Kinda like us.
We refuse to accept that without the search for truth, freedom is nothing but crass immoral license dressed up in a cheap disguise. In the case of Mr. Gill, the license he chose was a license to kill.
No Comments »