Archive for December, 2006
Posted on December 27th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception
What are the health risks of vasectomy?Although the final verdict on the health risks of vasectomy is not in, suspicions are rising that the long-term effects on a man’s immunological system can pose serious health problems. Criticism is mounting within the medical community about the uncritical way in which vasectomy has been declared medically safe. Between 10% and 15% of adult men in the U.S. have been vasectomized 3 and yet, as Dr. H. J. Roberts has written, “I know of no other operation performed on humans that induces responses to such a degree by the immune system.”4
What happens to the sperm?
After a vasectomy, sperm production continues as before, around 50,000 spermatozoa per minute.5 Lacking a normal anatomical passage, these cells are either consumed by destroyer cells (macrophages) or degenerate and produce antigens that cause antibodies to be produced.6At least eight of these sperm antigens have been identified. These antigens frequently infiltrate into the bloodstream and induce other cells throughout the body to manufacture antibodies against the sperm. These are called “anti-sperm autoantibodies.”
What is autoimmunity?
Antibodies are the way we immunize ourselves against specific diseases in our environment. Antigens are the triggering mechanism the body needs in order to produce the right antibodies for its defense. An example of this effect is the allergic reaction that occurs when the body is highly sensitive to a certain food cell.
When the body gears up its defenses to destroy cells of its own making, as after a vasectomy, then the body becomes “auto-immune” — allergic to itself.
Has this been linked with vasectomy?
Several studies confirmed this linkage in the l970s, finding antibodies to sperm antigens in 55% to 75% of patients within two years after vasectomies.7 In a 1982 study, investigators pointed out. “…the incidence of sperm antibody following vasectomy may have been underdetected.”8 It is so common to see this reaction among vasectomized men that an absence of such antibodies has become an indicator of hormonal malfunction.9 With more advanced methods of detection, it has been possible to detect the antibody response within two weeks after vasectomy.10
What are some auto-immune diseases?
Auto-immunity has been suspected to cause diseases such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, some types of hepatitis, Addison’s disease (malfunction of the adrenal glands), and lupus erythematosis.11
A landmark study by Nancy J. Alexander and Thomas B. Clarkson concluded that “the immunologic response to sperm antigen that often accompanies vasectomy can exacerbate atherosclerosis” (hardening of the arteries).12 Subsequent studies have lent support to their finding.13
What about the risk of cancer?
In the early 1980s, Dr. Richard Ablin, researcher at the Hwektoen Institute in Chicago , hypothesizes that prostate cancer could be caused by unejaculated sperm. A decade later, epidemiologists reported an “unexpected association ” between vasectomy and prostate cancer. One study found the risk of this cancer increased between 3.5 to 5.3 times;14 a separate study found an overall risk 1.7 times greater beginning 12 years after vasectomy, rising to 2.2 times (more than double the risk) between 13 and 18 years later.15 Two large studies of vasectomized men were conducted through the Harvard Medical School and published in 1993. They found the overall risk of prostate cancer increased between 56 and 60%, increasing to 89% for those who had vasectomies 20 or more years earlier.16
Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American men, claiming some 30,000 lives per year. Although these studies did not prove any conclusive link between vasectomy and prostate cancer, the American Urological Association urged that patients be informed of the risk on the basis of these papers.17Increased risks of lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma were noted among men 20 years after vasectomy.18 The Coronary Artery Surgery Study, analyzing 1106 men, found a two-and-a-half times higher risk of kidney stones among vasectomized patients 30-35 years old.19 An association with testicular cancer has also been noted.20 A healthy immune system is our day-to-day defense against cancer. The authors of the Harvard studies hypothesized “the immune response to sperm antigens following vasectomy may enhance tumor growth by blocking of antibodies of tumor suppresser cells by sperm antigens.”21
Like the long-established link between abortion and oral contraception and breast cancer, vasectomies are now being linked to prostate cancer. Not exactly a coincidence that all of these cancers are coinciding with the rise in perverse attacks on our sexual organs, is it?
Of course, there will continue to be “debate” and “studies” by well financed arms of liberal academia and the big phamaceutical companies denying the link, but there does seem to be some intuitive link, does there not? Were we that stupid to think that messing with the human body by manipulating the sexual act would have no adverse health consequences?
If you are considering a vasectomy: DON’T DO IT.
No Comments »
Posted on December 26th, 2006 by Paycheck in Media Distortions
One of the great things about the internet is that, besides being an incredible source for information, it has given the power to the people. Let me be more specific. It has taken away much of the power of some people and, instead, given it to many more. I am speaking, of course, about the power of the press. Before the internet age, liberal newsreporters could stifle legitimate news stories that they deemed unworthy. You know the ones I am talking about, I’m sure. It’s the ones you never saw because those particular stories would have made their liberal cousins in power look bad. After all, if it wasn’t for the bloggers, we’d still be hearing Dan Rather blather on about George Bush.
The internet has helped conservatives keep the liberals honest – not an easy task for sure. If one mainstream media outlet won’t pick up the latest liberal boondoggle, then the bloggers will, and the only thing the MSM hates more than a conservative viewpoint is being scooped by a conservative!
So the internet has basically made the press more transparent in “text” media. Conservatives are no longer beholden to that national press to get our news. There are lots of alternative sources on the internet which provide more “fair and balanced” coverage, as Fox News likes to say. In the course of a conversation I had with the Editor of the National Post in 2005, he was surprised to hear that I don’t get the National Post. He was genuinely disturbed when I told him that it was too liberal a paper for me to waste money on.
And with the invention of YouTube, the MSM TV networks around the Western world might as well kiss their dominance in this area goodbye too. The advertising dollars are going where the action is and it ain’t on the BoobTube. It’s YouTube or bust. It’s only a matter of time, therefore, before every Tom, Dick, and Muhammed is going to have their own little TV station to broadcast their views.
Hasta la vista, baby.
But just to give you a little taste on how the MSM is taking their loss of influence on the greater culture, get a load of these comments by Steve Maich in his article in MacLean’s Magazine…
Conspiracy theories, conjecture and outright fabrications masquerade as fact on the Internet, and often, nobody seems to notice the difference. The problem is rooted equally in the nature of humans and the nature of cyberspace. The designers of the Internet put their deepest faith in the wisdom of the masses to establish truth and value by consensus. Google ranks search results based on how many others link to a particular site. Digg.com is a site organized according to users’ ratings on what’s interesting and what isn’t. And Wikipedia, of course, is based upon the notion that hundreds of thousands of anonymous contributors, all acting as freelance fact checkers, can produce a reliable reference document. Unfortunately, the masses have proven themselves truly unworthy of that trust.
Oh yes. Don’t you love that condescending crap? And, please tell us, Mr. Maich, why you think that 1 hell bent liberal with all of the power of persuasion and control is necessarily better than thousands of people who all have a say? And as for the “truth”, do you even acknowledge such a concept — other than of course that liberals have it and everyone else does not?
But, that’s not all, folks, he continues later on…
In the place of hard information, the Net has ushered in the era of the amateur commentator. Rather than reporting the news, the Internet actually excels at allowing millions to analyze the news of the day on their blogs and message boards. “It is no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has achieved, and continues to achieve, the most participatory marketplace of mass speech that this country — and indeed the world — has yet seen,” George Will, Newsweek’s revered columnist, wrote a few years back. Sounds spectacular, but what’s the great value of a participatory marketplace of mass speech if so few have anything to say that’s worth buying? (Source)
Funny that. That’s what we peons have been saying about the liberal propaganda and shallow thinking that has dominated the Western press for forty years. At least now, we have a choice. And that is why you’re all hot and bothered, Steve. We have a choice and we are not choosing “professional commentators” like you, Steve. The Evening News with Dan Rather just doesn’t work for us anymore.
These comments by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun really hit the nail on the head….
“The media are less a window on reality than a stage on which officials and journalists perform self-scripted, self-serving fictions.” Paul Weaver wrote that in a New York Times article called “Selling the Story” more than a dozen years ago. But doesn’t it sound like an accurate summation of almost any news conference today, where the advocates are in favour of, say, universal daycare, same-sex marriage, Kyoto, more social spending or greater “rights” for criminals? Indeed, do you sometimes find it hard to separate the lobbyists from the media at such events?I do. Especially when obvious questions about the claims being made by these advocates are never asked by the media, whom, it appears, either agree with the positions espoused or, worse, seem unaware there could possibly be any other positions. For example, if, as daycare advocates claim, Canadians overwhelmingly favour a national daycare program, why isn’t that reflected in credible polls on the subject? Why do they show that parents want a broad range of child-care options, only one of which is institutional daycare, which is often not even their first, second or third choice?
Why aren’t gay activists ever challenged by the media on their absurd claim that one cannot have an opinion on same-sex marriage other than celebratory approval, without being a bigot? Why don’t the media quiz them about their views on gay marriage with the same aggressiveness they do evangelical Christians?
One reason, as surveys of American journalists have shown, is that reporters tend to be more left-wing than the general population. Another is the destruction of critical thinking caused by what is laughably referred to as our “liberal” education system, which is actually all about learning to internalize a series of rigid, “progressive” liberal orthodoxies, such as support for universal daycare, same sex marriage, “rehabilitating” criminals, etc. (Source)
No Comments »
Posted on December 24th, 2006 by Paycheck in Religion
On behalf of my wife Lara and my children (Emma, Tonya, Clarissa, and Sophia), I would like to wish all of my friends and readers a holy and blessed Christmas and prosperous New Year.
Although 2006 has been a rough one for the Canadian family for obvious reasons, it is important that none of us lose hope. We must never give up. Never. Never. Never.
We often concentrate on the rot slowly eating away at our culture and our families. But like most things which appear on the surface, we must not confuse what is apparent with what is substantial or real. While it is true that the Culture of Death and Tyranny continues to advance at an alarming rate, we must keep in mind that the movement for life and light is moving equally as fast, although underground and not as apparent.
The culture of death, remarkable as it may seem, is really not advancing to anything permanent or lasting. It is actually moving towards its destruction and defeat because, as believers in Jesus Christ know, anything that is not totally in and with Christ will eventually perish. This is what history teaches us, as Napoleon once said, “nations and kingdoms fall away, the Church alone remains“.
So while our current materialistic and hedonistic culture begins its descent into a complete free-fall and eventual collapse, the Culture of Life and its seed, undergirded by the truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, is starting to sprout. Indeed the Springtime of a civilization love may soon rise up out of the ashes of this culture of death. It can happen over night. It happened with Communism. It can happen again.
We must trust. We must pray. We must sacrifice.
And most of all, we must remember that our ultimate hope is not in politics or activism. It is in the little baby born 2000 years ago in a stable, the God-man Jesus Christ, who was born to die and rise again and crush the head of the serpent once and for all.
Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ! Let every knee bend to the true King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
O Lord, convert us. Redeem us. Save us.
Maranatha Lord Jesus. Maranatha.
See y’all after Christmas.
No Comments »
Posted on December 23rd, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
My goodness. The way Elizabeth May is courting Judy Rebick and doing damage control these days, you’d think she ran over Rebick’s imaginary child or something. Ooops. Sorry. We are talking about abortion here. No room for any rights but a woman’s. All this groveling by Ms. May is rather comical. Here we have 2 feminists who don’t want to open up the question of abortion’s legal status in this country, yet are having a little spat over whether it’s prudent to at least talk about the issue.
Elizabeth May is a politician. She knows that most Canadians are not comfortable with the whole issue and they are far from the pro-abort zealot that Judy Rebick is. Instead Ms. May wants to talk in terms of practical things to bridge the divide (i.e. addressing the conditions which make abortion prevalent, the responsibility of both partners, etc.), and therefore she is looking at the mushy middle where most Canadians see themselves. Judy Rebick however is a feminist’s feminist. Pure as the virgin snow. She doesn’t want May to touch this issue with a 40 foot condom. She’s not looking for consensus or understanding. She just wants everyone to acknowledge that abortion is the best invention since the light bulb. More on this later.
Ms. May, on the other hand, also knows that many pro-lifers are looking for a small opening to give us an excuse to vote Green this next election. All of the Federal Party leaders look basically the same on this issue so any concession by a new federal party leader who has a good chance to make some inroads in the next election could be just ticket to pick up a lot more votes. Socons, who are not at all pegged to the fiscal conservative spectrum of the Conservative Party, are looking very closely at the Green Party. They are just hunkering to dump Mr. Muzzle after the Montreal convention and the same-sex “marriage” farce of a vote.
Before getting to Ms. May’s letter, let’s here what Mark Francis, a liberal blogger, has to say:
I would hope that people upset with Elizabeth would come to realize that she’s an ally, not an enemy. After all, she’s pro-life in her personal outlook, but pro-choice politically, and is comfortable with her position. In other words, she is an example of a prominent person who has bridged the gulf between pro-choice and pro-life. Why Judy Rebick wishes to alienate her is beyond me. (Source)
Well, there is no bridge wide enough for this gulf, Mark. Just as there is no coherent, philosophically consistent position between someone who believes in a moral issue personally but is not willing to take that stand politically. In the old days, such a person would be called a “coward”. A coward is a person who is afraid, for some sort of personal loss, to take a stand for what they know is right or wrong. Ms. May knows abortion is wrong, but she still allows the law to reflect this error and has the temerity to actually insist that it should not be changed.
As for not understanding why Judy Rebick is so uptight with Liz May, one only has to understand that all those hard fought “gains” (measured in pounds of flesh, I don’t doubt) are susceptible to claw back when dialogue on peripheral issues surrounding abortion is engaged. In other words, don’t talk about restricting or preventing abortion IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. Otherwise, it will be the first step on a very short slippery slope. This is likely Judy Rebick’s mindset. But it is not, quite obviously, the mindset of a politician who has to be a proverbial marshmellow to get elected.
So let’s now turn to some excerpts from Elizabeth May’s letter which is being kindly hosted on a left wing forum, financed by our tax dollars no less. My comments are in red.
Let’s revisit the basics.
Is the Green Party strongly in favour of a woman’s right to access a safe and legal abortion? Yes.
Am I personally strongly in favour of a woman’s right to access a safe and legal abortion? Yes.
(In fact, I am concerned that there is progress to be made to ensure access through enhancing availability of abortion providers. More work needs to be done to ensure access.)Of course. Of course. We know. The slaughter must continue unabated, and access to the slaughter houses and incinerators must also be improved.
Have I ever suggested we should re-open a debate on the issue? No. I never said a woman’s right to choose trivialized anything. Not ever. So, what is the kerfuffle about?
The kerfuffle, Liz, is that you are a politician looking to play both ends of the question. Although you are trying to make a very lame attempt at addressing our position, it’s still too dangerous to the “Abortionists R Us” crowd this holiday season. Try looking at it from Judy’s perspective, Liz. This whole movement of death and dismemberment is her “baby”, so to speak. It’s what she’s dedicated her 30 years of adulthood to. The law is firmly on her side. Therefore, when you have a lock on the law, the political establishment, and the press over this issue, any dialogue whatsoever can only hurt you. You know, the Communists thought and still do think the same thing. That’s why they try to squash debate because debate brings up questions. Questions need answers. And answers sometime begin to undermine the dominant dogma which eventually leads to…drum roll please…a change in the law. For a political party leader, you’d think you’d be kinda up on this kind of strategical stance, Liz. It’s not that complicated.
I did say that sloganeering gets in the way of dialogue. As a practicing Christian, I hate being told I am not “pro-life” because I support a legal right to abortion. I favour access to safe and legal abortions as an aspect of my respect for life.
You are not pro-life. Someone who is pro-life will align their political views with their personal views. Since you claim to be a Christian, Liz, here’s a bit o’ advice for you. When you are judged by God, He will not be judging two persons, but only one. There won’t be “Elizabeth May the Politician” and “Elizabeth May the Private Citizen and Christian”. There’s only one Elizabeth May and she needs to decided which side she is on and then have the decency and coherency to stand by it in all spheres of her life. It’s tantamout to having an extra-marital affair and claiming you were faithful because you didn’t have sex with the other man when you were at home on weekends.
As we know and your letter notes, otherwise, women will die. The status of a foetus before birth is debatable in terms of when the potential for life crystallizes as human life.
And to think, biology has been a completely arbitrary science all these years. Oh well, I guess we should just lump it in with marriage whose definition is also rather arbitrary these days.
That is, as I explained in my rather long, nuanced answer posted on a blog which created this controversy, something that has been in dispute since Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Baloney. Abortion was always condemned in Christian tradition as was contraception and sodomy. The question regarding ensoulment is a different question, but it does not directly impact the heinous crime of abortion which was always and everywhere condemned by the Church.…
But there is no doubt about the status of the human lives lost in the period when abortions were illegal. Not potential lives — actual lives were lost. Hundreds, if not thousands, of women died.
Really? Where did you get these numbers, Liz? You got these numbers from the pro-abort propaganda machine that you have blindly accepted. In point of fact, Bernard Nathanson, the famous abortion doctor who was at the center of Roe v. Wade, admitted to making those numbers up to sway public opinion. Bernard Nathanson eventually converted to the Catholic Faith about 10 years ago. He saw the light. I pray that you will to.
…I believe that respectful dialogue is possible even around such an emotionally charged issue as this. Not every opponent of legal abortions is unthinking. Neither is every supporter of legal abortion unwilling to acknowledge the moral complexity of the issue. Some common ground could be found, I believe, when the discussion shifts to a broader context.
Judy Rebick is not willing to acknowledge the moral complexity of this issue because she fears what might happen if the issue itself is reopened. Can’t say I blame her, but I do hope you continue on in your little crusade on the left side of the spectrum.
…I’d like to continue to explore a dialogue about what our society really wants …
Well, if that is your criteria, then why don’t you acknowledge what the polls have been telling you for over 5 years now?!?! Two-thirds of Canadian want some legal protection for the unborn. Why won’t you listen to this huge number?!? No other federal politician does. Here is your big chance to be the only federal politician – and a woman at that – who will offer some protection for the most helpless unborn child. It won’t cost you at the ballot box either.
…If we could focus on what we want as a society, that might bring us closer together. We would want every pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy and every child to be a wanted child.
Well, that is why the West is dying. Very few women want children. No children? No future. That’s how it works. Abortion is not the answer to unwanted pregnancies. The answer to unwanted pregnancies is to want the pregnancy. That means valuing the sexual act within the context of a life-long committed relationship otherwise known as marriage and being open to children every time you have sex.
Abortion is not a human right. It is a human degradation and holocaust. It is a defeat for humanity to have recourse to killing innocent babies so we can live our lives as we please.
Abortion is the end of man.
No Comments »
Posted on December 21st, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics
So here is the website of the Trudeau Foundation, paid for by Stephen Harper and his so-called Conservative government.
This is how the foundation describes itself:
Independent and non-partisan, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation was established in March 2002 with an endowment of $125 million from the Canadian federal government to honour the great humanitarian spirit of the former Prime Minister.
And, of course, the Conservative Party of Canada has continued to honour this endowment and even kick in some dough for operating costs. Lovely. Just lovely.
This is the mission of the Trudeau Foundation:
The Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation promotes outstanding research in the humanities and social sciences, and fosters a fruitful dialogue between scholars and policymakers in the arts community, business, government, the professions, and the voluntary sector. The Foundation
encourages emerging talent through the awarding of Trudeau Scholarships to the most talented doctoral students in Canada and abroad; appoints distinguished Trudeau Fellows and Mentors for their knowledge and wisdom to build an intellectual community supporting the work of the Scholars; creates and maintains an international network of Trudeau Fellows, Scholars, and Mentors.
So let me get this straight, guys. You are funding a socially liberal ideological indoctrination program to spread its putrid lies and errors not only in Canada but around the world? Do you think that we don’t have enough of this crap already? Or are you just some kind of politico-sado-masochist groupies hoping to inflict pain on the next generation? Is this supposed to make the job of electing conservatives in the future easier? Good grief. Nothing like buying votes now (or at least acting like fools in trying) and creating a swath of more liberal drones for future generations to deal with.
We really do need another political party. Dominion Party of Canada. It’s sounding better every time I say it and looking better every time I type it.
No Comments »
Posted on December 21st, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
It looks like Geritol Judy, the woman who has been fighting for a woman’s “right” to kill unborn children for thirty years, thinks Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, is just not pro-abortion enough for her. No sirry. The pro-abortion orthodoxy must march in lock step with Judy Rebick or else or else or else….well, Judy will huff and puff and rip up that big cheque that socialists rarely write. Here’s an excerpt Geritol Judy’s letter to Liz…
If you had said that you personally oppose abortion but you support a woman’s right to choose, I would have been fine with that. Instead you said that a woman’s right to choose, something tens of thousands of Canadian women fought for for decades, was trivializing an important issue. It felt like a slap in the face. Since you have so little respect for me or for the women’s movement which mobilized for so long to win this hard-earned right, I hope you will understand that I ripped up the cheque I had written to the Green Party and you can no longer rely on me for support.
There is no middle ground on the abortion issue as you are no doubt finding out. The organized opposition to abortion in this country as in the United States does not care if women die. Of course, there are many people who are opposed to abortion for religious reasons but here I am talking about the anti-choice activists.
I personally have debated right-to-lifers for 30 years. There is no dialogue here. They put the life of a foetus above the rights and even the lives of women. Whether or not you agree with this, by raising the issue in the way that you did, you contribute to their position. (Source)
Uh huh. So Ms. Rebick thinks that someone who, while still defending the legal right to abortion, believes that abortion might not be the best of alternatives or even something that is a tragedy, is somehow abandoning the pro-abortion position? This only shows just how out-of-touch Ms. Rebick and the rest of the Rabble gang are with the rest of the Canadian population. In case Judy didn’t know, the overwhelming majority of Canadians would find Ms. Rebick’s abortion dogma hard to swallow. In fact, for many years now, the polls have consistently showed that most Canadians favour at least some protection for the unborn child.
Here is Ms. May’s response to Ms. Rebick…
What I was trying to suggest was that slogans distort the reality that there are moral dimensions to both positions. So-called “pro-life” supporters, if access to legal abortions was eliminated, would lead to the deaths of women in illegal abortions. Similarly, “pro-choice… or right to choose” can suggest to others a non-traumatic, simple, or even frivolous choice. Obviously, no woman facing an unwanted pregnancy takes the issue of a possible abortion lightly. It is always a very difficult, emotionally charged choice. It is not ever well-reflected in an overly simplistic slogan. To create any space for greater societal understanding of the positions of each “side” we need to acknowledge the moral dimensions on all sides of the question. We must always have right to legal and safe abortions. I am both a Christian and a feminist. (These are not inconsistent affiliations.) I would defend to the death the access to legal and safe abortions. But not because I think abortion is a great thing to have in the life of any woman. They are not a social good. We do not measure our health as a society based on how many abortions are performed, but rather on the ability to access a safe abortion when needed. Similarly, we must have access to chemotherapy, but no one hopes to have it. (Source)
Aside from Ms. May’s other objectionable comments, including her very disturbing comments about Christianity and abortion, I found her remark about abortion not being a social good rather revealing. If it’s not a social good, Ms. May, what is it? And more importantly, if it is not a social good, then perhaps you can explain to us why this is so? Obviously you have reasons to believe that it is not a social good. I am sure those reasons would include adverse consequences to all concerned, no? And if that is so, why are we tolerating a procedure that has such adverse consequences on women, children, and the culture at large? Furthermore, in regards to your rather bizarre comparison to chemotheraphy, access to chemotherapy is indeed a social good since it preserves human life. Pregnancy, in case you didn’t know, is not cancer; it is not a disease. So your logic does not follow. Chemotherapy is a social good because it preserves life and fights disease. Abortion does neither. It is not a social good, as you have readily admitted. Therefore why are we allowing it and even promoting it?
As an aside, everyone, don’t you just get a kick that Judy Rebick has been fighting the abortion war for 30 years and still can’t shake it? She’s on the defensive and sounds desperate, if you ask me. For a so-called “settled issue”, it seems that this issue is the issue that just won’t go away. And if it won’t go away after three decades, we know that there is something terribly wrong with the current law. It’s called a collective guilty conscience…and bad reasoning which sustains it. The tower is gonna fall, folks. Sooner or later. It’s coming down.
No Comments »
WINNIPEG, Manitoba, LifeSiteNews.com (December 20, 2006) – The effort to complete Canada’s projected $311 million shrine to Pierre Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms seems to have received a significant new boost this past week – from an again unlikely source.The Winnipeg Free Press reported on Tuesday that the Conservative federal government is in the final stages of negotiating plans to designate the Human Rights Museum, which thus far has been a private sector effort, a national institution. By doing so the Harper led government would enable itself to cover the $12 million plus in annual operating costs that the museum will incur.
This $12 million annual funding will be in addition to the already hefty $100 million one-time pledge – made by the former Liberal Government under Paul Martin—that current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised to honor.
The possibility of even further federal funding for the project comes as a surprise to many, who had expected the new Conservative government would step back from the costly project, the largest supporters of which generally hail from the far-left of the political and social spectrum.
Prime Minister Trudeau, whose 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be the focal point of the Museum of Human Rights, was well known for his sympathy for communist leaders such as former Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung and Fidel Castro.…
Even if the federal government does decide to increase its funding of the Museum to the tune of $12 million annually, however, the project, according to its website, currently still needs $93.3 million in private funding. Interestingly, in Dec, 2005, the website stated the museum project was $54 million short. (Source)
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Can someone please explain to me why a self-professed “Conservative Party” is building a museum to commemorate the trashing of traditional family values and religious freedom? Is it really necessary to pay for an icon of destructive social liberalism when we already have to face the provincial star chambers because we dare to question state sponsored sodomy? I could understand the Liberals or the NDP doing this. I cannot understand a so-called conservative party prostituting itself in such an undignified and unconservative manner…and spending my kid’s health care money to do it! When will the drones in the CPC realize that the Pierre Trudeau Fan Club and the Human Rights Cabal are merely moral communist poster boys pimping for every conceivable leftist-wing nut cause under the guise of “human rights”. In Canada today, as we all know, some humans have more rights than others.
Is Stephen Harper so blind that he thinks by throwing the Left a bone that he will secure their votes? Oh Nellie, say it isn’t so.
You know, for a long time now, the social conservatives within the Conservative Party have been telling us that Harper can only do so much for us because those are the political realities of our time. He can advance a little bit of the social conservative agenda, but he can’t push too far. Or else! Or else what? Or else the drones of the Conservative Party could be out on their collective arses and wouldn’t have their cushy phony baloney jobs anymore after the next election, and that would be universally acknowledged to be a complete disaster, n’est pas Pierre? Oui!
But what the Church of the CPC can do is hold the left at bay, and not propose or support any radical Leftist agenda. That’s what we were told. And yet now that this shrine is being built, we have to ask a very simple question: Is the Conservative Party playing us for fools or is it just really the same as the Liberal Party?
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. It’s a duck.
No Comments »
Posted on December 20th, 2006 by Paycheck in Pro-Life Activism
To really look at the pro-life movement’s approach to abortion over the last 40 years is to look at an incomplete strategy which, in large part, only addresses the symptom of a much wider cultural malaise. Abortion is not the problem. It is a symptom, the logical consequence of a series of errors, building on each other until the consummation is reached in rejecting human life.
Abortion is not the beginning of the problem, it is the end of it. Well before a woman chooses to kill the child within her womb, the foundation for the culture of death and meaningless sex must have been first well embedded. No woman kills her baby unless some serious self-delusion and hefty philosophical error have first entrenched themselves in the culture’s mentality.
The mentality of no to human life finds its impetus first and foremost in a rejection of God. With the rejection of God the Creator, there is a rejection of meaning (the only real meaning which transcends the current world). With the loss of meaning, there is a loss of the sense of sacrifice. (When, for instance, was the last time you saw a leftist sacrificing for anything other than himself? That’s why leftists are against war and for abortion: the opposite positions require their assent to personal sacrifice.) And with the loss of the sacrifice, comes the inevitable destruction of human life. Because bearing and rearing of children requires plenty of sacrifice.
And that really is the crux of the problem in our culture, is it not? We want all the pleasure and none of the pain. All of the glory right now and none of the sacrifice. We want the quick hit at the expense of the truth. This quick hit is demonstrated in a variety of ways in our culture’s over-bloated excesses. In the area of sex, for instance, this is demonstrated in Contraception, Masturbation, Divorce, Pornography, Invitro Fertilization, Same-sex “marriage”, etc.
So it seems to me that the real challenge of the pro-life movement is to focus a good part of our efforts on challenging people to believe that yes, indeed, good old fashioned sacrifice is a virtue and there is a reward for it. If people started to really believe that, abortion would be yesterday’s problem. But for people to buy into the sacrifice, they need to have a reason for it…and that reason is, of course, God.
Abortion is an attack on God. All Christians know this. Therefore, if we turn people’s heart from attacking God to loving Him, abortion would fade into a bad nightmare.
God…meaning…sacrifice…life. Simple but effective.
No Comments »
Posted on December 18th, 2006 by Paycheck in Homosexuality, Pro-Life Activism
Silent No More
Now that the Culture of Death has been officially recognized in Canada and the West as the new morality, it incumbent on us social conservatives to keep up the pressure and witness for the Culture of Life. Sooner or later, people will have to realize that the gutter is not the best place to be.
No Comments »
Recent celebration of official status as Sodom North was held at downtown Ottawa restaurant…
The soiree, thrown by Bill Graham and Conservatives-cum-Liberals Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach, was attended by high profile MPs Ken Dryden and Hedy Fry, Conservative Treasury Board president John Baird (who voted against his party and in favour of gay marriage) and Alex Munter, the former face of Canadians for Equal Marriage.“If you can imagine how hard it was for a member of the Liberal Party, I can’t imagine what it was like to be a Conservative and in favour of this,” Martin told a crowd of roughly 100 at TJ Pagodas in Ottawa’s Byward Market, referring to Stronach and Brison.
Brison spoke after the former prime minister. He kept his tone tongue in cheek, poking fun at opponents of same sex marriage — and Martin.“I was thinking, wouldn’t you love to marry a man like this,” said Brison of the former leader, earning a round of applause.
“Don’t worry,” Brison said to the uncomfortable-looking Martin. “They said it would lead to polygamy.” (Source)
Good to know that the Ottawa West Nepean Conservative Association was so well represented at this celebration. It just goes to show that the Conservative Party is more interested in sharing in the good times, than protecting the Canadian family.
At least Scott Brison had the semi-integrity to go over to the Liberal Party. And even Paul Martin got it when he wondered how a Conservative could support it. It only goes to show you that if it takes a Liberal to tell you what a Conservative should be, then Houston has a problem.
No Comments »
Posted on December 11th, 2006 by Paycheck in Conservative Party, Marriage
(AgapePress) – A Canadian pro-family activist admits he is bitterly disappointed that the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper failed to restore traditional marriage to the people of Canada on Thursday.
The vote was 175-123 against Harper’s resolution calling for marriage to once again be defined strictly as a union between one man and one woman. The liberal Globe and Mail newspaper began an article on the vote with a bold pronouncement: “Same-sex marriage is here to stay.”
Although pro-family leader Brian Rushfeldt, executive director of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC), had held out hope for a narrow victory in favor of traditional marriage, he says he got a clue about how things would turn out from watching Wednesday’s debate process on the resolution. “There were times that there were only ten people out of 308 in the House to listen to the debate,” he says. “So obviously, they didn’t even have enough respect for the issue to sit
in and listen to the points that were being made.”
Rushfeldt says unfortunately the Conservative Party has too many members who are not really conservative. He expects that fact will probably cost Harper in next year’s expected elections.
“True conservatives are going to be very disgusted,” the CFAC spokesman contends, “and it’s not that they will go vote elsewhere, because there is nowhere else to vote.” What Canadians are likely to do, he suggests, is what many Americans did during the recent U.S. national elections; that is, “simply stay home.” (Source)
No. We don’t need to stay home. We need to provide an alternative on the Right side of the spectrum – at least on social issues. We have yet to try and establish a credible social conservative party whose overriding policy decisions are shaped by and for the Canadian family. Everything from taxes to crime to social policy. Nobody has ever given it a chance because the people with the ability and talent to move this thing are no where to be found. They just keep sucking at the trough of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, without having the foresight or courage to realize that unless somebody takes some responsibility Canada is finished.
If we don’t respect ourselves, then we can’t expect the politicians to.
Here are more of my comments on FD responding to the CPC being “overwhelmingly socon”….
It might be overwhelmingly socon, but it has no teeth. It’s just a veneer. I mean, the Liberal Party is practically more open to the issue of abortion than the CPC. And now with marriage down the tubes, just what precisely is social conservative about the CPC?
By establishing another Party, and acting responsibly on who we run and where we run them, we can raise money via the generous political kickback system in Canada for the socon movement and also begin to slowly impact the Canadian political landscape.
Unless there is a party on the Right, the CPC will keep drifting left on social and even fiscal issues. Look at the old PCs.
No. We need a change of direction in this thing and we need to keep the CPC accountable to all conservatives. Otherwise, they get too comfortable, fat, and complacent.
Feet to the fire, boys. If we play it smart, it can have some real payback or my name isn’t Paycheck.
This new Party, if the proper approach is undertaken, can start to peal off support from both the Liberal and Conservative Parties for voters who are fed up with both and who are more inclined towards more family values oriented policies.
I think voters have read Harper right: his support for socon values is paper thin, as his conduct on the marriage motion clearly demonstrated. He wasn’t interested in really preserving marriage by allowing us to keep it on the front burner. Instead he was content by dawning a paper bag over his head and saying “See, I’m for marriage too!”
This guy is no dummy. He knew that this motion would fail and he knew that it would set our movement back. He did it for his own political gain to accomplish 2 objectives: 1) look good on keeping his promise and 2) satisfying the red tories who thought that this would be the last spike in the marriage issue’s coffin. Win, win for Stephen.
Let’s face the reality: what leader makes this kind of decision without consulting the socon groups in the country and his own Party, none of whom were supportive of bringing this vote up now. If that doesn’t say it all, nothing will. Stephen Harper is for his own political future before he cares about the country. As marriage goes, so goes the country. Politicians who refuse to use every available means to guard it are no patriots and no friends of Canada or the Canadian family, but only show themselves to be plastic leaders leading a marshmellow party.
Nobody gave the CPC a chance in Quebec when they pulled off 10 seats. Well, if we get the right people in this thing, the Dominion Party of Canada can have an effect. Since there are few politicians in Canada who have the gonads to get involved, I think I’m going to start looking in the U.S. for some help. I know some American socon groups who are keenly interested in what’s going on here. I think if I approach them for some practical politcal advice on our scene and getting a new party going, I’d get it.
Read the thread here.
No Comments »
Posted on December 10th, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics
Has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
Just doing a little musing here. If Socon Conservatives and Liberals banded together to break out of the Old parties with their old ideas and their old support for Trudeau’s social engineering, what would happen?
Suppose further if we could form a coalition with certain old reformers and certain fiscal conservatives who were sympathetic to the Canadian family and the dignity of every human person, is it possible that we could pull the Conservative Party to the right?
We don’t have to settle, you know. We can make a difference. Even if the Party did not advance much in the early years, it would have an effect of shifting the political landscape in Canada to the right.
The Liberals have the NDP and Bloc to their left and they keep pulling us into the pit with every successive piece of radical social legislation. That’s three parties on the extreme Left and no party on the Right. In a tug of war, you need two ends of the political spectrum to keep some balance. Right now, the CPC is being dragged over the cliff because they don’t have the masculinity to pull back. They’re a bunch of morally-castrated politicians. They simply go along with a little jerk here or there, but they don’t offer any real resistance. In some cases (like abortion), they actually make the Left (the Liberals) look Right (by not allowing socons to advance modest abortion changes).
So it only makes sense that we need a credible alternative on the Right which will address not only social issues which have a profound impact on the culture and even the economy, but will seek to provide innovative policies on other issues with the foundation built on the Canadian family. In other words, all policies will be undgirded by the principle of sustaining and nurturing the Canadian family. By doing so, all other segments of society will also benefit immeasurably (i.e. less crime, productive workforce, more tax revenue, etc.)
Since there will be a relatively gradual increase in support across the country in the years to come, there will be no real threat of vote splitting as our numbers will be too small in the early years. However, as the country keeps falling into social chaos, people will look to find a political solution that the existing parties refuse to provide. That’s where the Dominion Party of Canada could come in. If the ruling party wants to stay in power, they would be forced to adopt our policies or perish.
We need to offer a viable alternative on the right just like Alberta and the place that the Alberta Alliance Party is playing there.
We need that kind of thing on a national level.
What say ye?
2 Comments »
Posted on December 9th, 2006 by Paycheck in Religion
“Democracy,” Archbishop Chaput said, “does not mean putting aside our religious and moral beliefs for the sake of public policy. In fact, it demands exactly the opposite. Democracy depends on people of character fighting for their beliefs in the public square – legally, ethically and non-violently, but forcefully and without apology.”
“Democracy is not God. Only God is God. Even democracy stands under the judgment of God and God’s truths about human purpose and dignity.”
The Archbishop said contemporary society’s misuse of key words–such as “choice,” pluralism” and “community”–contributes significantly to the deforming of the human conscience.“Words like “tolerance” and “consensus” are important democratic working principles. But they aren’t Christian virtues, and they should never take priority over other words like charity, justice, faith and truth, either in our personal lives or in our public choices. (Source)
The fact that this has to be said is very sad indeed. Preach it, Bishop. If only your brother bishops would wake up and go and do likewise.
No Comments »
Posted on December 8th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
This Sunday on CFRA between 5-7 pm there will be an opportunity for both sides of the Carleton abortion argument to present there points of view. Sean (the CUSA president) and 2 others from CUSA will stand against 2 Carleton Garnett Genius of the Debating Society, Sarah Fletcher, president of Carleton Lifeline, and me David MacDonald.
Feel free to circulate this.Blessings
Godspeed David. Preach the gospel in season and out.
No Comments »
Posted on December 8th, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics, Marriage
Yesterday’s vote on the marriage motion put forward by the Conservative Party should cause the social conservative movement to examine why we are in the state we are in today. We’re like some wounded animal that keeps hobbling along from generation to generation. We’re too guilty to die and we’re too afraid to get ourselves fixed up. We just keep dragging our collective heels year after year, trying the same old things and getting no where fast.
We need a cultural tsunami. And we need it right now.
Politicians are servants of the times they live in. There’s no point in blaming Harper or the CPC. They are basically lap dogs of the interests that keep them in power. They’ll throw us a bone here and there, but we cannot reasonably expect things to change in any significant or even modest way.
Politicians do not drive change. They react to it.
Social conservatism in Canada has largely played on what I call the politics of nowhere – as in, we’re involved in politics and we are going no where. We are the useful idiots for the powers and principalities of the political elite who treat us with the contempt and derision that we so richly deserve.
Yes, that’s right. We deserve it.
And why do we deserve it? And why are we not successful? For one simple reason: we are not prepared to sacrifice our money, our power, or our reputation to effect change. That’s what it comes down to. That is the bottom line.
Cultural change – and that is really the change that we are after – does not come without a deep personal sacrifice. If you think that rearranging the couches in the living room or simply slapping on a new coat of paint (from red to blue, for instance) is going to make any substantial difference in the issues that matter most to us, you are, quite definitely, an honest to goodness idiot.
So for the so-called pro-life politicians who represent us on Parliament Hill, are you prepared to sacrifice that cushy pension or ministerial post and risk it all for the cause of life and liberty? If not, then you are not part of the solution but you are, most assuredly, part of the establishment.
And the establishment is rotten.
We don’t need more members of the “go along gang”. We need more mavericks for the gospel like this gentleman. Mavericks shake things up and get things moving. “Go-alongs” are merely along for the ride.
And, you, Mr. Socon, are you prepared to risk it all for the just cause of the unborn, for marriage, and for your faith?
The bigger the hole Canada digs itself into, the greater the collective sacrifice is going to be required to dig us out. It’s not rocket science, folks. That’s how it works.
And that will mean, of course, a select few individuals who will be prepared to lay in the line to get the ball rolling.
But I can tell you this, if that sacrifice does not manifest itself in large quantity soon, we’re going to have pay a very heavy price which is not of our own choosing. Pay now or pay later, but one thing is for certain, you, your children, or your grandchildren are gonna pay.
No Comments »
Posted on December 8th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
From today’s National Post…
The Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) has decided that pro-life groups on campus are not entitled to student-club status, will not receive student-union funding, nor be able to use CUSA-administered meeting rooms. The decision this week follows a similar decision this semester to deny club status to pro-life clubs at UBC Okanagan and Capilano College in Vancouver. That three campuses would be so infected by the totalitarian impulse is not shocking, but nevertheless appalling.
That said, CUSA’s action is Orwellian, mean-spirited and more than a little weird.
CUSA’s policy is aimed at what it calls the “anti-choice” agenda. Their anti-anti-choice solution is to do what they can to penalize students who argue for a different choice. The new policy at least clarifies that CUSA is not “pro-choice” at all, but flat-out pro-abortion. In CUSA’s conception, choice means denying students the choice of forming clubs to reflect their interests. It is straight out of Orwell’s 1984.
Moreover, the CUSA policy is oddly pointless. If the campus is as enthusiastically pro-abortion as CUSA claims, what added advantage is to be gained from this policy, at a serious cost in terms of the university’s reputation as a place of debate and free speech?
In retrospect, the pro-abortion movement has handed pro-lifers the best Christmas gift we could have ever imagined. What has this whole thing accomplished?
1) It has made CUSA look like a bunch of totalitarian thugs who seek to muzzle dissent on a university campus, no less. How ironic is that?
2) It shows just how radical and comical the current university climate is in Canada. Not only are they centres for (wink wink) “diversity and tolerance”, they are showing that they don’t have the intellectual stamina to host real thinkers.
3) It has shown us that the pro-abort cabal really cannot debate this issue and therefore must resort to Stalin-like tactics to shut their opponents up. Let’s face it, if you have the superior argument, what do you really have to fear?
4) It will galvinize the pro-life movement to understand just what they are up against, and make us go on the offensive.
So thank you very much, Banana U. We couldn’t have done it without you.
No Comments »
Posted on December 7th, 2006 by Paycheck in Social Conservativism
It’s clear that the politicians are just playing us for fools. We need a convention to get our act together and start singing from the same page.
We’re divided and we are all doing our own thing without enough co-operation and leadership.
Focus. We need focus and resolve.
Who is going to listen?
No Comments »
Posted on December 7th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
A decision by Carleton University’s Students Association not to fund pro-life campus groups is not sitting well with some alumni of the school. One former student says he’s putting his chequebook away.
Andrew Harwood, a 2005 grad of Carleton U, says it doesn’t matter whether you support or oppose abortion. He says this is a question of free speech, which “should” be paramount at any university.
Harwood says it’s outrageous that the students’ union would pass a motion to stifle debate. Speaking on CFRA’s “Madely In The Morning”, Harwood says he’ll be withholding his financial support to his alma mater as long as this decision stands. (Source)
I long since stopped giving to Quee[r]‘s University in Kingston, my old Alma Mater, because of their rabid pro-leftist ideology. Not sure if they also ban free speech. I wouldn’t be surprised.As the culture and universities begin to collapse in Canada, people of faith need to take matter into their own hands and start creating their own educational institutions. After all, we’re the ones having the kids anyway.
No Comments »
Posted on December 6th, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics
Stephane Dion is the new leader of the Liberal Party. And he is a citizen of France…Here’s what Dion said about the matter, on a rare occasion that he was pressed: “Multiple identities should be seen as an asset, not a threat,” he said. “There is nothing wrong with multiple identities. The hearts of people are big enough to accept different identities. Canadian citizenship will give me my rights. Identity is the way I feel about the country.” No talk of loyalty or obligation, no talk of duties. (Source)
So the new leader of the Liberal Party is a citizen of France. Oui. It’s true.
Now many Canadians of the conservative bent are very upset at this. Why? Let’s think about this for a moment.
What is a Canadian all about?
It’s not a common ethnicity. We are a nation of immigrants. The old English/French split is a quaint story of times past. We have a plethora of nationalities and “nations” within the legal construct of Canada. It is not, substantially speaking, a nation of any one group. It is a collection of individuals, holding on to their old heritage.
It’s not religion. That’s for sure. We can no longer be called a Christian nation. And if we are not a Christian nation, then we are a nation without a religion. So Christianity certainly does not define us or bind us to one another. Secularism is no glue either.
It’s not political beliefs or nationalism. Canadians are split 5 ways in this country: Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc, and Green. We certainly can’t claim to be “proud” of our military either. Because what, precisely, is the military defending? Oh yes….Canadian Values. And what may they be? It depends on who you ask. For some, the right to kill an unborn child or “gay marriage” is a Canadian value. For others, it is not.
So just how is Canada a country anyhow, outside of its existing legal framework? What really binds us together as a country? Would we sacrifice our lives for this country? Hell no. Because sacrifice would entail believing in a common vision of the country. I certainly wouldn’t die on the battle field for Judy Rebick’s vision of the country, as I am sure she would be loathe to do so for my views.
If you really think about it, the only thing that really binds people together in this country and attracts people to come to it is the good times and economic benefits derived therefrom. At a time, Canada was also a beacon of hope for freedom and democracy. Today that vision can no longer seriously be sustained.
So what it comes down to is money. And when the money dries up and the party is over? What then? Well, it’s then we’ll see what this country is made of. And that’s the most frightening thing of all.
No Comments »
Posted on December 6th, 2006 by Paycheck in Abortion
A Report from last night’s fiasco from the Ottawa Sun:
The Carleton University Student Association… argued that anti-abortion groups discriminate against women, but many disagreed. “I don’t see the reason for not allowing the (anti-abortion groups),” said political science student Laura Moulton, 20. “Everyone here has a right to their opinion and the school should not be stifling it.”
Poor Laura. She just doesn’t get it. This is Canada. There are no rights to free speech. They are only granted on a case by case basis, depending on whether you conform to the CUSA group think.
Katy McIntyre, vice-president of student services, pushed for the restrictions. She said an October academic debate on the subject upset some people when they were shown a graphic video of an abortion. “A lot of students were upset by the ideas brought up by the event,” said McIntyre. “
Oh. My. god. Katy was upset! Quick call in the military and place us all under marshall law. Can you imagine what goes for “higher education” today? No wonder our culture is being flushed down the toilet. When you have people like Ms. McIntyre using arguments like “it was upsetting” to stiffle free speech, then you might as well forget about genuine freedom. The holocaust and countless other atrocities were upsetting too, Katy, should we ban them too? Good grief. My 3 year-old can reason better than that.
Former society vice-president Joshua Prowse, 23, said the association was on a slippery slope. “As soon as free speech has to rely on the goodwill of one person, it is no longer a right,” said Prowse.
Hey, look it here. Not all students at Banana U. are into the groupthink. Hooray!
CUSA president Shawn Menard said the proposed restrictions would not ban religious or “anti-choice” groups from campus but it would deny them CUSA space and resources.
He denied that it would be an attack on free speech. “Preventing CUSA from being able to take positions on issues is the real attack on free speech,” Menard said.
Huh? What are you talking about, Shawn? You are the one trying to limit free speech. You can’t claim that because we are criticizing your restriction on our human rights is, in itself, an attack on free speech. No one is saying you can’t make a fool of yourself. You have every right to say whatever you want, but if your speech is trying to muzzle us, well, it can’t really be respectful of the principle you are trying to eliminate, can it?
Suzanne from Big Blue Wave attended last night’s farce also. I found this comment of hers very revealing:
However, President Shawn Menard told me that if the motion passes, so long as a club does not advocate criminalizing abortion, it can promote the following: * The dignity of the Unborn Child; * The theology of the Unborn Christ; * The legal protection of unborn victims of crime; * The equality of the unborn child, and Charter Rights for the unborn child; * The elimination of discrimination of the unborn child based on the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits discrimination based on birth status; * Encouraging others to love the unborn child; He also said at another time that it would be okay for a group to advocate the immorality of abortion, so long as it did not touch on the legality.
Uh, Shawn. Let me fill you in on a little bit of strategy. Allowing debate on the subject of the morality of abortion will EVENTUALLY lead to its overthrow. And that means of course, changing the law. Limiting discussion on the law but not abortion itself is completely futile from a tactical point of view. When we win the argument (and we will win eventually), how long do you think it will take before the law is changed? Laws follow the views and morality of a nation. Don’t know who was giving you that advise, Shawn, but it sure is dumb. Keep it up.
No Comments »