ARCHIVE: DYSFUNCTIONAL DISORDER IN CANADIAN POLITICS & POLITICAL INGRATITUDE

AN APPEAL TO ALL ETHICAL CANADIAN VOTERS,

SOME OF THE MAIN ATTRIBUTES OF A TRUE NATIONAL LEADER

            As aware by most Canadians, reported in the Canadian media, the Liberal Party faithful (the BORG) are yearning for an ‘exciting’ Liberal candidate to take them to the Parliamentary Promised Land. One of the major political names bandied around by the BORG was Justin Trudeau.

            Pasted is an insightful assessment of Justin Trudeau, as follows:

Justin's got his mom's brains, not his dad's

By PETER WORTHINGTON, Toronto Sun

Last Updated: March 17, 2011 3:43pm

Even if one tries, it’s pretty hard to see Justin Trudeau as anything but something of a jerk.

Yes, he’s an MP, but that’s no excuse.

And he’s his father’s son, but his dad did positive things as well as goofy things like going to China and praising the humanity of Chairman Mao.

Even when he was PM, Justin’s dad wasn’t immune to goofiness - like his adoration of Cuba’s Fidel Castro and his curious view that the KGB was similar to our RCMP - or vice-versa.

That was when he was in denial that the Soviet Union had subversive designs on Canada, contrary to evidence to the contrary.

But it’s doubtful if Justin’s dad would ever object to viewing so-called honour killings and female genital mutilation and spousal abuse and forced marriages as “barbaric”, as Justin did in his role as Liberal justice critic.

Justin said that instead of calling these practices “barbaric”, the government’s booklet Discover Canada (to help immigrants to adjust to our peculiar way of life) should have used the term “absolutely unacceptable”. Baloney...Why a euphemism to soften or justify disgusting and cruel practices masquerading as cultural traditions?

Justin has since back-watered - perhaps because a lot of Liberal MPs as well as Tory MPs found his indignation weird and misdirected.

In a radio interview Justin said he was “uncomfortable” with so-called honour killings being called “barbaric”.

Why “uncomfortable”? If not barbaric, what are they? Female mutilation, forced marriages and the rest of Sharia law are obscene by civilized standards, and to pretend otherwise is hypocritical and wrong.

Justin has now apologized. Post-media News reports he e-mailed them: “Perhaps I got tangled in semantic weeds in my comments, particularly in view of the Conservatives’ cynicism on these issues. I want to make it clear that I think the acts described are heinous, barbaric acts that are totally unacceptable in our society.”

Sorry, Justin, that’s not good enough. Maybe even “absolutely unacceptable”, to quote your initial view.

Just how are Conservatives “cynical” about honour killings and female genital mutilation? And what “semantic weeds” would these be? He now calls the practices “barbaric”, so why the complaint that the government pamphlet for immigrants uses the word?

“Cynicism” applies more to Justin’s reaction than to the Tories.

Surely, this is one issue on which most Canadians - especially elected ones - can agree. It’s pretty hard to see Justin’s dad objecting, but then his dad had done something with his life before entering politics and becoming PM to irrevocably change Canada.

And what does Justin mean when he opines that the publication in question “needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

Oh? What sort of “neutrality”, one wonders, is there in opposing or condemning honour killings and such? “Neutrality” is the last thing needed in condemning such “barbarism.”

Anyway, Justin now regrets his impetuous outburst - but he’s still a jerk, and one who should give pause to those who fancy he’d be an ideal choice to someday lead the Liberal party.

Justin, it seems, has his mother’s brains, rather than his father’s .

---

DYSFUNCTIONAL DISORDER IN CANADIAN POLITICS 
            Sigh…At present, especially because of our turbulent economic times, potential nuclear fallout from the failed Japanese nuclear power reactors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, and the present mid-east instability; we need an unflappable captain of the head of the government helm, so ‘excitement’ and/or 'freaking out' - we do not need. The reality of a good leader of any nation entails 10% inspiration - 90% perspiration.

            Some of the major concerns that Opposition Liberal Leader: Michael Ignatieff is not suitable as the future Prime Minister of Canada, are as follows:

1. To reiterate, I was impressed with the putting aside of political partisanship insofar Prime Minister: Stephen Harper acknowledged NDP Leader: Jack Layton's input and advice about the manner of implementation and the logistical difficulties regarding Canada’s response to the January 2010 Haitian earthquake crisis. However, where were Michael Ignatieff's and BQ Leader: Gilles Duceppe's input during that crisis? Even when I brought this up to average non-political people, they noticed that there was nothing in the media regarding Michael Ignatieff responding to the Haitian earthquake disaster in consultations with our Prime Minister. If accessing a potential national leader, he/she putting aside political partisanship in an emergency for the good of all Canadians is a requirement.
2. In 2008, in the height of the economic downturn, Opposition Liberal Leader: Michael Ignatieff was known that he did not want to divulge his party’s financial agendas to our present Prime Minister because of fears that the Stephen Harper government would ‘steal them.’ To allay fears, the opposition leader’s plan or agenda could have been documented and photocopied to be used as political economic fodder against this present government in the next federal elections. So what? Even if Prime Minister: Stephen Harper and his ruling Conservative Party were that crass, a potential Prime Minister who truly cared for Canada would set aside political partisan for the sake of national economic interests.
3. While the falsification of documents (KIAROS) and questionable election financial procedures are not to be condoned, so what? This has never been done in the past by previous federal governments? Was there no none-partisan appreciation for International Aid Minister: Bev Oda for implementing 3 million dollars of international aid for African women and children? It would not be surprising or grasping that the world’s national leaders are down on their knees begging spiritual powers-to-be that these are the worst ‘corruptions’ that they ever had to deal with in their own nation. To clarify, I want my Member of Parliament (MP) asking questions and suggesting empirical credible alternate solutions about what the government is implementing for the economy particularly in the riding where I live - not on and on about the above-mentioned political soap opera that belongs in the National Enquirer. The attacks on Bev Oda border on sexism and possible racism. In short, there doesn't seem to be a feasible/empirical vision by Michael Ignatieff and the liberal Party of Canada.
4. Michael Ignatieff seems to be fanatically trying to set up the present government (coalition or not) rather than cooperating with the Stephen Harper government. The Liberal party doesn't seem capable of an implementing empirical vision and agenda to give Canadian voters a meaningful choice and/or a viable alternative. Perhaps, there is nothing consequential for the Federal Liberal Party to give without hard scrutiny.
5. Regarding implementing a coalition government because of a workable coalition government in the UK, sigh…I wish more Canadians who favour a federal coalition government would think. British Prime Minister: David Cameron formed a coalition with patriotic political parties such as the Liberal Democrats and on occasion, the Labour Party - not the (SNP) Scottish Nationalist Party.
6. It seems that the only high point of the Liberal Party of Canada was a few years previously in the Parliament House of Commons - Oral Questions pertaining to questions regarding the Afghanistan mission. Liberal MP: Bob Rae stuck a political nail into DP Leader: Jack Layton by challenging him on why he and the NDP do not support the present mission. This is contrary to the agenda of other national feminist organizations insofar are supportive of present UN involvement on the basis of empowerment of Afghani women and school girls. Left-hand click on http://www.feminist.com/activism/afghanalert1.html and http://feministmajority.org/media/pressAfghanWomen_032709.asp for further information
   

   
7. In Canada, there is a perception of a hypocritical trend among a considerable of Canadian feminists advocating pulling our troops out of Afghanistan insofar to the point of not showing solidarity with their 'sisters' in other parts of the world. Regarding the 3 million dollars set aside by the Stephen Harper government for African women and children and other tangible generous international aid development that were implemented; there is a hypocritical bias by the BORG insofar the previous federal Liberal government’s contributions to international aid development (albeit, sometimes inflammatory and controversial) was 'humanitarian', 'being globally sophisticated', 'having a positive world-view', 'visionary', and 'insightful'; whereas the present Stephen Harper government is insincerely maligned on the unethical basis: 'the contributions are needed in Canada - not in developing nations'. Disturbingly, Planned Parenthood - Canada tried to pressure the Federal Canadian government into blackmailing African countries by withholding financial aid if their anti-abortion laws are not dropped. Thankfully, the Canadian government did not cave in but offered unconditional financial aid. This is despicable to pressure any developing nation to accommodate their 'pro choice' agenda. Not only is this impugning the sovereignty of these African nations but is subliminal colonialism and racism. Even among a sizable minority of Canadians, there are ongoing disagreements with abortion-on-demand legislation. Since when is international aid to be withheld if we do not agree with their laws? Who really are the heathen?

THE MAINSTREAM CANADIAN ‘LEFT-WING’ MEDIA a.k.a. ‘THE HOOTERVILLE TIMES’
            Again...Sigh…Right now especially because of our turbulent economic times, potential nuclear fallout from the failed Japanese nuclear power reactors in the aftermath of a major earthquake, and the present mid-east instability, we need an unflappable captain of the head of the government helm, so ‘excitement’ and/or freaking out - we do not need. To  reiterate, the reality of a good leader of any nation entails 10% inspiration - 90% perspiration.

            One of my posts: THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE ONTARIO 'PRESS COUNCIL' has already dealt with the anti-Harper bias and/or other past media bias.

            Composed, is more media bias; as follows:

1. No ethical reporter, especially from the Toronto Star and CBC, seem to have the intelligence and/or the ethics to ask Michael Ignatieff, “Mr. Ignatieff, in lieu that you very recently laid on us Canadians during the election; your new 5-point ‘Liberal Family Pack’ Plan - why wasn’t this platform and/or other earlier financial proposals previously discussed with the Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) especially during the 2008 World Economic Crisis”?
2. Alas, instead of the traditional journalistic ethical points as who, what, when, where, and why; with the exception of world consequential big-ticket news; it is perceived by a considerable number of media junkies that a majority of the mainstream media isn’t reporting unbiased facts but are into advocacy. Maybe this is why increasing number of people are trying to find alternative media viewpoints on Google, Facebook, Twitter, and/or other internet media outlets

   ---

   

POLITICAL INGRATITUDE OF UNETHICAL CANADIAN VOTERS 
            There was a subliminal microsecond flash media byte that suggested that the Stephen Harper Conservative government increased transfer payments to Ontario by approximately 30%. It seemed that if one twice blinked their eyes, one would miss it. From the time when Paul Martin was Prime Minister, the most conservative estimates (pun intended); I calculated 29% increase to Ontario and Quebec. This is based from 2003 to 2010.

            Sigh...It's a given that the so-called left-wing media is not going to give this the coverage as it did the Helena Guergis/Rahim Jaffer unintentional politically-comedic bogus 'scandal'. The media coverage of the 'scandal' was so protracted; even the average Canadian was weary.

            Regarding the significant federal cash transfer payment increases (third column from the left on fiscal reference tables) to Quebec and Ontario will absolutely blow one away?

            Although, finances and economics are boring, thus put on this post are the new 2010 Quebec and Ontario Governments Public Accounts for observation and calculation (left-hand click or if problematic: copy and paste: www.fin.gc.ca/frt-trf/2010/frt-trf-1004-eng.asp on http://www.google.ca/ and one should get one Google hit: (Fiscal Reference Tables - Part 5 of 10 2010) as follows:

#NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO QUEBEC BETWEEN 2004 & 2006, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE ACRIMONY REGARDING QUEBEC PREMIER: JEAN CHAREST AND THE PAUL MARTIN GOVERNMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS IN OBTAINING THE MONEY. PREMIER CHAREST NOT ONLY REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE CANADIAN FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY IN ELECTIONS CANADA 2006, HE RECOMMENDED QUEBECERS TO VOTE CONSERVATIVE. THIS SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE HARD-CORE QUEBEC FEDERAL LIBERAL BORG AND THE BQ NOGOODNIKS SOMETHING! FROM 1992 - 2010, THE FEDERAL CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO QUEBEC BY 41%!

#NOTE: ALTHOUGH THE FEDERAL LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO ONTARIO BETWEEN 2004 & 2006, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE RANCOUR REGARDING ONTARIO PREMIER: DALTON McGUINTY AND THE PAUL MARTIN GOVERNMENT IN NEGOTIATIONS IN OBTAINING THE MONEY. ALTHOUGH A CLASSIC LIBERAL, PREMIER McGUINTY REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE CANADIAN FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY IN ELECTIONS CANADA 2006 AND SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL ELECTIONS. THIS SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE HARD-CORE FEDERAL ONTARIO LIBERAL BORG SOMETHING! FROM 1992 - 2010, THE FEDERAL CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT INCREASED FEDERAL CASH TRANSFERS TO ONTARIO BY 53%!

            What is worrisome are the ONTARIO FEDERAL LIBERAL BORG COLLECTIVE and the ethically-challenged hard-core Bloc Quebecois voters who had knowledge of these tables and refused to offer tangible appreciation to the present Conservative Canadian government - are despicably dysfunctional to the point of treason. In so being, how would any of these politically-challenged people offer any ethical values to their partner, children, and/or grandchildren? 

---

CONCLUDING POLITICAL POSTSCRIPTS

            I (Mike Researcher) need to clarify some misconceptions. 

            I am not affiliated and/or defined by the Conservative party of Canada and/or any other Canadian federal political parties. 

            During the Brian Mulroney years, if former federal NDP leader: Ed Broadbent had run another term; I was going to vote for him. 

            In the mid 90’s, if former Constitutional Law expert, Federal Liberal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Newfoundland Premier: Brian Tobin had run and won the federal Liberal leadership convention - I would have voted for him and his government. 

            At present, the federal Liberal Party of Canada is beginning to be perceived by increasingly more Canadians as historically and politically redundant. Decades previously, eligible voters in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand voted either Conservative or Labour. Between 1916 and 1922, David Lloyd George was the last Liberal UK Prime Minister.  

            As of now, we are at a social/economic/political crossroads in Canadian history. 

            Alas, the sad pragmatic reality; because of globalization - big corporations have the flexibility to move their operations to China, India, Mexico etc.
            Sadly, this is the bottom line of any government (albeit well meaning) in desperately trying to 'attract investments'. 
            In so being, if one does not take unnecessary risks in business and personal finances in the real world, why for goodness sakes; take political risks? 
            I am going to take a chance? Yee Haw?
            I appeal to all eligible Canadian voters especially those that have a spouse and children - do not become 'economic road warriors' in voting for one of the opposition leaders or political parties and do vote for Stephen Harper out of one's own financial well being.            
            I implore that all of eligible Canadian voters ethically and privately think before they vote in 2011 Elections Canada.
            If in 4 years, a Stephen Harper majority government with an empirically stable economy is able to generate a surplus but is unsuitable and/or unwilling in directing Canadian taxpayers' money to relevant social programs - then Canadian voters have an option and/or luxury of voting for one of the opposition parties as a credible alternative.
            But for now, there is too much at stake for Canada.

Yours In All Our Politically Best Interests.

Mike Researcher

Mike Researcher

CHRISTOPHOBIA - PERSECUTION UNDER THE HYPOCRISY OF ‘INTOLERANCE’



 

A secular friend (a person of colour/African Canadian) was angered and grieved with the seeming non-responses of high-profile African-Canadian (in his own words) 'Uncle Toms' and 'Aunt Jemimas' regarding the brazenness of the homosexual/lesbian community daring to identify with persons of colour and other visible minorities.

To All Ethical People of All Sexuality,

            To clarify to the reader, I believe in live and let live. I am against wanton discrimination against anyone (whether homosexual or heterosexual).

            I am in philosophical solidarity with all ethical and just people against the persecution of homosexuals in concentration camps during the Nazi reign of terror in Europe during WW2. Homosexuals were forced to wear the pink triangle to distinguish themselves from other perceived Nazi named inferior sub-humans.             

            I believe it is none of anyone's business who one is. However, I believe that it is none of one's business telling/broadcasting who they are - let alone having a week (Gay Pride Week Toronto) and/or a day (Gay Pride Day Parade Toronto) about one's personal sexuality.              

            That being stated, it is dangerous with far-reaching sociological negative aftermaths that the Canadian Homosexual/Lesbian Community have gone too far in crossing the line in being able to be allowed same-sex marriage (the word: marriage has religious connotations) with full 'spousal' rights and to adopt children but it is more ominous that the persecuted have become the persecutors through the militant gay agenda, as follows on this web site: www.frontline.org.za/articles/Christophobia.htm and other venues

            To reiterate, Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

            It was like being at a Klan rally except the Klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU N*GG*R, one man shouted at me. If your people want to call me a F*GG*T, I will call you a n*gg*r. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the n*gg*rs better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

JUDICIAL PERSECUTION            

            In April 1996, Scott Brockie and his family's Toronto Ontario (Canada) printing business, Imaging Excellence, were approached with an order for letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie, who is a Christian, refused to accept the order as it contravened his religious conscience to assist an organization's activities that directly promoted homosexuality, which he believed to be a sin. Two months later, a representative from the Archives filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asserting that Mr. Brockie had denied the individual commercial services based on the man's sexual orientation. In September 1999, Mr. Brockie and Imaging Excellence were found guilty of what was called discriminatory conduct. He was forced to pay a penalty to the Archives of $5,000 and to provide the printing services he had originally refused; in other words, to perform an act that he regarded as being unethical or immoral. In addition, left-hand click on: www.theinterim.com/2002/july/02brockie (different condensed article but same theme). Interesting and disturbing, a Muslim lawyer was approached by EGALE (Equality For Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), the prominent gay rights advocacy group, and was asked to act for them in bringing a constitutional challenge to some legislation which denies a benefit to same-sex couples. The lawyer refuses, citing his religious belief that the Koran states that same-sex relationships are contrary to the law of Allah. EGALE never brought this Muslim lawyer to trial for his ‘human rights’ violation. Scott Brockie challenged the ruling to the Ontario Court of Appeals and was successful but EGALE took this to the Ontario Supreme Court which overturned the Ontario Court of Appeals ruling. Alas Scott Brockie is forced to take this the Canadian Supreme Court even though he has a business to run.           

            In Sweden, Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to a month in prison for having offended homosexuals in a sermon. Pastor Green is in his 70’s. When a reporter asked, “What about the Pastor’s rights”? The prosecutor replied, “When he started reading Bible verses about homosexuality, he crossed the line”.              

            Slovakia issued a protest against this heavy handed prison sentence for the pastor in Sweden, saying that this was an example of how “left-wing liberal ideology was trying to introduce tyranny and misuse the (European Union)” to silence freedom of expression. “In Europe, people are starting to be jailed for saying what they think."

            Hugh Owens, in Canada, was prosecuted for placing a small ad in his local newspaper in response to all, that he had been forced to observe during Homosexual Pride Week. His advert listed four Scripture references (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) next to an equal sign and a drawing depicting two men holding hands, superimposed over the line drawing with the universal red circle with a line through it, effectively summarizing the Scriptures listed. For that “crime,” Owen was fined $4,500. The newspaper was also fined. So, in Canada, even listing Bible verses can be construed as a “hate crime!”            

            Dr. James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” must now edit their Canadian radio programs to remove anything that might be deemed critical of homosexuality, including Bible verses on the subject, and information like the fact that, according to the Centre for Disease Control, the majority of the cases of AIDS in the US are men who engage in homosexual sex.

            In New Zealand, two Christian videos that questioned safe sex slogans and exposed the link between AIDS and homosexual behaviour were outlawed by the New Zealand parliament.

            When retired air force officer, Enoch Lawrence, in response to a homosexual poster the company had placed near his cubicle, placed a Bible verse, and a bumper sticker that read: “Marriage: One Man One Woman” in his own work cubicle, he was fired by Hewlett-Packard. While a “Pagan Pride Festival” flyer was posted in the break room of Hewlett-Packard, Lawrence’s Pro-Marriage bumper sticker was forbidden.             

            The head of the Central British Columbia Public Health Board, Chris Kempling, with a PHD in psychology, was suspended from his teaching job at the local high school for writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. He stated that homosexuality was not a genetic orientation, that homosexual sex was often unhealthy and promiscuous and that homosexuals could become straight. The judge pronounced Kempling a “bigot.” Although Kempling was never accused of any discriminatory act, he was condemned for having wrong thoughts. 

            Dianne Haskett, the Mayor of London, Ontario, Canada, was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim a “Gay Pride Weekend.” After she lost her case in Canada’s courts, she resigned as mayor rather than to be forced to proclaim the event - just 3 weeks before Election Day. (However, the voters re-elected her with an overwhelming 64% of the vote).  

            An elderly Englishman, Harry Hammond, was heckled, ridiculed and attacked on the street for holding a sign that read: “Stop immorality. Stop homosexuality. Stop lesbianism.” He was assaulted and knocked to the ground, but when the police showed up they arrested the victim of the assault! He was prosecuted for the opinion he expressed.             

            When a local school in Canada started handing out copies of the Koran and announced the policy of setting aside a room for Muslim students to pray during school hours, Pastor Mark Harding objected. Pointing out that Christian, Jewish and Buddhist children were not afforded similar opportunities, Harding was prosecuted. Despite Pastor Harding’s publicly stating his love for Muslims and commitment to evangelising his Muslim neighbours, he received more than 3,000 hate filled calls, many of them death threats. ‘Some people in the courtroom motioned by running their finger across their neck from ear to ear. Entering the court, Harding had to pass through crowds of Muslims chanting: “Infidel you will burn in Hell!” However, as they were not prosecuted, these death threats were apparently not considered “hate speech.”

            Harding reported receiving a call from someone, identifying himself as from Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam group, who told him that: “They were going to break my legs.” Other calls threatened various amputations and mutilations. Yet, it was Pastor Harding who was convicted of having “willfully promoted hatred” and required to undergo 2 years probation and 340 hours of “community service” at the Islamic Society of North America, where he was forced to go through Islamic “re-education.”

FREEDOM IS AT RISK             

            Janet Folger, in The Criminalization of Christianity states: “Christians are singled out, labelled, fined, interrogated, humiliated, indoctrinated, fired, ordered to attend re-education programmes and sent to jail for expressing Biblical views…this battle is for truth and freedom. And we are losing by default… If we stay silent on controversial issues, like the slaughter of more than 45 million American children…no one will be offended… We work very hard to present a sensitive, positive Christianity to seekers who don’t like hearing about stuff like obedience and a place called Hell. ‘All we need is love’ has replaced ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ as our anthem. Love is critical, of course, but so is Truth. The Bible says that God is love, but also that He is Holy… Unless we embrace Him as Lord, we will face Him as Judge. Keep in mind that Jesus talked more about Hell than He did about Heaven… and if we make Him Lord, we have to actually do what He says…He commanded us: “Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don’t stand back and let them die” Proverbs 24:11… “Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die” Proverbs 31:8… “Thou shalt not kill”…Exodus 20:17 “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” John 14:15… “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead.” James 2:17 “Your actions are what you believe. Everything else is just religious talk… if you want to be free to speak what you believe in your church, in your work place, in your community, you are going to have to get off the side lines and into the game…but this is more than just a game. It’s a battle for our freedom. Yes, we have the right to remain silent, but if we use it much longer, we may hear those words being read to us just before we see the inside of a prison cell.”

RIDICULE AND NAME CALLING             

            One tactic often used to silence Christians is ridicule. This encompasses everything from insults and name calling to character assassination.              

            Given the prevailing dogma of “tolerance” it is extraordinary to note the abusive terminology published against Christians.             

            One article in the Washington Post described Christians as “largely poor, uneducated and easy to lead.” Imagine describing any other group of people in that way in the press!            

            Ted Turner, the former owner of CNN, described Christians as “bozos” and Christianity as “a religion for losers.” Again, imagine any prominent figure describing the adherents of any other religion in such words.             

            Mel Gibson was one of Hollywood’s greatest stars, popular and respected - until he wanted to make a movie about the sufferings of Christ. No one in Hollywood was willing to finance or distribute it. Mel Gibson began being described as “a wacko”,”crazy”, “a real nut case”, and worse. Interestingly enough, The Passion of the Christ, in terms of box-office sales, became one of the top ten most successful films of all time - despite the extraordinary Hollywood and news media campaign against it. Despite Christianity being based on the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ to love one another, love our neighbours, love our enemies, return good for evil, to forgive and be merciful, Christians are frequently referred to in the most negative terms: “The forces of genuine evil, evil, genuine evil;”“Their religion is so narrow, and it is so mean, and it’s so ugly…”            

            Roseanne Barr publicly exclaimed: “You know what else I can’t stand, is them people that are anti-abortion. F – Them; I hate them. They’re horrible; they’re hideous people. They’re ugly, old, geeky, hideous men… they just don’t want nobody to have an abortion…”            

            Syndicated radio host, Howard Stern, after vehemently arguing for abortion, responded to a pro-life caller in these words: “You’re an idiot. I can’t stand dumb people. If I were president, I would have you gassed. I would march you into the ovens!” Can one imagine any radio host being able to refer to Muslims, Jews or any other group with such words!            

            At a Grateful Dead concert, musician Bob Weir announced to a crowd of 30,000: “Can I hear everyone say, ‘F-the Christian Right?”

ANTI-CHRISTIAN PREJUDICE             

            “If they are Christians, you can hate them. You can ridicule them, and before you silence them make sure you blame them for everything you don’t like. Pick a Christian, any Christian. And, hey, why not start at the top? There are now more than 50 books bashing (President) Bush”

            Hypocritically, the California National Organisation of Women (www.canow.org) and NOW - National Organization of Women (www.now.org) did not show any solidarity with Miss California, Carrie Prejean being insulted by Perez Hilton with anti-women sexist 'b' words and 'c' words on Facebook. Are we to believe that so-called women rights advocates are ethical and have integrity insofar in excluding evangelical Christian women when their rights are trampled by the other sex -whether straight or gay in any situation?

HOMOSEXUAL BIAS

            Former Clinton White House Spokesman, Mike McCurry, declared that anyone who believed what the Bible had to say about homosexuality was “backward thinking.” Can you imagine him saying that about people who believed the Koran?             

            The Criminalisation of Christianity observes that while there were 13,500 stories on the murder of Matthew Shepard, who was a homosexual, there were only 632 stories on the brutal murder of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising by homosexual assailants. The people who killed Matthew Shepard later confirmed that they didn’t do it out of any animosity for his sexual behaviour – they killed him for money for drugs. Both killers attacked Shepard for robbery, it had nothing to do with his homosexuality. Yet there was massive newspaper and TV coverage of the Shepard case, two major Hollywood specials, three TV movies and a play, all depicting Shepard as a victim of an anti-homosexual hate crime. However, people like Jesse Dirkhising, who was bound, gagged and brutally sodomised, then smothered to death, by homosexual assailants failed to receive any such media coverage. Similarly, the murder of Mary Stachowicz, a 51 year old wife, and mother of 4, who was murdered by a 19 year old homosexual, Nicholas Gutierrez, for witnessing to him and suggesting that he could change his lifestyle, was ignored by most newspapers. This mother - who was described as a deeply compassionate church member and soft-spoken - was “punched, kicked, stabbed and strangled to death.” But that wasn’t considered a hate crime.

HATRED AND BLASPHEMY             

            Folger points out that while pro-family leaders repeatedly condemned the murder of Shepard, the homosexual community never condemned this horrific murder. Posted on the ACLU On Line Forum, were these comments: “I really don’t feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist.” And “quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being persecuted it was Mr. Gutierrez.” Posted on YAHOO were these comments: “Maybe (Stachowicz’s murder) will strike fear in the hearts of a few fundamentalists…Where do I send a cheque for (Gutierrez’s) defense fund!”; “the B- had it coming to her. I’m glad he killed her…the B- deserved to die!” So tolerance does not seem to apply toward Pro-Life, Pro-Family Christians. Nor does any amount of venom poured out against Christians seem to be worthy of the designation “hate speech.” American Christians have endured all kinds of harassment and threats from militant homosexuals. ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) founder, Eric Pollard, threatened Pro-Family leaders: “I shall torture you during the day time, and will keep you from a peaceful sleep at night.” In Madison, Wisconsin, 400 homosexual activists stormed Trinity Evangelical Fellowship Church shouting obscenities inside the church for nearly an hour, while some of the protesters urinated and defecated on the church floor. Hundreds of others banged on the walls and windows with rocks and trash can lids, shouting: “Crush the Christians!” and “Bring back the lions!” ACT UP member, Michael Petrelis, publicly stated: “We should have shut down the subway and burned down City Hall. I think rioting is a valid tactic and should be tried…if some one took out (former Congressman) Jesse Helms or William Dannemeyer…I will be the first to stand up and applaud.” At St. Patrick’s Cathedral, ACT UP homosexual activists stormed the church, screamed obscenities and stomped on communion bread, urinating in the church. Posters with vile curses against the Pro-Life pastor and the church predominated. ACT UP protesters simulated various perversions on the altar, and swarmed around congregants pelting them with condoms and shouting and threatening them.

ATTACKING THE CHURCH             

            In their book When the Wicked Seize a City, Chuck and Donna McIlhenny, described what happened after the San Francisco Presbyterian Church fired a homosexual organist. “Rocks, beer bottles, beer cans were thrown through the church windows on many occasions. Swastikas were carved in the church doors and drawn on our house. A window in our car was smashed out. Graffiti was spray painted all over the church, house and sidewalk. Anti-Christian, Pro-homosexual leaflets were scattered around the neighbourhood, calling us Nazis, bigots, anti-gay, etc. Demonstrators would come to our Sunday services and disrupt the worship…one man came pounding and spitting on our front door in the middle of the night, screaming: ‘We’re going to get you McIlhenny – we’re going to kill you politically!’ We were verbally threatened outside the house on the way to the car. There were daily – 24 hours per day – telephone calls. It began with screaming and obscenities. They graduated in the phone calls to describing our children…and what sexually deviant behaviour was to be practiced on the children before killing them…Then…someone actually attempted to follow through with their threats to kill us by fire bombing the house while the children were asleep inside.”

BLOOD TERRORISM             

            One radical gay activist, Robert Schwab, suggested: “If AIDS research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.” Doug Herman of Pure Revolution lost his wife and baby to “blood terrorism.” Now he travels America speaking about Purity. Folger writes: “And let me assure you, homosexual activists attack him. You would think that killing his wife and daughter would have been enough.”

DIAGNOSIS BY INTIMIDATION             

            The New York Academy of Medicine issued a Report on Homosexuality in 1963, which stated: “Homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations.” However, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to strike homosexuality from the official list of Psychiatric Illnesses. Not because of any new scientific revelations, nor even from any consensus within the scientific community, but because of threats and intimidation. Dr. Jeffery Satimoveo, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, wrote: “Homosexual activists planned a systematic effort to disrupt the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.” Protesters broke into the meeting of APA members and grabbed the microphone and proclaimed: “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you…we are rejecting you all…” The committee later voted that maybe homosexual behaviour was not a sign of psychiatric disorder after all. At the 1973 APA Convention, dissenters were allowed only 15 minutes to discuss 70 years of psychiatric research that contradicted it, before the hijacked vote was formally applied to the full membership. Although 69% of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder, intimidation tactics had succeeded in forcing the APA to reverse their official position. In 1994, activists tried to make it illegal for practitioners to give therapy aimed at helping homosexuals change. Although this attempt failed to secure a majority vote, a few years ago, the APA published a study favourable to Pedophilia.

PERSECUTED FOR PROTECTING

            In recent years, the Boy Scouts of America have come under relentless attack for not allowing self-described homosexual activists to become Scout leaders. As a result of attempting to protect the children who had been entrusted to them, the Boy Scouts have been kicked out of parks, schools and public forums, denied funding by cities and counties. So far, despite being underfunded, ostracized, thrown out and left out, they have stood up against the ridicule, the assaults, the censorship and the law suits. And all that because they want to teach young boys honesty, courage, hard work, respect, patriotism and positive values.

CENSORSHIP IN THE CLASSROOM             

            When 5 year old Antonio Peck was told to make a poster on How to Save the World, he drew a picture of Jesus and wrote: “The only way to save our world.” His teacher told him that this was: “Unacceptable!” When Craig Cunningham of the Genocide Awareness Project set up a display at the University of Miami depicting various forms of Genocide throughout history, some students tried to cut, mangle and destroy them. Reason? He had included pictures of the Abortion Holocaust. A quote from the University paper concerning his Genocide Awareness Project: “Whoever these people are, they should be shot.” So whatever happened to freedom of speech on campus? Imagine some Christian writing something like that about, for example, a homosexual group? Why, that would be a hate crime!

PREFERRING PAGANISM             

            The Mayor of San Jose justified spending $500,000 of public money to construct a statue of the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, because the Aztec religion contained: “those elements that seek to elevate the human consciousness to a higher plane.” The fact that this very same Aztec religion marched hundreds of thousands of slaves to the top of their pyramid like temples, to have their still-beating hearts ripped out of their chests with flint knives, hardly seems to justify such praise. Yet at the same time as this tax funded Aztec idol was being erected, the San Jose Parks Board decided to remove a Nativity scene from the same park. (A flood of protests to the City Hall managed to reverse this incredible decision.) While GOOGLE takes ads for all kinds of XXX pornographic films and sites, GOOGLE recently banned an advertisement from a Christian Organisation, Stand To Reason, because the group’s website contained articles saying what the Bible says about homosexuality! Various judges nominated in the USA, have been opposed by liberals because: “His children are home-schooled”; “They are leaders in the Boy Scouts” and “They teach Sunday school”!

AN APPEAL TO THE NON-POLITICIZED ETHICALLY-MINDED MEMBERS OF GAY COMMUNITIES             

            Perhaps, the True Church should at least apologize to the gay community for miscommunication rather than its stance regarding homosexuality.              

            To open dialogue with the Gay Community - rather than using non-diplomatic and/or inflammatory tags such as ‘choice’, ‘lifestyle’, 'biological', and/or ‘who one is’ - a neutral term as sexual orientation would be conciliatory for positive communication in bridging gaps.

            The non-politicized ethically-minded gay community need to be open that bigotry and hatred is not only exclusive among the heterosexual community but also among the homosexual community.

            For the homosexual/heterosexual communities, is there no discernment among any of you that there are negative, unnatural, and evil nuances that permeate homosexual orientation through various Gay Pride parades? For example, because the feminist lesbian community did not tolerate sexual exploitation in the porn industry, how can sexual exploitation are tolerated through various Gay Pride parades and hypocritically from sexually exploitative magazines such as On Our Backs? In addition, it is hypocritical to protest against Hooters operating in local neighbourhoods and then, tolerate women exposing their breasts during Dyke March.

            For the Gay Community, tolerance should be extended for former homosexuals and lesbians in your community for whatever reasons, desire and/or became heterosexual.              

            In conclusion, may this small olive branch composition in this post extend to some peace and reconciliation?

You’re in all our mutually best interests,

Mike Researcher       

Mike Researcher

THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE ONTARIO 'PRESS COUNCIL'

PAUL MARTIN'S FREE LUNCH FOR THE ONTARIO MEDIA

            With the exclusion of some independent talk radio hosts, some in the Sun Media, few in the National Post, few in Can West-Global, and all the CTS (100 Huntley Street) media that were no-shows - former Prime Minister: Paul Martin invited all the web, newspaper chains, radio, and television media people to a free luncheon on Parliament Hill. CTV's Craig Oliver was sitting next to Paul Martin:

Waiter: 'Allo, Mr. Prime Minisder, I'm Jokes Credin - your waider. 'For 'da endrée, whad will you have?

Paul Martin: (Slamming his fist on the table): I'll have steak!

Waiter: 'For 'da vegedables?

Paul Martin: (Slamming his fist on the table): They'll have steak too!

=========================================

            This truly defines how I really feel about the media - especially in Ontario in regards of some pivotal issues. The silence is deafening in these nine issues (there are many others) as follows:

1. Recently (Friday, March 12th & Tuesday, March 16th), Metro News Toronto (www.metronews.ca/toronto) dug up an obscure story about a lesbian teen trying to take her ‘partner’ to the prom and an ACLU hearing set in lesbian teen's lawsuit to force Mississippi school district to hold prom.

Update! That particular High School cancelled the prom.

First, who cares?

Unless Mississippi had a major weather or natural disaster, what does this have to do with Toronto Ontario, Canada?

Tongue-in-cheek, we may actually be interested if the U.S. State of Mississippi obtained a professional hockey team. Mississippi Ice Dogs?

What ever happened to support local media?

2. Canadian media were ignorant and/or unwilling to report the verbal and physical abuse by the California homosexual community against perceived supporters of Proposition 8, as follows:

AOL News: American media outlets such as Is Anarchy the Answer in Proposition 8 Protests? and The N-bomb is dropped on black passersby at Prop 8 protests by: Pam Spaulding

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 16:15:00 PM EST

UPDATE: the openly gay president of People for the American Way, Kathryn Kolbert, has released a statement. It's below the fold.

You could see this coming, and this is what I'm talking about when you ignore the elephant in the room. Rod McCullom of Rod 2.0 blogs reports on the escalation of the "blame the blacks" meme that has been swirling about the blogosphere and the MSM.

A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse at last night's marriage equality rally in Los Angeles.

Geoffrey, a student at UCLA and regular Rod 2.0 reader, joined the massive protest outside the Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Westwood. Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice.

It was like being at a Klan rally except the Klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU N*GG*R, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a F*GG*T, I will call you a n*gg*r. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the n*gg*rs better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Los Angeles resident and Rod 2.0 reader A. Ronald says he and his boyfriend, who are both black, were carrying NO ON PROP 8 signs and still subjected to racial abuse.

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, "Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!" A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were "very disappointed with black people" and "how could we" after the Obama victory. This was stupid for them to single us out because we were carrying those blue NO ON PROP 8 signs! I pointed that out and the one of the older men said it didn't matter because "most black people hated gays" and he was "wrong" to think we had compassion. That was the most insulting thing I had ever heard. I guess he never thought we were gay.

The backlash is upon us, and it's going to get uglier unless our organizations step forward and say something. The desire to scapegoat blacks for Prop 8's defeat has exposed the now not-so-latent racism in our movement.

I have already blogged a lot about why the lack of effective communication (and I'm not even talking about outreach on gay issues to socially conservative blacks) between white people in general and people of color. That dearth of understanding and mutual respect for difference, and lack of desire to seek common ground through personal relationships ultimately leads to what we are seeing here.

People took to the streets throughout the U.S. last weekend to protest passage of California's Proposition 8 - which bans same-sex marriage.

Protests were held from California to Nevada, to even North Carolina, with gay-rights activists arguing that gay couples deserve the same marital rights and recognition that heterosexual couples enjoy. But some of the protests are getting downright nasty, and, by some reports, are turning into sheer anarchy.

There are reports (Chuck Norris has a little list) that: Prop 8 protesters in California shoved a 69-year-old woman who was bearing a cross, spit on her, and stomped on the cross; Prop. 8 supporter Jose Nunez, 37, was assaulted while distributing yard signs to other supporters after church services at the St. Stanislaus Parish in Modesto, Calif.; a 25-year Mormon artistic director of the California Musical Theatre was forced to resign because of his $1,000 donation to the campaign to pass Prop 8; and non-Latter Day Saints Hispanic women were beaten up for cleaning up vandalism at an LDS temple. (The Mormon Church, by the way, rounded up about $20 million to spend on getting Prop 8 passed.)

In Palm Springs last Friday night, a woman showed up carrying a Styrofoam cross and a scuffle took place. The crowd even turned on the KPSP Local 2 news crew. You can see that video here. (More video below).

"They began grabbing me. It was like a dog pack," said Phyllis Burgess, a Prop 8 supporter who had expletives and slurs yelled at her. "The crowd was very angry that someone was here that they felt didn't belong here ... But I've lived in this city for 30 years."

The video shows one protester grabbing the Styrofoam cross from Burgess' hands. Another protester is shown stomping on it. Burgess says she was struck on the head and spit on.

"I don't want to keep it peaceful anymore," one protester yelled. "We should fight! We should fight!"

The area's Calvary Chapel Chino Hills was spray painted by vandals after they learned that the church served as an official collection point for Prop. 8 petitions.

African Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Prop. 8, according to a CNN exit poll, are also targets of the gay hate. Racial epithets have been used against African Americans at protests in California - with some even directed at blacks who are fighting to repeal Prop. 8. Gay rights activists are now publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations that have donated money in support of Prop. 8. This is sometimes resulting in violence.

And by many accounts, these actions are turning more people off to the movement.

For example: one LA Weekly writer who was marching with the Proposition 8 opponents over the weekend says: "I can also see that we are quickly coming to a point where reckless protesting may turn off all kinds of people, whether they are gay and new to activism or they are straight and new to walking alongside gay activists. If that happens, we will miss the chance to build newer, stronger, and broader coalitions and movements for decades to come. We will need these coalitions because the fight for equality is far from over, and our opponents will continue to attack one way or another. We, the gay community, can go our own way, but we will probably squander the goodwill that Proposition 8 has now handed us."

Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic argues that the gay-rights movement is lacking a strong leader to rally the troops in productive ways, and that the Human Rights Campaign certainly isn't doing the job. Daily Kos says the organization to defeat Prop 8 just wasn't there.

Regardless of the reason for Prop 8's success, the conclusion is: the voters of California have spoken - for better or worse.

Does berating a near-elderly woman who supports Prop 8, and spitting on her for having beliefs different than you, help the cause? I don't think so. Yes, there's frustration, but funneling that frustration into more productive, effective methods of pushing your cause will do a lot more good than just further alienating those whose support you could use. If the idea is to encourage others to be more open-minded and accepting of those different from them, beating them into submission (metaphorically speaking, hopefully) might not be the best route.

============================================

3. On Friday Nov., 5, 1999 - a UN High Court ruled against Canada and Ontario regarding religious school funding. That particular day was the most quiet ever (with the newsworthy exception of the ONEX failed takeover bid of Air Canada). With the exclusion of some talk radio hosts; there were hardly any mainstream media follow-up coverage. Unless one as a parent with school age children was directly involved in the issue, there is a considerable number of Canadians who are not even aware of this ruling.My research indicates that there have been only seven UN rulings against Canada so what gives with the lack of continuous media follow-up?

4. In March or April 2000, on the CHCH Hamilton Ontario Television based: Jane Hawtin Show, the discussion was based on HRDC Employment Insurance grants financial irregularities. Surprisingly, the debate turned into unification! The Hamilton Board of Trade and the various unions including CUPE mutually were of one accord regarding the HRDC financial irregularities! Unfortunately, when that happened, the station immediately went off the air because of ‘experiencing technical difficulties’!!! The weather in Toronto, GTA, and Hamilton was not a factor! The weather was cold (approximately -2 degrees Celsius) but clear with no wind! What was also perturbing, after the time slot of the Jane Hawtin Show, ‘normal’ programming immediately resumed! This lack of media coverage should have told the Toronto Star and the Canadian people something! Why wasn't this covered?

5. Although the CBC documentary: A Place Called Chiapas is commendable in highlighting the civil war between the Mexican military and the Zapatistas - there was very little information on the religious persecution of Chiapas Evangelicals, Adventists, and/or other Chiapas religious minorities especially on the Toronto Star. Here is an earlier (1997) article of what was expounded:

E; Persecution of Evangelicals in Chiapas, March 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: chiapas95@mundo.eco.utexas.edu

Subject: E; Persecution of Evangelicals in Chiapas, March 1

From: owner-chiapas95@mundo.eco. utexas.edu (Chiapas95)

Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 22:30:26 -0600 (CST)

Reply-To: Chiapas 95 Moderators

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of Accion Zapatista de Austin.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:06:28 -0600 (CST)

From: "Serv. Internacional por la Paz"

To: chiapas@mundo.eco.utexas.edu

Subject: E; Persecution of Evangelicals in Chiapas

Did you know that there is religious persecution in the highlands of Chiapas that has been going on mostly unchecked by local, state and national authorities for more than 30 years?

The persecution has included withdrawal of public services (education, water, telephone) of the evangelicals, beatings, forced expulsions, and even death. More than 30,000 evangelical Christians have been expelled from their villages. Some have made successful returns to their villages while others have taken refuge in the nearby city of San Cristobal de Las Casas and other nearby towns and cities. As recently as February a family was expelled from the municipality of San Juan Chamula (infamous for its repression of evangelicals), and in many villages there still is severe consequences for converting to Protestantism.

The authorities have very often chosen not to get involved, thereby giving the persecutors a free hand to continue repressing and persecuting the evangelical population.

The organization CEDECH (State Committee for the Defense of the Evangelicals of Chiapas) works with these persecuted communities. Anyone interested in knowing more about the work of CEDECH and the region's religious persecution

can access CEDECH´s homepage: http://www.geocities.com/ Athens/9294

Any specific question or communication can be sent to CEDECH by E-mail: atovilla@sancristobal. podernet.com.mx

=======================================================

International Service for Peace (Servicio Internacional para la Paz or SIPAZ) is a response from the international community to the shared sense among many Mexican sectors that international opinion can contribute to the search for peaceful solutions, through dialogue, to the conflict in Chiapas.

El Servicio Internacional Para la Paz o SIPAZ es una respuesta concreta al consenso existente entre muchos sectores mexicanos de que esta participacio'n internacional puede contribuir positivamente a trave's del dia'logo, para alcanzar una solucion paci'fica y justa en el conflicto de Chiapas.

SIPAZ Servicio Internacional para la Paz

Calle Dr. J. Felipe Flores, 38

Santa Lucia, San Cristobal de las Casas

Chiapas, 29250, Mexico

Tel/Fax (967) 80381

E-mail sipaz@laneta.apc.org

http://www.nonviolence.org/sipaz

6. In July 2004, the London Free Press and the Toronto Sun (both of Sun Media) reported a story regarding the RCMP and the Halifax Port Authorities fortunately finding two duffel bags (83 kilograms) of cocaine on Paul Martin's steamship: The Sheila Ann. The Toronto Star offered minimal media coverage and no follow-up on this very newsworthy story.

7. The Toronto Star's coverage of the infamous "Beer and Popcorn" statement made by Liberal Strategist: Scott Reid was commendable but what is disturbing is that there was no commentary by any Toronto Star journalist on how alone this Freudian sexist anti-woman statement showed that the Liberal party was not worthy of any votes from any woman and/or their partners who had to use daycare. Previously, I went out with a single mother (three kids) who used daycare services so I wouldn't have hurt her by being a male chauvinist in voting for any Federal Liberal candidate in Elections 2006. I am surprised that any feminist, lesbian, and/or women's-rights Toronto Star journalists did not poison-pen and/or picketed Federal Liberal electoral offices. How can any woman involved in daycare (in justification for voting for Federal Liberals) moronically spout, "He (Scott Reid) apologised. (H'yuk...h'yuk. Bounce...bounce")? I know that if Conservative Strategists: Line Mahieux and/or Hugh Segal made exactly the same Freudian slip - the lesbian, feminist, and women's rights advocacy groups would have attempted to torch every Federal Conservative electoral office in Toronto and/or other major Canadian cities! Recently, minimal Toronto Star response against the anti-woman sexist Greenpeace and the Sierra Club agenda of making fun of Environmental Minister: Rona Ambrose's hair. I am sure that the Italian-Canadian community feels put out.

8. The lack of objective media regarding Israel as indicated by Honest Reporting Canada www.honestreporting.ca insofar as making Israel out to be the villain in most cases.

9. Finally, in a lighter note, why isn't there any Toronto Star media coverage pertaining to the hypocritical bias against cigarette smokers and yet no objective media criticism against the allowance of Cuban cigar smoking lounges in Toronto?

The coverage and media is grievously inadequate and biased on the point: how dare does the homosexual community compare themselves with visible ethnic minorities.

If I am wrong that there has been objective Toronto Star coverage then I apologize but if not - most of you are not doing your job.

Feel free to e-mail me back your impartial viewpoints but somehow I feel that I am not going to receive an objective response but some politically-correct media dog droppings. There is such a thing as "heterophobia".

Please reassure me that not all of you slept through your ethics of journalism class and that, again, all of you will respond objectively. (Miracles can happen).

A Concerned Canadian,

Mike Researcher

(Please withhold my name by request)